# Who Are The Palestinians?



## MJB12741

Let the truth be known to all.

Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine


----------



## Penelope

MJB12741 said:


> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine






> A mighty Jewish empire extended over this entire area before the Arabs and their Islam were even born!  The Jewish People have one of the most legitimate Birth Certificates of any nations in the world. And if you want to talk religion, fine.  G-d GAVE the Land of Israel to the Jewish People. And G-d does nothing by accident!



That's as far as I got, a *mighty Jewish empire never existed*.

Also since most Jews in Israel are secular, we'll leave God out of it.

_(let me add, and if you insist God gave them the land, well God give it and God take it , which should be evident as no temple there, and Britain  is not God)._


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine



Jew propaganda as usual.  Have you ever posted anything from a neutral site? Ever?  It's like posting links to the protocols of Zion.  You should be banned for linking to racist sites.


----------



## montelatici

And, the piece is written like the Latin Kingdom never ruled Palestine. What a bunch of ignorant propagandists.


----------



## Friends

Would someone tell me why I should care about the Palestinians.


----------



## Friends

montelatici said:


> And, the piece is written like the Latin Kingdom never ruled Palestine. What a bunch of ignorant propagandists.


----------



## Daniyel

Don't be mistaken its known to all, some just deliberately deny it because they fear the truth, can't admit they were wrong or just a racists trying to justify their primitive emotional perspectives.
Palestinians are just Arabs, particularly hostile and stupid.


----------



## Friends

The Palestinians are people like this:

 In one case, a Palestinian boy admitted to reciting the Qur'an while strangling his sister for dishonoring her family. The girl was killed because her desire for independence became public knowledge...

Even when apprehended, murderers serve little or no jail time because honor killings are accorded special status in the courts. Men convicted of premeditated murder may be imprisoned for as little as three to six months. Upon their release, friends and relatives treat them like celebrities. Ahmed, a Palestinian boy who killed his teenage sister because she refused an arranged marriage, was commended upon his release from jail. Neighbors showered him with compliments, and his father called him a hero for restoring the family honor.
Anthropologist Community - Reputation is Everything Honor Killing Among the Palestinians


----------



## Saigon

Daniyel said:


> Don't be mistaken its known to all, some just deliberately deny it because they fear the truth, can't admit they were wrong or just a racists trying to justify their primitive emotional perspectives.
> Palestinians are just Arabs, particularly hostile and stupid.



It's always interesting when someone calls other people stupid  - in a comment littered with language errors. 

Yes, Palestinians are Arabs. So what?


----------



## docmauser1

Saigon said:


> Daniyel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be mistaken its known to all, some just deliberately deny it because they fear the truth, can't admit they were wrong or just a racists trying to justify their primitive emotional perspectives. Palestinians are just Arabs, particularly hostile and stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> It's always interesting when someone calls other people stupid  - in a comment littered with language errors. Yes, Palestinians are Arabs. So what?
Click to expand...

So, how's that an insurance from being _hostile and stupid_?


----------



## Phoenall

Penelope said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A mighty Jewish empire extended over this entire area before the Arabs and their Islam were even born!  The Jewish People have one of the most legitimate Birth Certificates of any nations in the world. And if you want to talk religion, fine.  G-d GAVE the Land of Israel to the Jewish People. And G-d does nothing by accident!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's as far as I got, a *mighty Jewish empire never existed*.
> 
> Also since most Jews in Israel are secular, we'll leave God out of it.
> 
> _(let me add, and if you insist God gave them the land, well God give it and God take it , which should be evident as no temple there, and Britain  is not God)._
Click to expand...



 And there was no arab muslim ownership of Palestine from 1099 until 1988. And there second most holy place "allegedly" was allowed to fall into ruin 3 times while islam was in control of the land.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jew propaganda as usual.  Have you ever posted anything from a neutral site? Ever?  It's like posting links to the protocols of Zion.  You should be banned for linking to racist sites.
Click to expand...




 Does the same apply to ISLAMONAZI sources that you post links to, then claim they are source documents


----------



## Penelope

Phoenall said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A mighty Jewish empire extended over this entire area before the Arabs and their Islam were even born!  The Jewish People have one of the most legitimate Birth Certificates of any nations in the world. And if you want to talk religion, fine.  G-d GAVE the Land of Israel to the Jewish People. And G-d does nothing by accident!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's as far as I got, a *mighty Jewish empire never existed*.
> 
> Also since most Jews in Israel are secular, we'll leave God out of it.
> 
> _(let me add, and if you insist God gave them the land, well God give it and God take it , which should be evident as no temple there, and Britain  is not God)._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And there was no arab muslim ownership of Palestine from 1099 until 1988. And there second most holy place "allegedly" was allowed to fall into ruin 3 times while islam was in control of the land.
Click to expand...



You know what it doesn't matter, they were living there when the Zionist came so there.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> And, the piece is written like the Latin Kingdom never ruled Palestine. What a bunch of ignorant propagandists.





 It didn't, it only ruled part of it. And they were the ones that kicked the arab muslims out of Jerusalem. It was only ever the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and never Palestine.

 Another massive fail and an untruth by Mohamed the LIAR


----------



## Phoenall

Saigon said:


> Daniyel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be mistaken its known to all, some just deliberately deny it because they fear the truth, can't admit they were wrong or just a racists trying to justify their primitive emotional perspectives.
> Palestinians are just Arabs, particularly hostile and stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's always interesting when someone calls other people stupid  - in a comment littered with language errors.
> 
> Yes, Palestinians are Arabs. So what?
Click to expand...




 Only after 1960 when the Russians told Arafat to use the term to give his terrorist movement some legitamcy. Befors then as far as the arab muslims were concerned it was a nasty word describing Jews.


----------



## Phoenall

Penelope said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A mighty Jewish empire extended over this entire area before the Arabs and their Islam were even born!  The Jewish People have one of the most legitimate Birth Certificates of any nations in the world. And if you want to talk religion, fine.  G-d GAVE the Land of Israel to the Jewish People. And G-d does nothing by accident!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's as far as I got, a *mighty Jewish empire never existed*.
> 
> Also since most Jews in Israel are secular, we'll leave God out of it.
> 
> _(let me add, and if you insist God gave them the land, well God give it and God take it , which should be evident as no temple there, and Britain  is not God)._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And there was no arab muslim ownership of Palestine from 1099 until 1988. And there second most holy place "allegedly" was allowed to fall into ruin 3 times while islam was in control of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know what it doesn't matter, they were living there when the Zionist came so there.
Click to expand...





 Is that so then do explain why they were thin on the ground before the Zionists came at the request of the Ottomans in the latter part of the 19C. And living on the land is not proof of ownership, if it was then the Jews have been there longer than the arab muslims giving them a far greater legal claim to the land. Or are you going to use the NAZI RACIST trick of claiming the rules don't apply equally to the Jews, just because they are Jews.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Friends said:


> Would someone tell me why I should care about the Palestinians.



 Well, in a rather oblique way, you should care about the invention of the people called "Palestinian"  because they have established that unrelenting Arab terrorism works. The more depraved they have acted, the more they have become the world's darlings, and so they set the stage for so much modern terrorism by showing how well it works on useful idiots.


----------



## Penelope

Friends said:


> The Palestinians are people like this:
> 
> In one case, a Palestinian boy admitted to reciting the Qur'an while strangling his sister for dishonoring her family. The girl was killed because her desire for independence became public knowledge...
> 
> Even when apprehended, murderers serve little or no jail time because honor killings are accorded special status in the courts. Men convicted of premeditated murder may be imprisoned for as little as three to six months. Upon their release, friends and relatives treat them like celebrities. Ahmed, a Palestinian boy who killed his teenage sister because she refused an arranged marriage, was commended upon his release from jail. Neighbors showered him with compliments, and his father called him a hero for restoring the family honor.
> Anthropologist Community - Reputation is Everything Honor Killing Among the Palestinians





Phoenall said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A mighty Jewish empire extended over this entire area before the Arabs and their Islam were even born!  The Jewish People have one of the most legitimate Birth Certificates of any nations in the world. And if you want to talk religion, fine.  G-d GAVE the Land of Israel to the Jewish People. And G-d does nothing by accident!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's as far as I got, a *mighty Jewish empire never existed*.
> 
> Also since most Jews in Israel are secular, we'll leave God out of it.
> 
> _(let me add, and if you insist God gave them the land, well God give it and God take it , which should be evident as no temple there, and Britain  is not God)._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And there was no arab muslim ownership of Palestine from 1099 until 1988. And there second most holy place "allegedly" was allowed to fall into ruin 3 times while islam was in control of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know what it doesn't matter, they were living there when the Zionist came so there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that so then do explain why they were thin on the ground before the Zionists came at the request of the Ottomans in the latter part of the 19C. And living on the land is not proof of ownership, if it was then the Jews have been there longer than the arab muslims giving them a far greater legal claim to the land. Or are you going to use the NAZI RACIST trick of claiming the rules don't apply equally to the Jews, just because they are Jews.
Click to expand...


 Yes I think living there and having lived there shows more ownership that immigration.


----------



## Penelope

Dogmaphobe said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would someone tell me why I should care about the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in a rather oblique way, you should care about the invention of the people called "Palestinian"  because they have established that unrelenting Arab terrorism works. The more depraved they have acted, the more they have become the world's darlings, and so they set the stage for so much modern terrorism by showing how well it works on useful idiots.
Click to expand...


I think your getting the Pals confused with the Zionists.


----------



## Saigon

Phoenall said:


> Only after 1960 when the Russians told Arafat to use the term to give his terrorist movement some legitamcy. Befors then as far as the arab muslims were concerned it was a nasty word describing Jews.



Really?

Well, that is fascinating....especially considering that in 1920 there were two newspapers using the word 'Palestinian' in there title, and both newspapers were printed in Arabic.

Can you explain this for us?

btw. I am now asking you for the third time when the League of Nations owned Palestine, or would you like to retract you utter nonsensical statement?


----------



## Saigon

Phoenall said:


> And there was no arab muslim ownership of Palestine from 1099 until 1988. And there second most holy place "allegedly" was allowed to fall into ruin 3 times while islam was in control of the land.



Um.....what?

So you are saying that it is false that most kibbutzim and moshavim were settled on land legally bought from Arabic owners during the period 1899 - 1935?

I have now read perhaps 10 comments from you - everyone one them contains horrendous errors of facts. If you don't know the facts - do not make them up around people who know better.


----------



## Meathead

Saigon said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there was no arab muslim ownership of Palestine from 1099 until 1988. And there second most holy place "allegedly" was allowed to fall into ruin 3 times while islam was in control of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um.....what?
> 
> So you are saying that it is false that most kibbutzim and moshavim were settled on land legally bought from Arabic owners during the period 1899 - 1935?
> 
> I have now read perhaps 10 comments from you - everyone one them contains horrendous errors of facts. If you don't know the facts - do not make them up around people who know better.
Click to expand...

Perhaps a policy of "Finlandization" would have been better for the Israelis. But without the West to protect them, one wonders what would have become of Finland.

While I admire Finns on several fronts and understand their neutrality in the Cold War, I can scarcely understand why they feel so righteous under the circumstances.

Have you repatriated the lands held by Russian homeowners since the 1920s btw?


----------



## aris2chat

Penelope said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A mighty Jewish empire extended over this entire area before the Arabs and their Islam were even born!  The Jewish People have one of the most legitimate Birth Certificates of any nations in the world. And if you want to talk religion, fine.  G-d GAVE the Land of Israel to the Jewish People. And G-d does nothing by accident!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's as far as I got, a *mighty Jewish empire never existed*.
> 
> Also since most Jews in Israel are secular, we'll leave God out of it.
> 
> _(let me add, and if you insist God gave them the land, well God give it and God take it , which should be evident as no temple there, and Britain  is not God)._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And there was no arab muslim ownership of Palestine from 1099 until 1988. And there second most holy place "allegedly" was allowed to fall into ruin 3 times while islam was in control of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know what it doesn't matter, they were living there when the Zionist came so there.
Click to expand...

 
A land that could easily support more than 7 million was populated by only 500,000 (arabs, christians and jews).  A population in large part not owned by the people living there, or that did not want to register land or pay taxes that would mean military service.
People renting an apartment do not won their unit no matter how many generations live there.  When the building is sold or scheduled for destruction so a newer better building can be put up, the tenants have no say, nor do they get the new units at the old price.
Most of the land was on a feudal system with ownership given to award service to the empire or sold to raise money for the empire.  There was no way local farmers not making enough to pay the taxes could afford to buy the land or pay the back taxes to register the land.   It would also mean they would have to serve in the Ottoman army.
If the land had been arable or profitable it would not have been sold so readily to the jews invited by the Ottoman and powerful arabs of the time.
The mufti rebel-roused the poor and disenfranchised not the actual owners of the land or those of standing.  Riots did not just begin with the mufti, thought he was the main driving force of the rabid anti-semitism of the muslim world (an nazi).
The uneducated, under educated, poor and unemployed were not land owners, nor were the farmers that worked the land for their foreign masters.  Those who were craftsman and had some other skill that olives, grapes or grain might have shops and small bits of land in or near the towns and villages.  They would have made up a small percentage of the population.
Most of the jews and christians were not farmers, except those with the church.  Apart from the feudal land owners, these are the ones that would have been land owners in the urban population.
70% of the land was under those circumstances not arable, waste land or migrant routes used by nomads on their way north or south with the seasons.
500,000 occupants of the land were not all or even most land owners, nor did they want to be to avoid taxes or military service.  It is illogical to claim the land belonged to those 500,000 people when the Empire fell or was divided by the LoN/UN mandate.  Just because they lived on worked the land does not mean they had any right to determine who the land was sold, or not sold to, or who could enter and live in the area.  For 1500+ years they were little more than slaves under the muslim or even Byzantine rule.
Jews did not leave the land or give up their rights, they were forced out for rebelling against roman rule.  When they returned, they bought land they did not steal it.  They did not invade, they were invited by Ottoman and arabs, they were promised a homeland (in name) by the british and ottoman in the early part of the 19th C.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniyel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be mistaken its known to all, some just deliberately deny it because they fear the truth, can't admit they were wrong or just a racists trying to justify their primitive emotional perspectives.
> Palestinians are just Arabs, particularly hostile and stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's always interesting when someone calls other people stupid  - in a comment littered with language errors.
> 
> Yes, Palestinians are Arabs. So what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only after 1960 when the Russians told Arafat to use the term to give his terrorist movement some legitamcy. Befors then as far as the arab muslims were concerned it was a nasty word describing Jews.
Click to expand...

The Treaty of Lausanne came into force on August 6, 1924. It stated that the Ottoman nationals who were "habitually residents" of what became Palestine "will become ipso facto" nationals of that state.[2]

The first Palestine Citizenship Order was enacted by Britain on 24 July 1925; it was the first official enactment that outlined the legal definition of a Palestinian. Its first article defined a Palestinian as a "Turkish subject habitually resident in the territory of Palestine."

History of Palestinian nationality - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniyel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be mistaken its known to all, some just deliberately deny it because they fear the truth, can't admit they were wrong or just a racists trying to justify their primitive emotional perspectives.
> Palestinians are just Arabs, particularly hostile and stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's always interesting when someone calls other people stupid  - in a comment littered with language errors.
> 
> Yes, Palestinians are Arabs. So what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only after 1960 when the Russians told Arafat to use the term to give his terrorist movement some legitamcy. Befors then as far as the arab muslims were concerned it was a nasty word describing Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne came into force on August 6, 1924. It stated that the Ottoman nationals who were "habitually residents" of what became Palestine "will become ipso facto" nationals of that state.[2]
> 
> The first Palestine Citizenship Order was enacted by Britain on 24 July 1925; it was the first official enactment that outlined the legal definition of a Palestinian. Its first article defined a Palestinian as a "Turkish subject habitually resident in the territory of Palestine."
> 
> History of Palestinian nationality - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


citizens did not mean land owners or even politically able to rule the land or set laws for the people.
Habitual residents included christians and jews, not just arab workers.
When the mandate ended the term palestinian referred anyone who had been living and working under the mandate for only two years, half the arab population at the time had migrated after the fall of the ottoman empire seeking jobs.


----------



## Penelope

Friends said:


> The Palestinians are people like this:
> 
> In one case, a Palestinian boy admitted to reciting the Qur'an while strangling his sister for dishonoring her family. The girl was killed because her desire for independence became public knowledge...
> 
> Even when apprehended, murderers serve little or no jail time because honor killings are accorded special status in the courts. Men convicted of premeditated murder may be imprisoned for as little as three to six months. Upon their release, friends and relatives treat them like celebrities. Ahmed, a Palestinian boy who killed his teenage sister because she refused an arranged marriage, was commended upon his release from jail. Neighbors showered him with compliments, and his father called him a hero for restoring the family honor.
> Anthropologist Community - Reputation is Everything Honor Killing Among the Palestinians



Now I am not saying there  are not some who still do some of this stuff, as we continually try and keep the Muslims in the stone age, by impeding their progress,
by destroying their countries, but the article seems to be mainly from The Frontpage Mag, of which  Robert Spencer writes Jihad watch, and seems to have a real problem with Muslims in general. Also that Mag's  founder and owner is a Jewish man, so I would take anything they write with caution as it might just be bias.

I not saying this stuff is still not happening on occasion , but that is all the more reason we should not destabilize their countries and cause unrest, but spend the money we spend on waring on some education and human rights programs, and the first place we can start is Saudi Arabia, but no we never say anything about them do we? Strange.


----------



## P F Tinmore

aris2chat said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniyel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be mistaken its known to all, some just deliberately deny it because they fear the truth, can't admit they were wrong or just a racists trying to justify their primitive emotional perspectives.
> Palestinians are just Arabs, particularly hostile and stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's always interesting when someone calls other people stupid  - in a comment littered with language errors.
> 
> Yes, Palestinians are Arabs. So what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only after 1960 when the Russians told Arafat to use the term to give his terrorist movement some legitamcy. Befors then as far as the arab muslims were concerned it was a nasty word describing Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne came into force on August 6, 1924. It stated that the Ottoman nationals who were "habitually residents" of what became Palestine "will become ipso facto" nationals of that state.[2]
> 
> The first Palestine Citizenship Order was enacted by Britain on 24 July 1925; it was the first official enactment that outlined the legal definition of a Palestinian. Its first article defined a Palestinian as a "Turkish subject habitually resident in the territory of Palestine."
> 
> History of Palestinian nationality - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> citizens did not mean land owners or even politically able to rule the land or set laws for the people.
> Habitual residents included christians and jews, not just arab workers.
> When the mandate ended the term palestinian referred anyone who had been living and working under the mandate for only two years, half the arab population at the time had migrated after the fall of the ottoman empire seeking jobs.
Click to expand...

Private property ownership has nothing to do with rights to country.

People who rent their homes or are even homeless have the same rights to their country as property owners. It is still their country.

It is true that Muslims, Christians, and Jews were equally Palestinian if living in country when it was detached from Turkey.


----------



## montelatici

Saigon said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there was no arab muslim ownership of Palestine from 1099 until 1988. And there second most holy place "allegedly" was allowed to fall into ruin 3 times while islam was in control of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um.....what?
> 
> So you are saying that it is false that most kibbutzim and moshavim were settled on land legally bought from Arabic owners during the period 1899 - 1935?
> 
> I have now read perhaps 10 comments from you - everyone one them contains horrendous errors of facts. If you don't know the facts - do not make them up around people who know better.
Click to expand...


Here is the real land ownership data as registered by the British from deeds and registries and contained in the Palestine Survey submitted to the UN prior to partition.  As can be seen the Jews owned less than 10% of the land and the non-Jews over 90%.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there was no arab muslim ownership of Palestine from 1099 until 1988. And there second most holy place "allegedly" was allowed to fall into ruin 3 times while islam was in control of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um.....what?
> 
> So you are saying that it is false that most kibbutzim and moshavim were settled on land legally bought from Arabic owners during the period 1899 - 1935?
> 
> I have now read perhaps 10 comments from you - everyone one them contains horrendous errors of facts. If you don't know the facts - do not make them up around people who know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the real land ownership data as registered by the British from deeds and registries and contained in the Palestine Survey submitted to the UN prior to partition.  As can be seen the Jews owned less than 10% of the land and the non-Jews over 90%.
> 
> View attachment 32799
Click to expand...



Tthe overwhelming majority of Palestinians are just a bunch of squatters living on Israel's land for generations now without any titles or deeds whatsoever.  Want peace?  This land theft has to end.


----------



## Penelope

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there was no arab muslim ownership of Palestine from 1099 until 1988. And there second most holy place "allegedly" was allowed to fall into ruin 3 times while islam was in control of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um.....what?
> 
> So you are saying that it is false that most kibbutzim and moshavim were settled on land legally bought from Arabic owners during the period 1899 - 1935?
> 
> I have now read perhaps 10 comments from you - everyone one them contains horrendous errors of facts. If you don't know the facts - do not make them up around people who know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the real land ownership data as registered by the British from deeds and registries and contained in the Palestine Survey submitted to the UN prior to partition.  As can be seen the Jews owned less than 10% of the land and the non-Jews over 90%.
> 
> View attachment 32799
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tthe overwhelming majority of Palestinians are just a bunch of squatters living on Israel's land for generations now without any titles or deeds whatsoever.  Want peace?  This land theft has to end.
Click to expand...


What about those 0ttomans , why didn't you get rid of them when they were squatting on Israel's land. Or what about those Romans, Greeks, Persians, who squatted on Israel's land (and the Jews ran away) Don't see the Pals doing that do you, even with your weapons and tanks.   It hasn't been Israel's land for eons. go give it up.


----------



## MaryL

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jew propaganda as usual.  Have you ever posted anything from a neutral site? Ever?  It's like posting links to the protocols of Zion.  You should be banned for linking to racist sites.
Click to expand...




montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jew propaganda as usual.  Have you ever posted anything from a neutral site? Ever?  It's like posting links to the protocols of Zion.  You should be banned for linking to racist sites.
Click to expand...

As opposed to the anti-Semitism  YOU spout, and the cherry picked sites you dredge up,that is rich, who are  you trying to fool?


----------



## MJB12741

Penelope said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there was no arab muslim ownership of Palestine from 1099 until 1988. And there second most holy place "allegedly" was allowed to fall into ruin 3 times while islam was in control of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um.....what?
> 
> So you are saying that it is false that most kibbutzim and moshavim were settled on land legally bought from Arabic owners during the period 1899 - 1935?
> 
> I have now read perhaps 10 comments from you - everyone one them contains horrendous errors of facts. If you don't know the facts - do not make them up around people who know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the real land ownership data as registered by the British from deeds and registries and contained in the Palestine Survey submitted to the UN prior to partition.  As can be seen the Jews owned less than 10% of the land and the non-Jews over 90%.
> 
> View attachment 32799
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tthe overwhelming majority of Palestinians are just a bunch of squatters living on Israel's land for generations now without any titles or deeds whatsoever.  Want peace?  This land theft has to end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about those 0ttomans , why didn't you get rid of them when they were squatting on Israel's land. Or what about those Romans, Greeks, Persians, who squatted on Israel's land (and the Jews ran away) Don't see the Pals doing that do you, even with your weapons and tanks.   It hasn't been Israel's land for eons. go give it up.
Click to expand...


The bottom line is this:  Any & all land belong to whoever rules it at any given period in time.  As long as Israel rules the land --- the land is Israel's.  Same is true for all the stolen Muslim lands conquered by force against the native populations now ruled by Muslims.  You see, it's Istanbul, not Constantinople.  Get it yet?


----------



## Penelope

MJB12741 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there was no arab muslim ownership of Palestine from 1099 until 1988. And there second most holy place "allegedly" was allowed to fall into ruin 3 times while islam was in control of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um.....what?
> 
> So you are saying that it is false that most kibbutzim and moshavim were settled on land legally bought from Arabic owners during the period 1899 - 1935?
> 
> I have now read perhaps 10 comments from you - everyone one them contains horrendous errors of facts. If you don't know the facts - do not make them up around people who know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the real land ownership data as registered by the British from deeds and registries and contained in the Palestine Survey submitted to the UN prior to partition.  As can be seen the Jews owned less than 10% of the land and the non-Jews over 90%.
> 
> View attachment 32799
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tthe overwhelming majority of Palestinians are just a bunch of squatters living on Israel's land for generations now without any titles or deeds whatsoever.  Want peace?  This land theft has to end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about those 0ttomans , why didn't you get rid of them when they were squatting on Israel's land. Or what about those Romans, Greeks, Persians, who squatted on Israel's land (and the Jews ran away) Don't see the Pals doing that do you, even with your weapons and tanks.   It hasn't been Israel's land for eons. go give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bottom line is this:  Any & all land belong to whoever rules it at any given period in time.  As long as Israel rules the land --- the land is Israel's.  Same is true for all the stolen Muslim lands conquered by force against the native populations now ruled by Muslims.  You see, it's Istanbul, not Constantinople.  Get it yet?
Click to expand...


Well right now the world is watching, got that yet? Israel is stealing more and more land, and the world knows it, while you have most of the Pals in prison. The world is watching, its no longer the newspapers and nightly news anymore.


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniyel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be mistaken its known to all, some just deliberately deny it because they fear the truth, can't admit they were wrong or just a racists trying to justify their primitive emotional perspectives.
> Palestinians are just Arabs, particularly hostile and stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's always interesting when someone calls other people stupid  - in a comment littered with language errors.
> 
> Yes, Palestinians are Arabs. So what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only after 1960 when the Russians told Arafat to use the term to give his terrorist movement some legitamcy. Befors then as far as the arab muslims were concerned it was a nasty word describing Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne came into force on August 6, 1924. It stated that the Ottoman nationals who were "habitually residents" of what became Palestine "will become ipso facto" nationals of that state.[2]
> 
> The first Palestine Citizenship Order was enacted by Britain on 24 July 1925; it was the first official enactment that outlined the legal definition of a Palestinian. Its first article defined a Palestinian as a "Turkish subject habitually resident in the territory of Palestine."
> 
> History of Palestinian nationality - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> citizens did not mean land owners or even politically able to rule the land or set laws for the people.
> Habitual residents included christians and jews, not just arab workers.
> When the mandate ended the term palestinian referred anyone who had been living and working under the mandate for only two years, half the arab population at the time had migrated after the fall of the ottoman empire seeking jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Private property ownership has nothing to do with rights to country.
> 
> People who rent their homes or are even homeless have the same rights to their country as property owners. It is still their country.
> 
> It is true that Muslims, Christians, and Jews were equally Palestinian if living in country when it was detached from Turkey.
Click to expand...


Male tax payers, land owners had the rights to vote is they were paid up on taxes and not convicted of any crime had the rights under the Press Law.  Males who were registered in some way the ottoman state.  The average peasant farmer would not be registered nor represented in government in any way.
Voting and representation of the peasant population in eastern european population of the ottoman empire in the  mid 19 C.  It was not implemented across the empire.  Change was not suggested in the palestinians region till the beginning of the 20th C. and the young turks.  The Empire fell before change was implemented.


----------



## Grendelyn

montelatici said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there was no arab muslim ownership of Palestine from 1099 until 1988. And there second most holy place "allegedly" was allowed to fall into ruin 3 times while islam was in control of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um.....what?
> 
> So you are saying that it is false that most kibbutzim and moshavim were settled on land legally bought from Arabic owners during the period 1899 - 1935?
> 
> I have now read perhaps 10 comments from you - everyone one them contains horrendous errors of facts. If you don't know the facts - do not make them up around people who know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the real land ownership data as registered by the British from deeds and registries and contained in the Palestine Survey submitted to the UN prior to partition.  As can be seen the Jews owned less than 10% of the land and the non-Jews over 90%.
> 
> View attachment 32799
Click to expand...


*As to the population of this area, the 1911 Encyclopedia lists it as follows:*

The total population of the country is roughly estimated at 650,000, but no authentic official census exists from which satisfactory information on this point is obtainable.* Some two-thirds of this number are Moslems, the rest Christians of various sects, and Jews.* The largest town in Palestine is Jerusalem, estimated to contain a population of about 60,000. The other towns of above Io,000 inhabitants are Jaffa (45,000), Gaza (35,000), Safed (30,000), Nablus (25,000), Kerak (20,000), Hebron (18,500), Es-Salt (15,000), Acre (11,000), Nazareth (11,000).
Palestine - Encyclopedia

*That is to say, way less than one-third of the population were Jews and in my opinion, it is safe to say that hardly any of them were of the troublemaking, Johnny-come-later Ashkenazim variety.  ~ Susan*


----------



## Daniyel

Grendelyn said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there was no arab muslim ownership of Palestine from 1099 until 1988. And there second most holy place "allegedly" was allowed to fall into ruin 3 times while islam was in control of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um.....what?
> 
> So you are saying that it is false that most kibbutzim and moshavim were settled on land legally bought from Arabic owners during the period 1899 - 1935?
> 
> I have now read perhaps 10 comments from you - everyone one them contains horrendous errors of facts. If you don't know the facts - do not make them up around people who know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the real land ownership data as registered by the British from deeds and registries and contained in the Palestine Survey submitted to the UN prior to partition.  As can be seen the Jews owned less than 10% of the land and the non-Jews over 90%.
> 
> View attachment 32799
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *As to the population of this area, the 1911 Encyclopedia lists it as follows:*
> 
> The total population of the country is roughly estimated at 650,000, but no authentic official census exists from which satisfactory information on this point is obtainable.* Some two-thirds of this number are Moslems, the rest Christians of various sects, and Jews.* The largest town in Palestine is Jerusalem, estimated to contain a population of about 60,000. The other towns of above Io,000 inhabitants are Jaffa (45,000), Gaza (35,000), Safed (30,000), Nablus (25,000), Kerak (20,000), Hebron (18,500), Es-Salt (15,000), Acre (11,000), Nazareth (11,000).
> Palestine - Encyclopedia
> 
> *That is to say, way less than one-third of the population were Jews and in my opinion, it is safe to say that hardly any of them were of the troublemaking, Johnny-come-later Ashkenazim variety.  ~ Susan*
Click to expand...

Funny..Now take notes.

1.Jerusalem, Hebron, Safed - probably the most Jewish places on earth.
2.Acre and Jaffa was a multicultural harbor cities where most migrants settled [like my family] and still not a Muslim/Christian majority but - Jewish.
3.The list you got there is also contain Jordanian/Egyptian towns which Israel never claimed for like EL-Salt[JORDAN], Kerak[JORDAN], Gaza[EGYPT].

Your source discuss the full region by its recent name - Palestine - when deliberately or not, manipulating the facts to your poor claim Susan.


----------



## Hossfly

Grendelyn said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there was no arab muslim ownership of Palestine from 1099 until 1988. And there second most holy place "allegedly" was allowed to fall into ruin 3 times while islam was in control of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um.....what?
> 
> So you are saying that it is false that most kibbutzim and moshavim were settled on land legally bought from Arabic owners during the period 1899 - 1935?
> 
> I have now read perhaps 10 comments from you - everyone one them contains horrendous errors of facts. If you don't know the facts - do not make them up around people who know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the real land ownership data as registered by the British from deeds and registries and contained in the Palestine Survey submitted to the UN prior to partition.  As can be seen the Jews owned less than 10% of the land and the non-Jews over 90%.
> 
> View attachment 32799
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *As to the population of this area, the 1911 Encyclopedia lists it as follows:*
> 
> The total population of the country is roughly estimated at 650,000, but no authentic official census exists from which satisfactory information on this point is obtainable.* Some two-thirds of this number are Moslems, the rest Christians of various sects, and Jews.* The largest town in Palestine is Jerusalem, estimated to contain a population of about 60,000. The other towns of above Io,000 inhabitants are Jaffa (45,000), Gaza (35,000), Safed (30,000), Nablus (25,000), Kerak (20,000), Hebron (18,500), Es-Salt (15,000), Acre (11,000), Nazareth (11,000).
> Palestine - Encyclopedia
> 
> *That is to say, way less than one-third of the population were Jews and in my opinion, it is safe to say that hardly any of them were of the troublemaking, Johnny-come-later Ashkenazim variety.  ~ Susan*
Click to expand...

You back to the 1911 Encyclopedia which you kept on referring to constantly and someone researched it and found out that you were putting in words that were never there?  Where did all these Arabs come from? They probably came from Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, etc. when the Jews had jobs for them (as the British officials in the area reported), the same way the Arabs are flooding into Europe for jobs in today's world.  Do you even see all the new immigrants who are coming to America for jobs, Pishy?


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there was no arab muslim ownership of Palestine from 1099 until 1988. And there second most holy place "allegedly" was allowed to fall into ruin 3 times while islam was in control of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um.....what?
> 
> So you are saying that it is false that most kibbutzim and moshavim were settled on land legally bought from Arabic owners during the period 1899 - 1935?
> 
> I have now read perhaps 10 comments from you - everyone one them contains horrendous errors of facts. If you don't know the facts - do not make them up around people who know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the real land ownership data as registered by the British from deeds and registries and contained in the Palestine Survey submitted to the UN prior to partition.  As can be seen the Jews owned less than 10% of the land and the non-Jews over 90%.
> 
> View attachment 32799
Click to expand...


church and state were two of the largest land owners.  Foreign owners, given land by the Ottoman, often owned not just farms but villages as well.  People living on or working land would have had little in the way of rights.
You do understand the document you keep posting is not population but amount of land and the amount of taxes paid.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Penelope said:


> I think your getting the Pals confused with the Zionists.




 No. No, I am not.

You need to remember, Penelope, that I am quite sane.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there was no arab muslim ownership of Palestine from 1099 until 1988. And there second most holy place "allegedly" was allowed to fall into ruin 3 times while islam was in control of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um.....what?
> 
> So you are saying that it is false that most kibbutzim and moshavim were settled on land legally bought from Arabic owners during the period 1899 - 1935?
> 
> I have now read perhaps 10 comments from you - everyone one them contains horrendous errors of facts. If you don't know the facts - do not make them up around people who know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the real land ownership data as registered by the British from deeds and registries and contained in the Palestine Survey submitted to the UN prior to partition.  As can be seen the Jews owned less than 10% of the land and the non-Jews over 90%.
> 
> View attachment 32799
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tthe overwhelming majority of Palestinians are just a bunch of squatters living on Israel's land for generations now without any titles or deeds whatsoever.  Want peace?  This land theft has to end.
Click to expand...


Over 90% of the land was owned by non-Jewish Palestinians as per below:


----------



## montelatici

aris2chat said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there was no arab muslim ownership of Palestine from 1099 until 1988. And there second most holy place "allegedly" was allowed to fall into ruin 3 times while islam was in control of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um.....what?
> 
> So you are saying that it is false that most kibbutzim and moshavim were settled on land legally bought from Arabic owners during the period 1899 - 1935?
> 
> I have now read perhaps 10 comments from you - everyone one them contains horrendous errors of facts. If you don't know the facts - do not make them up around people who know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the real land ownership data as registered by the British from deeds and registries and contained in the Palestine Survey submitted to the UN prior to partition.  As can be seen the Jews owned less than 10% of the land and the non-Jews over 90%.
> 
> View attachment 32799
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> church and state were two of the largest land owners.  Foreign owners, given land by the Ottoman, often owned not just farms but villages as well.  People living on or working land would have had little in the way of rights.
> You do understand the document you keep posting is not population but amount of land and the amount of taxes paid.
Click to expand...


It is the amount of land owned by Jews and non-Jews.  That's what it says, no amount of bullshit can change that.  It says Ownership of Land in Palestine by share.:


----------



## montelatici

A Dunam is 1000 square meters, as stated.  The Non-Jews owned 24,679,455 Dunams the Jews 1,514,247 Dunams.  I know that when your propaganda bubble is burst it is difficult, but that is the fact.


----------



## MaryL

When a Mexican that can't speak English  proclaims to be an American (through an interpreter)  and threatens me, I have to laugh. Who decides WHOM is what? Screw Palestine.


----------



## Grendelyn

Hossfly said:


> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there was no arab muslim ownership of Palestine from 1099 until 1988. And there second most holy place "allegedly" was allowed to fall into ruin 3 times while islam was in control of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um.....what?
> 
> So you are saying that it is false that most kibbutzim and moshavim were settled on land legally bought from Arabic owners during the period 1899 - 1935?
> 
> I have now read perhaps 10 comments from you - everyone one them contains horrendous errors of facts. If you don't know the facts - do not make them up around people who know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the real land ownership data as registered by the British from deeds and registries and contained in the Palestine Survey submitted to the UN prior to partition.  As can be seen the Jews owned less than 10% of the land and the non-Jews over 90%.
> 
> View attachment 32799
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *As to the population of this area, the 1911 Encyclopedia lists it as follows:*
> 
> The total population of the country is roughly estimated at 650,000, but no authentic official census exists from which satisfactory information on this point is obtainable.* Some two-thirds of this number are Moslems, the rest Christians of various sects, and Jews.* The largest town in Palestine is Jerusalem, estimated to contain a population of about 60,000. The other towns of above Io,000 inhabitants are Jaffa (45,000), Gaza (35,000), Safed (30,000), Nablus (25,000), Kerak (20,000), Hebron (18,500), Es-Salt (15,000), Acre (11,000), Nazareth (11,000).
> Palestine - Encyclopedia
> 
> *That is to say, way less than one-third of the population were Jews and in my opinion, it is safe to say that hardly any of them were of the troublemaking, Johnny-come-later Ashkenazim variety.  ~ Susan*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You back to the 1911 Encyclopedia which you kept on referring to constantly and someone researched it* and found out that you were putting in words that were never there? * Where did all these Arabs come from? They probably came from Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, etc. when the Jews had jobs for them (as the British officials in the area reported), the same way the Arabs are flooding into Europe for jobs in today's world.  Do you even see all the new immigrants who are coming to America for jobs, Pishy?
Click to expand...


*Do you like making a fool of yourself?  I provided an online link to the 1911 Encyclopedia for the information that I quoted from it.  What words did I put in that were never there?*


----------



## toastman

Saigon said:


> Daniyel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be mistaken its known to all, some just deliberately deny it because they fear the truth, can't admit they were wrong or just a racists trying to justify their primitive emotional perspectives.
> Palestinians are just Arabs, particularly hostile and stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's always interesting when someone calls other people stupid  - in a comment littered with language errors.
> 
> Yes, Palestinians are Arabs. So what?
Click to expand...

His first language isn't English. 

Speaking of stupidity....


----------



## montelatici

MaryL said:


> When a Mexican that can't speak English  proclaims to be an American (through an interpreter)  and threatens me, I have to laugh. Who decides WHOM is what? Screw Palestine.



A Mexican is by definition an American.  Most Americans speak Spanish or Portuguese, not English.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jew propaganda as usual.  Have you ever posted anything from a neutral site? Ever?  It's like posting links to the protocols of Zion.  You should be banned for linking to racist sites.
Click to expand...

That's your answer to everything.

Why don't you point out what you consider to be propaganda and what you consider to be false in the article ....


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> A Dunam is 1000 square meters, as stated.  The Non-Jews owned 24,679,455 Dunams the Jews 1,514,247 Dunams.  I know that when your propaganda bubble is burst it is difficult, but that is the fact.



Here's another fact. It's 2014 and Jews own 100% of Israel.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> When a Mexican that can't speak English  proclaims to be an American (through an interpreter)  and threatens me, I have to laugh. Who decides WHOM is what? Screw Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Mexican is by definition an American.  Most Americans speak Spanish or Portuguese, not English.
Click to expand...


It could be both. People could have two nationalities.


----------



## Hossfly

Grendelyn said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there was no arab muslim ownership of Palestine from 1099 until 1988. And there second most holy place "allegedly" was allowed to fall into ruin 3 times while islam was in control of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um.....what?
> 
> So you are saying that it is false that most kibbutzim and moshavim were settled on land legally bought from Arabic owners during the period 1899 - 1935?
> 
> I have now read perhaps 10 comments from you - everyone one them contains horrendous errors of facts. If you don't know the facts - do not make them up around people who know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the real land ownership data as registered by the British from deeds and registries and contained in the Palestine Survey submitted to the UN prior to partition.  As can be seen the Jews owned less than 10% of the land and the non-Jews over 90%.
> 
> View attachment 32799
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *As to the population of this area, the 1911 Encyclopedia lists it as follows:*
> 
> The total population of the country is roughly estimated at 650,000, but no authentic official census exists from which satisfactory information on this point is obtainable.* Some two-thirds of this number are Moslems, the rest Christians of various sects, and Jews.* The largest town in Palestine is Jerusalem, estimated to contain a population of about 60,000. The other towns of above Io,000 inhabitants are Jaffa (45,000), Gaza (35,000), Safed (30,000), Nablus (25,000), Kerak (20,000), Hebron (18,500), Es-Salt (15,000), Acre (11,000), Nazareth (11,000).
> Palestine - Encyclopedia
> 
> *That is to say, way less than one-third of the population were Jews and in my opinion, it is safe to say that hardly any of them were of the troublemaking, Johnny-come-later Ashkenazim variety.  ~ Susan*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You back to the 1911 Encyclopedia which you kept on referring to constantly and someone researched it* and found out that you were putting in words that were never there? * Where did all these Arabs come from? They probably came from Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, etc. when the Jews had jobs for them (as the British officials in the area reported), the same way the Arabs are flooding into Europe for jobs in today's world.  Do you even see all the new immigrants who are coming to America for jobs, Pishy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Do you like making a fool of yourself?  I provided an online link to the 1911 Encyclopedia for the information that I quoted from it.  What words did I put in that were never there?*
Click to expand...

Why the 1911 edition? Don't like the modern version?


----------



## Hossfly

Grendelyn said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there was no arab muslim ownership of Palestine from 1099 until 1988. And there second most holy place "allegedly" was allowed to fall into ruin 3 times while islam was in control of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um.....what?
> 
> So you are saying that it is false that most kibbutzim and moshavim were settled on land legally bought from Arabic owners during the period 1899 - 1935?
> 
> I have now read perhaps 10 comments from you - everyone one them contains horrendous errors of facts. If you don't know the facts - do not make them up around people who know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the real land ownership data as registered by the British from deeds and registries and contained in the Palestine Survey submitted to the UN prior to partition.  As can be seen the Jews owned less than 10% of the land and the non-Jews over 90%.
> 
> View attachment 32799
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *As to the population of this area, the 1911 Encyclopedia lists it as follows:*
> 
> The total population of the country is roughly estimated at 650,000, but no authentic official census exists from which satisfactory information on this point is obtainable.* Some two-thirds of this number are Moslems, the rest Christians of various sects, and Jews.* The largest town in Palestine is Jerusalem, estimated to contain a population of about 60,000. The other towns of above Io,000 inhabitants are Jaffa (45,000), Gaza (35,000), Safed (30,000), Nablus (25,000), Kerak (20,000), Hebron (18,500), Es-Salt (15,000), Acre (11,000), Nazareth (11,000).
> Palestine - Encyclopedia
> 
> *That is to say, way less than one-third of the population were Jews and in my opinion, it is safe to say that hardly any of them were of the troublemaking, Johnny-come-later Ashkenazim variety.  ~ Susan*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You back to the 1911 Encyclopedia which you kept on referring to constantly and someone researched it* and found out that you were putting in words that were never there? * Where did all these Arabs come from? They probably came from Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, etc. when the Jews had jobs for them (as the British officials in the area reported), the same way the Arabs are flooding into Europe for jobs in today's world.  Do you even see all the new immigrants who are coming to America for jobs, Pishy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Do you like making a fool of yourself?  I provided an online link to the 1911 Encyclopedia for the information that I quoted from it.  What words did I put in that were never there?*
Click to expand...

I just happened to mention that you faked out what was in the 1911 Encyclopedia when you kept on using it previously until someone caught you at it.  By the way, did you find any Encyclopedia that mentioned that Jordan was part of the Mandate and received 78% of the land on which so many of the Arabs happened to live?  Wasn't that great, Pishy, that 78% of the Mandate was given over to the Hashemites of Saudi Arabia? 
Hmm, I wonder if the Jews didn't start up businesses in Israel, if the Arabs from Syria, Egypt and so on would just have stayed in their original country trying to eke out a living.  We see how so many even now are going to Europe because their own countries can't supply the jobs they need to make a living for their families.


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jew propaganda as usual.  Have you ever posted anything from a neutral site? Ever?  It's like posting links to the protocols of Zion.  You should be banned for linking to racist sites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your answer to everything.
> 
> Why don't you point out what you consider to be propaganda and what you consider to be false in the article ....
Click to expand...


There are 2 falsehoods in the first paragraph why go any further? 

1. The Latin Kingdom was a sovereign state with Jerusalem as its capital.  The Palestinian Christians of the Latin faith today (and many converts to slam) are the heirs of the Kingdom.

2. The Palestinian Christians and Muslims  called themselves Palestinian long before 1964 as the first paragraph of this crap propaganda pieces states.  There is written evidence from 1922.

A letter from the Palestinian Delegation in London to the British written in 1922.

"no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable."- See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922


----------



## montelatici

Hossfly said:


> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um.....what?
> 
> So you are saying that it is false that most kibbutzim and moshavim were settled on land legally bought from Arabic owners during the period 1899 - 1935?
> 
> I have now read perhaps 10 comments from you - everyone one them contains horrendous errors of facts. If you don't know the facts - do not make them up around people who know better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the real land ownership data as registered by the British from deeds and registries and contained in the Palestine Survey submitted to the UN prior to partition.  As can be seen the Jews owned less than 10% of the land and the non-Jews over 90%.
> 
> View attachment 32799
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *As to the population of this area, the 1911 Encyclopedia lists it as follows:*
> 
> The total population of the country is roughly estimated at 650,000, but no authentic official census exists from which satisfactory information on this point is obtainable.* Some two-thirds of this number are Moslems, the rest Christians of various sects, and Jews.* The largest town in Palestine is Jerusalem, estimated to contain a population of about 60,000. The other towns of above Io,000 inhabitants are Jaffa (45,000), Gaza (35,000), Safed (30,000), Nablus (25,000), Kerak (20,000), Hebron (18,500), Es-Salt (15,000), Acre (11,000), Nazareth (11,000).
> Palestine - Encyclopedia
> 
> *That is to say, way less than one-third of the population were Jews and in my opinion, it is safe to say that hardly any of them were of the troublemaking, Johnny-come-later Ashkenazim variety.  ~ Susan*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You back to the 1911 Encyclopedia which you kept on referring to constantly and someone researched it* and found out that you were putting in words that were never there? * Where did all these Arabs come from? They probably came from Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, etc. when the Jews had jobs for them (as the British officials in the area reported), the same way the Arabs are flooding into Europe for jobs in today's world.  Do you even see all the new immigrants who are coming to America for jobs, Pishy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Do you like making a fool of yourself?  I provided an online link to the 1911 Encyclopedia for the information that I quoted from it.  What words did I put in that were never there?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just happened to mention that you faked out what was in the 1911 Encyclopedia when you kept on using it previously until someone caught you at it.  By the way, did you find any Encyclopedia that mentioned that Jordan was part of the Mandate and received 78% of the land on which so many of the Arabs happened to live?  Wasn't that great, Pishy, that 78% of the Mandate was given over to the Hashemites of Saudi Arabia?
> Hmm, I wonder if the Jews didn't start up businesses in Israel, if the Arabs from Syria, Egypt and so on would just have stayed in their original country trying to eke out a living.  We see how so many even now are going to Europe because their own countries can't supply the jobs they need to make a living for their families.
Click to expand...


More propaganda Hoss.  Trans-Jordan was never part of Palestine.  It was always a separate territory.  I have linked to official LoN documents that make it clear.  It is your typical Zionist propaganda that assholes like you either believe or repeat because you have nothing else to cling to.


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jew propaganda as usual.  Have you ever posted anything from a neutral site? Ever?  It's like posting links to the protocols of Zion.  You should be banned for linking to racist sites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your answer to everything.
> 
> Why don't you point out what you consider to be propaganda and what you consider to be false in the article ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 2 falsehoods in the first paragraph why go any further?
> 
> 1. The Latin Kingdom was a sovereign state with Jerusalem as its capital.  The Palestinian Christians of the Latin faith today (and many converts to slam) are the heirs of the Kingdom.
> 
> 2. The Palestinian Christians and Muslims  called themselves Palestinian long before 1964 as the first paragraph of this crap propaganda pieces states.  There is written evidence from 1922.
> 
> A letter from the Palestinian Delegation in London to the British written in 1922.
> 
> "no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable."- See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
Click to expand...




montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jew propaganda as usual.  Have you ever posted anything from a neutral site? Ever?  It's like posting links to the protocols of Zion.  You should be banned for linking to racist sites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your answer to everything.
> 
> Why don't you point out what you consider to be propaganda and what you consider to be false in the article ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 2 falsehoods in the first paragraph why go any further?
> 
> 1. The Latin Kingdom was a sovereign state with Jerusalem as its capital.  The Palestinian Christians of the Latin faith (and many converts to Islam) are the heirs of the Kingdom.
> 
> 2. The propaganda piece claims there were no Palestinians prior to 1964.  There are letters from the Palestinian Delegation to London to the British from 1922 that contradict this propaganda. It is a complete piece of trash propaganda that Goebbels would be proud of, but inevitably you will believe, you dunce.
> 
> "If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant *the People of Palestine *— who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration."-
> 
> See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
Click to expand...


1) The first paragraph says there was never a sovereign state called Palestine.That is 100% true. IT does not mention a kingdom

2) No, the people were not referred to as Palestinians until 1964. Your link says 'People of Palestine' , not 'Palestinians you uneducated propaganda spewing liar.

So once again, you were wrong. Lets try again. Which part of the article do you consider propaganda and untrue ?


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the real land ownership data as registered by the British from deeds and registries and contained in the Palestine Survey submitted to the UN prior to partition.  As can be seen the Jews owned less than 10% of the land and the non-Jews over 90%.
> 
> View attachment 32799
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *As to the population of this area, the 1911 Encyclopedia lists it as follows:*
> 
> The total population of the country is roughly estimated at 650,000, but no authentic official census exists from which satisfactory information on this point is obtainable.* Some two-thirds of this number are Moslems, the rest Christians of various sects, and Jews.* The largest town in Palestine is Jerusalem, estimated to contain a population of about 60,000. The other towns of above Io,000 inhabitants are Jaffa (45,000), Gaza (35,000), Safed (30,000), Nablus (25,000), Kerak (20,000), Hebron (18,500), Es-Salt (15,000), Acre (11,000), Nazareth (11,000).
> Palestine - Encyclopedia
> 
> *That is to say, way less than one-third of the population were Jews and in my opinion, it is safe to say that hardly any of them were of the troublemaking, Johnny-come-later Ashkenazim variety.  ~ Susan*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You back to the 1911 Encyclopedia which you kept on referring to constantly and someone researched it* and found out that you were putting in words that were never there? * Where did all these Arabs come from? They probably came from Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, etc. when the Jews had jobs for them (as the British officials in the area reported), the same way the Arabs are flooding into Europe for jobs in today's world.  Do you even see all the new immigrants who are coming to America for jobs, Pishy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Do you like making a fool of yourself?  I provided an online link to the 1911 Encyclopedia for the information that I quoted from it.  What words did I put in that were never there?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just happened to mention that you faked out what was in the 1911 Encyclopedia when you kept on using it previously until someone caught you at it.  By the way, did you find any Encyclopedia that mentioned that Jordan was part of the Mandate and received 78% of the land on which so many of the Arabs happened to live?  Wasn't that great, Pishy, that 78% of the Mandate was given over to the Hashemites of Saudi Arabia?
> Hmm, I wonder if the Jews didn't start up businesses in Israel, if the Arabs from Syria, Egypt and so on would just have stayed in their original country trying to eke out a living.  We see how so many even now are going to Europe because their own countries can't supply the jobs they need to make a living for their families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More propaganda Hoss.  Trans-Jordan was never part of Palestine.  It was always a separate territory.  I have linked to official LoN documents that make it clear.  It is your typical Zionist propaganda that assholes like you either believe or repeat because you have nothing else to cling to.
Click to expand...


I still can't get over how the king of propaganda, Montelatici, accuses others of posting propaganda.

You are full of enough shit for every pro Palestinian here


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> *As to the population of this area, the 1911 Encyclopedia lists it as follows:*
> 
> The total population of the country is roughly estimated at 650,000, but no authentic official census exists from which satisfactory information on this point is obtainable.* Some two-thirds of this number are Moslems, the rest Christians of various sects, and Jews.* The largest town in Palestine is Jerusalem, estimated to contain a population of about 60,000. The other towns of above Io,000 inhabitants are Jaffa (45,000), Gaza (35,000), Safed (30,000), Nablus (25,000), Kerak (20,000), Hebron (18,500), Es-Salt (15,000), Acre (11,000), Nazareth (11,000).
> Palestine - Encyclopedia
> 
> *That is to say, way less than one-third of the population were Jews and in my opinion, it is safe to say that hardly any of them were of the troublemaking, Johnny-come-later Ashkenazim variety.  ~ Susan*
> 
> 
> 
> You back to the 1911 Encyclopedia which you kept on referring to constantly and someone researched it* and found out that you were putting in words that were never there? * Where did all these Arabs come from? They probably came from Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, etc. when the Jews had jobs for them (as the British officials in the area reported), the same way the Arabs are flooding into Europe for jobs in today's world.  Do you even see all the new immigrants who are coming to America for jobs, Pishy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Do you like making a fool of yourself?  I provided an online link to the 1911 Encyclopedia for the information that I quoted from it.  What words did I put in that were never there?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just happened to mention that you faked out what was in the 1911 Encyclopedia when you kept on using it previously until someone caught you at it.  By the way, did you find any Encyclopedia that mentioned that Jordan was part of the Mandate and received 78% of the land on which so many of the Arabs happened to live?  Wasn't that great, Pishy, that 78% of the Mandate was given over to the Hashemites of Saudi Arabia?
> Hmm, I wonder if the Jews didn't start up businesses in Israel, if the Arabs from Syria, Egypt and so on would just have stayed in their original country trying to eke out a living.  We see how so many even now are going to Europe because their own countries can't supply the jobs they need to make a living for their families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More propaganda Hoss.  Trans-Jordan was never part of Palestine.  It was always a separate territory.  I have linked to official LoN documents that make it clear.  It is your typical Zionist propaganda that assholes like you either believe or repeat because you have nothing else to cling to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I still can't get over how the king of propaganda, Montelatici, accuses others of posting propaganda.
> 
> You are full of enough shit for every pro Palestinian here
Click to expand...


I only post links to fact.  Sometimes I will contrast a Zionist propaganda cartoon with a cartoon from Europe, but that's it.  You are the propagandist.  You never link to a neutral site, you only link to Zionist propaganda sites. You have never linked to official archives, never.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You back to the 1911 Encyclopedia which you kept on referring to constantly and someone researched it* and found out that you were putting in words that were never there? * Where did all these Arabs come from? They probably came from Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, etc. when the Jews had jobs for them (as the British officials in the area reported), the same way the Arabs are flooding into Europe for jobs in today's world.  Do you even see all the new immigrants who are coming to America for jobs, Pishy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you like making a fool of yourself?  I provided an online link to the 1911 Encyclopedia for the information that I quoted from it.  What words did I put in that were never there?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just happened to mention that you faked out what was in the 1911 Encyclopedia when you kept on using it previously until someone caught you at it.  By the way, did you find any Encyclopedia that mentioned that Jordan was part of the Mandate and received 78% of the land on which so many of the Arabs happened to live?  Wasn't that great, Pishy, that 78% of the Mandate was given over to the Hashemites of Saudi Arabia?
> Hmm, I wonder if the Jews didn't start up businesses in Israel, if the Arabs from Syria, Egypt and so on would just have stayed in their original country trying to eke out a living.  We see how so many even now are going to Europe because their own countries can't supply the jobs they need to make a living for their families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More propaganda Hoss.  Trans-Jordan was never part of Palestine.  It was always a separate territory.  I have linked to official LoN documents that make it clear.  It is your typical Zionist propaganda that assholes like you either believe or repeat because you have nothing else to cling to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I still can't get over how the king of propaganda, Montelatici, accuses others of posting propaganda.
> 
> You are full of enough shit for every pro Palestinian here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made that stupid lie about me before. What propaganda sites have I used?
> 
> And calling me a propagandist is just your method of taking the attention off you. You are a propagandist. 100%. This is not an opinion. Are you related to Goebbels ?
> Montelatici = king of Propaganda and bullshit lies !
Click to expand...


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jew propaganda as usual.  Have you ever posted anything from a neutral site? Ever?  It's like posting links to the protocols of Zion.  You should be banned for linking to racist sites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your answer to everything.
> 
> Why don't you point out what you consider to be propaganda and what you consider to be false in the article ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 2 falsehoods in the first paragraph why go any further?
> 
> 1. The Latin Kingdom was a sovereign state with Jerusalem as its capital.  The Palestinian Christians of the Latin faith today (and many converts to slam) are the heirs of the Kingdom.
> 
> 2. The Palestinian Christians and Muslims  called themselves Palestinian long before 1964 as the first paragraph of this crap propaganda pieces states.  There is written evidence from 1922.
> 
> A letter from the Palestinian Delegation in London to the British written in 1922.
> 
> "no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable."- See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jew propaganda as usual.  Have you ever posted anything from a neutral site? Ever?  It's like posting links to the protocols of Zion.  You should be banned for linking to racist sites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your answer to everything.
> 
> Why don't you point out what you consider to be propaganda and what you consider to be false in the article ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 2 falsehoods in the first paragraph why go any further?
> 
> 1. The Latin Kingdom was a sovereign state with Jerusalem as its capital.  The Palestinian Christians of the Latin faith (and many converts to Islam) are the heirs of the Kingdom.
> 
> 2. The propaganda piece claims there were no Palestinians prior to 1964.  There are letters from the Palestinian Delegation to London to the British from 1922 that contradict this propaganda. It is a complete piece of trash propaganda that Goebbels would be proud of, but inevitably you will believe, you dunce.
> 
> "If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant *the People of Palestine *— who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration."-
> 
> See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) The first paragraph says there was never a sovereign state called Palestine.That is 100% true. IT does not mention a kingdom
> 
> 2) No, the people were not referred to as Palestinians until 1964. Your link says 'People of Palestine' , not 'Palestinians you uneducated propaganda spewing liar.
> 
> So once again, you were wrong. Lets try again. Which part of the article do you consider propaganda and untrue ?
Click to expand...


1. So a kingdom is not a sovereign state?  What a tool you are. So, the UK isn't a state.

2. So the "People of Palestine" are not Palestinians?  Isn't that a stretch even for a moron like you. 

You do realize you are making a fool of yourself.


----------



## montelatici

From this excerpt of one of the letters from the Christians and Muslims to the British, it shows that they knew that the British were going to screw them.  

"When we protested against the recognition of Hebrew as an official language in the State we were told it was harmless; now we see that our fears have been realised, and that this very recognition is used as an argument to establish "a right."

*Besides, we have always claimed for this community the same rights and privileges as ourselves since with us they were Ottoman citizens.* But to argue as the Memorandum does, that because the present Jewish community in Palestine is there by "right," this right should be extended to all the Jews of the world, is a line of reasoning which no people, let alone Arabs, would accept if applied to itself.

We have shown over and over again that the supposed historic connection of the Jews with Palestine rests upon very slender historic data. The historic rights of the Arabs are far stronger than those of the Jews. Palestine had a native population before the Jews even went there, and this population has persisted all down the ages and never assimilated with the Jewish tribes, who were always a people to themselves. The Arabs, on the other hand, have been settled on the land for more than 1,500 years, and are the present owners of the soil.

Further, Christians as well as Moslems look upon Palestine as a sacred land, and make yearly pilgrimages to it in a spirit of devotion and prayer. Any religious sentiment, therefore, which the Jews might cherish for Palestine is exceeded by Christian and Moslem sentiment for that country."

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


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> When a Mexican that can't speak English  proclaims to be an American (through an interpreter)  and threatens me, I have to laugh. Who decides WHOM is what? Screw Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Mexican is by definition an American.  Most Americans speak Spanish or Portuguese, not English.
Click to expand...


farthest land or new land is a general term.  When most people speak of american, they are speaking of north american or USA.
Central americans would include mexican.  Brazil is the largest portuguese speaking country and 200,000,000.  English is the largest spoken language in North American at 500,000,000 (300,000,000+ in the USA).


----------



## P F Tinmore

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jew propaganda as usual.  Have you ever posted anything from a neutral site? Ever?  It's like posting links to the protocols of Zion.  You should be banned for linking to racist sites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your answer to everything.
> 
> Why don't you point out what you consider to be propaganda and what you consider to be false in the article ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 2 falsehoods in the first paragraph why go any further?
> 
> 1. The Latin Kingdom was a sovereign state with Jerusalem as its capital.  The Palestinian Christians of the Latin faith today (and many converts to slam) are the heirs of the Kingdom.
> 
> 2. The Palestinian Christians and Muslims  called themselves Palestinian long before 1964 as the first paragraph of this crap propaganda pieces states.  There is written evidence from 1922.
> 
> A letter from the Palestinian Delegation in London to the British written in 1922.
> 
> "no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable."- See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jew propaganda as usual.  Have you ever posted anything from a neutral site? Ever?  It's like posting links to the protocols of Zion.  You should be banned for linking to racist sites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your answer to everything.
> 
> Why don't you point out what you consider to be propaganda and what you consider to be false in the article ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 2 falsehoods in the first paragraph why go any further?
> 
> 1. The Latin Kingdom was a sovereign state with Jerusalem as its capital.  The Palestinian Christians of the Latin faith (and many converts to Islam) are the heirs of the Kingdom.
> 
> 2. The propaganda piece claims there were no Palestinians prior to 1964.  There are letters from the Palestinian Delegation to London to the British from 1922 that contradict this propaganda. It is a complete piece of trash propaganda that Goebbels would be proud of, but inevitably you will believe, you dunce.
> 
> "If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant *the People of Palestine *— who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration."-
> 
> See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) The first paragraph says there was never a sovereign state called Palestine.That is 100% true. IT does not mention a kingdom
> 
> 2) No, the people were not referred to as Palestinians until 1964. Your link says 'People of Palestine' , not 'Palestinians you uneducated propaganda spewing liar.
> 
> So once again, you were wrong. Lets try again. Which part of the article do you consider propaganda and untrue ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. So a kingdom is not a sovereign state?  What a tool you are. So, the UK isn't a state.
> 
> 2. So the "People of Palestine" are not Palestinians?  Isn't that a stretch even for a moron like you.
> 
> You do realize you are making a fool of yourself.
Click to expand...

The first Palestine Citizenship Order was enacted by Britain on 24 July 1925; it was the first official enactment that outlined the legal definition of a Palestinian. Its first article defined a Palestinian as a "Turkish subject habitually resident in the territory of Palestine."

History of Palestinian nationality - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jew propaganda as usual.  Have you ever posted anything from a neutral site? Ever?  It's like posting links to the protocols of Zion.  You should be banned for linking to racist sites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your answer to everything.
> 
> Why don't you point out what you consider to be propaganda and what you consider to be false in the article ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 2 falsehoods in the first paragraph why go any further?
> 
> 1. The Latin Kingdom was a sovereign state with Jerusalem as its capital.  The Palestinian Christians of the Latin faith today (and many converts to slam) are the heirs of the Kingdom.
> 
> 2. The Palestinian Christians and Muslims  called themselves Palestinian long before 1964 as the first paragraph of this crap propaganda pieces states.  There is written evidence from 1922.
> 
> A letter from the Palestinian Delegation in London to the British written in 1922.
> 
> "no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable."- See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jew propaganda as usual.  Have you ever posted anything from a neutral site? Ever?  It's like posting links to the protocols of Zion.  You should be banned for linking to racist sites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your answer to everything.
> 
> Why don't you point out what you consider to be propaganda and what you consider to be false in the article ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 2 falsehoods in the first paragraph why go any further?
> 
> 1. The Latin Kingdom was a sovereign state with Jerusalem as its capital.  The Palestinian Christians of the Latin faith (and many converts to Islam) are the heirs of the Kingdom.
> 
> 2. The propaganda piece claims there were no Palestinians prior to 1964.  There are letters from the Palestinian Delegation to London to the British from 1922 that contradict this propaganda. It is a complete piece of trash propaganda that Goebbels would be proud of, but inevitably you will believe, you dunce.
> 
> "If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant *the People of Palestine *— who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration."-
> 
> See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) The first paragraph says there was never a sovereign state called Palestine.That is 100% true. IT does not mention a kingdom
> 
> 2) No, the people were not referred to as Palestinians until 1964. Your link says 'People of Palestine' , not 'Palestinians you uneducated propaganda spewing liar.
> 
> So once again, you were wrong. Lets try again. Which part of the article do you consider propaganda and untrue ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. So a kingdom is not a sovereign state?  What a tool you are. So, the UK isn't a state.
> 
> 2. So the "People of Palestine" are not Palestinians?  Isn't that a stretch even for a moron like you.
> 
> You do realize you are making a fool of yourself.
Click to expand...


You are a massive failure!

1) The article said there was NEVER A PALESTINIAN SOVEREIGN STATE. I never said the kingdom is not a sovereign state.What's the matter with you ???. Learn how to read before you respond to me you deluded idiot. 

2) The People of Palestine were referred to as Arabs before the 1960's. Finding a link that says 'People of Palestine' means nothing

So, you make a massive fool out of yourself but accuse me of doing so. Interesting. Clown


----------



## montelatici

aris2chat said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> When a Mexican that can't speak English  proclaims to be an American (through an interpreter)  and threatens me, I have to laugh. Who decides WHOM is what? Screw Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Mexican is by definition an American.  Most Americans speak Spanish or Portuguese, not English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> farthest land or new land is a general term.  When most people speak of american, they are speaking of north american or USA.
> Central americans would include mexican.  Brazil is the largest portuguese speaking country and 200,000,000.  English is the largest spoken language in North American at 500,000,000 (300,000,000+ in the USA).
Click to expand...


Mexico is in North America.  I see you haven't been to Latin America.  I go there often and have lived there.  North Americans are not referred to as Americans in the Americas outside of Canada and the US.  They are either gringos or norte americanos. 

Don't spar with me on these things.  I am far smarter than you are.  English is second to Spanish in the Americas and more than twice the people speak Spanish and Portuguese than English.  This link is in Spanish but you can figure it out.

"

El español es hablado por más de 372 millones de personas, concentrándose principalmente en México, Centroamérica y Sudamérica. Existen además importantes comunidades hispanoparlantes en Estados Unidos y algunas islas del Caribe. 
El inglés es hablado por unos 325 millones de personas. Es el idioma más hablado en Estados Unidos y es oficial en Canadá, Belice, Guyana, las Islas Malvinas y algunos territorios antillanos. En *Puerto Rico* está presente como segundo idioma oficial.
El portugués es el idioma oficial de Brasil, con un total de más de 185 millones de parlantes.
Lenguaje lengua y habla Idiomas m s hablados y m s importantes de Am rica


----------



## Grendelyn

Hossfly said:


> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um.....what?
> 
> So you are saying that it is false that most kibbutzim and moshavim were settled on land legally bought from Arabic owners during the period 1899 - 1935?
> 
> I have now read perhaps 10 comments from you - everyone one them contains horrendous errors of facts. If you don't know the facts - do not make them up around people who know better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the real land ownership data as registered by the British from deeds and registries and contained in the Palestine Survey submitted to the UN prior to partition.  As can be seen the Jews owned less than 10% of the land and the non-Jews over 90%.
> 
> View attachment 32799
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *As to the population of this area, the 1911 Encyclopedia lists it as follows:*
> 
> The total population of the country is roughly estimated at 650,000, but no authentic official census exists from which satisfactory information on this point is obtainable.* Some two-thirds of this number are Moslems, the rest Christians of various sects, and Jews.* The largest town in Palestine is Jerusalem, estimated to contain a population of about 60,000. The other towns of above Io,000 inhabitants are Jaffa (45,000), Gaza (35,000), Safed (30,000), Nablus (25,000), Kerak (20,000), Hebron (18,500), Es-Salt (15,000), Acre (11,000), Nazareth (11,000).
> Palestine - Encyclopedia
> 
> *That is to say, way less than one-third of the population were Jews and in my opinion, it is safe to say that hardly any of them were of the troublemaking, Johnny-come-later Ashkenazim variety.  ~ Susan*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You back to the 1911 Encyclopedia which you kept on referring to constantly and someone researched it* and found out that you were putting in words that were never there? * Where did all these Arabs come from? They probably came from Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, etc. when the Jews had jobs for them (as the British officials in the area reported), the same way the Arabs are flooding into Europe for jobs in today's world.  Do you even see all the new immigrants who are coming to America for jobs, Pishy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Do you like making a fool of yourself?  I provided an online link to the 1911 Encyclopedia for the information that I quoted from it.  What words did I put in that were never there?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why the 1911 edition? Don't like the modern version?
Click to expand...


*It's impartial since it came out at a time when there was no Israel to have influence in American affairs. *


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> When a Mexican that can't speak English  proclaims to be an American (through an interpreter)  and threatens me, I have to laugh. Who decides WHOM is what? Screw Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Mexican is by definition an American.  Most Americans speak Spanish or Portuguese, not English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> farthest land or new land is a general term.  When most people speak of american, they are speaking of north american or USA.
> Central americans would include mexican.  Brazil is the largest portuguese speaking country and 200,000,000.  English is the largest spoken language in North American at 500,000,000 (300,000,000+ in the USA).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mexico is in North America.  I see you haven't been to Latin America.  I go there often and have lived there.  North Americans are not referred to as Americans in the Americas outside of Canada and the US.  They are either gringos or norte americanos.
> 
> Don't spar with me on these things.  I am far smarter than you are.  English is second to Spanish in the Americas and more than twice the people speak Spanish and Portuguese than English.  This link is in Spanish but you can figure it out.
> 
> "
> 
> El español es hablado por más de 372 millones de personas, concentrándose principalmente en México, Centroamérica y Sudamérica. Existen además importantes comunidades hispanoparlantes en Estados Unidos y algunas islas del Caribe.
> El inglés es hablado por unos 325 millones de personas. Es el idioma más hablado en Estados Unidos y es oficial en Canadá, Belice, Guyana, las Islas Malvinas y algunos territorios antillanos. En *Puerto Rico* está presente como segundo idioma oficial.
> El portugués es el idioma oficial de Brasil, con un total de más de 185 millones de parlantes.
> Lenguaje lengua y habla Idiomas m s hablados y m s importantes de Am rica
Click to expand...

Pompous ass.


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jew propaganda as usual.  Have you ever posted anything from a neutral site? Ever?  It's like posting links to the protocols of Zion.  You should be banned for linking to racist sites.
> 
> 
> 
> That's your answer to everything.
> 
> Why don't you point out what you consider to be propaganda and what you consider to be false in the article ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 2 falsehoods in the first paragraph why go any further?
> 
> 1. The Latin Kingdom was a sovereign state with Jerusalem as its capital.  The Palestinian Christians of the Latin faith today (and many converts to slam) are the heirs of the Kingdom.
> 
> 2. The Palestinian Christians and Muslims  called themselves Palestinian long before 1964 as the first paragraph of this crap propaganda pieces states.  There is written evidence from 1922.
> 
> A letter from the Palestinian Delegation in London to the British written in 1922.
> 
> "no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable."- See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jew propaganda as usual.  Have you ever posted anything from a neutral site? Ever?  It's like posting links to the protocols of Zion.  You should be banned for linking to racist sites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your answer to everything.
> 
> Why don't you point out what you consider to be propaganda and what you consider to be false in the article ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 2 falsehoods in the first paragraph why go any further?
> 
> 1. The Latin Kingdom was a sovereign state with Jerusalem as its capital.  The Palestinian Christians of the Latin faith (and many converts to Islam) are the heirs of the Kingdom.
> 
> 2. The propaganda piece claims there were no Palestinians prior to 1964.  There are letters from the Palestinian Delegation to London to the British from 1922 that contradict this propaganda. It is a complete piece of trash propaganda that Goebbels would be proud of, but inevitably you will believe, you dunce.
> 
> "If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant *the People of Palestine *— who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration."-
> 
> See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) The first paragraph says there was never a sovereign state called Palestine.That is 100% true. IT does not mention a kingdom
> 
> 2) No, the people were not referred to as Palestinians until 1964. Your link says 'People of Palestine' , not 'Palestinians you uneducated propaganda spewing liar.
> 
> So once again, you were wrong. Lets try again. Which part of the article do you consider propaganda and untrue ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. So a kingdom is not a sovereign state?  What a tool you are. So, the UK isn't a state.
> 
> 2. So the "People of Palestine" are not Palestinians?  Isn't that a stretch even for a moron like you.
> 
> You do realize you are making a fool of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a massive failure!
> 
> 1) The article said there was NEVER A PALESTINIAN SOVEREIGN STATE. I never said the kingdom is not a sovereign state.What's the matter with you ???. Learn how to read before you respond to me you deluded idiot.
> 
> 2) The People of Palestine were referred to as Arabs before the 1960's. Finding a link that says 'People of Palestine' means nothing
> 
> So, you make a massive fool out of yourself but accuse me of doing so. Interesting. Clown
Click to expand...


What's interesting is that Tinmore added to your misery, fool.  You are making a fool of yourself, keep digging.  

So, you claim that a Kingdom ruled by Christians in Palestine is not a sovereign  state?  Who do you think the Palestinian Christians are you moron?


----------



## Hossfly

Grendelyn said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the real land ownership data as registered by the British from deeds and registries and contained in the Palestine Survey submitted to the UN prior to partition.  As can be seen the Jews owned less than 10% of the land and the non-Jews over 90%.
> 
> View attachment 32799
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *As to the population of this area, the 1911 Encyclopedia lists it as follows:*
> 
> The total population of the country is roughly estimated at 650,000, but no authentic official census exists from which satisfactory information on this point is obtainable.* Some two-thirds of this number are Moslems, the rest Christians of various sects, and Jews.* The largest town in Palestine is Jerusalem, estimated to contain a population of about 60,000. The other towns of above Io,000 inhabitants are Jaffa (45,000), Gaza (35,000), Safed (30,000), Nablus (25,000), Kerak (20,000), Hebron (18,500), Es-Salt (15,000), Acre (11,000), Nazareth (11,000).
> Palestine - Encyclopedia
> 
> *That is to say, way less than one-third of the population were Jews and in my opinion, it is safe to say that hardly any of them were of the troublemaking, Johnny-come-later Ashkenazim variety.  ~ Susan*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You back to the 1911 Encyclopedia which you kept on referring to constantly and someone researched it* and found out that you were putting in words that were never there? * Where did all these Arabs come from? They probably came from Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, etc. when the Jews had jobs for them (as the British officials in the area reported), the same way the Arabs are flooding into Europe for jobs in today's world.  Do you even see all the new immigrants who are coming to America for jobs, Pishy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Do you like making a fool of yourself?  I provided an online link to the 1911 Encyclopedia for the information that I quoted from it.  What words did I put in that were never there?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why the 1911 edition? Don't like the modern version?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It's impartial since it came out at a time when there was no Israel to have influence in American affairs. *
Click to expand...

Wasn't a whole lot of things going on in 1911.


----------



## montelatici

Hossfly said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> When a Mexican that can't speak English  proclaims to be an American (through an interpreter)  and threatens me, I have to laugh. Who decides WHOM is what? Screw Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Mexican is by definition an American.  Most Americans speak Spanish or Portuguese, not English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> farthest land or new land is a general term.  When most people speak of american, they are speaking of north american or USA.
> Central americans would include mexican.  Brazil is the largest portuguese speaking country and 200,000,000.  English is the largest spoken language in North American at 500,000,000 (300,000,000+ in the USA).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mexico is in North America.  I see you haven't been to Latin America.  I go there often and have lived there.  North Americans are not referred to as Americans in the Americas outside of Canada and the US.  They are either gringos or norte americanos.
> 
> Don't spar with me on these things.  I am far smarter than you are.  English is second to Spanish in the Americas and more than twice the people speak Spanish and Portuguese than English.  This link is in Spanish but you can figure it out.
> 
> "
> 
> El español es hablado por más de 372 millones de personas, concentrándose principalmente en México, Centroamérica y Sudamérica. Existen además importantes comunidades hispanoparlantes en Estados Unidos y algunas islas del Caribe.
> El inglés es hablado por unos 325 millones de personas. Es el idioma más hablado en Estados Unidos y es oficial en Canadá, Belice, Guyana, las Islas Malvinas y algunos territorios antillanos. En *Puerto Rico* está presente como segundo idioma oficial.
> El portugués es el idioma oficial de Brasil, con un total de más de 185 millones de parlantes.
> Lenguaje lengua y habla Idiomas m s hablados y m s importantes de Am rica
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pompous ass.
Click to expand...


Pompous means I made my point.


----------



## montelatici

Hossfly said:


> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> *As to the population of this area, the 1911 Encyclopedia lists it as follows:*
> 
> The total population of the country is roughly estimated at 650,000, but no authentic official census exists from which satisfactory information on this point is obtainable.* Some two-thirds of this number are Moslems, the rest Christians of various sects, and Jews.* The largest town in Palestine is Jerusalem, estimated to contain a population of about 60,000. The other towns of above Io,000 inhabitants are Jaffa (45,000), Gaza (35,000), Safed (30,000), Nablus (25,000), Kerak (20,000), Hebron (18,500), Es-Salt (15,000), Acre (11,000), Nazareth (11,000).
> Palestine - Encyclopedia
> 
> *That is to say, way less than one-third of the population were Jews and in my opinion, it is safe to say that hardly any of them were of the troublemaking, Johnny-come-later Ashkenazim variety.  ~ Susan*
> 
> 
> 
> You back to the 1911 Encyclopedia which you kept on referring to constantly and someone researched it* and found out that you were putting in words that were never there? * Where did all these Arabs come from? They probably came from Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, etc. when the Jews had jobs for them (as the British officials in the area reported), the same way the Arabs are flooding into Europe for jobs in today's world.  Do you even see all the new immigrants who are coming to America for jobs, Pishy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Do you like making a fool of yourself?  I provided an online link to the 1911 Encyclopedia for the information that I quoted from it.  What words did I put in that were never there?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why the 1911 edition? Don't like the modern version?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It's impartial since it came out at a time when there was no Israel to have influence in American affairs. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wasn't a whole lot of things going on in 1911.
Click to expand...


Why do you post nonsense?  You really do want to confirm that you are a fool.


----------



## Hossfly

Point is, if you were half as smart as you think you are you wouldn't be half as smart as I think you are. Nor a tenth as smart as Aris. montelatici


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's your answer to everything.
> 
> Why don't you point out what you consider to be propaganda and what you consider to be false in the article ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are 2 falsehoods in the first paragraph why go any further?
> 
> 1. The Latin Kingdom was a sovereign state with Jerusalem as its capital.  The Palestinian Christians of the Latin faith today (and many converts to slam) are the heirs of the Kingdom.
> 
> 2. The Palestinian Christians and Muslims  called themselves Palestinian long before 1964 as the first paragraph of this crap propaganda pieces states.  There is written evidence from 1922.
> 
> A letter from the Palestinian Delegation in London to the British written in 1922.
> 
> "no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable."- See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's your answer to everything.
> 
> Why don't you point out what you consider to be propaganda and what you consider to be false in the article ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 2 falsehoods in the first paragraph why go any further?
> 
> 1. The Latin Kingdom was a sovereign state with Jerusalem as its capital.  The Palestinian Christians of the Latin faith (and many converts to Islam) are the heirs of the Kingdom.
> 
> 2. The propaganda piece claims there were no Palestinians prior to 1964.  There are letters from the Palestinian Delegation to London to the British from 1922 that contradict this propaganda. It is a complete piece of trash propaganda that Goebbels would be proud of, but inevitably you will believe, you dunce.
> 
> "If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant *the People of Palestine *— who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration."-
> 
> See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) The first paragraph says there was never a sovereign state called Palestine.That is 100% true. IT does not mention a kingdom
> 
> 2) No, the people were not referred to as Palestinians until 1964. Your link says 'People of Palestine' , not 'Palestinians you uneducated propaganda spewing liar.
> 
> So once again, you were wrong. Lets try again. Which part of the article do you consider propaganda and untrue ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. So a kingdom is not a sovereign state?  What a tool you are. So, the UK isn't a state.
> 
> 2. So the "People of Palestine" are not Palestinians?  Isn't that a stretch even for a moron like you.
> 
> You do realize you are making a fool of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a massive failure!
> 
> 1) The article said there was NEVER A PALESTINIAN SOVEREIGN STATE. I never said the kingdom is not a sovereign state.What's the matter with you ???. Learn how to read before you respond to me you deluded idiot.
> 
> 2) The People of Palestine were referred to as Arabs before the 1960's. Finding a link that says 'People of Palestine' means nothing
> 
> So, you make a massive fool out of yourself but accuse me of doing so. Interesting. Clown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's interesting is that Tinmore added to your misery, fool.  You are making a fool of yourself, keep digging.
> 
> So, you claim that a Kingdom ruled by Christians in Palestine is not a sovereign  state?  Who do you think the Palestinian Christians are you moron?
Click to expand...


Wow, you incredibly stupid moron ! There was no sovereign state called Palestine. That is what I said and that is what the article said ! Stop trying to deflect to take attention away from your embarrassing mistake !
You're stupidity knows no bounds. You truly are something else propaganda - latici


----------



## toastman

Hossfly said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> When a Mexican that can't speak English  proclaims to be an American (through an interpreter)  and threatens me, I have to laugh. Who decides WHOM is what? Screw Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Mexican is by definition an American.  Most Americans speak Spanish or Portuguese, not English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> farthest land or new land is a general term.  When most people speak of american, they are speaking of north american or USA.
> Central americans would include mexican.  Brazil is the largest portuguese speaking country and 200,000,000.  English is the largest spoken language in North American at 500,000,000 (300,000,000+ in the USA).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mexico is in North America.  I see you haven't been to Latin America.  I go there often and have lived there.  North Americans are not referred to as Americans in the Americas outside of Canada and the US.  They are either gringos or norte americanos.
> 
> Don't spar with me on these things.  I am far smarter than you are.  English is second to Spanish in the Americas and more than twice the people speak Spanish and Portuguese than English.  This link is in Spanish but you can figure it out.
> 
> "
> 
> El español es hablado por más de 372 millones de personas, concentrándose principalmente en México, Centroamérica y Sudamérica. Existen además importantes comunidades hispanoparlantes en Estados Unidos y algunas islas del Caribe.
> El inglés es hablado por unos 325 millones de personas. Es el idioma más hablado en Estados Unidos y es oficial en Canadá, Belice, Guyana, las Islas Malvinas y algunos territorios antillanos. En *Puerto Rico* está presente como segundo idioma oficial.
> El portugués es el idioma oficial de Brasil, con un total de más de 185 millones de parlantes.
> Lenguaje lengua y habla Idiomas m s hablados y m s importantes de Am rica
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pompous ass.
Click to expand...


Propaganda - latici is one of a kind, isn't he?


----------



## montelatici

Hossfly said:


> Point is, if you were half as smart as you think you are you wouldn't be half as smart as I think you are. Nor a tenth as smart as Aris. montelatici



Oh dear, no retort of consequence, no link nada.  As usual, you are a clown.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> When a Mexican that can't speak English  proclaims to be an American (through an interpreter)  and threatens me, I have to laugh. Who decides WHOM is what? Screw Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Mexican is by definition an American.  Most Americans speak Spanish or Portuguese, not English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> farthest land or new land is a general term.  When most people speak of american, they are speaking of north american or USA.
> Central americans would include mexican.  Brazil is the largest portuguese speaking country and 200,000,000.  English is the largest spoken language in North American at 500,000,000 (300,000,000+ in the USA).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mexico is in North America.  I see you haven't been to Latin America.  I go there often and have lived there.  North Americans are not referred to as Americans in the Americas outside of Canada and the US.  They are either gringos or norte americanos.
> 
> Don't spar with me on these things.  I am far smarter than you are.  English is second to Spanish in the Americas and more than twice the people speak Spanish and Portuguese than English.  This link is in Spanish but you can figure it out.
> 
> "
> 
> El español es hablado por más de 372 millones de personas, concentrándose principalmente en México, Centroamérica y Sudamérica. Existen además importantes comunidades hispanoparlantes en Estados Unidos y algunas islas del Caribe.
> El inglés es hablado por unos 325 millones de personas. Es el idioma más hablado en Estados Unidos y es oficial en Canadá, Belice, Guyana, las Islas Malvinas y algunos territorios antillanos. En *Puerto Rico* está presente como segundo idioma oficial.
> El portugués es el idioma oficial de Brasil, con un total de más de 185 millones de parlantes.
> Lenguaje lengua y habla Idiomas m s hablados y m s importantes de Am rica
Click to expand...


"I am far smarter than you are"

People who constantly claim how smart they are, like you have been doing, are likely to be incredibly stupid. In your case, you are DEFINITELY stupid.


----------



## Hossfly

toastman said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> When a Mexican that can't speak English  proclaims to be an American (through an interpreter)  and threatens me, I have to laugh. Who decides WHOM is what? Screw Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Mexican is by definition an American.  Most Americans speak Spanish or Portuguese, not English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> farthest land or new land is a general term.  When most people speak of american, they are speaking of north american or USA.
> Central americans would include mexican.  Brazil is the largest portuguese speaking country and 200,000,000.  English is the largest spoken language in North American at 500,000,000 (300,000,000+ in the USA).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mexico is in North America.  I see you haven't been to Latin America.  I go there often and have lived there.  North Americans are not referred to as Americans in the Americas outside of Canada and the US.  They are either gringos or norte americanos.
> 
> Don't spar with me on these things.  I am far smarter than you are.  English is second to Spanish in the Americas and more than twice the people speak Spanish and Portuguese than English.  This link is in Spanish but you can figure it out.
> 
> "
> 
> El español es hablado por más de 372 millones de personas, concentrándose principalmente en México, Centroamérica y Sudamérica. Existen además importantes comunidades hispanoparlantes en Estados Unidos y algunas islas del Caribe.
> El inglés es hablado por unos 325 millones de personas. Es el idioma más hablado en Estados Unidos y es oficial en Canadá, Belice, Guyana, las Islas Malvinas y algunos territorios antillanos. En *Puerto Rico* está presente como segundo idioma oficial.
> El portugués es el idioma oficial de Brasil, con un total de más de 185 millones de parlantes.
> Lenguaje lengua y habla Idiomas m s hablados y m s importantes de Am rica
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pompous ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Propaganda - latici is one of a kind, isn't he?
Click to expand...

Unique!


----------



## toastman

Hossfly said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Mexican is by definition an American.  Most Americans speak Spanish or Portuguese, not English.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> farthest land or new land is a general term.  When most people speak of american, they are speaking of north american or USA.
> Central americans would include mexican.  Brazil is the largest portuguese speaking country and 200,000,000.  English is the largest spoken language in North American at 500,000,000 (300,000,000+ in the USA).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mexico is in North America.  I see you haven't been to Latin America.  I go there often and have lived there.  North Americans are not referred to as Americans in the Americas outside of Canada and the US.  They are either gringos or norte americanos.
> 
> Don't spar with me on these things.  I am far smarter than you are.  English is second to Spanish in the Americas and more than twice the people speak Spanish and Portuguese than English.  This link is in Spanish but you can figure it out.
> 
> "
> 
> El español es hablado por más de 372 millones de personas, concentrándose principalmente en México, Centroamérica y Sudamérica. Existen además importantes comunidades hispanoparlantes en Estados Unidos y algunas islas del Caribe.
> El inglés es hablado por unos 325 millones de personas. Es el idioma más hablado en Estados Unidos y es oficial en Canadá, Belice, Guyana, las Islas Malvinas y algunos territorios antillanos. En *Puerto Rico* está presente como segundo idioma oficial.
> El portugués es el idioma oficial de Brasil, con un total de más de 185 millones de parlantes.
> Lenguaje lengua y habla Idiomas m s hablados y m s importantes de Am rica
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pompous ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Propaganda - latici is one of a kind, isn't he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unique!
Click to expand...


He's a mixture of Tinmore and Billo:

He's got Tinmore;s terrible propaganda filled grasp on this conflict with Billo's vulgarity.


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are 2 falsehoods in the first paragraph why go any further?
> 
> 1. The Latin Kingdom was a sovereign state with Jerusalem as its capital.  The Palestinian Christians of the Latin faith today (and many converts to slam) are the heirs of the Kingdom.
> 
> 2. The Palestinian Christians and Muslims  called themselves Palestinian long before 1964 as the first paragraph of this crap propaganda pieces states.  There is written evidence from 1922.
> 
> A letter from the Palestinian Delegation in London to the British written in 1922.
> 
> "no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable."- See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are 2 falsehoods in the first paragraph why go any further?
> 
> 1. The Latin Kingdom was a sovereign state with Jerusalem as its capital.  The Palestinian Christians of the Latin faith (and many converts to Islam) are the heirs of the Kingdom.
> 
> 2. The propaganda piece claims there were no Palestinians prior to 1964.  There are letters from the Palestinian Delegation to London to the British from 1922 that contradict this propaganda. It is a complete piece of trash propaganda that Goebbels would be proud of, but inevitably you will believe, you dunce.
> 
> "If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant *the People of Palestine *— who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration."-
> 
> See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) The first paragraph says there was never a sovereign state called Palestine.That is 100% true. IT does not mention a kingdom
> 
> 2) No, the people were not referred to as Palestinians until 1964. Your link says 'People of Palestine' , not 'Palestinians you uneducated propaganda spewing liar.
> 
> So once again, you were wrong. Lets try again. Which part of the article do you consider propaganda and untrue ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. So a kingdom is not a sovereign state?  What a tool you are. So, the UK isn't a state.
> 
> 2. So the "People of Palestine" are not Palestinians?  Isn't that a stretch even for a moron like you.
> 
> You do realize you are making a fool of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a massive failure!
> 
> 1) The article said there was NEVER A PALESTINIAN SOVEREIGN STATE. I never said the kingdom is not a sovereign state.What's the matter with you ???. Learn how to read before you respond to me you deluded idiot.
> 
> 2) The People of Palestine were referred to as Arabs before the 1960's. Finding a link that says 'People of Palestine' means nothing
> 
> So, you make a massive fool out of yourself but accuse me of doing so. Interesting. Clown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's interesting is that Tinmore added to your misery, fool.  You are making a fool of yourself, keep digging.
> 
> So, you claim that a Kingdom ruled by Christians in Palestine is not a sovereign  state?  Who do you think the Palestinian Christians are you moron?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you incredibly stupid moron ! There was no sovereign state called Palestine. That is what I said and that is what the article said ! Stop trying to deflect to take attention away from your embarrassing mistake !
> You're stupidity knows no bounds. You truly are something else propaganda - latici
Click to expand...


It was called the Latin Kingdom, so what.  the same people are there. It's like saying there was never a sovereign state in Tunisia because it was never called the Tunisian Republic.  You are truly a moron.  Carthage was sovereign.


----------



## montelatici

And, when you think about it.  There is no real proof that Israel ever was sovereign, unless you believe in fairy tales.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) The first paragraph says there was never a sovereign state called Palestine.That is 100% true. IT does not mention a kingdom
> 
> 2) No, the people were not referred to as Palestinians until 1964. Your link says 'People of Palestine' , not 'Palestinians you uneducated propaganda spewing liar.
> 
> So once again, you were wrong. Lets try again. Which part of the article do you consider propaganda and untrue ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. So a kingdom is not a sovereign state?  What a tool you are. So, the UK isn't a state.
> 
> 2. So the "People of Palestine" are not Palestinians?  Isn't that a stretch even for a moron like you.
> 
> You do realize you are making a fool of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a massive failure!
> 
> 1) The article said there was NEVER A PALESTINIAN SOVEREIGN STATE. I never said the kingdom is not a sovereign state.What's the matter with you ???. Learn how to read before you respond to me you deluded idiot.
> 
> 2) The People of Palestine were referred to as Arabs before the 1960's. Finding a link that says 'People of Palestine' means nothing
> 
> So, you make a massive fool out of yourself but accuse me of doing so. Interesting. Clown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's interesting is that Tinmore added to your misery, fool.  You are making a fool of yourself, keep digging.
> 
> So, you claim that a Kingdom ruled by Christians in Palestine is not a sovereign  state?  Who do you think the Palestinian Christians are you moron?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you incredibly stupid moron ! There was no sovereign state called Palestine. That is what I said and that is what the article said ! Stop trying to deflect to take attention away from your embarrassing mistake !
> You're stupidity knows no bounds. You truly are something else propaganda - latici
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was called the Latin Kingdom, so what.  the same people are there. It's like saying there was never a sovereign state in Tunisia because it was never called the Tunisian Republic.  You are truly a moron.  Carthage was sovereign.
Click to expand...

Hahahaha you're changing the subject now because you know you failed and made a massive fool of yourself. And of course you bring up Israel as a deflection tool. 
You are a one of a kind scumbag propaganda - latici. You lie, post propaganda, distort history, insult everyone who you don't agree with, run around posting how smart you are.... \quite a rare specimen


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> And, when you think about it.  There is no real proof that Israel ever was sovereign, unless you believe in fairy tales.



Nice deflection


----------



## aris2chat

toastman said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> When a Mexican that can't speak English  proclaims to be an American (through an interpreter)  and threatens me, I have to laugh. Who decides WHOM is what? Screw Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Mexican is by definition an American.  Most Americans speak Spanish or Portuguese, not English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> farthest land or new land is a general term.  When most people speak of american, they are speaking of north american or USA.
> Central americans would include mexican.  Brazil is the largest portuguese speaking country and 200,000,000.  English is the largest spoken language in North American at 500,000,000 (300,000,000+ in the USA).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mexico is in North America.  I see you haven't been to Latin America.  I go there often and have lived there.  North Americans are not referred to as Americans in the Americas outside of Canada and the US.  They are either gringos or norte americanos.
> 
> Don't spar with me on these things.  I am far smarter than you are.  English is second to Spanish in the Americas and more than twice the people speak Spanish and Portuguese than English.  This link is in Spanish but you can figure it out.
> 
> "
> 
> El español es hablado por más de 372 millones de personas, concentrándose principalmente en México, Centroamérica y Sudamérica. Existen además importantes comunidades hispanoparlantes en Estados Unidos y algunas islas del Caribe.
> El inglés es hablado por unos 325 millones de personas. Es el idioma más hablado en Estados Unidos y es oficial en Canadá, Belice, Guyana, las Islas Malvinas y algunos territorios antillanos. En *Puerto Rico* está presente como segundo idioma oficial.
> El portugués es el idioma oficial de Brasil, con un total de más de 185 millones de parlantes.
> Lenguaje lengua y habla Idiomas m s hablados y m s importantes de Am rica
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pompous ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Propaganda - latici is one of a kind, isn't he?
Click to expand...


He is a very small fish in the disinformation pond.  
They think fear mongering, a bull horn and soapbox make them experts.  It just make them vexatious bores.


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> And, when you think about it.  There is no real proof that Israel ever was sovereign, unless you believe in fairy tales.


 
every ancient kingdom and all three major religious text all lied and only you speak the truth?  And we are to believe you because?


----------



## Friends

Penelope said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are people like this:
> 
> In one case, a Palestinian boy admitted to reciting the Qur'an while strangling his sister for dishonoring her family. The girl was killed because her desire for independence became public knowledge...
> 
> Even when apprehended, murderers serve little or no jail time because honor killings are accorded special status in the courts. Men convicted of premeditated murder may be imprisoned for as little as three to six months. Upon their release, friends and relatives treat them like celebrities. Ahmed, a Palestinian boy who killed his teenage sister because she refused an arranged marriage, was commended upon his release from jail. Neighbors showered him with compliments, and his father called him a hero for restoring the family honor.
> Anthropologist Community - Reputation is Everything Honor Killing Among the Palestinians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I am not saying there  are not some who still do some of this stuff, as we continually try and keep the Muslims in the stone age, by impeding their progress,
> by destroying their countries, but the article seems to be mainly from The Frontpage Mag, of which  Robert Spencer writes Jihad watch, and seems to have a real problem with Muslims in general. Also that Mag's  founder and owner is a Jewish man, so I would take anything they write with caution as it might just be bias.
> 
> I not saying this stuff is still not happening on occasion , but that is all the more reason we should not destabilize their countries and cause unrest, but spend the money we spend on waring on some education and human rights programs, and the first place we can start is Saudi Arabia, but no we never say anything about them do we? Strange.
Click to expand...

 
You are like those people who blame whites for the fact that blacks commit all those crimes and have all those illegitimate children. The Palestinians were the way they are before the creation of Israel. They will be that way if they ever succeed in destroying Israel and killing all the Jews there.


----------



## Friends

montelatici said:


> A Dunam is 1000 square meters, as stated.  The Non-Jews owned 24,679,455 Dunams the Jews 1,514,247 Dunams.  I know that when your propaganda bubble is burst it is difficult, but that is the fact.


 
So what. The Jews have pushed the Palestinians out, and created a far better society.


----------



## Grendelyn

Friends said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Dunam is 1000 square meters, as stated.  The Non-Jews owned 24,679,455 Dunams the Jews 1,514,247 Dunams.  I know that when your propaganda bubble is burst it is difficult, but that is the fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what. The Jews have* pushed* the Palestinians* out*, and created a far better society.
Click to expand...


*Pushed out, you say?  You're a Zionist s**th**d but never let it be said that you're not an honest Zionist s**th**d.  ~ Susan*


----------



## Hossfly

Grendelyn said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Dunam is 1000 square meters, as stated.  The Non-Jews owned 24,679,455 Dunams the Jews 1,514,247 Dunams.  I know that when your propaganda bubble is burst it is difficult, but that is the fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what. The Jews have* pushed* the Palestinians* out*, and created a far better society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Pushed out, you say?  You're a Zionist s**th**d but never let it be said that you're not an honest Zionist s**th**d.  ~ Susan*
Click to expand...

Aren't you describing yourself, Pishy?  There were many who thought of you as a sh*thead just using these Palestinians as pawns in your fight against the Jews.  For example, you care nothing about the Christians who are being pushed out of the Middle East by the Muslims, Christians whose ancestors had been there many, many years before Mohammed's group invaded their countries.


----------



## Phoenall

Penelope said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are people like this:
> 
> In one case, a Palestinian boy admitted to reciting the Qur'an while strangling his sister for dishonoring her family. The girl was killed because her desire for independence became public knowledge...
> 
> Even when apprehended, murderers serve little or no jail time because honor killings are accorded special status in the courts. Men convicted of premeditated murder may be imprisoned for as little as three to six months. Upon their release, friends and relatives treat them like celebrities. Ahmed, a Palestinian boy who killed his teenage sister because she refused an arranged marriage, was commended upon his release from jail. Neighbors showered him with compliments, and his father called him a hero for restoring the family honor.
> Anthropologist Community - Reputation is Everything Honor Killing Among the Palestinians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A mighty Jewish empire extended over this entire area before the Arabs and their Islam were even born!  The Jewish People have one of the most legitimate Birth Certificates of any nations in the world. And if you want to talk religion, fine.  G-d GAVE the Land of Israel to the Jewish People. And G-d does nothing by accident!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's as far as I got, a *mighty Jewish empire never existed*.
> 
> Also since most Jews in Israel are secular, we'll leave God out of it.
> 
> _(let me add, and if you insist God gave them the land, well God give it and God take it , which should be evident as no temple there, and Britain  is not God)._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And there was no arab muslim ownership of Palestine from 1099 until 1988. And there second most holy place "allegedly" was allowed to fall into ruin 3 times while islam was in control of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know what it doesn't matter, they were living there when the Zionist came so there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that so then do explain why they were thin on the ground before the Zionists came at the request of the Ottomans in the latter part of the 19C. And living on the land is not proof of ownership, if it was then the Jews have been there longer than the arab muslims giving them a far greater legal claim to the land. Or are you going to use the NAZI RACIST trick of claiming the rules don't apply equally to the Jews, just because they are Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I think living there and having lived there shows more ownership that immigration.
Click to expand...




 So you admit then that the Jews had and still have the greater claim to the land, and that the illegal migration of arab muslims should bar them from land ownership. Now why do you ignore the facts regarding the migration of Jews to Palestine by the lands legal owners from 1885 till 1948.


----------



## Phoenall

Penelope said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would someone tell me why I should care about the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in a rather oblique way, you should care about the invention of the people called "Palestinian"  because they have established that unrelenting Arab terrorism works. The more depraved they have acted, the more they have become the world's darlings, and so they set the stage for so much modern terrorism by showing how well it works on useful idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think your getting the Pals confused with the Zionists.
Click to expand...




 Hardly when their own fellow muslims despise them and have massacred many Palestinians for their acts of depravity. They are nothing but VILE EVIL TERRORIST SCUM


----------



## Phoenall

Saigon said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only after 1960 when the Russians told Arafat to use the term to give his terrorist movement some legitamcy. Befors then as far as the arab muslims were concerned it was a nasty word describing Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Well, that is fascinating....especially considering that in 1920 there were two newspapers using the word 'Palestinian' in there title, and both newspapers were printed in Arabic.
> 
> Can you explain this for us?
> 
> btw. I am now asking you for the third time when the League of Nations owned Palestine, or would you like to retract you utter nonsensical statement?
Click to expand...




 Were they, or were they printed in Hebrew and English as well. Care to name them and were they were printed and by whom

 And I answered they gained ownership in 1919 when the axis powers surrendered and much of their land was confiscated as reparation for WW1.


----------



## Phoenall

Grendelyn said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Dunam is 1000 square meters, as stated.  The Non-Jews owned 24,679,455 Dunams the Jews 1,514,247 Dunams.  I know that when your propaganda bubble is burst it is difficult, but that is the fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what. The Jews have* pushed* the Palestinians* out*, and created a far better society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Pushed out, you say?  You're a Zionist s**th**d but never let it be said that you're not an honest Zionist s**th**d.  ~ Susan*
Click to expand...




Better than raping every female and murdering every male as the arab muslims did in 1948/1949 when the ethnically cleansed the west bank and gaza of Jews.


----------



## Penelope

Friends said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are people like this:
> 
> In one case, a Palestinian boy admitted to reciting the Qur'an while strangling his sister for dishonoring her family. The girl was killed because her desire for independence became public knowledge...
> 
> Even when apprehended, murderers serve little or no jail time because honor killings are accorded special status in the courts. Men convicted of premeditated murder may be imprisoned for as little as three to six months. Upon their release, friends and relatives treat them like celebrities. Ahmed, a Palestinian boy who killed his teenage sister because she refused an arranged marriage, was commended upon his release from jail. Neighbors showered him with compliments, and his father called him a hero for restoring the family honor.
> Anthropologist Community - Reputation is Everything Honor Killing Among the Palestinians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I am not saying there  are not some who still do some of this stuff, as we continually try and keep the Muslims in the stone age, by impeding their progress,
> by destroying their countries, but the article seems to be mainly from The Frontpage Mag, of which  Robert Spencer writes Jihad watch, and seems to have a real problem with Muslims in general. Also that Mag's  founder and owner is a Jewish man, so I would take anything they write with caution as it might just be bias.
> 
> I not saying this stuff is still not happening on occasion , but that is all the more reason we should not destabilize their countries and cause unrest, but spend the money we spend on waring on some education and human rights programs, and the first place we can start is Saudi Arabia, but no we never say anything about them do we? Strange.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are like those people who blame whites for the fact that blacks commit all those crimes and have all those illegitimate children. The Palestinians were the way they are before the creation of Israel. They will be that way if they ever succeed in destroying Israel and killing all the Jews there.
Click to expand...


No I


Phoenall said:


> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Dunam is 1000 square meters, as stated.  The Non-Jews owned 24,679,455 Dunams the Jews 1,514,247 Dunams.  I know that when your propaganda bubble is burst it is difficult, but that is the fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what. The Jews have* pushed* the Palestinians* out*, and created a far better society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Pushed out, you say?  You're a Zionist s**th**d but never let it be said that you're not an honest Zionist s**th**d.  ~ Susan*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better than raping every female and murdering every male as the arab muslims did in 1948/1949 when the ethnically cleansed the west bank and gaza of Jews.
Click to expand...


Do you have proof of these serious allegations, or just spouting propaganda?


----------



## Phoenall

Penelope said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are people like this:
> 
> In one case, a Palestinian boy admitted to reciting the Qur'an while strangling his sister for dishonoring her family. The girl was killed because her desire for independence became public knowledge...
> 
> Even when apprehended, murderers serve little or no jail time because honor killings are accorded special status in the courts. Men convicted of premeditated murder may be imprisoned for as little as three to six months. Upon their release, friends and relatives treat them like celebrities. Ahmed, a Palestinian boy who killed his teenage sister because she refused an arranged marriage, was commended upon his release from jail. Neighbors showered him with compliments, and his father called him a hero for restoring the family honor.
> Anthropologist Community - Reputation is Everything Honor Killing Among the Palestinians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I am not saying there  are not some who still do some of this stuff, as we continually try and keep the Muslims in the stone age, by impeding their progress,
> by destroying their countries, but the article seems to be mainly from The Frontpage Mag, of which  Robert Spencer writes Jihad watch, and seems to have a real problem with Muslims in general. Also that Mag's  founder and owner is a Jewish man, so I would take anything they write with caution as it might just be bias.
> 
> I not saying this stuff is still not happening on occasion , but that is all the more reason we should not destabilize their countries and cause unrest, but spend the money we spend on waring on some education and human rights programs, and the first place we can start is Saudi Arabia, but no we never say anything about them do we? Strange.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are like those people who blame whites for the fact that blacks commit all those crimes and have all those illegitimate children. The Palestinians were the way they are before the creation of Israel. They will be that way if they ever succeed in destroying Israel and killing all the Jews there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Dunam is 1000 square meters, as stated.  The Non-Jews owned 24,679,455 Dunams the Jews 1,514,247 Dunams.  I know that when your propaganda bubble is burst it is difficult, but that is the fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what. The Jews have* pushed* the Palestinians* out*, and created a far better society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Pushed out, you say?  You're a Zionist s**th**d but never let it be said that you're not an honest Zionist s**th**d.  ~ Susan*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better than raping every female and murdering every male as the arab muslims did in 1948/1949 when the ethnically cleansed the west bank and gaza of Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have proof of these serious allegations, or just spouting propaganda?
Click to expand...




 Here from the mouths of arab leaders warning of the outcome of a Jewish state

Why Jews Fled the Arab Countries Middle East Quarterly

 Heykal Pasha's thinly veiled threats of "grave disorders," "massacre," "riots," and "war between two races" did not at the time go unnoticed by Jews;2 for them, it had the same ring as the proposition made six years earlier by the Palestinian leader Hajj Amin al-Husayni to Hitler of a "final solution" for the Jews of Arab countries, including Palestine.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only after 1960 when the Russians told Arafat to use the term to give his terrorist movement some legitamcy. Befors then as far as the arab muslims were concerned it was a nasty word describing Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Well, that is fascinating....especially considering that in 1920 there were two newspapers using the word 'Palestinian' in there title, and both newspapers were printed in Arabic.
> 
> Can you explain this for us?
> 
> btw. I am now asking you for the third time when the League of Nations owned Palestine, or would you like to retract you utter nonsensical statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were they, or were they printed in Hebrew and English as well. Care to name them and were they were printed and by whom
> 
> And I answered they gained ownership in 1919 when the axis powers surrendered and much of their land was confiscated as reparation for WW1.
Click to expand...

Nice duck.

Why don't you answer her question?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Dunam is 1000 square meters, as stated.  The Non-Jews owned 24,679,455 Dunams the Jews 1,514,247 Dunams.  I know that when your propaganda bubble is burst it is difficult, but that is the fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what. The Jews have* pushed* the Palestinians* out*, and created a far better society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Pushed out, you say?  You're a Zionist s**th**d but never let it be said that you're not an honest Zionist s**th**d.  ~ Susan*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better than raping every female and murdering every male as the arab muslims did in 1948/1949 when the ethnically cleansed the west bank and gaza of Jews.
Click to expand...

That was Jordan not the Palestinians.

BTW, the Zionists/Britain gave the West Bank to Jordan in a pre war agreement. So what is the complaint?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only after 1960 when the Russians told Arafat to use the term to give his terrorist movement some legitamcy. Befors then as far as the arab muslims were concerned it was a nasty word describing Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Well, that is fascinating....especially considering that in 1920 there were two newspapers using the word 'Palestinian' in there title, and both newspapers were printed in Arabic.
> 
> Can you explain this for us?
> 
> btw. I am now asking you for the third time when the League of Nations owned Palestine, or would you like to retract you utter nonsensical statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were they, or were they printed in Hebrew and English as well. Care to name them and were they were printed and by whom
> 
> And I answered they gained ownership in 1919 when the axis powers surrendered and much of their land was confiscated as reparation for WW1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> Why don't you answer her question?
Click to expand...





 I did as they took control in 1919 under the terms of the surrender. Why don't you show that the LoN did not take control of ALL THE MANDATED LAND AROUND THE WORLD


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Dunam is 1000 square meters, as stated.  The Non-Jews owned 24,679,455 Dunams the Jews 1,514,247 Dunams.  I know that when your propaganda bubble is burst it is difficult, but that is the fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what. The Jews have* pushed* the Palestinians* out*, and created a far better society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Pushed out, you say?  You're a Zionist s**th**d but never let it be said that you're not an honest Zionist s**th**d.  ~ Susan*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better than raping every female and murdering every male as the arab muslims did in 1948/1949 when the ethnically cleansed the west bank and gaza of Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was Jordan not the Palestinians.
> 
> BTW, the Zionists/Britain gave the West Bank to Jordan in a pre war agreement. So what is the complaint?
Click to expand...




 Nope the Palestinians were complicit in the atrocities as they lived there all through the 1948 war.

 Nope they just agreed to do nothing while the Palestinians and Jordan did not attack Israel, once they allied with Egypt that agreement was void


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only after 1960 when the Russians told Arafat to use the term to give his terrorist movement some legitamcy. Befors then as far as the arab muslims were concerned it was a nasty word describing Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Well, that is fascinating....especially considering that in 1920 there were two newspapers using the word 'Palestinian' in there title, and both newspapers were printed in Arabic.
> 
> Can you explain this for us?
> 
> btw. I am now asking you for the third time when the League of Nations owned Palestine, or would you like to retract you utter nonsensical statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were they, or were they printed in Hebrew and English as well. Care to name them and were they were printed and by whom
> 
> And I answered they gained ownership in 1919 when the axis powers surrendered and much of their land was confiscated as reparation for WW1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> Why don't you answer her question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did as they took control in 1919 under the terms of the surrender. Why don't you show that the LoN did not take control of ALL THE MANDATED LAND AROUND THE WORLD
Click to expand...

OK, they took control but that does not answer the question.


----------



## MJB12741

Grendelyn said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Dunam is 1000 square meters, as stated.  The Non-Jews owned 24,679,455 Dunams the Jews 1,514,247 Dunams.  I know that when your propaganda bubble is burst it is difficult, but that is the fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what. The Jews have* pushed* the Palestinians* out*, and created a far better society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Pushed out, you say?  You're a Zionist s**th**d but never let it be said that you're not an honest Zionist s**th**d.  ~ Susan*
Click to expand...



Hey Pish, did you know that "a Mexican is an American"?  If you don't believe me just ask Monte.  Heh Heh.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Dunam is 1000 square meters, as stated.  The Non-Jews owned 24,679,455 Dunams the Jews 1,514,247 Dunams.  I know that when your propaganda bubble is burst it is difficult, but that is the fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what. The Jews have* pushed* the Palestinians* out*, and created a far better society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Pushed out, you say?  You're a Zionist s**th**d but never let it be said that you're not an honest Zionist s**th**d.  ~ Susan*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Pish, did you know that "a Mexican is an American"?  If you don't believe me just ask Monte.  Heh Heh.
Click to expand...


All people from the Americas are American you idiot.  You deny the existence of Palestinians now you deny the existence Latin America.


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Dunam is 1000 square meters, as stated.  The Non-Jews owned 24,679,455 Dunams the Jews 1,514,247 Dunams.  I know that when your propaganda bubble is burst it is difficult, but that is the fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what. The Jews have* pushed* the Palestinians* out*, and created a far better society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Pushed out, you say?  You're a Zionist s**th**d but never let it be said that you're not an honest Zionist s**th**d.  ~ Susan*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Pish, did you know that "a Mexican is an American"?  If you don't believe me just ask Monte.  Heh Heh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All people from the Americas are American you idiot.  You deny the existence of Palestinians now you deny the existence Latin America.
Click to expand...


Canadian, Mexicans, Hondurans, Colombians, Brazilians, etc.

Those from the USA are americans


----------



## docmauser1

P F Tinmore said:


> History of Palestinian nationality - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Nothing to do with palistanians, of course.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Dunam is 1000 square meters, as stated.  The Non-Jews owned 24,679,455 Dunams the Jews 1,514,247 Dunams.  I know that when your propaganda bubble is burst it is difficult, but that is the fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what. The Jews have* pushed* the Palestinians* out*, and created a far better society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Pushed out, you say?  You're a Zionist s**th**d but never let it be said that you're not an honest Zionist s**th**d.  ~ Susan*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Pish, did you know that "a Mexican is an American"?  If you don't believe me just ask Monte.  Heh Heh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All people from the Americas are American you idiot.  You deny the existence of Palestinians now you deny the existence Latin America.
Click to expand...



You are so funny Monte.  Got news for you.  Americans are Americans & Mexicans are Mexicans.


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Dunam is 1000 square meters, as stated.  The Non-Jews owned 24,679,455 Dunams the Jews 1,514,247 Dunams.  I know that when your propaganda bubble is burst it is difficult, but that is the fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what. The Jews have* pushed* the Palestinians* out*, and created a far better society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Pushed out, you say?  You're a Zionist s**th**d but never let it be said that you're not an honest Zionist s**th**d.  ~ Susan*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Pish, did you know that "a Mexican is an American"?  If you don't believe me just ask Monte.  Heh Heh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All people from the Americas are American you idiot.  You deny the existence of Palestinians now you deny the existence Latin America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are so funny Monte.  Got news for you.  Americans are Americans & Mexicans are Mexicans.
Click to expand...


Ask a US citizen what nationaly he or she is & he or she will reply ---  American.  Ask a Mexican citizen what nationality he or she is & he or she will reply ---  Mexican.  Get it yet Monte?


----------



## teddyearp

montelatici said:


> Here is the real land ownership data as registered by the British from deeds and registries and contained in the Palestine Survey submitted to the UN prior to partition.  As can be seen the Jews owned less than 10% of the land and the non-Jews over 90%.
> 
> View attachment 32799



I love it every time you drag this picture out. Because every time you do, I really have to wonder how the Arabs owned more land when the Jews owed more taxes . . . . proven so by your own picture.


----------



## teddyearp

Penelope said:


> <snip>Romans, Greeks, Persians, who squatted on Israel's land (and the Jews ran away)



And you really believe this is an authentic take on what historically happened?


----------



## teddyearp

Penelope said:


> <snip>while you have most of the Pals in prison.



I wonder where MJB has a prison, where is it MJB?


----------



## teddyearp

montelatici said:


> Over 90% of the land was owned by non-Jewish Palestinians as per below:
> 
> View attachment 32808



And again, more than 50% of the taxes were paid by the Jews.


----------



## teddyearp

montelatici said:


> It is the amount of land owned by Jews and non-Jews.  That's what it says, no amount of bullshit can change that.  It says Ownership of Land in Palestine by share.:
> 
> View attachment 32809



For fuck's sake, why not make this picture into your signature line as much as you post it.

And who's paying more taxes?


----------



## teddyearp

montelatici said:


> A Mexican is by definition an American.  Most Americans speak Spanish or Portuguese, not English.



Now we know you are a pretzel maker.  Because that is how much you will twist the truth to your own ends.


----------



## teddyearp

montelatici said:


> More propaganda Hoss.  Trans-Jordan was never part of Palestine.  It was always a separate territory.  I have linked to official LoN documents that make it clear.  It is your typical Zionist propaganda that assholes like you either believe or repeat because you have nothing else to cling to.



Wrong, wrong, wrong.  The original Mandate for Palestine included Trans-Jordan.  It was later split off to honor both the Balfour declaration for the Jews and the McMahon-Hussein correspondence for the Arab Muslims.



> Article 25 of the mandate recognised the McMahon-Hussein correspondence.[53] It permitted the mandatory to "postpone or withhold application of such provisions of the mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions" in that region.





> On submission of the memorandum to the Council of the League of Nations, Balfour explained the background as recorded in the minutes: "Lord Balfour reminded his colleagues that Article 25 of the mandate for Palestine as approved by the Council in London on July 24th, 1922, provides that the territories in Palestine which lie east of the Jordan should be under a somewhat different regime from the rest of Palestine. ... The British Government now merely proposed to carry out this article. It had always been part of the policy contemplated by the League and accepted by the British Government, and the latter now desired to carry it into effect. In pursuance of the policy, embodied in Article 25, Lord Balfour invited the Council to pass a series of resolutions which modified the mandate as regards those territories. The object of these resolutions was to withdraw from Trans-Jordania the special provisions which were intended to provide a national home for the Jews *west of the Jordan*."[55]



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


----------



## teddyearp

P F Tinmore said:


> The first Palestine Citizenship Order was enacted by Britain on 24 July 1925; it was the first official enactment that outlined the legal definition of a Palestinian. Its first article defined a Palestinian as a "Turkish subject habitually resident in the territory of Palestine."
> 
> History of Palestinian nationality - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



Interesting article Timnore, however, right at the very beginning of it, there is this disclaimer:



> [hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help *improve it* or discuss these issues on the *talk page*.
> This article *is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states the Wikipedia editor's particular feelings about a topic, rather than the opinions of experts*. _(September 2008)_
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]


----------



## teddyearp

montelatici said:


> [<snip> I am far smarter than you are.<snip>


----------



## teddyearp

montelatici said:


> And, when you think about it.  There is no real proof that Israel ever was sovereign, unless you believe in fairy tales.


----------



## teddyearp

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> btw. I am now asking you for the third time when the League of Nations owned Palestine, or would you like to retract you utter nonsensical statement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I answered they gained ownership in 1919 when the axis powers surrendered and much of their land was confiscated as reparation for WW1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> Why don't you answer her question?
Click to expand...


I would call the question answered you quack.


----------



## MJB12741

teddyearp said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> <snip>while you have most of the Pals in prison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder where MJB has a prison, where is it MJB?
Click to expand...


The Palestinians are imprisoned here in the Gaza concentration camp.  Gosh I wonder where those Zionists in Israel hid the ovens?

Timeline Photos - Gaza the Beautiful Facebook


----------



## P F Tinmore

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

This is what Article 1, Clause (1), of the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order declared with regard to those persons who formed, according to domestic law, the first ‘Palestinians’. 486 As already concluded in Chapter III above, the ‘Palestinian people’ had been defined according to international law on 6 August 1924, the date at which the Treaty of Lausanne was enforced. Hence, the just quoted clause was a mere declaration of pre-existing international law.

This clause refers to the automatic, or ipso facto, acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by those persons resident in Palestine who had replaced their former Turkish, or Ottoman, nationality. Although the term ‘ipso facto’ is not literally employed, it should be easily understood as the clause is a direct application of Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne, 1923, which stated that “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which... is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto... nationals...”.487 Thus, Turkish individuals who were covered by this clause became Palestinians by the operation of law without further action.

http://www.unige.ch/cyberdocuments/theses2007/QafishehM/these.pdf


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Dunam is 1000 square meters, as stated.  The Non-Jews owned 24,679,455 Dunams the Jews 1,514,247 Dunams.  I know that when your propaganda bubble is burst it is difficult, but that is the fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what. The Jews have* pushed* the Palestinians* out*, and created a far better society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Pushed out, you say?  You're a Zionist s**th**d but never let it be said that you're not an honest Zionist s**th**d.  ~ Susan*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Pish, did you know that "a Mexican is an American"?  If you don't believe me just ask Monte.  Heh Heh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All people from the Americas are American you idiot.  You deny the existence of Palestinians now you deny the existence Latin America.
Click to expand...


OMG you stupid monkey.

Have you ever heard a Brazilian being referred to as an American ? Brazil is in South America, but calling someone American is referring to the country called America AKA United States of America.

What was that about you being smarter then everyone ? LOL


----------



## MJB12741

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Dunam is 1000 square meters, as stated.  The Non-Jews owned 24,679,455 Dunams the Jews 1,514,247 Dunams.  I know that when your propaganda bubble is burst it is difficult, but that is the fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what. The Jews have* pushed* the Palestinians* out*, and created a far better society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Pushed out, you say?  You're a Zionist s**th**d but never let it be said that you're not an honest Zionist s**th**d.  ~ Susan*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Pish, did you know that "a Mexican is an American"?  If you don't believe me just ask Monte.  Heh Heh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All people from the Americas are American you idiot.  You deny the existence of Palestinians now you deny the existence Latin America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG you stupid monkey.
> 
> Have you ever heard a Brazilian being referred to as an American ? Brazil is in South America, but calling someone American is referring to the country called America AKA United States of America.
> 
> What was that about you being smarter then everyone ? LOL
Click to expand...


Just goes to prove that one need not necessarily have to be a Palestinian to have a Palestinian mentality.


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there was no arab muslim ownership of Palestine from 1099 until 1988. And there second most holy place "allegedly" was allowed to fall into ruin 3 times while islam was in control of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um.....what?
> 
> So you are saying that it is false that most kibbutzim and moshavim were settled on land legally bought from Arabic owners during the period 1899 - 1935?
> 
> I have now read perhaps 10 comments from you - everyone one them contains horrendous errors of facts. If you don't know the facts - do not make them up around people who know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the real land ownership data as registered by the British from deeds and registries and contained in the Palestine Survey submitted to the UN prior to partition.  As can be seen the Jews owned less than 10% of the land and the non-Jews over 90%.
> 
> View attachment 32799
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tthe overwhelming majority of Palestinians are just a bunch of squatters living on Israel's land for generations now without any titles or deeds whatsoever.  Want peace?  This land theft has to end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Over 90% of the land was owned by non-Jewish Palestinians as per below:
> 
> View attachment 32808
Click to expand...


Monti's record is broken.  Jews according to his golden land document shows that even owning a fraction of the land compared to public and church land they paid a much higher tax.
A lot of the land was that was not jewish was uncultivated.
So what does you precious book page prove?  It does not prove the amount or value of land owned by palestinian arab.  It just was not privately owned by jews.  The way the land and tax are given is highly suspect by just saying jew or not jew.
Your mantra is stale and racist.  It does not prove of any benefit to your anti-jewish argument.
With the wealth of information on the net, you keep repeating a useless page as if it were your bible.  Time to find a new book.
I used to have close to a hundred books from the 1800's on related in some way to the middle east.  Unfortunately between war, moving and natural disaster I no longer have them.  Wish I could have scanned and translated most of them back then.  Still more and more books and information are added to the net and public library weekly.  Find a new song to sing that helps your argument.


----------



## DriftingSand

MJB12741 said:


> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine



The Palestinians are a people who were displaced by the Israelis.


----------



## Kondor3

DriftingSand said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are a people who were displaced by the Israelis.
Click to expand...

The Palestinians are a ragtag collection of diverse ethnic and tribal elements - some present upon the soil of Old Palestine for generations, some only recently arrived within the past century or so, looking for work on new Jewish-owned farms and enterprises - never a nation - never a self-governing nor even self-aware polity - using an identifying label only popularized within Living Memory by radicals trying to rewrite history and outcomes long after the smoke had cleared - a collective that ran like rabbits, and who have been such under-performers that they would rather rot in camps and refugee towns for generations rather than get off their asses and move away and make new lives for themselves and their families - a cowardly and despicable lot who embed war assets amongst their civilian population and who routinely hide behind the the skirts of their women and children - a failed people-wannabe, whom Nature has largely de-selected - a gaggle of folk who have routinely made some of the very worst political and societal decisions on record in recent times - who never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity - basically, a collection of losers.


----------



## DriftingSand

Kondor3 said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are a people who were displaced by the Israelis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians are a ragtag collection of diverse ethnic and tribal elements - some present upon the soil of Old Palestine for generations, some only recently arrived within the past century or so, looking for work on new Jewish-owned farms and enterprises - never a nation - never a self-governing nor even self-aware polity - using an identifying label only popularized within Living Memory by radicals trying to rewrite history and outcomes long after the smoke had cleared - a collective that ran like rabbits, and who have been such under-performers that they would rather rot in camps and refugee towns for generations rather than get off their asses and move away and make new lives for themselves and their families - a cowardly and despicable lot who embed war assets amongst their civilian population and who routinely hide behind the the skirts of their women and children - a failed people-wannabe, whom Nature has largely de-selected - a gaggle of folk who have routinely made some of the very worst political and societal decisions on record in recent times - who never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity - basically, a collection of losers.
Click to expand...


The Israelis, too, were a "ragtag" collection of European misfits who Europeans were eager to aid in the exodus from Europe into the Mideast.  Why else would Britain have gone to all that time, expense, and effort to blast a pathway from Europe and usher the Israelis on their way?  Nevertheless, your description of the Palestinians could easily be applied to the Israelis.


----------



## Kondor3

DriftingSand said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are a people who were displaced by the Israelis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians are a ragtag collection of diverse ethnic and tribal elements - some present upon the soil of Old Palestine for generations, some only recently arrived within the past century or so, looking for work on new Jewish-owned farms and enterprises - never a nation - never a self-governing nor even self-aware polity - using an identifying label only popularized within Living Memory by radicals trying to rewrite history and outcomes long after the smoke had cleared - a collective that ran like rabbits, and who have been such under-performers that they would rather rot in camps and refugee towns for generations rather than get off their asses and move away and make new lives for themselves and their families - a cowardly and despicable lot who embed war assets amongst their civilian population and who routinely hide behind the the skirts of their women and children - a failed people-wannabe, whom Nature has largely de-selected - a gaggle of folk who have routinely made some of the very worst political and societal decisions on record in recent times - who never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity - basically, a collection of losers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Israelis, too, were a "ragtag" collection of European misfits who Europeans were eager to aid in the exodus from Europe into the Mideast.  Why else would Britain have gone to all that time, expense, and effort to blast a pathway from Europe and usher the Israelis on their way?  Nevertheless, your description of the Palestinians could easily be applied to the Israelis.
Click to expand...

Of course...


----------



## teddyearp

DriftingSand said:


> Nevertheless, your description of the Palestinians could easily be applied to the Israelis.



Uh huh.  Sure. Funny thing that. The Israelis have done something for themselves.  When kicked out of the neighboring countries, did their brethren lock them into refugee camps to be used a political fodder?  Nope, they assimilated and became somebody.  A nation of somebodies.


----------



## MJB12741

teddyearp said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, your description of the Palestinians could easily be applied to the Israelis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh.  Sure. Funny thing that. The Israelis have done something for themselves.  When kicked out of the neighboring countries, did their brethren lock them into refugee camps to be used a political fodder?  Nope, they assimilated and became somebody.  A nation of somebodies.
Click to expand...



No one can deny all  of Israel's endless positive contributions to mankind throughout the world.  But in all fairness, let us also consider the Palestinian contributions to humanity.


----------



## teddyearp

Hmmm . . . . considering . . . .um.  Can't think of one. Well, not a positive one anyway.


----------



## aris2chat

teddyearp said:


> Hmmm . . . . considering . . . .um.  Can't think of one. Well, not a positive one anyway.



Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
for the future


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only after 1960 when the Russians told Arafat to use the term to give his terrorist movement some legitamcy. Befors then as far as the arab muslims were concerned it was a nasty word describing Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Well, that is fascinating....especially considering that in 1920 there were two newspapers using the word 'Palestinian' in there title, and both newspapers were printed in Arabic.
> 
> Can you explain this for us?
> 
> btw. I am now asking you for the third time when the League of Nations owned Palestine, or would you like to retract you utter nonsensical statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were they, or were they printed in Hebrew and English as well. Care to name them and were they were printed and by whom
> 
> And I answered they gained ownership in 1919 when the axis powers surrendered and much of their land was confiscated as reparation for WW1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> Why don't you answer her question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did as they took control in 1919 under the terms of the surrender. Why don't you show that the LoN did not take control of ALL THE MANDATED LAND AROUND THE WORLD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, they took control but that does not answer the question.
Click to expand...





 Yes it does as from that time until now the land was under LoN ownership legal and above board. Until the Palestinians take full responsibility for the land then it is ownerless and anyone can settle it. All down to CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW.


----------



## Saigon

Phoenell - 

You do know that neither the League of Nations nor the UN has ever had the mandate to *own* land, right? 

They're not a real estate agency.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Dunam is 1000 square meters, as stated.  The Non-Jews owned 24,679,455 Dunams the Jews 1,514,247 Dunams.  I know that when your propaganda bubble is burst it is difficult, but that is the fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what. The Jews have* pushed* the Palestinians* out*, and created a far better society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Pushed out, you say?  You're a Zionist s**th**d but never let it be said that you're not an honest Zionist s**th**d.  ~ Susan*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Pish, did you know that "a Mexican is an American"?  If you don't believe me just ask Monte.  Heh Heh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All people from the Americas are American you idiot.  You deny the existence of Palestinians now you deny the existence Latin America.
Click to expand...




 Wrong as American is a recent affectation, much like arab Palestinian is. Before the migrants were called Americans the natives called themselves other terms like Inca, Mayan, Cherokee, Sioux etc. So once again Mohamed shows that he is the idiot


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only after 1960 when the Russians told Arafat to use the term to give his terrorist movement some legitamcy. Befors then as far as the arab muslims were concerned it was a nasty word describing Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Well, that is fascinating....especially considering that in 1920 there were two newspapers using the word 'Palestinian' in there title, and both newspapers were printed in Arabic.
> 
> Can you explain this for us?
> 
> btw. I am now asking you for the third time when the League of Nations owned Palestine, or would you like to retract you utter nonsensical statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were they, or were they printed in Hebrew and English as well. Care to name them and were they were printed and by whom
> 
> And I answered they gained ownership in 1919 when the axis powers surrendered and much of their land was confiscated as reparation for WW1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> Why don't you answer her question?
Click to expand...




I have as the LoN took ownership of the land from the Ottomans.


----------



## Phoenall

Saigon said:


> Phoenell -
> 
> You do know that neither the League of Nations nor the UN has ever had the mandate to *own* land, right?
> 
> They're not a real estate agency.




 They didn't need a mandate they owned the land under customary international law. They issued the mandates to the nations who were appointed caretakers of the land until the indigenous showed enough free determination to be able to govern themselves. In 1919 the law was any land won in battle was the victors spoils to do with as they wanted, so making Palestine LoN land as they were the victors. Look up the history of the LoN and see when they were formed and for what purpose.


----------



## Saigon

Phoenall - 

No, they don't land and they never have and never will. The UN has never had that power, and neither did the League of Nations. 

Likewise, the UN cannot make laws, cannot implement laws and cannot take over governments. 

What you sare saying is simply nonsense - and I have to say this isn't the first time. Please check facts before you post, and also please acknowledge mistakes in your posts when they are pointed out to you.


----------



## docmauser1

Saigon said:


> Likewise, the UN cannot make laws, cannot implement laws and cannot take over governments.


So, who was that shekh, shakh, emir, pasha, sultan, president, prime-minister of that "government of palestine"?


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are a people who were displaced by the Israelis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians are a ragtag collection of diverse ethnic and tribal elements - some present upon the soil of Old Palestine for generations, some only recently arrived within the past century or so, looking for work on new Jewish-owned farms and enterprises - never a nation - never a self-governing nor even self-aware polity - using an identifying label only popularized within Living Memory by radicals trying to rewrite history and outcomes long after the smoke had cleared - a collective that ran like rabbits, and who have been such under-performers that they would rather rot in camps and refugee towns for generations rather than get off their asses and move away and make new lives for themselves and their families - a cowardly and despicable lot who embed war assets amongst their civilian population and who routinely hide behind the the skirts of their women and children - a failed people-wannabe, whom Nature has largely de-selected - a gaggle of folk who have routinely made some of the very worst political and societal decisions on record in recent times - who never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity - basically, a collection of losers.
Click to expand...


The invading Jews are the recent arrivals and the Arabs, Christian and Muslims have always been there as confirmed by the Mandatory:

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

*The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years*. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921


----------



## docmauser1

montelatici said:


> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages.* Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. *A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. *Some 77,000 of the population are Christians,* in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants. *The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years*. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921


And all arab settlers found, turned out to be "saudi sheikhs" to own(!) 90(%) of the mandate palestine!


----------



## montelatici

docmauser1 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages.* Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. *A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. *Some 77,000 of the population are Christians,* in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants. *The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years*. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
> 
> 
> 
> And all arab settlers found, turned out to be "saudi sheikhs" to own(!) 90(%) of the mandate palestine!
Click to expand...


There were few Arab settlers.  The settlers were the Jews.  There were no Saudi owners, quit making things up, Saudis didn't have a pot to piss in those days anyway you idiot.  You need to get out more.  Oh, now make you look like an idiot again as stated by the Mandatory Jew increase by migration, 245,433, Muslim increase thru migration 25,168, Christian increase thru migration 10,414.  Nearly ten times more Jews migrated to Palestine than Christians and Muslims.



_All religions.__Muslims__ Jews __Christians._Total increase
of population
Increase by
migration
Natural
increase631,272

281,339

349,933286,770

25,168

261,602302,294

245,433

56,86138,305

10,414

27,8913,903

324

3,579
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]- See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Report of the Mandatory to the LoN 31 December 1937


----------



## montelatici

docmauser1 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages.* Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. *A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. *Some 77,000 of the population are Christians,* in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants. *The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years*. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
> 
> 
> 
> And all arab settlers found, turned out to be "saudi sheikhs" to own(!) 90(%) of the mandate palestine!
Click to expand...


No Saudi sheiks I'm afraid.  Only Palestinians. Plus Saudis were poor back in those days.


----------



## docmauser1

montelatici said:


> _All religions.__Muslims__ Jews __Christians._Total increase
> of population
> Increase by
> migration
> Natural
> increase631,272
> 
> 281,339
> 
> 349,933286,770
> 
> 25,168
> 
> 261,602302,294
> 
> 245,433
> 
> 56,86138,305
> 
> 10,414
> 
> 27,8913,903
> 
> 324
> 
> 3,579
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]- See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Report of the Mandatory to the LoN 31 December 1937


"So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population." Winnie Chrurchill


----------



## montelatici

I am enjoying watching the Zionist nutcases squirm, deflect and deny when the facts are there before their eyes.  How enjoyable.


----------



## montelatici

docmauser1 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _All religions.__Muslims__ Jews __Christians._Total increase
> of population
> Increase by
> migration
> Natural
> increase631,272
> 
> 281,339
> 
> 349,933286,770
> 
> 25,168
> 
> 261,602302,294
> 
> 245,433
> 
> 56,86138,305
> 
> 10,414
> 
> 27,8913,903
> 
> 324
> 
> 3,579
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]- See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Report of the Mandatory to the LoN 31 December 1937
> 
> 
> 
> "So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population." Winnie Chrurchill
Click to expand...


Well, obviously that is a lie and he didn't have access to the data.  Nice try though. LOL


----------



## P F Tinmore

Saigon said:


> Phoenall -
> 
> No, they don't land and they never have and never will. The UN has never had that power, and neither did the League of Nations.
> 
> Likewise, the UN cannot make laws, cannot implement laws and cannot take over governments.
> 
> What you sare saying is simply nonsense - and I have to say this isn't the first time. Please check facts before you post, and also please acknowledge mistakes in your posts when they are pointed out to you.


*100% true!* 
The land was held in trust for the people. The people of the place.

The people from a different place are external.


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages.* Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. *A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. *Some 77,000 of the population are Christians,* in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants. *The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years*. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
> 
> 
> 
> And all arab settlers found, turned out to be "saudi sheikhs" to own(!) 90(%) of the mandate palestine!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were few Arab settlers.  The settlers were the Jews.  There were no Saudi owners, quit making things up, Saudis didn't have a pot to piss in those days anyway you idiot.  You need to get out more.  Oh, now make you look like an idiot again as stated by the Mandatory Jew increase by migration, 245,433, Muslim increase thru migration 25,168, Christian increase thru migration 10,414.  Nearly ten times more Jews migrated to Palestine than Christians and Muslims.
> 
> 
> 
> _All religions.__Muslims__ Jews __Christians._Total increase
> of population
> Increase by
> migration
> Natural
> increase631,272
> 
> 281,339
> 
> 349,933286,770
> 
> 25,168
> 
> 261,602302,294
> 
> 245,433
> 
> 56,86138,305
> 
> 10,414
> 
> 27,8913,903
> 
> 324
> 
> 3,579
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]- See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Report of the Mandatory to the LoN 31 December 1937
Click to expand...


well look here, almost half the arab increase was due to migration while the jewish population went up only 10% from migration.  Christians also nearly doubled in number from migration

Monti keeps sinking deeper.


----------



## montelatici

You need to study math or get the columns right. LOL


----------



## montelatici

You have it opposite you clown.


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> You have it opposite you clown.







______________________________________________________________________________




__________________________________________________________________________




that is muslim increase by migration


----------



## DriftingSand

teddyearp said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, your description of the Palestinians could easily be applied to the Israelis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh.  Sure. Funny thing that. The Israelis have done something for themselves.  When kicked out of the neighboring countries, did their brethren lock them into refugee camps to be used a political fodder?  Nope, they assimilated and became somebody.  A nation of somebodies.
Click to expand...


I know, I know!  Persecuted Israelis, good.  All other nationalities, bad.


----------



## MJB12741

aris2chat said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have it opposite you clown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 32867
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> 
> View attachment 32870
> __________________________________________________________________________
> View attachment 32869
> 
> that is muslim increase by migration
Click to expand...



Please go easy on Monte.  He is great for entertainment.  If we educate him he will leave us.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are a people who were displaced by the Israelis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians are a ragtag collection of diverse ethnic and tribal elements - some present upon the soil of Old Palestine for generations, some only recently arrived within the past century or so, looking for work on new Jewish-owned farms and enterprises - never a nation - never a self-governing nor even self-aware polity - using an identifying label only popularized within Living Memory by radicals trying to rewrite history and outcomes long after the smoke had cleared - a collective that ran like rabbits, and who have been such under-performers that they would rather rot in camps and refugee towns for generations rather than get off their asses and move away and make new lives for themselves and their families - a cowardly and despicable lot who embed war assets amongst their civilian population and who routinely hide behind the the skirts of their women and children - a failed people-wannabe, whom Nature has largely de-selected - a gaggle of folk who have routinely made some of the very worst political and societal decisions on record in recent times - who never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity - basically, a collection of losers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The invading Jews are the recent arrivals and the Arabs, Christian and Muslims have always been there as confirmed by the Mandatory:
> 
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages.* Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. *A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. *Some 77,000 of the population are Christians,* in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> *The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years*. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
Click to expand...

None of that makes any difference.

The only thing that signifies now is who holds the land, and who holds the upper hand, and who won the wars and who will win the next and the next and the next.

Get out.

While you still can.

Or stay.

And continue to rot.

Or die.

Leave or rot or die.

All equally acceptable.

There is no future for you, where you are now.

Leave.

You have been warned.


----------



## teddyearp

DriftingSand said:


> I know, I know!  Persecuted Israelis, good.  All other nationalities, bad.



You seem to be pretty good at putting words in peoples' posts that were never there.


----------



## montelatici

aris2chat said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have it opposite you clown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 32867
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> 
> View attachment 32870
> __________________________________________________________________________
> View attachment 32869
> 
> that is muslim increase by migration
Click to expand...


No, that is the total migration and that column is the total population.  But you can see it yourself on the last page of the linked document.


6. The estimated total population has increased in the 15 years from 1922 to the middle of 1937, by 631,272 persons. The increase is due to immigration and to the excess of births over deaths, the allocation of the total increases between these two factors being estimated to be as follows:--






_All religions.__Moslems.__Jews.__Christians.__Others._Total increase
of population
Increase by
migration
Natural
increase631,272

281,339

349,933286,770

25,168

261,602302,294

245,433

56,86138,305

10,414

27,8913,903

324

3,579
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]- See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Report of the Mandatory to the LoN 31 December 1937


----------



## aris2chat

_Palestine and Israel in the 19th and 20th Centuries_

176 thousand arabs from 1922-31

_
_


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> I am enjoying watching the Zionist nutcases squirm, deflect and deny when the facts are there before their eyes.  How enjoyable.


 

Yep! You got them Zionists shakin' in their boots.  Ain't that right you Zionists?  Oh Lord, ya gotta love Monte.  Heh Heh.


----------



## Billo_Really

Who are the Palestinian's?

They are *heroes of humanity*.

For an entire population of people to have endured what they've had to go through for the last 6 decades and still be living in their ancestral home, is quite an amazing feat.  They've earned the respect of the world.


----------



## Billo_Really

aris2chat said:


> View attachment 32873
> _Palestine and Israel in the 19th and 20th Centuries_
> 
> 176 thousand arabs from 1922-31
> 
> _
> _


The other day you were pushing that BS Palmer Report and now this crap!  Screw the rates, here's the actual numbers...


----------



## docmauser1

montelatici said:


> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _All religions.__Muslims__ Jews __Christians._Total increase
> of population
> Increase by
> migration
> Natural
> increase631,272
> 
> 281,339
> 
> 349,933286,770
> 
> 25,168
> 
> 261,602302,294
> 
> 245,433
> 
> 56,86138,305
> 
> 10,414
> 
> 27,8913,903
> 
> 324
> 
> 3,579
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]- See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Report of the Mandatory to the LoN 31 December 1937
> 
> 
> 
> "So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population." Winnie Chrurchill
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, obviously that is a lie and he didn't have access to the data.  Nice try though. LOL
Click to expand...

If we forget that he was the british colonial secretary, of course. So, how come all those arab settlers and squatters from the arab "homelands" happened all to get "saudi sheiks" to own(!) 90%(!) of the mandate palestine?


----------



## aris2chat

Billo_Really said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 32873
> _Palestine and Israel in the 19th and 20th Centuries_
> 
> 176 thousand arabs from 1922-31
> 
> _
> _
> 
> 
> 
> The other day you were pushing that BS Palmer Report and now this crap!  Screw the rates, here's the actual numbers...
Click to expand...



referring to the blockade being legal and the UN report?


----------



## docmauser1

Billo_Really said:


> Who are the Palestinian's? They are *heroes of humanity*.


Descendants of the major arab immigran rabble from the general arablandia, wiil be about right, of course.


----------



## docmauser1

P F Tinmore said:


> The land was held in trust for the people. The people of the place. The people from a different place are external.


Well, palistanians are external, of course.


----------



## Billo_Really

aris2chat said:


> referring to the blockade being legal and the UN report?


There's only one UN report that said the blockade was legal and they weren't commissioned to make that determination.  They had no experts in international maritime law and serious conflicts of interest in their panel members.


----------



## docmauser1

Billo_Really said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> referring to the blockade being legal and the UN report?
> 
> 
> 
> There's only one UN report that said the blockade was legal and they weren't commissioned to make that determination.  They had no experts in international maritime law and serious conflicts of interest in their panel members.
Click to expand...

Every and any palistan-agitpropnik's a maritime law expert!


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians? Here are some.


----------



## docmauser1

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians? Here are some.


Our honorable P F Tinmore better post a gist of that toob crap, instead of inflating the toob crap counterv there, of course.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians? Here are some.



Those Palestinian girl race car drivers deserve respect.  Was this one of Israel's concentration camp activites?


----------



## montelatici

That happens to be in Jordan.


----------



## RoccoR

Billo_Really,  _et al,_

I just have to chuckle at this.



Billo_Really said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> referring to the blockade being legal and the UN report?
> 
> 
> 
> There's only one UN report that said the blockade was legal and they weren't commissioned to make that determination.  They had no experts in international maritime law and serious conflicts of interest in their panel members.
Click to expand...

*(SALIENT POINTS)*

Reference:  31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident

It just so happens that the Report that Billo_Really is refering to was a panel of five UN Human Rights experts reporting to the UN Human Rights Council; and it was they that rejected that the Palmer Report conclusions.   The UNHRC Panel based their conclusion of "international human rights and humanitarian law;" not Maritime Law.

The Palmer Report  was an investigative "Panel of Inquiry" guided and adopted by the two former heads of state (Chair and Vice-Chair); published in September 2011 (a year after the UNHCR Report).  It was a decidedly as different in character from the UNHCR Fact Finding Mission, as one could conceive. 

The Right Honorable Sir Geoffrey Palmer, KCMG AC QC, Chair, 33rd Prime Minister of New Zealand
The Right Honorable Alvaro Uribe, Vice-Chair, 31st President of Colombia,  studied Law at the University of Antioquia; attended Harvard University, receiving a Certificate of Special Studies in Administration and Management at Harvard Extension School and Certificate in Negotiation and Dispute Resolution at Harvard Law School;  studied at St Antony's College, Oxford, England, on a Chevening-Simón Bolívar scholarship.
Mr. Joseph Ciechanover Itzhar, Member, Ph.D. in Philosophy from Boston University, L.L.M. (Master of Laws) from the UC Berkeley
Mr. Süleyman Özdem Sanberk, Director of the International Strategic Research Organisation (USAK); former diplomat --- stationed in the Turkish embassies in Madrid, Amman, Bonn and Paris, and at the Permanent Delegation to the OECD.  He has also been Chief Foreign Policy Advisor to the Prime Minister, Permanent Representative to the European Union, Undersecretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Ambassador to the United Kingdom. Ambassador Sanberk retired from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2000 and was the Director of the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV) until September 2003.
The UN Human Rights Council Fact-Finding Mission (F-FM) Report (A/HRC/15/21) published 27 September 2010, was assisted by external specialists in forensic pathology, military issues, firearms, the law of the sea and international humanitarian law.

Judge Karl T. Hudson-Phillips, Q.C., Chairman, Judge of the International Criminal Court (Ret) and former Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago,
Sir Desmond de Silva, Q.C. of the United Kingdom, former Chief Prosecutor of the United Nations-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone,
Ms. Mary Shanthi Dairiam of Malaysia, founding member of the Board of Directors of the International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific and former member of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.
The two reports are essentially evenly matched.  One examines the Blockade from a view that is entirely at odds with the other.  And the conflict between the two reports are the classic Political-Military view versus the Humanitarian view in war.

The Panel of Inquiry gave weight to the concept that:

"The Panel notes in this regard that the uncertain legal status of Gaza under international law cannot mean that Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory.  The Israeli report to the Panel makes it clear that the naval blockade as a measure of the use of force was adopted for the purpose of defending its territory and population, and the Panel accepts that was the case. It was designed as one way to prevent weapons reaching Gaza by sea and to prevent such attacks to be launched from the sea.  Indeed there have been various incidents in which ships carrying weapons were intercepted by the Israeli authorities on their way to Gaza. While the attacks have not completely ceased since the time of the imposition of the naval blockade, their scale and intensity has much decreased over time.  While this decrease might also be due to other factors, a blockade in those circumstances is a legitimate exercise of the right of self-defence. Although a blockade by definition imposes a restriction on all maritime traffic, given the relatively small size of the blockade zone and the practical difficulties associated with other methods of monitoring vessels (such as by search and visit), the Panel is not persuaded that the naval blockade was a disproportionate measure for Israel to have taken in response to the threat it faced."​
"Important humanitarian considerations constrain the imposition of a naval blockade. For one, it would be illegal if its imposition was intended to starve or to collectively punish the civilian population. However, there is no material before the Panel that would permit a finding confirming the allegations that Israel had either of those intentions or that the naval blockade was imposed in retaliation for the take-over of Hamas in Gaza or otherwise. On the contrary, it is evident that Israel had a military objective. The stated primary objective of the naval blockade was for security. It was to prevent weapons, ammunition, military supplies and people from entering Gaza and to stop Hamas operatives sailing away from Gaza with vessels filled with explosives."​
After a discussion of both the Law of War, the Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and important humanitarian considerations which constrain the imposition of a naval blockade; "The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal."

Conversely, the UNHCR F-FM Report gave a preponderance of its consideration to the Humanitarian aspects of the event. 

"The Mission has come to the firm conclusion that a humanitarian crisis existed on the 31 May 2010 in Gaza. The preponderance of evidence from impeccable sources is too overwhelming to come to a contrary opinion. Any denial of this cannot be supported on any rational grounds. One of the consequences flowing from this is that for this reason alone the blockade is unlawful and cannot be sustained in law. This is so regardless of the grounds on which one seeks to justify the legality of the blockade."

"Israel seeks to justify the blockade on security grounds. The State of Israel is entitled to peace and security like any other. The firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law. But any action in response which constitutes collective punishment of the civilian population in Gaza is not lawful in any circumstances."​
This is the fundamental difference between the two findings.  One suggests that Israel has the right of self-defense, and the other suggests that "any action in response which constitutes collective punishment of the civilian population in Gaza is not lawful." 

The UNHCR F-FM Report made the following allegations:

Violations of Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:
• Willful killing;
• Torture or inhuman treatment;
• Wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.

The Mission also considers that a series of violations of Israel’s obligations under international human rights law have taken place, including:
• Right to life (Art. 6, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights);
• Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Art. 7, International Covenant; Convention against Torture);
• Right to liberty and security of the person and freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention (Art. 9, International Covenant);
• Right of detainees to be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person (Art. 10, International Covenant);
• Freedom of expression (Art. 19, International Covenant).
*(COMMENT)*

It is important to take notice that the UNHCR F-FM Report does not claim that the Israeli Blockade of Gaza actually violates United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I, II, or III); but that it is illegal on Humanitarian grounds --- a "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza.   The Panel of Inquiry clearly states that "These factors alone indicate it was not imposed to punish its citizens for the election of Hamas."  The F-FM Report states "The Mission has come to the firm conclusion that a humanitarian crisis existed on the 31 May 2010 in Gaza."  And from that derives:  "the action cannot be justified in the circumstances even under Article 51 of the Charter of the United
Nations."  This, even though the F-FM also finds that "The firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."

It is no wonder that the Panel of Inquiry (with two former Heads of State) took a view differing from that of Humanitarian Law.  There is no question in their mind that International Law never trumps the right of any people to defend themselves.

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations,"  (Article 51, UN Charter)​
It is generally recognized that no F-FM can establish a limitation on an "inherent right" of a nation to defend itself; especially when that nation is exercising the right in the face of the "firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law." 

Both the Panel and F-FM are in agreement that the actions of HAMAS "constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."  What they disagree on is the "inherent right of self-defense."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

Speaking Freely Lamis Deek from National Lawyers Guild on Vimeo

Sorry, this video would not imbed.


----------



## theliq

montelatici said:


> That happens to be in Jordan.


He's good??????? NOT!!!!!!!!!!!! ain't he Monte LOL


----------



## theliq

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians? Here are some.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those Palestinian girl race car drivers deserve respect.  Was this one of Israel's concentration camp activites?
Click to expand...

Classy and Proud and Beautiful.....as only Palestinian women are,thanks Tinnie.....as for MJB....u r a Fool


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Billo_Really,  _et al,_
> 
> I just have to chuckle at this.
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> referring to the blockade being legal and the UN report?
> 
> 
> 
> There's only one UN report that said the blockade was legal and they weren't commissioned to make that determination.  They had no experts in international maritime law and serious conflicts of interest in their panel members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(SALIENT POINTS)*
> 
> Reference:  31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident
> 
> It just so happens that the Report that Billo_Really is refering to was a panel of five UN Human Rights experts reporting to the UN Human Rights Council; and it was they that rejected that the Palmer Report conclusions.   The UNHRC Panel based their conclusion of "international human rights and humanitarian law;" not Maritime Law.
> 
> The Palmer Report  was an investigative "Panel of Inquiry" guided and adopted by the two former heads of state (Chair and Vice-Chair); published in September 2011 (a year after the UNHCR Report).  It was a decidedly as different in character from the UNHCR Fact Finding Mission, as one could conceive.
> 
> The Right Honorable Sir Geoffrey Palmer, KCMG AC QC, Chair, 33rd Prime Minister of New Zealand
> The Right Honorable Alvaro Uribe, Vice-Chair, 31st President of Colombia,  studied Law at the University of Antioquia; attended Harvard University, receiving a Certificate of Special Studies in Administration and Management at Harvard Extension School and Certificate in Negotiation and Dispute Resolution at Harvard Law School;  studied at St Antony's College, Oxford, England, on a Chevening-Simón Bolívar scholarship.
> Mr. Joseph Ciechanover Itzhar, Member, Ph.D. in Philosophy from Boston University, L.L.M. (Master of Laws) from the UC Berkeley
> Mr. Süleyman Özdem Sanberk, Director of the International Strategic Research Organisation (USAK); former diplomat --- stationed in the Turkish embassies in Madrid, Amman, Bonn and Paris, and at the Permanent Delegation to the OECD.  He has also been Chief Foreign Policy Advisor to the Prime Minister, Permanent Representative to the European Union, Undersecretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Ambassador to the United Kingdom. Ambassador Sanberk retired from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2000 and was the Director of the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV) until September 2003.
> The UN Human Rights Council Fact-Finding Mission (F-FM) Report (A/HRC/15/21) published 27 September 2010, was assisted by external specialists in forensic pathology, military issues, firearms, the law of the sea and international humanitarian law.
> 
> Judge Karl T. Hudson-Phillips, Q.C., Chairman, Judge of the International Criminal Court (Ret) and former Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago,
> Sir Desmond de Silva, Q.C. of the United Kingdom, former Chief Prosecutor of the United Nations-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone,
> Ms. Mary Shanthi Dairiam of Malaysia, founding member of the Board of Directors of the International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific and former member of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.
> The two reports are essentially evenly matched.  One examines the Blockade from a view that is entirely at odds with the other.  And the conflict between the two reports are the classic Political-Military view versus the Humanitarian view in war.
> 
> The Panel of Inquiry gave weight to the concept that:
> 
> "The Panel notes in this regard that the uncertain legal status of Gaza under international law cannot mean that Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory.  The Israeli report to the Panel makes it clear that the naval blockade as a measure of the use of force was adopted for the purpose of defending its territory and population, and the Panel accepts that was the case. It was designed as one way to prevent weapons reaching Gaza by sea and to prevent such attacks to be launched from the sea.  Indeed there have been various incidents in which ships carrying weapons were intercepted by the Israeli authorities on their way to Gaza. While the attacks have not completely ceased since the time of the imposition of the naval blockade, their scale and intensity has much decreased over time.  While this decrease might also be due to other factors, a blockade in those circumstances is a legitimate exercise of the right of self-defence. Although a blockade by definition imposes a restriction on all maritime traffic, given the relatively small size of the blockade zone and the practical difficulties associated with other methods of monitoring vessels (such as by search and visit), the Panel is not persuaded that the naval blockade was a disproportionate measure for Israel to have taken in response to the threat it faced."​
> "Important humanitarian considerations constrain the imposition of a naval blockade. For one, it would be illegal if its imposition was intended to starve or to collectively punish the civilian population. However, there is no material before the Panel that would permit a finding confirming the allegations that Israel had either of those intentions or that the naval blockade was imposed in retaliation for the take-over of Hamas in Gaza or otherwise. On the contrary, it is evident that Israel had a military objective. The stated primary objective of the naval blockade was for security. It was to prevent weapons, ammunition, military supplies and people from entering Gaza and to stop Hamas operatives sailing away from Gaza with vessels filled with explosives."​
> After a discussion of both the Law of War, the Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and important humanitarian considerations which constrain the imposition of a naval blockade; "The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal."
> 
> Conversely, the UNHCR F-FM Report gave a preponderance of its consideration to the Humanitarian aspects of the event.
> 
> "The Mission has come to the firm conclusion that a humanitarian crisis existed on the 31 May 2010 in Gaza. The preponderance of evidence from impeccable sources is too overwhelming to come to a contrary opinion. Any denial of this cannot be supported on any rational grounds. One of the consequences flowing from this is that for this reason alone the blockade is unlawful and cannot be sustained in law. This is so regardless of the grounds on which one seeks to justify the legality of the blockade."
> 
> "Israel seeks to justify the blockade on security grounds. The State of Israel is entitled to peace and security like any other. The firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law. But any action in response which constitutes collective punishment of the civilian population in Gaza is not lawful in any circumstances."​
> This is the fundamental difference between the two findings.  One suggests that Israel has the right of self-defense, and the other suggests that "any action in response which constitutes collective punishment of the civilian population in Gaza is not lawful."
> 
> The UNHCR F-FM Report made the following allegations:
> 
> Violations of Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:
> • Willful killing;
> • Torture or inhuman treatment;
> • Wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.
> 
> The Mission also considers that a series of violations of Israel’s obligations under international human rights law have taken place, including:
> • Right to life (Art. 6, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights);
> • Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Art. 7, International Covenant; Convention against Torture);
> • Right to liberty and security of the person and freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention (Art. 9, International Covenant);
> • Right of detainees to be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person (Art. 10, International Covenant);
> • Freedom of expression (Art. 19, International Covenant).
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is important to take notice that the UNHCR F-FM Report does not claim that the Israeli Blockade of Gaza actually violates United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I, II, or III); but that it is illegal on Humanitarian grounds --- a "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza.   The Panel of Inquiry clearly states that "These factors alone indicate it was not imposed to punish its citizens for the election of Hamas."  The F-FM Report states "The Mission has come to the firm conclusion that a humanitarian crisis existed on the 31 May 2010 in Gaza."  And from that derives:  "the action cannot be justified in the circumstances even under Article 51 of the Charter of the United
> Nations."  This, even though the F-FM also finds that "The firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."
> 
> It is no wonder that the Panel of Inquiry (with two former Heads of State) took a view differing from that of Humanitarian Law.  There is no question in their mind that International Law never trumps the right of any people to defend themselves.
> 
> "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations,"  (Article 51, UN Charter)​
> It is generally recognized that no F-FM can establish a limitation on an "inherent right" of a nation to defend itself; especially when that nation is exercising the right in the face of the "firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."
> 
> Both the Panel and F-FM are in agreement that the actions of HAMAS "constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."  What they disagree on is the "inherent right of self-defense."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

*"Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory."*

It always cracks me up when you post that.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

While it is my post, it is the reports words (in quotes).



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really,  _et al,_
> 
> I just have to chuckle at this.
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> referring to the blockade being legal and the UN report?
> 
> 
> 
> There's only one UN report that said the blockade was legal and they weren't commissioned to make that determination.  They had no experts in international maritime law and serious conflicts of interest in their panel members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(SALIENT POINTS)*
> 
> Reference:  31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident
> 
> It just so happens that the Report that Billo_Really is refering to was a panel of five UN Human Rights experts reporting to the UN Human Rights Council; and it was they that rejected that the Palmer Report conclusions.   The UNHRC Panel based their conclusion of "international human rights and humanitarian law;" not Maritime Law.
> 
> The Palmer Report  was an investigative "Panel of Inquiry" guided and adopted by the two former heads of state (Chair and Vice-Chair); published in September 2011 (a year after the UNHCR Report).  It was a decidedly as different in character from the UNHCR Fact Finding Mission, as one could conceive.
> 
> The Right Honorable Sir Geoffrey Palmer, KCMG AC QC, Chair, 33rd Prime Minister of New Zealand
> The Right Honorable Alvaro Uribe, Vice-Chair, 31st President of Colombia,  studied Law at the University of Antioquia; attended Harvard University, receiving a Certificate of Special Studies in Administration and Management at Harvard Extension School and Certificate in Negotiation and Dispute Resolution at Harvard Law School;  studied at St Antony's College, Oxford, England, on a Chevening-Simón Bolívar scholarship.
> Mr. Joseph Ciechanover Itzhar, Member, Ph.D. in Philosophy from Boston University, L.L.M. (Master of Laws) from the UC Berkeley
> Mr. Süleyman Özdem Sanberk, Director of the International Strategic Research Organisation (USAK); former diplomat --- stationed in the Turkish embassies in Madrid, Amman, Bonn and Paris, and at the Permanent Delegation to the OECD.  He has also been Chief Foreign Policy Advisor to the Prime Minister, Permanent Representative to the European Union, Undersecretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Ambassador to the United Kingdom. Ambassador Sanberk retired from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2000 and was the Director of the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV) until September 2003.
> The UN Human Rights Council Fact-Finding Mission (F-FM) Report (A/HRC/15/21) published 27 September 2010, was assisted by external specialists in forensic pathology, military issues, firearms, the law of the sea and international humanitarian law.
> 
> Judge Karl T. Hudson-Phillips, Q.C., Chairman, Judge of the International Criminal Court (Ret) and former Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago,
> Sir Desmond de Silva, Q.C. of the United Kingdom, former Chief Prosecutor of the United Nations-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone,
> Ms. Mary Shanthi Dairiam of Malaysia, founding member of the Board of Directors of the International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific and former member of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.
> The two reports are essentially evenly matched.  One examines the Blockade from a view that is entirely at odds with the other.  And the conflict between the two reports are the classic Political-Military view versus the Humanitarian view in war.
> 
> The Panel of Inquiry gave weight to the concept that:
> 
> "The Panel notes in this regard that the uncertain legal status of Gaza under international law cannot mean that Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory.  The Israeli report to the Panel makes it clear that the naval blockade as a measure of the use of force was adopted for the purpose of defending its territory and population, and the Panel accepts that was the case. It was designed as one way to prevent weapons reaching Gaza by sea and to prevent such attacks to be launched from the sea.  Indeed there have been various incidents in which ships carrying weapons were intercepted by the Israeli authorities on their way to Gaza. While the attacks have not completely ceased since the time of the imposition of the naval blockade, their scale and intensity has much decreased over time.  While this decrease might also be due to other factors, a blockade in those circumstances is a legitimate exercise of the right of self-defence. Although a blockade by definition imposes a restriction on all maritime traffic, given the relatively small size of the blockade zone and the practical difficulties associated with other methods of monitoring vessels (such as by search and visit), the Panel is not persuaded that the naval blockade was a disproportionate measure for Israel to have taken in response to the threat it faced."​
> "Important humanitarian considerations constrain the imposition of a naval blockade. For one, it would be illegal if its imposition was intended to starve or to collectively punish the civilian population. However, there is no material before the Panel that would permit a finding confirming the allegations that Israel had either of those intentions or that the naval blockade was imposed in retaliation for the take-over of Hamas in Gaza or otherwise. On the contrary, it is evident that Israel had a military objective. The stated primary objective of the naval blockade was for security. It was to prevent weapons, ammunition, military supplies and people from entering Gaza and to stop Hamas operatives sailing away from Gaza with vessels filled with explosives."​
> After a discussion of both the Law of War, the Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and important humanitarian considerations which constrain the imposition of a naval blockade; "The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal."
> 
> Conversely, the UNHCR F-FM Report gave a preponderance of its consideration to the Humanitarian aspects of the event.
> 
> "The Mission has come to the firm conclusion that a humanitarian crisis existed on the 31 May 2010 in Gaza. The preponderance of evidence from impeccable sources is too overwhelming to come to a contrary opinion. Any denial of this cannot be supported on any rational grounds. One of the consequences flowing from this is that for this reason alone the blockade is unlawful and cannot be sustained in law. This is so regardless of the grounds on which one seeks to justify the legality of the blockade."
> 
> "Israel seeks to justify the blockade on security grounds. The State of Israel is entitled to peace and security like any other. The firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law. But any action in response which constitutes collective punishment of the civilian population in Gaza is not lawful in any circumstances."​
> This is the fundamental difference between the two findings.  One suggests that Israel has the right of self-defense, and the other suggests that "any action in response which constitutes collective punishment of the civilian population in Gaza is not lawful."
> 
> The UNHCR F-FM Report made the following allegations:
> 
> Violations of Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:
> • Willful killing;
> • Torture or inhuman treatment;
> • Wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.
> 
> The Mission also considers that a series of violations of Israel’s obligations under international human rights law have taken place, including:
> • Right to life (Art. 6, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights);
> • Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Art. 7, International Covenant; Convention against Torture);
> • Right to liberty and security of the person and freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention (Art. 9, International Covenant);
> • Right of detainees to be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person (Art. 10, International Covenant);
> • Freedom of expression (Art. 19, International Covenant).
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is important to take notice that the UNHCR F-FM Report does not claim that the Israeli Blockade of Gaza actually violates United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I, II, or III); but that it is illegal on Humanitarian grounds --- a "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza.   The Panel of Inquiry clearly states that "These factors alone indicate it was not imposed to punish its citizens for the election of Hamas."  The F-FM Report states "The Mission has come to the firm conclusion that a humanitarian crisis existed on the 31 May 2010 in Gaza."  And from that derives:  "the action cannot be justified in the circumstances even under Article 51 of the Charter of the United
> Nations."  This, even though the F-FM also finds that "The firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."
> 
> It is no wonder that the Panel of Inquiry (with two former Heads of State) took a view differing from that of Humanitarian Law.  There is no question in their mind that International Law never trumps the right of any people to defend themselves.
> 
> "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations,"  (Article 51, UN Charter)​
> It is generally recognized that no F-FM can establish a limitation on an "inherent right" of a nation to defend itself; especially when that nation is exercising the right in the face of the "firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."
> 
> Both the Panel and F-FM are in agreement that the actions of HAMAS "constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."  What they disagree on is the "inherent right of self-defense."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory."*
> 
> It always cracks me up when you post that.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The entire sentence reads:  "The Panel notes in this regard that the uncertain legal status of Gaza under international law cannot mean that Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> While it is my post, it is the reports words (in quotes).
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really,  _et al,_
> 
> I just have to chuckle at this.
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> referring to the blockade being legal and the UN report?
> 
> 
> 
> There's only one UN report that said the blockade was legal and they weren't commissioned to make that determination.  They had no experts in international maritime law and serious conflicts of interest in their panel members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(SALIENT POINTS)*
> 
> Reference:  31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident
> 
> It just so happens that the Report that Billo_Really is refering to was a panel of five UN Human Rights experts reporting to the UN Human Rights Council; and it was they that rejected that the Palmer Report conclusions.   The UNHRC Panel based their conclusion of "international human rights and humanitarian law;" not Maritime Law.
> 
> The Palmer Report  was an investigative "Panel of Inquiry" guided and adopted by the two former heads of state (Chair and Vice-Chair); published in September 2011 (a year after the UNHCR Report).  It was a decidedly as different in character from the UNHCR Fact Finding Mission, as one could conceive.
> 
> The Right Honorable Sir Geoffrey Palmer, KCMG AC QC, Chair, 33rd Prime Minister of New Zealand
> The Right Honorable Alvaro Uribe, Vice-Chair, 31st President of Colombia,  studied Law at the University of Antioquia; attended Harvard University, receiving a Certificate of Special Studies in Administration and Management at Harvard Extension School and Certificate in Negotiation and Dispute Resolution at Harvard Law School;  studied at St Antony's College, Oxford, England, on a Chevening-Simón Bolívar scholarship.
> Mr. Joseph Ciechanover Itzhar, Member, Ph.D. in Philosophy from Boston University, L.L.M. (Master of Laws) from the UC Berkeley
> Mr. Süleyman Özdem Sanberk, Director of the International Strategic Research Organisation (USAK); former diplomat --- stationed in the Turkish embassies in Madrid, Amman, Bonn and Paris, and at the Permanent Delegation to the OECD.  He has also been Chief Foreign Policy Advisor to the Prime Minister, Permanent Representative to the European Union, Undersecretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Ambassador to the United Kingdom. Ambassador Sanberk retired from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2000 and was the Director of the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV) until September 2003.
> The UN Human Rights Council Fact-Finding Mission (F-FM) Report (A/HRC/15/21) published 27 September 2010, was assisted by external specialists in forensic pathology, military issues, firearms, the law of the sea and international humanitarian law.
> 
> Judge Karl T. Hudson-Phillips, Q.C., Chairman, Judge of the International Criminal Court (Ret) and former Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago,
> Sir Desmond de Silva, Q.C. of the United Kingdom, former Chief Prosecutor of the United Nations-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone,
> Ms. Mary Shanthi Dairiam of Malaysia, founding member of the Board of Directors of the International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific and former member of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.
> The two reports are essentially evenly matched.  One examines the Blockade from a view that is entirely at odds with the other.  And the conflict between the two reports are the classic Political-Military view versus the Humanitarian view in war.
> 
> The Panel of Inquiry gave weight to the concept that:
> 
> "The Panel notes in this regard that the uncertain legal status of Gaza under international law cannot mean that Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory.  The Israeli report to the Panel makes it clear that the naval blockade as a measure of the use of force was adopted for the purpose of defending its territory and population, and the Panel accepts that was the case. It was designed as one way to prevent weapons reaching Gaza by sea and to prevent such attacks to be launched from the sea.  Indeed there have been various incidents in which ships carrying weapons were intercepted by the Israeli authorities on their way to Gaza. While the attacks have not completely ceased since the time of the imposition of the naval blockade, their scale and intensity has much decreased over time.  While this decrease might also be due to other factors, a blockade in those circumstances is a legitimate exercise of the right of self-defence. Although a blockade by definition imposes a restriction on all maritime traffic, given the relatively small size of the blockade zone and the practical difficulties associated with other methods of monitoring vessels (such as by search and visit), the Panel is not persuaded that the naval blockade was a disproportionate measure for Israel to have taken in response to the threat it faced."​
> "Important humanitarian considerations constrain the imposition of a naval blockade. For one, it would be illegal if its imposition was intended to starve or to collectively punish the civilian population. However, there is no material before the Panel that would permit a finding confirming the allegations that Israel had either of those intentions or that the naval blockade was imposed in retaliation for the take-over of Hamas in Gaza or otherwise. On the contrary, it is evident that Israel had a military objective. The stated primary objective of the naval blockade was for security. It was to prevent weapons, ammunition, military supplies and people from entering Gaza and to stop Hamas operatives sailing away from Gaza with vessels filled with explosives."​
> After a discussion of both the Law of War, the Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and important humanitarian considerations which constrain the imposition of a naval blockade; "The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal."
> 
> Conversely, the UNHCR F-FM Report gave a preponderance of its consideration to the Humanitarian aspects of the event.
> 
> "The Mission has come to the firm conclusion that a humanitarian crisis existed on the 31 May 2010 in Gaza. The preponderance of evidence from impeccable sources is too overwhelming to come to a contrary opinion. Any denial of this cannot be supported on any rational grounds. One of the consequences flowing from this is that for this reason alone the blockade is unlawful and cannot be sustained in law. This is so regardless of the grounds on which one seeks to justify the legality of the blockade."
> 
> "Israel seeks to justify the blockade on security grounds. The State of Israel is entitled to peace and security like any other. The firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law. But any action in response which constitutes collective punishment of the civilian population in Gaza is not lawful in any circumstances."​
> This is the fundamental difference between the two findings.  One suggests that Israel has the right of self-defense, and the other suggests that "any action in response which constitutes collective punishment of the civilian population in Gaza is not lawful."
> 
> The UNHCR F-FM Report made the following allegations:
> 
> Violations of Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:
> • Willful killing;
> • Torture or inhuman treatment;
> • Wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.
> 
> The Mission also considers that a series of violations of Israel’s obligations under international human rights law have taken place, including:
> • Right to life (Art. 6, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights);
> • Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Art. 7, International Covenant; Convention against Torture);
> • Right to liberty and security of the person and freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention (Art. 9, International Covenant);
> • Right of detainees to be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person (Art. 10, International Covenant);
> • Freedom of expression (Art. 19, International Covenant).
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is important to take notice that the UNHCR F-FM Report does not claim that the Israeli Blockade of Gaza actually violates United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I, II, or III); but that it is illegal on Humanitarian grounds --- a "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza.   The Panel of Inquiry clearly states that "These factors alone indicate it was not imposed to punish its citizens for the election of Hamas."  The F-FM Report states "The Mission has come to the firm conclusion that a humanitarian crisis existed on the 31 May 2010 in Gaza."  And from that derives:  "the action cannot be justified in the circumstances even under Article 51 of the Charter of the United
> Nations."  This, even though the F-FM also finds that "The firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."
> 
> It is no wonder that the Panel of Inquiry (with two former Heads of State) took a view differing from that of Humanitarian Law.  There is no question in their mind that International Law never trumps the right of any people to defend themselves.
> 
> "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations,"  (Article 51, UN Charter)​
> It is generally recognized that no F-FM can establish a limitation on an "inherent right" of a nation to defend itself; especially when that nation is exercising the right in the face of the "firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."
> 
> Both the Panel and F-FM are in agreement that the actions of HAMAS "constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."  What they disagree on is the "inherent right of self-defense."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory."*
> 
> It always cracks me up when you post that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The entire sentence reads:  "The Panel notes in this regard that the uncertain legal status of Gaza under international law cannot mean that Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Yeah, so?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

So, if you are going to comment, please do so in the proper context.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> While it is my post, it is the reports words (in quotes).
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really,  _et al,_
> 
> I just have to chuckle at this.
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> referring to the blockade being legal and the UN report?
> 
> 
> 
> There's only one UN report that said the blockade was legal and they weren't commissioned to make that determination.  They had no experts in international maritime law and serious conflicts of interest in their panel members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(SALIENT POINTS)*
> 
> Reference:  31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident
> 
> It just so happens that the Report that Billo_Really is refering to was a panel of five UN Human Rights experts reporting to the UN Human Rights Council; and it was they that rejected that the Palmer Report conclusions.   The UNHRC Panel based their conclusion of "international human rights and humanitarian law;" not Maritime Law.
> 
> The Palmer Report  was an investigative "Panel of Inquiry" guided and adopted by the two former heads of state (Chair and Vice-Chair); published in September 2011 (a year after the UNHCR Report).  It was a decidedly as different in character from the UNHCR Fact Finding Mission, as one could conceive.
> 
> The Right Honorable Sir Geoffrey Palmer, KCMG AC QC, Chair, 33rd Prime Minister of New Zealand
> The Right Honorable Alvaro Uribe, Vice-Chair, 31st President of Colombia,  studied Law at the University of Antioquia; attended Harvard University, receiving a Certificate of Special Studies in Administration and Management at Harvard Extension School and Certificate in Negotiation and Dispute Resolution at Harvard Law School;  studied at St Antony's College, Oxford, England, on a Chevening-Simón Bolívar scholarship.
> Mr. Joseph Ciechanover Itzhar, Member, Ph.D. in Philosophy from Boston University, L.L.M. (Master of Laws) from the UC Berkeley
> Mr. Süleyman Özdem Sanberk, Director of the International Strategic Research Organisation (USAK); former diplomat --- stationed in the Turkish embassies in Madrid, Amman, Bonn and Paris, and at the Permanent Delegation to the OECD.  He has also been Chief Foreign Policy Advisor to the Prime Minister, Permanent Representative to the European Union, Undersecretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Ambassador to the United Kingdom. Ambassador Sanberk retired from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2000 and was the Director of the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV) until September 2003.
> The UN Human Rights Council Fact-Finding Mission (F-FM) Report (A/HRC/15/21) published 27 September 2010, was assisted by external specialists in forensic pathology, military issues, firearms, the law of the sea and international humanitarian law.
> 
> Judge Karl T. Hudson-Phillips, Q.C., Chairman, Judge of the International Criminal Court (Ret) and former Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago,
> Sir Desmond de Silva, Q.C. of the United Kingdom, former Chief Prosecutor of the United Nations-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone,
> Ms. Mary Shanthi Dairiam of Malaysia, founding member of the Board of Directors of the International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific and former member of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.
> The two reports are essentially evenly matched.  One examines the Blockade from a view that is entirely at odds with the other.  And the conflict between the two reports are the classic Political-Military view versus the Humanitarian view in war.
> 
> The Panel of Inquiry gave weight to the concept that:
> 
> "The Panel notes in this regard that the uncertain legal status of Gaza under international law cannot mean that Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory.  The Israeli report to the Panel makes it clear that the naval blockade as a measure of the use of force was adopted for the purpose of defending its territory and population, and the Panel accepts that was the case. It was designed as one way to prevent weapons reaching Gaza by sea and to prevent such attacks to be launched from the sea.  Indeed there have been various incidents in which ships carrying weapons were intercepted by the Israeli authorities on their way to Gaza. While the attacks have not completely ceased since the time of the imposition of the naval blockade, their scale and intensity has much decreased over time.  While this decrease might also be due to other factors, a blockade in those circumstances is a legitimate exercise of the right of self-defence. Although a blockade by definition imposes a restriction on all maritime traffic, given the relatively small size of the blockade zone and the practical difficulties associated with other methods of monitoring vessels (such as by search and visit), the Panel is not persuaded that the naval blockade was a disproportionate measure for Israel to have taken in response to the threat it faced."​
> "Important humanitarian considerations constrain the imposition of a naval blockade. For one, it would be illegal if its imposition was intended to starve or to collectively punish the civilian population. However, there is no material before the Panel that would permit a finding confirming the allegations that Israel had either of those intentions or that the naval blockade was imposed in retaliation for the take-over of Hamas in Gaza or otherwise. On the contrary, it is evident that Israel had a military objective. The stated primary objective of the naval blockade was for security. It was to prevent weapons, ammunition, military supplies and people from entering Gaza and to stop Hamas operatives sailing away from Gaza with vessels filled with explosives."​
> After a discussion of both the Law of War, the Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and important humanitarian considerations which constrain the imposition of a naval blockade; "The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal."
> 
> Conversely, the UNHCR F-FM Report gave a preponderance of its consideration to the Humanitarian aspects of the event.
> 
> "The Mission has come to the firm conclusion that a humanitarian crisis existed on the 31 May 2010 in Gaza. The preponderance of evidence from impeccable sources is too overwhelming to come to a contrary opinion. Any denial of this cannot be supported on any rational grounds. One of the consequences flowing from this is that for this reason alone the blockade is unlawful and cannot be sustained in law. This is so regardless of the grounds on which one seeks to justify the legality of the blockade."
> 
> "Israel seeks to justify the blockade on security grounds. The State of Israel is entitled to peace and security like any other. The firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law. But any action in response which constitutes collective punishment of the civilian population in Gaza is not lawful in any circumstances."​
> This is the fundamental difference between the two findings.  One suggests that Israel has the right of self-defense, and the other suggests that "any action in response which constitutes collective punishment of the civilian population in Gaza is not lawful."
> 
> The UNHCR F-FM Report made the following allegations:
> 
> Violations of Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:
> • Willful killing;
> • Torture or inhuman treatment;
> • Wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.
> 
> The Mission also considers that a series of violations of Israel’s obligations under international human rights law have taken place, including:
> • Right to life (Art. 6, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights);
> • Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Art. 7, International Covenant; Convention against Torture);
> • Right to liberty and security of the person and freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention (Art. 9, International Covenant);
> • Right of detainees to be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person (Art. 10, International Covenant);
> • Freedom of expression (Art. 19, International Covenant).
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is important to take notice that the UNHCR F-FM Report does not claim that the Israeli Blockade of Gaza actually violates United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I, II, or III); but that it is illegal on Humanitarian grounds --- a "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza.   The Panel of Inquiry clearly states that "These factors alone indicate it was not imposed to punish its citizens for the election of Hamas."  The F-FM Report states "The Mission has come to the firm conclusion that a humanitarian crisis existed on the 31 May 2010 in Gaza."  And from that derives:  "the action cannot be justified in the circumstances even under Article 51 of the Charter of the United
> Nations."  This, even though the F-FM also finds that "The firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."
> 
> It is no wonder that the Panel of Inquiry (with two former Heads of State) took a view differing from that of Humanitarian Law.  There is no question in their mind that International Law never trumps the right of any people to defend themselves.
> 
> "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations,"  (Article 51, UN Charter)​
> It is generally recognized that no F-FM can establish a limitation on an "inherent right" of a nation to defend itself; especially when that nation is exercising the right in the face of the "firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."
> 
> Both the Panel and F-FM are in agreement that the actions of HAMAS "constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."  What they disagree on is the "inherent right of self-defense."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory."*
> 
> It always cracks me up when you post that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The entire sentence reads:  "The Panel notes in this regard that the uncertain legal status of Gaza under international law cannot mean that Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, so?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

We are talking about the "inherent right" the Israelis are exercising.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> While it is my post, it is the reports words (in quotes).
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really,  _et al,_
> 
> I just have to chuckle at this.
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> referring to the blockade being legal and the UN report?
> 
> 
> 
> There's only one UN report that said the blockade was legal and they weren't commissioned to make that determination.  They had no experts in international maritime law and serious conflicts of interest in their panel members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(SALIENT POINTS)*
> 
> Reference:  31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident
> 
> It just so happens that the Report that Billo_Really is refering to was a panel of five UN Human Rights experts reporting to the UN Human Rights Council; and it was they that rejected that the Palmer Report conclusions.   The UNHRC Panel based their conclusion of "international human rights and humanitarian law;" not Maritime Law.
> 
> The Palmer Report  was an investigative "Panel of Inquiry" guided and adopted by the two former heads of state (Chair and Vice-Chair); published in September 2011 (a year after the UNHCR Report).  It was a decidedly as different in character from the UNHCR Fact Finding Mission, as one could conceive.
> 
> The Right Honorable Sir Geoffrey Palmer, KCMG AC QC, Chair, 33rd Prime Minister of New Zealand
> The Right Honorable Alvaro Uribe, Vice-Chair, 31st President of Colombia,  studied Law at the University of Antioquia; attended Harvard University, receiving a Certificate of Special Studies in Administration and Management at Harvard Extension School and Certificate in Negotiation and Dispute Resolution at Harvard Law School;  studied at St Antony's College, Oxford, England, on a Chevening-Simón Bolívar scholarship.
> Mr. Joseph Ciechanover Itzhar, Member, Ph.D. in Philosophy from Boston University, L.L.M. (Master of Laws) from the UC Berkeley
> Mr. Süleyman Özdem Sanberk, Director of the International Strategic Research Organisation (USAK); former diplomat --- stationed in the Turkish embassies in Madrid, Amman, Bonn and Paris, and at the Permanent Delegation to the OECD.  He has also been Chief Foreign Policy Advisor to the Prime Minister, Permanent Representative to the European Union, Undersecretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Ambassador to the United Kingdom. Ambassador Sanberk retired from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2000 and was the Director of the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV) until September 2003.
> The UN Human Rights Council Fact-Finding Mission (F-FM) Report (A/HRC/15/21) published 27 September 2010, was assisted by external specialists in forensic pathology, military issues, firearms, the law of the sea and international humanitarian law.
> 
> Judge Karl T. Hudson-Phillips, Q.C., Chairman, Judge of the International Criminal Court (Ret) and former Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago,
> Sir Desmond de Silva, Q.C. of the United Kingdom, former Chief Prosecutor of the United Nations-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone,
> Ms. Mary Shanthi Dairiam of Malaysia, founding member of the Board of Directors of the International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific and former member of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.
> The two reports are essentially evenly matched.  One examines the Blockade from a view that is entirely at odds with the other.  And the conflict between the two reports are the classic Political-Military view versus the Humanitarian view in war.
> 
> The Panel of Inquiry gave weight to the concept that:
> 
> "The Panel notes in this regard that the uncertain legal status of Gaza under international law cannot mean that Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory.  The Israeli report to the Panel makes it clear that the naval blockade as a measure of the use of force was adopted for the purpose of defending its territory and population, and the Panel accepts that was the case. It was designed as one way to prevent weapons reaching Gaza by sea and to prevent such attacks to be launched from the sea.  Indeed there have been various incidents in which ships carrying weapons were intercepted by the Israeli authorities on their way to Gaza. While the attacks have not completely ceased since the time of the imposition of the naval blockade, their scale and intensity has much decreased over time.  While this decrease might also be due to other factors, a blockade in those circumstances is a legitimate exercise of the right of self-defence. Although a blockade by definition imposes a restriction on all maritime traffic, given the relatively small size of the blockade zone and the practical difficulties associated with other methods of monitoring vessels (such as by search and visit), the Panel is not persuaded that the naval blockade was a disproportionate measure for Israel to have taken in response to the threat it faced."​
> "Important humanitarian considerations constrain the imposition of a naval blockade. For one, it would be illegal if its imposition was intended to starve or to collectively punish the civilian population. However, there is no material before the Panel that would permit a finding confirming the allegations that Israel had either of those intentions or that the naval blockade was imposed in retaliation for the take-over of Hamas in Gaza or otherwise. On the contrary, it is evident that Israel had a military objective. The stated primary objective of the naval blockade was for security. It was to prevent weapons, ammunition, military supplies and people from entering Gaza and to stop Hamas operatives sailing away from Gaza with vessels filled with explosives."​
> After a discussion of both the Law of War, the Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and important humanitarian considerations which constrain the imposition of a naval blockade; "The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal."
> 
> Conversely, the UNHCR F-FM Report gave a preponderance of its consideration to the Humanitarian aspects of the event.
> 
> "The Mission has come to the firm conclusion that a humanitarian crisis existed on the 31 May 2010 in Gaza. The preponderance of evidence from impeccable sources is too overwhelming to come to a contrary opinion. Any denial of this cannot be supported on any rational grounds. One of the consequences flowing from this is that for this reason alone the blockade is unlawful and cannot be sustained in law. This is so regardless of the grounds on which one seeks to justify the legality of the blockade."
> 
> "Israel seeks to justify the blockade on security grounds. The State of Israel is entitled to peace and security like any other. The firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law. But any action in response which constitutes collective punishment of the civilian population in Gaza is not lawful in any circumstances."​
> This is the fundamental difference between the two findings.  One suggests that Israel has the right of self-defense, and the other suggests that "any action in response which constitutes collective punishment of the civilian population in Gaza is not lawful."
> 
> The UNHCR F-FM Report made the following allegations:
> 
> Violations of Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:
> • Willful killing;
> • Torture or inhuman treatment;
> • Wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.
> 
> The Mission also considers that a series of violations of Israel’s obligations under international human rights law have taken place, including:
> • Right to life (Art. 6, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights);
> • Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Art. 7, International Covenant; Convention against Torture);
> • Right to liberty and security of the person and freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention (Art. 9, International Covenant);
> • Right of detainees to be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person (Art. 10, International Covenant);
> • Freedom of expression (Art. 19, International Covenant).
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is important to take notice that the UNHCR F-FM Report does not claim that the Israeli Blockade of Gaza actually violates United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I, II, or III); but that it is illegal on Humanitarian grounds --- a "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza.   The Panel of Inquiry clearly states that "These factors alone indicate it was not imposed to punish its citizens for the election of Hamas."  The F-FM Report states "The Mission has come to the firm conclusion that a humanitarian crisis existed on the 31 May 2010 in Gaza."  And from that derives:  "the action cannot be justified in the circumstances even under Article 51 of the Charter of the United
> Nations."  This, even though the F-FM also finds that "The firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."
> 
> It is no wonder that the Panel of Inquiry (with two former Heads of State) took a view differing from that of Humanitarian Law.  There is no question in their mind that International Law never trumps the right of any people to defend themselves.
> 
> "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations,"  (Article 51, UN Charter)​
> It is generally recognized that no F-FM can establish a limitation on an "inherent right" of a nation to defend itself; especially when that nation is exercising the right in the face of the "firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."
> 
> Both the Panel and F-FM are in agreement that the actions of HAMAS "constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."  What they disagree on is the "inherent right of self-defense."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory."*
> 
> It always cracks me up when you post that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The entire sentence reads:  "The Panel notes in this regard that the uncertain legal status of Gaza under international law cannot mean that Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, so?
Click to expand...


Don't take words out of context to suit your warped agenda.  When you do so you are laying and it does not reflex well on you or your arguments.


----------



## MJB12741

The thread asks Who Are The Palestinians.  And the only answer we have received is race car drivers in Jordan.  Very interesting.


----------



## montelatici

aris2chat said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> While it is my post, it is the reports words (in quotes).
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really,  _et al,_
> 
> I just have to chuckle at this.
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's only one UN report that said the blockade was legal and they weren't commissioned to make that determination.  They had no experts in international maritime law and serious conflicts of interest in their panel members.
> 
> 
> 
> *(SALIENT POINTS)*
> 
> Reference:  31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident
> 
> It just so happens that the Report that Billo_Really is refering to was a panel of five UN Human Rights experts reporting to the UN Human Rights Council; and it was they that rejected that the Palmer Report conclusions.   The UNHRC Panel based their conclusion of "international human rights and humanitarian law;" not Maritime Law.
> 
> The Palmer Report  was an investigative "Panel of Inquiry" guided and adopted by the two former heads of state (Chair and Vice-Chair); published in September 2011 (a year after the UNHCR Report).  It was a decidedly as different in character from the UNHCR Fact Finding Mission, as one could conceive.
> 
> The Right Honorable Sir Geoffrey Palmer, KCMG AC QC, Chair, 33rd Prime Minister of New Zealand
> The Right Honorable Alvaro Uribe, Vice-Chair, 31st President of Colombia,  studied Law at the University of Antioquia; attended Harvard University, receiving a Certificate of Special Studies in Administration and Management at Harvard Extension School and Certificate in Negotiation and Dispute Resolution at Harvard Law School;  studied at St Antony's College, Oxford, England, on a Chevening-Simón Bolívar scholarship.
> Mr. Joseph Ciechanover Itzhar, Member, Ph.D. in Philosophy from Boston University, L.L.M. (Master of Laws) from the UC Berkeley
> Mr. Süleyman Özdem Sanberk, Director of the International Strategic Research Organisation (USAK); former diplomat --- stationed in the Turkish embassies in Madrid, Amman, Bonn and Paris, and at the Permanent Delegation to the OECD.  He has also been Chief Foreign Policy Advisor to the Prime Minister, Permanent Representative to the European Union, Undersecretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Ambassador to the United Kingdom. Ambassador Sanberk retired from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2000 and was the Director of the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV) until September 2003.
> The UN Human Rights Council Fact-Finding Mission (F-FM) Report (A/HRC/15/21) published 27 September 2010, was assisted by external specialists in forensic pathology, military issues, firearms, the law of the sea and international humanitarian law.
> 
> Judge Karl T. Hudson-Phillips, Q.C., Chairman, Judge of the International Criminal Court (Ret) and former Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago,
> Sir Desmond de Silva, Q.C. of the United Kingdom, former Chief Prosecutor of the United Nations-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone,
> Ms. Mary Shanthi Dairiam of Malaysia, founding member of the Board of Directors of the International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific and former member of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.
> The two reports are essentially evenly matched.  One examines the Blockade from a view that is entirely at odds with the other.  And the conflict between the two reports are the classic Political-Military view versus the Humanitarian view in war.
> 
> The Panel of Inquiry gave weight to the concept that:
> 
> "The Panel notes in this regard that the uncertain legal status of Gaza under international law cannot mean that Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory.  The Israeli report to the Panel makes it clear that the naval blockade as a measure of the use of force was adopted for the purpose of defending its territory and population, and the Panel accepts that was the case. It was designed as one way to prevent weapons reaching Gaza by sea and to prevent such attacks to be launched from the sea.  Indeed there have been various incidents in which ships carrying weapons were intercepted by the Israeli authorities on their way to Gaza. While the attacks have not completely ceased since the time of the imposition of the naval blockade, their scale and intensity has much decreased over time.  While this decrease might also be due to other factors, a blockade in those circumstances is a legitimate exercise of the right of self-defence. Although a blockade by definition imposes a restriction on all maritime traffic, given the relatively small size of the blockade zone and the practical difficulties associated with other methods of monitoring vessels (such as by search and visit), the Panel is not persuaded that the naval blockade was a disproportionate measure for Israel to have taken in response to the threat it faced."​
> "Important humanitarian considerations constrain the imposition of a naval blockade. For one, it would be illegal if its imposition was intended to starve or to collectively punish the civilian population. However, there is no material before the Panel that would permit a finding confirming the allegations that Israel had either of those intentions or that the naval blockade was imposed in retaliation for the take-over of Hamas in Gaza or otherwise. On the contrary, it is evident that Israel had a military objective. The stated primary objective of the naval blockade was for security. It was to prevent weapons, ammunition, military supplies and people from entering Gaza and to stop Hamas operatives sailing away from Gaza with vessels filled with explosives."​
> After a discussion of both the Law of War, the Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and important humanitarian considerations which constrain the imposition of a naval blockade; "The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal."
> 
> Conversely, the UNHCR F-FM Report gave a preponderance of its consideration to the Humanitarian aspects of the event.
> 
> "The Mission has come to the firm conclusion that a humanitarian crisis existed on the 31 May 2010 in Gaza. The preponderance of evidence from impeccable sources is too overwhelming to come to a contrary opinion. Any denial of this cannot be supported on any rational grounds. One of the consequences flowing from this is that for this reason alone the blockade is unlawful and cannot be sustained in law. This is so regardless of the grounds on which one seeks to justify the legality of the blockade."
> 
> "Israel seeks to justify the blockade on security grounds. The State of Israel is entitled to peace and security like any other. The firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law. But any action in response which constitutes collective punishment of the civilian population in Gaza is not lawful in any circumstances."​
> This is the fundamental difference between the two findings.  One suggests that Israel has the right of self-defense, and the other suggests that "any action in response which constitutes collective punishment of the civilian population in Gaza is not lawful."
> 
> The UNHCR F-FM Report made the following allegations:
> 
> Violations of Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:
> • Willful killing;
> • Torture or inhuman treatment;
> • Wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.
> 
> The Mission also considers that a series of violations of Israel’s obligations under international human rights law have taken place, including:
> • Right to life (Art. 6, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights);
> • Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Art. 7, International Covenant; Convention against Torture);
> • Right to liberty and security of the person and freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention (Art. 9, International Covenant);
> • Right of detainees to be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person (Art. 10, International Covenant);
> • Freedom of expression (Art. 19, International Covenant).
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is important to take notice that the UNHCR F-FM Report does not claim that the Israeli Blockade of Gaza actually violates United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I, II, or III); but that it is illegal on Humanitarian grounds --- a "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza.   The Panel of Inquiry clearly states that "These factors alone indicate it was not imposed to punish its citizens for the election of Hamas."  The F-FM Report states "The Mission has come to the firm conclusion that a humanitarian crisis existed on the 31 May 2010 in Gaza."  And from that derives:  "the action cannot be justified in the circumstances even under Article 51 of the Charter of the United
> Nations."  This, even though the F-FM also finds that "The firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."
> 
> It is no wonder that the Panel of Inquiry (with two former Heads of State) took a view differing from that of Humanitarian Law.  There is no question in their mind that International Law never trumps the right of any people to defend themselves.
> 
> "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations,"  (Article 51, UN Charter)​
> It is generally recognized that no F-FM can establish a limitation on an "inherent right" of a nation to defend itself; especially when that nation is exercising the right in the face of the "firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."
> 
> Both the Panel and F-FM are in agreement that the actions of HAMAS "constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."  What they disagree on is the "inherent right of self-defense."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory."*
> 
> It always cracks me up when you post that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The entire sentence reads:  "The Panel notes in this regard that the uncertain legal status of Gaza under international law cannot mean that Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't take words out of context to suit your warped agenda.  When you do so you are laying and it does not reflex well on you or your arguments.
Click to expand...


Talk about a Non Sequitur


MJB12741 said:


> The thread asks Who Are The Palestinians.  And the only answer we have received is race car drivers in Jordan.  Very interesting.



The Palestinians are the people of Palestine. What kind of point are you trying to make?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> So, if you are going to comment, please do so in the proper context.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> While it is my post, it is the reports words (in quotes).
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really,  _et al,_
> 
> I just have to chuckle at this.
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's only one UN report that said the blockade was legal and they weren't commissioned to make that determination.  They had no experts in international maritime law and serious conflicts of interest in their panel members.
> 
> 
> 
> *(SALIENT POINTS)*
> 
> Reference:  31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident
> 
> It just so happens that the Report that Billo_Really is refering to was a panel of five UN Human Rights experts reporting to the UN Human Rights Council; and it was they that rejected that the Palmer Report conclusions.   The UNHRC Panel based their conclusion of "international human rights and humanitarian law;" not Maritime Law.
> 
> The Palmer Report  was an investigative "Panel of Inquiry" guided and adopted by the two former heads of state (Chair and Vice-Chair); published in September 2011 (a year after the UNHCR Report).  It was a decidedly as different in character from the UNHCR Fact Finding Mission, as one could conceive.
> 
> The Right Honorable Sir Geoffrey Palmer, KCMG AC QC, Chair, 33rd Prime Minister of New Zealand
> The Right Honorable Alvaro Uribe, Vice-Chair, 31st President of Colombia,  studied Law at the University of Antioquia; attended Harvard University, receiving a Certificate of Special Studies in Administration and Management at Harvard Extension School and Certificate in Negotiation and Dispute Resolution at Harvard Law School;  studied at St Antony's College, Oxford, England, on a Chevening-Simón Bolívar scholarship.
> Mr. Joseph Ciechanover Itzhar, Member, Ph.D. in Philosophy from Boston University, L.L.M. (Master of Laws) from the UC Berkeley
> Mr. Süleyman Özdem Sanberk, Director of the International Strategic Research Organisation (USAK); former diplomat --- stationed in the Turkish embassies in Madrid, Amman, Bonn and Paris, and at the Permanent Delegation to the OECD.  He has also been Chief Foreign Policy Advisor to the Prime Minister, Permanent Representative to the European Union, Undersecretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Ambassador to the United Kingdom. Ambassador Sanberk retired from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2000 and was the Director of the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV) until September 2003.
> The UN Human Rights Council Fact-Finding Mission (F-FM) Report (A/HRC/15/21) published 27 September 2010, was assisted by external specialists in forensic pathology, military issues, firearms, the law of the sea and international humanitarian law.
> 
> Judge Karl T. Hudson-Phillips, Q.C., Chairman, Judge of the International Criminal Court (Ret) and former Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago,
> Sir Desmond de Silva, Q.C. of the United Kingdom, former Chief Prosecutor of the United Nations-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone,
> Ms. Mary Shanthi Dairiam of Malaysia, founding member of the Board of Directors of the International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific and former member of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.
> The two reports are essentially evenly matched.  One examines the Blockade from a view that is entirely at odds with the other.  And the conflict between the two reports are the classic Political-Military view versus the Humanitarian view in war.
> 
> The Panel of Inquiry gave weight to the concept that:
> 
> "The Panel notes in this regard that the uncertain legal status of Gaza under international law cannot mean that Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory.  The Israeli report to the Panel makes it clear that the naval blockade as a measure of the use of force was adopted for the purpose of defending its territory and population, and the Panel accepts that was the case. It was designed as one way to prevent weapons reaching Gaza by sea and to prevent such attacks to be launched from the sea.  Indeed there have been various incidents in which ships carrying weapons were intercepted by the Israeli authorities on their way to Gaza. While the attacks have not completely ceased since the time of the imposition of the naval blockade, their scale and intensity has much decreased over time.  While this decrease might also be due to other factors, a blockade in those circumstances is a legitimate exercise of the right of self-defence. Although a blockade by definition imposes a restriction on all maritime traffic, given the relatively small size of the blockade zone and the practical difficulties associated with other methods of monitoring vessels (such as by search and visit), the Panel is not persuaded that the naval blockade was a disproportionate measure for Israel to have taken in response to the threat it faced."​
> "Important humanitarian considerations constrain the imposition of a naval blockade. For one, it would be illegal if its imposition was intended to starve or to collectively punish the civilian population. However, there is no material before the Panel that would permit a finding confirming the allegations that Israel had either of those intentions or that the naval blockade was imposed in retaliation for the take-over of Hamas in Gaza or otherwise. On the contrary, it is evident that Israel had a military objective. The stated primary objective of the naval blockade was for security. It was to prevent weapons, ammunition, military supplies and people from entering Gaza and to stop Hamas operatives sailing away from Gaza with vessels filled with explosives."​
> After a discussion of both the Law of War, the Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and important humanitarian considerations which constrain the imposition of a naval blockade; "The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal."
> 
> Conversely, the UNHCR F-FM Report gave a preponderance of its consideration to the Humanitarian aspects of the event.
> 
> "The Mission has come to the firm conclusion that a humanitarian crisis existed on the 31 May 2010 in Gaza. The preponderance of evidence from impeccable sources is too overwhelming to come to a contrary opinion. Any denial of this cannot be supported on any rational grounds. One of the consequences flowing from this is that for this reason alone the blockade is unlawful and cannot be sustained in law. This is so regardless of the grounds on which one seeks to justify the legality of the blockade."
> 
> "Israel seeks to justify the blockade on security grounds. The State of Israel is entitled to peace and security like any other. The firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law. But any action in response which constitutes collective punishment of the civilian population in Gaza is not lawful in any circumstances."​
> This is the fundamental difference between the two findings.  One suggests that Israel has the right of self-defense, and the other suggests that "any action in response which constitutes collective punishment of the civilian population in Gaza is not lawful."
> 
> The UNHCR F-FM Report made the following allegations:
> 
> Violations of Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:
> • Willful killing;
> • Torture or inhuman treatment;
> • Wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.
> 
> The Mission also considers that a series of violations of Israel’s obligations under international human rights law have taken place, including:
> • Right to life (Art. 6, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights);
> • Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Art. 7, International Covenant; Convention against Torture);
> • Right to liberty and security of the person and freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention (Art. 9, International Covenant);
> • Right of detainees to be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person (Art. 10, International Covenant);
> • Freedom of expression (Art. 19, International Covenant).
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is important to take notice that the UNHCR F-FM Report does not claim that the Israeli Blockade of Gaza actually violates United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I, II, or III); but that it is illegal on Humanitarian grounds --- a "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza.   The Panel of Inquiry clearly states that "These factors alone indicate it was not imposed to punish its citizens for the election of Hamas."  The F-FM Report states "The Mission has come to the firm conclusion that a humanitarian crisis existed on the 31 May 2010 in Gaza."  And from that derives:  "the action cannot be justified in the circumstances even under Article 51 of the Charter of the United
> Nations."  This, even though the F-FM also finds that "The firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."
> 
> It is no wonder that the Panel of Inquiry (with two former Heads of State) took a view differing from that of Humanitarian Law.  There is no question in their mind that International Law never trumps the right of any people to defend themselves.
> 
> "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations,"  (Article 51, UN Charter)​
> It is generally recognized that no F-FM can establish a limitation on an "inherent right" of a nation to defend itself; especially when that nation is exercising the right in the face of the "firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."
> 
> Both the Panel and F-FM are in agreement that the actions of HAMAS "constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."  What they disagree on is the "inherent right of self-defense."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory."*
> 
> It always cracks me up when you post that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The entire sentence reads:  "The Panel notes in this regard that the uncertain legal status of Gaza under international law cannot mean that Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> We are talking about the "inherent right" the Israelis are exercising.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

I was laughing about Israel's territory.

But since you brought up the Israelis' inherent right, Got a link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

montelatici said:


> That happens to be in Jordan.


Indeed, this particular race was in Jordan but the girls are Palestinians. Noor is from Jerusalem. Betty is from Bethlehem. Marah is from Jenin.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Yeah, the territory thing is always disputed.



P F Tinmore said:


> I was laughing about Israel's territory.
> 
> But since you brought up the Israelis' inherent right, Got a link?


*(COMMENT)*

The link was supplied.  An INHERENT RIGHT means the fundamental right a person has.

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the *inherent right* of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations," (Article 51, UN Charter)​
Article 51 permits a state to act in unilateral or collective self-defense only “if an armed attack occurs.”  In this case, both sides agree that "(t)he firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."  It is by all descriptive accounts, an "attack."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yeah, the territory thing is always disputed.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was laughing about Israel's territory.
> 
> But since you brought up the Israelis' inherent right, Got a link?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The link was supplied.  An INHERENT RIGHT means the fundamental right a person has.
> 
> "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the *inherent right* of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations," (Article 51, UN Charter)​
> Article 51 permits a state to act in unilateral or collective self-defense only “if an armed attack occurs.”  In this case, both sides agree that *"(t)he firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza *constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."  It is by all descriptive accounts, an "attack."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

How can that happen? There is nothing between what is called Israel and Gaza but an armistice line (That is specifically not to be a political or territorial border) that Egyptian and Israeli troops are not to cross.

This conclusion is based on false premise.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yeah, the territory thing is always disputed.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was laughing about Israel's territory.
> 
> But since you brought up the Israelis' inherent right, Got a link?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The link was supplied.  An INHERENT RIGHT means the fundamental right a person has.
> 
> "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the *inherent right* of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations," (Article 51, UN Charter)​
> Article 51 permits a state to act in unilateral or collective self-defense only “if an armed attack occurs.”  In this case, both sides agree that *"(t)he firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza *constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."  It is by all descriptive accounts, an "attack."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can that happen? There is nothing between what is called Israel and Gaza but an armistice line (That is specifically not to be a political or territorial border) that Egyptian and Israeli troops are not to cross.
> 
> This conclusion is based on false premise.
Click to expand...

Your point ?

Israels permanent international borders are with Jordan and Egypt.

What is called Palestine has no permanent borders.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yeah, the territory thing is always disputed.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was laughing about Israel's territory.
> 
> But since you brought up the Israelis' inherent right, Got a link?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The link was supplied.  An INHERENT RIGHT means the fundamental right a person has.
> 
> "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the *inherent right* of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations," (Article 51, UN Charter)​
> Article 51 permits a state to act in unilateral or collective self-defense only “if an armed attack occurs.”  In this case, both sides agree that *"(t)he firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza *constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."  It is by all descriptive accounts, an "attack."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can that happen? There is nothing between what is called Israel and Gaza but an armistice line (That is specifically not to be a political or territorial border) that Egyptian and Israeli troops are not to cross.
> 
> This conclusion is based on false premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point ?
> 
> Israels permanent international borders are with Jordan and Egypt.
> 
> What is called Palestine has no permanent borders.
Click to expand...

Does that mean that Gaza is in Israel?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> *Yeah, the territory thing is always disputed.*
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was laughing about Israel's territory.
> 
> But since you brought up the Israelis' inherent right, Got a link?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The link was supplied.  An INHERENT RIGHT means the fundamental right a person has.
> 
> "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the *inherent right* of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations," (Article 51, UN Charter)​
> Article 51 permits a state to act in unilateral or collective self-defense only “if an armed attack occurs.”  In this case, both sides agree that "(t)he firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."  It is by all descriptive accounts, an "attack."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Where is the dispute?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yeah, the territory thing is always disputed.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was laughing about Israel's territory.
> 
> But since you brought up the Israelis' inherent right, Got a link?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The link was supplied.  An INHERENT RIGHT means the fundamental right a person has.
> 
> "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the *inherent right* of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations," (Article 51, UN Charter)​
> Article 51 permits a state to act in unilateral or collective self-defense only “if an armed attack occurs.”  In this case, both sides agree that *"(t)he firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza *constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."  It is by all descriptive accounts, an "attack."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can that happen? There is nothing between what is called Israel and Gaza but an armistice line (That is specifically not to be a political or territorial border) that Egyptian and Israeli troops are not to cross.
> 
> This conclusion is based on false premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point ?
> 
> Israels permanent international borders are with Jordan and Egypt.
> 
> What is called Palestine has no permanent borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does that mean that Gaza is in Israel?
Click to expand...


What they call Palestine, is inside Israel. Although it's a little bit odd because Israel has no permanent borders with Lebanon or Syria.


----------



## Billo_Really

RoccoR said:


> I just have to chuckle at this.


Well, I'm having a big belly laugh over the garbage you're spewing.



RoccoR said:


> Reference:  31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident
> 
> It just so happens that the Report that Billo_Really is refering to was a panel of five UN Human Rights experts reporting to the UN Human Rights Council; and it was they that rejected that the Palmer Report conclusions.   The UNHRC Panel based their conclusion of "international human rights and humanitarian law;" not Maritime Law.


You want maritime law?  I'll give you maritime law!


> _underlying basic international law principle that applies is *exclusive flag jurisdiction*,  as part of customary international law by the Permanent Court of International Justice in 1927:
> _
> *“  – vessels on the high seas are subject to no authority except that of the State whose flag they fly”. *​_
> “[F]ailing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary,* [a State] may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State.* In this sense jurisdiction is certainly territorial; it cannot be exercised by a State outside its territory except by virtue of a permissive rule derived from international custom or from a convention… …*[V]essels on the high seas are subject to no authority except that of the State whose flag they fly.* In virtue of the principle of the freedom of the seas, that is to say, the absence of any territorial sovereignty upon the high seas, *no State may exercise any kind of jurisdiction over foreign vessels upon them.*_


That's the law of the seas.



RoccoR said:


> The Palmer Report  was an investigative "Panel of Inquiry" guided and adopted by the two former heads of state (Chair and Vice-Chair); published in September 2011 (a year after the UNHCR Report).  It was a decidedly as different in character from the UNHCR Fact Finding Mission, as one could conceive.
> 
> The Right Honorable Sir Geoffrey Palmer, KCMG AC QC, Chair, 33rd Prime Minister of New Zealand
> The Right Honorable Alvaro Uribe, Vice-Chair, 31st President of Colombia,  studied Law at the University of Antioquia; attended Harvard University, receiving a Certificate of Special Studies in Administration and Management at Harvard Extension School and Certificate in Negotiation and Dispute Resolution at Harvard Law School;  studied at St Antony's College, Oxford, England, on a Chevening-Simón Bolívar scholarship.


There is nothing "Honorable" about Alvaro Uribe.



> _the appointment of Mr Uribe who is accused of responsibility for widespread human rights violations during his period of office as President of Columbia. More relevant here are his associations with Israel.* During his term of office Israel was Columbia’s top weapons supplier, while the American Jewish Committee gave him its ‘Light Unto The Nations’ award in 2007. *This apparent conflict of interest is not addressed in the UN Panel’s report_.


More on this bogus panel later. 


RoccoR said:


> The two reports are essentially evenly matched.


No they're not! One report (UNHCR-FFM) has experts in the field they were commissioned to review, the other (Palmer Report) does not. Pointing to the Palmer Report over the legality of the blockade, is the equivalent of asking an auto mechanic for medical advice.

Problems with the Palmer report are as follows:


> _- the Panel did not see any exhibits or meet any witnesses, but has based its findings on information provided by the two delegations in the dispute.
> 
> - The report repeatedly makes it clear that the Panel was not a court. The result is effectively an opinion of the leadership, with the qualified partisan support from their colleagues.
> 
> - the Panel has at times demonstrated naivety and a lack of knowledge, while some of its concerns exhibit a biased interest in and understanding of events in the Near East.
> 
> - In supporting its position on Israel’s need to defend itself by imposing the blockade, the Panel make several references to the firing of rockets in Gaza. *Yet these attacks do not occur in a vacuum.* While the report refers (para. 78) to “countless attacks, which at the time of writing have once again become more extensive and intensive” it makes no mention of Israeli violence. [The “time of writing” was probably April 2011. The use of the word “countless” is unprofessional: accurate figures are available from both Israeli and Palestinian sources.] *Palestinian casualties occur every week as a result of the occupation.*
> 
> -* The Panel’s conclusions that the blockade is legal are based on false points and therefore suspect.*_


More on the bogus Palmer Report...​


> _The so-called Palmer Report on the Israeli raid of May 2010 that killed nine Turkish activists said earlier this month that Israel had used unreasonable force in last year's raid, but its naval blockade of the Hamas-ruled strip was legal.
> 
> A panel of five independent U.N. rights experts reporting to the U.N. Human Rights Council rejected that conclusion, saying the blockade had subjected Gazans to collective punishment in "flagrant contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law."_


And still more on your precious Palmer Report...


> _In September 2011, the UN released the so-called Palmer Report on Israel's attack against the Freedom Flotilla in May 2010. The report deemed Israel's blockade legal, however it was widely considered to be a politicized whitewash and contained the crucial caveat that *"its conclusions can not be considered definitive in either fact or law."*_
> 
> _Also in September 2011, shortly after the Palmer Report was released, an independent UN panel of experts released a report concluding that Israel's blockade of Gaza does indeed violate international law, stating that *it amounts to collective punishment in "flagrant contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law."* _
> 
> _In reference to Palmer, the independent experts wrote:* 'In pronouncing itself on the legality of the naval blockade, the Palmer Report does not recognize the naval blockade as an integral part of Israel's closure policy towards Gaza* which has a disproportionate impact on the human rights of civilians.'_
> 
> _Human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross also consider the blockade and siege to be acts of collective punishment that contravene international law._


Now, just for fun, let's throw out all the experts I just posted and see what "Jews" have to say about Palestine?



> _*Forget what others say about Israel.  Let’s listen to prominent Jewish voices.*
> 
> 313 Jewish survivors and descendants of survivors and victims of the Nazi genocide have signed a letter stating:
> _
> _As Jewish survivors and descendants of survivors and victims of the Nazi genocide *we unequivocally condemn the massacre of Palestinians in Gaza and the ongoing occupation and colonization of historic Palestine.* We further condemn the United States for providing Israel with the funding to carry out the attack, and Western states more generally for using their diplomatic muscle to protect Israel from condemnation. Genocide begins with the silence of the world.
> 
> *We are alarmed by the extreme, racist dehumanization of Palestinians in Israeli society, which has reached a fever-pitch. *In Israel, politicians and pundits in The Times of Israel and The Jerusalem Post have called openly for genocide of Palestinians and right-wing Israelis are adopting Neo-Nazi insignia._​_
> ***
> _
> _*Nothing can justify bombing UN shelters, homes, hospitals and universities. Nothing can justify depriving people of electricity and water.*
> 
> *We must raise our collective voices and use our collective power to bring about an end to all forms of racism, including the ongoing genocide of Palestinian people. *We call for an immediate end to the siege against and blockade of Gaza. We call for the full economic, cultural and academic boycott of Israel. “Never again” must mean NEVER AGAIN FOR ANYONE!_​


Those are the good Jews, not Zionist assholes shooting their evil, twisted, inhumane mouths off.


That outta toast *Toasty's* bimbo white bread!​


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Yeah, this is argument over international borders is just subterfuge in an attempt to justify Jihadist action and Hostile Palestinian aggression.




P F Tinmore said:


> How can that happen? There is nothing between what is called Israel and Gaza but an armistice line (That is specifically not to be a political or territorial border) that Egyptian and Israeli troops are not to cross.
> 
> This conclusion is based on false premise.


*(COMMENT)*

It is not a "false conclusion."

There are several concepts in play here.

First:

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, *such as armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.  (Para 1, Clause 5, A/RES/25/2625, Codification of the Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States)​
Second:

Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:  The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.  (ANNEX III, Declaration of Independence, A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988) 

1. _Acknowledges _the proclamation of the State of Palestine 

 by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988;
2. _Affirms _the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;
3. _Decides _that, effective as of 15 December 1988, the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system, without prejudice to the observer status and functions of the Palestine Liberation Organization within the United Nations system, in conformity with relevant United Nations resolutions and practice; (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988 "Question of Palestine" --- UN Acknowledgment and Recognition)​
The demarcation line is just as sound and valid as any other border or boundary.  It is internationally protected by the Declaration of Principles.  The fact that the State of Palestine has not initiated a Treaty, does not make the line any less valid; other than its temporal nature.  The line is further promoted by the PLO/PNC in its Declaration of Independence and formally acknowledge by the General Assembly and Security Council.  It is a reality; while some Hostile Arab Palestinians are in denial and challenge the legitimacy, it is none the less a reality that is physically manifested by a physical presence on the perimeter.



P F Tinmore said:


> Does that mean that Gaza is in Israel?



Actually, there was a point in time _(the period 26 March 1979 to 15 November 1988)_, where this could be argued; but has since been overtaken by events.  During this brief period _(nearly a decade)_, "[t]he permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace."  There was no Palestinian hand in the agreement, lacking a competent government with "full powers" acting as a "state" with the ability to express the "consent of the State of Palestine to be bound by a treaty, or for accomplishing any other act with respect to a treaty" _(1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES)_.  But again, this is a mute point as Israel did not contest the Palestinian Declaration of Independence of 1988 by the the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people (Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine Rabat, Morocco 28 october 1974).

Needless to say, the Gaza Strip is intrinsically tied to the West Bank, which together form the State of Palestine:

​


			
				67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations said:
			
		

> _Recalling_ its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,
> 
> Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;
> *SOURCE:* A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012



There may have been a point in time, many decades ago, when the Palestinians could have made an issue of the demarkation lines, armistice lines and the recognition of international borders; but that time has long since past.  We are concerned with contemprary views --- closer in terms of today, as opposed to the views held a half century ago.

The existence of a “Palestinian people” and the "State of Palestine" --- and that of the "People of Israel" and the "State of Israel" --- are no longer at issue. Such existence has been recognized by Israel and Palestine in the exchange of letters of 9 September 1993 between the President of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO Yassar Arafat) and  Israeli Prime Minister (Yitzhak Rabin). In that exchange the Chairman Arafat recognized “the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security” and PM Rabin recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people”. The Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip of 28 September 1995 (Oslo Accord II) refers a to the Palestinian people and its “legitimate rights” _(Preamble, paras. 4, 7, 8; Article II, para. 2; Article III, paras. 1 and 3; Article XXII, para. 2)_.  This issue of where the lines are drawn is only an issue and of significant importance to those that are more interested in a justification for the continuation of the conflict, then the peace, security and prosperity of the citizenry on both sides.  Under customary law, every State *(Palestine included)* has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force _(no rockets, mortars, attack of any kind are justified)_ to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, *including territorial disputes* and problems concerning frontiers of States *(Palestine included)*.  Any other interpretation of the Declaration of Principles is simply an artificial excuse to promote Jihad.  The discussion of the permanent boundaries, especially as presented here, is subterfuge.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just have to chuckle at this.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm having a big belly laugh over the garbage you're spewing.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reference:  31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident
> 
> It just so happens that the Report that Billo_Really is refering to was a panel of five UN Human Rights experts reporting to the UN Human Rights Council; and it was they that rejected that the Palmer Report conclusions.   The UNHRC Panel based their conclusion of "international human rights and humanitarian law;" not Maritime Law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want maritime law?  I'll give you maritime law!
> 
> 
> 
> _underlying basic international law principle that applies is *exclusive flag jurisdiction*,  as part of customary international law by the Permanent Court of International Justice in 1927:
> _
> *“  – vessels on the high seas are subject to no authority except that of the State whose flag they fly”. *​_
> “[F]ailing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary,* [a State] may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State.* In this sense jurisdiction is certainly territorial; it cannot be exercised by a State outside its territory except by virtue of a permissive rule derived from international custom or from a convention… …*[V]essels on the high seas are subject to no authority except that of the State whose flag they fly.* In virtue of the principle of the freedom of the seas, that is to say, the absence of any territorial sovereignty upon the high seas, *no State may exercise any kind of jurisdiction over foreign vessels upon them.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the law of the seas.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palmer Report  was an investigative "Panel of Inquiry" guided and adopted by the two former heads of state (Chair and Vice-Chair); published in September 2011 (a year after the UNHCR Report).  It was a decidedly as different in character from the UNHCR Fact Finding Mission, as one could conceive.
> 
> The Right Honorable Sir Geoffrey Palmer, KCMG AC QC, Chair, 33rd Prime Minister of New Zealand
> The Right Honorable Alvaro Uribe, Vice-Chair, 31st President of Colombia,  studied Law at the University of Antioquia; attended Harvard University, receiving a Certificate of Special Studies in Administration and Management at Harvard Extension School and Certificate in Negotiation and Dispute Resolution at Harvard Law School;  studied at St Antony's College, Oxford, England, on a Chevening-Simón Bolívar scholarship.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing "Honorable" about Alvaro Uribe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _the appointment of Mr Uribe who is accused of responsibility for widespread human rights violations during his period of office as President of Columbia. More relevant here are his associations with Israel.* During his term of office Israel was Columbia’s top weapons supplier, while the American Jewish Committee gave him its ‘Light Unto The Nations’ award in 2007. *This apparent conflict of interest is not addressed in the UN Panel’s report_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More on this bogus panel later.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The two reports are essentially evenly matched.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they're not! One report (UNHCR-FFM) has experts in the field they were commissioned to review, the other (Palmer Report) does not. Pointing to the Palmer Report over the legality of the blockade, is the equivalent of asking an auto mechanic for medical advice.
> 
> Problems with the Palmer report are as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> _- the Panel did not see any exhibits or meet any witnesses, but has based its findings on information provided by the two delegations in the dispute.
> 
> - The report repeatedly makes it clear that the Panel was not a court. The result is effectively an opinion of the leadership, with the qualified partisan support from their colleagues.
> 
> - the Panel has at times demonstrated naivety and a lack of knowledge, while some of its concerns exhibit a biased interest in and understanding of events in the Near East.
> 
> - In supporting its position on Israel’s need to defend itself by imposing the blockade, the Panel make several references to the firing of rockets in Gaza. *Yet these attacks do not occur in a vacuum.* While the report refers (para. 78) to “countless attacks, which at the time of writing have once again become more extensive and intensive” it makes no mention of Israeli violence. [The “time of writing” was probably April 2011. The use of the word “countless” is unprofessional: accurate figures are available from both Israeli and Palestinian sources.] *Palestinian casualties occur every week as a result of the occupation.*
> 
> -* The Panel’s conclusions that the blockade is legal are based on false points and therefore suspect.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More on the bogus Palmer Report...​
> 
> 
> 
> _The so-called Palmer Report on the Israeli raid of May 2010 that killed nine Turkish activists said earlier this month that Israel had used unreasonable force in last year's raid, but its naval blockade of the Hamas-ruled strip was legal.
> 
> A panel of five independent U.N. rights experts reporting to the U.N. Human Rights Council rejected that conclusion, saying the blockade had subjected Gazans to collective punishment in "flagrant contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And still more on your precious Palmer Report...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _In September 2011, the UN released the so-called Palmer Report on Israel's attack against the Freedom Flotilla in May 2010. The report deemed Israel's blockade legal, however it was widely considered to be a politicized whitewash and contained the crucial caveat that *"its conclusions can not be considered definitive in either fact or law."*_
> 
> _Also in September 2011, shortly after the Palmer Report was released, an independent UN panel of experts released a report concluding that Israel's blockade of Gaza does indeed violate international law, stating that *it amounts to collective punishment in "flagrant contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law."* _
> 
> _In reference to Palmer, the independent experts wrote:* 'In pronouncing itself on the legality of the naval blockade, the Palmer Report does not recognize the naval blockade as an integral part of Israel's closure policy towards Gaza* which has a disproportionate impact on the human rights of civilians.'_
> 
> _Human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross also consider the blockade and siege to be acts of collective punishment that contravene international law._
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now, just for fun, let's throw out all the experts I just posted and see what "Jews" have to say about Palestine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*Forget what others say about Israel.  Let’s listen to prominent Jewish voices.*
> 
> 313 Jewish survivors and descendants of survivors and victims of the Nazi genocide have signed a letter stating:
> _
> _As Jewish survivors and descendants of survivors and victims of the Nazi genocide *we unequivocally condemn the massacre of Palestinians in Gaza and the ongoing occupation and colonization of historic Palestine.* We further condemn the United States for providing Israel with the funding to carry out the attack, and Western states more generally for using their diplomatic muscle to protect Israel from condemnation. Genocide begins with the silence of the world.
> 
> *We are alarmed by the extreme, racist dehumanization of Palestinians in Israeli society, which has reached a fever-pitch. *In Israel, politicians and pundits in The Times of Israel and The Jerusalem Post have called openly for genocide of Palestinians and right-wing Israelis are adopting Neo-Nazi insignia._​_
> ***
> _
> _*Nothing can justify bombing UN shelters, homes, hospitals and universities. Nothing can justify depriving people of electricity and water.*
> 
> *We must raise our collective voices and use our collective power to bring about an end to all forms of racism, including the ongoing genocide of Palestinian people. *We call for an immediate end to the siege against and blockade of Gaza. We call for the full economic, cultural and academic boycott of Israel. “Never again” must mean NEVER AGAIN FOR ANYONE!_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are the good Jews, not Zionist assholes shooting their evil, twisted, inhumane mouths off.
> 
> 
> That outta toast *Toasty's* bimbo white bread!​
Click to expand...

hooting their evil, inhumane, twisted mouths off like you ?


----------



## theliq

toastman said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just have to chuckle at this.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm having a big belly laugh over the garbage you're spewing.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reference:  31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident
> 
> It just so happens that the Report that Billo_Really is refering to was a panel of five UN Human Rights experts reporting to the UN Human Rights Council; and it was they that rejected that the Palmer Report conclusions.   The UNHRC Panel based their conclusion of "international human rights and humanitarian law;" not Maritime Law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want maritime law?  I'll give you maritime law!
> 
> 
> 
> _underlying basic international law principle that applies is *exclusive flag jurisdiction*,  as part of customary international law by the Permanent Court of International Justice in 1927:
> _
> *“  – vessels on the high seas are subject to no authority except that of the State whose flag they fly”. *​_
> “[F]ailing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary,* [a State] may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State.* In this sense jurisdiction is certainly territorial; it cannot be exercised by a State outside its territory except by virtue of a permissive rule derived from international custom or from a convention… …*[V]essels on the high seas are subject to no authority except that of the State whose flag they fly.* In virtue of the principle of the freedom of the seas, that is to say, the absence of any territorial sovereignty upon the high seas, *no State may exercise any kind of jurisdiction over foreign vessels upon them.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the law of the seas.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palmer Report  was an investigative "Panel of Inquiry" guided and adopted by the two former heads of state (Chair and Vice-Chair); published in September 2011 (a year after the UNHCR Report).  It was a decidedly as different in character from the UNHCR Fact Finding Mission, as one could conceive.
> 
> The Right Honorable Sir Geoffrey Palmer, KCMG AC QC, Chair, 33rd Prime Minister of New Zealand
> The Right Honorable Alvaro Uribe, Vice-Chair, 31st President of Colombia,  studied Law at the University of Antioquia; attended Harvard University, receiving a Certificate of Special Studies in Administration and Management at Harvard Extension School and Certificate in Negotiation and Dispute Resolution at Harvard Law School;  studied at St Antony's College, Oxford, England, on a Chevening-Simón Bolívar scholarship.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing "Honorable" about Alvaro Uribe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _the appointment of Mr Uribe who is accused of responsibility for widespread human rights violations during his period of office as President of Columbia. More relevant here are his associations with Israel.* During his term of office Israel was Columbia’s top weapons supplier, while the American Jewish Committee gave him its ‘Light Unto The Nations’ award in 2007. *This apparent conflict of interest is not addressed in the UN Panel’s report_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More on this bogus panel later.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The two reports are essentially evenly matched.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they're not! One report (UNHCR-FFM) has experts in the field they were commissioned to review, the other (Palmer Report) does not. Pointing to the Palmer Report over the legality of the blockade, is the equivalent of asking an auto mechanic for medical advice.
> 
> Problems with the Palmer report are as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> _- the Panel did not see any exhibits or meet any witnesses, but has based its findings on information provided by the two delegations in the dispute.
> 
> - The report repeatedly makes it clear that the Panel was not a court. The result is effectively an opinion of the leadership, with the qualified partisan support from their colleagues.
> 
> - the Panel has at times demonstrated naivety and a lack of knowledge, while some of its concerns exhibit a biased interest in and understanding of events in the Near East.
> 
> - In supporting its position on Israel’s need to defend itself by imposing the blockade, the Panel make several references to the firing of rockets in Gaza. *Yet these attacks do not occur in a vacuum.* While the report refers (para. 78) to “countless attacks, which at the time of writing have once again become more extensive and intensive” it makes no mention of Israeli violence. [The “time of writing” was probably April 2011. The use of the word “countless” is unprofessional: accurate figures are available from both Israeli and Palestinian sources.] *Palestinian casualties occur every week as a result of the occupation.*
> 
> -* The Panel’s conclusions that the blockade is legal are based on false points and therefore suspect.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More on the bogus Palmer Report...​
> 
> 
> 
> _The so-called Palmer Report on the Israeli raid of May 2010 that killed nine Turkish activists said earlier this month that Israel had used unreasonable force in last year's raid, but its naval blockade of the Hamas-ruled strip was legal.
> 
> A panel of five independent U.N. rights experts reporting to the U.N. Human Rights Council rejected that conclusion, saying the blockade had subjected Gazans to collective punishment in "flagrant contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And still more on your precious Palmer Report...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _In September 2011, the UN released the so-called Palmer Report on Israel's attack against the Freedom Flotilla in May 2010. The report deemed Israel's blockade legal, however it was widely considered to be a politicized whitewash and contained the crucial caveat that *"its conclusions can not be considered definitive in either fact or law."*_
> 
> _Also in September 2011, shortly after the Palmer Report was released, an independent UN panel of experts released a report concluding that Israel's blockade of Gaza does indeed violate international law, stating that *it amounts to collective punishment in "flagrant contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law."* _
> 
> _In reference to Palmer, the independent experts wrote:* 'In pronouncing itself on the legality of the naval blockade, the Palmer Report does not recognize the naval blockade as an integral part of Israel's closure policy towards Gaza* which has a disproportionate impact on the human rights of civilians.'_
> 
> _Human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross also consider the blockade and siege to be acts of collective punishment that contravene international law._
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now, just for fun, let's throw out all the experts I just posted and see what "Jews" have to say about Palestine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*Forget what others say about Israel.  Let’s listen to prominent Jewish voices.*
> 
> 313 Jewish survivors and descendants of survivors and victims of the Nazi genocide have signed a letter stating:
> _
> _As Jewish survivors and descendants of survivors and victims of the Nazi genocide *we unequivocally condemn the massacre of Palestinians in Gaza and the ongoing occupation and colonization of historic Palestine.* We further condemn the United States for providing Israel with the funding to carry out the attack, and Western states more generally for using their diplomatic muscle to protect Israel from condemnation. Genocide begins with the silence of the world.
> 
> *We are alarmed by the extreme, racist dehumanization of Palestinians in Israeli society, which has reached a fever-pitch. *In Israel, politicians and pundits in The Times of Israel and The Jerusalem Post have called openly for genocide of Palestinians and right-wing Israelis are adopting Neo-Nazi insignia._​_
> ***
> _
> _*Nothing can justify bombing UN shelters, homes, hospitals and universities. Nothing can justify depriving people of electricity and water.*
> 
> *We must raise our collective voices and use our collective power to bring about an end to all forms of racism, including the ongoing genocide of Palestinian people. *We call for an immediate end to the siege against and blockade of Gaza. We call for the full economic, cultural and academic boycott of Israel. “Never again” must mean NEVER AGAIN FOR ANYONE!_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are the good Jews, not Zionist assholes shooting their evil, twisted, inhumane mouths off.
> 
> 
> That outta toast *Toasty's* bimbo white bread!​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hooting their evil, inhumane, twisted mouths off like you ?
Click to expand...

Look in the Mirror Toastie.....your comment is uncalled for...Billo is a Diamond


----------



## RoccoR

Billo_Really, _et al,_

All you have presented here, is the continuing dialog between adversaries arguing on behalf of one report over another.  They are arguing over the same to reports.

At the end of the day, the UNHCR Report does not say that the blockade violates the UNCLOS Protocols.  It condemns Israel on Humanitarian grounds.  Similarly, the "Washington Blog" dialog you posted, is an accumulation of pro-Palestinians (pro-HAMAS) commentary and not a balanced view.  Using the standard they outline, you would never suspect that the Palestinians have engaged in hijackings, piracy, suicide bombings, terrorist assaults, kidnapping and murder, etc, targeting primarily civilians.  



Billo_Really said:


> [
> Those are the good Jews, not Zionist assholes shooting their evil, twisted, inhumane mouths off.
> 
> That outta toast *Toasty's* bimbo white bread!​


*(COMMENT)*

This is a compilation of judgments made via media descriptions of events.  Most nations of the world have some sort of anti-War protestors when the nation is engaged in a armed conflict.  It is to be expected in a representative society.  I have no doubt that there are Israelis that have sympathy for the trial and tribulations the Palestinians are going through; that to is to be expected.  But I don't believe they represent a preponderance of the people or the popular view.

In your response you post from the Washington Blog:

Over 150 international legal experts – including two Former UN Special Rapporteurs on human rights situation in Palestine – have also signed a declaration stating:​

Israel has targeted civilians



Israel has inflicted collective punishment on the Palestinians



These are war crimes



The matter should be referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC)

 Looking at this, it sounds so damaging.  Yet it pales in comparison _(much less serious or important)_ when stacked up against the war crimes and crimes against humanity that even the UNHCR made note of.  Your argument has some merit, but it is not compelling.  The basic issue still remains.  And as far as going to court _(ICC referral)_, it is a bit melodramatic _(in the shadow of drama queens at play)_.  

The Palestinians have opted for the continuation of the conflict.  So be it.  You cannot hope to win in court by stacking up the pages and pages of terrorist attacks, insurgent assaults, murder and kidnapping, rocket and mortar attacks, a majority of which were targeted against non-combatant civilians, and expect to win a case; even if there were isolated incidents of Israeli wrong doing.  

The Palestinians Population, openly supporting and lending material assistance to the Jihadist of the land, accept the consequences of their actions; no matter how cowardly, no matter how vile, and no matter how they justify the violence --- they have to take responsibility for their actions ---  and suffer the consequences.  It is that simple.  

The whining behind the theme that the Israelis are involved in some form of "collective punishment" is simply a misunderstanding of the criminal concept behind what "collective punishment" actually means.  In fact, most people cannot define "collective punishment" or tell you what the "elements of the offense" are!  So, exactly what are the drama queens of the Palestinian Virtual Victim Society actually claiming when they say --- they are subject to "collective punishment."   What law are they using when they say it violates International Law?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## theliq

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yeah, this is argument over international borders is just subterfuge in an attempt to justify Jihadist action and Hostile Palestinian aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can that happen? There is nothing between what is called Israel and Gaza but an armistice line (That is specifically not to be a political or territorial border) that Egyptian and Israeli troops are not to cross.
> 
> This conclusion is based on false premise.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is not a "false conclusion."
> 
> There are several concepts in play here.
> 
> First:
> 
> Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, *such as armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.  (Para 1, Clause 5, A/RES/25/2625, Codification of the Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States)​
> Second:
> 
> Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:  The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.  (ANNEX III, Declaration of Independence, A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)
> 
> 1. _Acknowledges _the proclamation of the State of Palestine
> 
> by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988;
> 2. _Affirms _the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;
> 3. _Decides _that, effective as of 15 December 1988, the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system, without prejudice to the observer status and functions of the Palestine Liberation Organization within the United Nations system, in conformity with relevant United Nations resolutions and practice; (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988 "Question of Palestine" --- UN Acknowledgment and Recognition)​
> The demarcation line is just as sound and valid as any other border or boundary.  It is internationally protected by the Declaration of Principles.  The fact that the State of Palestine has not initiated a Treaty, does not make the line any less valid; other than its temporal nature.  The line is further promoted by the PLO/PNC in its Declaration of Independence and formally acknowledge by the General Assembly and Security Council.  It is a reality; while some Hostile Arab Palestinians are in denial and challenge the legitimacy, it is none the less a reality that is physically manifested by a physical presence on the perimeter.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean that Gaza is in Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, there was a point in time _(the period 26 March 1979 to 15 November 1988)_, where this could be argued; but has since been overtaken by events.  During this brief period _(nearly a decade)_, "[t]he permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace."  There was no Palestinian hand in the agreement, lacking a competent government with "full powers" acting as a "state" with the ability to express the "consent of the State of Palestine to be bound by a treaty, or for accomplishing any other act with respect to a treaty" _(1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES)_.  But again, this is a mute point as Israel did not contest the Palestinian Declaration of Independence of 1988 by the the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people (Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine Rabat, Morocco 28 october 1974).
> 
> Needless to say, the Gaza Strip is intrinsically tied to the West Bank, which together form the State of Palestine:
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Recalling_ its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,
> 
> Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;
> *SOURCE:* A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There may have been a point in time, many decades ago, when the Palestinians could have made an issue of the demarkation lines, armistice lines and the recognition of international borders; but that time has long since past.  We are concerned with contemprary views --- closer in terms of today, as opposed to the views held a half century ago.
> 
> The existence of a “Palestinian people” and the "State of Palestine" --- and that of the "People of Israel" and the "State of Israel" --- are no longer at issue. Such existence has been recognized by Israel and Palestine in the exchange of letters of 9 September 1993 between the President of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO Yassar Arafat) and  Israeli Prime Minister (Yitzhak Rabin). In that exchange the Chairman Arafat recognized “the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security” and PM Rabin recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people”. The Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip of 28 September 1995 (Oslo Accord II) refers a to the Palestinian people and its “legitimate rights” _(Preamble, paras. 4, 7, 8; Article II, para. 2; Article III, paras. 1 and 3; Article XXII, para. 2)_.  This issue of where the lines are drawn is only an issue and of significant importance to those that are more interested in a justification for the continuation of the conflict, then the peace, security and prosperity of the citizenry on both sides.  Under customary law, every State *(Palestine included)* has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force _(no rockets, mortars, attack of any kind are justified)_ to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, *including territorial disputes* and problems concerning frontiers of States *(Palestine included)*.  Any other interpretation of the Declaration of Principles is simply an artificial excuse to promote Jihad.  The discussion of the permanent boundaries, especially as presented here, is subterfuge.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Most RESECTFULLY the JEWS ASSASINATED BOTH Yasser Arafat and the Great Jew,Prime Minister Rabin...........there was no respect in these instances.....they were SPITE MURDERS...........The Israelis Assassinated One of their OWN......and at this point lost ALL CREDIBILITY Worldwide,NEVER to regain it again. Most Respectfully steve


----------



## theliq

RoccoR said:


> Billo_Really, _et al,_
> 
> All you have presented here, is the continuing dialog between adversaries arguing on behalf of one report over another.  They are arguing over the same to reports.
> 
> At the end of the day, the UNHCR Report does not say that the blockade violates the UNCLOS Protocols.  It condemns Israel on Humanitarian grounds.  Similarly, the "Washington Blog" dialog you posted, is an accumulation of pro-Palestinians (pro-HAMAS) commentary and not a balanced view.  Using the standard they outline, you would never suspect that the Palestinians have engaged in hijackings, piracy, suicide bombings, terrorist assaults, kidnapping and murder, etc, targeting primarily civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Those are the good Jews, not Zionist assholes shooting their evil, twisted, inhumane mouths off.
> 
> That outta toast *Toasty's* bimbo white bread!​
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is a compilation of judgments made via media descriptions of events.  Most nations of the world have some sort of anti-War protestors when the nation is engaged in a armed conflict.  It is to be expected in a representative society.  I have no doubt that there are Israelis that have sympathy for the trial and tribulations the Palestinians are going through; that to is to be expected.  But I don't believe they represent a preponderance of the people or the popular view.
> 
> In your response you post from the Washington Blog:
> 
> Over 150 international legal experts – including two Former UN Special Rapporteurs on human rights situation in Palestine – have also signed a declaration stating:​
> 
> Israel has targeted civilians
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has inflicted collective punishment on the Palestinians
> 
> 
> 
> These are war crimes
> 
> 
> 
> The matter should be referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC)
> 
> Looking at this, it sounds so damaging.  Yet it pales in comparison _(much less serious or important)_ when stacked up against the war crimes and crimes against humanity that even the UNHCR made note of.  Your argument has some merit, but it is not compelling.  The basic issue still remains.  And as far as going to court _(ICC referral)_, it is a bit melodramatic _(in the shadow of drama queens at play)_.
> 
> The Palestinians have opted for the continuation of the conflict.  So be it.  You cannot hope to win in court by stacking up the pages and pages of terrorist attacks, insurgent assaults, murder and kidnapping, rocket and mortar attacks, a majority of which were targeted against non-combatant civilians, and expect to win a case; even if there were isolated incidents of Israeli wrong doing.
> 
> The Palestinians Population, openly supporting and lending material assistance to the Jihadist of the land, accept the consequences of their actions; no matter how cowardly, no matter how vile, and no matter how they justify the violence --- they have to take responsibility for their actions ---  and suffer the consequences.  It is that simple.
> 
> The whining behind the theme that the Israelis are involved in some form of "collective punishment" is simply a misunderstanding of the criminal concept behind what "collective punishment" actually means.  In fact, most people cannot define "collective punishment" or tell you what the "elements of the offense" are!  So, exactly what are the drama queens of the Palestinian Virtual Victim Society actually claiming when they say --- they are subject to "collective punishment."   What law are they using when they say it violates International Law?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

You are an apologist for the Zionists...........and a CURR,SIR.........Most Respectfully


----------



## Youch

MJB12741 said:


> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine




The Romans kicked the Israelites out of Israel around 70AD.  About 1,870 years later the Brits and French carved up the region according to history, fairness, and on who supported them against the Ottoman empire.

Take it to the bank!!


----------



## RoccoR

theliq,  _et al,_

I'm not at all familiar with the term:  CURR,SIR   You'll have to explain that one to me.



theliq said:


> You are an apologist for the Zionists...........and a CURR,SIR.........Most Respectfully


(COMMENT)

If my manners bother you, please feel free to ignore them.

As for being an "apologist for the Zionists" --- I'm not sure.  That is both subjective and in the eye of the outside observer.  I don't personally agree that I am an apologist for anyone (other than myself).

Clearly, I find it objectionable that one of the world's leading Jihadist and Terrorist cultures (Palestinians) find it necessary to take a conflict that the Hostile Palestinians started, and try to blame the outcome of their actions on the opponent.  Unable to take responsibility for their conduct, having established a past history of criminal behaviors and practices, they now try to use the very law that they broke when the Palestinians killed half the Israeli Olympic Team in Munich; of when they hijacked El Al Flight 426 (1968), Dawson's Field Hijackings (1970), Air France Flight 139 (1976), Lufthansa Flight 181 (1977), TWA Flight 847 (1985), EgyptAir Flight 648 (1985), and Pan Am Flight 73 (1986).  Or who remembers when the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF) hijacked the Italian MS Achille Lauro liner off the coast of Egypt.  And just how many rocket and mortars have the Palestinians fired? 




 ​And there just isn't enough space here for me to append the charts for all the bombings:

2001 (40 bombings)
2002 (47 bombings)
2003 (23 bombings)
2004 (17 bombings)
2005 (9 bombings)
I'm not sure why the Israelis need an apologist; least at all me.  The only reason I speak-up is that I see this cowardly group of failed Arab Palestinian nationalists making these wild claims and crying genocide, apartheid, war crime and such, when in fact, the preponderance of the accumulated events were instigated by the Palestinians.  In fact, it is the claim of the pro-Palestinians that they can use any and all means necessary, to attack any Israeli anywhere, and it not be a crime.  Yet --- let the Israeli defend themselves and it becomes a war crime.

I know there must be another culture out their that is just as cowardly than the Palestinians, that cry more every time they get spanked by the Israelis, and has a longer history of criminal behaviors --- but, I can't think of one --- off-hand.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Challenger

RoccoR said:


> theliq,  _et al,_
> 
> I'm not at all familiar with the term:  CURR,SIR   You'll have to explain that one to me.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are an apologist for the Zionists...........and a CURR,SIR.........Most Respectfully
> 
> 
> 
> (COMMENT)
> 
> If my manners bother you, please feel free to ignore them.
> 
> As for being an "apologist for the Zionists" --- I'm not sure.  That is both subjective and in the eye of the outside observer.  I don't personally agree that I am an apologist for anyone (other than myself).
> 
> Clearly, I find it objectionable that one of the world's leading Jihadist and Terrorist cultures (Palestinians) find it necessary to take a conflict that the Hostile Palestinians started, and try to blame the outcome of their actions on the opponent.  Unable to take responsibility for their conduct, having established a past history of criminal behaviors and practices, they now try to use the very law that they broke when the Palestinians killed half the Israeli Olympic Team in Munich; of when they hijacked El Al Flight 426 (1968), Dawson's Field Hijackings (1970), Air France Flight 139 (1976), Lufthansa Flight 181 (1977), TWA Flight 847 (1985), EgyptAir Flight 648 (1985), and Pan Am Flight 73 (1986).  Or who remembers when the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF) hijacked the Italian MS Achille Lauro liner off the coast of Egypt.  And just how many rocket and mortars have the Palestinians fired?
> 
> View attachment 32940​And there just isn't enough space here for me to append the charts for all the bombings:
> 
> 2001 (40 bombings)
> 2002 (47 bombings)
> 2003 (23 bombings)
> 2004 (17 bombings)
> 2005 (9 bombings)
> I'm not sure why the Israelis need an apologist; least at all me.  The only reason I speak-up is that I see this cowardly group of failed Arab Palestinian nationalists making these wild claims and crying genocide, apartheid, war crime and such, when in fact, the preponderance of the accumulated events were instigated by the Palestinians.  In fact, it is the claim of the pro-Palestinians that they can use any and all means necessary, to attack any Israeli anywhere, and it not be a crime.  Yet --- let the Israeli defend themselves and it becomes a war crime.
> 
> I know there must be another culture out their that is just as cowardly than the Palestinians, that cry more every time they get spanked by the Israelis, and has a longer history of criminal behaviors --- but, I can't think of one --- off-hand.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


All of which pale into insignificance when compared with the murder and devastaion wrought by Zionist JSIL, both as initial provocations and so called "retaliation". Zionist JSIL has precision guided weapons and they constantly show off their care and attention when using them; that's a proportionate response.   Defending yourself is one thing, but when it comes to a proportional response, that's something not in the Zionist vocabulary; which makes their actions war crimes or crimes against humanity. 

We, the UK had the capability to carpet bomb all of Catholic Northern Ireland into the stone age and wipe out all the IRA, their families and their supporters; we didn't. We took them on, man for man in the streets and the countryside, while keeping diplomatic back channels open. We wanted peace and eventually we got it with the Good Friday Agreement. 

The only cowards in the Middle East are the ones using drones and strike fighters. Hamas have stated publically they are willing to go to the ICC to defend their actions, not so much the Zionists and their supporters and puppets.


----------



## Phoenall

Saigon said:


> Phoenall -
> 
> No, they don't land and they never have and never will. The UN has never had that power, and neither did the League of Nations.
> 
> Likewise, the UN cannot make laws, cannot implement laws and cannot take over governments.
> 
> What you sare saying is simply nonsense - and I have to say this isn't the first time. Please check facts before you post, and also please acknowledge mistakes in your posts when they are pointed out to you.


----------



## Phoenall

Saigon said:


> Phoenall -
> 
> No, they don't land and they never have and never will. The UN has never had that power, and neither did the League of Nations.
> 
> Likewise, the UN cannot make laws, cannot implement laws and cannot take over governments.
> 
> What you sare saying is simply nonsense - and I have to say this isn't the first time. Please check facts before you post, and also please acknowledge mistakes in your posts when they are pointed out to you.





 Stop trying to put 2014 rules in place on things that happened in 1919. They don't work.

 The Allies won WW1 and at the time it was Customary International Law to cease land as war booty and to take wealth from the losers. This is what happened in 1919 when the war was won, there were no Geneva conventions or UN charter in place just the spoils going to the winners. Now the winners had promised the arabs and Jews their land returning to them after a period of 1,000 years in other nations ownership and this was brought about by forming the LoN to administer the ownership if the land. It was not arab muslim, Jewish, Turkish muslim or even martian it was LoN land under 1919 customary international law.

 If they did not own the land how could they then give it to two Saudi Sheiks to turn into nations ( Jordan and Syria ) or to a warlord to create Iraq. I check my facts and as I said you are trying to put 2014 spin on the world of 1919. When the UN came into existence in 1946 it absorbed the LoN along with its unresolved mandates making the UN the title holder of those mandates, until such time as the natives could show free determination and the ability to govern themselves. This came about in 1949 for the Jews and 1988 in part for the Palestinians. According to the UN Palestine is a nation in name only and will not be admitted as a full member until it can show free determination and the ability to govern itself


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are a people who were displaced by the Israelis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians are a ragtag collection of diverse ethnic and tribal elements - some present upon the soil of Old Palestine for generations, some only recently arrived within the past century or so, looking for work on new Jewish-owned farms and enterprises - never a nation - never a self-governing nor even self-aware polity - using an identifying label only popularized within Living Memory by radicals trying to rewrite history and outcomes long after the smoke had cleared - a collective that ran like rabbits, and who have been such under-performers that they would rather rot in camps and refugee towns for generations rather than get off their asses and move away and make new lives for themselves and their families - a cowardly and despicable lot who embed war assets amongst their civilian population and who routinely hide behind the the skirts of their women and children - a failed people-wannabe, whom Nature has largely de-selected - a gaggle of folk who have routinely made some of the very worst political and societal decisions on record in recent times - who never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity - basically, a collection of losers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The invading Jews are the recent arrivals and the Arabs, Christian and Muslims have always been there as confirmed by the Mandatory:
> 
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages.* Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. *A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. *Some 77,000 of the population are Christians,* in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> *The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years*. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
Click to expand...




 So there were no Jews in the whole of Palestine until 1850, when the Ottoman records show that many of the towns and cities had majority Jewish inhabitants. Your link contradicts itself so many times it proves that it is far from valid and was written up by an anti semitic committee


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages.* Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. *A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. *Some 77,000 of the population are Christians,* in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants. *The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years*. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
> 
> 
> 
> And all arab settlers found, turned out to be "saudi sheikhs" to own(!) 90(%) of the mandate palestine!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were few Arab settlers.  The settlers were the Jews.  There were no Saudi owners, quit making things up, Saudis didn't have a pot to piss in those days anyway you idiot.  You need to get out more.  Oh, now make you look like an idiot again as stated by the Mandatory Jew increase by migration, 245,433, Muslim increase thru migration 25,168, Christian increase thru migration 10,414.  Nearly ten times more Jews migrated to Palestine than Christians and Muslims.
> 
> 
> 
> _All religions.__Muslims__ Jews __Christians._Total increase
> of population
> Increase by
> migration
> Natural
> increase631,272
> 
> 281,339
> 
> 349,933286,770
> 
> 25,168
> 
> 261,602302,294
> 
> 245,433
> 
> 56,86138,305
> 
> 10,414
> 
> 27,8913,903
> 
> 324
> 
> 3,579
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]- See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Report of the Mandatory to the LoN 31 December 1937
Click to expand...




Once again an invalid source of information


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall -
> 
> No, they don't land and they never have and never will. The UN has never had that power, and neither did the League of Nations.
> 
> Likewise, the UN cannot make laws, cannot implement laws and cannot take over governments.
> 
> What you sare saying is simply nonsense - and I have to say this isn't the first time. Please check facts before you post, and also please acknowledge mistakes in your posts when they are pointed out to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop trying to put 2014 rules in place on things that happened in 1919. They don't work.
> 
> The Allies won WW1 and at the time it was Customary International Law to cease land as war booty and to take wealth from the losers. This is what happened in 1919 when the war was won, there were no Geneva conventions or UN charter in place just the spoils going to the winners. Now the winners had promised the arabs and Jews their land returning to them after a period of 1,000 years in other nations ownership and this was brought about by forming the LoN to administer the ownership if the land. It was not arab muslim, Jewish, Turkish muslim or even martian it was LoN land under 1919 customary international law.
> 
> If they did not own the land how could they then give it to two Saudi Sheiks to turn into nations ( Jordan and Syria ) or to a warlord to create Iraq. I check my facts and as I said you are trying to put 2014 spin on the world of 1919. When the UN came into existence in 1946 it absorbed the LoN along with its unresolved mandates making the UN the title holder of those mandates, until such time as the natives could show free determination and the ability to govern themselves. This came about in 1949 for the Jews and 1988 in part for the Palestinians. According to the UN Palestine is a nation in name only and will not be admitted as a full member until it can show free determination and the ability to govern itself
Click to expand...


If you really checked your facts you'd know that Hussein bin Ali al Hashimi was not a member of the Saudi familly and was the Sharif of Mecca in the Hejaz. Someon'e using 2014 thinking on tyhings that happened in 1919....


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages.* Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. *A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. *Some 77,000 of the population are Christians,* in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants. *The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years*. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
> 
> 
> 
> And all arab settlers found, turned out to be "saudi sheikhs" to own(!) 90(%) of the mandate palestine!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were few Arab settlers.  The settlers were the Jews.  There were no Saudi owners, quit making things up, Saudis didn't have a pot to piss in those days anyway you idiot.  You need to get out more.  Oh, now make you look like an idiot again as stated by the Mandatory Jew increase by migration, 245,433, Muslim increase thru migration 25,168, Christian increase thru migration 10,414.  Nearly ten times more Jews migrated to Palestine than Christians and Muslims.
> 
> 
> 
> _All religions.__Muslims__ Jews __Christians._Total increase
> of population
> Increase by
> migration
> Natural
> increase631,272
> 
> 281,339
> 
> 349,933286,770
> 
> 25,168
> 
> 261,602302,294
> 
> 245,433
> 
> 56,86138,305
> 
> 10,414
> 
> 27,8913,903
> 
> 324
> 
> 3,579
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]- See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Report of the Mandatory to the LoN 31 December 1937
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again an invalid source of information
Click to expand...


Invalid how?


----------



## docmauser1

Challenger said:


> Invalid how?


Invalid big-time, of course.
"In addition to the lack of registration and underregistration of property, no map or cadastral survey accompanied the description of the lands registered. Boundaries in many instances were identified by roads, buildings or referenced to a local piece of history such as the "land of the great fight' or "land of the big rock." During the 1920s, the director of lands stated with complete frankness and accuracy that he was unable from registered information and the isolated plan that sometimes accompanied it, to locate the piece of land that a registered transaction purported to concern."
The Land Question In Palestine, 1917-1939 by Kenneth W. Stein, University of North Carolina Press, 1984.
Now, let's read more tall tales about major arab settlers from homelands they humped their camels in on about how they got to be all "saudi sheiks" to own(!) 90%(!) of the mandate palestine.


----------



## aris2chat

theliq said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yeah, this is argument over international borders is just subterfuge in an attempt to justify Jihadist action and Hostile Palestinian aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can that happen? There is nothing between what is called Israel and Gaza but an armistice line (That is specifically not to be a political or territorial border) that Egyptian and Israeli troops are not to cross.
> 
> This conclusion is based on false premise.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is not a "false conclusion."
> 
> There are several concepts in play here.
> 
> First:
> 
> Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, *such as armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.  (Para 1, Clause 5, A/RES/25/2625, Codification of the Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States)​
> Second:
> 
> Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:  The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.  (ANNEX III, Declaration of Independence, A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)
> 
> 1. _Acknowledges _the proclamation of the State of Palestine
> 
> by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988;
> 2. _Affirms _the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;
> 3. _Decides _that, effective as of 15 December 1988, the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system, without prejudice to the observer status and functions of the Palestine Liberation Organization within the United Nations system, in conformity with relevant United Nations resolutions and practice; (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988 "Question of Palestine" --- UN Acknowledgment and Recognition)​
> The demarcation line is just as sound and valid as any other border or boundary.  It is internationally protected by the Declaration of Principles.  The fact that the State of Palestine has not initiated a Treaty, does not make the line any less valid; other than its temporal nature.  The line is further promoted by the PLO/PNC in its Declaration of Independence and formally acknowledge by the General Assembly and Security Council.  It is a reality; while some Hostile Arab Palestinians are in denial and challenge the legitimacy, it is none the less a reality that is physically manifested by a physical presence on the perimeter.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean that Gaza is in Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, there was a point in time _(the period 26 March 1979 to 15 November 1988)_, where this could be argued; but has since been overtaken by events.  During this brief period _(nearly a decade)_, "[t]he permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace."  There was no Palestinian hand in the agreement, lacking a competent government with "full powers" acting as a "state" with the ability to express the "consent of the State of Palestine to be bound by a treaty, or for accomplishing any other act with respect to a treaty" _(1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES)_.  But again, this is a mute point as Israel did not contest the Palestinian Declaration of Independence of 1988 by the the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people (Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine Rabat, Morocco 28 october 1974).
> 
> Needless to say, the Gaza Strip is intrinsically tied to the West Bank, which together form the State of Palestine:
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Recalling_ its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,
> 
> Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;
> *SOURCE:* A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There may have been a point in time, many decades ago, when the Palestinians could have made an issue of the demarkation lines, armistice lines and the recognition of international borders; but that time has long since past.  We are concerned with contemprary views --- closer in terms of today, as opposed to the views held a half century ago.
> 
> The existence of a “Palestinian people” and the "State of Palestine" --- and that of the "People of Israel" and the "State of Israel" --- are no longer at issue. Such existence has been recognized by Israel and Palestine in the exchange of letters of 9 September 1993 between the President of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO Yassar Arafat) and  Israeli Prime Minister (Yitzhak Rabin). In that exchange the Chairman Arafat recognized “the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security” and PM Rabin recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people”. The Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip of 28 September 1995 (Oslo Accord II) refers a to the Palestinian people and its “legitimate rights” _(Preamble, paras. 4, 7, 8; Article II, para. 2; Article III, paras. 1 and 3; Article XXII, para. 2)_.  This issue of where the lines are drawn is only an issue and of significant importance to those that are more interested in a justification for the continuation of the conflict, then the peace, security and prosperity of the citizenry on both sides.  Under customary law, every State *(Palestine included)* has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force _(no rockets, mortars, attack of any kind are justified)_ to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, *including territorial disputes* and problems concerning frontiers of States *(Palestine included)*.  Any other interpretation of the Declaration of Principles is simply an artificial excuse to promote Jihad.  The discussion of the permanent boundaries, especially as presented here, is subterfuge.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most RESECTFULLY the JEWS ASSASINATED BOTH Yasser Arafat and the Great Jew,Prime Minister Rabin...........there was no respect in these instances.....they were SPITE MURDERS...........The Israelis Assassinated One of their OWN......and at this point lost ALL CREDIBILITY Worldwide,NEVER to regain it again. Most Respectfully steve
Click to expand...


OMG, Arafat had liver cirrhosis.  He was at one time a heavy drinker and ate rich foods.  He had suffered serious head trauma years before and had parkinson's.  
If you seriously get some proof Arafat was poisoned, you might want to look at the contentious relationship he had with Jibril.
They exhumed and tested arafat's body two out of three test found nothing, the third was inconclusive.  There was not evidence, case was closed.
Stuff your CT where the sun does not shine.  You are just trying to create an issue to attack others that you hate.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall -
> 
> No, they don't land and they never have and never will. The UN has never had that power, and neither did the League of Nations.
> 
> Likewise, the UN cannot make laws, cannot implement laws and cannot take over governments.
> 
> What you sare saying is simply nonsense - and I have to say this isn't the first time. Please check facts before you post, and also please acknowledge mistakes in your posts when they are pointed out to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop trying to put 2014 rules in place on things that happened in 1919. They don't work.
> 
> The Allies won WW1 and at the time it was Customary International Law to cease land as war booty and to take wealth from the losers. This is what happened in 1919 when the war was won, there were no Geneva conventions or UN charter in place just the spoils going to the winners. Now the winners had promised the arabs and Jews their land returning to them after a period of 1,000 years in other nations ownership and this was brought about by forming the LoN to administer the ownership if the land. It was not arab muslim, Jewish, Turkish muslim or even martian it was LoN land under 1919 customary international law.
> 
> If they did not own the land how could they then give it to two Saudi Sheiks to turn into nations ( Jordan and Syria ) or to a warlord to create Iraq. I check my facts and as I said you are trying to put 2014 spin on the world of 1919. When the UN came into existence in 1946 it absorbed the LoN along with its unresolved mandates making the UN the title holder of those mandates, until such time as the natives could show free determination and the ability to govern themselves. This came about in 1949 for the Jews and 1988 in part for the Palestinians. According to the UN Palestine is a nation in name only and will not be admitted as a full member until it can show free determination and the ability to govern itself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you really checked your facts you'd know that Hussein bin Ali al Hashimi was not a member of the Saudi familly and was the Sharif of Mecca in the Hejaz. Someon'e using 2014 thinking on tyhings that happened in 1919....
Click to expand...





 Which makes him what ?   As far as I am aware he and his brother were Saudis and were both sheiks. I did not mention being a member of the Saudi royal family did I.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> It is not a "false conclusion."
> 
> There are several concepts in play here.
> 
> First:
> 
> Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, *such as armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.​



The armistice lines never divided Palestine from anybody else. In the case of the West Bank and Gaza, the lines ran *through* Palestine. How can the Palestinians violate a line that is Palestine on both sides?


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a "false conclusion."
> 
> There are several concepts in play here.
> 
> First:
> 
> Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, *such as armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The armistice lines never divided Palestine from anybody else. In the case of the West Bank and Gaza, the lines ran *through* Palestine. How can the Palestinians violate a line that is Palestine on both sides?
Click to expand...


There has yet to be a palestinian state.  The need for talks with Israel are to possibly create a functional state for the palestinians.


----------



## Penelope

aris2chat said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yeah, this is argument over international borders is just subterfuge in an attempt to justify Jihadist action and Hostile Palestinian aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can that happen? There is nothing between what is called Israel and Gaza but an armistice line (That is specifically not to be a political or territorial border) that Egyptian and Israeli troops are not to cross.
> 
> This conclusion is based on false premise.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is not a "false conclusion."
> 
> There are several concepts in play here.
> 
> First:
> 
> Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, *such as armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.  (Para 1, Clause 5, A/RES/25/2625, Codification of the Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States)​
> Second:
> 
> Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:  The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.  (ANNEX III, Declaration of Independence, A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)
> 
> 1. _Acknowledges _the proclamation of the State of Palestine
> 
> by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988;
> 2. _Affirms _the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;
> 3. _Decides _that, effective as of 15 December 1988, the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system, without prejudice to the observer status and functions of the Palestine Liberation Organization within the United Nations system, in conformity with relevant United Nations resolutions and practice; (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988 "Question of Palestine" --- UN Acknowledgment and Recognition)​
> The demarcation line is just as sound and valid as any other border or boundary.  It is internationally protected by the Declaration of Principles.  The fact that the State of Palestine has not initiated a Treaty, does not make the line any less valid; other than its temporal nature.  The line is further promoted by the PLO/PNC in its Declaration of Independence and formally acknowledge by the General Assembly and Security Council.  It is a reality; while some Hostile Arab Palestinians are in denial and challenge the legitimacy, it is none the less a reality that is physically manifested by a physical presence on the perimeter.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean that Gaza is in Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, there was a point in time _(the period 26 March 1979 to 15 November 1988)_, where this could be argued; but has since been overtaken by events.  During this brief period _(nearly a decade)_, "[t]he permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace."  There was no Palestinian hand in the agreement, lacking a competent government with "full powers" acting as a "state" with the ability to express the "consent of the State of Palestine to be bound by a treaty, or for accomplishing any other act with respect to a treaty" _(1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES)_.  But again, this is a mute point as Israel did not contest the Palestinian Declaration of Independence of 1988 by the the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people (Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine Rabat, Morocco 28 october 1974).
> 
> Needless to say, the Gaza Strip is intrinsically tied to the West Bank, which together form the State of Palestine:
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Recalling_ its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,
> 
> Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;
> *SOURCE:* A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There may have been a point in time, many decades ago, when the Palestinians could have made an issue of the demarkation lines, armistice lines and the recognition of international borders; but that time has long since past.  We are concerned with contemprary views --- closer in terms of today, as opposed to the views held a half century ago.
> 
> The existence of a “Palestinian people” and the "State of Palestine" --- and that of the "People of Israel" and the "State of Israel" --- are no longer at issue. Such existence has been recognized by Israel and Palestine in the exchange of letters of 9 September 1993 between the President of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO Yassar Arafat) and  Israeli Prime Minister (Yitzhak Rabin). In that exchange the Chairman Arafat recognized “the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security” and PM Rabin recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people”. The Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip of 28 September 1995 (Oslo Accord II) refers a to the Palestinian people and its “legitimate rights” _(Preamble, paras. 4, 7, 8; Article II, para. 2; Article III, paras. 1 and 3; Article XXII, para. 2)_.  This issue of where the lines are drawn is only an issue and of significant importance to those that are more interested in a justification for the continuation of the conflict, then the peace, security and prosperity of the citizenry on both sides.  Under customary law, every State *(Palestine included)* has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force _(no rockets, mortars, attack of any kind are justified)_ to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, *including territorial disputes* and problems concerning frontiers of States *(Palestine included)*.  Any other interpretation of the Declaration of Principles is simply an artificial excuse to promote Jihad.  The discussion of the permanent boundaries, especially as presented here, is subterfuge.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most RESECTFULLY the JEWS ASSASINATED BOTH Yasser Arafat and the Great Jew,Prime Minister Rabin...........there was no respect in these instances.....they were SPITE MURDERS...........The Israelis Assassinated One of their OWN......and at this point lost ALL CREDIBILITY Worldwide,NEVER to regain it again. Most Respectfully steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG, Arafat had liver cirrhosis.  He was at one time a heavy drinker and ate rich foods.  He had suffered serious head trauma years before and had parkinson's.
> If you seriously get some proof Arafat was poisoned, you might want to look at the contentious relationship he had with Jibril.
> They exhumed and tested arafat's body two out of three test found nothing, the third was inconclusive.  There was not evidence, case was closed.
> Stuff your CT where the sun does not shine.  You are just trying to create an issue to attack others that you hate.
Click to expand...


He had a minor tremors, so , and there is no proof he was an alky, so since poisoning is a common way to get rid of someone , that does seem more likely.
Read  he had aids as well, all these stories made up to hide the real reason.


----------



## aris2chat

Penelope said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yeah, this is argument over international borders is just subterfuge in an attempt to justify Jihadist action and Hostile Palestinian aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can that happen? There is nothing between what is called Israel and Gaza but an armistice line (That is specifically not to be a political or territorial border) that Egyptian and Israeli troops are not to cross.
> 
> This conclusion is based on false premise.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is not a "false conclusion."
> 
> There are several concepts in play here.
> 
> First:
> 
> Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, *such as armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.  (Para 1, Clause 5, A/RES/25/2625, Codification of the Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States)​
> Second:
> 
> Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:  The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.  (ANNEX III, Declaration of Independence, A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)
> 
> 1. _Acknowledges _the proclamation of the State of Palestine
> 
> by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988;
> 2. _Affirms _the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;
> 3. _Decides _that, effective as of 15 December 1988, the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system, without prejudice to the observer status and functions of the Palestine Liberation Organization within the United Nations system, in conformity with relevant United Nations resolutions and practice; (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988 "Question of Palestine" --- UN Acknowledgment and Recognition)​
> The demarcation line is just as sound and valid as any other border or boundary.  It is internationally protected by the Declaration of Principles.  The fact that the State of Palestine has not initiated a Treaty, does not make the line any less valid; other than its temporal nature.  The line is further promoted by the PLO/PNC in its Declaration of Independence and formally acknowledge by the General Assembly and Security Council.  It is a reality; while some Hostile Arab Palestinians are in denial and challenge the legitimacy, it is none the less a reality that is physically manifested by a physical presence on the perimeter.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean that Gaza is in Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, there was a point in time _(the period 26 March 1979 to 15 November 1988)_, where this could be argued; but has since been overtaken by events.  During this brief period _(nearly a decade)_, "[t]he permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace."  There was no Palestinian hand in the agreement, lacking a competent government with "full powers" acting as a "state" with the ability to express the "consent of the State of Palestine to be bound by a treaty, or for accomplishing any other act with respect to a treaty" _(1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES)_.  But again, this is a mute point as Israel did not contest the Palestinian Declaration of Independence of 1988 by the the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people (Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine Rabat, Morocco 28 october 1974).
> 
> Needless to say, the Gaza Strip is intrinsically tied to the West Bank, which together form the State of Palestine:
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Recalling_ its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,
> 
> Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;
> *SOURCE:* A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There may have been a point in time, many decades ago, when the Palestinians could have made an issue of the demarkation lines, armistice lines and the recognition of international borders; but that time has long since past.  We are concerned with contemprary views --- closer in terms of today, as opposed to the views held a half century ago.
> 
> The existence of a “Palestinian people” and the "State of Palestine" --- and that of the "People of Israel" and the "State of Israel" --- are no longer at issue. Such existence has been recognized by Israel and Palestine in the exchange of letters of 9 September 1993 between the President of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO Yassar Arafat) and  Israeli Prime Minister (Yitzhak Rabin). In that exchange the Chairman Arafat recognized “the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security” and PM Rabin recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people”. The Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip of 28 September 1995 (Oslo Accord II) refers a to the Palestinian people and its “legitimate rights” _(Preamble, paras. 4, 7, 8; Article II, para. 2; Article III, paras. 1 and 3; Article XXII, para. 2)_.  This issue of where the lines are drawn is only an issue and of significant importance to those that are more interested in a justification for the continuation of the conflict, then the peace, security and prosperity of the citizenry on both sides.  Under customary law, every State *(Palestine included)* has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force _(no rockets, mortars, attack of any kind are justified)_ to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, *including territorial disputes* and problems concerning frontiers of States *(Palestine included)*.  Any other interpretation of the Declaration of Principles is simply an artificial excuse to promote Jihad.  The discussion of the permanent boundaries, especially as presented here, is subterfuge.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most RESECTFULLY the JEWS ASSASINATED BOTH Yasser Arafat and the Great Jew,Prime Minister Rabin...........there was no respect in these instances.....they were SPITE MURDERS...........The Israelis Assassinated One of their OWN......and at this point lost ALL CREDIBILITY Worldwide,NEVER to regain it again. Most Respectfully steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG, Arafat had liver cirrhosis.  He was at one time a heavy drinker and ate rich foods.  He had suffered serious head trauma years before and had parkinson's.
> If you seriously get some proof Arafat was poisoned, you might want to look at the contentious relationship he had with Jibril.
> They exhumed and tested arafat's body two out of three test found nothing, the third was inconclusive.  There was not evidence, case was closed.
> Stuff your CT where the sun does not shine.  You are just trying to create an issue to attack others that you hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had a minor tremors, so , and there is no proof he was an alky, so since poisoning is a common way to get rid of someone , that does seem more likely.
> Read  he had aids as well, all these stories made up to hide the real reason.
Click to expand...


He drank Johnnie Walker Blue.  
I knew him and saw him drink.


----------



## P F Tinmore

aris2chat said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a "false conclusion."
> 
> There are several concepts in play here.
> 
> First:
> 
> Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, *such as armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The armistice lines never divided Palestine from anybody else. In the case of the West Bank and Gaza, the lines ran *through* Palestine. How can the Palestinians violate a line that is Palestine on both sides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There has yet to be a palestinian state.  The need for talks with Israel are to possibly create a functional state for the palestinians.
Click to expand...

"A state" is not necessary. People in trust and other non self governing territories have the same rights.

And why negotiate with Israel?

It has even declared that "the inalienable rights of refugees and displaced people cannot be left to 'negotiations' between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. International law considers agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void if they deprive civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation and restitution."​
Read more: Articles The Jihad Lawyer

Any agreement that denies the Palestinian's rights would be null and void.


----------



## montelatici

docmauser1 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Invalid how?
> 
> 
> 
> Invalid big-time, of course.
> "In addition to the lack of registration and underregistration of property, no map or cadastral survey accompanied the description of the lands registered. Boundaries in many instances were identified by roads, buildings or referenced to a local piece of history such as the "land of the great fight' or "land of the big rock." During the 1920s, the director of lands stated with complete frankness and accuracy that he was unable from registered information and the isolated plan that sometimes accompanied it, to locate the piece of land that a registered transaction purported to concern."
> The Land Question In Palestine, 1917-1939 by Kenneth W. Stein, University of North Carolina Press, 1984.
> Now, let's read more tall tales about major arab settlers from homelands they humped their camels in on about how they got to be all "saudi sheiks" to own(!) 90%(!) of the mandate palestine.
Click to expand...


Kenneth W. Stein, now that's an impartial source. LOL


----------



## Roudy

aris2chat said:


> View attachment 32873
> _Palestine and Israel in the 19th and 20th Centuries_
> 
> 176 thousand arabs from 1922-31
> 
> _
> _



So easy to embarass the bullshit artist.  Now the shameless propogandist for IslamoNazism will post another irrlevant chart.


----------



## Roudy

aris2chat said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have it opposite you clown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 32867
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> 
> View attachment 32870
> __________________________________________________________________________
> View attachment 32869
> 
> that is muslim increase by migration
Click to expand...


Yikes!  That chart evidencing Arab invasion just blew up Mohomod Latici's propoganda machine.   I'm sure he's about to have a fart attack any minute now. Somebody call 9-11 and get an ambulance to the basement of Al Khara Mosque in Dearborn!


----------



## montelatici

It is hilarious how the Zionists lie and lie notwithstanding having the evidence in front of them. Oh well.


----------



## Roudy

montelatici said:


> It is hilarious how the Zionists lie and lie notwithstanding having the evidence in front of them. Oh well.
> 
> View attachment 32979


...and now for some true numbers:





______________________________________________________________________________





__________________________________________________________________________





that is muslim increase by migration.


----------



## MJB12741

Penelope said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yeah, this is argument over international borders is just subterfuge in an attempt to justify Jihadist action and Hostile Palestinian aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can that happen? There is nothing between what is called Israel and Gaza but an armistice line (That is specifically not to be a political or territorial border) that Egyptian and Israeli troops are not to cross.
> 
> This conclusion is based on false premise.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is not a "false conclusion."
> 
> There are several concepts in play here.
> 
> First:
> 
> Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, *such as armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.  (Para 1, Clause 5, A/RES/25/2625, Codification of the Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States)​
> Second:
> 
> Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:  The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.  (ANNEX III, Declaration of Independence, A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)
> 
> 1. _Acknowledges _the proclamation of the State of Palestine
> 
> by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988;
> 2. _Affirms _the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;
> 3. _Decides _that, effective as of 15 December 1988, the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system, without prejudice to the observer status and functions of the Palestine Liberation Organization within the United Nations system, in conformity with relevant United Nations resolutions and practice; (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988 "Question of Palestine" --- UN Acknowledgment and Recognition)​
> The demarcation line is just as sound and valid as any other border or boundary.  It is internationally protected by the Declaration of Principles.  The fact that the State of Palestine has not initiated a Treaty, does not make the line any less valid; other than its temporal nature.  The line is further promoted by the PLO/PNC in its Declaration of Independence and formally acknowledge by the General Assembly and Security Council.  It is a reality; while some Hostile Arab Palestinians are in denial and challenge the legitimacy, it is none the less a reality that is physically manifested by a physical presence on the perimeter.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean that Gaza is in Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, there was a point in time _(the period 26 March 1979 to 15 November 1988)_, where this could be argued; but has since been overtaken by events.  During this brief period _(nearly a decade)_, "[t]he permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace."  There was no Palestinian hand in the agreement, lacking a competent government with "full powers" acting as a "state" with the ability to express the "consent of the State of Palestine to be bound by a treaty, or for accomplishing any other act with respect to a treaty" _(1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES)_.  But again, this is a mute point as Israel did not contest the Palestinian Declaration of Independence of 1988 by the the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people (Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine Rabat, Morocco 28 october 1974).
> 
> Needless to say, the Gaza Strip is intrinsically tied to the West Bank, which together form the State of Palestine:
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Recalling_ its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,
> 
> Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;
> *SOURCE:* A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There may have been a point in time, many decades ago, when the Palestinians could have made an issue of the demarkation lines, armistice lines and the recognition of international borders; but that time has long since past.  We are concerned with contemprary views --- closer in terms of today, as opposed to the views held a half century ago.
> 
> The existence of a “Palestinian people” and the "State of Palestine" --- and that of the "People of Israel" and the "State of Israel" --- are no longer at issue. Such existence has been recognized by Israel and Palestine in the exchange of letters of 9 September 1993 between the President of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO Yassar Arafat) and  Israeli Prime Minister (Yitzhak Rabin). In that exchange the Chairman Arafat recognized “the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security” and PM Rabin recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people”. The Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip of 28 September 1995 (Oslo Accord II) refers a to the Palestinian people and its “legitimate rights” _(Preamble, paras. 4, 7, 8; Article II, para. 2; Article III, paras. 1 and 3; Article XXII, para. 2)_.  This issue of where the lines are drawn is only an issue and of significant importance to those that are more interested in a justification for the continuation of the conflict, then the peace, security and prosperity of the citizenry on both sides.  Under customary law, every State *(Palestine included)* has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force _(no rockets, mortars, attack of any kind are justified)_ to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, *including territorial disputes* and problems concerning frontiers of States *(Palestine included)*.  Any other interpretation of the Declaration of Principles is simply an artificial excuse to promote Jihad.  The discussion of the permanent boundaries, especially as presented here, is subterfuge.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most RESECTFULLY the JEWS ASSASINATED BOTH Yasser Arafat and the Great Jew,Prime Minister Rabin...........there was no respect in these instances.....they were SPITE MURDERS...........The Israelis Assassinated One of their OWN......and at this point lost ALL CREDIBILITY Worldwide,NEVER to regain it again. Most Respectfully steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG, Arafat had liver cirrhosis.  He was at one time a heavy drinker and ate rich foods.  He had suffered serious head trauma years before and had parkinson's.
> If you seriously get some proof Arafat was poisoned, you might want to look at the contentious relationship he had with Jibril.
> They exhumed and tested arafat's body two out of three test found nothing, the third was inconclusive.  There was not evidence, case was closed.
> Stuff your CT where the sun does not shine.  You are just trying to create an issue to attack others that you hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had a minor tremors, so , and there is no proof he was an alky, so since poisoning is a common way to get rid of someone , that does seem more likely.
> Read  he had aids as well, all these stories made up to hide the real reason.
Click to expand...


I miss Arafat.  What a great leader he was.  He took his Palestinians from the toilet to the sewer, got them massacred over & over again by their own Arab brothers, embezzeled their money, died of AIDS & left his Palestinian living in ignorance & poverty with no hope for a Palestinian State.  Who better than Arafat to deserve a Nobel Peace Prize for all the Palestinians who were killed because of him?


----------



## montelatici

Roudy said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is hilarious how the Zionists lie and lie notwithstanding having the evidence in front of them. Oh well.
> 
> View attachment 32979
> 
> 
> 
> ...and now for some true numbers:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that is muslim increase by migration.
Click to expand...


Again the forgery, Transposing the columns. LOL 

Here is the actual excerpt from the document:


6. The estimated total population has increased in the 15 years from 1922 to the middle of 1937, by 631,272 persons. The increase is due to immigration and to the excess of births over deaths, the allocation of the total increases between these two factors being estimated to be as follows:--






_All religions.__Moslems.__Jews.__Christians.__Others._Total increase
of population
Increase by
migration
Natural
increase631,272

281,339

349,933286,770

25,168

261,602302,294

245,433

56,86138,305

10,414

27,8913,903

324

3,579
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]... - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Report of the Mandatory to the LoN 31 December 1937


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just have to chuckle at this.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm having a big belly laugh over the garbage you're spewing.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reference:  31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident
> 
> It just so happens that the Report that Billo_Really is refering to was a panel of five UN Human Rights experts reporting to the UN Human Rights Council; and it was they that rejected that the Palmer Report conclusions.   The UNHRC Panel based their conclusion of "international human rights and humanitarian law;" not Maritime Law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want maritime law?  I'll give you maritime law!
> 
> 
> 
> _underlying basic international law principle that applies is *exclusive flag jurisdiction*,  as part of customary international law by the Permanent Court of International Justice in 1927:
> _
> *“  – vessels on the high seas are subject to no authority except that of the State whose flag they fly”. *​_
> “[F]ailing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary,* [a State] may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State.* In this sense jurisdiction is certainly territorial; it cannot be exercised by a State outside its territory except by virtue of a permissive rule derived from international custom or from a convention… …*[V]essels on the high seas are subject to no authority except that of the State whose flag they fly.* In virtue of the principle of the freedom of the seas, that is to say, the absence of any territorial sovereignty upon the high seas, *no State may exercise any kind of jurisdiction over foreign vessels upon them.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the law of the seas.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palmer Report  was an investigative "Panel of Inquiry" guided and adopted by the two former heads of state (Chair and Vice-Chair); published in September 2011 (a year after the UNHCR Report).  It was a decidedly as different in character from the UNHCR Fact Finding Mission, as one could conceive.
> 
> The Right Honorable Sir Geoffrey Palmer, KCMG AC QC, Chair, 33rd Prime Minister of New Zealand
> The Right Honorable Alvaro Uribe, Vice-Chair, 31st President of Colombia,  studied Law at the University of Antioquia; attended Harvard University, receiving a Certificate of Special Studies in Administration and Management at Harvard Extension School and Certificate in Negotiation and Dispute Resolution at Harvard Law School;  studied at St Antony's College, Oxford, England, on a Chevening-Simón Bolívar scholarship.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing "Honorable" about Alvaro Uribe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _the appointment of Mr Uribe who is accused of responsibility for widespread human rights violations during his period of office as President of Columbia. More relevant here are his associations with Israel.* During his term of office Israel was Columbia’s top weapons supplier, while the American Jewish Committee gave him its ‘Light Unto The Nations’ award in 2007. *This apparent conflict of interest is not addressed in the UN Panel’s report_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More on this bogus panel later.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The two reports are essentially evenly matched.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they're not! One report (UNHCR-FFM) has experts in the field they were commissioned to review, the other (Palmer Report) does not. Pointing to the Palmer Report over the legality of the blockade, is the equivalent of asking an auto mechanic for medical advice.
> 
> Problems with the Palmer report are as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> _- the Panel did not see any exhibits or meet any witnesses, but has based its findings on information provided by the two delegations in the dispute.
> 
> - The report repeatedly makes it clear that the Panel was not a court. The result is effectively an opinion of the leadership, with the qualified partisan support from their colleagues.
> 
> - the Panel has at times demonstrated naivety and a lack of knowledge, while some of its concerns exhibit a biased interest in and understanding of events in the Near East.
> 
> - In supporting its position on Israel’s need to defend itself by imposing the blockade, the Panel make several references to the firing of rockets in Gaza. *Yet these attacks do not occur in a vacuum.* While the report refers (para. 78) to “countless attacks, which at the time of writing have once again become more extensive and intensive” it makes no mention of Israeli violence. [The “time of writing” was probably April 2011. The use of the word “countless” is unprofessional: accurate figures are available from both Israeli and Palestinian sources.] *Palestinian casualties occur every week as a result of the occupation.*
> 
> -* The Panel’s conclusions that the blockade is legal are based on false points and therefore suspect.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More on the bogus Palmer Report...​
> 
> 
> 
> _The so-called Palmer Report on the Israeli raid of May 2010 that killed nine Turkish activists said earlier this month that Israel had used unreasonable force in last year's raid, but its naval blockade of the Hamas-ruled strip was legal.
> 
> A panel of five independent U.N. rights experts reporting to the U.N. Human Rights Council rejected that conclusion, saying the blockade had subjected Gazans to collective punishment in "flagrant contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And still more on your precious Palmer Report...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _In September 2011, the UN released the so-called Palmer Report on Israel's attack against the Freedom Flotilla in May 2010. The report deemed Israel's blockade legal, however it was widely considered to be a politicized whitewash and contained the crucial caveat that *"its conclusions can not be considered definitive in either fact or law."*_
> 
> _Also in September 2011, shortly after the Palmer Report was released, an independent UN panel of experts released a report concluding that Israel's blockade of Gaza does indeed violate international law, stating that *it amounts to collective punishment in "flagrant contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law."* _
> 
> _In reference to Palmer, the independent experts wrote:* 'In pronouncing itself on the legality of the naval blockade, the Palmer Report does not recognize the naval blockade as an integral part of Israel's closure policy towards Gaza* which has a disproportionate impact on the human rights of civilians.'_
> 
> _Human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross also consider the blockade and siege to be acts of collective punishment that contravene international law._
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now, just for fun, let's throw out all the experts I just posted and see what "Jews" have to say about Palestine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*Forget what others say about Israel.  Let’s listen to prominent Jewish voices.*
> 
> 313 Jewish survivors and descendants of survivors and victims of the Nazi genocide have signed a letter stating:
> _
> _As Jewish survivors and descendants of survivors and victims of the Nazi genocide *we unequivocally condemn the massacre of Palestinians in Gaza and the ongoing occupation and colonization of historic Palestine.* We further condemn the United States for providing Israel with the funding to carry out the attack, and Western states more generally for using their diplomatic muscle to protect Israel from condemnation. Genocide begins with the silence of the world.
> 
> *We are alarmed by the extreme, racist dehumanization of Palestinians in Israeli society, which has reached a fever-pitch. *In Israel, politicians and pundits in The Times of Israel and The Jerusalem Post have called openly for genocide of Palestinians and right-wing Israelis are adopting Neo-Nazi insignia._​_
> ***
> _
> _*Nothing can justify bombing UN shelters, homes, hospitals and universities. Nothing can justify depriving people of electricity and water.*
> 
> *We must raise our collective voices and use our collective power to bring about an end to all forms of racism, including the ongoing genocide of Palestinian people. *We call for an immediate end to the siege against and blockade of Gaza. We call for the full economic, cultural and academic boycott of Israel. “Never again” must mean NEVER AGAIN FOR ANYONE!_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are the good Jews, not Zionist assholes shooting their evil, twisted, inhumane mouths off.
> 
> 
> That outta toast *Toasty's* bimbo white bread!​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hooting their evil, inhumane, twisted mouths off like you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look in the Mirror Toastie.....your comment is uncalled for...Billo is a Diamond
Click to expand...

Steve, Billo is a lump of coal.


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really, _et al,_
> 
> All you have presented here, is the continuing dialog between adversaries arguing on behalf of one report over another.  They are arguing over the same to reports.
> 
> At the end of the day, the UNHCR Report does not say that the blockade violates the UNCLOS Protocols.  It condemns Israel on Humanitarian grounds.  Similarly, the "Washington Blog" dialog you posted, is an accumulation of pro-Palestinians (pro-HAMAS) commentary and not a balanced view.  Using the standard they outline, you would never suspect that the Palestinians have engaged in hijackings, piracy, suicide bombings, terrorist assaults, kidnapping and murder, etc, targeting primarily civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Those are the good Jews, not Zionist assholes shooting their evil, twisted, inhumane mouths off.
> 
> That outta toast *Toasty's* bimbo white bread!​
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is a compilation of judgments made via media descriptions of events.  Most nations of the world have some sort of anti-War protestors when the nation is engaged in a armed conflict.  It is to be expected in a representative society.  I have no doubt that there are Israelis that have sympathy for the trial and tribulations the Palestinians are going through; that to is to be expected.  But I don't believe they represent a preponderance of the people or the popular view.
> 
> In your response you post from the Washington Blog:
> 
> Over 150 international legal experts – including two Former UN Special Rapporteurs on human rights situation in Palestine – have also signed a declaration stating:​
> 
> Israel has targeted civilians
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has inflicted collective punishment on the Palestinians
> 
> 
> 
> These are war crimes
> 
> 
> 
> The matter should be referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC)
> 
> Looking at this, it sounds so damaging.  Yet it pales in comparison _(much less serious or important)_ when stacked up against the war crimes and crimes against humanity that even the UNHCR made note of.  Your argument has some merit, but it is not compelling.  The basic issue still remains.  And as far as going to court _(ICC referral)_, it is a bit melodramatic _(in the shadow of drama queens at play)_.
> 
> The Palestinians have opted for the continuation of the conflict.  So be it.  You cannot hope to win in court by stacking up the pages and pages of terrorist attacks, insurgent assaults, murder and kidnapping, rocket and mortar attacks, a majority of which were targeted against non-combatant civilians, and expect to win a case; even if there were isolated incidents of Israeli wrong doing.
> 
> The Palestinians Population, openly supporting and lending material assistance to the Jihadist of the land, accept the consequences of their actions; no matter how cowardly, no matter how vile, and no matter how they justify the violence --- they have to take responsibility for their actions ---  and suffer the consequences.  It is that simple.
> 
> The whining behind the theme that the Israelis are involved in some form of "collective punishment" is simply a misunderstanding of the criminal concept behind what "collective punishment" actually means.  In fact, most people cannot define "collective punishment" or tell you what the "elements of the offense" are!  So, exactly what are the drama queens of the Palestinian Virtual Victim Society actually claiming when they say --- they are subject to "collective punishment."   What law are they using when they say it violates International Law?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are an apologist for the Zionists...........and a CURR,SIR.........Most Respectfully
Click to expand...

Very uncouth, Steve. And did you mean 'cur'? Not nice.


----------



## Roudy

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just have to chuckle at this.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm having a big belly laugh over the garbage you're spewing.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reference:  31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident
> 
> It just so happens that the Report that Billo_Really is refering to was a panel of five UN Human Rights experts reporting to the UN Human Rights Council; and it was they that rejected that the Palmer Report conclusions.   The UNHRC Panel based their conclusion of "international human rights and humanitarian law;" not Maritime Law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want maritime law?  I'll give you maritime law!
> 
> 
> 
> _underlying basic international law principle that applies is *exclusive flag jurisdiction*,  as part of customary international law by the Permanent Court of International Justice in 1927:
> _
> *“  – vessels on the high seas are subject to no authority except that of the State whose flag they fly”. *​_
> “[F]ailing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary,* [a State] may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State.* In this sense jurisdiction is certainly territorial; it cannot be exercised by a State outside its territory except by virtue of a permissive rule derived from international custom or from a convention… …*[V]essels on the high seas are subject to no authority except that of the State whose flag they fly.* In virtue of the principle of the freedom of the seas, that is to say, the absence of any territorial sovereignty upon the high seas, *no State may exercise any kind of jurisdiction over foreign vessels upon them.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the law of the seas.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palmer Report  was an investigative "Panel of Inquiry" guided and adopted by the two former heads of state (Chair and Vice-Chair); published in September 2011 (a year after the UNHCR Report).  It was a decidedly as different in character from the UNHCR Fact Finding Mission, as one could conceive.
> 
> The Right Honorable Sir Geoffrey Palmer, KCMG AC QC, Chair, 33rd Prime Minister of New Zealand
> The Right Honorable Alvaro Uribe, Vice-Chair, 31st President of Colombia,  studied Law at the University of Antioquia; attended Harvard University, receiving a Certificate of Special Studies in Administration and Management at Harvard Extension School and Certificate in Negotiation and Dispute Resolution at Harvard Law School;  studied at St Antony's College, Oxford, England, on a Chevening-Simón Bolívar scholarship.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing "Honorable" about Alvaro Uribe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _the appointment of Mr Uribe who is accused of responsibility for widespread human rights violations during his period of office as President of Columbia. More relevant here are his associations with Israel.* During his term of office Israel was Columbia’s top weapons supplier, while the American Jewish Committee gave him its ‘Light Unto The Nations’ award in 2007. *This apparent conflict of interest is not addressed in the UN Panel’s report_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More on this bogus panel later.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The two reports are essentially evenly matched.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they're not! One report (UNHCR-FFM) has experts in the field they were commissioned to review, the other (Palmer Report) does not. Pointing to the Palmer Report over the legality of the blockade, is the equivalent of asking an auto mechanic for medical advice.
> 
> Problems with the Palmer report are as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> _- the Panel did not see any exhibits or meet any witnesses, but has based its findings on information provided by the two delegations in the dispute.
> 
> - The report repeatedly makes it clear that the Panel was not a court. The result is effectively an opinion of the leadership, with the qualified partisan support from their colleagues.
> 
> - the Panel has at times demonstrated naivety and a lack of knowledge, while some of its concerns exhibit a biased interest in and understanding of events in the Near East.
> 
> - In supporting its position on Israel’s need to defend itself by imposing the blockade, the Panel make several references to the firing of rockets in Gaza. *Yet these attacks do not occur in a vacuum.* While the report refers (para. 78) to “countless attacks, which at the time of writing have once again become more extensive and intensive” it makes no mention of Israeli violence. [The “time of writing” was probably April 2011. The use of the word “countless” is unprofessional: accurate figures are available from both Israeli and Palestinian sources.] *Palestinian casualties occur every week as a result of the occupation.*
> 
> -* The Panel’s conclusions that the blockade is legal are based on false points and therefore suspect.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More on the bogus Palmer Report...​
> 
> 
> 
> _The so-called Palmer Report on the Israeli raid of May 2010 that killed nine Turkish activists said earlier this month that Israel had used unreasonable force in last year's raid, but its naval blockade of the Hamas-ruled strip was legal.
> 
> A panel of five independent U.N. rights experts reporting to the U.N. Human Rights Council rejected that conclusion, saying the blockade had subjected Gazans to collective punishment in "flagrant contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And still more on your precious Palmer Report...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _In September 2011, the UN released the so-called Palmer Report on Israel's attack against the Freedom Flotilla in May 2010. The report deemed Israel's blockade legal, however it was widely considered to be a politicized whitewash and contained the crucial caveat that *"its conclusions can not be considered definitive in either fact or law."*_
> 
> _Also in September 2011, shortly after the Palmer Report was released, an independent UN panel of experts released a report concluding that Israel's blockade of Gaza does indeed violate international law, stating that *it amounts to collective punishment in "flagrant contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law."* _
> 
> _In reference to Palmer, the independent experts wrote:* 'In pronouncing itself on the legality of the naval blockade, the Palmer Report does not recognize the naval blockade as an integral part of Israel's closure policy towards Gaza* which has a disproportionate impact on the human rights of civilians.'_
> 
> _Human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross also consider the blockade and siege to be acts of collective punishment that contravene international law._
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now, just for fun, let's throw out all the experts I just posted and see what "Jews" have to say about Palestine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*Forget what others say about Israel.  Let’s listen to prominent Jewish voices.*
> 
> 313 Jewish survivors and descendants of survivors and victims of the Nazi genocide have signed a letter stating:
> _
> _As Jewish survivors and descendants of survivors and victims of the Nazi genocide *we unequivocally condemn the massacre of Palestinians in Gaza and the ongoing occupation and colonization of historic Palestine.* We further condemn the United States for providing Israel with the funding to carry out the attack, and Western states more generally for using their diplomatic muscle to protect Israel from condemnation. Genocide begins with the silence of the world.
> 
> *We are alarmed by the extreme, racist dehumanization of Palestinians in Israeli society, which has reached a fever-pitch. *In Israel, politicians and pundits in The Times of Israel and The Jerusalem Post have called openly for genocide of Palestinians and right-wing Israelis are adopting Neo-Nazi insignia._​_
> ***
> _
> _*Nothing can justify bombing UN shelters, homes, hospitals and universities. Nothing can justify depriving people of electricity and water.*
> 
> *We must raise our collective voices and use our collective power to bring about an end to all forms of racism, including the ongoing genocide of Palestinian people. *We call for an immediate end to the siege against and blockade of Gaza. We call for the full economic, cultural and academic boycott of Israel. “Never again” must mean NEVER AGAIN FOR ANYONE!_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are the good Jews, not Zionist assholes shooting their evil, twisted, inhumane mouths off.
> 
> 
> That outta toast *Toasty's* bimbo white bread!​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hooting their evil, inhumane, twisted mouths off like you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look in the Mirror Toastie.....your comment is uncalled for...Billo is a Diamond
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Steve, Billo is a lump of coal.
Click to expand...


Coal is brown and smells like hell?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a "false conclusion."
> 
> There are several concepts in play here.
> 
> First:
> 
> Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, *such as armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The armistice lines never divided Palestine from anybody else. In the case of the West Bank and Gaza, the lines ran *through* Palestine. How can the Palestinians violate a line that is Palestine on both sides?
Click to expand...


The armistice lines have little to do with Palestine. They were agreements between two sovereign states. 

1949 Armistice Agreements - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Look at the map on the right. It clearly shows Israeli territory and Arab territory following the signing of the agreements.


----------



## docmauser1

Penelope said:


> He had a minor tremors, so , and there is no proof he was an alky, so since poisoning is a common way to get rid of someone , that does seem more likely. Read  he had aids as well, all these stories made up to hide the real reason.


Arafat is dead, and piss be on him.


----------



## docmauser1

P F Tinmore said:


> The armistice lines never divided Palestine from anybody else. In the case of the West Bank and Gaza, the lines ran *through* Palestine. How can the Palestinians violate a line that is Palestine on both sides?


But the problem's that, major arab settlers&squatters from the hood didn't ran *through* palestine, they had been running *to* palestine, of course.


----------



## docmauser1

montelatici said:


> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Invalid how?
> 
> 
> 
> Invalid big-time, of course.
> "In addition to the lack of registration and underregistration of property, no map or cadastral survey accompanied the description of the lands registered. Boundaries in many instances were identified by roads, buildings or referenced to a local piece of history such as the "land of the great fight' or "land of the big rock." During the 1920s, the director of lands stated with complete frankness and accuracy that he was unable from registered information and the isolated plan that sometimes accompanied it, to locate the piece of land that a registered transaction purported to concern."
> The Land Question In Palestine, 1917-1939 by Kenneth W. Stein, University of North Carolina Press, 1984.
> Now, let's read more tall tales about major arab settlers from homelands they humped their camels in on about how they got to be all "saudi sheiks" to own(!) 90%(!) of the mandate palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kenneth W. Stein, now that's an impartial source. LOL
Click to expand...

Very much impartial, indded. He doesn't dazzle us with drivel about major arab settlers&squatters from the hood, who all got to be "saudi sheiks" to own(!) 90%(!) of the mandate palestine and "indigenous palisimians", too!


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a "false conclusion."
> 
> There are several concepts in play here.
> 
> First:
> 
> Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, *such as armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The armistice lines never divided Palestine from anybody else. In the case of the West Bank and Gaza, the lines ran *through* Palestine. How can the Palestinians violate a line that is Palestine on both sides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The armistice lines have little to do with Palestine. They were agreements between two sovereign states.
> 
> 1949 Armistice Agreements - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Look at the map on the right. It clearly shows Israeli territory and Arab territory following the signing of the agreements.
Click to expand...

Armistice lines did not designate any territory.


----------



## RoccoR

docmauser1, P F Tinmore, _et al,_

The mistake here is much more simplistic, fundamentally, than that.



docmauser1 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The armistice lines never divided Palestine from anybody else. In the case of the West Bank and Gaza, the lines ran *through* Palestine. How can the Palestinians violate a line that is Palestine on both sides?
> 
> 
> 
> But the problem's that, major arab settlers&squatters from the hood didn't ran *through* palestine, they had been running *to* palestine, of course.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

One must remember to keep in mind that:

When the Armistice lines were drawn in 1949, the term "Palestine" was still being used as defined in the original "Palestine Order in Council."  It referred to the territories to which the former Mandate for Palestine applied.  It wasn't a political subdivision on its own.  

The "Palestine" of 1949 was a legal entity _(trusteeship)_ but not be a sovereign state and not self-governing.  For all intent and purposes, The "Palestine" of 1949 had two component parts:​

The apportionment that Declared Independence by the right of self-determination of the Jewish People _(AKA:  The new State of Israel)_.
The apportionment that declined to participate in the Partition Plan _(AKA:  The Arab State unrealized)_.

When the Armistice Lines were drawn, the Lines separated the various Arab Contingents from the the Israeli Contingents.  The distinction made by P F Tinmore in the question _"How can the Palestinians violate a line that is Palestine on both sides?"_ is a distinction without relevance.  The Israelis were just as much Palestinians as the Arabs.  Palestinian, a territorial name, was just as applicable to all the inhabitance of the time _(Jewish and Arab)_.  In 1949, the foreign influence were the remnants of the 5 Arab Armies that established Occupation Authorities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.  In addressing the P F Tinmore in the question, we have to understand that the term "Palestinians" is representational of both the Israelis and Arab.  So, in fact, the question is meaningless _(like drawing lines in water)_, except for the implied threat to the sovereignty of Israel.  What the Armistice Line separated then and now are the Hostile and Belligerent Parties.​
The word game used by P F Tinmore in the question is nothing more then a fallacious philosophical dilemma by the aggressors to justify Jihad and armed struggle.  It is an outcome of the concept that all the former Territory under the old Mandate is an objective of the contemporary Arab Palestinian of today; that the territorial sovereignty of Israel today, represents an occupation by force of territory that is rightfully Arab Palestinian.  

In terms of the West Bank, the distinction made by P F Tinmore in the question _"How can the Palestinians violate a line that is Palestine on both sides?"_ is even made more dubious when one considers that the last sovereignty over the territory, prior to the Palestinian Declaration of Independence in 1988, was Jordanian.  Rightfully,  the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank should actually be called the "former Jordanian of Palestine."  The historical geography of the West Bank is that what the UN calls the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, is the exact same territory as that Annexed by the Jordanians in 1950.

On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan now included nearly one and a half million people, more than half a million of whom were refugees evicted from Jewish-occupied Palestine. *All automatically became citizens of Jordan, a right that had first been offered in December 1949 to all Palestinians who wished to claim it.* Although the Arab League opposed this plan, and no other Arab government followed Jordan’s lead, the Hashemite Kingdom offered the possibility of normal life for many people who would have otherwise remained stateless refugees.​
When the Palestinians accepted Jordanian Citizenship, they exercised their right of self-determination, but also relinquished any "refugee status."  Under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the:

C. This Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if:

(1) He has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; or
(2) Having lost his nationality, he has voluntarily re-acquired it; or
(3) He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality; or
(4) He has voluntarily re-established himself in the country which he leftor outside which he remained owing to fear of persecution; or​
*(TO THE QUESTION:  Who are the Palestinians)*

And again, the Palestinians shot themselves in the foot.  When the "Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented" (right of self-determination), acquired a new nationality, and enjoyed the protection of the country of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, their new nationality.

While were might find it difficult to determine "who is a Palestinian," by the process of elimination we can rule-out what we call the Arab Palestinian of the West Bank.  They abdicated their relationship as Palestinians when they accepted Jordanian citizenship.

*(BOTTOM LINE)*

There are no Arab Palestinians in the West Bank.  They alerted that status in and by themselves in a Parliamentary process. And as for the P F Tinmore in the question _"How can the Palestinians violate a line that is Palestine on both sides?"_ is a distinction without relevance; in that since 1950, there were no Palestinians on the Eastern side (towards Jordan) of the Armistice Line.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a "false conclusion."
> 
> There are several concepts in play here.
> 
> First:
> 
> Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, *such as armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The armistice lines never divided Palestine from anybody else. In the case of the West Bank and Gaza, the lines ran *through* Palestine. How can the Palestinians violate a line that is Palestine on both sides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The armistice lines have little to do with Palestine. They were agreements between two sovereign states.
> 
> 1949 Armistice Agreements - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Look at the map on the right. It clearly shows Israeli territory and Arab territory following the signing of the agreements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Armistice lines did not designate any territory.
Click to expand...


You said that the lines ran through Palestine. That's absurd. I'm not talking about designating territory. 
I'm referring more to your "the armistice agreements seperated Palestine into three areas of occupation"


----------



## docmauser1

RoccoR said:


> docmauser1, P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> The mistake here is much more simplistic, fundamentally, than that.
> 
> 
> 
> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The armistice lines never divided Palestine from anybody else. In the case of the West Bank and Gaza, the lines ran *through* Palestine. How can the Palestinians violate a line that is Palestine on both sides?
> 
> 
> 
> But the problem's that, major arab settlers&squatters from the hood didn't ran *through* palestine, they had been running *to* palestine, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> One must remember to keep in mind that:
> 
> When the Armistice lines were drawn in 1949, the term "Palestine" was still being used as defined in the original "Palestine Order in Council."  It referred to the territories to which the former Mandate for Palestine applied.  It wasn't a political subdivision on its own.
> 
> The "Palestine" of 1949 was a legal entity _(trusteeship)_ but not be a sovereign state and not self-governing.  For all intent and purposes, The "Palestine" of 1949 had two component parts:​
> 
> The apportionment that Declared Independence by the right of self-determination of the Jewish People _(AKA:  The new State of Israel)_.
> The apportionment that declined to participate in the Partition Plan _(AKA:  The Arab State unrealized)_.
> 
> When the Armistice Lines were drawn, the Lines separated the various Arab Contingents from the the Israeli Contingents.  The distinction made by P F Tinmore in the question _"How can the Palestinians violate a line that is Palestine on both sides?"_ is a distinction without relevance.  The Israelis were just as much Palestinians as the Arabs.  Palestinian, a territorial name, was just as applicable to all the inhabitance of the time _(Jewish and Arab)_.  In 1949, the foreign influence were the remnants of the 5 Arab Armies that established Occupation Authorities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.  In addressing the P F Tinmore in the question, we have to understand that the term "Palestinians" is representational of both the Israelis and Arab.  So, in fact, the question is meaningless _(like drawing lines in water)_, except for the implied threat to the sovereignty of Israel.  What the Armistice Line separated then and now are the Hostile and Belligerent Parties.​
> The word game used by P F Tinmore in the question is nothing more then a fallacious philosophical dilemma by the aggressors to justify Jihad and armed struggle.  It is an outcome of the concept that all the former Territory under the old Mandate is an objective of the contemporary Arab Palestinian of today; that the territorial sovereignty of Israel today, represents an occupation by force of territory that is rightfully Arab Palestinian.
> 
> In terms of the West Bank, the distinction made by P F Tinmore in the question _"How can the Palestinians violate a line that is Palestine on both sides?"_ is even made more dubious when one considers that the last sovereignty over the territory, prior to the Palestinian Declaration of Independence in 1988, was Jordanian.  Rightfully,  the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank should actually be called the "former Jordanian of Palestine."  The historical geography of the West Bank is that what the UN calls the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, is the exact same territory as that Annexed by the Jordanians in 1950.
> 
> On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.
> 
> The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan now included nearly one and a half million people, more than half a million of whom were refugees evicted from Jewish-occupied Palestine. *All automatically became citizens of Jordan, a right that had first been offered in December 1949 to all Palestinians who wished to claim it.* Although the Arab League opposed this plan, and no other Arab government followed Jordan’s lead, the Hashemite Kingdom offered the possibility of normal life for many people who would have otherwise remained stateless refugees.​
> When the Palestinians accepted Jordanian Citizenship, they exercised their right of self-determination, but also relinquished any "refugee status."  Under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the:
> 
> C. This Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if:
> *(1) He has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; or
> (2) Having lost his nationality, he has voluntarily re-acquired it; or
> (3) He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality; or
> (4) He has voluntarily re-established himself in the country which he leftor outside which he remained owing to fear of persecution;* or​*(TO THE QUESTION:  Who are the Palestinians)*
> And again, the Palestinians shot themselves in the foot.  When the "Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented" (right of self-determination), acquired a new nationality, and enjoyed the protection of the country of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, their new nationality.
> While were might find it difficult to determine "who is a Palestinian," by the process of elimination we can rule-out what we call the Arab Palestinian of the West Bank.  They abdicated their relationship as Palestinians when they accepted Jordanian citizenship.
> *(BOTTOM LINE)*
> There are no Arab Palestinians in the West Bank.  They alerted that status in and by themselves in a Parliamentary process. And as for the P F Tinmore in the question _"How can the Palestinians violate a line that is Palestine on both sides?"_ is a distinction without relevance; in that since 1950, there were no Palestinians on the Eastern side (towards Jordan) of the Armistice Line.
> Most Respectfully, R
Click to expand...

I know, but, considering the words of the Jordanian FM Nasser Judah at the UNSC "*Most of the refugees on our territory are Jordanian citizens in addition to their status as refugees*, and it lies at the heart of our responsibilities to protect and restore their legitimate rights recognised by the international terms of reference pertaining to the peace process. As a host country, we, in turn, have rights for the burdens we have shouldered." we've a quantum mech cake, which is, both, eaten and not so eaten. The UNRWA is babbling about 2,070,973 _registered Palestine refugees_ there. Of all of those, for all intents and purposes, professional refugees the gazabad ones don't have a jordanian citizenship and carry a temporary jordano passport.


----------



## docmauser1

RoccoR said:


> ... Most Respectfully, R


Ah! Mucho apologies! Forgot to add Most Respectfully, Doc M!


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a "false conclusion."
> 
> There are several concepts in play here.
> 
> First:
> 
> Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, *such as armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The armistice lines never divided Palestine from anybody else. In the case of the West Bank and Gaza, the lines ran *through* Palestine. How can the Palestinians violate a line that is Palestine on both sides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The armistice lines have little to do with Palestine. They were agreements between two sovereign states.
> 
> 1949 Armistice Agreements - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Look at the map on the right. It clearly shows Israeli territory and Arab territory following the signing of the agreements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Armistice lines did not designate any territory.
Click to expand...


I feel the solution would be a self governing, self determination Palestinian State where the Palestinians could no longer suck off of Israel to provide for them.  The big question is where to put it as no surrounding Arab country will grant the Palestinians a right of return back to their indigenous homelands.  Do you think Mecca might be a nice place for a Palestinian State?


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a "false conclusion."
> 
> There are several concepts in play here.
> 
> First:
> 
> Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, *such as armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The armistice lines never divided Palestine from anybody else. In the case of the West Bank and Gaza, the lines ran *through* Palestine. How can the Palestinians violate a line that is Palestine on both sides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The armistice lines have little to do with Palestine. They were agreements between two sovereign states.
> 
> 1949 Armistice Agreements - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Look at the map on the right. It clearly shows Israeli territory and Arab territory following the signing of the agreements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Armistice lines did not designate any territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I feel the solution would be a self governing, self determination Palestinian State where the Palestinians could no longer suck off of Israel to provide for them.  The big question is where to put it as no surrounding Arab country will grant the Palestinians a right of return back to their indigenous homelands.  Do you think Mecca might be a nice place for a Palestinian State?
Click to expand...


The Palestinians come from Palestine, the Jews come from Europe, North Africa and other areas of the Middle East.  The Jews should just go back where their parents and grand parents came from. That would solve the problem.


----------



## Penelope

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a "false conclusion."
> 
> There are several concepts in play here.
> 
> First:
> 
> Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, *such as armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The armistice lines never divided Palestine from anybody else. In the case of the West Bank and Gaza, the lines ran *through* Palestine. How can the Palestinians violate a line that is Palestine on both sides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The armistice lines have little to do with Palestine. They were agreements between two sovereign states.
> 
> 1949 Armistice Agreements - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Look at the map on the right. It clearly shows Israeli territory and Arab territory following the signing of the agreements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Armistice lines did not designate any territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I feel the solution would be a self governing, self determination Palestinian State where the Palestinians could no longer suck off of Israel to provide for them.  The big question is where to put it as no surrounding Arab country will grant the Palestinians a right of return back to their indigenous homelands.  Do you think Mecca might be a nice place for a Palestinian State?
Click to expand...


The Palestinians are home, and some of the Jews homes are on their land.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a "false conclusion."
> 
> There are several concepts in play here.
> 
> First:
> 
> Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, *such as armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The armistice lines never divided Palestine from anybody else. In the case of the West Bank and Gaza, the lines ran *through* Palestine. How can the Palestinians violate a line that is Palestine on both sides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The armistice lines have little to do with Palestine. They were agreements between two sovereign states.
> 
> 1949 Armistice Agreements - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Look at the map on the right. It clearly shows Israeli territory and Arab territory following the signing of the agreements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Armistice lines did not designate any territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I feel the solution would be a self governing, self determination Palestinian State where the Palestinians could no longer suck off of Israel to provide for them.  The big question is where to put it as no surrounding Arab country will grant the Palestinians a right of return back to their indigenous homelands.  Do you think Mecca might be a nice place for a Palestinian State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians come from Palestine, the Jews come from Europe, North Africa and other areas of the Middle East.  The Jews should just go back where their parents and grand parents came from. That would solve the problem.
Click to expand...


The indigenous Palestinians were Jews.  Not a single Muslim among them.  So who are the invaders?  Duh!


----------



## docmauser1

montelatici said:


> The Palestinians come from Palestine, the Jews come from Europe, North Africa and other areas of the Middle East.  The Jews should just go back where their parents and grand parents came from. That would solve the problem.


Then we should send palistanians back to Texas.


----------



## Penelope

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The armistice lines never divided Palestine from anybody else. In the case of the West Bank and Gaza, the lines ran *through* Palestine. How can the Palestinians violate a line that is Palestine on both sides?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The armistice lines have little to do with Palestine. They were agreements between two sovereign states.
> 
> 1949 Armistice Agreements - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Look at the map on the right. It clearly shows Israeli territory and Arab territory following the signing of the agreements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Armistice lines did not designate any territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I feel the solution would be a self governing, self determination Palestinian State where the Palestinians could no longer suck off of Israel to provide for them.  The big question is where to put it as no surrounding Arab country will grant the Palestinians a right of return back to their indigenous homelands.  Do you think Mecca might be a nice place for a Palestinian State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians come from Palestine, the Jews come from Europe, North Africa and other areas of the Middle East.  The Jews should just go back where their parents and grand parents came from. That would solve the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indigenous Palestinians were Jews.  Not a single Muslim among them.  So who are the invaders?  Duh!
Click to expand...


There were obviously the Canaanites you originally stole the land from, intermarried with and they stayed.


MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The armistice lines never divided Palestine from anybody else. In the case of the West Bank and Gaza, the lines ran *through* Palestine. How can the Palestinians violate a line that is Palestine on both sides?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The armistice lines have little to do with Palestine. They were agreements between two sovereign states.
> 
> 1949 Armistice Agreements - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Look at the map on the right. It clearly shows Israeli territory and Arab territory following the signing of the agreements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Armistice lines did not designate any territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I feel the solution would be a self governing, self determination Palestinian State where the Palestinians could no longer suck off of Israel to provide for them.  The big question is where to put it as no surrounding Arab country will grant the Palestinians a right of return back to their indigenous homelands.  Do you think Mecca might be a nice place for a Palestinian State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians come from Palestine, the Jews come from Europe, North Africa and other areas of the Middle East.  The Jews should just go back where their parents and grand parents came from. That would solve the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indigenous Palestinians were Jews.  Not a single Muslim among them.  So who are the invaders?  Duh!
Click to expand...


There were obviously the Canaanites you originally stole the land from, intermarried with and they stayed.


----------



## MJB12741

Penelope said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The armistice lines have little to do with Palestine. They were agreements between two sovereign states.
> 
> 1949 Armistice Agreements - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Look at the map on the right. It clearly shows Israeli territory and Arab territory following the signing of the agreements.
> 
> 
> 
> Armistice lines did not designate any territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I feel the solution would be a self governing, self determination Palestinian State where the Palestinians could no longer suck off of Israel to provide for them.  The big question is where to put it as no surrounding Arab country will grant the Palestinians a right of return back to their indigenous homelands.  Do you think Mecca might be a nice place for a Palestinian State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians come from Palestine, the Jews come from Europe, North Africa and other areas of the Middle East.  The Jews should just go back where their parents and grand parents came from. That would solve the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indigenous Palestinians were Jews.  Not a single Muslim among them.  So who are the invaders?  Duh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were obviously the Canaanites you originally stole the land from, intermarried with and they stayed.
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The armistice lines have little to do with Palestine. They were agreements between two sovereign states.
> 
> 1949 Armistice Agreements - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Look at the map on the right. It clearly shows Israeli territory and Arab territory following the signing of the agreements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Armistice lines did not designate any territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I feel the solution would be a self governing, self determination Palestinian State where the Palestinians could no longer suck off of Israel to provide for them.  The big question is where to put it as no surrounding Arab country will grant the Palestinians a right of return back to their indigenous homelands.  Do you think Mecca might be a nice place for a Palestinian State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians come from Palestine, the Jews come from Europe, North Africa and other areas of the Middle East.  The Jews should just go back where their parents and grand parents came from. That would solve the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indigenous Palestinians were Jews.  Not a single Muslim among them.  So who are the invaders?  Duh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were obviously the Canaanites you originally stole the land from, intermarried with and they stayed.
Click to expand...


Oh that's right.  I forgot about all those Muslim Canaanites.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a "false conclusion."
> 
> There are several concepts in play here.
> 
> First:
> 
> Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, *such as armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The armistice lines never divided Palestine from anybody else. In the case of the West Bank and Gaza, the lines ran *through* Palestine. How can the Palestinians violate a line that is Palestine on both sides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The armistice lines have little to do with Palestine. They were agreements between two sovereign states.
> 
> 1949 Armistice Agreements - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Look at the map on the right. It clearly shows Israeli territory and Arab territory following the signing of the agreements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Armistice lines did not designate any territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I feel the solution would be a self governing, self determination Palestinian State where the Palestinians could no longer suck off of Israel to provide for them.  The big question is where to put it as no surrounding Arab country will grant the Palestinians a right of return back to their indigenous homelands.  Do you think Mecca might be a nice place for a Palestinian State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians come from Palestine, the Jews come from Europe, North Africa and other areas of the Middle East.  The Jews should just go back where their parents and grand parents came from. That would solve the problem.
Click to expand...


  

Keep dreaming Nazi scum. The Jews aren't going anywhere. No matter how much you want it to happen.


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Armistice lines did not designate any territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel the solution would be a self governing, self determination Palestinian State where the Palestinians could no longer suck off of Israel to provide for them.  The big question is where to put it as no surrounding Arab country will grant the Palestinians a right of return back to their indigenous homelands.  Do you think Mecca might be a nice place for a Palestinian State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians come from Palestine, the Jews come from Europe, North Africa and other areas of the Middle East.  The Jews should just go back where their parents and grand parents came from. That would solve the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indigenous Palestinians were Jews.  Not a single Muslim among them.  So who are the invaders?  Duh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were obviously the Canaanites you originally stole the land from, intermarried with and they stayed.
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Armistice lines did not designate any territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I feel the solution would be a self governing, self determination Palestinian State where the Palestinians could no longer suck off of Israel to provide for them.  The big question is where to put it as no surrounding Arab country will grant the Palestinians a right of return back to their indigenous homelands.  Do you think Mecca might be a nice place for a Palestinian State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians come from Palestine, the Jews come from Europe, North Africa and other areas of the Middle East.  The Jews should just go back where their parents and grand parents came from. That would solve the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indigenous Palestinians were Jews.  Not a single Muslim among them.  So who are the invaders?  Duh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were obviously the Canaanites you originally stole the land from, intermarried with and they stayed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh that's right.  I forgot about all those Muslim Canaanites.
Click to expand...


Seriously, Were there Jews among the Canaanite tribes.  Were there Muslims among them?  Boy that's a tough one, huh Penelope?


----------



## Penelope

MJB12741 said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel the solution would be a self governing, self determination Palestinian State where the Palestinians could no longer suck off of Israel to provide for them.  The big question is where to put it as no surrounding Arab country will grant the Palestinians a right of return back to their indigenous homelands.  Do you think Mecca might be a nice place for a Palestinian State?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians come from Palestine, the Jews come from Europe, North Africa and other areas of the Middle East.  The Jews should just go back where their parents and grand parents came from. That would solve the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indigenous Palestinians were Jews.  Not a single Muslim among them.  So who are the invaders?  Duh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were obviously the Canaanites you originally stole the land from, intermarried with and they stayed.
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel the solution would be a self governing, self determination Palestinian State where the Palestinians could no longer suck off of Israel to provide for them.  The big question is where to put it as no surrounding Arab country will grant the Palestinians a right of return back to their indigenous homelands.  Do you think Mecca might be a nice place for a Palestinian State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians come from Palestine, the Jews come from Europe, North Africa and other areas of the Middle East.  The Jews should just go back where their parents and grand parents came from. That would solve the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indigenous Palestinians were Jews.  Not a single Muslim among them.  So who are the invaders?  Duh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were obviously the Canaanites you originally stole the land from, intermarried with and they stayed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh that's right.  I forgot about all those Muslim Canaanites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, Were there Jews among the Canaanite tribes.  Were there Muslims among them?  Boy that's a tough one, huh Penelope?
Click to expand...


Its a tough one for you. It even says in your history books they intermarried with everyone.  Like I once said you might be a Canaanite Princess.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

The Armistice Lines are lines of demarcation.  Under the Declaration of Principles, the lines of demarcation are recognized and protected; even if the people of the State of Palestine (Palestinians) object.

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


P F Tinmore said:


> Armistice lines did not designate any territory.


*(COMMENT)*

Any system of line segments can enclose an area; and that area maybe a territory (_international lines of demarcation_).  The contemporary designation is (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988):  "_the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization;_" ---

Considering (A/RES/67/19  4 December 2012),

_Reaffirming its commitment_, in accordance with international law, to *the two-State solution *of an independent, sovereign, democratic, viable and contiguous State of Palestine living side by side with Israel in peace and security on the basis of the pre-1967 borders,

_Bearing in mind_ the *mutual recognition of 9 September 1993 between the Government of the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization*, the representative of the Palestinian people,

_Affirming_ the right of all States in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders,​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MJB12741

Penelope said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians come from Palestine, the Jews come from Europe, North Africa and other areas of the Middle East.  The Jews should just go back where their parents and grand parents came from. That would solve the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The indigenous Palestinians were Jews.  Not a single Muslim among them.  So who are the invaders?  Duh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were obviously the Canaanites you originally stole the land from, intermarried with and they stayed.
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians come from Palestine, the Jews come from Europe, North Africa and other areas of the Middle East.  The Jews should just go back where their parents and grand parents came from. That would solve the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indigenous Palestinians were Jews.  Not a single Muslim among them.  So who are the invaders?  Duh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were obviously the Canaanites you originally stole the land from, intermarried with and they stayed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh that's right.  I forgot about all those Muslim Canaanites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, Were there Jews among the Canaanite tribes.  Were there Muslims among them?  Boy that's a tough one, huh Penelope?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a tough one for you. It even says in your history books they intermarried with everyone.  Like I once said you might be a Canaanite Princess.
Click to expand...


You can deny all you want the truth.  Won't change the facts one bit as to who are the Palestinian squatters & who is occupying who's land.


----------



## aris2chat

Penelope said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a "false conclusion."
> 
> There are several concepts in play here.
> 
> First:
> 
> Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, *such as armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The armistice lines never divided Palestine from anybody else. In the case of the West Bank and Gaza, the lines ran *through* Palestine. How can the Palestinians violate a line that is Palestine on both sides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The armistice lines have little to do with Palestine. They were agreements between two sovereign states.
> 
> 1949 Armistice Agreements - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Look at the map on the right. It clearly shows Israeli territory and Arab territory following the signing of the agreements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Armistice lines did not designate any territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I feel the solution would be a self governing, self determination Palestinian State where the Palestinians could no longer suck off of Israel to provide for them.  The big question is where to put it as no surrounding Arab country will grant the Palestinians a right of return back to their indigenous homelands.  Do you think Mecca might be a nice place for a Palestinian State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are home, and some of the Jews homes are on their land.
Click to expand...


Land was taken by Jordan when the jews were forced to leave the WB.  Some of the land is being reclaimed.


----------



## RoccoR

docmauser1,  _et al,_

I don't necessarily disagree on what was said; but the convention says it differently.



docmauser1 said:


> I know, but, considering the words of the Jordanian FM Nasser Judah at the UNSC "*Most of the refugees on our territory are Jordanian citizens in addition to their status as refugees*, and it lies at the heart of our responsibilities to protect and restore their legitimate rights recognised by the international terms of reference pertaining to the peace process. As a host country, we, in turn, have rights for the burdens we have shouldered." we've a quantum mech cake, which is, both, eaten and not so eaten. The UNRWA is babbling about 2,070,973 _registered Palestine refugees_ there. Of all of those, for all intents and purposes, professional refugees the gazabad ones don't have a jordanian citizenship and carry a temporary jordano passport.


*(COMMENT)*

As I said, the Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, is clear --- you cannot hold the status of both a citizen of Jordan and a Refugee.  You are either one or the other.




RoccoR said:


> When the Palestinians accepted Jordanian Citizenship, they exercised their right of self-determination, but also relinquished any "refugee status."  Under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the:
> 
> C. This Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if:
> 
> (1) He has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; or
> (2) Having lost his nationality, he has voluntarily re-acquired it; or
> (3) *He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality;* or
> (4) He has voluntarily re-established himself in the country which he leftor outside which he remained owing to fear of persecution; or​


​
It is just that simple.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Penelope

MJB12741 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The indigenous Palestinians were Jews.  Not a single Muslim among them.  So who are the invaders?  Duh!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were obviously the Canaanites you originally stole the land from, intermarried with and they stayed.
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The indigenous Palestinians were Jews.  Not a single Muslim among them.  So who are the invaders?  Duh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were obviously the Canaanites you originally stole the land from, intermarried with and they stayed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh that's right.  I forgot about all those Muslim Canaanites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, Were there Jews among the Canaanite tribes.  Were there Muslims among them?  Boy that's a tough one, huh Penelope?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a tough one for you. It even says in your history books they intermarried with everyone.  Like I once said you might be a Canaanite Princess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can deny all you want the truth.  Won't change the facts one bit as to who are the Palestinian squatters & who is occupying who's land.
Click to expand...


Well they have been squatting there for several thousand years, longer that the Zionists, so get use to it.


----------



## Billo_Really

Hossfly said:


> Steve, Billo is a lump of coal.


You're just jealous my ass is shiny, hard and worth millions.  What's your ass worth?  A half-pint of Mickey's?


----------



## Billo_Really

Roudy said:


> Coal is brown and smells like hell?


You sniff men's butts often?


----------



## Roudy

Billo_Really said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coal is brown and smells like hell?
> 
> 
> 
> You sniff men's butts often?
Click to expand...


No but when I see something brown and smelly like you on the ground, I make sure not to step in it.


----------



## Roudy

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a "false conclusion."
> 
> There are several concepts in play here.
> 
> First:
> 
> Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, *such as armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The armistice lines never divided Palestine from anybody else. In the case of the West Bank and Gaza, the lines ran *through* Palestine. How can the Palestinians violate a line that is Palestine on both sides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The armistice lines have little to do with Palestine. They were agreements between two sovereign states.
> 
> 1949 Armistice Agreements - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Look at the map on the right. It clearly shows Israeli territory and Arab territory following the signing of the agreements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Armistice lines did not designate any territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said that the lines ran through Palestine. That's absurd. I'm not talking about designating territory.
> I'm referring more to your "the armistice agreements seperated Palestine into three areas of occupation"
Click to expand...


What Palestine, it was Ottoman territory for 700 years, and they called it Southern Syria, and it certainly had no "lines" to it.


----------



## Hossfly

Penelope said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were obviously the Canaanites you originally stole the land from, intermarried with and they stayed.
> There were obviously the Canaanites you originally stole the land from, intermarried with and they stayed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh that's right.  I forgot about all those Muslim Canaanites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, Were there Jews among the Canaanite tribes.  Were there Muslims among them?  Boy that's a tough one, huh Penelope?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a tough one for you. It even says in your history books they intermarried with everyone.  Like I once said you might be a Canaanite Princess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can deny all you want the truth.  Won't change the facts one bit as to who are the Palestinian squatters & who is occupying who's land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well they have been squatting there for several thousand years, longer that the Zionists, so get use to it.
Click to expand...

It would help if you listed some dates.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages.* Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. *A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. *Some 77,000 of the population are Christians,* in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants. *The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years*. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
> 
> 
> 
> And all arab settlers found, turned out to be "saudi sheikhs" to own(!) 90(%) of the mandate palestine!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were few Arab settlers.  The settlers were the Jews.  There were no Saudi owners, quit making things up, Saudis didn't have a pot to piss in those days anyway you idiot.  You need to get out more.  Oh, now make you look like an idiot again as stated by the Mandatory Jew increase by migration, 245,433, Muslim increase thru migration 25,168, Christian increase thru migration 10,414.  Nearly ten times more Jews migrated to Palestine than Christians and Muslims.
> 
> 
> 
> _All religions.__Muslims__ Jews __Christians._Total increase
> of population
> Increase by
> migration
> Natural
> increase631,272
> 
> 281,339
> 
> 349,933286,770
> 
> 25,168
> 
> 261,602302,294
> 
> 245,433
> 
> 56,86138,305
> 
> 10,414
> 
> 27,8913,903
> 
> 324
> 
> 3,579
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]- See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Report of the Mandatory to the LoN 31 December 1937
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again an invalid source of information
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Invalid how?
Click to expand...




 The source documents that were used to compile this report were written by ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATERS and it was deemed not a valid representation of the facts, but one clouded by racism


----------



## Penelope

Hossfly said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh that's right.  I forgot about all those Muslim Canaanites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, Were there Jews among the Canaanite tribes.  Were there Muslims among them?  Boy that's a tough one, huh Penelope?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a tough one for you. It even says in your history books they intermarried with everyone.  Like I once said you might be a Canaanite Princess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can deny all you want the truth.  Won't change the facts one bit as to who are the Palestinian squatters & who is occupying who's land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well they have been squatting there for several thousand years, longer that the Zionists, so get use to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would help if you listed some dates.
Click to expand...


Dates for what, everyone know the Isralites went and fought the Canaanites. They were there first.


----------



## Hossfly

Penelope said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, Were there Jews among the Canaanite tribes.  Were there Muslims among them?  Boy that's a tough one, huh Penelope?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its a tough one for you. It even says in your history books they intermarried with everyone.  Like I once said you might be a Canaanite Princess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can deny all you want the truth.  Won't change the facts one bit as to who are the Palestinian squatters & who is occupying who's land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well they have been squatting there for several thousand years, longer that the Zionists, so get use to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would help if you listed some dates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dates for what, everyone know the Isralites went and fought the Canaanites. They were there first.
Click to expand...

Forget about  it, Tinmore Clone.


----------



## MJB12741

Penelope said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, Were there Jews among the Canaanite tribes.  Were there Muslims among them?  Boy that's a tough one, huh Penelope?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its a tough one for you. It even says in your history books they intermarried with everyone.  Like I once said you might be a Canaanite Princess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can deny all you want the truth.  Won't change the facts one bit as to who are the Palestinian squatters & who is occupying who's land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well they have been squatting there for several thousand years, longer that the Zionists, so get use to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would help if you listed some dates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dates for what, everyone know the Isralites went and fought the Canaanites. They were there first.
Click to expand...



"Israelites"?   Haven't you heard the news?  You see, there was no Israel until 1948.  Did you forget that?


----------



## Roudy

Penelope said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, Were there Jews among the Canaanite tribes.  Were there Muslims among them?  Boy that's a tough one, huh Penelope?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its a tough one for you. It even says in your history books they intermarried with everyone.  Like I once said you might be a Canaanite Princess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can deny all you want the truth.  Won't change the facts one bit as to who are the Palestinian squatters & who is occupying who's land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well they have been squatting there for several thousand years, longer that the Zionists, so get use to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would help if you listed some dates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dates for what, everyone know the Isralites went and fought the Canaanites. They were there first.
Click to expand...


Canaanites were idol whoppers who believed in human sacrifice, and they are an extinct people, that is a fact. The Israelites defeated them thousands of years ago, and then mixed with them. What are you blabbering about now?

  Why don't you make a sign and go stand on a major intersection ," Free Canaan!"   Ha ha ha.


----------



## MJB12741

Roudy said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its a tough one for you. It even says in your history books they intermarried with everyone.  Like I once said you might be a Canaanite Princess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can deny all you want the truth.  Won't change the facts one bit as to who are the Palestinian squatters & who is occupying who's land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well they have been squatting there for several thousand years, longer that the Zionists, so get use to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would help if you listed some dates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dates for what, everyone know the Isralites went and fought the Canaanites. They were there first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Canaanites were idol whoppers who believed in human sacrifice, and they are an extinct people, that is a fact. The Israelites defeated them thousands of years ago, and then mixed with them. What are you blabbering about now?
> 
> Why don't you make a sign and go stand on a major intersection ," Free Canaan!"   Ha ha ha.
Click to expand...


Back in the box for Penelope with her dunce cap.


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can deny all you want the truth.  Won't change the facts one bit as to who are the Palestinian squatters & who is occupying who's land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well they have been squatting there for several thousand years, longer that the Zionists, so get use to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would help if you listed some dates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dates for what, everyone know the Isralites went and fought the Canaanites. They were there first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Canaanites were idol whoppers who believed in human sacrifice, and they are an extinct people, that is a fact. The Israelites defeated them thousands of years ago, and then mixed with them. What are you blabbering about now?
> 
> Why don't you make a sign and go stand on a major intersection ," Free Canaan!"   Ha ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back in the box for Penelope with her dunce cap.
Click to expand...


The fact remains there were Hebrews among the Canaanite tribes.  Not a single Muslim yet on this earth until after the 7th century AD.  And now the Palestinians want us to believe Israel is stealing "their land."  Don't that beat all?


----------



## Penelope

MJB12741 said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well they have been squatting there for several thousand years, longer that the Zionists, so get use to it.
> 
> 
> 
> It would help if you listed some dates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dates for what, everyone know the Isralites went and fought the Canaanites. They were there first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Canaanites were idol whoppers who believed in human sacrifice, and they are an extinct people, that is a fact. The Israelites defeated them thousands of years ago, and then mixed with them. What are you blabbering about now?
> 
> Why don't you make a sign and go stand on a major intersection ," Free Canaan!"   Ha ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back in the box for Penelope with her dunce cap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact remains there were Hebrews among the Canaanite tribes.  Not a single Muslim yet on this earth until after the 7th century AD.  And now the Palestinians want us to believe Israel is stealing "their land."  Don't that beat all?
Click to expand...


Were not talking about Muslims who practice Islam, we are talking about the Pals and who their  descendants were and that would be Canaanites unless you have a better pick, either way the Jews and they are related. (If you live there, why not go ask one)


----------



## MJB12741

Penelope said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would help if you listed some dates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dates for what, everyone know the Isralites went and fought the Canaanites. They were there first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Canaanites were idol whoppers who believed in human sacrifice, and they are an extinct people, that is a fact. The Israelites defeated them thousands of years ago, and then mixed with them. What are you blabbering about now?
> 
> Why don't you make a sign and go stand on a major intersection ," Free Canaan!"   Ha ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back in the box for Penelope with her dunce cap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact remains there were Hebrews among the Canaanite tribes.  Not a single Muslim yet on this earth until after the 7th century AD.  And now the Palestinians want us to believe Israel is stealing "their land."  Don't that beat all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were not talking about Muslims who practice Islam, we are talking about the Pals and who their  descendants were and that would be Canaanites unless you have a better pick, either way the Jews and they are related. (If you live there, why not go ask one)
Click to expand...


Okay , I will ask my Canaanite neighbors.  And you ask yours.  Fair enough?


----------



## Penelope

MJB12741 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dates for what, everyone know the Isralites went and fought the Canaanites. They were there first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canaanites were idol whoppers who believed in human sacrifice, and they are an extinct people, that is a fact. The Israelites defeated them thousands of years ago, and then mixed with them. What are you blabbering about now?
> 
> Why don't you make a sign and go stand on a major intersection ," Free Canaan!"   Ha ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back in the box for Penelope with her dunce cap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact remains there were Hebrews among the Canaanite tribes.  Not a single Muslim yet on this earth until after the 7th century AD.  And now the Palestinians want us to believe Israel is stealing "their land."  Don't that beat all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were not talking about Muslims who practice Islam, we are talking about the Pals and who their  descendants were and that would be Canaanites unless you have a better pick, either way the Jews and they are related. (If you live there, why not go ask one)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay , I will ask my Canaanite neighbors.  And you ask yours.  Fair enough?
Click to expand...


I would if I had any, don't think any live in MI.


----------



## Roudy

Penelope said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would help if you listed some dates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dates for what, everyone know the Isralites went and fought the Canaanites. They were there first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Canaanites were idol whoppers who believed in human sacrifice, and they are an extinct people, that is a fact. The Israelites defeated them thousands of years ago, and then mixed with them. What are you blabbering about now?
> 
> Why don't you make a sign and go stand on a major intersection ," Free Canaan!"   Ha ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back in the box for Penelope with her dunce cap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact remains there were Hebrews among the Canaanite tribes.  Not a single Muslim yet on this earth until after the 7th century AD.  And now the Palestinians want us to believe Israel is stealing "their land."  Don't that beat all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were not talking about Muslims who practice Islam, we are talking about the Pals and who their  descendants were and that would be Canaanites unless you have a better pick, either way the Jews and they are related. (If you live there, why not go ask one)
Click to expand...


And dufus pinhead thinks Pals who are Arabs no different than other Syrian, Egyptian,  etc. Arabs are somehow related to the Canaanites, and extinct people who mixed with the Jews, an there is no trace of "Canaanite" genetic makeup either, because.....

"Free Canaan!" Ha ha ha.


----------



## Hossfly

Roudy said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dates for what, everyone know the Isralites went and fought the Canaanites. They were there first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canaanites were idol whoppers who believed in human sacrifice, and they are an extinct people, that is a fact. The Israelites defeated them thousands of years ago, and then mixed with them. What are you blabbering about now?
> 
> Why don't you make a sign and go stand on a major intersection ," Free Canaan!"   Ha ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back in the box for Penelope with her dunce cap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact remains there were Hebrews among the Canaanite tribes.  Not a single Muslim yet on this earth until after the 7th century AD.  And now the Palestinians want us to believe Israel is stealing "their land."  Don't that beat all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were not talking about Muslims who practice Islam, we are talking about the Pals and who their  descendants were and that would be Canaanites unless you have a better pick, either way the Jews and they are related. (If you live there, why not go ask one)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And dufus pinhead thinks Pals who are Arabs no different than other Syrian, Egyptian,  etc. Arabs are somehow related to the Canaanites, and extinct people who mixed with the Jews, an there is no trace of "Canaanite" genetic makeup either, because.....
> 
> "Free Canaan!" Ha ha ha.
Click to expand...

Roudy , you're pissing into the wind along with the rest of us.


----------



## MJB12741

Tonight I am throwing a Canaanite neighbor party.


Penelope said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canaanites were idol whoppers who believed in human sacrifice, and they are an extinct people, that is a fact. The Israelites defeated them thousands of years ago, and then mixed with them. What are you blabbering about now?
> 
> Why don't you make a sign and go stand on a major intersection ," Free Canaan!"   Ha ha ha.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back in the box for Penelope with her dunce cap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact remains there were Hebrews among the Canaanite tribes.  Not a single Muslim yet on this earth until after the 7th century AD.  And now the Palestinians want us to believe Israel is stealing "their land."  Don't that beat all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were not talking about Muslims who practice Islam, we are talking about the Pals and who their  descendants were and that would be Canaanites unless you have a better pick, either way the Jews and they are related. (If you live there, why not go ask one)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay , I will ask my Canaanite neighbors.  And you ask yours.  Fair enough?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would if I had any, don't think any live in MI.
Click to expand...


Well, I'm throwing a party tonight for all my Canaanite neighbors.  Strictly kosher of course.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

MJB12741 said:


> Well, I'm throwing a party tonight for all my Canaanite neighbors.  .




Let's just hope you don't have a Baal.


----------



## MJB12741

Dogmaphobe said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm throwing a party tonight for all my Canaanite neighbors.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just hope you don't have a Baal.
Click to expand...


I think Yaweh will see to that.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Who are the Palestinians?*
*Lamis Deek, "One Democratic State in all of Palestine" *

**


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> *Who are the Palestinians?*
> *Lamis Deek, "One Democratic State in all of Palestine" *
> 
> **




What do they mean by all of Palestine ?


----------



## Hossfly

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Who are the Palestinians?*
> *Lamis Deek, "One Democratic State in all of Palestine" *
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do they mean by all of Palestine ?
Click to expand...

Lamis Deek is a Palestinian lawyer, activist and Jew-hater.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Who are the Palestinians?*
> *Lamis Deek, "One Democratic State in all of Palestine" *
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do they mean by all of Palestine ?
Click to expand...


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Who are the Palestinians?*
> *Lamis Deek, "One Democratic State in all of Palestine" *
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do they mean by all of Palestine ?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Like I said, Tinmore. She's just another Jew-hater.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Who are the Palestinians?*
> *Lamis Deek, "One Democratic State in all of Palestine" *
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do they mean by all of Palestine ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, Tinmore. She's just another Jew-hater.
Click to expand...

What did she say that would give you that impression?


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Who are the Palestinians?*
> *Lamis Deek, "One Democratic State in all of Palestine" *
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do they mean by all of Palestine ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, Tinmore. She's just another Jew-hater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did she say that would give you that impression?
Click to expand...

I've seen other videos of the woman.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Who are the Palestinians?*
> *Lamis Deek, "One Democratic State in all of Palestine" *
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do they mean by all of Palestine ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, Tinmore. She's just another Jew-hater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did she say that would give you that impression?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've seen other videos of the woman.
Click to expand...

How about posting one where she said she hated Jews?


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do they mean by all of Palestine ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, Tinmore. She's just another Jew-hater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did she say that would give you that impression?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've seen other videos of the woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about posting one where she said she hated Jews?
Click to expand...

You already posted two. It's the tone of her message. She's a two faced lawyer.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, Tinmore. She's just another Jew-hater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did she say that would give you that impression?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've seen other videos of the woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about posting one where she said she hated Jews?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You already posted two. It's the tone of her message. She's a two faced lawyer.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought. You are just blowing smoke.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, Tinmore. She's just another Jew-hater.
> 
> 
> 
> What did she say that would give you that impression?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've seen other videos of the woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about posting one where she said she hated Jews?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You already posted two. It's the tone of her message. She's a two faced lawyer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what I thought. You are just blowing smoke.
Click to expand...


----------



## RoccoR

_et al_,

I think that Lamis Deek of Al-Awda-NY is one of those make believe Palestinians that just want to continue the advocation of struggle, and such the dismantlement (destruction) of Israel.

This is not an advocate for peace.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> _et al_,
> 
> I think that Lamis Deek of Al-Awda-NY is one of those make believe Palestinians that just want to continue the advocation of struggle, and such the dismantlement (destruction) of Israel.
> 
> This is not an advocate for peace.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R


Israel's version of peace is all of Palestine without the Palestinians. This has been their goal for a hundred years.

Any Palestinian who disagrees with Israel's version is not an advocate for peace.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Who are the Palestinians?*
> *Lamis Deek, "One Democratic State in all of Palestine" *
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do they mean by all of Palestine ?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You couldn't answer my question without posting a video ? Answer the question yourself.

Who says Israel has the right to exist? Who cares? It does exit , and Palestine doesn't


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> _et al_,
> 
> I think that Lamis Deek of Al-Awda-NY is one of those make believe Palestinians that just want to continue the advocation of struggle, and such the dismantlement (destruction) of Israel.
> 
> This is not an advocate for peace.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's version of peace is all of Palestine without the Palestinians. This has been their goal for a hundred years.
> 
> Any Palestinian who disagrees with Israel's version is not an advocate for peace.
Click to expand...


Just to show you how stupid this woman is, she says that the partition plan never went to the security council for approval and therefore Israel is illegal. Well then so is Palestine, because they used resolution 181 in 1988 as a basis to declare independence, just like Israel did.

Whoops !


----------



## toastman

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> _et al_,
> 
> I think that Lamis Deek of Al-Awda-NY is one of those make believe Palestinians that just want to continue the advocation of struggle, and such the dismantlement (destruction) of Israel.
> 
> This is not an advocate for peace.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's version of peace is all of Palestine without the Palestinians. This has been their goal for a hundred years.
> 
> Any Palestinian who disagrees with Israel's version is not an advocate for peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just to show you how stupid this woman is, she says that the partition plan never went to the security council for approval and therefore Israel is illegal. Well then so is Palestine, because they used resolution 181 in 1988 as a basis to declare independence, just like Israel did.
> 
> Whoops !
Click to expand...


*The Declaration contains an overt acceptance that "the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, of 1947, which partitioned Palestine into two states [...] provides the legal basis for the right of the Palestinian Arab people to national sovereignty and independence." Our recognition of the authority of Resolution 181,* 

November 15 1988 The Declaration of Independence of the State of Palestine


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yeah, this is argument over international borders is just subterfuge in an attempt to justify Jihadist action and Hostile Palestinian aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can that happen? There is nothing between what is called Israel and Gaza but an armistice line (That is specifically not to be a political or territorial border) that Egyptian and Israeli troops are not to cross.
> 
> This conclusion is based on false premise.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is not a "false conclusion."
> 
> There are several concepts in play here.
> 
> First:
> 
> Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, *such as armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.  (Para 1, Clause 5, A/RES/25/2625, Codification of the Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States)​
> Second:
> 
> Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:  The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.  (ANNEX III, Declaration of Independence, A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)​
> 1. _Acknowledges _the proclamation of the State of Palestine
> 
> by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988;
> 2. _Affirms _the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;
> 3. _Decides _that, effective as of 15 December 1988, the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system, without prejudice to the observer status and functions of the Palestine Liberation Organization within the United Nations system, in conformity with relevant United Nations resolutions and practice; (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988 "Question of Palestine" --- UN Acknowledgment and Recognition)​
> The demarcation line is just as sound and valid as any other border or boundary.  It is internationally protected by the Declaration of Principles.  The fact that the State of Palestine has not initiated a Treaty, does not make the line any less valid; other than its temporal nature.  The line is further promoted by the PLO/PNC in its Declaration of Independence and formally acknowledge by the General Assembly and Security Council.  It is a reality; while some Hostile Arab Palestinians are in denial and challenge the legitimacy, it is none the less a reality that is physically manifested by a physical presence on the perimeter.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean that Gaza is in Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, there was a point in time _(the period 26 March 1979 to 15 November 1988)_, where this could be argued; but has since been overtaken by events.  During this brief period _(nearly a decade)_, "[t]he permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace."  There was no Palestinian hand in the agreement, lacking a competent government with "full powers" acting as a "state" with the ability to express the "consent of the State of Palestine to be bound by a treaty, or for accomplishing any other act with respect to a treaty" _(1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES)_.  But again, this is a mute point as Israel did not contest the Palestinian Declaration of Independence of 1988 by the the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people (Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine Rabat, Morocco 28 october 1974).
> 
> Needless to say, the Gaza Strip is intrinsically tied to the West Bank, which together form the State of Palestine:
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Recalling_ its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,
> 
> Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;
> *SOURCE:* A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There may have been a point in time, many decades ago, when the Palestinians could have made an issue of the demarkation lines, armistice lines and the recognition of international borders; but that time has long since past.  We are concerned with contemprary views --- closer in terms of today, as opposed to the views held a half century ago.
> 
> The existence of a “Palestinian people” and the "State of Palestine" --- and that of the "People of Israel" and the "State of Israel" --- are no longer at issue. Such existence has been recognized by Israel and Palestine in the exchange of letters of 9 September 1993 between the President of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO Yassar Arafat) and  Israeli Prime Minister (Yitzhak Rabin). In that exchange the Chairman Arafat recognized “the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security” and PM Rabin recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people”. The Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip of 28 September 1995 (Oslo Accord II) refers a to the Palestinian people and its “legitimate rights” _(Preamble, paras. 4, 7, 8; Article II, para. 2; Article III, paras. 1 and 3; Article XXII, para. 2)_.  This issue of where the lines are drawn is only an issue and of significant importance to those that are more interested in a justification for the continuation of the conflict, then the peace, security and prosperity of the citizenry on both sides.  Under customary law, every State *(Palestine included)* has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force _(no rockets, mortars, attack of any kind are justified)_ to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, *including territorial disputes* and problems concerning frontiers of States *(Palestine included)*.  Any other interpretation of the Declaration of Principles is simply an artificial excuse to promote Jihad.  The discussion of the permanent boundaries, especially as presented here, is subterfuge.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Rocco, you are drawing conclusions without considering the timeline of events.

In 1917 Britain occupied that area. It was the occupying power over enemy territory. During that time treaties defined the future international borders of Palestine and the other new countries in the region.

When the Treaty of Lausanne was ratified in 1924, Palestine ceased to be enemy territory ending Britain's occupation. Palestine came into existence as a "successor state" like the other new countries in that region.

Palestine's international borders had already been defined.The Palestinian nationality was recognized and they were citizens of Palestine.

As the indigenous population of Palestine, they had inherent, inalienable rights:
To self determination without external interference.
To independence and sovereignty.
To territorial integrity.​
Anything that happened after that time that was against the wishes or best interest of the Palestinians was a violation of their inalienable rights.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yeah, this is argument over international borders is just subterfuge in an attempt to justify Jihadist action and Hostile Palestinian aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can that happen? There is nothing between what is called Israel and Gaza but an armistice line (That is specifically not to be a political or territorial border) that Egyptian and Israeli troops are not to cross.
> 
> This conclusion is based on false premise.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is not a "false conclusion."
> 
> There are several concepts in play here.
> 
> First:
> 
> Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, *such as armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.  (Para 1, Clause 5, A/RES/25/2625, Codification of the Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States)​
> Second:
> 
> Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:  The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.  (ANNEX III, Declaration of Independence, A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)​
> 1. _Acknowledges _the proclamation of the State of Palestine
> 
> by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988;
> 2. _Affirms _the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;
> 3. _Decides _that, effective as of 15 December 1988, the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system, without prejudice to the observer status and functions of the Palestine Liberation Organization within the United Nations system, in conformity with relevant United Nations resolutions and practice; (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988 "Question of Palestine" --- UN Acknowledgment and Recognition)​
> The demarcation line is just as sound and valid as any other border or boundary.  It is internationally protected by the Declaration of Principles.  The fact that the State of Palestine has not initiated a Treaty, does not make the line any less valid; other than its temporal nature.  The line is further promoted by the PLO/PNC in its Declaration of Independence and formally acknowledge by the General Assembly and Security Council.  It is a reality; while some Hostile Arab Palestinians are in denial and challenge the legitimacy, it is none the less a reality that is physically manifested by a physical presence on the perimeter.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean that Gaza is in Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, there was a point in time _(the period 26 March 1979 to 15 November 1988)_, where this could be argued; but has since been overtaken by events.  During this brief period _(nearly a decade)_, "[t]he permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace."  There was no Palestinian hand in the agreement, lacking a competent government with "full powers" acting as a "state" with the ability to express the "consent of the State of Palestine to be bound by a treaty, or for accomplishing any other act with respect to a treaty" _(1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES)_.  But again, this is a mute point as Israel did not contest the Palestinian Declaration of Independence of 1988 by the the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people (Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine Rabat, Morocco 28 october 1974).
> 
> Needless to say, the Gaza Strip is intrinsically tied to the West Bank, which together form the State of Palestine:
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Recalling_ its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,
> 
> Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;
> *SOURCE:* A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There may have been a point in time, many decades ago, when the Palestinians could have made an issue of the demarkation lines, armistice lines and the recognition of international borders; but that time has long since past.  We are concerned with contemprary views --- closer in terms of today, as opposed to the views held a half century ago.
> 
> The existence of a “Palestinian people” and the "State of Palestine" --- and that of the "People of Israel" and the "State of Israel" --- are no longer at issue. Such existence has been recognized by Israel and Palestine in the exchange of letters of 9 September 1993 between the President of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO Yassar Arafat) and  Israeli Prime Minister (Yitzhak Rabin). In that exchange the Chairman Arafat recognized “the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security” and PM Rabin recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people”. The Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip of 28 September 1995 (Oslo Accord II) refers a to the Palestinian people and its “legitimate rights” _(Preamble, paras. 4, 7, 8; Article II, para. 2; Article III, paras. 1 and 3; Article XXII, para. 2)_.  This issue of where the lines are drawn is only an issue and of significant importance to those that are more interested in a justification for the continuation of the conflict, then the peace, security and prosperity of the citizenry on both sides.  Under customary law, every State *(Palestine included)* has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force _(no rockets, mortars, attack of any kind are justified)_ to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, *including territorial disputes* and problems concerning frontiers of States *(Palestine included)*.  Any other interpretation of the Declaration of Principles is simply an artificial excuse to promote Jihad.  The discussion of the permanent boundaries, especially as presented here, is subterfuge.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco, you are drawing conclusions without considering the timeline of events.
> 
> In 1917 Britain occupied that area. It was the occupying power over enemy territory. During that time treaties defined the future international borders of Palestine and the other new countries in the region.
> 
> When the Treaty of Lausanne was ratified in 1924, Palestine ceased to be enemy territory ending Britain's occupation. Palestine came into existence as a "successor state" like the other new countries in that region.
> 
> Palestine's international borders had already been defined.The Palestinian nationality was recognized and they were citizens of Palestine.
> 
> As the indigenous population of Palestine, they had inherent, inalienable rights:
> To self determination without external interference.
> To independence and sovereignty.
> To territorial integrity.​
> Anything that happened after that time that was against the wishes or best interest of the Palestinians was a violation of their inalienable rights.
Click to expand...



Whoa now.  Are you actually saying that Muslim Palestinians are the "indigenous population of Palestine"???


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yeah, this is argument over international borders is just subterfuge in an attempt to justify Jihadist action and Hostile Palestinian aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can that happen? There is nothing between what is called Israel and Gaza but an armistice line (That is specifically not to be a political or territorial border) that Egyptian and Israeli troops are not to cross.
> 
> This conclusion is based on false premise.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is not a "false conclusion."
> 
> There are several concepts in play here.
> 
> First:
> 
> Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, *such as armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.  (Para 1, Clause 5, A/RES/25/2625, Codification of the Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States)​
> Second:
> 
> Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:  The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.  (ANNEX III, Declaration of Independence, A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)​
> 1. _Acknowledges _the proclamation of the State of Palestine
> 
> by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988;
> 2. _Affirms _the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;
> 3. _Decides _that, effective as of 15 December 1988, the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system, without prejudice to the observer status and functions of the Palestine Liberation Organization within the United Nations system, in conformity with relevant United Nations resolutions and practice; (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988 "Question of Palestine" --- UN Acknowledgment and Recognition)​
> The demarcation line is just as sound and valid as any other border or boundary.  It is internationally protected by the Declaration of Principles.  The fact that the State of Palestine has not initiated a Treaty, does not make the line any less valid; other than its temporal nature.  The line is further promoted by the PLO/PNC in its Declaration of Independence and formally acknowledge by the General Assembly and Security Council.  It is a reality; while some Hostile Arab Palestinians are in denial and challenge the legitimacy, it is none the less a reality that is physically manifested by a physical presence on the perimeter.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean that Gaza is in Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, there was a point in time _(the period 26 March 1979 to 15 November 1988)_, where this could be argued; but has since been overtaken by events.  During this brief period _(nearly a decade)_, "[t]he permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace."  There was no Palestinian hand in the agreement, lacking a competent government with "full powers" acting as a "state" with the ability to express the "consent of the State of Palestine to be bound by a treaty, or for accomplishing any other act with respect to a treaty" _(1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES)_.  But again, this is a mute point as Israel did not contest the Palestinian Declaration of Independence of 1988 by the the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people (Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine Rabat, Morocco 28 october 1974).
> 
> Needless to say, the Gaza Strip is intrinsically tied to the West Bank, which together form the State of Palestine:
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Recalling_ its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,
> 
> Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;
> *SOURCE:* A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There may have been a point in time, many decades ago, when the Palestinians could have made an issue of the demarkation lines, armistice lines and the recognition of international borders; but that time has long since past.  We are concerned with contemprary views --- closer in terms of today, as opposed to the views held a half century ago.
> 
> The existence of a “Palestinian people” and the "State of Palestine" --- and that of the "People of Israel" and the "State of Israel" --- are no longer at issue. Such existence has been recognized by Israel and Palestine in the exchange of letters of 9 September 1993 between the President of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO Yassar Arafat) and  Israeli Prime Minister (Yitzhak Rabin). In that exchange the Chairman Arafat recognized “the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security” and PM Rabin recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people”. The Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip of 28 September 1995 (Oslo Accord II) refers a to the Palestinian people and its “legitimate rights” _(Preamble, paras. 4, 7, 8; Article II, para. 2; Article III, paras. 1 and 3; Article XXII, para. 2)_.  This issue of where the lines are drawn is only an issue and of significant importance to those that are more interested in a justification for the continuation of the conflict, then the peace, security and prosperity of the citizenry on both sides.  Under customary law, every State *(Palestine included)* has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force _(no rockets, mortars, attack of any kind are justified)_ to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, *including territorial disputes* and problems concerning frontiers of States *(Palestine included)*.  Any other interpretation of the Declaration of Principles is simply an artificial excuse to promote Jihad.  The discussion of the permanent boundaries, especially as presented here, is subterfuge.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco, you are drawing conclusions without considering the timeline of events.
> 
> In 1917 Britain occupied that area. It was the occupying power over enemy territory. During that time treaties defined the future international borders of Palestine and the other new countries in the region.
> 
> When the Treaty of Lausanne was ratified in 1924, Palestine ceased to be enemy territory ending Britain's occupation. Palestine came into existence as a "successor state" like the other new countries in that region.
> 
> Palestine's international borders had already been defined.The Palestinian nationality was recognized and they were citizens of Palestine.
> 
> As the indigenous population of Palestine, they had inherent, inalienable rights:
> To self determination without external interference.
> To independence and sovereignty.
> To territorial integrity.​
> Anything that happened after that time that was against the wishes or best interest of the Palestinians was a violation of their inalienable rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa now.  Are you actually saying that Muslim Palestinians are the "indigenous population of Palestine"???
Click to expand...

Where did I mention Muslims?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> _et al_,
> 
> I think that Lamis Deek of Al-Awda-NY is one of those make believe Palestinians that just want to continue the advocation of struggle, and such the dismantlement (destruction) of Israel.
> 
> This is not an advocate for peace.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's version of peace is all of Palestine without the Palestinians. This has been their goal for a hundred years.
> 
> Any Palestinian who disagrees with Israel's version is not an advocate for peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just to show you how stupid this woman is, she says that the partition plan never went to the security council for approval and therefore Israel is illegal. Well then so is Palestine, because they used resolution 181 in 1988 as a basis to declare independence, just like Israel did.
> 
> Whoops !
Click to expand...

She is not stupid. The Security Council never implemented Resolution 181. I have been saying that for years. It doesn't matter how much verbosity Rocco throws at it, it is true. It did not happen.

As far as the 1988 declaration being illegal, good point. It does have some related issues. However, there is still Palestine's 1948 declaration that does not mention Resolution 181.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yeah, this is argument over international borders is just subterfuge in an attempt to justify Jihadist action and Hostile Palestinian aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can that happen? There is nothing between what is called Israel and Gaza but an armistice line (That is specifically not to be a political or territorial border) that Egyptian and Israeli troops are not to cross.
> 
> This conclusion is based on false premise.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is not a "false conclusion."
> 
> There are several concepts in play here.
> 
> First:
> 
> Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, *such as armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.  (Para 1, Clause 5, A/RES/25/2625, Codification of the Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States)​
> Second:
> 
> Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:  The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.  (ANNEX III, Declaration of Independence, A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)​
> 1. _Acknowledges _the proclamation of the State of Palestine
> 
> by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988;
> 2. _Affirms _the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;
> 3. _Decides _that, effective as of 15 December 1988, the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system, without prejudice to the observer status and functions of the Palestine Liberation Organization within the United Nations system, in conformity with relevant United Nations resolutions and practice; (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988 "Question of Palestine" --- UN Acknowledgment and Recognition)​
> The demarcation line is just as sound and valid as any other border or boundary.  It is internationally protected by the Declaration of Principles.  The fact that the State of Palestine has not initiated a Treaty, does not make the line any less valid; other than its temporal nature.  The line is further promoted by the PLO/PNC in its Declaration of Independence and formally acknowledge by the General Assembly and Security Council.  It is a reality; while some Hostile Arab Palestinians are in denial and challenge the legitimacy, it is none the less a reality that is physically manifested by a physical presence on the perimeter.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean that Gaza is in Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, there was a point in time _(the period 26 March 1979 to 15 November 1988)_, where this could be argued; but has since been overtaken by events.  During this brief period _(nearly a decade)_, "[t]he permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace."  There was no Palestinian hand in the agreement, lacking a competent government with "full powers" acting as a "state" with the ability to express the "consent of the State of Palestine to be bound by a treaty, or for accomplishing any other act with respect to a treaty" _(1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES)_.  But again, this is a mute point as Israel did not contest the Palestinian Declaration of Independence of 1988 by the the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people (Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine Rabat, Morocco 28 october 1974).
> 
> Needless to say, the Gaza Strip is intrinsically tied to the West Bank, which together form the State of Palestine:
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Recalling_ its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,
> 
> Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;
> *SOURCE:* A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There may have been a point in time, many decades ago, when the Palestinians could have made an issue of the demarkation lines, armistice lines and the recognition of international borders; but that time has long since past.  We are concerned with contemprary views --- closer in terms of today, as opposed to the views held a half century ago.
> 
> The existence of a “Palestinian people” and the "State of Palestine" --- and that of the "People of Israel" and the "State of Israel" --- are no longer at issue. Such existence has been recognized by Israel and Palestine in the exchange of letters of 9 September 1993 between the President of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO Yassar Arafat) and  Israeli Prime Minister (Yitzhak Rabin). In that exchange the Chairman Arafat recognized “the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security” and PM Rabin recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people”. The Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip of 28 September 1995 (Oslo Accord II) refers a to the Palestinian people and its “legitimate rights” _(Preamble, paras. 4, 7, 8; Article II, para. 2; Article III, paras. 1 and 3; Article XXII, para. 2)_.  This issue of where the lines are drawn is only an issue and of significant importance to those that are more interested in a justification for the continuation of the conflict, then the peace, security and prosperity of the citizenry on both sides.  Under customary law, every State *(Palestine included)* has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force _(no rockets, mortars, attack of any kind are justified)_ to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, *including territorial disputes* and problems concerning frontiers of States *(Palestine included)*.  Any other interpretation of the Declaration of Principles is simply an artificial excuse to promote Jihad.  The discussion of the permanent boundaries, especially as presented here, is subterfuge.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco, you are drawing conclusions without considering the timeline of events.
> 
> In 1917 Britain occupied that area. It was the occupying power over enemy territory. During that time treaties defined the future international borders of Palestine and the other new countries in the region.
> 
> When the Treaty of Lausanne was ratified in 1924, Palestine ceased to be enemy territory ending Britain's occupation. Palestine came into existence as a "successor state" like the other new countries in that region.
> 
> Palestine's international borders had already been defined.The Palestinian nationality was recognized and they were citizens of Palestine.
> 
> As the indigenous population of Palestine, they had inherent, inalienable rights:
> To self determination without external interference.
> To independence and sovereignty.
> To territorial integrity.​
> Anything that happened after that time that was against the wishes or best interest of the Palestinians was a violation of their inalienable rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa now.  Are you actually saying that Muslim Palestinians are the "indigenous population of Palestine"???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I mention Muslims?
Click to expand...


Oh now I get it.  Israel is committing ethnic genocide upon the Palestinian Jews to steal their land.  Honestly Tinmore, you are a blast.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> _et al_,
> 
> I think that Lamis Deek of Al-Awda-NY is one of those make believe Palestinians that just want to continue the advocation of struggle, and such the dismantlement (destruction) of Israel.
> 
> This is not an advocate for peace.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's version of peace is all of Palestine without the Palestinians. This has been their goal for a hundred years.
> 
> Any Palestinian who disagrees with Israel's version is not an advocate for peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just to show you how stupid this woman is, she says that the partition plan never went to the security council for approval and therefore Israel is illegal. Well then so is Palestine, because they used resolution 181 in 1988 as a basis to declare independence, just like Israel did.
> 
> Whoops !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is not stupid. The Security Council never implemented Resolution 181. I have been saying that for years. It doesn't matter how much verbosity Rocco throws at it, it is true. It did not happen.
> 
> As far as the 1988 declaration being illegal, good point. It does have some related issues. However, there is still Palestine's 1948 declaration that does not mention Resolution 181.
Click to expand...


You are completely deflecting again. Did you read the link I posted? The Palestinians used 181 to declare independence in 1988. There was no valid declaration of independence in 1948. You can't declare independence twice and have both of them be valid. I've done searches online for Palestinian declaration of independence and nothing about 1948 come up.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yeah, this is argument over international borders is just subterfuge in an attempt to justify Jihadist action and Hostile Palestinian aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can that happen? There is nothing between what is called Israel and Gaza but an armistice line (That is specifically not to be a political or territorial border) that Egyptian and Israeli troops are not to cross.
> 
> This conclusion is based on false premise.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is not a "false conclusion."
> 
> There are several concepts in play here.
> 
> First:
> 
> Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, *such as armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.  (Para 1, Clause 5, A/RES/25/2625, Codification of the Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States)​
> Second:
> 
> Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:  The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.  (ANNEX III, Declaration of Independence, A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)​
> 1. _Acknowledges _the proclamation of the State of Palestine
> 
> by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988;
> 2. _Affirms _the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;
> 3. _Decides _that, effective as of 15 December 1988, the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system, without prejudice to the observer status and functions of the Palestine Liberation Organization within the United Nations system, in conformity with relevant United Nations resolutions and practice; (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988 "Question of Palestine" --- UN Acknowledgment and Recognition)​
> The demarcation line is just as sound and valid as any other border or boundary.  It is internationally protected by the Declaration of Principles.  The fact that the State of Palestine has not initiated a Treaty, does not make the line any less valid; other than its temporal nature.  The line is further promoted by the PLO/PNC in its Declaration of Independence and formally acknowledge by the General Assembly and Security Council.  It is a reality; while some Hostile Arab Palestinians are in denial and challenge the legitimacy, it is none the less a reality that is physically manifested by a physical presence on the perimeter.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean that Gaza is in Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, there was a point in time _(the period 26 March 1979 to 15 November 1988)_, where this could be argued; but has since been overtaken by events.  During this brief period _(nearly a decade)_, "[t]he permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace."  There was no Palestinian hand in the agreement, lacking a competent government with "full powers" acting as a "state" with the ability to express the "consent of the State of Palestine to be bound by a treaty, or for accomplishing any other act with respect to a treaty" _(1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES)_.  But again, this is a mute point as Israel did not contest the Palestinian Declaration of Independence of 1988 by the the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people (Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine Rabat, Morocco 28 october 1974).
> 
> Needless to say, the Gaza Strip is intrinsically tied to the West Bank, which together form the State of Palestine:
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Recalling_ its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,
> 
> Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;
> *SOURCE:* A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There may have been a point in time, many decades ago, when the Palestinians could have made an issue of the demarkation lines, armistice lines and the recognition of international borders; but that time has long since past.  We are concerned with contemprary views --- closer in terms of today, as opposed to the views held a half century ago.
> 
> The existence of a “Palestinian people” and the "State of Palestine" --- and that of the "People of Israel" and the "State of Israel" --- are no longer at issue. Such existence has been recognized by Israel and Palestine in the exchange of letters of 9 September 1993 between the President of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO Yassar Arafat) and  Israeli Prime Minister (Yitzhak Rabin). In that exchange the Chairman Arafat recognized “the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security” and PM Rabin recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people”. The Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip of 28 September 1995 (Oslo Accord II) refers a to the Palestinian people and its “legitimate rights” _(Preamble, paras. 4, 7, 8; Article II, para. 2; Article III, paras. 1 and 3; Article XXII, para. 2)_.  This issue of where the lines are drawn is only an issue and of significant importance to those that are more interested in a justification for the continuation of the conflict, then the peace, security and prosperity of the citizenry on both sides.  Under customary law, every State *(Palestine included)* has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force _(no rockets, mortars, attack of any kind are justified)_ to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, *including territorial disputes* and problems concerning frontiers of States *(Palestine included)*.  Any other interpretation of the Declaration of Principles is simply an artificial excuse to promote Jihad.  The discussion of the permanent boundaries, especially as presented here, is subterfuge.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco, you are drawing conclusions without considering the timeline of events.
> 
> In 1917 Britain occupied that area. It was the occupying power over enemy territory. During that time treaties defined the future international borders of Palestine and the other new countries in the region.
> 
> When the Treaty of Lausanne was ratified in 1924, Palestine ceased to be enemy territory ending Britain's occupation. Palestine came into existence as a "successor state" like the other new countries in that region.
> 
> Palestine's international borders had already been defined.The Palestinian nationality was recognized and they were citizens of Palestine.
> 
> As the indigenous population of Palestine, they had inherent, inalienable rights:
> To self determination without external interference.
> To independence and sovereignty.
> To territorial integrity.​
> Anything that happened after that time that was against the wishes or best interest of the Palestinians was a violation of their inalienable rights.
Click to expand...


This is completely false. Nothing in the Treaty of Lausanne mentions Palestine or it becoming a successor state. Palestine became a state in 1988. You can't jut make up history as you please


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a "false conclusion."
> 
> There are several concepts in play here.
> 
> First:
> 
> Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, *such as armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The armistice lines never divided Palestine from anybody else. In the case of the West Bank and Gaza, the lines ran *through* Palestine. How can the Palestinians violate a line that is Palestine on both sides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The armistice lines have little to do with Palestine. They were agreements between two sovereign states.
> 
> 1949 Armistice Agreements - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Look at the map on the right. It clearly shows Israeli territory and Arab territory following the signing of the agreements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Armistice lines did not designate any territory.
Click to expand...





 Then why are the Palestinians demanding them as a pre condition of maybe negotiating peace.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a "false conclusion."
> 
> There are several concepts in play here.
> 
> First:
> 
> Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, *such as armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The armistice lines never divided Palestine from anybody else. In the case of the West Bank and Gaza, the lines ran *through* Palestine. How can the Palestinians violate a line that is Palestine on both sides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The armistice lines have little to do with Palestine. They were agreements between two sovereign states.
> 
> 1949 Armistice Agreements - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Look at the map on the right. It clearly shows Israeli territory and Arab territory following the signing of the agreements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Armistice lines did not designate any territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I feel the solution would be a self governing, self determination Palestinian State where the Palestinians could no longer suck off of Israel to provide for them.  The big question is where to put it as no surrounding Arab country will grant the Palestinians a right of return back to their indigenous homelands.  Do you think Mecca might be a nice place for a Palestinian State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians come from Palestine, the Jews come from Europe, North Africa and other areas of the Middle East.  The Jews should just go back where their parents and grand parents came from. That would solve the problem.
Click to expand...





 Up until 1960 the only Palestinians were the Jews, so the Syrians as they called themselves have no claim to any land outside of Syria. The arab muslims should go back just the same to were their parents and grand parents came from and wait to be invited bythe lands legal owners to migrate and settle.

 ALLWAYS REMEMBER THAT THE JEWS WERE INVITED BY FIRST THE OTTOMANS AND SECONDLY THE LoN . THE ARABS HD ALREADY BEEN GIVEN THEIR PORTION OF PALESTINE UNDER THE MANDATE


----------



## Phoenall

Penelope said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a "false conclusion."
> 
> There are several concepts in play here.
> 
> First:
> 
> Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, *such as armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The armistice lines never divided Palestine from anybody else. In the case of the West Bank and Gaza, the lines ran *through* Palestine. How can the Palestinians violate a line that is Palestine on both sides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The armistice lines have little to do with Palestine. They were agreements between two sovereign states.
> 
> 1949 Armistice Agreements - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Look at the map on the right. It clearly shows Israeli territory and Arab territory following the signing of the agreements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Armistice lines did not designate any territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I feel the solution would be a self governing, self determination Palestinian State where the Palestinians could no longer suck off of Israel to provide for them.  The big question is where to put it as no surrounding Arab country will grant the Palestinians a right of return back to their indigenous homelands.  Do you think Mecca might be a nice place for a Palestinian State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are home, and some of the Jews homes are on their land.
Click to expand...




Then why aren't they in Syria fighting for their country ?

 Read the Oslo accords 2 and see were the land was given to Israel by Arafat making your pot a LIE


----------



## Phoenall

Penelope said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians come from Palestine, the Jews come from Europe, North Africa and other areas of the Middle East.  The Jews should just go back where their parents and grand parents came from. That would solve the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The indigenous Palestinians were Jews.  Not a single Muslim among them.  So who are the invaders?  Duh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were obviously the Canaanites you originally stole the land from, intermarried with and they stayed.
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians come from Palestine, the Jews come from Europe, North Africa and other areas of the Middle East.  The Jews should just go back where their parents and grand parents came from. That would solve the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indigenous Palestinians were Jews.  Not a single Muslim among them.  So who are the invaders?  Duh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were obviously the Canaanites you originally stole the land from, intermarried with and they stayed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh that's right.  I forgot about all those Muslim Canaanites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, Were there Jews among the Canaanite tribes.  Were there Muslims among them?  Boy that's a tough one, huh Penelope?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a tough one for you. It even says in your history books they intermarried with everyone.  Like I once said you might be a Canaanite Princess.
Click to expand...






 So do remind me when did arab muslims come into existence again, and what happened to all the arab non muslims at the same time.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I have no problem with the timeline.



P F Tinmore said:


> In 1917 Britain occupied that area. It was the occupying power over enemy territory. During that time treaties defined the future international borders of Palestine and the other new countries in the region.


*(COMMENT)*

For the most part, this is correct.  However, the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 16 MAY 1916 actually set the stage between the French Mandates and the British Mandates.



P F Tinmore said:


> When the Treaty of Lausanne was ratified in 1924, Palestine ceased to be enemy territory ending Britain's occupation. Palestine came into existence as a "successor state" like the other new countries in that region.


*(COMMENT)*

The 1924 Treaty of Lausanne had nothing to do whatsoever with "Palestine" and the boundaries thereto.  The Treaty of Lausanne does not mention Palestine at all.  By the Treaty of Lausanne, what you call Palestine was included in the District of Syria.  What set the definition of Palestine was the 1922 Palestine Order in Council:




			
				PART I - Preliminary:  Title --- Palestine Order in Council said:
			
		

> This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."





			
				PART I - Preliminary:  Title --- Palestine Order in Council said:
			
		

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





P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine's international borders had already been defined.The Palestinian nationality was recognized and they were citizens of Palestine.


*(COMMENT)*

I think you have this wrong.  

BLUF:  The "successor government" to the British Mandate portion of the former Ottoman District of Damascus, in the State of Syria _(in which the Mandate of Palestine fell - Syria being divided by the Syke-Picot Agreement)_, was the High Commissioner, administering the Government of Palestine, acting by and with the advice of the Executive Council.



			
				PART II - Executive - Palestine Order in Council said:
			
		

> The High Commissioner shall do and execute in due manner all things that shall belong to the said office, according to the tenour of any Orders in Council relating to Palestine and of such Commission as may be issued to him under His Majesty's Sign Manual and Signet, and according to such instructions as may from time to time be given to him, for the purpose of executing the provisions of the Mandate, under His Majesty's Sign Manual and Signet, or by Order of His Majesty in Council or by His Majesty through one of His Principal Secretaries of State, and to such laws and ordinances as are now or shall hereafter be in force in Palestine.
> 
> Succession to Government.
> 
> 7. Whenever the office of High Commissioner is vacant or if the High Commissioner become incapable or be absent from Palestine, or be from any cause prevented from acting in the duties of his office, the person appointed to be Chief Secretary to the Government of Palestine, or if there be no such officer therein, or such officer be unable to act, then such person or persons as His Majesty may appoint under His Sign Manual and Signet and in default of such appointment the Senior Member of the Executive Council shall during His Majesty's pleasure administer the Government of Palestine, first taking the oaths hereinbefore directed to be taken by the High Commissioner and in the manner herein prescribed, which being done, the Chief Secretary or any other such Administrator as aforesaid is hereby authorised, empowered and commanded to do and execute during His Majesty's pleasure, all things that belong to the office of the High Commissioner according to the tenour of this Order, and according to His Majesty's Instructions as aforesaid, and the laws of Palestine.​


​
The Palestinian nationality and citizenship of the immigrants to, and the inhabitance of, Palestine (as defined by the Palestine Order in Council) where the province of the High Commissioner; not the hands or power of the immigrants or that of the inhabitants. 



			
				Palestine Legislative Council Election Order said:
			
		

> WHEREAS "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922," provides for the constitution of a Legislative Council in Palestine, and for the election of part of the members of the Council, and it is necessary to prescribe the system of election of such members;
> 
> And whereas by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance and other lawful means, His Majesty has power and jurisdiction within Palestine:
> 
> NOW THEREFORE His Majesty, by virtue and in exercise of the powers in this behalf by the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890, or otherwise in His Majesty vested, is pleased by and with the advice of his Privy Council to order, and it is hereby ordered as follows:--
> 
> 
> Title.1. This Order may be cited as the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order, 1922.Definition.2. In this Order, unless the contrary intention appears,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Secretary of State" means one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State.
> 
> 
> 
> "Register of voters" or "register" means the register prepared in accordance with this Order of the persons entitled to vote for the election of a member of the Legislative Council.
> 
> 
> 
> "Member" means a member of the Legislative Council.
> 
> 
> 
> "District" means one of the administrative divisions into which Palestine may be divided by the High Commissioner.
> 
> 
> 
> For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--
> 
> 
> 
> (a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.​[TD]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.​
> [TBODY]
> ​
> [/TD]



​
[/TBODY]
"The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council, 1925, facilitates the* acquisition of Palestinian nationality* by persons settling in the country, including those who opted for Palestinian citizenship under the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order in Council, 1922.  The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, provides for the *acquisition of Palestinian citizenship* by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence."



P F Tinmore said:


> As the indigenous population of Palestine, they had inherent, inalienable rights:
> 
> To self determination without external interference.
> To independence and sovereignty.
> To territorial integrity.​


​*(COMMENT)*

These three considerations, _supra,_ are not unique to the Arab Palestinian.  They are just as applicable to the Jewish People.  The "rights" follow the people and not the territory or the sovereignty.  And these "rights" were not universally recognized in the first decade of the 20th century as they are now, a century later.



P F Tinmore said:


> Anything that happened after that time that was against the wishes or best interest of the Palestinians was a violation of their inalienable rights.


*(COMMENT)*

Nonsense.  The Palestinian people and the territory considered Palestine, were not even invented until the Allied Occupation and Mandate.  Just when did these artificial people discover these "inherent, inalienable rights?"  When did these people ever exercise these rights.

What are the Palestinian Leaders doing today that actually result in something tangible and in the best interest of the Palestinians.  The Palestinian can stand and look 360 degrees - an not see evidence of a thriving and productive government.    All they see is war and conflict of their own making.  To complain that events did not result in an outcome meeting the "wishes or best interest of the Palestinians" is merely _prima facie_ evidence of a unproductive people, following an inept leadership, furthering a failed state of Jihadist and terrorists.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> _et al_,
> 
> I think that Lamis Deek of Al-Awda-NY is one of those make believe Palestinians that just want to continue the advocation of struggle, and such the dismantlement (destruction) of Israel.
> 
> This is not an advocate for peace.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's version of peace is all of Palestine without the Palestinians. This has been their goal for a hundred years.
> 
> Any Palestinian who disagrees with Israel's version is not an advocate for peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just to show you how stupid this woman is, she says that the partition plan never went to the security council for approval and therefore Israel is illegal. Well then so is Palestine, because they used resolution 181 in 1988 as a basis to declare independence, just like Israel did.
> 
> Whoops !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is not stupid. The Security Council never implemented Resolution 181. I have been saying that for years. It doesn't matter how much verbosity Rocco throws at it, it is true. It did not happen.
> 
> As far as the 1988 declaration being illegal, good point. It does have some related issues. However, there is still Palestine's 1948 declaration that does not mention Resolution 181.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are completely deflecting again. Did you read the link I posted? The Palestinians used 181 to declare independence in 1988. There was no valid declaration of independence in 1948. You can't declare independence twice and have both of them be valid. I've done searches online for Palestinian declaration of independence and nothing about 1948 come up.
Click to expand...

What was different that one declaration would be valid and the other not?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I have no problem with the timeline.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1917 Britain occupied that area. It was the occupying power over enemy territory. During that time treaties defined the future international borders of Palestine and the other new countries in the region.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> For the most part, this is correct.  However, the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 16 MAY 1916 actually set the stage between the French Mandates and the British Mandates.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Treaty of Lausanne was ratified in 1924, Palestine ceased to be enemy territory ending Britain's occupation. Palestine came into existence as a "successor state" like the other new countries in that region.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The 1924 Treaty of Lausanne had nothing to do whatsoever with "Palestine" and the boundaries thereto.  The Treaty of Lausanne does not mention Palestine at all.  By the Treaty of Lausanne, what you call Palestine was included in the District of Syria.  What set the definition of Palestine was the 1922 Palestine Order in Council:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PART I - Preliminary:  Title --- Palestine Order in Council said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PART I - Preliminary:  Title --- Palestine Order in Council said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine's international borders had already been defined.The Palestinian nationality was recognized and they were citizens of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I think you have this wrong.
> 
> BLUF:  The "successor government" to the British Mandate portion of the former Ottoman District of Damascus, in the State of Syria _(in which the Mandate of Palestine fell - Syria being divided by the Syke-Picot Agreement)_, was the High Commissioner, administering the Government of Palestine, acting by and with the advice of the Executive Council.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PART II - Executive - Palestine Order in Council said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The High Commissioner shall do and execute in due manner all things that shall belong to the said office, according to the tenour of any Orders in Council relating to Palestine and of such Commission as may be issued to him under His Majesty's Sign Manual and Signet, and according to such instructions as may from time to time be given to him, for the purpose of executing the provisions of the Mandate, under His Majesty's Sign Manual and Signet, or by Order of His Majesty in Council or by His Majesty through one of His Principal Secretaries of State, and to such laws and ordinances as are now or shall hereafter be in force in Palestine.
> 
> Succession to Government.
> 
> 7. Whenever the office of High Commissioner is vacant or if the High Commissioner become incapable or be absent from Palestine, or be from any cause prevented from acting in the duties of his office, the person appointed to be Chief Secretary to the Government of Palestine, or if there be no such officer therein, or such officer be unable to act, then such person or persons as His Majesty may appoint under His Sign Manual and Signet and in default of such appointment the Senior Member of the Executive Council shall during His Majesty's pleasure administer the Government of Palestine, first taking the oaths hereinbefore directed to be taken by the High Commissioner and in the manner herein prescribed, which being done, the Chief Secretary or any other such Administrator as aforesaid is hereby authorised, empowered and commanded to do and execute during His Majesty's pleasure, all things that belong to the office of the High Commissioner according to the tenour of this Order, and according to His Majesty's Instructions as aforesaid, and the laws of Palestine.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> The Palestinian nationality and citizenship of the immigrants to, and the inhabitance of, Palestine (as defined by the Palestine Order in Council) where the province of the High Commissioner; not the hands or power of the immigrants or that of the inhabitants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine Legislative Council Election Order said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHEREAS "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922," provides for the constitution of a Legislative Council in Palestine, and for the election of part of the members of the Council, and it is necessary to prescribe the system of election of such members;
> 
> And whereas by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance and other lawful means, His Majesty has power and jurisdiction within Palestine:
> 
> NOW THEREFORE His Majesty, by virtue and in exercise of the powers in this behalf by the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890, or otherwise in His Majesty vested, is pleased by and with the advice of his Privy Council to order, and it is hereby ordered as follows:--
> 
> 
> Title.1. This Order may be cited as the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order, 1922.Definition.2. In this Order, unless the contrary intention appears,
> 
> 
> 
> "Secretary of State" means one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State.
> 
> 
> 
> "Register of voters" or "register" means the register prepared in accordance with this Order of the persons entitled to vote for the election of a member of the Legislative Council.
> 
> 
> 
> "Member" means a member of the Legislative Council.
> 
> 
> 
> "District" means one of the administrative divisions into which Palestine may be divided by the High Commissioner.
> 
> 
> 
> For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--
> 
> 
> 
> (a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.​
> 
> 
> 
> (b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.​
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ​
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]"The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council, 1925, facilitates the* acquisition of Palestinian nationality* by persons settling in the country, including those who opted for Palestinian citizenship under the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order in Council, 1922.  The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, provides for the *acquisition of Palestinian citizenship* by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the indigenous population of Palestine, they had inherent, inalienable rights:
> 
> To self determination without external interference.
> To independence and sovereignty.
> To territorial integrity.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​*(COMMENT)*
> 
> These three considerations, _supra,_ are not unique to the Arab Palestinian.  They are just as applicable to the Jewish People.  The "rights" follow the people and not the territory or the sovereignty.  And these "rights" were not universally recognized in the first decade of the 20th century as they are now, a century later.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything that happened after that time that was against the wishes or best interest of the Palestinians was a violation of their inalienable rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Nonsense.  The Palestinian people and the territory considered Palestine, were not even invented until the Allied Occupation and Mandate.  Just when did these artificial people discover these "inherent, inalienable rights?"  When did these people ever exercise these rights.
> 
> What are the Palestinian Leaders doing today that actually result in something tangible and in the best interest of the Palestinians.  The Palestinian can stand and look 360 degrees - an not see evidence of a thriving and productive government.    All they see is war and conflict of their own making.  To complain that events did not result in an outcome meeting the "wishes or best interest of the Palestinians" is merely _prima facie_ evidence of a unproductive people, following an inept leadership, furthering a failed state of Jihadist and terrorists.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

You are jumping all over the place. What Britain could do as the occupying power over enemy territory was different than what it could do as the trustee of mandate territory.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> _et al_,
> 
> I think that Lamis Deek of Al-Awda-NY is one of those make believe Palestinians that just want to continue the advocation of struggle, and such the dismantlement (destruction) of Israel.
> 
> This is not an advocate for peace.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's version of peace is all of Palestine without the Palestinians. This has been their goal for a hundred years.
> 
> Any Palestinian who disagrees with Israel's version is not an advocate for peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just to show you how stupid this woman is, she says that the partition plan never went to the security council for approval and therefore Israel is illegal. Well then so is Palestine, because they used resolution 181 in 1988 as a basis to declare independence, just like Israel did.
> 
> Whoops !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is not stupid. The Security Council never implemented Resolution 181. I have been saying that for years. It doesn't matter how much verbosity Rocco throws at it, it is true. It did not happen.
> 
> As far as the 1988 declaration being illegal, good point. It does have some related issues. However, there is still Palestine's 1948 declaration that does not mention Resolution 181.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are completely deflecting again. Did you read the link I posted? The Palestinians used 181 to declare independence in 1988. There was no valid declaration of independence in 1948. You can't declare independence twice and have both of them be valid. I've done searches online for Palestinian declaration of independence and nothing about 1948 come up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What was different that one declaration would be valid and the other not?
Click to expand...


It's common sense. If a country declared independence twice, then it's obvious that the first one didn't work out since thet needed to do it again.

In the case of the Palestinians, they tried to declare independence on land that Israel had declared independence a few weeks (or months earlier). 
Obviously if that declaration was valid,they would not have done it again in 1988


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I have no problem with the timeline.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1917 Britain occupied that area. It was the occupying power over enemy territory. During that time treaties defined the future international borders of Palestine and the other new countries in the region.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> For the most part, this is correct.  However, the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 16 MAY 1916 actually set the stage between the French Mandates and the British Mandates.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Treaty of Lausanne was ratified in 1924, Palestine ceased to be enemy territory ending Britain's occupation. Palestine came into existence as a "successor state" like the other new countries in that region.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The 1924 Treaty of Lausanne had nothing to do whatsoever with "Palestine" and the boundaries thereto.  The Treaty of Lausanne does not mention Palestine at all.  By the Treaty of Lausanne, what you call Palestine was included in the District of Syria.  What set the definition of Palestine was the 1922 Palestine Order in Council:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PART I - Preliminary:  Title --- Palestine Order in Council said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PART I - Preliminary:  Title --- Palestine Order in Council said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine's international borders had already been defined.The Palestinian nationality was recognized and they were citizens of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I think you have this wrong.
> 
> BLUF:  The "successor government" to the British Mandate portion of the former Ottoman District of Damascus, in the State of Syria _(in which the Mandate of Palestine fell - Syria being divided by the Syke-Picot Agreement)_, was the High Commissioner, administering the Government of Palestine, acting by and with the advice of the Executive Council.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PART II - Executive - Palestine Order in Council said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The High Commissioner shall do and execute in due manner all things that shall belong to the said office, according to the tenour of any Orders in Council relating to Palestine and of such Commission as may be issued to him under His Majesty's Sign Manual and Signet, and according to such instructions as may from time to time be given to him, for the purpose of executing the provisions of the Mandate, under His Majesty's Sign Manual and Signet, or by Order of His Majesty in Council or by His Majesty through one of His Principal Secretaries of State, and to such laws and ordinances as are now or shall hereafter be in force in Palestine.
> 
> Succession to Government.
> 
> 7. Whenever the office of High Commissioner is vacant or if the High Commissioner become incapable or be absent from Palestine, or be from any cause prevented from acting in the duties of his office, the person appointed to be Chief Secretary to the Government of Palestine, or if there be no such officer therein, or such officer be unable to act, then such person or persons as His Majesty may appoint under His Sign Manual and Signet and in default of such appointment the Senior Member of the Executive Council shall during His Majesty's pleasure administer the Government of Palestine, first taking the oaths hereinbefore directed to be taken by the High Commissioner and in the manner herein prescribed, which being done, the Chief Secretary or any other such Administrator as aforesaid is hereby authorised, empowered and commanded to do and execute during His Majesty's pleasure, all things that belong to the office of the High Commissioner according to the tenour of this Order, and according to His Majesty's Instructions as aforesaid, and the laws of Palestine.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> The Palestinian nationality and citizenship of the immigrants to, and the inhabitance of, Palestine (as defined by the Palestine Order in Council) where the province of the High Commissioner; not the hands or power of the immigrants or that of the inhabitants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine Legislative Council Election Order said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHEREAS "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922," provides for the constitution of a Legislative Council in Palestine, and for the election of part of the members of the Council, and it is necessary to prescribe the system of election of such members;
> 
> And whereas by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance and other lawful means, His Majesty has power and jurisdiction within Palestine:
> 
> NOW THEREFORE His Majesty, by virtue and in exercise of the powers in this behalf by the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890, or otherwise in His Majesty vested, is pleased by and with the advice of his Privy Council to order, and it is hereby ordered as follows:--
> 
> 
> Title.1. This Order may be cited as the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order, 1922.Definition.2. In this Order, unless the contrary intention appears,
> 
> 
> 
> "Secretary of State" means one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State.
> 
> 
> 
> "Register of voters" or "register" means the register prepared in accordance with this Order of the persons entitled to vote for the election of a member of the Legislative Council.
> 
> 
> 
> "Member" means a member of the Legislative Council.
> 
> 
> 
> "District" means one of the administrative divisions into which Palestine may be divided by the High Commissioner.
> 
> 
> 
> For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--
> 
> 
> 
> (a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.​
> 
> 
> 
> (b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.​
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ​
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]"The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council, 1925, facilitates the* acquisition of Palestinian nationality* by persons settling in the country, including those who opted for Palestinian citizenship under the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order in Council, 1922.  The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, provides for the *acquisition of Palestinian citizenship* by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the indigenous population of Palestine, they had inherent, inalienable rights:
> 
> To self determination without external interference.
> To independence and sovereignty.
> To territorial integrity.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​*(COMMENT)*
> 
> These three considerations, _supra,_ are not unique to the Arab Palestinian.  They are just as applicable to the Jewish People.  The "rights" follow the people and not the territory or the sovereignty.  And these "rights" were not universally recognized in the first decade of the 20th century as they are now, a century later.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything that happened after that time that was against the wishes or best interest of the Palestinians was a violation of their inalienable rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Nonsense.  The Palestinian people and the territory considered Palestine, were not even invented until the Allied Occupation and Mandate.  Just when did these artificial people discover these "inherent, inalienable rights?"  When did these people ever exercise these rights.
> 
> What are the Palestinian Leaders doing today that actually result in something tangible and in the best interest of the Palestinians.  The Palestinian can stand and look 360 degrees - an not see evidence of a thriving and productive government.    All they see is war and conflict of their own making.  To complain that events did not result in an outcome meeting the "wishes or best interest of the Palestinians" is merely _prima facie_ evidence of a unproductive people, following an inept leadership, furthering a failed state of Jihadist and terrorists.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are jumping all over the place. What Britain could do as the occupying power over enemy territory was different than what it could do as the trustee of mandate territory.
Click to expand...


Ok, but the Treaty of Lausanne had nothing to do with Palestine.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's version of peace is all of Palestine without the Palestinians. This has been their goal for a hundred years.
> 
> Any Palestinian who disagrees with Israel's version is not an advocate for peace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to show you how stupid this woman is, she says that the partition plan never went to the security council for approval and therefore Israel is illegal. Well then so is Palestine, because they used resolution 181 in 1988 as a basis to declare independence, just like Israel did.
> 
> Whoops !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is not stupid. The Security Council never implemented Resolution 181. I have been saying that for years. It doesn't matter how much verbosity Rocco throws at it, it is true. It did not happen.
> 
> As far as the 1988 declaration being illegal, good point. It does have some related issues. However, there is still Palestine's 1948 declaration that does not mention Resolution 181.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are completely deflecting again. Did you read the link I posted? The Palestinians used 181 to declare independence in 1988. There was no valid declaration of independence in 1948. You can't declare independence twice and have both of them be valid. I've done searches online for Palestinian declaration of independence and nothing about 1948 come up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What was different that one declaration would be valid and the other not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's common sense. If a country declared independence twice, then it's obvious that the first one didn't work out since thet needed to do it again.
> 
> In the case of the Palestinians,* they tried to declare independence on land that Israel had declared independence* a few weeks (or months earlier).
> Obviously if that declaration was valid,they would not have done it again in 1988
Click to expand...


That is a common Fallacy.

Post a 1948 map of Israel showing what Israeli territory was claimed by the Palestinian's 1948 declaration.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to show you how stupid this woman is, she says that the partition plan never went to the security council for approval and therefore Israel is illegal. Well then so is Palestine, because they used resolution 181 in 1988 as a basis to declare independence, just like Israel did.
> 
> Whoops !
> 
> 
> 
> She is not stupid. The Security Council never implemented Resolution 181. I have been saying that for years. It doesn't matter how much verbosity Rocco throws at it, it is true. It did not happen.
> 
> As far as the 1988 declaration being illegal, good point. It does have some related issues. However, there is still Palestine's 1948 declaration that does not mention Resolution 181.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are completely deflecting again. Did you read the link I posted? The Palestinians used 181 to declare independence in 1988. There was no valid declaration of independence in 1948. You can't declare independence twice and have both of them be valid. I've done searches online for Palestinian declaration of independence and nothing about 1948 come up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What was different that one declaration would be valid and the other not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's common sense. If a country declared independence twice, then it's obvious that the first one didn't work out since thet needed to do it again.
> 
> In the case of the Palestinians,* they tried to declare independence on land that Israel had declared independence* a few weeks (or months earlier).
> Obviously if that declaration was valid,they would not have done it again in 1988
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a common Fallacy.
> 
> Post a 1948 map of Israel showing what Israeli territory was claimed by the Palestinian's 1948 declaration.
Click to expand...


You're playing this stupid game again Tinmore

Israel declared independence on the land allotted to it in the partition plan. 

The Palestinians tried to declare independence on that land (and more) AFTER Israel did so. Why you have a hard time accepting this fact is beyond me.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> She is not stupid. The Security Council never implemented Resolution 181. I have been saying that for years. It doesn't matter how much verbosity Rocco throws at it, it is true. It did not happen.
> 
> As far as the 1988 declaration being illegal, good point. It does have some related issues. However, there is still Palestine's 1948 declaration that does not mention Resolution 181.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are completely deflecting again. Did you read the link I posted? The Palestinians used 181 to declare independence in 1988. There was no valid declaration of independence in 1948. You can't declare independence twice and have both of them be valid. I've done searches online for Palestinian declaration of independence and nothing about 1948 come up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What was different that one declaration would be valid and the other not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's common sense. If a country declared independence twice, then it's obvious that the first one didn't work out since thet needed to do it again.
> 
> In the case of the Palestinians,* they tried to declare independence on land that Israel had declared independence* a few weeks (or months earlier).
> Obviously if that declaration was valid,they would not have done it again in 1988
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a common Fallacy.
> 
> Post a 1948 map of Israel showing what Israeli territory was claimed by the Palestinian's 1948 declaration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're playing this stupid game again Tinmore
> 
> *Israel declared independence on the land allotted to it in the partition plan. *
> 
> The Palestinians tried to declare independence on that land (and more) AFTER Israel did so. Why you have a hard time accepting this fact is beyond me.
Click to expand...

No it didn't. Remember, Resolution 181 did not happen.

Israel never claimed those proposed borders and nobody has ever recognized them.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are completely deflecting again. Did you read the link I posted? The Palestinians used 181 to declare independence in 1988. There was no valid declaration of independence in 1948. You can't declare independence twice and have both of them be valid. I've done searches online for Palestinian declaration of independence and nothing about 1948 come up.
> 
> 
> 
> What was different that one declaration would be valid and the other not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's common sense. If a country declared independence twice, then it's obvious that the first one didn't work out since thet needed to do it again.
> 
> In the case of the Palestinians,* they tried to declare independence on land that Israel had declared independence* a few weeks (or months earlier).
> Obviously if that declaration was valid,they would not have done it again in 1988
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a common Fallacy.
> 
> Post a 1948 map of Israel showing what Israeli territory was claimed by the Palestinian's 1948 declaration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're playing this stupid game again Tinmore
> 
> *Israel declared independence on the land allotted to it in the partition plan. *
> 
> The Palestinians tried to declare independence on that land (and more) AFTER Israel did so. Why you have a hard time accepting this fact is beyond me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it didn't. Remember, Resolution 181 did not happen.
> 
> Israel never claimed those proposed borders and nobody has ever recognized them.
Click to expand...




P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are completely deflecting again. Did you read the link I posted? The Palestinians used 181 to declare independence in 1988. There was no valid declaration of independence in 1948. You can't declare independence twice and have both of them be valid. I've done searches online for Palestinian declaration of independence and nothing about 1948 come up.
> 
> 
> 
> What was different that one declaration would be valid and the other not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's common sense. If a country declared independence twice, then it's obvious that the first one didn't work out since thet needed to do it again.
> 
> In the case of the Palestinians,* they tried to declare independence on land that Israel had declared independence* a few weeks (or months earlier).
> Obviously if that declaration was valid,they would not have done it again in 1988
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a common Fallacy.
> 
> Post a 1948 map of Israel showing what Israeli territory was claimed by the Palestinian's 1948 declaration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're playing this stupid game again Tinmore
> 
> *Israel declared independence on the land allotted to it in the partition plan. *
> 
> The Palestinians tried to declare independence on that land (and more) AFTER Israel did so. Why you have a hard time accepting this fact is beyond me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it didn't. Remember, Resolution 181 did not happen.
> 
> Israel never claimed those proposed borders and nobody has ever recognized them.
Click to expand...


Here we go again 

Israel legally declared independence on the land allotted to it in the partition plan. That is a fact. That is how Israel was created. 

Palestine declared independence in 1988 THE SAME WAY that Israel did. 

Resolution 181 was not implemented like planned, BUT both used it as a legal basis to declare independence.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> She is not stupid. The Security Council never implemented Resolution 181. I have been saying that for years. It doesn't matter how much verbosity Rocco throws at it, it is true. It did not happen.
> 
> As far as the 1988 declaration being illegal, good point. It does have some related issues. However, there is still Palestine's 1948 declaration that does not mention Resolution 181.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are completely deflecting again. Did you read the link I posted? The Palestinians used 181 to declare independence in 1988. There was no valid declaration of independence in 1948. You can't declare independence twice and have both of them be valid. I've done searches online for Palestinian declaration of independence and nothing about 1948 come up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What was different that one declaration would be valid and the other not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's common sense. If a country declared independence twice, then it's obvious that the first one didn't work out since thet needed to do it again.
> 
> In the case of the Palestinians,* they tried to declare independence on land that Israel had declared independence* a few weeks (or months earlier).
> Obviously if that declaration was valid,they would not have done it again in 1988
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a common Fallacy.
> 
> Post a 1948 map of Israel showing what Israeli territory was claimed by the Palestinian's 1948 declaration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're playing this stupid game again Tinmore
> 
> Israel declared independence on the land allotted to it in the partition plan.
> 
> The Palestinians tried to declare independence on that land (and more) AFTER Israel did so. Why you have a hard time accepting this fact is beyond me.
Click to expand...

No I am not. I just want you to prove your point.

I await your response.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

You got to be kidding me!



P F Tinmore said:


> What was different that one declaration would be valid and the other not?


*(COMMENT)*

The territory was under the Trusteeship of the UN when in MAY: 
The Jewish Agency and the Provisional Government submitted the Declaration IAW UN Steps Preparatory to Independence.
_Recalling_ its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the _ad hoc_ Political Committee in respect of the* implementation of the said resolutions,* [See:  *Resolution **273 (III)*. Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations]
The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the *resolution of last November 29 has been implemented*." [PAL/169 17 May 1948]


The territory, less that declared by Israel in May, was unavailable.  
The APG submitted their Declaration in September, on territory relinquished from the Trusteeship and Declared by the Jewish Agency.
The Jewish Agency and Provision Government made their Declaration four month earlier.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Jewish Agency and Provisional Government of Israel represented the People of Israel
The All Palestine Government (APG) was a _de facto_ apparatus of the Egyptian Occupation Government in Gaza.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The APG had no standing or recognition with the UN.  The Arab Higher Committee (AHC) was, at the time, the recognized representative of the Arab Palestinians.  The AHC declined to establish an Arab Agency or to negotiate in the implementation process.
Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis. [See Paragraph 22, _*The First Attempt to Create Self-Governing Institutions, 1922-23. *--- _The Political History of Palestine under British Administration --- A/AC.14/8  2 October 1947]
The text of this resolution was communicated by the Secretary-General on 9 January to the Government of the United Kingdom, as the Mandatory Power, to the Arab Higher Committee, and to the Jewish Agency for Palestine. The invitation extended by the resolution was promptly accepted by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, both of which designated representatives to assist the commission. The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:


“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”


No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.  (See First Report of UNPC to UNSC  A/AC.21/7  29 January 1948)

In 1959, Egyptian President Nasser officially annulled the All-Palestine Government by Presidential Decree.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, there you have it.

Todays, "The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt."  (See PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD) --- Borders).  The issue of the All-Palestine Government is not even a consideration.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> You got to be kidding me!
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was different that one declaration would be valid and the other not?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The territory was under the Trusteeship of the UN when in MAY:
> The Jewish Agency and the Provisional Government submitted the Declaration IAW UN Steps Preparatory to Independence.
> _Recalling_ its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the _ad hoc_ Political Committee in respect of the* implementation of the said resolutions,* [See:  *Resolution 273 (III)*. Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations]
> The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the *resolution of last November 29 has been implemented*." [PAL/169 17 May 1948]
> 
> 
> The territory, less that declared by Israel in May, was unavailable.
> The APG submitted their Declaration in September, on territory relinquished from the Trusteeship and Declared by the Jewish Agency.
> The Jewish Agency and Provision Government made their Declaration four month earlier.
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The Jewish Agency and Provisional Government of Israel represented the People of Israel
> The All Palestine Government (APG) was a _de facto_ apparatus of the Egyptian Occupation Government in Gaza.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The APG had no standing or recognition with the UN.  The Arab Higher Committee (AHC) was, at the time, the recognized representative of the Arab Palestinians.  The AHC declined to establish an Arab Agency or to negotiate in the implementation process.
> Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis. [See Paragraph 22, _*The First Attempt to Create Self-Governing Institutions, 1922-23. *--- _The Political History of Palestine under British Administration --- A/AC.14/8  2 October 1947]
> The text of this resolution was communicated by the Secretary-General on 9 January to the Government of the United Kingdom, as the Mandatory Power, to the Arab Higher Committee, and to the Jewish Agency for Palestine. The invitation extended by the resolution was promptly accepted by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, both of which designated representatives to assist the commission. The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:
> 
> 
> “ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”
> 
> 
> No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.  (See First Report of UNPC to UNSC  A/AC.21/7  29 January 1948)
> 
> In 1959, Egyptian President Nasser officially annulled the All-Palestine Government by Presidential Decree.
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> So, there you have it.
> 
> Todays, "The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt."  (See PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD) --- Borders).  The issue of the All-Palestine Government is not even a consideration.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

You are jumping that time line again.


----------



## teddyearp

theliq said:


> <snip>...Billo is a Diamond


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> The APG submitted their Declaration in September, on territory relinquished from the Trusteeship and Declared by the Jewish Agency.



The trusteeship had no territory.


----------



## teddyearp

theliq said:


> Most RESECTFULLY the JEWS ASSASINATED BOTH Yasser Arafat<snip>



My, my very interesting, this is the first I've ever heard of such a claim.  Do you have any sort of proof for this outlandish claim?


----------



## teddyearp

RoccoR said:


> theliq,  _et al,_
> 
> I'm not at all familiar with the term:  CURR,SIR   You'll have to explain that one to me.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are an apologist for the Zionists...........and a CURR,SIR.........Most Respectfully
> 
> 
> 
> (COMMENT)
> 
> If my manners bother you, please feel free to ignore them.
> 
> As for being an "apologist for the Zionists" --- I'm not sure.  That is both subjective and in the eye of the outside observer.  I don't personally agree that I am an apologist for anyone (other than myself).
> 
> Clearly, I find it objectionable that one of the world's leading Jihadist and Terrorist cultures (Palestinians) find it necessary to take a conflict that the Hostile Palestinians started, and try to blame the outcome of their actions on the opponent.  Unable to take responsibility for their conduct, having established a past history of criminal behaviors and practices, they now try to use the very law that they broke when the Palestinians killed half the Israeli Olympic Team in Munich; of when they hijacked El Al Flight 426 (1968), Dawson's Field Hijackings (1970), Air France Flight 139 (1976), Lufthansa Flight 181 (1977), TWA Flight 847 (1985), EgyptAir Flight 648 (1985), and Pan Am Flight 73 (1986).  Or who remembers when the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF) hijacked the Italian MS Achille Lauro liner off the coast of Egypt.  And just how many rocket and mortars have the Palestinians fired?
> 
> View attachment 32940​And there just isn't enough space here for me to append the charts for all the bombings:
> 
> 2001 (40 bombings)
> 2002 (47 bombings)
> 2003 (23 bombings)
> 2004 (17 bombings)
> 2005 (9 bombings)
> I'm not sure why the Israelis need an apologist; least at all me.  The only reason I speak-up is that I see this cowardly group of failed Arab Palestinian nationalists making these wild claims and crying genocide, apartheid, war crime and such, when in fact, the preponderance of the accumulated events were instigated by the Palestinians.  In fact, it is the claim of the pro-Palestinians that they can use any and all means necessary, to attack any Israeli anywhere, and it not be a crime.  Yet --- let the Israeli defend themselves and it becomes a war crime.
> 
> I know there must be another culture out their that is just as cowardly than the Palestinians, that cry more every time they get spanked by the Israelis, and has a longer history of criminal behaviors --- but, I can't think of one --- off-hand.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


I usually dislike quoting huge posts like this since some of the essence sometimes gets lost with the "click here to expand" button having to be used, but this one is so good I just had to and I have only one thing to say about it:


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Technically, you are correct.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The APG submitted their Declaration in September, on territory relinquished from the Trusteeship and Declared by the Jewish Agency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The trusteeship had no territory.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

On termination of the Mandate, the Independence of Israel took effect.  That territory never transitioned under Article 77.

*Article 77  UN Charter*
1. The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:
a. territories now held under mandate;​I should have said "Mandate."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Technically, you are correct.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The APG submitted their Declaration in September, on territory relinquished from the Trusteeship and Declared by the Jewish Agency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The trusteeship had no territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> On termination of the Mandate, the Independence of Israel took effect.  That territory never transitioned under Article 77.
> 
> *Article 77  UN Charter*
> 1. The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:
> a. territories now held under mandate;​I should have said "Mandate."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. The Mandate had no territory.


----------



## teddyearp

RoccoR said:


> On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.
> 
> The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan now included nearly one and a half million people, more than half a million of whom were refugees evicted from Jewish-occupied Palestine. *All automatically became citizens of Jordan, a right that had first been offered in December 1949 to all Palestinians who wished to claim it.* Although the Arab League opposed this plan, and no other Arab government followed Jordan’s lead, the Hashemite Kingdom offered the possibility of normal life for many people who would have otherwise remained stateless refugees.​


​
And I believe this ^^^ has a lot to do with whatever claims the Palestinians had to the West Bank. But in all honesty, it is ancient history.


----------



## teddyearp

Hossfly said:


> It would help if you listed some dates.



Good luck with that.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> docmauser1, P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> The mistake here is much more simplistic, fundamentally, than that.
> 
> 
> 
> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The armistice lines never divided Palestine from anybody else. In the case of the West Bank and Gaza, the lines ran *through* Palestine. How can the Palestinians violate a line that is Palestine on both sides?
> 
> 
> 
> But the problem's that, major arab settlers&squatters from the hood didn't ran *through* palestine, they had been running *to* palestine, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> One must remember to keep in mind that:
> 
> When the Armistice lines were drawn in 1949, the term "Palestine" was still being used as defined in the original "Palestine Order in Council."  It referred to the territories to which the former Mandate for Palestine applied.  It wasn't a political subdivision on its own.
> 
> The "Palestine" of 1949 was a legal entity _(trusteeship)_ but not be a sovereign state and not self-governing.  For all intent and purposes, The "Palestine" of 1949 had two component parts:​
> 
> The apportionment that Declared Independence by the right of self-determination of the Jewish People _(AKA:  The new State of Israel)_.
> The apportionment that declined to participate in the Partition Plan _(AKA:  The Arab State unrealized)_.
> 
> When the Armistice Lines were drawn, the Lines separated the various Arab Contingents from the the Israeli Contingents.  The distinction made by P F Tinmore in the question _"How can the Palestinians violate a line that is Palestine on both sides?"_ is a distinction without relevance.  The Israelis were just as much Palestinians as the Arabs.  Palestinian, a territorial name, was just as applicable to all the inhabitance of the time _(Jewish and Arab)_.  In 1949, the foreign influence were the remnants of the 5 Arab Armies that established Occupation Authorities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.  In addressing the P F Tinmore in the question, we have to understand that the term "Palestinians" is representational of both the Israelis and Arab.  So, in fact, the question is meaningless _(like drawing lines in water)_, except for the implied threat to the sovereignty of Israel.  What the Armistice Line separated then and now are the Hostile and Belligerent Parties.​
> The word game used by P F Tinmore in the question is nothing more then a fallacious philosophical dilemma by the aggressors to justify Jihad and armed struggle.  It is an outcome of the concept that all the former Territory under the old Mandate is an objective of the contemporary Arab Palestinian of today; that the territorial sovereignty of Israel today, represents an occupation by force of territory that is rightfully Arab Palestinian.
> 
> In terms of the West Bank, the distinction made by P F Tinmore in the question _"How can the Palestinians violate a line that is Palestine on both sides?"_ is even made more dubious when one considers that the last sovereignty over the territory, prior to the Palestinian Declaration of Independence in 1988, was Jordanian.  Rightfully,  the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank should actually be called the "former Jordanian of Palestine."  The historical geography of the West Bank is that what the UN calls the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, is the exact same territory as that Annexed by the Jordanians in 1950.
> 
> On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.
> 
> The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan now included nearly one and a half million people, more than half a million of whom were refugees evicted from Jewish-occupied Palestine. *All automatically became citizens of Jordan, a right that had first been offered in December 1949 to all Palestinians who wished to claim it.* Although the Arab League opposed this plan, and no other Arab government followed Jordan’s lead, the Hashemite Kingdom offered the possibility of normal life for many people who would have otherwise remained stateless refugees.​
> When the Palestinians accepted Jordanian Citizenship, they exercised their right of self-determination, but also relinquished any "refugee status."  Under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the:
> 
> C. This Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if:
> 
> (1) He has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; or
> (2) Having lost his nationality, he has voluntarily re-acquired it; or
> (3) He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality; or
> (4) He has voluntarily re-established himself in the country which he leftor outside which he remained owing to fear of persecution; or​
> *(TO THE QUESTION:  Who are the Palestinians)*
> 
> And again, the Palestinians shot themselves in the foot.  When the "Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented" (right of self-determination), acquired a new nationality, and enjoyed the protection of the country of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, their new nationality.
> 
> While were might find it difficult to determine "who is a Palestinian," by the process of elimination we can rule-out what we call the Arab Palestinian of the West Bank.  They abdicated their relationship as Palestinians when they accepted Jordanian citizenship.
> 
> *(BOTTOM LINE)*
> 
> There are no Arab Palestinians in the West Bank.  They alerted that status in and by themselves in a Parliamentary process. And as for the P F Tinmore in the question _"How can the Palestinians violate a line that is Palestine on both sides?"_ is a distinction without relevance; in that since 1950, there were no Palestinians on the Eastern side (towards Jordan) of the Armistice Line.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

"...half a million of whom were refugees evicted from *Jewish-occupied Palestine."*​
Indeed.


----------



## teddyearp

P F Tinmore said:


> *Who are the Palestinians?*
> *Lamis Deek, "One Democratic State in all of Palestine" *
> 
> **



Let's talk about the Christians in the Gaza strip.



> The Islamization of Gaza has put increasing pressure on the tiny Christian minority.[38] Following the Hamas takeover of Gaza in 2007, Abu Saqer, leader of Jihadia Salafiya, a rival group to Hamas,[39] announced the opening of a "military wing" to enforce Muslim law in Gaza. "I expect our Christian neighbors to understand the new Hamas rule means real changes. They must be ready for Islamic rule if they want to live in peace in Gaza." [40] Sheik Saqer has asserted that there is "no need" for Christians in Gaza to maintain Christian institutions and demanded that Hamas "must work to impose an Islamic rule or it will lose the authority it has and the will of the people."[41]



Link:  Islamization of the Gaza Strip - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## teddyearp

P F Tinmore said:


>


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The APG submitted their Declaration in September, on territory relinquished from the Trusteeship and Declared by the Jewish Agency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The trusteeship had no territory.
Click to expand...


And? We are talking about the fact that the Palestinians tried to declare independence on territory already declared independent 4 months earlier.

BTW, can you post the 1948 declaration , I tried to google it but I couldn't find it. Thanks


----------



## teddyearp

RoccoR said:


> What are the Palestinian Leaders doing today that actually result in something tangible and in the best interest of the Palestinians.  The Palestinian can stand and look 360 degrees - an not see evidence of a thriving and productive government.    All they see is war and conflict of their own making.  To complain that events did not result in an outcome meeting the "wishes or best interest of the Palestinians" is merely _prima facie_ evidence of a unproductive people, following an inept leadership, furthering a failed state of Jihadist and terrorists.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R



Regardless of anything else, this speaks volumes; shouted from the roof tops, the lamp shade has been removed; this is the truth.


----------



## teddyearp

P F Tinmore said:


> No it didn't. Remember, Resolution 181 did not happen.



Apparently you missed the memo.  Resolution 181 did not happen only in your mind.  For the rest of the world it did.  Wake up from you dream.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The APG submitted their Declaration in September, on territory relinquished from the Trusteeship and Declared by the Jewish Agency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The trusteeship had no territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? We are talking about the fact that the Palestinians tried to declare independence on territory already declared independent 4 months earlier.
> 
> BTW, can you post the 1948 declaration , I tried to google it but I couldn't find it. Thanks
Click to expand...

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

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

28 September 1948


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

AHMED HILMI PASHA
PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY

A C.1 330 of 14 October 1948


----------



## Roudy

teddyearp said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most RESECTFULLY the JEWS ASSASINATED BOTH Yasser Arafat<snip>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My, my very interesting, this is the first I've ever heard of such a claim.  Do you have any sort of proof for this outlandish claim?
Click to expand...


It's that five Dolla' whiskey bottle again. It's literally destroying his brain.


----------



## RoccoR

toastman,

Yes, this is an obscurer document.



toastman said:


> BTW, can you post the 1948 declaration , I tried to google it but I couldn't find it. Thanks


*(REFERENCE)*

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

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

AHMED HILMI PASHA
PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​
v/r
R


----------



## Hossfly

RoccoR said:


> toastman,
> 
> Yes, this is an obscurer document.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, can you post the 1948 declaration , I tried to google it but I couldn't find it. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
> ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
> CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES
> 
> AHMED HILMI PASHA
> PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​
> v/r
> R
Click to expand...

Reads like a declaration to me.
...............HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE.............


----------



## toastman

RoccoR said:


> toastman,
> 
> Yes, this is an obscurer document.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, can you post the 1948 declaration , I tried to google it but I couldn't find it. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
> ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
> CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES
> 
> AHMED HILMI PASHA
> PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​
> v/r
> R
Click to expand...


Had this declaration taken place before Israel declaration of independence, would Israel even exist now ?


----------



## RoccoR

toastman,  _et al,_

Maybe or maybe not!



toastman said:


> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948
> 
> Had this declaration taken place before Israel declaration of independence, would Israel even exist now ?


*(COMMENT)*

This is a hypothetical and exceeding difficult to assess _(if at all)_.  It is in the family of Reification or "IF-THEN" Statement and calculating a specific conditional evaluation.  

*IF* the Arab Declaration comes before the Jewish Declaration *THEN* no State of Israel is created.
*IF* the Jewish Declaration comes before the Arab Declaration *THEN* a State of Israel is created.
We cannot evaluate either without an actual test.  But I venture to say that neither is really a true representation of the conditions that either drive the outcome _("creation" or "no creation")_.  While the second "IF-THEN" actually happened, the causality behind the creation of the State of Israel is actually dependent more than one set of factors.

What is unpredictable is the human factors and the political climate.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Roudy

RoccoR said:


> toastman,
> 
> Yes, this is an obscurer document.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, can you post the 1948 declaration , I tried to google it but I couldn't find it. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
> ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
> CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES
> 
> AHMED HILMI PASHA
> PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​
> v/r
> R
Click to expand...


Too little too late. LOL


----------



## Roudy

toastman said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> toastman,
> 
> Yes, this is an obscurer document.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, can you post the 1948 declaration , I tried to google it but I couldn't find it. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
> ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
> CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES
> 
> AHMED HILMI PASHA
> PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​
> v/r
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Had this declaration taken place before Israel declaration of independence, would Israel even exist now ?
Click to expand...


Doesn't matter what "they" the Arab Muslims declared. They weren't in charge of the land, nor were they in a position to dictate to those who were, what to do with it. 

The British already made it clear, "you want your Arab Palestine?  That would be East of the Jordan River. You can have your Jew free cesspool of intolerance over there."

Again I ask, how come they didn't write any of  these kiss ass whiny letters to a Egypt and Jordan when they controlled the West Bank and Gaza for 20 years from 48 to 67?  Well, as long as there's no Jewish state, that what counts with Mooooslems, eh?


----------



## teddyearp

Hossfly said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> toastman,
> 
> Yes, this is an obscurer document.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, can you post the 1948 declaration , I tried to google it but I couldn't find it. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reads like a declaration to me.
> ...............HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE.............
Click to expand...


Yeah and four months and fourteen days too late. . . .


----------



## MJB12741

Roudy said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> toastman,
> 
> Yes, this is an obscurer document.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, can you post the 1948 declaration , I tried to google it but I couldn't find it. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
> ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
> CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES
> 
> AHMED HILMI PASHA
> PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​
> v/r
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Had this declaration taken place before Israel declaration of independence, would Israel even exist now ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter what "they" the Arab Muslims declared. They weren't in charge of the land, nor were they in a position to dictate to those who were, what to do with it.
> 
> The British already made it clear, "you want your Arab Palestine?  That would be East of the Jordan River. You can have your Jew free cesspool of intolerance over there."
> 
> Again I ask, how come they didn't write any of  these kiss ass whiny letters to a Egypt and Jordan when they controlled the West Bank and Gaza for 20 years from 48 to 67?  Well, as long as there's no Jewish state, that what counts with Mooooslems, eh?
Click to expand...


Both Egypt & Jordan refuse to grant the Palestinians a right of return.  How releived they feel now that Israel has them to deal with.


----------



## Roudy

MJB12741 said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> toastman,
> 
> Yes, this is an obscurer document.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, can you post the 1948 declaration , I tried to google it but I couldn't find it. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
> ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
> CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES
> 
> AHMED HILMI PASHA
> PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​
> v/r
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Had this declaration taken place before Israel declaration of independence, would Israel even exist now ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter what "they" the Arab Muslims declared. They weren't in charge of the land, nor were they in a position to dictate to those who were, what to do with it.
> 
> The British already made it clear, "you want your Arab Palestine?  That would be East of the Jordan River. You can have your Jew free cesspool of intolerance over there."
> 
> Again I ask, how come they didn't write any of  these kiss ass whiny letters to a Egypt and Jordan when they controlled the West Bank and Gaza for 20 years from 48 to 67?  Well, as long as there's no Jewish state, that what counts with Mooooslems, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both Egypt & Jordan refuse to grant the Palestinians a right of return.  How releived they feel now that Israel has them to deal with.
Click to expand...


Plus there was no mention of this mythical Palestine or "Palestinian people". I wonder why?


----------



## RoccoR

MJB12741,  _et al,_

From the Arab League perspective, they did not expect a cascade failure _(a series of catastrophic outcomes, one after another --- Wars in 1948, 1967, 1973)_ and nor did they foresee the ramifications of the incidental intermittent political failures associated with the negative outcomes in the overall War of Attrition _[(__First and Second Intifada__) and the __Suez Crisis__ (October 1956)]_ or the Gaza War Series _[Operation Cast Lead (December 2008 - January 2009) --- Operation Pillar of Defense (November 2012) --- Operation Protective Edge (July-August 2014)]._  This does not include the various engagements with Palestinian insurgency elements originating from Southern Lebanon.

No nation in the Middle East or Persian Gulf has had to defend itself more often, in its first half century of existence, and against regional powers than The Jewish State of Israel.  And no culture has been so associated with asymmetric warfare, insurgency operations, terrorism and Jihadist activity then that of the Hostile Arab Palestinians.    



MJB12741 said:


> Both Egypt & Jordan refuse to grant the Palestinians a right of return.  How releived they feel now that Israel has them to deal with.


*(COMMENT)*

All the adjacent nations to Israel view it as a double-sided coin.  On one hand, they are _(as you say)_ very happy to allow the Israelis to pin-down the Arab radicals that constitute the Hostile Arab Palestinian population.  They see Israel as carrying the burden of the monetary and political expense of the conflict and the spread of Islamic Extremism.  No countries know this more that Egypt and (especially) Jordan.  Egypt narrowly escape the fate of Syria in the aftermath of the _"Arab Spring"_ and the entanglement with the Moslem Brotherhood.  While Jordan had, several decades earlier, cut its ties with the treachery of the Fedayeen, when the the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan successfully fended-off two assassination attempts against the King, "a series of spectacular hijackings," and put an end to the insurrection and traitorist actions of the Palestinian Fedayeen insurgents.  The last thing that any of the regional governments wants is the rise of another Islamic Extremist Cult that threatens regional peace.

Are these nations happy that Israel is a "Jewish State?"  No!  But they can live with a peaceful Jewish State that doesn't threaten the regional security and stabilization.  What they don't want is for these extremist, Jihadist and Fedayeen, running loose in the region creating political and religious havoc.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MJB12741

RoccoR said:


> MJB12741,  _et al,_
> 
> From the Arab League perspective, they did not expect a cascade failure _(a series of catastrophic outcomes, one after another --- Wars in 1948, 1967, 1973)_ and nor did they foresee the ramifications of the incidental intermittent political failures associated with the negative outcomes in the overall War of Attrition _[(__First and Second Intifada__) and the __Suez Crisis__ (October 1956)]_ or the Gaza War Series _[Operation Cast Lead (December 2008 - January 2009) --- Operation Pillar of Defense (November 2012) --- Operation Protective Edge (July-August 2014)]._  This does not include the various engagements with Palestinian insurgency elements originating from Southern Lebanon.
> 
> No nation in the Middle East or Persian Gulf has had to defend itself more often, in its first half century of existence, and against regional powers than The Jewish State of Israel.  And no culture has been so associated with asymmetric warfare, insurgency operations, terrorism and Jihadist activity then that of the Hostile Arab Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Egypt & Jordan refuse to grant the Palestinians a right of return.  How releived they feel now that Israel has them to deal with.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> All the adjacent nations to Israel view it as a double-sided coin.  On one hand, they are _(as you say)_ very happy to allow the Israelis to pin-down the Arab radicals that constitute the Hostile Arab Palestinian population.  They see Israel as carrying the burden of the monetary and political expense of the conflict and the spread of Islamic Extremism.  No countries know this more that Egypt and (especially) Jordan.  Egypt narrowly escape the fate of Syria in the aftermath of the _"Arab Spring"_ and the entanglement with the Moslem Brotherhood.  While Jordan had, several decades earlier, cut its ties with the treachery of the Fedayeen, when the the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan successfully fended-off two assassination attempts against the King, "a series of spectacular hijackings," and put an end to the insurrection and traitorist actions of the Palestinian Fedayeen insurgents.  The last thing that any of the regional governments wants is the rise of another Islamic Extremist Cult that threatens regional peace.
> 
> Are these nations happy that Israel is a "Jewish State?"  No!  But they can live with a peaceful Jewish State that doesn't threaten the regional security and stabilization.  What they don't want is for these extremist, Jihadist and Fedayeen, running loose in the region creating political and religious havoc.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Who in their right mind would not agree that the surrounding Arab countries are not overwhelmed with Israel in the Middle.  But they sure are greatful for having Israel to have to deal with the Palestinians than their countries.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> toastman,
> 
> Yes, this is an obscurer document.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, can you post the 1948 declaration , I tried to google it but I couldn't find it. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
> ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
> CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES
> 
> AHMED HILMI PASHA
> PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​
> v/r
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Had this declaration taken place before Israel declaration of independence, would Israel even exist now ?
Click to expand...


It is not who came first, it is who submitted a valid declaration.

The Palestinian's declaration was straightforward including their defined territory.

Israel, on the other hand, defined its territory as Eretz-Israel, a nebulous territorial definition at best. There is no such internationally recognized territory.

I know Israel can't help it but did it have to lie in its own declaration of independence?

On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable.

THE STATE OF ISRAEL is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel.​
By the time it evoked Resolution 181 promising its cooperation in its implementation, Israel had already blown past the proposed borders. It was already expelling non Jews from its allotted territory and the territory allotted to the Arabs. It was already attacking and occupying the international city of Jerusalem.

Israel never had any intention of abiding by Resolution 181. It merely threw it in there to pretend to have legitimacy.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> toastman,
> 
> Yes, this is an obscurer document.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, can you post the 1948 declaration , I tried to google it but I couldn't find it. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
> ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
> CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES
> 
> AHMED HILMI PASHA
> PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​
> v/r
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Had this declaration taken place before Israel declaration of independence, would Israel even exist now ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not who came firse, it is who subitted a valid declaration.
> 
> The Palestinian's declaration was straighforward including their defined territory.
> 
> Israel, on the other hand, defined its territory as Eretz-Israel, a nebulous territorial definition at best. There is no such internationally recognized territory.
> 
> I know Israel can't help it but did it have to lie in its own declaration of independence?
> 
> On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable.
> 
> THE STATE OF ISRAEL is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel.​
> By the time it evoked Resolution 181 promising its cooperation in its implementation, Israel had already blown past the proposed borders. It was already expelling non Jews from its allotted territory and the territory allotted to the Arabs. It was already attacking and occupying the international city of Jerusalem.
> 
> Israel never had any intention of abiding by Resolution 181. It merely threw it in there to pretend to have lagitimacy.
Click to expand...

What is your recommendation, Tinmore?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> toastman,
> 
> Yes, this is an obscurer document.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, can you post the 1948 declaration , I tried to google it but I couldn't find it. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
> ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
> CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES
> 
> AHMED HILMI PASHA
> PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​
> v/r
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Had this declaration taken place before Israel declaration of independence, would Israel even exist now ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not who came firse, it is who subitted a valid declaration.
> 
> The Palestinian's declaration was straighforward including their defined territory.
> 
> Israel, on the other hand, defined its territory as Eretz-Israel, a nebulous territorial definition at best. There is no such internationally recognized territory.
> 
> I know Israel can't help it but did it have to lie in its own declaration of independence?
> 
> On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable.
> 
> THE STATE OF ISRAEL is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel.​
> By the time it evoked Resolution 181 promising its cooperation in its implementation, Israel had already blown past the proposed borders. It was already expelling non Jews from its allotted territory and the territory allotted to the Arabs. It was already attacking and occupying the international city of Jerusalem.
> 
> Israel never had any intention of abiding by Resolution 181. It merely threw it in there to pretend to have lagitimacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is your recommendation, Tinmore?
Click to expand...

Good question and since Resolution 181 was never implemented it was a dubious move for Israel to hang its hat on that resolution for legitimacy.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> toastman,
> 
> Yes, this is an obscurer document.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, can you post the 1948 declaration , I tried to google it but I couldn't find it. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
> ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
> CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES
> 
> AHMED HILMI PASHA
> PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​
> v/r
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Had this declaration taken place before Israel declaration of independence, would Israel even exist now ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not who came firse, it is who subitted a valid declaration.
> 
> The Palestinian's declaration was straighforward including their defined territory.
> 
> Israel, on the other hand, defined its territory as Eretz-Israel, a nebulous territorial definition at best. There is no such internationally recognized territory.
> 
> I know Israel can't help it but did it have to lie in its own declaration of independence?
> 
> On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable.
> 
> THE STATE OF ISRAEL is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel.​
> By the time it evoked Resolution 181 promising its cooperation in its implementation, Israel had already blown past the proposed borders. It was already expelling non Jews from its allotted territory and the territory allotted to the Arabs. It was already attacking and occupying the international city of Jerusalem.
> 
> Israel never had any intention of abiding by Resolution 181. It merely threw it in there to pretend to have lagitimacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is your recommendation, Tinmore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good question and since Resolution 181 was never implemented it was a dubious move for Israel to hang its hat on that resolution for legitimacy.
Click to expand...

So who won?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> toastman,
> 
> Yes, this is an obscurer document.
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
> ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
> CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES
> 
> AHMED HILMI PASHA
> PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​
> v/r
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Had this declaration taken place before Israel declaration of independence, would Israel even exist now ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not who came firse, it is who subitted a valid declaration.
> 
> The Palestinian's declaration was straighforward including their defined territory.
> 
> Israel, on the other hand, defined its territory as Eretz-Israel, a nebulous territorial definition at best. There is no such internationally recognized territory.
> 
> I know Israel can't help it but did it have to lie in its own declaration of independence?
> 
> On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable.
> 
> THE STATE OF ISRAEL is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel.​
> By the time it evoked Resolution 181 promising its cooperation in its implementation, Israel had already blown past the proposed borders. It was already expelling non Jews from its allotted territory and the territory allotted to the Arabs. It was already attacking and occupying the international city of Jerusalem.
> 
> Israel never had any intention of abiding by Resolution 181. It merely threw it in there to pretend to have lagitimacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is your recommendation, Tinmore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good question and since Resolution 181 was never implemented it was a dubious move for Israel to hang its hat on that resolution for legitimacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So who won?
Click to expand...

Nobody yet.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Yes, yes, this again.



P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel never had any intention of abiding by Resolution 181. It merely threw it in there to pretend to have lagitimacy.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your recommendation, Tinmore?
Click to expand...

Good question and since Resolution 181 was never implemented it was a dubious move for Israel to hang its hat on that resolution for legitimacy.[/QUOTE]
*(COMMENT)*


_Recalling_ its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the _ad hoc_ Political Committee in respect of the* implementation of the said resolutions,* [See: *Resolution 273 (III)*. Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations, 11 May 1949]
The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the *resolution of last November 29 has been implemented*." [PAL/169 17 May 1948]

Often evidentiary UN remarks are challenged by the pro-Palestinian.  They believe that if they say it enough, the UN will reverse its position.

And because the of the legitimacy and importance of the Resolution, it is cited quite frequently, by the Palestinians and the UN.

Palestinians:

Declaration of Independence, 1988
Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine
The UN:

A/RES/43/177  15 December 1988  43/177. Question of Palestine
A/67/L.28  26 November 2012  Question of Palestine
A/RES/67/19  4 December 2012 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> toastman,
> 
> Yes, this is an obscurer document.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, can you post the 1948 declaration , I tried to google it but I couldn't find it. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
> ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
> CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES
> 
> AHMED HILMI PASHA
> PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​
> v/r
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Had this declaration taken place before Israel declaration of independence, would Israel even exist now ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not who came first, it is who submitted a valid declaration.
> 
> The Palestinian's declaration was straightforward including their defined territory.
> 
> Israel, on the other hand, defined its territory as Eretz-Israel, a nebulous territorial definition at best. There is no such internationally recognized territory.
> 
> I know Israel can't help it but did it have to lie in its own declaration of independence?
> 
> On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable.
> 
> THE STATE OF ISRAEL is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel.​
> By the time it evoked Resolution 181 promising its cooperation in its implementation, Israel had already blown past the proposed borders. It was already expelling non Jews from its allotted territory and the territory allotted to the Arabs. It was already attacking and occupying the international city of Jerusalem.
> 
> Israel never had any intention of abiding by Resolution 181. It merely threw it in there to pretend to have legitimacy.
Click to expand...


You are making things up. Nothing you said had any merit with these issues. The Palestinian declaration in 1948 was not valid and they did NOT have any defined territory. 
The declaration clearly says that they were declaring all of the region as their own, 4 months AFTER Israel declared independence on the land allotted to her in resolution 181.
Obviously you're not happy with this outcome, but these were. 
Remember, the Palestinians used 181 as a legal basis in to  declare independence in 1988 too.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Had this declaration taken place before Israel declaration of independence, would Israel even exist now ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not who came firse, it is who subitted a valid declaration.
> 
> The Palestinian's declaration was straighforward including their defined territory.
> 
> Israel, on the other hand, defined its territory as Eretz-Israel, a nebulous territorial definition at best. There is no such internationally recognized territory.
> 
> I know Israel can't help it but did it have to lie in its own declaration of independence?
> 
> On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable.
> 
> THE STATE OF ISRAEL is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel.​
> By the time it evoked Resolution 181 promising its cooperation in its implementation, Israel had already blown past the proposed borders. It was already expelling non Jews from its allotted territory and the territory allotted to the Arabs. It was already attacking and occupying the international city of Jerusalem.
> 
> Israel never had any intention of abiding by Resolution 181. It merely threw it in there to pretend to have lagitimacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is your recommendation, Tinmore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good question and since Resolution 181 was never implemented it was a dubious move for Israel to hang its hat on that resolution for legitimacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So who won?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody yet.
Click to expand...


Who's winning?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> toastman,
> 
> Yes, this is an obscurer document.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, can you post the 1948 declaration , I tried to google it but I couldn't find it. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
> ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
> CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES
> 
> AHMED HILMI PASHA
> PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​
> v/r
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Had this declaration taken place before Israel declaration of independence, would Israel even exist now ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not who came first, it is who submitted a valid declaration.
> 
> The Palestinian's declaration was straightforward including their defined territory.
> 
> Israel, on the other hand, defined its territory as Eretz-Israel, a nebulous territorial definition at best. There is no such internationally recognized territory.
> 
> I know Israel can't help it but did it have to lie in its own declaration of independence?
> 
> On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable.
> 
> THE STATE OF ISRAEL is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel.​
> By the time it evoked Resolution 181 promising its cooperation in its implementation, Israel had already blown past the proposed borders. It was already expelling non Jews from its allotted territory and the territory allotted to the Arabs. It was already attacking and occupying the international city of Jerusalem.
> 
> Israel never had any intention of abiding by Resolution 181. It merely threw it in there to pretend to have legitimacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are making things up. Nothing you said had any merit with these issues. The Palestinian declaration in 1948 was not valid and they did NOT have any defined territory.
> The declaration clearly says that they were declaring all of the region as their own, *4 months AFTER Israel declared independence on the land allotted to her in resolution 181.*
> Obviously you're not happy with this outcome, but these were.
> Remember, the Palestinians used 181 as a legal basis in to  declare independence in 1988 too.
Click to expand...


Link?


----------



## Judicial review

They are people that take up space.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> toastman,
> 
> Yes, this is an obscurer document.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, can you post the 1948 declaration , I tried to google it but I couldn't find it. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
> ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
> CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES
> 
> AHMED HILMI PASHA
> PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​
> v/r
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Had this declaration taken place before Israel declaration of independence, would Israel even exist now ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not who came first, it is who submitted a valid declaration.
> 
> The Palestinian's declaration was straightforward including their defined territory.
> 
> Israel, on the other hand, defined its territory as Eretz-Israel, a nebulous territorial definition at best. There is no such internationally recognized territory.
> 
> I know Israel can't help it but did it have to lie in its own declaration of independence?
> 
> On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable.
> 
> THE STATE OF ISRAEL is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel.​
> By the time it evoked Resolution 181 promising its cooperation in its implementation, Israel had already blown past the proposed borders. It was already expelling non Jews from its allotted territory and the territory allotted to the Arabs. It was already attacking and occupying the international city of Jerusalem.
> 
> Israel never had any intention of abiding by Resolution 181. It merely threw it in there to pretend to have legitimacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are making things up. Nothing you said had any merit with these issues. The Palestinian declaration in 1948 was not valid and they did NOT have any defined territory.
> The declaration clearly says that they were declaring all of the region as their own, *4 months AFTER Israel declared independence on the land allotted to her in resolution 181.*
> Obviously you're not happy with this outcome, but these were.
> Remember, the Palestinians used 181 as a legal basis in to  declare independence in 1988 too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

Here's yer link, Tinmore.

16 Unusual Uses for Cooking Spray Kitchen Daily


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I can't believe you asked this.  I've posted these links at least a hundred times.



P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are making things up. Nothing you said had any merit with these issues. The Palestinian declaration in 1948 was not valid and they did NOT have any defined territory.
> The declaration clearly says that they were declaring all of the region as their own, *4 months AFTER Israel declared independence on the land allotted to her in resolution 181.*
> Obviously you're not happy with this outcome, but these were.
> Remember, the Palestinians used 181 as a legal basis in to  declare independence in 1988 too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

*(REFERENCE)*

A/43/827  S/20278  18 November 1988  ANNEX III  Declaration of Independence
Despite the historical injustice done to the Palestinian Arab people in its displacement and in being deprived of the right to self-determination following the adoption of General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 1947, which partitioned Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish State, that resolution *nevertheless continues to attach conditions to international legitimacy that guarantee the Palestinian Arab people the right to sovereignty and national independence.*

By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,

Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and *on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947*, and

Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:

The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.​A/53/879  S/1999/334  25 March 1999  Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine
For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. *The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II)*, as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.​Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I can't believe you asked this.  I've posted these links at least a hundred times.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are making things up. Nothing you said had any merit with these issues. The Palestinian declaration in 1948 was not valid and they did NOT have any defined territory.
> The declaration clearly says that they were declaring all of the region as their own, *4 months AFTER Israel declared independence on the land allotted to her in resolution 181.*
> Obviously you're not happy with this outcome, but these were.
> Remember, the Palestinians used 181 as a legal basis in to  declare independence in 1988 too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> A/43/827  S/20278  18 November 1988  ANNEX III  Declaration of Independence
> Despite the historical injustice done to the Palestinian Arab people in its displacement and in being deprived of the right to self-determination following the adoption of General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 1947, which partitioned Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish State, that resolution *nevertheless continues to attach conditions to international legitimacy that guarantee the Palestinian Arab people the right to sovereignty and national independence.*
> 
> By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,
> 
> Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and *on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947*, and
> 
> Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
> 
> The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.​A/53/879  S/1999/334  25 March 1999  Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine
> For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. *The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II)*, as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.​Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

How does that relate to my post?


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I can't believe you asked this.  I've posted these links at least a hundred times.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are making things up. Nothing you said had any merit with these issues. The Palestinian declaration in 1948 was not valid and they did NOT have any defined territory.
> The declaration clearly says that they were declaring all of the region as their own, *4 months AFTER Israel declared independence on the land allotted to her in resolution 181.*
> Obviously you're not happy with this outcome, but these were.
> Remember, the Palestinians used 181 as a legal basis in to  declare independence in 1988 too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> A/43/827  S/20278  18 November 1988  ANNEX III  Declaration of Independence
> Despite the historical injustice done to the Palestinian Arab people in its displacement and in being deprived of the right to self-determination following the adoption of General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 1947, which partitioned Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish State, that resolution *nevertheless continues to attach conditions to international legitimacy that guarantee the Palestinian Arab people the right to sovereignty and national independence.*
> 
> By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,
> 
> Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and *on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947*, and
> 
> Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
> 
> The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.​A/53/879  S/1999/334  25 March 1999  Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine
> For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. *The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II)*, as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.​Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does that relate to my post?
Click to expand...

Go back and read your inaccurate post then read Rocco's response. Maybe you'll get a clue.


----------



## MJB12741

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I can't believe you asked this.  I've posted these links at least a hundred times.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are making things up. Nothing you said had any merit with these issues. The Palestinian declaration in 1948 was not valid and they did NOT have any defined territory.
> The declaration clearly says that they were declaring all of the region as their own, *4 months AFTER Israel declared independence on the land allotted to her in resolution 181.*
> Obviously you're not happy with this outcome, but these were.
> Remember, the Palestinians used 181 as a legal basis in to  declare independence in 1988 too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> A/43/827  S/20278  18 November 1988  ANNEX III  Declaration of Independence
> Despite the historical injustice done to the Palestinian Arab people in its displacement and in being deprived of the right to self-determination following the adoption of General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 1947, which partitioned Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish State, that resolution *nevertheless continues to attach conditions to international legitimacy that guarantee the Palestinian Arab people the right to sovereignty and national independence.*
> 
> By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,
> 
> Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and *on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947*, and
> 
> Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
> 
> The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.​A/53/879  S/1999/334  25 March 1999  Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine
> For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. *The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II)*, as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.​Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does that relate to my post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go back and read your inaccurate post then read Rocco's response. Maybe you'll get a clue.
Click to expand...



Poor Tinmore.  He just doesn't get it.  Israel accepted UN resolution 181. THE ARABS RFEJECTED IT!  What a major blow that was for their Palestinians.

UN Resolution 181 - The Partition Plan


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I can't believe you asked this.  I've posted these links at least a hundred times.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are making things up. Nothing you said had any merit with these issues. The Palestinian declaration in 1948 was not valid and they did NOT have any defined territory.
> The declaration clearly says that they were declaring all of the region as their own, *4 months AFTER Israel declared independence on the land allotted to her in resolution 181.*
> Obviously you're not happy with this outcome, but these were.
> Remember, the Palestinians used 181 as a legal basis in to  declare independence in 1988 too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> A/43/827  S/20278  18 November 1988  ANNEX III  Declaration of Independence
> Despite the historical injustice done to the Palestinian Arab people in its displacement and in being deprived of the right to self-determination following the adoption of General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 1947, which partitioned Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish State, that resolution *nevertheless continues to attach conditions to international legitimacy that guarantee the Palestinian Arab people the right to sovereignty and national independence.*
> 
> By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,
> 
> Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and *on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947*, and
> 
> Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
> 
> The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.​A/53/879  S/1999/334  25 March 1999  Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine
> For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. *The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II)*, as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.​Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does that relate to my post?
Click to expand...


You keep saying that resolution 181 is irrelevant, but Rocco's post clearly proved that the Palestinians themselves used it to declare independence in 1988.
Why you continue spreading the same 'resolution 181 means nothing' lie is beyond me.


----------



## MJB12741

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I can't believe you asked this.  I've posted these links at least a hundred times.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are making things up. Nothing you said had any merit with these issues. The Palestinian declaration in 1948 was not valid and they did NOT have any defined territory.
> The declaration clearly says that they were declaring all of the region as their own, *4 months AFTER Israel declared independence on the land allotted to her in resolution 181.*
> Obviously you're not happy with this outcome, but these were.
> Remember, the Palestinians used 181 as a legal basis in to  declare independence in 1988 too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> A/43/827  S/20278  18 November 1988  ANNEX III  Declaration of Independence
> Despite the historical injustice done to the Palestinian Arab people in its displacement and in being deprived of the right to self-determination following the adoption of General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 1947, which partitioned Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish State, that resolution *nevertheless continues to attach conditions to international legitimacy that guarantee the Palestinian Arab people the right to sovereignty and national independence.*
> 
> By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,
> 
> Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and *on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947*, and
> 
> Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
> 
> The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.​A/53/879  S/1999/334  25 March 1999  Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine
> For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. *The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II)*, as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.​Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does that relate to my post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying that resolution 181 is irrelevant, but Rocco's post clearly proved that the Palestinians themselves used it to declare independence in 1988.
> Why you continue spreading the same 'resolution 181 means nothing' lie is beyond me.
Click to expand...


I really think Tinmore is actually sincere in his comments.  Problem is he thinks with a Palestinian mentality.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes, yes, this again.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel never had any intention of abiding by Resolution 181. It merely threw it in there to pretend to have lagitimacy.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your recommendation, Tinmore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good question and since Resolution 181 was never implemented it was a dubious move for Israel to hang its hat on that resolution for legitimacy.
Click to expand...

*



			(COMMENT)
		
Click to expand...

*


> _Recalling_ its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the _ad hoc_ Political Committee in respect of the* implementation of the said resolutions,* [See: *Resolution 273 (III)*. Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations, 11 May 1949]
> The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the *resolution of last November 29 has been implemented*." [PAL/169 17 May 1948]
> 
> Often evidentiary UN remarks are challenged by the pro-Palestinian.  They believe that if they say it enough, the UN will reverse its position.
> 
> And because the of the legitimacy and importance of the Resolution, it is cited quite frequently, by the Palestinians and the UN.
> 
> Palestinians:
> 
> Declaration of Independence, 1988
> Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine
> The UN:
> 
> A/RES/43/177  15 December 1988  43/177. Question of Palestine
> A/67/L.28  26 November 2012  Question of Palestine
> A/RES/67/19  4 December 2012 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations
> Most Respectfully,
> R


You keep posting the same thing, but:

When did those proposed borders become international borders?

Where is that international city of Jerusalem?

Where are the full civil and political rights guaranteed to the non Jewish citizens?

Speaking of citizens, this part of Resolution 181 also didn't happen.

...Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine...shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights.​
This reflects international law.

In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.​
Palestinians who resided in the territory that became Israel became Israeli citizens. This includes the refugees who normally lived in that territory. Obviously Israel wants to duck that part.


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes, yes, this again.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel never had any intention of abiding by Resolution 181. It merely threw it in there to pretend to have lagitimacy.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your recommendation, Tinmore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good question and since Resolution 181 was never implemented it was a dubious move for Israel to hang its hat on that resolution for legitimacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> (COMMENT)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Recalling_ its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the _ad hoc_ Political Committee in respect of the* implementation of the said resolutions,* [See: *Resolution 273 (III)*. Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations, 11 May 1949]
> The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the *resolution of last November 29 has been implemented*." [PAL/169 17 May 1948]
> 
> Often evidentiary UN remarks are challenged by the pro-Palestinian.  They believe that if they say it enough, the UN will reverse its position.
> 
> And because the of the legitimacy and importance of the Resolution, it is cited quite frequently, by the Palestinians and the UN.
> 
> Palestinians:
> 
> Declaration of Independence, 1988
> Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine
> The UN:
> 
> A/RES/43/177  15 December 1988  43/177. Question of Palestine
> A/67/L.28  26 November 2012  Question of Palestine
> A/RES/67/19  4 December 2012 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep posting the same thing, but:
> 
> When did those proposed borders become international borders?
> 
> Where is that international city of Jerusalem?
> 
> Where are the full civil and political rights guaranteed to the non Jewish citizens?
> 
> Speaking of citizens, this part of Resolution 181 also didn't happen.
> 
> ...Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine...shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights.​
> This reflects international law.
> 
> In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.​
> Palestinians who resided in the territory that became Israel became Israeli citizens. This includes the refugees who normally lived in that territory. Obviously Israel wants to duck that part.
Click to expand...


and you keep repeating the same whine


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Yes, your unyielding position, even in the face of documentation, is noted.



P F Tinmore said:


> You keep posting the same thing, but:


*(COMMENT)*

Because that is the record.



P F Tinmore said:


> When did those proposed borders become international borders?


*(COMMENT)*

The southern and eastern borders are a matter of record within the Treaties between Egypt (Article II) and Jordan (Article III), respectively.  The much smaller remainder is still under Armistice with Lebanon and Syria; the "Blue Line" being the demarcation between Lebanon and Israel.

The foreign interference of the Arab League military forces prevented the complete and total implementation of the Resolution 181(II).  



P F Tinmore said:


> Where is that international city of Jerusalem?


*(COMMENT)*

Granted --- This is a territorial dispute; having both the State of Israel and the State of Palestine claiming Jerusalem as their respective capitols.



P F Tinmore said:


> Where are the full civil and political rights guaranteed to the non Jewish citizens?


*(COMMENT)*

Israel has full civil and political rights guaranteed to the non Jewish citizens.



P F Tinmore said:


> Speaking of citizens, this part of Resolution 181 also didn't happen.
> 
> ...Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine...shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights.​


*(COMMENT)*

The Arab Palestinians are, in fact, citizens of the State of Palestine.



P F Tinmore said:


> This reflects international law.
> 
> In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.​


*(COMMENT)
*
I think you are misinterpreting this "explanation" in law (just a thought as a layman).  The application is this:


Arab Palestinians in place on 15 May 1948 are Israeli Citizens.
Arab Palestinians not in place on 15 May 1948 are NOT Israeli Citizens.
Arab Palestinians that assume citizenship elsewhere are NOT Israeli Citizens and are not refugees.

The applicable International Law is:



			
				United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees said:
			
		

> Article I --- C. This Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if:
> 
> (1) He has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; or​
> (2) Having lost his nationality, he has voluntarily re-acquired it; or
> 
> (3) He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality; or​



There are NO refugees in either the West Bank or Gaza Strip, having "acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality" --- the State of Palestine.

Having said that, this does not preclude Arab Palestinian property owners from establishing a claim and seeking restitution for property lost in the refugee movement.  This is a civil tort issue.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hossfly

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes, your unyielding position, even in the face of documentation, is noted.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep posting the same thing, but:
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Because that is the record.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did those proposed borders become international borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The southern and eastern borders are a matter of record within the Treaties between Egypt (Article II) and Jordan (Article III), respectively.  The much smaller remainder is still under Armistice with Lebanon and Syria; the "Blue Line" being the demarcation between Lebanon and Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is that international city of Jerusalem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Granted --- This is a territorial dispute; having both the State of Israel and the State of Palestine claiming Jerusalem as their respective capitols.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the full civil and political rights guaranteed to the non Jewish citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israel has full civil and political rights guaranteed to the non Jewish citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of citizens, this part of Resolution 181 also didn't happen.
> 
> ...Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine...shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinians are, in fact, citizens of the State of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> This reflects international law.
> 
> In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)
> *
> I think you are misinterpreting this "explanation" in law (just a thought as a layman).  The application is this:
> 
> 
> Arab Palestinians in place on 15 May 1948 are Israeli Citizens.
> Arab Palestinians not in place on 15 May 1948 are NOT Israeli Citizens.
> Arab Palestinians that assume citizenship elsewhere are NOT Israeli Citizens and are not refugees.
> 
> The applicable International Law is:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article I --- C. This Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if:
> 
> (1) He has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; or​
> (2) Having lost his nationality, he has voluntarily re-acquired it; or
> 
> (3) He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality; or
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are NO refugees in either the West Bank or Gaza Strip, having "acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality" --- the State of Palestine.
> 
> Having said that, this does not preclude Arab Palestinian property owners from establishing a claim and seeking restitution for property lost in the refugee movement.  This is a civil tort issue.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

I am led to believe that Tinmore has no idea about the subjects he brings up and is just talking to feel the wind whistle through his ears.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> Arab Palestinians *not in place* on 15 May 1948 are NOT Israeli Citizens.



That is not what the law says. The Palestinians who's residence was inside what became Israel automatically became Israelis.

Being temporarily away from home does not change their place of residence.


*III.*

8.


a. In all cases of State succession, the successor State shall grant its nationality to all nationals of the predecessor State residing permanently on the transferred territory.

b. Such nationality shall be granted without any discrimination in particular on the basis of ethnic origin, colour, religion, language or political opinions.

c. Those persons to whom this nationality has been granted shall enjoy perfect equality of treatment with the other nationals of the successor State.


http://legislationline.org/documents/action/popup/id/7960

However, there is a different view.

*In occupied territories*
The mass naturalization of native persons in occupied territories is illegal under the laws of war (Hague and Geneva Conventions)​Naturalization - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So, if Israel is the successor state the Palestinians became Israelis.

If Israel occupies Palestine, (history points to this scenario) then the Palestinians are still Palestinians. It is illegal for the occupying power to exile natives from occupied territory.


----------



## RoccoR

_P F Tinmore,  et al,_

An opposing view.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arab Palestinians *not in place* on 15 May 1948 are NOT Israeli Citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what the law says. The Palestinians who's residence was inside what became Israel automatically became Israelis.
> 
> Being temporarily away from home does not change their place of residence.
> 
> 
> *III.*
> 
> 8.
> 
> 
> a. In all cases of State succession, the successor State shall grant its nationality to all nationals of the predecessor State residing permanently on the transferred territory.
> 
> b. Such nationality shall be granted without any discrimination in particular on the basis of ethnic origin, colour, religion, language or political opinions.
> 
> c. Those persons to whom this nationality has been granted shall enjoy perfect equality of treatment with the other nationals of the successor State.
> 
> 
> http://legislationline.org/documents/action/popup/id/7960
> 
> However, there is a different view.
> 
> *In occupied territories*
> The mass naturalization of native persons in occupied territories is illegal under the laws of war (Hague and Geneva Conventions)​Naturalization - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> So, if Israel is the successor state the Palestinians became Israelis.
> 
> If Israel occupies Palestine, (history points to this scenario) then the Palestinians are still Palestinians. It is illegal for the occupying power to exile natives from occupied territory.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The "Declaration on the Consequences of State Succession for Nationality of Natural Persons" as adopted by the European Commission for Democracy through Law at its 28th Plenary Meeting, Venice, 13-14 September 1996, is NOT international law applicable to the Middle East _(Israeli-Palestinian Conflict)_.


The "Successor Government" at the time of termination of the Mandate was the UN Palestine Commission;
There were no permanent residents of the transferred (Mandate) territory who become stateless as a result of the succession;
The Independence of the State of Israel did not constitute an "Occupation" over the new sovereign territory;
It is also important (very important) to note that the Declaration on the Consequences states that  "12. The predecessor State shall not withdraw its nationality from its own nationals who have been unable to acquire the nationality of a successor State."  The Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are all "Citizens of the State of Palestine" as recognized by the UN _(in 1988 and reaffirmed in 2012)_.  There are no stateless people in the State of Palestine, and the State of Palestine cannot withdraw its nationality of those citizens.  All Arab Palestinians were able "to acquire" nationality in 1988 on the establishment of the Independent State of Palestine.

It is a moot point on an an irrelevant question, being a matter of no importance.  Anyone inside the West Bank or Gaza Strip in 1988 was, on declaration of the PLO, a citizen of their new state.  It was a consequence of exercising their "right of self-determination."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

> The "Declaration on the Consequences of State Succession for Nationality of Natural Persons" as adopted by the European Commission for Democracy through Law at its 28th Plenary Meeting, Venice, 13-14 September 1996, is NOT international law applicable to the Middle East _(Israeli-Palestinian Conflict)_.



Not true. The law on the succession of states ha been around since the LoN.

In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.​Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

You are just looking for excuses.

Try again.


----------



## docmauser1

P F Tinmore said:


> The "Declaration on the Consequences of State Succession for Nationality of Natural Persons" as adopted by the European Commission for Democracy through Law at its 28th Plenary Meeting, Venice, 13-14 September 1996, is NOT international law applicable to the Middle East _(Israeli-Palestinian Conflict)_.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The law on the succession of states ha been around since the LoN. In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.​Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel You are just looking for excuses. Try again.
Click to expand...

Yeah! Let's try again! So, who was that shakh, sheikh, emir, pasha, sultan, prime-minister, president of that "previous state"?


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> The "Declaration on the Consequences of State Succession for Nationality of Natural Persons" as adopted by the European Commission for Democracy through Law at its 28th Plenary Meeting, Venice, 13-14 September 1996, is NOT international law applicable to the Middle East _(Israeli-Palestinian Conflict)_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The law on the succession of states ha been around since the LoN.
> 
> In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.​Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> You are just looking for excuses.
> 
> Try again.
Click to expand...


Arabs that stayed in Israel became Israelis.  There was no palestinian state but arabs who left or moved to WB or G that had lived and worked in the mandate were given the designation as palestinians.  Jordan was the only state to offer the palestinians in the WB or Jordan a passport, but Arafat attempted a coup.  Tens of thousands were killed and Fatah and other fighters were expelled.
Lebanon at one point offered a partial citizenship so they could live and work away from the camps, it was later revoked.

Palestinians have not been good guests in host countries.  The arab world have treated the palestinians well, or tried to incorporate them into their own countries.  They force them to remain dependents of the UN camps.  A simmering crock pot.
PA has not dismantled the camps within the WB or G.    PA remains a welfare state dependent on billions in donations from the rest of world.  They could have developed their "to be" state and sought out investors and create jobs.  So much has been wasted and they want billions more.

Hamas is building more tunnels and testing new rockets out to sea.  This is not acting on behalf of the civilians under their authority.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> _et al_,
> 
> I think that Lamis Deek of Al-Awda-NY is one of those make believe Palestinians that just want to continue the advocation of struggle, and such the dismantlement (destruction) of Israel.
> 
> This is not an advocate for peace.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's version of peace is all of Palestine without the Palestinians. This has been their goal for a hundred years.
> 
> Any Palestinian who disagrees with Israel's version is not an advocate for peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just to show you how stupid this woman is, she says that the partition plan never went to the security council for approval and therefore Israel is illegal. Well then so is Palestine, because they used resolution 181 in 1988 as a basis to declare independence, just like Israel did.
> 
> Whoops !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is not stupid. The Security Council never implemented Resolution 181. I have been saying that for years. It doesn't matter how much verbosity Rocco throws at it, it is true. It did not happen.
> 
> As far as the 1988 declaration being illegal, good point. It does have some related issues. However, there is still Palestine's 1948 declaration that does not mention Resolution 181.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are completely deflecting again. Did you read the link I posted? The Palestinians used 181 to declare independence in 1988. There was no valid declaration of independence in 1948. You can't declare independence twice and have both of them be valid. I've done searches online for Palestinian declaration of independence and nothing about 1948 come up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What was different that one declaration would be valid and the other not?
Click to expand...






 Simple once one party had declared independence and it was accepted the other party could not come along and usurp that declaration by declaring independence on land already claimed.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to show you how stupid this woman is, she says that the partition plan never went to the security council for approval and therefore Israel is illegal. Well then so is Palestine, because they used resolution 181 in 1988 as a basis to declare independence, just like Israel did.
> 
> Whoops !
> 
> 
> 
> She is not stupid. The Security Council never implemented Resolution 181. I have been saying that for years. It doesn't matter how much verbosity Rocco throws at it, it is true. It did not happen.
> 
> As far as the 1988 declaration being illegal, good point. It does have some related issues. However, there is still Palestine's 1948 declaration that does not mention Resolution 181.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are completely deflecting again. Did you read the link I posted? The Palestinians used 181 to declare independence in 1988. There was no valid declaration of independence in 1948. You can't declare independence twice and have both of them be valid. I've done searches online for Palestinian declaration of independence and nothing about 1948 come up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What was different that one declaration would be valid and the other not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's common sense. If a country declared independence twice, then it's obvious that the first one didn't work out since thet needed to do it again.
> 
> In the case of the Palestinians,* they tried to declare independence on land that Israel had declared independence* a few weeks (or months earlier).
> Obviously if that declaration was valid,they would not have done it again in 1988
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a common Fallacy.
> 
> Post a 1948 map of Israel showing what Israeli territory was claimed by the Palestinian's 1948 declaration.
Click to expand...





Cant you do this to bolster your claim, or wil this show that Palestine tried to declare on land already accepted as Israel


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> She is not stupid. The Security Council never implemented Resolution 181. I have been saying that for years. It doesn't matter how much verbosity Rocco throws at it, it is true. It did not happen.
> 
> As far as the 1988 declaration being illegal, good point. It does have some related issues. However, there is still Palestine's 1948 declaration that does not mention Resolution 181.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are completely deflecting again. Did you read the link I posted? The Palestinians used 181 to declare independence in 1988. There was no valid declaration of independence in 1948. You can't declare independence twice and have both of them be valid. I've done searches online for Palestinian declaration of independence and nothing about 1948 come up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What was different that one declaration would be valid and the other not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's common sense. If a country declared independence twice, then it's obvious that the first one didn't work out since thet needed to do it again.
> 
> In the case of the Palestinians,* they tried to declare independence on land that Israel had declared independence* a few weeks (or months earlier).
> Obviously if that declaration was valid,they would not have done it again in 1988
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a common Fallacy.
> 
> Post a 1948 map of Israel showing what Israeli territory was claimed by the Palestinian's 1948 declaration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cant you do this to bolster your claim, or wil this show that Palestine tried to declare on land already accepted as Israel
Click to expand...

You are ducking the question.

What land did the Palestinians claim that already belonged to Israel?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are completely deflecting again. Did you read the link I posted? The Palestinians used 181 to declare independence in 1988. There was no valid declaration of independence in 1948. You can't declare independence twice and have both of them be valid. I've done searches online for Palestinian declaration of independence and nothing about 1948 come up.
> 
> 
> 
> What was different that one declaration would be valid and the other not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's common sense. If a country declared independence twice, then it's obvious that the first one didn't work out since thet needed to do it again.
> 
> In the case of the Palestinians,* they tried to declare independence on land that Israel had declared independence* a few weeks (or months earlier).
> Obviously if that declaration was valid,they would not have done it again in 1988
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a common Fallacy.
> 
> Post a 1948 map of Israel showing what Israeli territory was claimed by the Palestinian's 1948 declaration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're playing this stupid game again Tinmore
> 
> *Israel declared independence on the land allotted to it in the partition plan. *
> 
> The Palestinians tried to declare independence on that land (and more) AFTER Israel did so. Why you have a hard time accepting this fact is beyond me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it didn't. Remember, Resolution 181 did not happen.
> 
> Israel never claimed those proposed borders and nobody has ever recognized them.
Click to expand...






 Meaning that the parties need to sit down and negotiate mutual orders, something the Palestinians refuse to do.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are completely deflecting again. Did you read the link I posted? The Palestinians used 181 to declare independence in 1988. There was no valid declaration of independence in 1948. You can't declare independence twice and have both of them be valid. I've done searches online for Palestinian declaration of independence and nothing about 1948 come up.
> 
> 
> 
> What was different that one declaration would be valid and the other not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's common sense. If a country declared independence twice, then it's obvious that the first one didn't work out since thet needed to do it again.
> 
> In the case of the Palestinians,* they tried to declare independence on land that Israel had declared independence* a few weeks (or months earlier).
> Obviously if that declaration was valid,they would not have done it again in 1988
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a common Fallacy.
> 
> Post a 1948 map of Israel showing what Israeli territory was claimed by the Palestinian's 1948 declaration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're playing this stupid game again Tinmore
> 
> Israel declared independence on the land allotted to it in the partition plan.
> 
> The Palestinians tried to declare independence on that land (and more) AFTER Israel did so. Why you have a hard time accepting this fact is beyond me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I am not. I just want you to prove your point.
> 
> I await your response.
Click to expand...





 Do you mean llke we are still waiting for you to prove your points raised over the last few years.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was different that one declaration would be valid and the other not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's common sense. If a country declared independence twice, then it's obvious that the first one didn't work out since thet needed to do it again.
> 
> In the case of the Palestinians,* they tried to declare independence on land that Israel had declared independence* a few weeks (or months earlier).
> Obviously if that declaration was valid,they would not have done it again in 1988
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a common Fallacy.
> 
> Post a 1948 map of Israel showing what Israeli territory was claimed by the Palestinian's 1948 declaration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're playing this stupid game again Tinmore
> 
> Israel declared independence on the land allotted to it in the partition plan.
> 
> The Palestinians tried to declare independence on that land (and more) AFTER Israel did so. Why you have a hard time accepting this fact is beyond me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I am not. I just want you to prove your point.
> 
> I await your response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean llke we are still waiting for you to prove your points raised over the last few years.
Click to expand...

I have backed up my claims with documents.

How about you?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are completely deflecting again. Did you read the link I posted? The Palestinians used 181 to declare independence in 1988. There was no valid declaration of independence in 1948. You can't declare independence twice and have both of them be valid. I've done searches online for Palestinian declaration of independence and nothing about 1948 come up.
> 
> 
> 
> What was different that one declaration would be valid and the other not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's common sense. If a country declared independence twice, then it's obvious that the first one didn't work out since thet needed to do it again.
> 
> In the case of the Palestinians,* they tried to declare independence on land that Israel had declared independence* a few weeks (or months earlier).
> Obviously if that declaration was valid,they would not have done it again in 1988
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a common Fallacy.
> 
> Post a 1948 map of Israel showing what Israeli territory was claimed by the Palestinian's 1948 declaration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cant you do this to bolster your claim, or wil this show that Palestine tried to declare on land already accepted as Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are ducking the question.
> 
> What land did the Palestinians claim that already belonged to Israel?
Click to expand...





All of lesser Palestine that included the land destined for the RESURECTED NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS by the UN. That is why the arab coup failed as the UN saw the extent of the land grab and declared it invalid


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's common sense. If a country declared independence twice, then it's obvious that the first one didn't work out since thet needed to do it again.
> 
> In the case of the Palestinians,* they tried to declare independence on land that Israel had declared independence* a few weeks (or months earlier).
> Obviously if that declaration was valid,they would not have done it again in 1988
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a common Fallacy.
> 
> Post a 1948 map of Israel showing what Israeli territory was claimed by the Palestinian's 1948 declaration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're playing this stupid game again Tinmore
> 
> Israel declared independence on the land allotted to it in the partition plan.
> 
> The Palestinians tried to declare independence on that land (and more) AFTER Israel did so. Why you have a hard time accepting this fact is beyond me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I am not. I just want you to prove your point.
> 
> I await your response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean llke we are still waiting for you to prove your points raised over the last few years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have backed up my claims with documents.
> 
> How about you?
Click to expand...



No you haven't . You always claim that the Palestinians needed to have transfered Israel land in order for Israel to declare independence. 
But that's a made up Tinmore pre requisite


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's common sense. If a country declared independence twice, then it's obvious that the first one didn't work out since thet needed to do it again.
> 
> In the case of the Palestinians,* they tried to declare independence on land that Israel had declared independence* a few weeks (or months earlier).
> Obviously if that declaration was valid,they would not have done it again in 1988
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a common Fallacy.
> 
> Post a 1948 map of Israel showing what Israeli territory was claimed by the Palestinian's 1948 declaration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're playing this stupid game again Tinmore
> 
> Israel declared independence on the land allotted to it in the partition plan.
> 
> The Palestinians tried to declare independence on that land (and more) AFTER Israel did so. Why you have a hard time accepting this fact is beyond me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I am not. I just want you to prove your point.
> 
> I await your response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean llke we are still waiting for you to prove your points raised over the last few years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have backed up my claims with documents.
> 
> How about you?
Click to expand...





 Invalid reports that when checked show the author had rewritten the source to suit his POV, or did not apply to the subject matter. I provide links to non partisan sources that show the truth


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes, yes, this again.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel never had any intention of abiding by Resolution 181. It merely threw it in there to pretend to have lagitimacy.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your recommendation, Tinmore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good question and since Resolution 181 was never implemented it was a dubious move for Israel to hang its hat on that resolution for legitimacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> (COMMENT)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Recalling_ its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the _ad hoc_ Political Committee in respect of the* implementation of the said resolutions,* [See: *Resolution 273 (III)*. Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations, 11 May 1949]
> The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the *resolution of last November 29 has been implemented*." [PAL/169 17 May 1948]
> 
> Often evidentiary UN remarks are challenged by the pro-Palestinian.  They believe that if they say it enough, the UN will reverse its position.
> 
> And because the of the legitimacy and importance of the Resolution, it is cited quite frequently, by the Palestinians and the UN.
> 
> Palestinians:
> 
> Declaration of Independence, 1988
> Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine
> The UN:
> 
> A/RES/43/177  15 December 1988  43/177. Question of Palestine
> A/67/L.28  26 November 2012  Question of Palestine
> A/RES/67/19  4 December 2012 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep posting the same thing, but:
> 
> When did those proposed borders become international borders?
> 
> Where is that international city of Jerusalem?
> 
> Where are the full civil and political rights guaranteed to the non Jewish citizens?
> 
> Speaking of citizens, this part of Resolution 181 also didn't happen.
> 
> ...Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine...shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights.​
> This reflects international law.
> 
> In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.​
> Palestinians who resided in the territory that became Israel became Israeli citizens. This includes the refugees who normally lived in that territory. Obviously Israel wants to duck that part.
Click to expand...


So tell us, who made the Palestinians have to be refugees in Israel?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You keep making these little mistakes.

First, your mistake to make a distinction between a Regional Protocol and a Law.
Second, you did not read my entire rebuttal as to reasonable applicability.



P F Tinmore said:


> The "Declaration on the Consequences of State Succession for Nationality of Natural Persons" as adopted by the European Commission for Democracy through Law at its 28th Plenary Meeting, Venice, 13-14 September 1996, is NOT international law applicable to the Middle East _(Israeli-Palestinian Conflict)_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The law on the succession of states ha been around since the LoN.
> 
> In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.​Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> You are just looking for excuses.
> 
> Try again.
Click to expand...

(COMMENT)

The actual international laws on the subject are:

Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of State Property, Archives and Debts 1983
Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties 1978
These International Laws have not been around since the League of Nations.  In fact, as every federal agent knows, that has foreign investigative experience, that the International Law Commission (ILC) considers these two international conventions on the law of state succession as having been adopted; BUT NOT conventions that have been entered into force _(each requires but fifteen ratifications or accessions for entry into force)_.

There are four (4) broad categories the ILC examines with respect to State succession:

*1)* Treaties: the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties: Vienna I

*2)* State property, State debt and State archives: Vienna II

*3)* Membership to international Organizations

*4)* State succession and its impact on the nationality of natural and legal persons: the Rapporteur also failed to find any prospects for codification and recommended an ILC report or a United Nations General Assembly draft declaration setting minimum standards for the automatic acquisition of nationality. These minimum standards would serve as guidelines for State legislation concerned with State succession.  But any "new" law would not necessarily be retroactive to any past or ongoing dispute.  In fact, any claim made by the Palestinians concerning their nationality would have to be an exception to the "Non-Retroactive Principle" in law.​
The ILC made note that, "[a] close examination of State practice afforded *no convincing evidence* of any general doctrine by reference to which the various problems of succession in respect of treaties *could find their appropriate solution*."  [See:  _The Problem of State Succession and the Identity of States under International Law and the Yearbook ILC (1974 - II, part i), at 168, para. 51. See also Castrén, ‘Obligations of States Arising from the Dismemberment of Another State’, 13 ZaöRV (1951) 753.]  _Each case must be examined on their own merit.  That would include the Palestinian issue, if there were a question.  But as you missed in the rebuttal, there is NO question relative to nationality.  With the establishment of the Palestinian State in 1988, the Arab Palestinians are all citizens of the latest iteration of "self-determination" --- The State of Palestine.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

This is so bogus.



P F Tinmore said:


> I have backed up my claims with documents.
> 
> How about you?


*(COMMENT)*

You have not presented any convincing argument or evidence that the Jewish Declaration of Independence and their exercise of the right of "self-determination" was in any way invalid at the time.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MJB12741

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You keep making these little mistakes.
> 
> First, your mistake to make a distinction between a Regional Protocol and a Law.
> Second, you did not read my entire rebuttal as to reasonable applicability.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "Declaration on the Consequences of State Succession for Nationality of Natural Persons" as adopted by the European Commission for Democracy through Law at its 28th Plenary Meeting, Venice, 13-14 September 1996, is NOT international law applicable to the Middle East _(Israeli-Palestinian Conflict)_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The law on the succession of states ha been around since the LoN.
> 
> In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.​Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> You are just looking for excuses.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (COMMENT)
> 
> The actual international laws on the subject are:
> 
> Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of State Property, Archives and Debts 1983
> Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties 1978
> These International Laws have not been around since the League of Nations.  In fact, as every federal agent knows, that has foreign investigative experience, that the International Law Commission (ILC) considers these two international conventions on the law of state succession as having been adopted; BUT NOT conventions that have been entered into force _(each requires but fifteen ratifications or accessions for entry into force)_.
> 
> There are four (4) broad categories the ILC examines with respect to State succession:
> 
> *1)* Treaties: the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties: Vienna I
> 
> *2)* State property, State debt and State archives: Vienna II
> 
> *3)* Membership to international Organizations
> 
> *4)* State succession and its impact on the nationality of natural and legal persons: the Rapporteur also failed to find any prospects for codification and recommended an ILC report or a United Nations General Assembly draft declaration setting minimum standards for the automatic acquisition of nationality. These minimum standards would serve as guidelines for State legislation concerned with State succession.  But any "new" law would not necessarily be retroactive to any past or ongoing dispute.  In fact, any claim made by the Palestinians concerning their nationality would have to be an exception to the "Non-Retroactive Principle" in law.​
> The ILC made note that, "[a] close examination of State practice afforded *no convincing evidence* of any general doctrine by reference to which the various problems of succession in respect of treaties *could find their appropriate solution*."  [See:  _The Problem of State Succession and the Identity of States under International Law and the Yearbook ILC (1974 - II, part i), at 168, para. 51. See also Castrén, ‘Obligations of States Arising from the Dismemberment of Another State’, 13 ZaöRV (1951) 753.]  _Each case must be examined on their own merit.  That would include the Palestinian issue, if there were a question.  But as you missed in the rebuttal, there is NO question relative to nationality.  With the establishment of the Palestinian State in 1988, the Arab Palestinians are all citizens of the latest iteration of "self-determination" --- The State of Palestine.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


What you present are documented facts.  As we have all witnessed, that is not acceptable to Tinmore's Palestinian mentality.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is so bogus.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have backed up my claims with documents.
> 
> How about you?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You have not presented any convincing argument or evidence that the Jewish Declaration of Independence and their exercise of the right of "self-determination" was in any way invalid at the time.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

I have. It is just that you have refused to see it.

3. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;

A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is so bogus.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have backed up my claims with documents.
> 
> How about you?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You have not presented any convincing argument or evidence that the Jewish Declaration of Independence and their exercise of the right of "self-determination" was in any way invalid at the time.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have. It is just that you have refused to see it.
> 
> 3. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
> 
> A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​
Click to expand...

Just what is it that you think you have here, Tinny? Some kind of smoking gun or compelling directive?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et asl,

Again, this is a timeline issue.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is so bogus.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have backed up my claims with documents.
> 
> How about you?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You have not presented any convincing argument or evidence that the Jewish Declaration of Independence and their exercise of the right of "self-determination" was in any way invalid at the time.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have. It is just that you have refused to see it.
> 
> 3. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
> 
> A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

 Watch closely.  (Now you see it ---- Now you don't!)

Jordanian Parliamentary Action 11 April 1950, Unification of the Two Banks, West Bank Annexation, "actualization of "self-determination"
----    Three decades later.    ----
A RES 33 24   of   29 November 1978  UN reaffirmation of "self-determination"
----    A decade later.    ----
A/43/827  S/20278 18 November 1988  Palestinian Independence --- actualization of "self-determination"​
The applicability of the "Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination"  (A RES 33 24   of   29 November 1978) ended for the Palestinian:

Gaza: 1988
West Bank 1950
Today, the 1988 Declaration applies to all Palestinians located in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## aris2chat

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is so bogus.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have backed up my claims with documents.
> 
> How about you?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You have not presented any convincing argument or evidence that the Jewish Declaration of Independence and their exercise of the right of "self-determination" was in any way invalid at the time.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have. It is just that you have refused to see it.
> 
> 3. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
> 
> A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just what is it that you think you have here, Tinny? Some kind of smoking gun or compelling directive?
Click to expand...


Palestinians have to sit down at the negotiation table to determine the territory that will part of their state.  There was no state yet for the palestinians, arabs rejected that offer.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et asl,
> 
> Again, this is a timeline issue.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is so bogus.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have backed up my claims with documents.
> 
> How about you?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You have not presented any convincing argument or evidence that the Jewish Declaration of Independence and their exercise of the right of "self-determination" was in any way invalid at the time.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have. It is just that you have refused to see it.
> 
> 3. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
> 
> A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Watch closely.  (Now you see it ---- Now you don't!)
> 
> Jordanian Parliamentary Action 11 April 1950, Unification of the Two Banks, West Bank Annexation, "actualization of "self-determination"
> ----    Three decades later.    ----
> A RES 33 24   of   29 November 1978  UN reaffirmation of "self-determination"
> ----    A decade later.    ----
> A/43/827  S/20278 18 November 1988  Palestinian Independence --- actualization of "self-determination"​
> The applicability of the "Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination"  (A RES 33 24   of   29 November 1978) ended for the Palestinian:
> 
> Gaza: 1988
> West Bank 1950
> Today, the 1988 Declaration applies to all Palestinians located in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

You are starting late in your timeline.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

No such thing.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et asl,
> 
> Again, this is a timeline issue.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is so bogus.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have backed up my claims with documents.
> 
> How about you?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You have not presented any convincing argument or evidence that the Jewish Declaration of Independence and their exercise of the right of "self-determination" was in any way invalid at the time.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have. It is just that you have refused to see it.
> 
> 3. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
> 
> A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Watch closely.  (Now you see it ---- Now you don't!)
> 
> Jordanian Parliamentary Action 11 April 1950, Unification of the Two Banks, West Bank Annexation, "actualization of "self-determination"
> ----    Three decades later.    ----
> A RES 33 24   of   29 November 1978  UN reaffirmation of "self-determination"
> ----    A decade later.    ----
> A/43/827  S/20278 18 November 1988  Palestinian Independence --- actualization of "self-determination"​
> The applicability of the "Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination"  (A RES 33 24   of   29 November 1978) ended for the Palestinian:
> 
> Gaza: 1988
> West Bank 1950
> Today, the 1988 Declaration applies to all Palestinians located in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are starting late in your timeline.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The timeline covers a period between 1950 and today; anywhere in between.

Pick your time.  Let me know.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> No such thing.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et asl,
> 
> Again, this is a timeline issue.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is so bogus.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have backed up my claims with documents.
> 
> How about you?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You have not presented any convincing argument or evidence that the Jewish Declaration of Independence and their exercise of the right of "self-determination" was in any way invalid at the time.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have. It is just that you have refused to see it.
> 
> 3. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
> 
> A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Watch closely.  (Now you see it ---- Now you don't!)
> 
> Jordanian Parliamentary Action 11 April 1950, Unification of the Two Banks, West Bank Annexation, "actualization of "self-determination"
> ----    Three decades later.    ----
> A RES 33 24   of   29 November 1978  UN reaffirmation of "self-determination"
> ----    A decade later.    ----
> A/43/827  S/20278 18 November 1988  Palestinian Independence --- actualization of "self-determination"​
> The applicability of the "Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination"  (A RES 33 24   of   29 November 1978) ended for the Palestinian:
> 
> Gaza: 1988
> West Bank 1950
> Today, the 1988 Declaration applies to all Palestinians located in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are starting late in your timeline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The timeline covers a period between 1950 and today; anywhere in between.
> 
> Pick your time.  Let me know.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Like I say, you are starting late.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> No such thing.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et asl,
> 
> Again, this is a timeline issue.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is so bogus.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You have not presented any convincing argument or evidence that the Jewish Declaration of Independence and their exercise of the right of "self-determination" was in any way invalid at the time.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> I have. It is just that you have refused to see it.
> 
> 3. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
> 
> A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Watch closely.  (Now you see it ---- Now you don't!)
> 
> Jordanian Parliamentary Action 11 April 1950, Unification of the Two Banks, West Bank Annexation, "actualization of "self-determination"
> ----    Three decades later.    ----
> A RES 33 24   of   29 November 1978  UN reaffirmation of "self-determination"
> ----    A decade later.    ----
> A/43/827  S/20278 18 November 1988  Palestinian Independence --- actualization of "self-determination"​
> The applicability of the "Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination"  (A RES 33 24   of   29 November 1978) ended for the Palestinian:
> 
> Gaza: 1988
> West Bank 1950
> Today, the 1988 Declaration applies to all Palestinians located in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are starting late in your timeline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The timeline covers a period between 1950 and today; anywhere in between.
> 
> Pick your time.  Let me know.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I say, you are starting late.
Click to expand...

Tinmore, Rocco is already there. You're the one who is a day late and a dollar short. Get yer act together.


----------



## Hossfly

The OP is "Who Are The Palestinians?" Hear them in their own words as they let the truth slip out.


----------



## Coyote

The Palestinians are people.  Human beings. Men and women and children.

Who would have thought it would be this difficult a question to answer?


----------



## Hossfly

Coyote said:


> The Palestinians are people.  Human beings. Men and women and children.
> 
> Who would have thought it would be this difficult a question to answer?


According to a Hamas figure in my video, half are Egyptian, half are Saudi. All human beings but not Palestinian.


----------



## Coyote

Hoss, many are as indiginous to Palestine as the Jews.

Beyond that - does it matter?

They are people and it's all to easy to marginalize them with these sort of arguments.

The question to ask is why is it so important to some how make them less worthy of inclusion by asking these sorts of questions?


----------



## Hossfly

Coyote said:


> Hoss, many are as indiginous to Palestine as the Jews.
> 
> Beyond that - does it matter?
> 
> They are people and it's all to easy to marginalize them with these sort of arguments.
> 
> The question to ask is why is it so important to some how make them less worthy of inclusion by asking these sorts of questions?


I realize and understand that but my point is that in 1948 the Arabs living there abandoned the country "until the Jews could be swept into the sea." That act nullified any claim to the land and to the right of return. Then with the complicity of the Russians, Arafat named the people and the land, Palestine and tried to make it look like Israel was the bad guys. I won't buy that and nor should anyone. That's my personal opinion.


----------



## Coyote

Hossfly said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hoss, many are as indiginous to Palestine as the Jews.
> 
> Beyond that - does it matter?
> 
> They are people and it's all to easy to marginalize them with these sort of arguments.
> 
> The question to ask is why is it so important to some how make them less worthy of inclusion by asking these sorts of questions?
> 
> 
> 
> I realize and understand that but my point is that in 1948 the Arabs living there abandoned the country "until the Jews could be swept into the sea." That act nullified any claim to the land and to the right of return. Then with the complicity of the Russians, Arafat named the people and the land, Palestine and tried to make it look like Israel was the bad guys. I won't buy that and nor should anyone. That's my personal opinion.
Click to expand...


I see it in terms of people.  It doesn't matter if Araft named the people and the land - the people pre-existed the label.  They have rights.  They belong there.  Now, I'm not saying the right of return is an option any more, I don't think so.  But they have a right to the West Bank and the constant attempt to delegitimize them as a people who have rights is as evil as those who insist Jews should just go back to Europe.

It won't happen - there must be a just solution that recognizes and respects the shared humanity and needs of both peoples...it's the constant dehumanizing that I object to.


----------



## Grendelyn

Hossfly said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hoss, many are as indiginous to Palestine as the Jews.
> 
> Beyond that - does it matter?
> 
> They are people and it's all to easy to marginalize them with these sort of arguments.
> 
> The question to ask is why is it so important to some how make them less worthy of inclusion by asking these sorts of questions?
> 
> 
> 
> I realize and understand that but my point is that in 1948 the Arabs living there abandoned the country "until the Jews could be swept into the sea." That act nullified any claim to the land and to the right of return. Then with the complicity of the Russians,* Arafat named the people and the land, Palestine* and tried to make it look like Israel was the bad guys. I won't buy that and nor should anyone. That's my personal opinion.
Click to expand...


*Oh, Housefly, the more I read your posts the more I realize you have no idea what you're talking about . . . why not stick to the easy ways of communicating with those that oppose you by simply continuing to call them Nazis?  ~ Susan  *


----------



## Kondor3

Coyote said:


> ...Hoss, many are as indiginous to Palestine as the Jews. Beyond that - does it matter?
> 
> They are people and it's all to easy to marginalize them with these sort of arguments...


Collectively... politically, diplomatically, economically, militarily, socially...Palestinian behaviors (_international terrorism beyond their own field of conflict_) and intransigence have served to cause the Palestinians to marginalize themselves; a state of affairs that their adversaries merely play upon for their own purposes; exactly as the cynical Palestinians themselves do. As in most things, the Israelis simply do this better than the Palestinians, who seem fated to perpetual comparison as the under-performers in that arena.



> ...The question to ask is why is it so important to some how make them less worthy of inclusion by asking these sorts of questions?...


This is war. A long-running, hundred-year-long (or better) war, with bursts of relative peace in-between sorties. War is ugly. Brutal. An abomination in the eyes of God, Man and Nature - although the religion practiced by the majority of the Palestinians does not view war with the same condemnatory perspective - another important distinction.



> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I realize and understand that but my point is that in 1948 the Arabs living there abandoned the country "until the Jews could be swept into the sea." That act nullified any claim to the land and to the right of return....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see it in terms of people...
Click to expand...

That is your perspective. Others see it in terms of nations or peoples (collectives), rather than 'people' (individuals).

Both perspectives have merit, but matters on a national scale can only be addressed on the macro (nation, or peoples) level, which, of course, is more impersonal. This is difficult for humanitarianism-first types (usually good people) to deal with.



> ...It doesn't matter if Araft named the people and the land - the people pre-existed the label...


True. Also largely irrelevant, in conflicts between peoples over a narrow slice of land, in which coexistence has proven impossible, and only one will come out the winner.



> ...They have rights...


Fewer than you would like to believe, in the realm of Real World practicalities, in this context.

They abandoned some of those rights when they ran in 1948. They lost other rights when they acceded to Jordanian rule and citizenship in 1949-1950. They lost still more rights when they backed the wrong side in 1967. They weakened what remained through years of intransigence and foolhardy inflexibility and lack of willingness to compromise. They threw away still more as a result of Intifada I and II, and Gaza Wars I and II.

Whatever 'rights' they still have (of an enforceable and 'real' and practical nature) amount to little more than the right to live and breathe and eat and drink.



> ...They belong there...


No longer, practically speaking.

Israel tried for decades to get them to negotiate a viable and sustainable solution for both sides, and Palestinian intransigence sabotaged most such efforts. Although the Israelis do not have a pure, clean record in this respect either, they can demonstrate a history far more inclined to compromise than their adversaries, and, eventually, the Israelis lost their taste for such compromise after 1967.

Still, the Israelis kept at it for another couple of decades, until the era of the Intifadas, with decreasing enthusiasm and hopes for any success, but still hoping against hope that something could still be worked out - almost certain that those hopes were forlorn, but committed to trying, nevertheless.

Israel pretty much gave up on negotiating with the Palestinians after the Intifadas, reaching the conclusion that coexistence was probably now impossible, and - subsequently resurrecting an earlier and harsher Zionist mindset as a survival tactic in light of the impossibility of compromise - has been seizing land ever since, with an eye towards completing the Reconquista of Eretz Yisrael (see the 1922 LoN partition map for a practical and working visual image of what that means).

This is war - a war of peoples and cultures and economics and religion - and the Jews of Israel have already won that war - years ago.

What is left of Rump Palestine - a few scattered, non-contiguous, unsustainable scraps of land, holding an oversized defeated populace - is akin to a chicken that has just had its head cut off.

The headless Palestinian chicken runs and flops about the barnyard, spraying blood from its open neck wound, flapping its wings, kicking up a great deal of dust, and making a bloody mess of things, to no useful purpose. It simply doesn't realize that it's dead yet. Eventually, it has the decency to stop running, it lays down, and goes quiet. A blessing.

Any remaining 'rights' that the Palestinians have are largely limited to the right to live, breath, eat, drink and sleep - to survive - to live. Any other rights related to land-holdings and remaining in-place are largely of a paper-only nature, quickly evaporating into nothingness, unenforceable, and largely meaningless in the practical world, while they remain there.

There is too much bloody history between the Jews of Israel and the Muslims of Rump Palestine, for any practical person with a lick of common sense, to ever expect the Israeli Lion and the Palestinian Bobcat to lie down next to each other and to live in peace forevermore. That may have been possible in 1948. It is now perceived as an absolute impossibility by many people.

And, if they cannot be counted-upon to live peacefully side-by-side - if we would otherwise condemn them to perpetual warfare - then the stronger side is naturally going to take steps to ensure that *ITS* descendants are not condemned to such a fate. That means pushing the other side out, doesn't it? Highly unattractive, of course, but logical, and, from their perspective, absolutely necessary, to long-term peace, and even necessary to long-term survival. Not optional, but necessary.

It's an damned ugly proposition, but, from the Israeli perspective, there is, quite probably, no other way to cut the Gordian Knot in the long run - pretty much everything else has already been tried, one or more times, the Palestinians have shown themselves time-and-again to be treacherous, lying negotiating partners - even while the Israelis were still in _Honest Compromise Mode_ prior to 1967 and the Intifadas beginning in the 1980s - and what few options remain on the table would compromise Israel and its security, to an unsustainable, unacceptable degree.

When you run out of options, you harden your heart, and begin taking more extreme measures. While I seriously doubt that the Israelis have it in them to undertake the actual slaughter of the populations inside what's left of Rump Palestine, the only alternative may end-up being Expulsion, as ugly as that is, and the Devil take the hindmost. And, if not en masse, then bit by bit, as seems to have already been unfolding for some years now.



> ...Now, I'm not saying the right of return is an option any more, I don't think so...


Agreed.

Right of Return is an anachronistic fantasy, with an expiration date of June 5-10, 1967.

Trouble is, a great many so-called 'Palestinians' continue to delude themselves that this is a possibility, and refuse to accept anything less, and continue to fight for that.

Reminds me of the political and militancy doings of the 'Biafra' ruckus of the 1967-1970 timeframe, in some ways. A failed state wannabe that never had enough muscle to set up for themselves; a joke, albeit gallows humor; a sick, sad 'joke'.

We can see that impractical mindset right here - on this board system - in the writings of several of our colleagues - who like to pretend that old Ottoman Turk or British Mandate legal standings and status have any bearing whatsoever in connection with land and rights that changed hands as the result of warfare in the late 1940s and beyond, or who like to amuse themselves and waste their time bemoaning the unenforceable nature of a variety of UN resolutions arranged to favor Arab interests to the prejudice of Israel.

The Right of Return is as dead as Julius Caesar.



> ...But they have a right to the West Bank...


This (the end-game in the long-running Israel-Palestine conflict) will determine that.

And, in truth, the game is already over.

Israel has won.

The victors in a war dictate terms, not the losers.

And, like a farmer, trying to get the headless chicken to lie down, the Israelis are grabbing an acre at a time, and a city block at a time, and re-shaping The Barrier as they go - to nudge the headless chicken to realize that it's dead, and to stop - in this case, to pack-up and leave.

Is that a dirty deal?

Well, yeah.

But, from the Israeli perspective, after years and years of trying to negotiate and to compromise, and getting suicide bombs and rockets and death and violence directed upon them for their troubles, the Israelis have long-since given up on even trying (seriously, anyway) - and have reached the sad, correct conclusion that the Palestinians have to go.

If they can simply force them into Jordan and Lebanon and Egypt, that would be best, rather than resort to more extreme measures.

A touch of humanitarianism on their part, in the midst of something rather distasteful (slow expulsion) that the intransigent Palestinians have forced them into.



> ...and the constant attempt to delegitimize them as a people who have rights...


There's not much of a 'people' left to fuss over, at this point, and not much land to fuss over, either.

As to attempts to 'de-legitimize' them, well, this is war, and war is an ugly thing; one can hardly conduct - much less win - a war, without positioning your enemy as less 'good' or less 'legitimate' then yourselves. Did we (the US) view the Germans or Japanese as 'legitimate' - just silly and wrong-headed - when we fought to the death in 1941-1945? No.



> ...is as evil as those who insist Jews should just go back to Europe...


War is, indeed, an evil thing, and the hardening of one's heart, in order to be able to conduct - and win - a war, is not a pretty thing.



> ...It won't happen...


Perhaps. But, I confess, I do find myself wondering. One need look no further than the Shrinking Map of Palestine - served up with variations by a number of Palestinian propaganda websites - to see that this may not be true, after all - to see that that very thing - expulsion, fast or slow - is long-since underway, and fairly close to completion.

But, I, like everyone else here, lack a crystal ball, and cannot say, for certain.



> ...there must be a just solution that recognizes and respects the shared humanity and needs of both peoples...


That is a just and admirable goal.

I also believe that such a solution is now nearly - or completely - impossible - and highly unlikely to materialize, on this plane of existence in which we live.

If I'm wrong - and we can only hope that I am, for the sake of everyone concerned - then I"m wrong, and the world eventually sees Peace in that long-troubled region.

But, unfortunately, I don't think that I am.

And if I'm right, then, the stronger of the two sides will control what happens next.

If the weaker Palestinian side cannot be trusted to live in Peace alongside its Israeli-Jewish neighbor, then the Palestinians will have to go.

If the Palestinians have to go, then there are one of two ways in which that will happen.

1. the Palestinians will die

2. the Palestinians will be expelled - en masse, or slowly, bit by bit

Within the narrow domain of those two very nasty choices, which is preferable?

The option in which they die-off - or the option in which they are still alive, at the end of the sequence?

If there is nothing left on the table but (1) and (2) above - I choose (2), myself; feeling terrible about the interrupted lives and the waste of decades of strife, but rejoicing in the Fresh Start that those displaced people can eventually aspire to. Better than rotting in refugee camps and run-down refugee-like towns for another 66 years or more.

It may come to pass, that we would be better off, as a collective of United Nations, to arrange for the humane, safe re-location of the so-called Palestinians - sending some of them to country A and B and C and D - whomever is willing to take-in a few hundred thousand - and to help them to get that Fresh Start - rather than leaving them rot in-place.

That would (a) finalize Israel's boundaries as Eretz Yisrael - the most they've ever hoped for, (b) get the Palestinians out of the way of Israel, (c) get the Palestinians out of harms' way, (d) split them up into a handful of new immigrant populations in different countries, thereby defusing their militancy, (e) compensate the Palestinians for their troubles and give them a fresh start at happier lives someplace else, and (f) bring Peace to that troubled region, now that the Losing Side has cleared-off and has ceased hostilities.

Which is more humane... to leave them rotting in-place, or to become pro-active on their behalf, in a manner acceptable to the victors in that war and the controllers of that land?



> ...it's the constant dehumanizing that I object to.


Yes. A necessary evil, while conducting a war, and on the road to winning a war. Since time immemorial. Even in connection with long-running, century-long wars.

When one choose a side in a war, one commits to portraying the Enemy as less (less desirable, less right, less honorable, less good) than one's own side. It was the same 5000 years ago. It will be the same 5000 years in the future, if we haven't managed to curb our aggressive natures by then or destroyed ourselves.

To portray war - and its arguing amongst those supporting different sides - as anything else, may arguably be viewed as delusional, or, more kindly, simply fooling one's self.

=============================

< whew... turns off _running-off-at-the-keyboard_ switch in the brain, goes for morning coffee >


----------



## MJB12741

Coyote said:


> The Palestinians are people.  Human beings. Men and women and children.
> 
> Who would have thought it would be this difficult a question to answer?



It is alleged by the Palestinians who duly elected Hamas to lead them & represent their wishes that Israel is stealing, or occupying "their land." Therefore it is important to ask the question ---  who are the Palestinians?  Were there any indigenous Muslim Palestinians in the land since antiquity as there were Jews, or Hebrews if you prefer?  If not, one should ask just who is stealing who's land?


----------



## Coyote

MJB12741 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are people.  Human beings. Men and women and children.
> 
> Who would have thought it would be this difficult a question to answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is alleged by the Palestinians who duly elected Hamas to lead them & represent their wishes that Israel is stealing, or occupying "their land." Therefore it is important to ask the question ---  who are the Palestinians?  Were there any indigenous Muslim Palestinians in the land since antiquity as there were Jews, or Hebrews if you prefer?  If not, one should ask just who is stealing who's land?
Click to expand...


Again, easy answers
*Who are the Palestinians?*  Human beings

*Were there any indigenous Muslim Palestinians in the land since antiquity?*
Yes.

From Wikipedia: History of Palestine from Ancient to Medievil

_Palestine has been controlled by numerous different peoples, including the Ancient Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, Tjekker, Ancient Israelites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, early Muslims (Umayads, Abbasids, Seljuqs, Fatimids), Crusaders, later Muslims (Ayyubids, Mameluks, Ottomans), the British, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (1948–1967, on the "West Bank") and Egyptian Republic (in Gaza), and modern Israelis and Palestinians_

The early Muslim presence stems from mid 7th century.  The Late Antiquity period generally refers to 2nd-8th centuries.

The problem is you're blending religion with ethnicity in order to make a justification for who is there first. 

Islam and Judaism are religions.
Palestinians and Jews are ethnic identities.
*
The better questions would be:*
Which religion predates which in Palestine?  Judaism.
Which people predates which in Palestine?  Unknown.

The reason it's unknown is there's been a constant transition of people throughout that area.  People coming in or coming through spread their religion in the process.  People who are indiginous adopt it or reject it or create a hybrid.

Prior to that the 7th century....there were the people who eventually became Muslim.  They didn't just spring up from whole cloth out of nowhere and the Jews weren't the sole ancient inhabitants.

*It's why I think this sort of argument serves only one purpose: an attempt by one side or the other to delegitimize the existance of the other as a people by claiming either the Palestinians are an invented people or the Jews are invading Europeans.*

You say:
_It is alleged by the Palestinians who duly elected Hamas to lead them & represent their wishes that Israel is stealing, or occupying "their land._

I've also heard:
_The Palestinians are squatters sitting on Jewish land._

Who's right and who's wrong?

Israel IS occupying territory.  It is occupying the West Bank and it still exerts a great deal of control over the Gaza strip.  The West Bank was referred to by the Israeli High Court as "Occupied Territory".

On the other hand - Israel proper is a recognized state since 1948. Is that land "stolen"?  Complicated history there and it's been pointed out land ownership records and history is complicated and not very clear.  Historically - the Jews did purchase a great deal of land, but also - land was confiscated when Palestinians were driven out of or chose to flee their villages.

So who stole who's land?  Antiquity is irrelevant. The question itself goes nowhere.  The intent of the question is clear - disenfranchise one or the other and take the whole pie.  People need to sit down and negotiate.  Israel is not up for grabs - however the West Bank to include enough enough territory to form a viable Palestinian state should be on the table.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are people.  Human beings. Men and women and children.
> 
> Who would have thought it would be this difficult a question to answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is alleged by the Palestinians who duly elected Hamas to lead them & represent their wishes that Israel is stealing, or occupying "their land." Therefore it is important to ask the question ---  who are the Palestinians?  Were there any indigenous Muslim Palestinians in the land since antiquity as there were Jews, or Hebrews if you prefer?  If not, one should ask just who is stealing who's land?
Click to expand...

Good question. The "Palestinians" were there when the Jews showed up. Later on Jesus showed up. Some Palestinian Jews and others adopted Christianity. Then later some adopted Islam.

During this time people came and went but a core group of people (Muslims, Christians, Jews, and others) stayed and put down roots. These are the people who officially became Palestinians when Palestine was separated from the Ottoman Empire in 1924. Palestine was their country.

Then a bunch of criminals came down from Europe...


----------



## docmauser1

P F Tinmore said:


> Good question. The "Palestinians" were there when the Jews showed up. Later on Jesus showed up. Some Palestinian Jews and others adopted Christianity. Then later some adopted Islam. During this time people came and went but a core group of people (Muslims, Christians, Jews, and others) stayed and put down roots. These are the people who officially became Palestinians when Palestine was separated from the Ottoman Empire in 1924. Palestine was their country. Then a bunch of criminals came down from Europe...


In memorable words of the exiled israeli MP Azmi Bishara on the israeli TV Channel 2 "I don’t think there is a Palestinian nation at all. I think there is an Arab nation. I always thought so... I think it’s a colonialist invention - a Palestinian nation. When were there any Palestinians? Where did it come from?"
The invention of the "palestinian" people! hehe


----------



## P F Tinmore

docmauser1 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good question. The "Palestinians" were there when the Jews showed up. Later on Jesus showed up. Some Palestinian Jews and others adopted Christianity. Then later some adopted Islam. During this time people came and went but a core group of people (Muslims, Christians, Jews, and others) stayed and put down roots. These are the people who officially became Palestinians when Palestine was separated from the Ottoman Empire in 1924. Palestine was their country. Then a bunch of criminals came down from Europe...
> 
> 
> 
> In memorable words of the exiled israeli MP Azmi Bishara on the israeli TV Channel 2 "I don’t think there is a Palestinian nation at all. I think there is an Arab nation. I always thought so... I think it’s a colonialist invention - a Palestinian nation. When were there any Palestinians? Where did it come from?"
> The invention of the "palestinian" people! hehe
Click to expand...

The first Palestine Citizenship Order was enacted by Britain on 24 July 1925; it was the first official enactment that *outlined the legal definition of a Palestinian.* Its first article defined a Palestinian as a* "Turkish subject habitually resident in the territory of Palestine."* It defined the territorial criteria for citizenship, and appeared to be nondiscriminatory legislation, which provided granting of citizenship to an applicant, irrespective of their race, religion or language.

History of Palestinian nationality - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You're welcome.


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are people.  Human beings. Men and women and children.
> 
> Who would have thought it would be this difficult a question to answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is alleged by the Palestinians who duly elected Hamas to lead them & represent their wishes that Israel is stealing, or occupying "their land." Therefore it is important to ask the question ---  who are the Palestinians?  Were there any indigenous Muslim Palestinians in the land since antiquity as there were Jews, or Hebrews if you prefer?  If not, one should ask just who is stealing who's land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, easy answers
> *Who are the Palestinians?*  Human beings
> 
> *Were there any indigenous Muslim Palestinians in the land since antiquity?*
> Yes.
> 
> From Wikipedia: History of Palestine from Ancient to Medievil
> 
> _Palestine has been controlled by numerous different peoples, including the Ancient Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, Tjekker, Ancient Israelites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, early Muslims (Umayads, Abbasids, Seljuqs, Fatimids), Crusaders, later Muslims (Ayyubids, Mameluks, Ottomans), the British, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (1948–1967, on the "West Bank") and Egyptian Republic (in Gaza), and modern Israelis and Palestinians_
> 
> The early Muslim presence stems from mid 7th century.  The Late Antiquity period generally refers to 2nd-8th centuries.
> 
> The problem is you're blending religion with ethnicity in order to make a justification for who is there first.
> 
> Islam and Judaism are religions.
> Palestinians and Jews are ethnic identities.
> *
> The better questions would be:*
> Which religion predates which in Palestine?  Judaism.
> Which people predates which in Palestine?  Unknown.
> 
> The reason it's unknown is there's been a constant transition of people throughout that area.  People coming in or coming through spread their religion in the process.  People who are indiginous adopt it or reject it or create a hybrid.
> 
> Prior to that the 7th century....there were the people who eventually became Muslim.  They didn't just spring up from whole cloth out of nowhere and the Jews weren't the sole ancient inhabitants.
> 
> *It's why I think this sort of argument serves only one purpose: an attempt by one side or the other to delegitimize the existance of the other as a people by claiming either the Palestinians are an invented people or the Jews are invading Europeans.*
> 
> You say:
> _It is alleged by the Palestinians who duly elected Hamas to lead them & represent their wishes that Israel is stealing, or occupying "their land._
> 
> I've also heard:
> _The Palestinians are squatters sitting on Jewish land._
> 
> Who's right and who's wrong?
> 
> Israel IS occupying territory.  It is occupying the West Bank and it still exerts a great deal of control over the Gaza strip.  The West Bank was referred to by the Israeli High Court as "Occupied Territory".
> 
> On the other hand - Israel proper is a recognized state since 1948. Is that land "stolen"?  Complicated history there and it's been pointed out land ownership records and history is complicated and not very clear.  Historically - the Jews did purchase a great deal of land, but also - land was confiscated when Palestinians were driven out of or chose to flee their villages.
> 
> So who stole who's land?  Antiquity is irrelevant. The question itself goes nowhere.  The intent of the question is clear - disenfranchise one or the other and take the whole pie.  People need to sit down and negotiate.  Israel is not up for grabs - however the West Bank to include enough enough territory to form a viable Palestinian state should be on the table.
Click to expand...


Indigenous?  Half are of egyptian decent.  Unless they had a medical waver to go to an Israeli hospital, None younger than 66 were born in Israel.
Egypt controlled gaza for years.  Palestinians were treated little better than animals.  Except for roads to move military vehicles Egypt made no improvements in gaza. 

Israel built airport, started a deep water port, invested in building hotels for tourism and gaming.  Palestinians had well paying construction jobs and also in agriculture.

When gaza was turned over to the palestinians homes and green houses were trashed.  Parks and entertainment was closed down, some hotels fell into disuse.  Attacks on Israel brought the bombing of the runway.  The deep water port for tourist ships was left unfinished.
Palestinians in gaza built smuggling tunnels when a blockade was implemented to prevent weapons shipments from reaching gaza.  Fishing limits prevented the boats going out far enough to reach the ships in deep water.  Entry into Israel was limited to prevent suicide bombers or other attacks.
Rhetoric by hamas increased and rockets continued.  Israel retaliated.
Hamas might have chosen peace with both the WB and Israel but instead repeated their call for the death of all in Israel and refusing their right to exist.
Even now there is a tenuous cooperation with the WB, because hamas is out of money and needs help to restore services and to rebuild ( their tunnels).  It is not out of a real desire to merge onto the road to peace.  Cooperation with the PA will in their hope become a legitimate party in the WB.  PLO considers them a terrorist group.  They were never part of the PLO.
As the PA seeks peace, hamas is still calling for riots, kidnapping, killings and the destruction of Israel.  They praised the killing of a baby in jerusalem rundown with a car by a hamas member.  They praised the kidnapping and killing of teens, by hamas members.
Riots in Jerusalem and on the mount have been orchestrated by hamas and propaganda lies are spreading like wildfire, but have been proven untrue by Israelis.  Despite the facts, the lies are still going round like a carrousel and inciting violence.

Like my back, the situation is "a mess".  What should be attended to first without making it worse someplace else.
Lift the embargo and hamas will import weapons.  Open the crossing to more human traffic and there will be more attacks on Israelis.  Allow more building supplies and there will be more tunnels and little if anything for the people for housing.  Talks can go now were without a complete surrenders and exit by Israelis to the hamas terrorism.

Unless hamas is serious about peace and both lays down arms and talks to the people to accept peace, there can be little progress.  Israel will not sacrifice it's security.  I hamas does not cooperate with the PA the purse string will be closed.

Egypt has suffered attacks and is still searching for and destroying tunnels into their country.  Egypt, the PA, Israel have all suffered because of hamas violence and hate rhetoric that incites others to violence.

There can be no recognition of palestine if there is not unity government and honest negotiations towards peace with Israel.  Making a few brief small motions on the part of hamas is not enough for others to trust them and work together to help gazans.


----------



## MJB12741

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are people.  Human beings. Men and women and children.
> 
> Who would have thought it would be this difficult a question to answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is alleged by the Palestinians who duly elected Hamas to lead them & represent their wishes that Israel is stealing, or occupying "their land." Therefore it is important to ask the question ---  who are the Palestinians?  Were there any indigenous Muslim Palestinians in the land since antiquity as there were Jews, or Hebrews if you prefer?  If not, one should ask just who is stealing who's land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, easy answers
> *Who are the Palestinians?*  Human beings
> 
> *Were there any indigenous Muslim Palestinians in the land since antiquity?*
> Yes.
> 
> From Wikipedia: History of Palestine from Ancient to Medievil
> 
> _Palestine has been controlled by numerous different peoples, including the Ancient Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, Tjekker, Ancient Israelites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, early Muslims (Umayads, Abbasids, Seljuqs, Fatimids), Crusaders, later Muslims (Ayyubids, Mameluks, Ottomans), the British, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (1948–1967, on the "West Bank") and Egyptian Republic (in Gaza), and modern Israelis and Palestinians_
> 
> The early Muslim presence stems from mid 7th century.  The Late Antiquity period generally refers to 2nd-8th centuries.
> 
> The problem is you're blending religion with ethnicity in order to make a justification for who is there first.
> 
> Islam and Judaism are religions.
> Palestinians and Jews are ethnic identities.
> *
> The better questions would be:*
> Which religion predates which in Palestine?  Judaism.
> Which people predates which in Palestine?  Unknown.
> 
> The reason it's unknown is there's been a constant transition of people throughout that area.  People coming in or coming through spread their religion in the process.  People who are indiginous adopt it or reject it or create a hybrid.
> 
> Prior to that the 7th century....there were the people who eventually became Muslim.  They didn't just spring up from whole cloth out of nowhere and the Jews weren't the sole ancient inhabitants.
> 
> *It's why I think this sort of argument serves only one purpose: an attempt by one side or the other to delegitimize the existance of the other as a people by claiming either the Palestinians are an invented people or the Jews are invading Europeans.*
> 
> You say:
> _It is alleged by the Palestinians who duly elected Hamas to lead them & represent their wishes that Israel is stealing, or occupying "their land._
> 
> I've also heard:
> _The Palestinians are squatters sitting on Jewish land._
> 
> Who's right and who's wrong?
> 
> Israel IS occupying territory.  It is occupying the West Bank and it still exerts a great deal of control over the Gaza strip.  The West Bank was referred to by the Israeli High Court as "Occupied Territory".
> 
> On the other hand - Israel proper is a recognized state since 1948. Is that land "stolen"?  Complicated history there and it's been pointed out land ownership records and history is complicated and not very clear.  Historically - the Jews did purchase a great deal of land, but also - land was confiscated when Palestinians were driven out of or chose to flee their villages.
> 
> So who stole who's land?  Antiquity is irrelevant. The question itself goes nowhere.  The intent of the question is clear - disenfranchise one or the other and take the whole pie.  People need to sit down and negotiate.  Israel is not up for grabs - however the West Bank to include enough enough territory to form a viable Palestinian state should be on the table.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indigenous?  Half are of egyptian decent.  Unless they had a medical waver to go to an Israeli hospital, None younger than 66 were born in Israel.
> Egypt controlled gaza for years.  Palestinians were treated little better than animals.  Except for roads to move military vehicles Egypt made no improvements in gaza.
> 
> Israel built airport, started a deep water port, invested in building hotels for tourism and gaming.  Palestinians had well paying construction jobs and also in agriculture.
> 
> When gaza was turned over to the palestinians homes and green houses were trashed.  Parks and entertainment was closed down, some hotels fell into disuse.  Attacks on Israel brought the bombing of the runway.  The deep water port for tourist ships was left unfinished.
> Palestinians in gaza built smuggling tunnels when a blockade was implemented to prevent weapons shipments from reaching gaza.  Fishing limits prevented the boats going out far enough to reach the ships in deep water.  Entry into Israel was limited to prevent suicide bombers or other attacks.
> Rhetoric by hamas increased and rockets continued.  Israel retaliated.
> Hamas might have chosen peace with both the WB and Israel but instead repeated their call for the death of all in Israel and refusing their right to exist.
> Even now there is a tenuous cooperation with the WB, because hamas is out of money and needs help to restore services and to rebuild ( their tunnels).  It is not out of a real desire to merge onto the road to peace.  Cooperation with the PA will in their hope become a legitimate party in the WB.  PLO considers them a terrorist group.  They were never part of the PLO.
> As the PA seeks peace, hamas is still calling for riots, kidnapping, killings and the destruction of Israel.  They praised the killing of a baby in jerusalem rundown with a car by a hamas member.  They praised the kidnapping and killing of teens, by hamas members.
> Riots in Jerusalem and on the mount have been orchestrated by hamas and propaganda lies are spreading like wildfire, but have been proven untrue by Israelis.  Despite the facts, the lies are still going round like a carrousel and inciting violence.
> 
> Like my back, the situation is "a mess".  What should be attended to first without making it worse someplace else.
> Lift the embargo and hamas will import weapons.  Open the crossing to more human traffic and there will be more attacks on Israelis.  Allow more building supplies and there will be more tunnels and little if anything for the people for housing.  Talks can go now were without a complete surrenders and exit by Israelis to the hamas terrorism.
> 
> Unless hamas is serious about peace and both lays down arms and talks to the people to accept peace, there can be little progress.  Israel will not sacrifice it's security.  I hamas does not cooperate with the PA the purse string will be closed.
> 
> Egypt has suffered attacks and is still searching for and destroying tunnels into their country.  Egypt, the PA, Israel have all suffered because of hamas violence and hate rhetoric that incites others to violence.
> 
> There can be no recognition of palestine if there is not unity government and honest negotiations towards peace with Israel.  Making a few brief small motions on the part of hamas is not enough for others to trust them and work together to help gazans.
Click to expand...



All true.  Everything Israel does for improvement,, the Palestinians trash. Let us see what Tinmore will deny here.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are people.  Human beings. Men and women and children.
> 
> Who would have thought it would be this difficult a question to answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is alleged by the Palestinians who duly elected Hamas to lead them & represent their wishes that Israel is stealing, or occupying "their land." Therefore it is important to ask the question ---  who are the Palestinians?  Were there any indigenous Muslim Palestinians in the land since antiquity as there were Jews, or Hebrews if you prefer?  If not, one should ask just who is stealing who's land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, easy answers
> *Who are the Palestinians?*  Human beings
> 
> *Were there any indigenous Muslim Palestinians in the land since antiquity?*
> Yes.
> 
> From Wikipedia: History of Palestine from Ancient to Medievil
> 
> _Palestine has been controlled by numerous different peoples, including the Ancient Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, Tjekker, Ancient Israelites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, early Muslims (Umayads, Abbasids, Seljuqs, Fatimids), Crusaders, later Muslims (Ayyubids, Mameluks, Ottomans), the British, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (1948–1967, on the "West Bank") and Egyptian Republic (in Gaza), and modern Israelis and Palestinians_
> 
> The early Muslim presence stems from mid 7th century.  The Late Antiquity period generally refers to 2nd-8th centuries.
> 
> The problem is you're blending religion with ethnicity in order to make a justification for who is there first.
> 
> Islam and Judaism are religions.
> Palestinians and Jews are ethnic identities.
> *
> The better questions would be:*
> Which religion predates which in Palestine?  Judaism.
> Which people predates which in Palestine?  Unknown.
> 
> The reason it's unknown is there's been a constant transition of people throughout that area.  People coming in or coming through spread their religion in the process.  People who are indiginous adopt it or reject it or create a hybrid.
> 
> Prior to that the 7th century....there were the people who eventually became Muslim.  They didn't just spring up from whole cloth out of nowhere and the Jews weren't the sole ancient inhabitants.
> 
> *It's why I think this sort of argument serves only one purpose: an attempt by one side or the other to delegitimize the existance of the other as a people by claiming either the Palestinians are an invented people or the Jews are invading Europeans.*
> 
> You say:
> _It is alleged by the Palestinians who duly elected Hamas to lead them & represent their wishes that Israel is stealing, or occupying "their land._
> 
> I've also heard:
> _The Palestinians are squatters sitting on Jewish land._
> 
> Who's right and who's wrong?
> 
> Israel IS occupying territory.  It is occupying the West Bank and it still exerts a great deal of control over the Gaza strip.  The West Bank was referred to by the Israeli High Court as "Occupied Territory".
> 
> On the other hand - Israel proper is a recognized state since 1948. Is that land "stolen"?  Complicated history there and it's been pointed out land ownership records and history is complicated and not very clear.  Historically - the Jews did purchase a great deal of land, but also - land was confiscated when Palestinians were driven out of or chose to flee their villages.
> 
> So who stole who's land?  Antiquity is irrelevant. The question itself goes nowhere.  The intent of the question is clear - disenfranchise one or the other and take the whole pie.  People need to sit down and negotiate.  Israel is not up for grabs - however the West Bank to include enough enough territory to form a viable Palestinian state should be on the table.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indigenous?  Half are of egyptian decent.  Unless they had a medical waver to go to an Israeli hospital, None younger than 66 were born in Israel.
> Egypt controlled gaza for years.  Palestinians were treated little better than animals.  Except for roads to move military vehicles Egypt made no improvements in gaza.
> 
> Israel built airport, started a deep water port, invested in building hotels for tourism and gaming.  Palestinians had well paying construction jobs and also in agriculture.
> 
> When gaza was turned over to the palestinians homes and green houses were trashed.  Parks and entertainment was closed down, some hotels fell into disuse.  Attacks on Israel brought the bombing of the runway.  The deep water port for tourist ships was left unfinished.
> Palestinians in gaza built smuggling tunnels when a blockade was implemented to prevent weapons shipments from reaching gaza.  Fishing limits prevented the boats going out far enough to reach the ships in deep water.  Entry into Israel was limited to prevent suicide bombers or other attacks.
> Rhetoric by hamas increased and rockets continued.  Israel retaliated.
> Hamas might have chosen peace with both the WB and Israel but instead repeated their call for the death of all in Israel and refusing their right to exist.
> Even now there is a tenuous cooperation with the WB, because hamas is out of money and needs help to restore services and to rebuild ( their tunnels).  It is not out of a real desire to merge onto the road to peace.  Cooperation with the PA will in their hope become a legitimate party in the WB.  PLO considers them a terrorist group.  They were never part of the PLO.
> As the PA seeks peace, hamas is still calling for riots, kidnapping, killings and the destruction of Israel.  They praised the killing of a baby in jerusalem rundown with a car by a hamas member.  They praised the kidnapping and killing of teens, by hamas members.
> Riots in Jerusalem and on the mount have been orchestrated by hamas and propaganda lies are spreading like wildfire, but have been proven untrue by Israelis.  Despite the facts, the lies are still going round like a carrousel and inciting violence.
> 
> Like my back, the situation is "a mess".  What should be attended to first without making it worse someplace else.
> Lift the embargo and hamas will import weapons.  Open the crossing to more human traffic and there will be more attacks on Israelis.  Allow more building supplies and there will be more tunnels and little if anything for the people for housing.  Talks can go now were without a complete surrenders and exit by Israelis to the hamas terrorism.
> 
> Unless hamas is serious about peace and both lays down arms and talks to the people to accept peace, there can be little progress.  Israel will not sacrifice it's security.  I hamas does not cooperate with the PA the purse string will be closed.
> 
> Egypt has suffered attacks and is still searching for and destroying tunnels into their country.  Egypt, the PA, Israel have all suffered because of hamas violence and hate rhetoric that incites others to violence.
> 
> There can be no recognition of palestine if there is not unity government and honest negotiations towards peace with Israel.  Making a few brief small motions on the part of hamas is not enough for others to trust them and work together to help gazans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All true.  Everything Israel does for improvement,, the Palestinians trash. Let us see what Tinmore will deny here.
Click to expand...

You have that backwards. It is Israel that bombs or bulldozes everything Palestinian.

Palestinians build. Israel destroys.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are people.  Human beings. Men and women and children.
> 
> Who would have thought it would be this difficult a question to answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is alleged by the Palestinians who duly elected Hamas to lead them & represent their wishes that Israel is stealing, or occupying "their land." Therefore it is important to ask the question ---  who are the Palestinians?  Were there any indigenous Muslim Palestinians in the land since antiquity as there were Jews, or Hebrews if you prefer?  If not, one should ask just who is stealing who's land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, easy answers
> *Who are the Palestinians?*  Human beings
> 
> *Were there any indigenous Muslim Palestinians in the land since antiquity?*
> Yes.
> 
> From Wikipedia: History of Palestine from Ancient to Medievil
> 
> _Palestine has been controlled by numerous different peoples, including the Ancient Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, Tjekker, Ancient Israelites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, early Muslims (Umayads, Abbasids, Seljuqs, Fatimids), Crusaders, later Muslims (Ayyubids, Mameluks, Ottomans), the British, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (1948–1967, on the "West Bank") and Egyptian Republic (in Gaza), and modern Israelis and Palestinians_
> 
> The early Muslim presence stems from mid 7th century.  The Late Antiquity period generally refers to 2nd-8th centuries.
> 
> The problem is you're blending religion with ethnicity in order to make a justification for who is there first.
> 
> Islam and Judaism are religions.
> Palestinians and Jews are ethnic identities.
> *
> The better questions would be:*
> Which religion predates which in Palestine?  Judaism.
> Which people predates which in Palestine?  Unknown.
> 
> The reason it's unknown is there's been a constant transition of people throughout that area.  People coming in or coming through spread their religion in the process.  People who are indiginous adopt it or reject it or create a hybrid.
> 
> Prior to that the 7th century....there were the people who eventually became Muslim.  They didn't just spring up from whole cloth out of nowhere and the Jews weren't the sole ancient inhabitants.
> 
> *It's why I think this sort of argument serves only one purpose: an attempt by one side or the other to delegitimize the existance of the other as a people by claiming either the Palestinians are an invented people or the Jews are invading Europeans.*
> 
> You say:
> _It is alleged by the Palestinians who duly elected Hamas to lead them & represent their wishes that Israel is stealing, or occupying "their land._
> 
> I've also heard:
> _The Palestinians are squatters sitting on Jewish land._
> 
> Who's right and who's wrong?
> 
> Israel IS occupying territory.  It is occupying the West Bank and it still exerts a great deal of control over the Gaza strip.  The West Bank was referred to by the Israeli High Court as "Occupied Territory".
> 
> On the other hand - Israel proper is a recognized state since 1948. Is that land "stolen"?  Complicated history there and it's been pointed out land ownership records and history is complicated and not very clear.  Historically - the Jews did purchase a great deal of land, but also - land was confiscated when Palestinians were driven out of or chose to flee their villages.
> 
> So who stole who's land?  Antiquity is irrelevant. The question itself goes nowhere.  The intent of the question is clear - disenfranchise one or the other and take the whole pie.  People need to sit down and negotiate.  Israel is not up for grabs - however the West Bank to include enough enough territory to form a viable Palestinian state should be on the table.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indigenous?  Half are of egyptian decent.  Unless they had a medical waver to go to an Israeli hospital, None younger than 66 were born in Israel.
> Egypt controlled gaza for years.  Palestinians were treated little better than animals.  Except for roads to move military vehicles Egypt made no improvements in gaza.
> 
> Israel built airport, started a deep water port, invested in building hotels for tourism and gaming.  Palestinians had well paying construction jobs and also in agriculture.
> 
> When gaza was turned over to the palestinians homes and green houses were trashed.  Parks and entertainment was closed down, some hotels fell into disuse.  Attacks on Israel brought the bombing of the runway.  The deep water port for tourist ships was left unfinished.
> Palestinians in gaza built smuggling tunnels when a blockade was implemented to prevent weapons shipments from reaching gaza.  Fishing limits prevented the boats going out far enough to reach the ships in deep water.  Entry into Israel was limited to prevent suicide bombers or other attacks.
> Rhetoric by hamas increased and rockets continued.  Israel retaliated.
> Hamas might have chosen peace with both the WB and Israel but instead repeated their call for the death of all in Israel and refusing their right to exist.
> Even now there is a tenuous cooperation with the WB, because hamas is out of money and needs help to restore services and to rebuild ( their tunnels).  It is not out of a real desire to merge onto the road to peace.  Cooperation with the PA will in their hope become a legitimate party in the WB.  PLO considers them a terrorist group.  They were never part of the PLO.
> As the PA seeks peace, hamas is still calling for riots, kidnapping, killings and the destruction of Israel.  They praised the killing of a baby in jerusalem rundown with a car by a hamas member.  They praised the kidnapping and killing of teens, by hamas members.
> Riots in Jerusalem and on the mount have been orchestrated by hamas and propaganda lies are spreading like wildfire, but have been proven untrue by Israelis.  Despite the facts, the lies are still going round like a carrousel and inciting violence.
> 
> Like my back, the situation is "a mess".  What should be attended to first without making it worse someplace else.
> Lift the embargo and hamas will import weapons.  Open the crossing to more human traffic and there will be more attacks on Israelis.  Allow more building supplies and there will be more tunnels and little if anything for the people for housing.  Talks can go now were without a complete surrenders and exit by Israelis to the hamas terrorism.
> 
> Unless hamas is serious about peace and both lays down arms and talks to the people to accept peace, there can be little progress.  Israel will not sacrifice it's security.  I hamas does not cooperate with the PA the purse string will be closed.
> 
> Egypt has suffered attacks and is still searching for and destroying tunnels into their country.  Egypt, the PA, Israel have all suffered because of hamas violence and hate rhetoric that incites others to violence.
> 
> There can be no recognition of palestine if there is not unity government and honest negotiations towards peace with Israel.  Making a few brief small motions on the part of hamas is not enough for others to trust them and work together to help gazans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All true.  Everything Israel does for improvement,, the Palestinians trash. Let us see what Tinmore will deny here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have that backwards. It is Israel that bombs or bulldozes everything Palestinian.
> 
> Palestinians build. Israel destroys.
Click to expand...

You smokin' dried toadstools again, tinny?


----------



## Coyote

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are people.  Human beings. Men and women and children.
> 
> Who would have thought it would be this difficult a question to answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is alleged by the Palestinians who duly elected Hamas to lead them & represent their wishes that Israel is stealing, or occupying "their land." Therefore it is important to ask the question ---  who are the Palestinians?  Were there any indigenous Muslim Palestinians in the land since antiquity as there were Jews, or Hebrews if you prefer?  If not, one should ask just who is stealing who's land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, easy answers
> *Who are the Palestinians?*  Human beings
> 
> *Were there any indigenous Muslim Palestinians in the land since antiquity?*
> Yes.
> 
> From Wikipedia: History of Palestine from Ancient to Medievil
> 
> _Palestine has been controlled by numerous different peoples, including the Ancient Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, Tjekker, Ancient Israelites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, early Muslims (Umayads, Abbasids, Seljuqs, Fatimids), Crusaders, later Muslims (Ayyubids, Mameluks, Ottomans), the British, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (1948–1967, on the "West Bank") and Egyptian Republic (in Gaza), and modern Israelis and Palestinians_
> 
> The early Muslim presence stems from mid 7th century.  The Late Antiquity period generally refers to 2nd-8th centuries.
> 
> The problem is you're blending religion with ethnicity in order to make a justification for who is there first.
> 
> Islam and Judaism are religions.
> Palestinians and Jews are ethnic identities.
> *
> The better questions would be:*
> Which religion predates which in Palestine?  Judaism.
> Which people predates which in Palestine?  Unknown.
> 
> The reason it's unknown is there's been a constant transition of people throughout that area.  People coming in or coming through spread their religion in the process.  People who are indiginous adopt it or reject it or create a hybrid.
> 
> Prior to that the 7th century....there were the people who eventually became Muslim.  They didn't just spring up from whole cloth out of nowhere and the Jews weren't the sole ancient inhabitants.
> 
> *It's why I think this sort of argument serves only one purpose: an attempt by one side or the other to delegitimize the existance of the other as a people by claiming either the Palestinians are an invented people or the Jews are invading Europeans.*
> 
> You say:
> _It is alleged by the Palestinians who duly elected Hamas to lead them & represent their wishes that Israel is stealing, or occupying "their land._
> 
> I've also heard:
> _The Palestinians are squatters sitting on Jewish land._
> 
> Who's right and who's wrong?
> 
> Israel IS occupying territory.  It is occupying the West Bank and it still exerts a great deal of control over the Gaza strip.  The West Bank was referred to by the Israeli High Court as "Occupied Territory".
> 
> On the other hand - Israel proper is a recognized state since 1948. Is that land "stolen"?  Complicated history there and it's been pointed out land ownership records and history is complicated and not very clear.  Historically - the Jews did purchase a great deal of land, but also - land was confiscated when Palestinians were driven out of or chose to flee their villages.
> 
> So who stole who's land?  Antiquity is irrelevant. The question itself goes nowhere.  The intent of the question is clear - disenfranchise one or the other and take the whole pie.  People need to sit down and negotiate.  Israel is not up for grabs - however the West Bank to include enough enough territory to form a viable Palestinian state should be on the table.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indigenous?  Half are of egyptian decent.  Unless they had a medical waver to go to an Israeli hospital, None younger than 66 were born in Israel.
> Egypt controlled gaza for years.  Palestinians were treated little better than animals.  Except for roads to move military vehicles Egypt made no improvements in gaza.
> 
> Israel built airport, started a deep water port, invested in building hotels for tourism and gaming.  Palestinians had well paying construction jobs and also in agriculture.
> 
> When gaza was turned over to the palestinians homes and green houses were trashed.  Parks and entertainment was closed down, some hotels fell into disuse.  Attacks on Israel brought the bombing of the runway.  The deep water port for tourist ships was left unfinished.
> Palestinians in gaza built smuggling tunnels when a blockade was implemented to prevent weapons shipments from reaching gaza.  Fishing limits prevented the boats going out far enough to reach the ships in deep water.  Entry into Israel was limited to prevent suicide bombers or other attacks.
> Rhetoric by hamas increased and rockets continued.  Israel retaliated.
> Hamas might have chosen peace with both the WB and Israel but instead repeated their call for the death of all in Israel and refusing their right to exist.
> Even now there is a tenuous cooperation with the WB, because hamas is out of money and needs help to restore services and to rebuild ( their tunnels).  It is not out of a real desire to merge onto the road to peace.  Cooperation with the PA will in their hope become a legitimate party in the WB.  PLO considers them a terrorist group.  They were never part of the PLO.
> As the PA seeks peace, hamas is still calling for riots, kidnapping, killings and the destruction of Israel.  They praised the killing of a baby in jerusalem rundown with a car by a hamas member.  They praised the kidnapping and killing of teens, by hamas members.
> Riots in Jerusalem and on the mount have been orchestrated by hamas and propaganda lies are spreading like wildfire, but have been proven untrue by Israelis.  Despite the facts, the lies are still going round like a carrousel and inciting violence.
> 
> Like my back, the situation is "a mess".  What should be attended to first without making it worse someplace else.
> Lift the embargo and hamas will import weapons.  Open the crossing to more human traffic and there will be more attacks on Israelis.  Allow more building supplies and there will be more tunnels and little if anything for the people for housing.  Talks can go now were without a complete surrenders and exit by Israelis to the hamas terrorism.
> 
> Unless hamas is serious about peace and both lays down arms and talks to the people to accept peace, there can be little progress.  Israel will not sacrifice it's security.  I hamas does not cooperate with the PA the purse string will be closed.
> 
> Egypt has suffered attacks and is still searching for and destroying tunnels into their country.  Egypt, the PA, Israel have all suffered because of hamas violence and hate rhetoric that incites others to violence.
> 
> There can be no recognition of palestine if there is not unity government and honest negotiations towards peace with Israel.  Making a few brief small motions on the part of hamas is not enough for others to trust them and work together to help gazans.
Click to expand...


Ok...Aris...but what does that have to do with what I said? 

One can argue with equal validity that many of the Jews are not "indiginous" - they are the result of immigration from outside Israel and mostly European descent.  So..what is your point?  The rest of what you'r saying - what does it have to do with what I said?


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are people.  Human beings. Men and women and children.
> 
> Who would have thought it would be this difficult a question to answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is alleged by the Palestinians who duly elected Hamas to lead them & represent their wishes that Israel is stealing, or occupying "their land." Therefore it is important to ask the question ---  who are the Palestinians?  Were there any indigenous Muslim Palestinians in the land since antiquity as there were Jews, or Hebrews if you prefer?  If not, one should ask just who is stealing who's land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, easy answers
> *Who are the Palestinians?*  Human beings
> 
> *Were there any indigenous Muslim Palestinians in the land since antiquity?*
> Yes.
> 
> From Wikipedia: History of Palestine from Ancient to Medievil
> 
> _Palestine has been controlled by numerous different peoples, including the Ancient Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, Tjekker, Ancient Israelites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, early Muslims (Umayads, Abbasids, Seljuqs, Fatimids), Crusaders, later Muslims (Ayyubids, Mameluks, Ottomans), the British, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (1948–1967, on the "West Bank") and Egyptian Republic (in Gaza), and modern Israelis and Palestinians_
> 
> The early Muslim presence stems from mid 7th century.  The Late Antiquity period generally refers to 2nd-8th centuries.
> 
> The problem is you're blending religion with ethnicity in order to make a justification for who is there first.
> 
> Islam and Judaism are religions.
> Palestinians and Jews are ethnic identities.
> *
> The better questions would be:*
> Which religion predates which in Palestine?  Judaism.
> Which people predates which in Palestine?  Unknown.
> 
> The reason it's unknown is there's been a constant transition of people throughout that area.  People coming in or coming through spread their religion in the process.  People who are indiginous adopt it or reject it or create a hybrid.
> 
> Prior to that the 7th century....there were the people who eventually became Muslim.  They didn't just spring up from whole cloth out of nowhere and the Jews weren't the sole ancient inhabitants.
> 
> *It's why I think this sort of argument serves only one purpose: an attempt by one side or the other to delegitimize the existance of the other as a people by claiming either the Palestinians are an invented people or the Jews are invading Europeans.*
> 
> You say:
> _It is alleged by the Palestinians who duly elected Hamas to lead them & represent their wishes that Israel is stealing, or occupying "their land._
> 
> I've also heard:
> _The Palestinians are squatters sitting on Jewish land._
> 
> Who's right and who's wrong?
> 
> Israel IS occupying territory.  It is occupying the West Bank and it still exerts a great deal of control over the Gaza strip.  The West Bank was referred to by the Israeli High Court as "Occupied Territory".
> 
> On the other hand - Israel proper is a recognized state since 1948. Is that land "stolen"?  Complicated history there and it's been pointed out land ownership records and history is complicated and not very clear.  Historically - the Jews did purchase a great deal of land, but also - land was confiscated when Palestinians were driven out of or chose to flee their villages.
> 
> So who stole who's land?  Antiquity is irrelevant. The question itself goes nowhere.  The intent of the question is clear - disenfranchise one or the other and take the whole pie.  People need to sit down and negotiate.  Israel is not up for grabs - however the West Bank to include enough enough territory to form a viable Palestinian state should be on the table.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indigenous?  Half are of egyptian decent.  Unless they had a medical waver to go to an Israeli hospital, None younger than 66 were born in Israel.
> Egypt controlled gaza for years.  Palestinians were treated little better than animals.  Except for roads to move military vehicles Egypt made no improvements in gaza.
> 
> Israel built airport, started a deep water port, invested in building hotels for tourism and gaming.  Palestinians had well paying construction jobs and also in agriculture.
> 
> When gaza was turned over to the palestinians homes and green houses were trashed.  Parks and entertainment was closed down, some hotels fell into disuse.  Attacks on Israel brought the bombing of the runway.  The deep water port for tourist ships was left unfinished.
> Palestinians in gaza built smuggling tunnels when a blockade was implemented to prevent weapons shipments from reaching gaza.  Fishing limits prevented the boats going out far enough to reach the ships in deep water.  Entry into Israel was limited to prevent suicide bombers or other attacks.
> Rhetoric by hamas increased and rockets continued.  Israel retaliated.
> Hamas might have chosen peace with both the WB and Israel but instead repeated their call for the death of all in Israel and refusing their right to exist.
> Even now there is a tenuous cooperation with the WB, because hamas is out of money and needs help to restore services and to rebuild ( their tunnels).  It is not out of a real desire to merge onto the road to peace.  Cooperation with the PA will in their hope become a legitimate party in the WB.  PLO considers them a terrorist group.  They were never part of the PLO.
> As the PA seeks peace, hamas is still calling for riots, kidnapping, killings and the destruction of Israel.  They praised the killing of a baby in jerusalem rundown with a car by a hamas member.  They praised the kidnapping and killing of teens, by hamas members.
> Riots in Jerusalem and on the mount have been orchestrated by hamas and propaganda lies are spreading like wildfire, but have been proven untrue by Israelis.  Despite the facts, the lies are still going round like a carrousel and inciting violence.
> 
> Like my back, the situation is "a mess".  What should be attended to first without making it worse someplace else.
> Lift the embargo and hamas will import weapons.  Open the crossing to more human traffic and there will be more attacks on Israelis.  Allow more building supplies and there will be more tunnels and little if anything for the people for housing.  Talks can go now were without a complete surrenders and exit by Israelis to the hamas terrorism.
> 
> Unless hamas is serious about peace and both lays down arms and talks to the people to accept peace, there can be little progress.  Israel will not sacrifice it's security.  I hamas does not cooperate with the PA the purse string will be closed.
> 
> Egypt has suffered attacks and is still searching for and destroying tunnels into their country.  Egypt, the PA, Israel have all suffered because of hamas violence and hate rhetoric that incites others to violence.
> 
> There can be no recognition of palestine if there is not unity government and honest negotiations towards peace with Israel.  Making a few brief small motions on the part of hamas is not enough for others to trust them and work together to help gazans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok...Aris...but what does that have to do with what I said?
> 
> One can argue with equal validity that many of the Jews are not "indiginous" - they are the result of immigration from outside Israel and mostly European descent.  So..what is your point?  The rest of what you'r saying - what does it have to do with what I said?
Click to expand...


Americans can be born outside of the country, I was.  There was never a question that I was american, though it was only half my story.  I don't have olive skin and dark hair.  I don't dress in arab modesty garb.  I've never behaved as most of my cousins, except perhaps some of the boys.  Arabic was not even the first or second language in the house.  Most of my early arabic was from kids in my neighborhood that I played with or later babysat and tutored.  I was never confined to the small table or other room when the family got together or when we went to the home of other people.  I was not told to sit quiet in the corner or confined to the kitchen to help with the food trays.  Unless my father's name was mentioned no one would know I was anything but an american.  I grew up with few restrictions.
I from three nations, none of which I was born in.
Jews have always had a sense of being from the holy land.  Generations and centuries apart, they still felt connected to their heritage.  They still identified with the jews of ancient Israel and with the jews of the middle east.

An american indian is still a member of the tribe even if they were not born, raise or ever been there, or how many times removed.  They still have the privileges of being a native american.  My maternal grandmother was half native american, which means I am as well

My birth certificate is from europe so I could claim nationality from that country if I so wanted.  I would not give up my american passport though.

I understand the jews feeling they are from Israel.  It make sense to me, but then I have a great mix of origins in my bloodline, even a bit of palestinian.  You don't always have to have lived in a place to feel connected to it.  Jews are connected as a people, by religion and a long history that is a large part of their upbringing.


----------



## Coyote

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are people.  Human beings. Men and women and children.
> 
> Who would have thought it would be this difficult a question to answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is alleged by the Palestinians who duly elected Hamas to lead them & represent their wishes that Israel is stealing, or occupying "their land." Therefore it is important to ask the question ---  who are the Palestinians?  Were there any indigenous Muslim Palestinians in the land since antiquity as there were Jews, or Hebrews if you prefer?  If not, one should ask just who is stealing who's land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, easy answers
> *Who are the Palestinians?*  Human beings
> 
> *Were there any indigenous Muslim Palestinians in the land since antiquity?*
> Yes.
> 
> From Wikipedia: History of Palestine from Ancient to Medievil
> 
> _Palestine has been controlled by numerous different peoples, including the Ancient Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, Tjekker, Ancient Israelites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, early Muslims (Umayads, Abbasids, Seljuqs, Fatimids), Crusaders, later Muslims (Ayyubids, Mameluks, Ottomans), the British, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (1948–1967, on the "West Bank") and Egyptian Republic (in Gaza), and modern Israelis and Palestinians_
> 
> The early Muslim presence stems from mid 7th century.  The Late Antiquity period generally refers to 2nd-8th centuries.
> 
> The problem is you're blending religion with ethnicity in order to make a justification for who is there first.
> 
> Islam and Judaism are religions.
> Palestinians and Jews are ethnic identities.
> *
> The better questions would be:*
> Which religion predates which in Palestine?  Judaism.
> Which people predates which in Palestine?  Unknown.
> 
> The reason it's unknown is there's been a constant transition of people throughout that area.  People coming in or coming through spread their religion in the process.  People who are indiginous adopt it or reject it or create a hybrid.
> 
> Prior to that the 7th century....there were the people who eventually became Muslim.  They didn't just spring up from whole cloth out of nowhere and the Jews weren't the sole ancient inhabitants.
> 
> *It's why I think this sort of argument serves only one purpose: an attempt by one side or the other to delegitimize the existance of the other as a people by claiming either the Palestinians are an invented people or the Jews are invading Europeans.*
> 
> You say:
> _It is alleged by the Palestinians who duly elected Hamas to lead them & represent their wishes that Israel is stealing, or occupying "their land._
> 
> I've also heard:
> _The Palestinians are squatters sitting on Jewish land._
> 
> Who's right and who's wrong?
> 
> Israel IS occupying territory.  It is occupying the West Bank and it still exerts a great deal of control over the Gaza strip.  The West Bank was referred to by the Israeli High Court as "Occupied Territory".
> 
> On the other hand - Israel proper is a recognized state since 1948. Is that land "stolen"?  Complicated history there and it's been pointed out land ownership records and history is complicated and not very clear.  Historically - the Jews did purchase a great deal of land, but also - land was confiscated when Palestinians were driven out of or chose to flee their villages.
> 
> So who stole who's land?  Antiquity is irrelevant. The question itself goes nowhere.  The intent of the question is clear - disenfranchise one or the other and take the whole pie.  People need to sit down and negotiate.  Israel is not up for grabs - however the West Bank to include enough enough territory to form a viable Palestinian state should be on the table.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indigenous?  Half are of egyptian decent.  Unless they had a medical waver to go to an Israeli hospital, None younger than 66 were born in Israel.
> Egypt controlled gaza for years.  Palestinians were treated little better than animals.  Except for roads to move military vehicles Egypt made no improvements in gaza.
> 
> Israel built airport, started a deep water port, invested in building hotels for tourism and gaming.  Palestinians had well paying construction jobs and also in agriculture.
> 
> When gaza was turned over to the palestinians homes and green houses were trashed.  Parks and entertainment was closed down, some hotels fell into disuse.  Attacks on Israel brought the bombing of the runway.  The deep water port for tourist ships was left unfinished.
> Palestinians in gaza built smuggling tunnels when a blockade was implemented to prevent weapons shipments from reaching gaza.  Fishing limits prevented the boats going out far enough to reach the ships in deep water.  Entry into Israel was limited to prevent suicide bombers or other attacks.
> Rhetoric by hamas increased and rockets continued.  Israel retaliated.
> Hamas might have chosen peace with both the WB and Israel but instead repeated their call for the death of all in Israel and refusing their right to exist.
> Even now there is a tenuous cooperation with the WB, because hamas is out of money and needs help to restore services and to rebuild ( their tunnels).  It is not out of a real desire to merge onto the road to peace.  Cooperation with the PA will in their hope become a legitimate party in the WB.  PLO considers them a terrorist group.  They were never part of the PLO.
> As the PA seeks peace, hamas is still calling for riots, kidnapping, killings and the destruction of Israel.  They praised the killing of a baby in jerusalem rundown with a car by a hamas member.  They praised the kidnapping and killing of teens, by hamas members.
> Riots in Jerusalem and on the mount have been orchestrated by hamas and propaganda lies are spreading like wildfire, but have been proven untrue by Israelis.  Despite the facts, the lies are still going round like a carrousel and inciting violence.
> 
> Like my back, the situation is "a mess".  What should be attended to first without making it worse someplace else.
> Lift the embargo and hamas will import weapons.  Open the crossing to more human traffic and there will be more attacks on Israelis.  Allow more building supplies and there will be more tunnels and little if anything for the people for housing.  Talks can go now were without a complete surrenders and exit by Israelis to the hamas terrorism.
> 
> Unless hamas is serious about peace and both lays down arms and talks to the people to accept peace, there can be little progress.  Israel will not sacrifice it's security.  I hamas does not cooperate with the PA the purse string will be closed.
> 
> Egypt has suffered attacks and is still searching for and destroying tunnels into their country.  Egypt, the PA, Israel have all suffered because of hamas violence and hate rhetoric that incites others to violence.
> 
> There can be no recognition of palestine if there is not unity government and honest negotiations towards peace with Israel.  Making a few brief small motions on the part of hamas is not enough for others to trust them and work together to help gazans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok...Aris...but what does that have to do with what I said?
> 
> One can argue with equal validity that many of the Jews are not "indiginous" - they are the result of immigration from outside Israel and mostly European descent.  So..what is your point?  The rest of what you'r saying - what does it have to do with what I said?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Americans can be born outside of the country, I was.  There was never a question that I was american, though it was only half my story.  I don't have olive skin and dark hair.  I don't dress in arab modesty garb.  I've never behaved as most of my cousins, except perhaps some of the boys.  Arabic was not even the first or second language in the house.  Most of my early arabic was from kids in my neighborhood that I played with or later babysat and tutored.  I was never confined to the small table or other room when the family got together or when we went to the home of other people.  I was not told to sit quiet in the corner or confined to the kitchen to help with the food trays.  Unless my father's name was mentioned no one would know I was anything but an american.  I grew up with few restrictions.
> I from three nations, none of which I was born in.
> Jews have always had a sense of being from the holy land.  Generations and centuries apart, they still felt connected to their heritage.  They still identified with the jews of ancient Israel and with the jews of the middle east.
> 
> An american indian is still a member of the tribe even if they were not born, raise or ever been there, or how many times removed.  They still have the privileges of being a native american.  My maternal grandmother was half native american, which means I am as well
> 
> My birth certificate is from europe so I could claim nationality from that country if I so wanted.  I would not give up my american passport though.
> 
> I understand the jews feeling they are from Israel.  It make sense to me, but then I have a great mix of origins in my bloodline, even a bit of palestinian.  You don't always have to have lived in a place to feel connected to it.  Jews are connected as a people, by religion and a long history that is a large part of their upbringing.
Click to expand...


I can understand that.  People are connected to places.  That's why you can't simply move people around like human pawns and relocate them on a whim.  Surely the Palestinians feel a connection to the land they came from as well and have lived on for generations.  Why is their connection denied?


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is alleged by the Palestinians who duly elected Hamas to lead them & represent their wishes that Israel is stealing, or occupying "their land." Therefore it is important to ask the question ---  who are the Palestinians?  Were there any indigenous Muslim Palestinians in the land since antiquity as there were Jews, or Hebrews if you prefer?  If not, one should ask just who is stealing who's land?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, easy answers
> *Who are the Palestinians?*  Human beings
> 
> *Were there any indigenous Muslim Palestinians in the land since antiquity?*
> Yes.
> 
> From Wikipedia: History of Palestine from Ancient to Medievil
> 
> _Palestine has been controlled by numerous different peoples, including the Ancient Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, Tjekker, Ancient Israelites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, early Muslims (Umayads, Abbasids, Seljuqs, Fatimids), Crusaders, later Muslims (Ayyubids, Mameluks, Ottomans), the British, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (1948–1967, on the "West Bank") and Egyptian Republic (in Gaza), and modern Israelis and Palestinians_
> 
> The early Muslim presence stems from mid 7th century.  The Late Antiquity period generally refers to 2nd-8th centuries.
> 
> The problem is you're blending religion with ethnicity in order to make a justification for who is there first.
> 
> Islam and Judaism are religions.
> Palestinians and Jews are ethnic identities.
> *
> The better questions would be:*
> Which religion predates which in Palestine?  Judaism.
> Which people predates which in Palestine?  Unknown.
> 
> The reason it's unknown is there's been a constant transition of people throughout that area.  People coming in or coming through spread their religion in the process.  People who are indiginous adopt it or reject it or create a hybrid.
> 
> Prior to that the 7th century....there were the people who eventually became Muslim.  They didn't just spring up from whole cloth out of nowhere and the Jews weren't the sole ancient inhabitants.
> 
> *It's why I think this sort of argument serves only one purpose: an attempt by one side or the other to delegitimize the existance of the other as a people by claiming either the Palestinians are an invented people or the Jews are invading Europeans.*
> 
> You say:
> _It is alleged by the Palestinians who duly elected Hamas to lead them & represent their wishes that Israel is stealing, or occupying "their land._
> 
> I've also heard:
> _The Palestinians are squatters sitting on Jewish land._
> 
> Who's right and who's wrong?
> 
> Israel IS occupying territory.  It is occupying the West Bank and it still exerts a great deal of control over the Gaza strip.  The West Bank was referred to by the Israeli High Court as "Occupied Territory".
> 
> On the other hand - Israel proper is a recognized state since 1948. Is that land "stolen"?  Complicated history there and it's been pointed out land ownership records and history is complicated and not very clear.  Historically - the Jews did purchase a great deal of land, but also - land was confiscated when Palestinians were driven out of or chose to flee their villages.
> 
> So who stole who's land?  Antiquity is irrelevant. The question itself goes nowhere.  The intent of the question is clear - disenfranchise one or the other and take the whole pie.  People need to sit down and negotiate.  Israel is not up for grabs - however the West Bank to include enough enough territory to form a viable Palestinian state should be on the table.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indigenous?  Half are of egyptian decent.  Unless they had a medical waver to go to an Israeli hospital, None younger than 66 were born in Israel.
> Egypt controlled gaza for years.  Palestinians were treated little better than animals.  Except for roads to move military vehicles Egypt made no improvements in gaza.
> 
> Israel built airport, started a deep water port, invested in building hotels for tourism and gaming.  Palestinians had well paying construction jobs and also in agriculture.
> 
> When gaza was turned over to the palestinians homes and green houses were trashed.  Parks and entertainment was closed down, some hotels fell into disuse.  Attacks on Israel brought the bombing of the runway.  The deep water port for tourist ships was left unfinished.
> Palestinians in gaza built smuggling tunnels when a blockade was implemented to prevent weapons shipments from reaching gaza.  Fishing limits prevented the boats going out far enough to reach the ships in deep water.  Entry into Israel was limited to prevent suicide bombers or other attacks.
> Rhetoric by hamas increased and rockets continued.  Israel retaliated.
> Hamas might have chosen peace with both the WB and Israel but instead repeated their call for the death of all in Israel and refusing their right to exist.
> Even now there is a tenuous cooperation with the WB, because hamas is out of money and needs help to restore services and to rebuild ( their tunnels).  It is not out of a real desire to merge onto the road to peace.  Cooperation with the PA will in their hope become a legitimate party in the WB.  PLO considers them a terrorist group.  They were never part of the PLO.
> As the PA seeks peace, hamas is still calling for riots, kidnapping, killings and the destruction of Israel.  They praised the killing of a baby in jerusalem rundown with a car by a hamas member.  They praised the kidnapping and killing of teens, by hamas members.
> Riots in Jerusalem and on the mount have been orchestrated by hamas and propaganda lies are spreading like wildfire, but have been proven untrue by Israelis.  Despite the facts, the lies are still going round like a carrousel and inciting violence.
> 
> Like my back, the situation is "a mess".  What should be attended to first without making it worse someplace else.
> Lift the embargo and hamas will import weapons.  Open the crossing to more human traffic and there will be more attacks on Israelis.  Allow more building supplies and there will be more tunnels and little if anything for the people for housing.  Talks can go now were without a complete surrenders and exit by Israelis to the hamas terrorism.
> 
> Unless hamas is serious about peace and both lays down arms and talks to the people to accept peace, there can be little progress.  Israel will not sacrifice it's security.  I hamas does not cooperate with the PA the purse string will be closed.
> 
> Egypt has suffered attacks and is still searching for and destroying tunnels into their country.  Egypt, the PA, Israel have all suffered because of hamas violence and hate rhetoric that incites others to violence.
> 
> There can be no recognition of palestine if there is not unity government and honest negotiations towards peace with Israel.  Making a few brief small motions on the part of hamas is not enough for others to trust them and work together to help gazans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok...Aris...but what does that have to do with what I said?
> 
> One can argue with equal validity that many of the Jews are not "indiginous" - they are the result of immigration from outside Israel and mostly European descent.  So..what is your point?  The rest of what you'r saying - what does it have to do with what I said?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Americans can be born outside of the country, I was.  There was never a question that I was american, though it was only half my story.  I don't have olive skin and dark hair.  I don't dress in arab modesty garb.  I've never behaved as most of my cousins, except perhaps some of the boys.  Arabic was not even the first or second language in the house.  Most of my early arabic was from kids in my neighborhood that I played with or later babysat and tutored.  I was never confined to the small table or other room when the family got together or when we went to the home of other people.  I was not told to sit quiet in the corner or confined to the kitchen to help with the food trays.  Unless my father's name was mentioned no one would know I was anything but an american.  I grew up with few restrictions.
> I from three nations, none of which I was born in.
> Jews have always had a sense of being from the holy land.  Generations and centuries apart, they still felt connected to their heritage.  They still identified with the jews of ancient Israel and with the jews of the middle east.
> 
> An american indian is still a member of the tribe even if they were not born, raise or ever been there, or how many times removed.  They still have the privileges of being a native american.  My maternal grandmother was half native american, which means I am as well
> 
> My birth certificate is from europe so I could claim nationality from that country if I so wanted.  I would not give up my american passport though.
> 
> I understand the jews feeling they are from Israel.  It make sense to me, but then I have a great mix of origins in my bloodline, even a bit of palestinian.  You don't always have to have lived in a place to feel connected to it.  Jews are connected as a people, by religion and a long history that is a large part of their upbringing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can understand that.  People are connected to places.  That's why you can't simply move people around like human pawns and relocate them on a whim.  Surely the Palestinians feel a connection to the land they came from as well and have lived on for generations.  Why is their connection denied?
Click to expand...


If they did not own the land through, the owner can ask them to leave no matter how many generations have lived and worked that land in the past.

Palestinians that could register land often would not.  If someone buys the land and pays the back taxes they have the right to tell the palestinians to move.

Most of the palestinians that left to become refugee did so at arab insistence not Israeli.  Those who engaged in violence and terrorism of Israeli jews were asked to leave and considered traitor to Israel.  Muslims from the the west are having their right of return revoked and entry denied for their actions helping groups like ISIS.

Many could have returned and were prevented by the arabs not the Israelis.  They would have had to be Israel and not maintain a claim to being "palestinian" that seek the extermination of Israel and jews.  About two thousand palestinian refugees were part of family reunification and allowed back to Israel each year.  Most never applied.


----------



## Coyote

aris2chat said:


> If they did not own the land through, the owner can ask them to leave no matter how many generations have lived and worked that land in the past.



In most civilized countries - there is a limitation on that and if a people has lived there long enough without contest - they have rights to that land.   Otherwise - every bit of land ownership could potentially be contested.  How far back do you go and how do you account for changes in national boundaries and rule? 



> Palestinians that could register land often would not.  If someone buys the land and pays the back taxes they have the right to tell the palestinians to move.



Agree, in that case yes.  



> Most of the palestinians that left to become refugee did so at arab insistence not Israeli.  Those who engaged in violence and terrorism of Israeli jews were asked to leave and considered traitor to Israel.



That is not entirely true.  Some Palestinians left at the urgings of Arabs others were driven out by the Israelis irregardless of any engagement in "violence and terrorism".  Entire villages were cleared in a systemic and planned campaign.

Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

_A document produced by the Israeli Defence Forces Intelligence Service entitled "The Emigration of the Arabs of Palestine in the Period 1/12/1947 – 1/6/1948" was dated 30 June 1948 and became widely known around 1985.


The document details 11 factors which caused the exodus, and lists them "in order of importance":

_

_Direct, hostile Jewish [ Haganah/IDF ] operations against Arab settlements._
_The effect of our [Haganah/IDF] hostile operations against nearby [Arab] settlements... (... especially the fall of large neighbouring centers)._
_Operation of [Jewish] dissidents [ Irgun Tzvai Leumi and Lohamei Herut Yisrael]_
_Orders and decrees by Arab institutions and gangs [irregulars]._
_Jewish whispering operations [psychological warfare], aimed at frightening away Arab inhabitants._
_Ultimate expulsion orders [by Jewish forces]_
_Fear of Jewish [retaliatory] response [following] major Arab attack on Jews._
_The appearance of gangs [irregular Arab forces] and non-local fighters in the vicinity of a village._
_Fear of Arab invasion and its consequences [mainly near the borders]._
_Isolated Arab villages in purely [predominantly] Jewish areas._
_Various local factors and general fear of the future.[6]_
_ 
"In the past two decades, following the powerful reverberations (concerning the cause of the Nakba) triggered by the publication of books written by those dubbed the “New Historians,” the Israeli archives revoked access to much of the explosive material. Archived Israeli documents that reported the expulsion of Palestinians, massacres or rapes perpetrated by Israeli soldiers, along with other events considered embarrassing by the establishment, were reclassified as “top secret.”[7]_​







> Muslims from the the west are having their right of return revoked and entry denied for their actions helping groups like ISIS.
> 
> *Many could have returned and were prevented by the arabs not the Israelis.*  They would have had to be Israel and not maintain a claim to being "palestinian" that seek the extermination of Israel and jews.  About two thousand palestinian refugees were part of family reunification and allowed back to Israel each year.  Most never applied.



That too is not entirely true.

Palestinian right of return - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

_During the Palestinian exodus,* Israeli leaders decided against the return of the refugees.* During her visit at Haïfa on May 1, 1948, Golda Meir declared: "The Jews should treat the remaining Arabs 'with civil and human equality', but 'it is not our job to worry about the return [of those who have fled]".[34] A group consisting of "local authorities, the kibbutz movements, the settlement departments of the National institutions, Haganah commanders and influential figures such as Yosef Weitz and Ezra Danin started lobbying against repatriation.[35]* A Transfer Committee and a policy of faits accomplis were set up to prevent a refugee return.[36] In July, it had become an official policy:[37] "Absentees' property" was managed by Israeli government and numerous Palestinian villages were leveled.*


A parallel has been drawn by some commentators between the state and private restitutions made from Germany to Israel over Holocaust thefts and the compensation due to Palestinians evicted in the formation of Israel.[38] Others have compared Palestinians' claims for compensation to the claims of ethnic Germans who were expelled from eastern Europe in the aftermath of the Holocaust and World War II.[39]


_​


----------



## MJB12741

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they did not own the land through, the owner can ask them to leave no matter how many generations have lived and worked that land in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In most civilized countries - there is a limitation on that and if a people has lived there long enough without contest - they have rights to that land.   Otherwise - every bit of land ownership could potentially be contested.  How far back do you go and how do you account for changes in national boundaries and rule?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians that could register land often would not.  If someone buys the land and pays the back taxes they have the right to tell the palestinians to move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree, in that case yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the palestinians that left to become refugee did so at arab insistence not Israeli.  Those who engaged in violence and terrorism of Israeli jews were asked to leave and considered traitor to Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not entirely true.  Some Palestinians left at the urgings of Arabs others were driven out by the Israelis irregardless of any engagement in "violence and terrorism".  Entire villages were cleared in a systemic and planned campaign.
> 
> Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> _A document produced by the Israeli Defence Forces Intelligence Service entitled "The Emigration of the Arabs of Palestine in the Period 1/12/1947 – 1/6/1948" was dated 30 June 1948 and became widely known around 1985.
> 
> 
> The document details 11 factors which caused the exodus, and lists them "in order of importance":
> 
> _
> 
> _Direct, hostile Jewish [ Haganah/IDF ] operations against Arab settlements._
> _The effect of our [Haganah/IDF] hostile operations against nearby [Arab] settlements... (... especially the fall of large neighbouring centers)._
> _Operation of [Jewish] dissidents [ Irgun Tzvai Leumi and Lohamei Herut Yisrael]_
> _Orders and decrees by Arab institutions and gangs [irregulars]._
> _Jewish whispering operations [psychological warfare], aimed at frightening away Arab inhabitants._
> _Ultimate expulsion orders [by Jewish forces]_
> _Fear of Jewish [retaliatory] response [following] major Arab attack on Jews._
> _The appearance of gangs [irregular Arab forces] and non-local fighters in the vicinity of a village._
> _Fear of Arab invasion and its consequences [mainly near the borders]._
> _Isolated Arab villages in purely [predominantly] Jewish areas._
> _Various local factors and general fear of the future.[6]_
> _
> "In the past two decades, following the powerful reverberations (concerning the cause of the Nakba) triggered by the publication of books written by those dubbed the “New Historians,” the Israeli archives revoked access to much of the explosive material. Archived Israeli documents that reported the expulsion of Palestinians, massacres or rapes perpetrated by Israeli soldiers, along with other events considered embarrassing by the establishment, were reclassified as “top secret.”[7]_​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muslims from the the west are having their right of return revoked and entry denied for their actions helping groups like ISIS.
> 
> *Many could have returned and were prevented by the arabs not the Israelis.*  They would have had to be Israel and not maintain a claim to being "palestinian" that seek the extermination of Israel and jews.  About two thousand palestinian refugees were part of family reunification and allowed back to Israel each year.  Most never applied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That too is not entirely true.
> 
> Palestinian right of return - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> _During the Palestinian exodus,* Israeli leaders decided against the return of the refugees.* During her visit at Haïfa on May 1, 1948, Golda Meir declared: "The Jews should treat the remaining Arabs 'with civil and human equality', but 'it is not our job to worry about the return [of those who have fled]".[34] A group consisting of "local authorities, the kibbutz movements, the settlement departments of the National institutions, Haganah commanders and influential figures such as Yosef Weitz and Ezra Danin started lobbying against repatriation.[35]* A Transfer Committee and a policy of faits accomplis were set up to prevent a refugee return.[36] In July, it had become an official policy:[37] "Absentees' property" was managed by Israeli government and numerous Palestinian villages were leveled.*
> 
> 
> A parallel has been drawn by some commentators between the state and private restitutions made from Germany to Israel over Holocaust thefts and the compensation due to Palestinians evicted in the formation of Israel.[38] Others have compared Palestinians' claims for compensation to the claims of ethnic Germans who were expelled from eastern Europe in the aftermath of the Holocaust and World War II.[39]
> 
> 
> _​
Click to expand...



Is it not true that the bottom line is any & all land belongs to whoever rules it at any given point in time?  Consider all the Muslim lands conquered by force & stolen from non Muslim native populations.  As long as Muslims rule their countries, the lands are theirs.  And as long as Israel rules their country, the land is Israels.


----------



## Kondor3

Coyote said:


> ..._People are connected to places. That's why you can't simply move people around like human pawns and relocate them on a whim_...


Can't simply relocate people?

You might want to ask that question of the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from Czechoslovakia's 'Sudatenland' by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from East Prussia (now Poland, after the land-grab) by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Muslims relocated to Pakistan and the Hindus relocated to India, when the old British Imperial India achieved her independence in 1947 and immediately split into modern-day Pakistan and India as we now know them, or the Jews of much of Islam, expelled or forced or nudged out of several Muslim countries, during the period 1948-1975... all of that involving millions, and all of that well within the bounds of Living Memory.

So long as the relocated people - the Palestinians in this case - receive Wergeld (compensation) and high-quality logistics support and are given land that they can truly call their own - someplace else - and are provided with large-scale assistance to build infrastructure sufficient to support them, and so long as they are assisted for a couple of decades after the Grand Moving Day, to get them well-launched into the world - relocation would be a blessing, both for the otherwise largely weak and powerless and degenerating-declining Palestinians, and their adversaries.

The Israelis and Palestinians hate each other too much to live peacefully, side by side. Too much blood has been spilled. Therefore, if that is true, logic indicates the removal of one or the other. Given that the Israelis are already the victors in this long-running fracas, and given that they are a regional superpower which can no longer be dislodged without the most extraordinary efforts, and given that the victors of a conflict dictate terms, not the losers, the burden will be upon the Palestinians, to take the "sucker's walk", and to leave.

So long as the Palestinians are well supported in this relocation by the world community, the idea of relocation stands a better chance of working than any other option still on the table. A one-state solution hasn't been on the table since the 1948-1949 timeframe. The idea of a two-state solution died with the Intifadas and the Gaza Wars. All that's left is for either the Israelis or the Palestinians to pack up and move out of harm's way, and, given the vastly superior Israeli position, the Palestinians have drawn the short straw. Who knows? Perhaps the Egyptians can be persuaded or paid to part with a slice of the Sinai, or some other nearby country(ies) might be persuaded to take them (or some of them) in. Cash, and trade incentives, would work wonders, in greasing that particular wheel.

The sooner that relocation can be imagined and consensus built and the sooner that the practicalities can be conjured, in order to get underway with the damned thing, the better - and what better 'umbrella' under which to organize that humanitarian effort, than the United Nations itself? Hell, the Israelis could probably be persuaded to float the first few billions, to get the thing started, and I'm sure that the US, and much of the EU, would be willing to chip-in, if asked, in connection with a serious and viable effort along those lines... a chance to do something nice for the so-called Palestinian People that actually stands a decent chance of doing some sustainable good.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is so bogus.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have backed up my claims with documents.
> 
> How about you?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You have not presented any convincing argument or evidence that the Jewish Declaration of Independence and their exercise of the right of "self-determination" was in any way invalid at the time.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have. It is just that you have refused to see it.
> 
> 3. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
> 
> A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​
Click to expand...




 Which the Palestinians have exercised to the full in 1988 when they declared independence under UN res 181. Just as the Jews did in 1948. Now it cant be invalid or the Jews yet valid for the arab muslims can it, as that would be taking away the Jews INALIENABLE RIGHTS TO SELF-DETERMINATION, NATIONAL INDEPENDNCE, TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY AND NATIONAL UNITY. The link you provided spells it out very clearly that the Jews have as much right to declare independence in Palestine as the arab muslims do. The demographics mean nothing at the end of the day as they are just numbers with no basis in law. In reality the Jews should have had all of Palestine because the arab muslims had already declared in other parts of the Palestine mandate.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et asl,
> 
> Again, this is a timeline issue.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is so bogus.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have backed up my claims with documents.
> 
> How about you?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You have not presented any convincing argument or evidence that the Jewish Declaration of Independence and their exercise of the right of "self-determination" was in any way invalid at the time.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have. It is just that you have refused to see it.
> 
> 3. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
> 
> A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Watch closely.  (Now you see it ---- Now you don't!)
> 
> Jordanian Parliamentary Action 11 April 1950, Unification of the Two Banks, West Bank Annexation, "actualization of "self-determination"
> ----    Three decades later.    ----
> A RES 33 24   of   29 November 1978  UN reaffirmation of "self-determination"
> ----    A decade later.    ----
> A/43/827  S/20278 18 November 1988  Palestinian Independence --- actualization of "self-determination"​
> The applicability of the "Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination"  (A RES 33 24   of   29 November 1978) ended for the Palestinian:
> 
> Gaza: 1988
> West Bank 1950
> Today, the 1988 Declaration applies to all Palestinians located in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are starting late in your timeline.
Click to expand...




 You can go back to May 15 1948 when Jordan invaded Palestine and annexed the west bank. That was also  an " actualisation of free determination" as the arab muslims did not disagree with Jordan's invasion and subsequent occupation of the west bank. Prior to this there was no actual show of self determination in Palestine


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> No such thing.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et asl,
> 
> Again, this is a timeline issue.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is so bogus.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You have not presented any convincing argument or evidence that the Jewish Declaration of Independence and their exercise of the right of "self-determination" was in any way invalid at the time.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> I have. It is just that you have refused to see it.
> 
> 3. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
> 
> A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Watch closely.  (Now you see it ---- Now you don't!)
> 
> Jordanian Parliamentary Action 11 April 1950, Unification of the Two Banks, West Bank Annexation, "actualization of "self-determination"
> ----    Three decades later.    ----
> A RES 33 24   of   29 November 1978  UN reaffirmation of "self-determination"
> ----    A decade later.    ----
> A/43/827  S/20278 18 November 1988  Palestinian Independence --- actualization of "self-determination"​
> The applicability of the "Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination"  (A RES 33 24   of   29 November 1978) ended for the Palestinian:
> 
> Gaza: 1988
> West Bank 1950
> Today, the 1988 Declaration applies to all Palestinians located in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are starting late in your timeline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The timeline covers a period between 1950 and today; anywhere in between.
> 
> Pick your time.  Let me know.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I say, you are starting late.
Click to expand...





 Then how about you show hen the relevant INTERNATIONAL LAW came into force that granted the whole of the Palestinian peoples the right to free determination while not allowing the Jews their inalienable rights to set up as promise  THE RESURECTED NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS.


----------



## Coyote

Kondor3 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..._People are connected to places. That's why you can't simply move people around like human pawns and relocate them on a whim_...
> 
> 
> 
> Can't simply relocate people?
> 
> You might want to ask that question of the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from Czechoslovakia's 'Sudatenland' by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from East Prussia (now Poland, after the land-grab) by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Muslims relocated to Pakistan and the Hindus relocated to India, when the old British Imperial India achieved her independence in 1947 and immediately split into modern-day Pakistan and India as we now know them, or the Jews of much of Islam, expelled or forced or nudged out of several Muslim countries, during the period 1948-1975... all of that involving millions, and all of that well within the bounds of Living Memory.
> 
> So long as the relocated people - the Palestinians in this case - receive Wergeld (compensation) and high-quality logistics support and are given land that they can truly call their own - someplace else - and are provided with large-scale assistance to build infrastructure sufficient to support them, and so long as they are assisted for a couple of decades after the Grand Moving Day, to get them well-launched into the world - relocation would be a blessing, both for the otherwise largely weak and powerless and degenerating-declining Palestinians, and their adversaries.
> 
> The Israelis and Palestinians hate each other too much to live peacefully, side by side. Too much blood has been spilled. Therefore, if that is true, logic indicates the removal of one or the other. Given that the Israelis are already the victors in this long-running fracas, and given that they are a regional superpower which can no longer be dislodged without the most extraordinary efforts, and given that the victors of a conflict dictate terms, not the losers, the burden will be upon the Palestinians, to take the "sucker's walk", and to leave.
> 
> So long as the Palestinians are well supported in this relocation by the world community, the idea of relocation stands a better chance of working than any other option still on the table. A one-state solution hasn't been on the table since the 1948-1949 timeframe. The idea of a two-state solution died with the Intifadas and the Gaza Wars. All that's left is for either the Israelis or the Palestinians to pack up and move out of harm's way, and, given the vastly superior Israeli position, the Palestinians have drawn the short straw.
> 
> The sooner that relocation can be imagined and consensus built and the sooner that the practicalities can be conjured, in order to get underway with the damned thing, the better.
Click to expand...


No, you can't simply relocate people against their will.

The partitian of India was a bloody nightmare and an object lesson in ignorance.  Those who carved up India assumed religion was the only division and lumped Muslim Bengali's with Muslims in the tribal Pakistani region despite the fact that the Muslim Bengali's had more in common with the Hindu Bengali's culturally and educationally.

The mass forced moving of entire ethnic populations is often tragic and certainly a violation of human rights.  People are tied to land and regions and the culture thaty is a part of it.  Stalin forceably moved masses of ethnic groups out of their regions and ethnic Russians in - the results are still playing out.  Many were moved to Siberia where the death rate was high and they did not prosper.

Just because it HAS been done does not mean it SHOULD be done.  It benefits no one but the people who can then take over the land.  You could make a similar argument for moving the Jews back to Europe.  Would you do that?  

How would a Palestinian diaspora be any different than a Jewish diaspora?  Why would you think that generational ties to land and heritage would be any different than it is with Jews?

Even if you had all the support you lay out - how do you know those promises will be kept?  Look at the long history of broken promises...for example the Kurds.  It takes more than a couple of decades to establish and when you are talking about millians of people - you have th3e effect on local communities that are already there.  The establishment of Israel is a good example of this.  You would just be repeating the process somewhere else only - unlike Israel, the people would be expelled from their homes involuntarily - not immigrating in voluntarily.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> The Palestinians are people.  Human beings. Men and women and children.
> 
> Who would have thought it would be this difficult a question to answer?





 Because these men, women and children are afraid to admit that they are not from Palestine originally and are recent migrants. When for 150 years they called themselves Syrians, Egyptians and Saudis and would start a war if they were called Palestinians. That is why it is so difficult to answer this question.


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are people.  Human beings. Men and women and children.
> 
> Who would have thought it would be this difficult a question to answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because these men, women and children are afraid to admit that they are not from Palestine originally and are recent migrants. When for 150 years they called themselves Syrians, Egyptians and Saudis and would start a war if they were called Palestinians. That is why it is so difficult to answer this question.
Click to expand...


Some are recent immigrants some are not.

This has been well established.

There are many Jewish immigrants from European countries.  Why are they afraid to admit they are not from Palestine originally but are recent migrants?


----------



## MJB12741

Coyote said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hoss, many are as indiginous to Palestine as the Jews.
> 
> Beyond that - does it matter?
> 
> They are people and it's all to easy to marginalize them with these sort of arguments.
> 
> The question to ask is why is it so important to some how make them less worthy of inclusion by asking these sorts of questions?
> 
> 
> 
> I realize and understand that but my point is that in 1948 the Arabs living there abandoned the country "until the Jews could be swept into the sea." That act nullified any claim to the land and to the right of return. Then with the complicity of the Russians, Arafat named the people and the land, Palestine and tried to make it look like Israel was the bad guys. I won't buy that and nor should anyone. That's my personal opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see it in terms of people.  It doesn't matter if Araft named the people and the land - the people pre-existed the label.  They have rights.  They belong there.  Now, I'm not saying the right of return is an option any more, I don't think so.  But they have a right to the West Bank and the constant attempt to delegitimize them as a people who have rights is as evil as those who insist Jews should just go back to Europe.
> 
> It won't happen - there must be a just solution that recognizes and respects the shared humanity and needs of both peoples...it's the constant dehumanizing that I object to.
Click to expand...


What "just solution that recognizes and respects the shared humanity and needs of both peoples" would you suggest for Israel with a people who duly elected Hamas to annihilate Israel off the face of the earth?


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Hoss, many are as indiginous to Palestine as the Jews.
> 
> Beyond that - does it matter?
> 
> They are people and it's all to easy to marginalize them with these sort of arguments.
> 
> The question to ask is why is it so important to some how make them less worthy of inclusion by asking these sorts of questions?





 No the vast majority are illegal immigrants with less than 150 years occupancy in Palestine, the Jews have a common ancestry to the M.E. as shown by DNA testing of all the worlds Jews. The Jews who never left the land have a very close match to the Jews of Eastern Europe, Iran, Ethiopia, America and the UK. The arab muslims show a varied DNA mix with very little in common wit even people living in the same village. Now this is either inter breeding with close family members or recent migration  from outside the area. So how can they be as indigenous a the Jews when less than 10% of their DNA is the same. ( outside of the human genome )


----------



## Coyote

MJB12741 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hoss, many are as indiginous to Palestine as the Jews.
> 
> Beyond that - does it matter?
> 
> They are people and it's all to easy to marginalize them with these sort of arguments.
> 
> The question to ask is why is it so important to some how make them less worthy of inclusion by asking these sorts of questions?
> 
> 
> 
> I realize and understand that but my point is that in 1948 the Arabs living there abandoned the country "until the Jews could be swept into the sea." That act nullified any claim to the land and to the right of return. Then with the complicity of the Russians, Arafat named the people and the land, Palestine and tried to make it look like Israel was the bad guys. I won't buy that and nor should anyone. That's my personal opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see it in terms of people.  It doesn't matter if Araft named the people and the land - the people pre-existed the label.  They have rights.  They belong there.  Now, I'm not saying the right of return is an option any more, I don't think so.  But they have a right to the West Bank and the constant attempt to delegitimize them as a people who have rights is as evil as those who insist Jews should just go back to Europe.
> 
> It won't happen - there must be a just solution that recognizes and respects the shared humanity and needs of both peoples...it's the constant dehumanizing that I object to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "just solution that recognizes and respects the shared humanity and needs of both peoples" would you suggest for Israel with a people who duly elected Hamas to annihilate Israel off the face of the earth?
Click to expand...



Give them a state and hold them accountable just as you would any other state.


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hoss, many are as indiginous to Palestine as the Jews.
> 
> Beyond that - does it matter?
> 
> They are people and it's all to easy to marginalize them with these sort of arguments.
> 
> The question to ask is why is it so important to some how make them less worthy of inclusion by asking these sorts of questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No the vast majority are illegal immigrants with less than 150 years occupancy in Palestine, the Jews have a common ancestry to the M.E. as shown by DNA testing of all the worlds Jews. The Jews who never left the land have a very close match to the Jews of Eastern Europe, Iran, Ethiopia, America and the UK. The arab muslims show a varied DNA mix with very little in common wit even people living in the same village. Now this is either inter breeding with close family members or recent migration  from outside the area. So how can they be as indigenous a the Jews when less than 10% of their DNA is the same. ( outside of the human genome )
Click to expand...


If you are going to use DNA (and those studies are by no means definitive in that many Palestinians share the same markers) - then you need to send everyone - Jews and Palestinians - to Africa.  After all, that is their genetic homeland.  hmmm...maybe that will solve the problem 

As far as "vast majority" - that too has been debunked as population records show some Arab migration (just as there was Jewish migration) but are not accurate enough to support the claim of "vast majority".


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..._People are connected to places. That's why you can't simply move people around like human pawns and relocate them on a whim_...
> 
> 
> 
> Can't simply relocate people?
> 
> You might want to ask that question of the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from Czechoslovakia's 'Sudatenland' by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from East Prussia (now Poland, after the land-grab) by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Muslims relocated to Pakistan and the Hindus relocated to India, when the old British Imperial India achieved her independence in 1947 and immediately split into modern-day Pakistan and India as we now know them, or the Jews of much of Islam, expelled or forced or nudged out of several Muslim countries, during the period 1948-1975... all of that involving millions, and all of that well within the bounds of Living Memory.
> 
> So long as the relocated people - the Palestinians in this case - receive Wergeld (compensation) and high-quality logistics support and are given land that they can truly call their own - someplace else - and are provided with large-scale assistance to build infrastructure sufficient to support them, and so long as they are assisted for a couple of decades after the Grand Moving Day, to get them well-launched into the world - relocation would be a blessing, both for the otherwise largely weak and powerless and degenerating-declining Palestinians, and their adversaries.
> 
> The Israelis and Palestinians hate each other too much to live peacefully, side by side. Too much blood has been spilled. Therefore, if that is true, logic indicates the removal of one or the other. Given that the Israelis are already the victors in this long-running fracas, and given that they are a regional superpower which can no longer be dislodged without the most extraordinary efforts, and given that the victors of a conflict dictate terms, not the losers, the burden will be upon the Palestinians, to take the "sucker's walk", and to leave.
> 
> So long as the Palestinians are well supported in this relocation by the world community, the idea of relocation stands a better chance of working than any other option still on the table. A one-state solution hasn't been on the table since the 1948-1949 timeframe. The idea of a two-state solution died with the Intifadas and the Gaza Wars. All that's left is for either the Israelis or the Palestinians to pack up and move out of harm's way, and, given the vastly superior Israeli position, the Palestinians have drawn the short straw.
> 
> The sooner that relocation can be imagined and consensus built and the sooner that the practicalities can be conjured, in order to get underway with the damned thing, the better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you can't simply relocate people against their will.
> 
> The partitian of India was a bloody nightmare and an object lesson in ignorance.  Those who carved up India assumed religion was the only division and lumped Muslim Bengali's with Muslims in the tribal Pakistani region despite the fact that the Muslim Bengali's had more in common with the Hindu Bengali's culturally and educationally.
> 
> The mass forced moving of entire ethnic populations is often tragic and certainly a violation of human rights.  People are tied to land and regions and the culture thaty is a part of it.  Stalin forceably moved masses of ethnic groups out of their regions and ethnic Russians in - the results are still playing out.  Many were moved to Siberia where the death rate was high and they did not prosper.
> 
> Just because it HAS been done does not mean it SHOULD be done.  It benefits no one but the people who can then take over the land.  You could make a similar argument for moving the Jews back to Europe.  Would you do that?
> 
> How would a Palestinian diaspora be any different than a Jewish diaspora?  Why would you think that generational ties to land and heritage would be any different than it is with Jews?
> 
> Even if you had all the support you lay out - how do you know those promises will be kept?  Look at the long history of broken promises...for example the Kurds.  It takes more than a couple of decades to establish and when you are talking about millians of people - you have th3e effect on local communities that are already there.  The establishment of Israel is a good example of this.  You would just be repeating the process somewhere else only - unlike Israel, the people would be expelled from their homes involuntarily - not immigrating in voluntarily.
Click to expand...





 Even more recently we have seen mass forced migrations in the former Yugoslavia, Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia etc to make way for mulsims. Can you see the common denominator  in these forced migrations, and how the same thing would have happened in Palestine if the Jews had not fought back against the muslim land grabs. The majority of the land allocated to Israel was owned by the Jews in the first place so the arab muslim claims were based on arab nationalism and the teachings of the koran


----------



## Kondor3

Coyote said:


> ...No, you can't simply relocate people against their will...


Incorrect. Happens all the time. On both a small and a large scale.



> ...The partitian of India was a bloody nightmare and an object lesson in ignorance. Those who carved up India assumed religion was the only division and lumped Muslim Bengali's with Muslims in the tribal Pakistani region despite the fact that the Muslim Bengali's had more in common with the Hindu Bengali's culturally and educationally...


Quite probably true, at least in part, but it can also serve as an object lesson in what not do to, the next time around. And, of course, close cultural symmetry does not exist between the Jews and the Muslims of the region, so we can probably set that particular concern off to the side, in evaluating barriers to such an action.



> ...The mass forced moving of entire ethnic populations is often tragic and certainly a violation of human rights...


When it comes down to a choice between (1) violating a people's human rights in the interim in order to ensure the safety and future happiness of two enemy populations, and (2) condemning those same populations to perpetual warfare and death on a large scale, if the Gordian Knot remains uncut... well, the choice becomes obvious, very quickly.



> ...People are tied to land and regions and the culture thaty is a part of it.  Stalin forceably moved masses of ethnic groups out of their regions and ethnic Russians in - the results are still playing out. Many were moved to Siberia where the death rate was high and they did not prosper...


Yep. There are, indeed, examples, in which Population Relocation did not work out very well, but, of course, such efforts were undertaken without the friendship and support of the world community.

There is every bit as good a chance that a Palestinian Relocation would have a happy ending, rather than a tragic one, and, given present circumstances and future prospects, we're pretty much already out of options, except for a couple of Draconian possibilities.

This is already boiling down to a choice of the lesser of two evils; the first being the slaughter of a problematic population, the other being their forcible relocation. There is no other viable alternative on the horizen, and this has gone on long enough. Time to put an end to it, by removing the losers from the field of conflict as a humanitarian gesture. The victors are too strong to try that kind of shit with them, and they have very powerful friends that would not allow it, anyway.



> ...Just because it HAS been done does not mean it SHOULD be done...


Quite true. Then again, in this context, we're out of options, and we're out of time. Slaughter or Expulsion seem to be all that is left. I wish I were wrong, but I have a sinking feeling that I'm right. It's logical, albeit heartless. If those two options are all that is left, practicaly speaking, then, I choose Expulsion for the Palestinians. Is it fair? Quite possibly not. But, then again, what-the-hell does 'fair' have to do with anything? Life isn't fair. But even an Unfair Thing can result in Good Things down the road.



> ...It benefits no one but the people who can then take over the land...


Incorrect. Should the Palestinians be granted new and different lands, in Egypt's Sinai and/or in Jordan and/or in Lebanon and/or in Iraq, et al, they will greatly benefit from such an action, in that they will then be permanently out of harm's way, they will be positioned for generations to come, to control their own destiny, to live in peace, and to build and to enjoy happy and prosperous lives, dwelling amongst their own kind, in the arms of loving co-religionists, and far from the madness and squalor of their present circumstances.



> ... You could make a similar argument for moving the Jews back to Europe.  Would you do that?


The Palestinians are not a Regional Superpower, nor do they possess a nuclear arsenal with intercontinental warhead-delivery capabilities, nor is their sliver of land the only place in the world controlled by their own co-religionists.



> ...How would a Palestinian diaspora be any different than a Jewish diaspora?  Why would you think that generational ties to land and heritage would be any different than it is with Jews?...


A Palestinian Diaspora would be short-lived, given that so many of them are of Egyptian or Bedouin or Jordanian or Lebanese (and their predecessor polities) ancestry, in whole or in part, and given that they would be repositioned into lands already steeply saturated in their religion and similar culture, such as it is. When the Jews were scattered, they were scattered into a world of dissimilar peoples and religions and found themselves 'forting-up' and becoming reclusive and self-contained. There will be no such pressure upon so-called Palestinians, and they will melt into the surrounding Arabic Muslim populations within a handful of generations, until they are little more than a footnote in history and a Pal-Pride Parade every year, by the 22nd or 23rd century.



> ...Even if you had all the support you lay out - how do you know those promises will be kept?...


I don't - nor does anyone else - but with the UN running the show, and with the backing of most of the world community, the project stands a better chance of attaining a desirable outcome than most other projects might. And - come to think of it - relocating with the promise of decades-long support, is a damned sight more attractive than dying in-place, and living in squalor while you're waiting to die or be overrun for the last time. Taking a chance on life is always preferable to dying - either quickly or slowly.

If I, as a family man, were given the choice between being assisted into a new homeland and a new home and economy, or continuing to make my family sit in a shithole for another 66 years, and if most of my outer family and friends and neighbors were coming with me, I know which one I'd choose - the choice that any sane person would make.



> ... Look at the long history of broken promises...for example the Kurds.  It takes more than a couple of decades to establish and when you are talking about millians of people - you have th3e effect on local communities that are already there.  The establishment of Israel is a good example of this.  You would just be repeating the process somewhere else only - unlike Israel, the people would be expelled from their homes involuntarily - not immigrating in voluntarily.


Perhaps.

But it's a chance.

A chance at life, rather than death.

Population Relocation is an extreme measure, it is unpopular, rather frightening, seemingly heartless, fraught with practical constraints, and subject to an ultimately unpredictable outcome.

Trouble is, we're now probably moving into the Era of Extremes, in this context - we're out of options, we're out of time, and the Palestinians are out of luck.

Undertaking an Extreme that ultimately preserves life and provides an alternative path to life and happiness and prosperity - as radical as that might be - sure as hell beats rotting in shitholes and dying in place - which seems to be the only alternative remaining, that is likely to materialize.

I choose Evil #2 - relocation - as better than Evil #1 - slaughter or slow death (metaphorical, or actual).

Silly me.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are people.  Human beings. Men and women and children.
> 
> Who would have thought it would be this difficult a question to answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because these men, women and children are afraid to admit that they are not from Palestine originally and are recent migrants. When for 150 years they called themselves Syrians, Egyptians and Saudis and would start a war if they were called Palestinians. That is why it is so difficult to answer this question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some are recent immigrants some are not.
> 
> This has been well established.
> 
> There are many Jewish immigrants from European countries.  Why are they afraid to admit they are not from Palestine originally but are recent migrants?
Click to expand...




 The vast majority of arab muslims are recent arrivals with no historic ties to the land, the vast majority of Jews have ties to the land as shown by their DNA. They are not afraid to admit they are migrants, but they are in the minority as the vast majority of the Jews are from the M.E. and had been expelled at the point of a gun from their homes an property between 1948 and 1967


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Even more recently we have seen mass forced migrations in the former Yugoslavia, Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia etc to make way for mulsims. Can you see the common denominator  in these forced migrations, and how the same thing would have happened in Palestine if the Jews had not fought back against the muslim land grabs. The majority of the land allocated to Israel was owned by the Jews in the first place so the arab muslim claims were based on arab nationalism and the teachings of the koran




Those so-called forced migrations are due to a variety of factors.  For example - Serbia committed genocide on Yugoslavia's ethnic Muslim minority.  What "forced migrations" are you talking about?

Conflicts - war inevitably produces refugees, which are largely what you are talking about.  It's tragic, but it's another issue. That is not the same as taking a group of people and forceably removing them from their homeland to another country - which is what Stalin did and what Hitler started out with.  It's even what America tried to do when Liberia was created - it was to be a "homeland" to send American blacks to.  In otherwords, get them out of America.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hoss, many are as indiginous to Palestine as the Jews.
> 
> Beyond that - does it matter?
> 
> They are people and it's all to easy to marginalize them with these sort of arguments.
> 
> The question to ask is why is it so important to some how make them less worthy of inclusion by asking these sorts of questions?
> 
> 
> 
> I realize and understand that but my point is that in 1948 the Arabs living there abandoned the country "until the Jews could be swept into the sea." That act nullified any claim to the land and to the right of return. Then with the complicity of the Russians, Arafat named the people and the land, Palestine and tried to make it look like Israel was the bad guys. I won't buy that and nor should anyone. That's my personal opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see it in terms of people.  It doesn't matter if Araft named the people and the land - the people pre-existed the label.  They have rights.  They belong there.  Now, I'm not saying the right of return is an option any more, I don't think so.  But they have a right to the West Bank and the constant attempt to delegitimize them as a people who have rights is as evil as those who insist Jews should just go back to Europe.
> 
> It won't happen - there must be a just solution that recognizes and respects the shared humanity and needs of both peoples...it's the constant dehumanizing that I object to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "just solution that recognizes and respects the shared humanity and needs of both peoples" would you suggest for Israel with a people who duly elected Hamas to annihilate Israel off the face of the earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Give them a state and hold them accountable just as you would any other state.
Click to expand...





 They have a state already that they refuse point blank to be held accountable for. Why should they be given another one to destroy and hold up to ransom to the world


----------



## Hossfly

Coyote said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hoss, many are as indiginous to Palestine as the Jews.
> 
> Beyond that - does it matter?
> 
> They are people and it's all to easy to marginalize them with these sort of arguments.
> 
> The question to ask is why is it so important to some how make them less worthy of inclusion by asking these sorts of questions?
> 
> 
> 
> I realize and understand that but my point is that in 1948 the Arabs living there abandoned the country "until the Jews could be swept into the sea." That act nullified any claim to the land and to the right of return. Then with the complicity of the Russians, Arafat named the people and the land, Palestine and tried to make it look like Israel was the bad guys. I won't buy that and nor should anyone. That's my personal opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see it in terms of people.  It doesn't matter if Araft named the people and the land - the people pre-existed the label.  They have rights.  They belong there.  Now, I'm not saying the right of return is an option any more, I don't think so.  But they have a right to the West Bank and the constant attempt to delegitimize them as a people who have rights is as evil as those who insist Jews should just go back to Europe.
> 
> It won't happen - there must be a just solution that recognizes and respects the shared humanity and needs of both peoples...it's the constant dehumanizing that I object to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "just solution that recognizes and respects the shared humanity and needs of both peoples" would you suggest for Israel with a people who duly elected Hamas to annihilate Israel off the face of the earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Give them a state and hold them accountable just as you would any other state.
Click to expand...

Let's suppose that today, Israel signed an agreement to give the Palestinians every condition they've demanded over the years. Would they accept the agreement or would they commence lobbing rockets? Would the Arab League allow them to accept? Would Hamas?


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hoss, many are as indiginous to Palestine as the Jews.
> 
> Beyond that - does it matter?
> 
> They are people and it's all to easy to marginalize them with these sort of arguments.
> 
> The question to ask is why is it so important to some how make them less worthy of inclusion by asking these sorts of questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No the vast majority are illegal immigrants with less than 150 years occupancy in Palestine, the Jews have a common ancestry to the M.E. as shown by DNA testing of all the worlds Jews. The Jews who never left the land have a very close match to the Jews of Eastern Europe, Iran, Ethiopia, America and the UK. The arab muslims show a varied DNA mix with very little in common wit even people living in the same village. Now this is either inter breeding with close family members or recent migration  from outside the area. So how can they be as indigenous a the Jews when less than 10% of their DNA is the same. ( outside of the human genome )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are going to use DNA (and those studies are by no means definitive in that many Palestinians share the same markers) - then you need to send everyone - Jews and Palestinians - to Africa.  After all, that is their genetic homeland.  hmmm...maybe that will solve the problem
> 
> As far as "vast majority" - that too has been debunked as population records show some Arab migration (just as there was Jewish migration) but are not accurate enough to support the claim of "vast majority".
Click to expand...




The DNA testing done shows that 50% of the DNA of every living thing is identical, it also shows that all primates share a common 80%-85% DNA. That is what most pro Palestinians point  when they make their claims of inter breeding between Jews and muslims. It is onlyy when you look at the 15% left that you see the genetic markers that single out individual races, areas, cities, towns and villages.
Now you are being very silly as you know that was  in the depths of pre history.
You forget  the forced migration from muslim lands put the European jews in the minority, the demographics of the arab muslims show that they could not have increased their population by such a large amount without there being immigration in very large numbers. They did not have the medical advances to better an infant survival rate of 10%


----------



## MJB12741

Coyote said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hoss, many are as indiginous to Palestine as the Jews.
> 
> Beyond that - does it matter?
> 
> They are people and it's all to easy to marginalize them with these sort of arguments.
> 
> The question to ask is why is it so important to some how make them less worthy of inclusion by asking these sorts of questions?
> 
> 
> 
> I realize and understand that but my point is that in 1948 the Arabs living there abandoned the country "until the Jews could be swept into the sea." That act nullified any claim to the land and to the right of return. Then with the complicity of the Russians, Arafat named the people and the land, Palestine and tried to make it look like Israel was the bad guys. I won't buy that and nor should anyone. That's my personal opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see it in terms of people.  It doesn't matter if Araft named the people and the land - the people pre-existed the label.  They have rights.  They belong there.  Now, I'm not saying the right of return is an option any more, I don't think so.  But they have a right to the West Bank and the constant attempt to delegitimize them as a people who have rights is as evil as those who insist Jews should just go back to Europe.
> 
> It won't happen - there must be a just solution that recognizes and respects the shared humanity and needs of both peoples...it's the constant dehumanizing that I object to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "just solution that recognizes and respects the shared humanity and needs of both peoples" would you suggest for Israel with a people who duly elected Hamas to annihilate Israel off the face of the earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Give them a state and hold them accountable just as you would any other state.
Click to expand...


WHERE should Israel "give them a state & hold them accountable" where they cannot continue to suuport Hamas to annihilate Israel?


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are people.  Human beings. Men and women and children.
> 
> Who would have thought it would be this difficult a question to answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because these men, women and children are afraid to admit that they are not from Palestine originally and are recent migrants. When for 150 years they called themselves Syrians, Egyptians and Saudis and would start a war if they were called Palestinians. That is why it is so difficult to answer this question.
Click to expand...


As the record shows in Mandatory reports to the LoN and the UN later.  Nearly all the immigration was Jewish.  The Christians and Muslims are the natives. Read note 5. below from the official report of the Mandatory.:


----------



## aris2chat

Kondor3 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..._People are connected to places. That's why you can't simply move people around like human pawns and relocate them on a whim_...
> 
> 
> 
> Can't simply relocate people?
> 
> You might want to ask that question of the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from Czechoslovakia's 'Sudatenland' by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from East Prussia (now Poland, after the land-grab) by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Muslims relocated to Pakistan and the Hindus relocated to India, when the old British Imperial India achieved her independence in 1947 and immediately split into modern-day Pakistan and India as we now know them, or the Jews of much of Islam, expelled or forced or nudged out of several Muslim countries, during the period 1948-1975... all of that involving millions, and all of that well within the bounds of Living Memory.
> 
> So long as the relocated people - the Palestinians in this case - receive Wergeld (compensation) and high-quality logistics support and are given land that they can truly call their own - someplace else - and are provided with large-scale assistance to build infrastructure sufficient to support them, and so long as they are assisted for a couple of decades after the Grand Moving Day, to get them well-launched into the world - relocation would be a blessing, both for the otherwise largely weak and powerless and degenerating-declining Palestinians, and their adversaries.
> 
> The Israelis and Palestinians hate each other too much to live peacefully, side by side. Too much blood has been spilled. Therefore, if that is true, logic indicates the removal of one or the other. Given that the Israelis are already the victors in this long-running fracas, and given that they are a regional superpower which can no longer be dislodged without the most extraordinary efforts, and given that the victors of a conflict dictate terms, not the losers, the burden will be upon the Palestinians, to take the "sucker's walk", and to leave.
> 
> So long as the Palestinians are well supported in this relocation by the world community, the idea of relocation stands a better chance of working than any other option still on the table. A one-state solution hasn't been on the table since the 1948-1949 timeframe. The idea of a two-state solution died with the Intifadas and the Gaza Wars. All that's left is for either the Israelis or the Palestinians to pack up and move out of harm's way, and, given the vastly superior Israeli position, the Palestinians have drawn the short straw. Who knows? Perhaps the Egyptians can be persuaded or paid to part with a slice of the Sinai, or some other nearby country(ies) might be persuaded to take them (or some of them) in. Cash, and trade incentives, would work wonders, in greasing that particular wheel.
> 
> The sooner that relocation can be imagined and consensus built and the sooner that the practicalities can be conjured, in order to get underway with the damned thing, the better - and what better 'umbrella' under which to organize that humanitarian effort, than the United Nations itself? Hell, the Israelis could probably be persuaded to float the first few billions, to get the thing started, and I'm sure that the US, and much of the EU, would be willing to chip-in, if asked, in connection with a serious and viable effort along those lines... a chance to do something nice for the so-called Palestinian People that actually stands a decent chance of doing some sustainable good.
Click to expand...

 
Natural disaster, war or modern progress, populations have and continue to be displaced and land taken.
Palestinians had a 10 yr period to return and claim land before it was considered abandoned.
In Lebanon, palestinians were not allowed by the PLO to return to Israel except to carry out attacks and some special circumstances such as medical or educational wavers.  To apply and manage to arrange the journey was a long process.
Arafat had fake deeds printed in Beirut and old keys handed out to make claims on land in Israel.  Pictures would be taken of people holding up these keys as proof of ownership of a home or land.  Keys that had no locks.
There were exceptions here and there, but the majority were brainwashed or convinced themselves that land was their own even if it was not.  These stories and lies were handed down through generations and taken as fact.  It was part of the war.  Most (of course not all) cases where claims were brought before courts in Israel on land claims the courts were in palestinian favor.  Land that could not be returned were compensated with money or other land.  Yes some were forced out by Israelis but this was not a standard policy.  Usually it had to do with a strategic location or that the village had been complicit in the fighting or killing of jews.  Israel before the main exodus and even during the war continued to ask palestinians to stay and work together to build a state.
Half left to avoid or escape war, or out of fear due to arab radio broadcasts that they would be raped or massacred.  False reports were put out.  Israel did not always jump to refute these reports, and in some cases too advantage of the claims, but it was far from the general policy or intent of Israel against the palestinians.
Half the population stayed and enjoyed more rights and privileges that most of the rest of the arab world.
Palestinian refugees were for the most part pawns, used by the arab states and their own leaders.  Their plight could have been ended in many ways, but they were kept as the "perpetual victims of Israel " both to feed hostility among the population and as propaganda tools in the world press.  That hostility spilled over in some cases to attack the host countries and justify massacres by the PLO. Bloody savagery that had been part of the taught narrative became the practice of those palestinians on fellow arabs and even in tribal blood feuds and political or sectarian wars within the camps against each other.
Nothing about the palestinian/Israeli situation is clear cut and there is blame enough to be shared by all, but the palestinians as a people are not the victims that some would have everyone believe.  Much of their suffering is of their own making not wholly the fault of Israelis or jews.
The hate has been carefully crafted, spread and nurtured instead of practical solution that might have benefited all involved with a more realistic and fact based approach.


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..._People are connected to places. That's why you can't simply move people around like human pawns and relocate them on a whim_...
> 
> 
> 
> Can't simply relocate people?
> 
> You might want to ask that question of the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from Czechoslovakia's 'Sudatenland' by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from East Prussia (now Poland, after the land-grab) by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Muslims relocated to Pakistan and the Hindus relocated to India, when the old British Imperial India achieved her independence in 1947 and immediately split into modern-day Pakistan and India as we now know them, or the Jews of much of Islam, expelled or forced or nudged out of several Muslim countries, during the period 1948-1975... all of that involving millions, and all of that well within the bounds of Living Memory.
> 
> So long as the relocated people - the Palestinians in this case - receive Wergeld (compensation) and high-quality logistics support and are given land that they can truly call their own - someplace else - and are provided with large-scale assistance to build infrastructure sufficient to support them, and so long as they are assisted for a couple of decades after the Grand Moving Day, to get them well-launched into the world - relocation would be a blessing, both for the otherwise largely weak and powerless and degenerating-declining Palestinians, and their adversaries.
> 
> The Israelis and Palestinians hate each other too much to live peacefully, side by side. Too much blood has been spilled. Therefore, if that is true, logic indicates the removal of one or the other. Given that the Israelis are already the victors in this long-running fracas, and given that they are a regional superpower which can no longer be dislodged without the most extraordinary efforts, and given that the victors of a conflict dictate terms, not the losers, the burden will be upon the Palestinians, to take the "sucker's walk", and to leave.
> 
> So long as the Palestinians are well supported in this relocation by the world community, the idea of relocation stands a better chance of working than any other option still on the table. A one-state solution hasn't been on the table since the 1948-1949 timeframe. The idea of a two-state solution died with the Intifadas and the Gaza Wars. All that's left is for either the Israelis or the Palestinians to pack up and move out of harm's way, and, given the vastly superior Israeli position, the Palestinians have drawn the short straw.
> 
> The sooner that relocation can be imagined and consensus built and the sooner that the practicalities can be conjured, in order to get underway with the damned thing, the better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you can't simply relocate people against their will.
> 
> The partitian of India was a bloody nightmare and an object lesson in ignorance.  Those who carved up India assumed religion was the only division and lumped Muslim Bengali's with Muslims in the tribal Pakistani region despite the fact that the Muslim Bengali's had more in common with the Hindu Bengali's culturally and educationally.
> 
> The mass forced moving of entire ethnic populations is often tragic and certainly a violation of human rights.  People are tied to land and regions and the culture thaty is a part of it.  Stalin forceably moved masses of ethnic groups out of their regions and ethnic Russians in - the results are still playing out.  Many were moved to Siberia where the death rate was high and they did not prosper.
> 
> Just because it HAS been done does not mean it SHOULD be done.  It benefits no one but the people who can then take over the land.  You could make a similar argument for moving the Jews back to Europe.  Would you do that?
> 
> How would a Palestinian diaspora be any different than a Jewish diaspora?  Why would you think that generational ties to land and heritage would be any different than it is with Jews?
> 
> Even if you had all the support you lay out - how do you know those promises will be kept?  Look at the long history of broken promises...for example the Kurds.  It takes more than a couple of decades to establish and when you are talking about millians of people - you have th3e effect on local communities that are already there.  The establishment of Israel is a good example of this.  You would just be repeating the process somewhere else only - unlike Israel, the people would be expelled from their homes involuntarily - not immigrating in voluntarily.
Click to expand...


That was august of '47.  If anything it was an example to promote fear in the palestinians to leave.


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are people.  Human beings. Men and women and children.
> 
> Who would have thought it would be this difficult a question to answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because these men, women and children are afraid to admit that they are not from Palestine originally and are recent migrants. When for 150 years they called themselves Syrians, Egyptians and Saudis and would start a war if they were called Palestinians. That is why it is so difficult to answer this question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some are recent immigrants some are not.
> 
> This has been well established.
> 
> There are many Jewish immigrants from European countries.  Why are they afraid to admit they are not from Palestine originally but are recent migrants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The vast majority of arab muslims are recent arrivals with no historic ties to the land, the vast majority of Jews have ties to the land as shown by their DNA. *They are not afraid to admit they are migrants, but they are in the minority as the vast majority of the Jews are from the M.E. and had been expelled at the point of a gun from their homes an property between 1948 and 1967
Click to expand...


Prove it the "vast majority" of arabs are "recent arrivals with "no historic ties".  I'd like to see some numbers validating that from a reputable source.  Because if you are going to go by genetics (and those genetic studies are far from conclusive since other groups share their same markers).... their ties belong in Africa - that is their first home.  Let's send everyone home to Africa! 

Genetics...open to question:

Genetic studies on Jews - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Many genetic studies have demonstrated that most of the various Jewish ethnic divisions and the Palestinians and other Levantines, like the Druze[12][13][17][37] and Bedouin,[12][13] are genetically closer to each other than the Palestinians or European Jews are to non-Jewish Europeans or Africans.[12][13][94] One DNA study by Nebel and colleagues *found genetic evidence in support of historical records that "part, or perhaps the majority" of Muslim Palestinians descend from "local inhabitants, mainly Christians and Jews, who had converted after the Islamic conquest in the seventh century AD*".[94] They also found *substantial genetic overlap between Muslim Palestinians and Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews*, though with some significant differences that might be explainable by the geographical isolation of the Jews and by immigration of Arab tribes in the first millennium.[94]​
I think the attempt to use genetics as a basis for establishing the validity of a people's rights is weak at best.


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hoss, many are as indiginous to Palestine as the Jews.
> 
> Beyond that - does it matter?
> 
> They are people and it's all to easy to marginalize them with these sort of arguments.
> 
> The question to ask is why is it so important to some how make them less worthy of inclusion by asking these sorts of questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No the vast majority are illegal immigrants with less than 150 years occupancy in Palestine, the Jews have a common ancestry to the M.E. as shown by DNA testing of all the worlds Jews. The Jews who never left the land have a very close match to the Jews of Eastern Europe, Iran, Ethiopia, America and the UK. The arab muslims show a varied DNA mix with very little in common wit even people living in the same village. Now this is either inter breeding with close family members or recent migration  from outside the area. So how can they be as indigenous a the Jews when less than 10% of their DNA is the same. ( outside of the human genome )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are going to use DNA (and those studies are by no means definitive in that many Palestinians share the same markers) - then you need to send everyone - Jews and Palestinians - to Africa.  After all, that is their genetic homeland.  hmmm...maybe that will solve the problem
> 
> As far as "vast majority" - that too has been debunked as population records show some Arab migration (just as there was Jewish migration) but are not accurate enough to support the claim of "vast majority".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The DNA testing done shows that 50% of the DNA of every living thing is identical, it also shows that all primates share a common 80%-85% DNA. *That is what most pro Palestinians point  when they make their claims of inter breeding between Jews and muslims. It is onlyy when you look at the 15% left that you see the genetic markers that single out individual races, areas, cities, towns and villages.*
> Now you are being very silly as you know that was  in the depths of pre history.
> You forget  the forced migration from muslim lands put the European jews in the minority, the demographics of the arab muslims show that they could not have increased their population by such a large amount without there being immigration in very large numbers. They did not have the medical advances to better an infant survival rate of 10%
Click to expand...


It's not "pro-Palis" or "pro-Israeli's" making these determinations.  It's scientists who's profession is genetics.  They aren't drawing their conclusions based upon the large amount of genetic matter that is common to most humans, they are looking at markers that are uniquely shared within certain groups - in otherwords, that 15%.

I'm not being silly - I'm asking you to support your claim.


----------



## Kondor3

Coyote said:


> ...I think the attempt to use genetics as a basis for establishing the validity of a people's rights is weak at best.


Quite possibly. At best, it can only be utilized to prove ethnic or racial linkages, oftentimes lost in the mists of time, and, given human interbreeding over the millennia, of little practical value, beyond refuting very broad-based claims of group membership. Present-day Realities are a far more reliable indicator of Rights - enforceable ones, anyway.


----------



## Coyote

MJB12741 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hoss, many are as indiginous to Palestine as the Jews.
> 
> Beyond that - does it matter?
> 
> They are people and it's all to easy to marginalize them with these sort of arguments.
> 
> The question to ask is why is it so important to some how make them less worthy of inclusion by asking these sorts of questions?
> 
> 
> 
> I realize and understand that but my point is that in 1948 the Arabs living there abandoned the country "until the Jews could be swept into the sea." That act nullified any claim to the land and to the right of return. Then with the complicity of the Russians, Arafat named the people and the land, Palestine and tried to make it look like Israel was the bad guys. I won't buy that and nor should anyone. That's my personal opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see it in terms of people.  It doesn't matter if Araft named the people and the land - the people pre-existed the label.  They have rights.  They belong there.  Now, I'm not saying the right of return is an option any more, I don't think so.  But they have a right to the West Bank and the constant attempt to delegitimize them as a people who have rights is as evil as those who insist Jews should just go back to Europe.
> 
> It won't happen - there must be a just solution that recognizes and respects the shared humanity and needs of both peoples...it's the constant dehumanizing that I object to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "just solution that recognizes and respects the shared humanity and needs of both peoples" would you suggest for Israel with a people who duly elected Hamas to annihilate Israel off the face of the earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Give them a state and hold them accountable just as you would any other state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHERE should Israel "give them a state & hold them accountable" where they cannot continue to suuport Hamas to annihilate Israel?
Click to expand...


Negotiate for parts of the West Bank as was originally invisioned.  Keep in mind - Israel got it's state despite it's terrorist activities against the Brits and Arabs.

Once they have a state they have something to lose.  They can b e held accountable as a state for aggression or terrorism and be held to the same sanctions as any other state.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Rashid Khalidi*

* Noura Erakat *


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are people.  Human beings. Men and women and children.
> 
> Who would have thought it would be this difficult a question to answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because these men, women and children are afraid to admit that they are not from Palestine originally and are recent migrants. When for 150 years they called themselves Syrians, Egyptians and Saudis and would start a war if they were called Palestinians. That is why it is so difficult to answer this question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some are recent immigrants some are not.
> 
> This has been well established.
> 
> There are many Jewish immigrants from European countries.  Why are they afraid to admit they are not from Palestine originally but are recent migrants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The vast majority of arab muslims are recent arrivals with no historic ties to the land, the vast majority of Jews have ties to the land as shown by their DNA. *They are not afraid to admit they are migrants, but they are in the minority as the vast majority of the Jews are from the M.E. and had been expelled at the point of a gun from their homes an property between 1948 and 1967
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it the "vast majority" of arabs are "recent arrivals with "no historic ties".  I'd like to see some numbers validating that from a reputable source.  Because if you are going to go by genetics (and those genetic studies are far from conclusive since other groups share their same markers).... their ties belong in Africa - that is their first home.  Let's send everyone home to Africa!
> 
> Genetics...open to question:
> 
> Genetic studies on Jews - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> Many genetic studies have demonstrated that most of the various Jewish ethnic divisions and the Palestinians and other Levantines, like the Druze[12][13][17][37] and Bedouin,[12][13] are genetically closer to each other than the Palestinians or European Jews are to non-Jewish Europeans or Africans.[12][13][94] One DNA study by Nebel and colleagues *found genetic evidence in support of historical records that "part, or perhaps the majority" of Muslim Palestinians descend from "local inhabitants, mainly Christians and Jews, who had converted after the Islamic conquest in the seventh century AD*".[94] They also found *substantial genetic overlap between Muslim Palestinians and Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews*, though with some significant differences that might be explainable by the geographical isolation of the Jews and by immigration of Arab tribes in the first millennium.[94]​
> I think the attempt to use genetics as a basis for establishing the validity of a people's rights is weak at best.
Click to expand...


The Smoking Gun Arab Immigration into Palestine 1922-1931 Middle East Quarterly

RESEARCH Palestinians Arab immigrants children Desolate land pre increased Jewish return

British Opposition to Jewish Immigration to Palestine

How Did the Land of Israel Become Palestine


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Rashid Khalidi*
> 
> * Noura Erakat *



>>
Rashid Ismail Khalidi is a Palestinian-Lebanese American historian of the Middle East, the Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies at Columbia University, and director of the Middle East Institute.<<

I find Ajami and Phares more factual and less bias


----------



## 50_RiaL

Arab S-Q-U-A-T-T-E-R-S from surrounding area!


----------



## Lipush

Coyote said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..._People are connected to places. That's why you can't simply move people around like human pawns and relocate them on a whim_...
> 
> 
> 
> Can't simply relocate people?
> 
> You might want to ask that question of the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from Czechoslovakia's 'Sudatenland' by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from East Prussia (now Poland, after the land-grab) by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Muslims relocated to Pakistan and the Hindus relocated to India, when the old British Imperial India achieved her independence in 1947 and immediately split into modern-day Pakistan and India as we now know them, or the Jews of much of Islam, expelled or forced or nudged out of several Muslim countries, during the period 1948-1975... all of that involving millions, and all of that well within the bounds of Living Memory.
> 
> So long as the relocated people - the Palestinians in this case - receive Wergeld (compensation) and high-quality logistics support and are given land that they can truly call their own - someplace else - and are provided with large-scale assistance to build infrastructure sufficient to support them, and so long as they are assisted for a couple of decades after the Grand Moving Day, to get them well-launched into the world - relocation would be a blessing, both for the otherwise largely weak and powerless and degenerating-declining Palestinians, and their adversaries.
> 
> The Israelis and Palestinians hate each other too much to live peacefully, side by side. Too much blood has been spilled. Therefore, if that is true, logic indicates the removal of one or the other. Given that the Israelis are already the victors in this long-running fracas, and given that they are a regional superpower which can no longer be dislodged without the most extraordinary efforts, and given that the victors of a conflict dictate terms, not the losers, the burden will be upon the Palestinians, to take the "sucker's walk", and to leave.
> 
> So long as the Palestinians are well supported in this relocation by the world community, the idea of relocation stands a better chance of working than any other option still on the table. A one-state solution hasn't been on the table since the 1948-1949 timeframe. The idea of a two-state solution died with the Intifadas and the Gaza Wars. All that's left is for either the Israelis or the Palestinians to pack up and move out of harm's way, and, given the vastly superior Israeli position, the Palestinians have drawn the short straw.
> 
> The sooner that relocation can be imagined and consensus built and the sooner that the practicalities can be conjured, in order to get underway with the damned thing, the better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you can't simply relocate people against their will.
Click to expand...



*Riiiiiiiight*


----------



## MJB12741

aris2chat said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..._People are connected to places. That's why you can't simply move people around like human pawns and relocate them on a whim_...
> 
> 
> 
> Can't simply relocate people?
> 
> You might want to ask that question of the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from Czechoslovakia's 'Sudatenland' by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from East Prussia (now Poland, after the land-grab) by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Muslims relocated to Pakistan and the Hindus relocated to India, when the old British Imperial India achieved her independence in 1947 and immediately split into modern-day Pakistan and India as we now know them, or the Jews of much of Islam, expelled or forced or nudged out of several Muslim countries, during the period 1948-1975... all of that involving millions, and all of that well within the bounds of Living Memory.
> 
> So long as the relocated people - the Palestinians in this case - receive Wergeld (compensation) and high-quality logistics support and are given land that they can truly call their own - someplace else - and are provided with large-scale assistance to build infrastructure sufficient to support them, and so long as they are assisted for a couple of decades after the Grand Moving Day, to get them well-launched into the world - relocation would be a blessing, both for the otherwise largely weak and powerless and degenerating-declining Palestinians, and their adversaries.
> 
> The Israelis and Palestinians hate each other too much to live peacefully, side by side. Too much blood has been spilled. Therefore, if that is true, logic indicates the removal of one or the other. Given that the Israelis are already the victors in this long-running fracas, and given that they are a regional superpower which can no longer be dislodged without the most extraordinary efforts, and given that the victors of a conflict dictate terms, not the losers, the burden will be upon the Palestinians, to take the "sucker's walk", and to leave.
> 
> So long as the Palestinians are well supported in this relocation by the world community, the idea of relocation stands a better chance of working than any other option still on the table. A one-state solution hasn't been on the table since the 1948-1949 timeframe. The idea of a two-state solution died with the Intifadas and the Gaza Wars. All that's left is for either the Israelis or the Palestinians to pack up and move out of harm's way, and, given the vastly superior Israeli position, the Palestinians have drawn the short straw. Who knows? Perhaps the Egyptians can be persuaded or paid to part with a slice of the Sinai, or some other nearby country(ies) might be persuaded to take them (or some of them) in. Cash, and trade incentives, would work wonders, in greasing that particular wheel.
> 
> The sooner that relocation can be imagined and consensus built and the sooner that the practicalities can be conjured, in order to get underway with the damned thing, the better - and what better 'umbrella' under which to organize that humanitarian effort, than the United Nations itself? Hell, the Israelis could probably be persuaded to float the first few billions, to get the thing started, and I'm sure that the US, and much of the EU, would be willing to chip-in, if asked, in connection with a serious and viable effort along those lines... a chance to do something nice for the so-called Palestinian People that actually stands a decent chance of doing some sustainable good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Natural disaster, war or modern progress, populations have and continue to be displaced and land taken.
> Palestinians had a 10 yr period to return and claim land before it was considered abandoned.
> In Lebanon, palestinians were not allowed by the PLO to return to Israel except to carry out attacks and some special circumstances such as medical or educational wavers.  To apply and manage to arrange the journey was a long process.
> Arafat had fake deeds printed in Beirut and old keys handed out to make claims on land in Israel.  Pictures would be taken of people holding up these keys as proof of ownership of a home or land.  Keys that had no locks.
> There were exceptions here and there, but the majority were brainwashed or convinced themselves that land was their own even if it was not.  These stories and lies were handed down through generations and taken as fact.  It was part of the war.  Most (of course not all) cases where claims were brought before courts in Israel on land claims the courts were in palestinian favor.  Land that could not be returned were compensated with money or other land.  Yes some were forced out by Israelis but this was not a standard policy.  Usually it had to do with a strategic location or that the village had been complicit in the fighting or killing of jews.  Israel before the main exodus and even during the war continued to ask palestinians to stay and work together to build a state.
> Half left to avoid or escape war, or out of fear due to arab radio broadcasts that they would be raped or massacred.  False reports were put out.  Israel did not always jump to refute these reports, and in some cases too advantage of the claims, but it was far from the general policy or intent of Israel against the palestinians.
> Half the population stayed and enjoyed more rights and privileges that most of the rest of the arab world.
> Palestinian refugees were for the most part pawns, used by the arab states and their own leaders.  Their plight could have been ended in many ways, but they were kept as the "perpetual victims of Israel " both to feed hostility among the population and as propaganda tools in the world press.  That hostility spilled over in some cases to attack the host countries and justify massacres by the PLO. Bloody savagery that had been part of the taught narrative became the practice of those palestinians on fellow arabs and even in tribal blood feuds and political or sectarian wars within the camps against each other.
> Nothing about the palestinian/Israeli situation is clear cut and there is blame enough to be shared by all, but the palestinians as a people are not the victims that some would have everyone believe.  Much of their suffering is of their own making not wholly the fault of Israelis or jews.
> The hate has been carefully crafted, spread and nurtured instead of practical solution that might have benefited all involved with a more realistic and fact based approach.
Click to expand...


Can't wait to see any rebuttals to the facts you have posted here.


----------



## Coyote

Lipush said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..._People are connected to places. That's why you can't simply move people around like human pawns and relocate them on a whim_...
> 
> 
> 
> Can't simply relocate people?
> 
> You might want to ask that question of the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from Czechoslovakia's 'Sudatenland' by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from East Prussia (now Poland, after the land-grab) by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Muslims relocated to Pakistan and the Hindus relocated to India, when the old British Imperial India achieved her independence in 1947 and immediately split into modern-day Pakistan and India as we now know them, or the Jews of much of Islam, expelled or forced or nudged out of several Muslim countries, during the period 1948-1975... all of that involving millions, and all of that well within the bounds of Living Memory.
> 
> So long as the relocated people - the Palestinians in this case - receive Wergeld (compensation) and high-quality logistics support and are given land that they can truly call their own - someplace else - and are provided with large-scale assistance to build infrastructure sufficient to support them, and so long as they are assisted for a couple of decades after the Grand Moving Day, to get them well-launched into the world - relocation would be a blessing, both for the otherwise largely weak and powerless and degenerating-declining Palestinians, and their adversaries.
> 
> The Israelis and Palestinians hate each other too much to live peacefully, side by side. Too much blood has been spilled. Therefore, if that is true, logic indicates the removal of one or the other. Given that the Israelis are already the victors in this long-running fracas, and given that they are a regional superpower which can no longer be dislodged without the most extraordinary efforts, and given that the victors of a conflict dictate terms, not the losers, the burden will be upon the Palestinians, to take the "sucker's walk", and to leave.
> 
> So long as the Palestinians are well supported in this relocation by the world community, the idea of relocation stands a better chance of working than any other option still on the table. A one-state solution hasn't been on the table since the 1948-1949 timeframe. The idea of a two-state solution died with the Intifadas and the Gaza Wars. All that's left is for either the Israelis or the Palestinians to pack up and move out of harm's way, and, given the vastly superior Israeli position, the Palestinians have drawn the short straw.
> 
> The sooner that relocation can be imagined and consensus built and the sooner that the practicalities can be conjured, in order to get underway with the damned thing, the better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you can't simply relocate people against their will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Riiiiiiiight*
Click to expand...


They settlers who are illegally residing there - in some cases violating Israeli law.


----------



## Coyote

MJB12741 said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..._People are connected to places. That's why you can't simply move people around like human pawns and relocate them on a whim_...
> 
> 
> 
> Can't simply relocate people?
> 
> You might want to ask that question of the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from Czechoslovakia's 'Sudatenland' by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from East Prussia (now Poland, after the land-grab) by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Muslims relocated to Pakistan and the Hindus relocated to India, when the old British Imperial India achieved her independence in 1947 and immediately split into modern-day Pakistan and India as we now know them, or the Jews of much of Islam, expelled or forced or nudged out of several Muslim countries, during the period 1948-1975... all of that involving millions, and all of that well within the bounds of Living Memory.
> 
> So long as the relocated people - the Palestinians in this case - receive Wergeld (compensation) and high-quality logistics support and are given land that they can truly call their own - someplace else - and are provided with large-scale assistance to build infrastructure sufficient to support them, and so long as they are assisted for a couple of decades after the Grand Moving Day, to get them well-launched into the world - relocation would be a blessing, both for the otherwise largely weak and powerless and degenerating-declining Palestinians, and their adversaries.
> 
> The Israelis and Palestinians hate each other too much to live peacefully, side by side. Too much blood has been spilled. Therefore, if that is true, logic indicates the removal of one or the other. Given that the Israelis are already the victors in this long-running fracas, and given that they are a regional superpower which can no longer be dislodged without the most extraordinary efforts, and given that the victors of a conflict dictate terms, not the losers, the burden will be upon the Palestinians, to take the "sucker's walk", and to leave.
> 
> So long as the Palestinians are well supported in this relocation by the world community, the idea of relocation stands a better chance of working than any other option still on the table. A one-state solution hasn't been on the table since the 1948-1949 timeframe. The idea of a two-state solution died with the Intifadas and the Gaza Wars. All that's left is for either the Israelis or the Palestinians to pack up and move out of harm's way, and, given the vastly superior Israeli position, the Palestinians have drawn the short straw. Who knows? Perhaps the Egyptians can be persuaded or paid to part with a slice of the Sinai, or some other nearby country(ies) might be persuaded to take them (or some of them) in. Cash, and trade incentives, would work wonders, in greasing that particular wheel.
> 
> The sooner that relocation can be imagined and consensus built and the sooner that the practicalities can be conjured, in order to get underway with the damned thing, the better - and what better 'umbrella' under which to organize that humanitarian effort, than the United Nations itself? Hell, the Israelis could probably be persuaded to float the first few billions, to get the thing started, and I'm sure that the US, and much of the EU, would be willing to chip-in, if asked, in connection with a serious and viable effort along those lines... a chance to do something nice for the so-called Palestinian People that actually stands a decent chance of doing some sustainable good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Natural disaster, war or modern progress, populations have and continue to be displaced and land taken.
> Palestinians had a 10 yr period to return and claim land before it was considered abandoned.
> In Lebanon, palestinians were not allowed by the PLO to return to Israel except to carry out attacks and some special circumstances such as medical or educational wavers.  To apply and manage to arrange the journey was a long process.
> Arafat had fake deeds printed in Beirut and old keys handed out to make claims on land in Israel.  Pictures would be taken of people holding up these keys as proof of ownership of a home or land.  Keys that had no locks.
> There were exceptions here and there, but the majority were brainwashed or convinced themselves that land was their own even if it was not.  These stories and lies were handed down through generations and taken as fact.  It was part of the war.  Most (of course not all) cases where claims were brought before courts in Israel on land claims the courts were in palestinian favor.  Land that could not be returned were compensated with money or other land.  Yes some were forced out by Israelis but this was not a standard policy.  Usually it had to do with a strategic location or that the village had been complicit in the fighting or killing of jews.  Israel before the main exodus and even during the war continued to ask palestinians to stay and work together to build a state.
> Half left to avoid or escape war, or out of fear due to arab radio broadcasts that they would be raped or massacred.  False reports were put out.  Israel did not always jump to refute these reports, and in some cases too advantage of the claims, but it was far from the general policy or intent of Israel against the palestinians.
> Half the population stayed and enjoyed more rights and privileges that most of the rest of the arab world.
> Palestinian refugees were for the most part pawns, used by the arab states and their own leaders.  Their plight could have been ended in many ways, but they were kept as the "perpetual victims of Israel " both to feed hostility among the population and as propaganda tools in the world press.  That hostility spilled over in some cases to attack the host countries and justify massacres by the PLO. Bloody savagery that had been part of the taught narrative became the practice of those palestinians on fellow arabs and even in tribal blood feuds and political or sectarian wars within the camps against each other.
> Nothing about the palestinian/Israeli situation is clear cut and there is blame enough to be shared by all, but the palestinians as a people are not the victims that some would have everyone believe.  Much of their suffering is of their own making not wholly the fault of Israelis or jews.
> The hate has been carefully crafted, spread and nurtured instead of practical solution that might have benefited all involved with a more realistic and fact based approach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't wait to see any rebuttals to the facts you have posted here.
Click to expand...


I already made my rebuttal when I showed that the Palestinians did not all leave voluntarily and that there was a deliberate plan by the Israeli's to drive them out and prevent them from returning - contrary to claims being made (which you haven't rebutted either).  I don't disagree with all Aris has to say except that the Israeli's are by no means benevolent angels here and their actions are often overlooked, white washed or excused.  The Palestinians are their own worst enemy and Hamas the worst by far - but I get tired of the constant re-writing of Israel's own actions - such as the claim that the Palestinians left on their own or at the urging of the Arabs and leaving out their own part in it and their role in deliberately preventing their return.


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..._People are connected to places. That's why you can't simply move people around like human pawns and relocate them on a whim_...
> 
> 
> 
> Can't simply relocate people?
> 
> You might want to ask that question of the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from Czechoslovakia's 'Sudatenland' by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from East Prussia (now Poland, after the land-grab) by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Muslims relocated to Pakistan and the Hindus relocated to India, when the old British Imperial India achieved her independence in 1947 and immediately split into modern-day Pakistan and India as we now know them, or the Jews of much of Islam, expelled or forced or nudged out of several Muslim countries, during the period 1948-1975... all of that involving millions, and all of that well within the bounds of Living Memory.
> 
> So long as the relocated people - the Palestinians in this case - receive Wergeld (compensation) and high-quality logistics support and are given land that they can truly call their own - someplace else - and are provided with large-scale assistance to build infrastructure sufficient to support them, and so long as they are assisted for a couple of decades after the Grand Moving Day, to get them well-launched into the world - relocation would be a blessing, both for the otherwise largely weak and powerless and degenerating-declining Palestinians, and their adversaries.
> 
> The Israelis and Palestinians hate each other too much to live peacefully, side by side. Too much blood has been spilled. Therefore, if that is true, logic indicates the removal of one or the other. Given that the Israelis are already the victors in this long-running fracas, and given that they are a regional superpower which can no longer be dislodged without the most extraordinary efforts, and given that the victors of a conflict dictate terms, not the losers, the burden will be upon the Palestinians, to take the "sucker's walk", and to leave.
> 
> So long as the Palestinians are well supported in this relocation by the world community, the idea of relocation stands a better chance of working than any other option still on the table. A one-state solution hasn't been on the table since the 1948-1949 timeframe. The idea of a two-state solution died with the Intifadas and the Gaza Wars. All that's left is for either the Israelis or the Palestinians to pack up and move out of harm's way, and, given the vastly superior Israeli position, the Palestinians have drawn the short straw.
> 
> The sooner that relocation can be imagined and consensus built and the sooner that the practicalities can be conjured, in order to get underway with the damned thing, the better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you can't simply relocate people against their will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Riiiiiiiight*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They settlers who are illegally residing there - in some cases violating Israeli law.
Click to expand...


and some are reclaiming jewish land taken under jordanian rule or land that was bought and then sale nullified by jordanian/palestinian law with no return of money or compensation, just because the buyer was jewish.
Why should the WB or G be "jew free".  Why is it OK for palestinians to be racists but not for Israel to seek to maintain a jewish majority, while protecting minority rights?


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..._People are connected to places. That's why you can't simply move people around like human pawns and relocate them on a whim_...
> 
> 
> 
> Can't simply relocate people?
> 
> You might want to ask that question of the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from Czechoslovakia's 'Sudatenland' by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from East Prussia (now Poland, after the land-grab) by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Muslims relocated to Pakistan and the Hindus relocated to India, when the old British Imperial India achieved her independence in 1947 and immediately split into modern-day Pakistan and India as we now know them, or the Jews of much of Islam, expelled or forced or nudged out of several Muslim countries, during the period 1948-1975... all of that involving millions, and all of that well within the bounds of Living Memory.
> 
> So long as the relocated people - the Palestinians in this case - receive Wergeld (compensation) and high-quality logistics support and are given land that they can truly call their own - someplace else - and are provided with large-scale assistance to build infrastructure sufficient to support them, and so long as they are assisted for a couple of decades after the Grand Moving Day, to get them well-launched into the world - relocation would be a blessing, both for the otherwise largely weak and powerless and degenerating-declining Palestinians, and their adversaries.
> 
> The Israelis and Palestinians hate each other too much to live peacefully, side by side. Too much blood has been spilled. Therefore, if that is true, logic indicates the removal of one or the other. Given that the Israelis are already the victors in this long-running fracas, and given that they are a regional superpower which can no longer be dislodged without the most extraordinary efforts, and given that the victors of a conflict dictate terms, not the losers, the burden will be upon the Palestinians, to take the "sucker's walk", and to leave.
> 
> So long as the Palestinians are well supported in this relocation by the world community, the idea of relocation stands a better chance of working than any other option still on the table. A one-state solution hasn't been on the table since the 1948-1949 timeframe. The idea of a two-state solution died with the Intifadas and the Gaza Wars. All that's left is for either the Israelis or the Palestinians to pack up and move out of harm's way, and, given the vastly superior Israeli position, the Palestinians have drawn the short straw. Who knows? Perhaps the Egyptians can be persuaded or paid to part with a slice of the Sinai, or some other nearby country(ies) might be persuaded to take them (or some of them) in. Cash, and trade incentives, would work wonders, in greasing that particular wheel.
> 
> The sooner that relocation can be imagined and consensus built and the sooner that the practicalities can be conjured, in order to get underway with the damned thing, the better - and what better 'umbrella' under which to organize that humanitarian effort, than the United Nations itself? Hell, the Israelis could probably be persuaded to float the first few billions, to get the thing started, and I'm sure that the US, and much of the EU, would be willing to chip-in, if asked, in connection with a serious and viable effort along those lines... a chance to do something nice for the so-called Palestinian People that actually stands a decent chance of doing some sustainable good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Natural disaster, war or modern progress, populations have and continue to be displaced and land taken.
> Palestinians had a 10 yr period to return and claim land before it was considered abandoned.
> In Lebanon, palestinians were not allowed by the PLO to return to Israel except to carry out attacks and some special circumstances such as medical or educational wavers.  To apply and manage to arrange the journey was a long process.
> Arafat had fake deeds printed in Beirut and old keys handed out to make claims on land in Israel.  Pictures would be taken of people holding up these keys as proof of ownership of a home or land.  Keys that had no locks.
> There were exceptions here and there, but the majority were brainwashed or convinced themselves that land was their own even if it was not.  These stories and lies were handed down through generations and taken as fact.  It was part of the war.  Most (of course not all) cases where claims were brought before courts in Israel on land claims the courts were in palestinian favor.  Land that could not be returned were compensated with money or other land.  Yes some were forced out by Israelis but this was not a standard policy.  Usually it had to do with a strategic location or that the village had been complicit in the fighting or killing of jews.  Israel before the main exodus and even during the war continued to ask palestinians to stay and work together to build a state.
> Half left to avoid or escape war, or out of fear due to arab radio broadcasts that they would be raped or massacred.  False reports were put out.  Israel did not always jump to refute these reports, and in some cases too advantage of the claims, but it was far from the general policy or intent of Israel against the palestinians.
> Half the population stayed and enjoyed more rights and privileges that most of the rest of the arab world.
> Palestinian refugees were for the most part pawns, used by the arab states and their own leaders.  Their plight could have been ended in many ways, but they were kept as the "perpetual victims of Israel " both to feed hostility among the population and as propaganda tools in the world press.  That hostility spilled over in some cases to attack the host countries and justify massacres by the PLO. Bloody savagery that had been part of the taught narrative became the practice of those palestinians on fellow arabs and even in tribal blood feuds and political or sectarian wars within the camps against each other.
> Nothing about the palestinian/Israeli situation is clear cut and there is blame enough to be shared by all, but the palestinians as a people are not the victims that some would have everyone believe.  Much of their suffering is of their own making not wholly the fault of Israelis or jews.
> The hate has been carefully crafted, spread and nurtured instead of practical solution that might have benefited all involved with a more realistic and fact based approach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't wait to see any rebuttals to the facts you have posted here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already made my rebuttal when I showed that the Palestinians did not all leave voluntarily and that there was a deliberate plan by the Israeli's to drive them out and prevent them from returning - contrary to claims being made (which you haven't rebutted either).  I don't disagree with all Aris has to say except that the Israeli's are by no means benevolent angels here and their actions are often overlooked, white washed or excused.  The Palestinians are their own worst enemy and Hamas the worst by far - but I get tired of the constant re-writing of Israel's own actions - such as the claim that the Palestinians left on their own or at the urging of the Arabs and leaving out their own part in it and their role in deliberately preventing their return.
Click to expand...

 
How benevolent would you be if your neighbors wanted to kill you and steal the land you have invested in developing?  How would you feel if they attacked you constantly calling you all types of name and comparing you to the most vial of creatures?  How would you respond to massacres of civilians, women and children, sometimes in the most horrific way?
Would you put locks on your doors and close your windows or remove the doors and invite your neighbors to have their way with you?


----------



## Kondor3

aris2chat said:


> ...Why should the WB or G be "jew free". Why is it OK for palestinians to be racists but not for Israel to seek to maintain a jewish majority, while protecting minority rights?


Wwwwwhhhhhhaaaaaatttttt?

You demand '_*reciprocity*_' from Muslims, directed towards _non_-Muslims?

How _*dare*_ you, Infidel !


----------



## MJB12741

Coyote said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..._People are connected to places. That's why you can't simply move people around like human pawns and relocate them on a whim_...
> 
> 
> 
> Can't simply relocate people?
> 
> You might want to ask that question of the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from Czechoslovakia's 'Sudatenland' by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from East Prussia (now Poland, after the land-grab) by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Muslims relocated to Pakistan and the Hindus relocated to India, when the old British Imperial India achieved her independence in 1947 and immediately split into modern-day Pakistan and India as we now know them, or the Jews of much of Islam, expelled or forced or nudged out of several Muslim countries, during the period 1948-1975... all of that involving millions, and all of that well within the bounds of Living Memory.
> 
> So long as the relocated people - the Palestinians in this case - receive Wergeld (compensation) and high-quality logistics support and are given land that they can truly call their own - someplace else - and are provided with large-scale assistance to build infrastructure sufficient to support them, and so long as they are assisted for a couple of decades after the Grand Moving Day, to get them well-launched into the world - relocation would be a blessing, both for the otherwise largely weak and powerless and degenerating-declining Palestinians, and their adversaries.
> 
> The Israelis and Palestinians hate each other too much to live peacefully, side by side. Too much blood has been spilled. Therefore, if that is true, logic indicates the removal of one or the other. Given that the Israelis are already the victors in this long-running fracas, and given that they are a regional superpower which can no longer be dislodged without the most extraordinary efforts, and given that the victors of a conflict dictate terms, not the losers, the burden will be upon the Palestinians, to take the "sucker's walk", and to leave.
> 
> So long as the Palestinians are well supported in this relocation by the world community, the idea of relocation stands a better chance of working than any other option still on the table. A one-state solution hasn't been on the table since the 1948-1949 timeframe. The idea of a two-state solution died with the Intifadas and the Gaza Wars. All that's left is for either the Israelis or the Palestinians to pack up and move out of harm's way, and, given the vastly superior Israeli position, the Palestinians have drawn the short straw.
> 
> The sooner that relocation can be imagined and consensus built and the sooner that the practicalities can be conjured, in order to get underway with the damned thing, the better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you can't simply relocate people against their will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Riiiiiiiight*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They settlers who are illegally residing there - in some cases violating Israeli law.
Click to expand...



Okay, how about this proposal.  All illegal Israeli settlers & all illegal Palestinian squatters with no titles or deeds whatsoever to the land they stole have to leave the land?  Fair enough?


----------



## Coyote

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..._People are connected to places. That's why you can't simply move people around like human pawns and relocate them on a whim_...
> 
> 
> 
> Can't simply relocate people?
> 
> You might want to ask that question of the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from Czechoslovakia's 'Sudatenland' by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from East Prussia (now Poland, after the land-grab) by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Muslims relocated to Pakistan and the Hindus relocated to India, when the old British Imperial India achieved her independence in 1947 and immediately split into modern-day Pakistan and India as we now know them, or the Jews of much of Islam, expelled or forced or nudged out of several Muslim countries, during the period 1948-1975... all of that involving millions, and all of that well within the bounds of Living Memory.
> 
> So long as the relocated people - the Palestinians in this case - receive Wergeld (compensation) and high-quality logistics support and are given land that they can truly call their own - someplace else - and are provided with large-scale assistance to build infrastructure sufficient to support them, and so long as they are assisted for a couple of decades after the Grand Moving Day, to get them well-launched into the world - relocation would be a blessing, both for the otherwise largely weak and powerless and degenerating-declining Palestinians, and their adversaries.
> 
> The Israelis and Palestinians hate each other too much to live peacefully, side by side. Too much blood has been spilled. Therefore, if that is true, logic indicates the removal of one or the other. Given that the Israelis are already the victors in this long-running fracas, and given that they are a regional superpower which can no longer be dislodged without the most extraordinary efforts, and given that the victors of a conflict dictate terms, not the losers, the burden will be upon the Palestinians, to take the "sucker's walk", and to leave.
> 
> So long as the Palestinians are well supported in this relocation by the world community, the idea of relocation stands a better chance of working than any other option still on the table. A one-state solution hasn't been on the table since the 1948-1949 timeframe. The idea of a two-state solution died with the Intifadas and the Gaza Wars. All that's left is for either the Israelis or the Palestinians to pack up and move out of harm's way, and, given the vastly superior Israeli position, the Palestinians have drawn the short straw.
> 
> The sooner that relocation can be imagined and consensus built and the sooner that the practicalities can be conjured, in order to get underway with the damned thing, the better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you can't simply relocate people against their will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Riiiiiiiight*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They settlers who are illegally residing there - in some cases violating Israeli law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and some are reclaiming jewish land taken under jordanian rule or land that was bought and then sale nullified by jordanian/palestinian law with no return of money or compensation, just because the buyer was jewish.
> *Why should the WB or G be "jew free".*
Click to expand...


I never said it should be.



> Why is it OK for palestinians to be racists but not for Israel to seek to maintain a jewish majority, while protecting minority rights?



I never said it was ok.  But look at how you word it:  one side is "racist", the other side merely "seeks to maintain a jewish majority".  Your choice of wording is telling in this.


----------



## Coyote

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..._People are connected to places. That's why you can't simply move people around like human pawns and relocate them on a whim_...
> 
> 
> 
> Can't simply relocate people?
> 
> You might want to ask that question of the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from Czechoslovakia's 'Sudatenland' by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from East Prussia (now Poland, after the land-grab) by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Muslims relocated to Pakistan and the Hindus relocated to India, when the old British Imperial India achieved her independence in 1947 and immediately split into modern-day Pakistan and India as we now know them, or the Jews of much of Islam, expelled or forced or nudged out of several Muslim countries, during the period 1948-1975... all of that involving millions, and all of that well within the bounds of Living Memory.
> 
> So long as the relocated people - the Palestinians in this case - receive Wergeld (compensation) and high-quality logistics support and are given land that they can truly call their own - someplace else - and are provided with large-scale assistance to build infrastructure sufficient to support them, and so long as they are assisted for a couple of decades after the Grand Moving Day, to get them well-launched into the world - relocation would be a blessing, both for the otherwise largely weak and powerless and degenerating-declining Palestinians, and their adversaries.
> 
> The Israelis and Palestinians hate each other too much to live peacefully, side by side. Too much blood has been spilled. Therefore, if that is true, logic indicates the removal of one or the other. Given that the Israelis are already the victors in this long-running fracas, and given that they are a regional superpower which can no longer be dislodged without the most extraordinary efforts, and given that the victors of a conflict dictate terms, not the losers, the burden will be upon the Palestinians, to take the "sucker's walk", and to leave.
> 
> So long as the Palestinians are well supported in this relocation by the world community, the idea of relocation stands a better chance of working than any other option still on the table. A one-state solution hasn't been on the table since the 1948-1949 timeframe. The idea of a two-state solution died with the Intifadas and the Gaza Wars. All that's left is for either the Israelis or the Palestinians to pack up and move out of harm's way, and, given the vastly superior Israeli position, the Palestinians have drawn the short straw. Who knows? Perhaps the Egyptians can be persuaded or paid to part with a slice of the Sinai, or some other nearby country(ies) might be persuaded to take them (or some of them) in. Cash, and trade incentives, would work wonders, in greasing that particular wheel.
> 
> The sooner that relocation can be imagined and consensus built and the sooner that the practicalities can be conjured, in order to get underway with the damned thing, the better - and what better 'umbrella' under which to organize that humanitarian effort, than the United Nations itself? Hell, the Israelis could probably be persuaded to float the first few billions, to get the thing started, and I'm sure that the US, and much of the EU, would be willing to chip-in, if asked, in connection with a serious and viable effort along those lines... a chance to do something nice for the so-called Palestinian People that actually stands a decent chance of doing some sustainable good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Natural disaster, war or modern progress, populations have and continue to be displaced and land taken.
> Palestinians had a 10 yr period to return and claim land before it was considered abandoned.
> In Lebanon, palestinians were not allowed by the PLO to return to Israel except to carry out attacks and some special circumstances such as medical or educational wavers.  To apply and manage to arrange the journey was a long process.
> Arafat had fake deeds printed in Beirut and old keys handed out to make claims on land in Israel.  Pictures would be taken of people holding up these keys as proof of ownership of a home or land.  Keys that had no locks.
> There were exceptions here and there, but the majority were brainwashed or convinced themselves that land was their own even if it was not.  These stories and lies were handed down through generations and taken as fact.  It was part of the war.  Most (of course not all) cases where claims were brought before courts in Israel on land claims the courts were in palestinian favor.  Land that could not be returned were compensated with money or other land.  Yes some were forced out by Israelis but this was not a standard policy.  Usually it had to do with a strategic location or that the village had been complicit in the fighting or killing of jews.  Israel before the main exodus and even during the war continued to ask palestinians to stay and work together to build a state.
> Half left to avoid or escape war, or out of fear due to arab radio broadcasts that they would be raped or massacred.  False reports were put out.  Israel did not always jump to refute these reports, and in some cases too advantage of the claims, but it was far from the general policy or intent of Israel against the palestinians.
> Half the population stayed and enjoyed more rights and privileges that most of the rest of the arab world.
> Palestinian refugees were for the most part pawns, used by the arab states and their own leaders.  Their plight could have been ended in many ways, but they were kept as the "perpetual victims of Israel " both to feed hostility among the population and as propaganda tools in the world press.  That hostility spilled over in some cases to attack the host countries and justify massacres by the PLO. Bloody savagery that had been part of the taught narrative became the practice of those palestinians on fellow arabs and even in tribal blood feuds and political or sectarian wars within the camps against each other.
> Nothing about the palestinian/Israeli situation is clear cut and there is blame enough to be shared by all, but the palestinians as a people are not the victims that some would have everyone believe.  Much of their suffering is of their own making not wholly the fault of Israelis or jews.
> The hate has been carefully crafted, spread and nurtured instead of practical solution that might have benefited all involved with a more realistic and fact based approach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't wait to see any rebuttals to the facts you have posted here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already made my rebuttal when I showed that the Palestinians did not all leave voluntarily and that there was a deliberate plan by the Israeli's to drive them out and prevent them from returning - contrary to claims being made (which you haven't rebutted either).  I don't disagree with all Aris has to say except that the Israeli's are by no means benevolent angels here and their actions are often overlooked, white washed or excused.  The Palestinians are their own worst enemy and Hamas the worst by far - but I get tired of the constant re-writing of Israel's own actions - such as the claim that the Palestinians left on their own or at the urging of the Arabs and leaving out their own part in it and their role in deliberately preventing their return.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *How benevolent would you be if your neighbors wanted to kill you and steal the land you have invested in developing?  How would you feel if they attacked you constantly calling you all types of name and comparing you to the most vial of creatures? * How would you respond to massacres of civilians, women and children, sometimes in the most horrific way?
> Would you put locks on your doors and close your windows or remove the doors and invite your neighbors to have their way with you?
Click to expand...


There is a considerable amount of mistrust and hatred of the other on both sides.  *The Israelis aren't exactly angels here* but their transgressions get excused.  None of that changes the fact that the Israeli's were instrumental and as culpable as the Arabs in driving the Palestinians out and making sure most could not return.  You can not keep claiming that they had nothing to do with it or only barred the return of those who were terrorists.  That simply isn't true.


----------



## Coyote

MJB12741 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..._People are connected to places. That's why you can't simply move people around like human pawns and relocate them on a whim_...
> 
> 
> 
> Can't simply relocate people?
> 
> You might want to ask that question of the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from Czechoslovakia's 'Sudatenland' by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from East Prussia (now Poland, after the land-grab) by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Muslims relocated to Pakistan and the Hindus relocated to India, when the old British Imperial India achieved her independence in 1947 and immediately split into modern-day Pakistan and India as we now know them, or the Jews of much of Islam, expelled or forced or nudged out of several Muslim countries, during the period 1948-1975... all of that involving millions, and all of that well within the bounds of Living Memory.
> 
> So long as the relocated people - the Palestinians in this case - receive Wergeld (compensation) and high-quality logistics support and are given land that they can truly call their own - someplace else - and are provided with large-scale assistance to build infrastructure sufficient to support them, and so long as they are assisted for a couple of decades after the Grand Moving Day, to get them well-launched into the world - relocation would be a blessing, both for the otherwise largely weak and powerless and degenerating-declining Palestinians, and their adversaries.
> 
> The Israelis and Palestinians hate each other too much to live peacefully, side by side. Too much blood has been spilled. Therefore, if that is true, logic indicates the removal of one or the other. Given that the Israelis are already the victors in this long-running fracas, and given that they are a regional superpower which can no longer be dislodged without the most extraordinary efforts, and given that the victors of a conflict dictate terms, not the losers, the burden will be upon the Palestinians, to take the "sucker's walk", and to leave.
> 
> So long as the Palestinians are well supported in this relocation by the world community, the idea of relocation stands a better chance of working than any other option still on the table. A one-state solution hasn't been on the table since the 1948-1949 timeframe. The idea of a two-state solution died with the Intifadas and the Gaza Wars. All that's left is for either the Israelis or the Palestinians to pack up and move out of harm's way, and, given the vastly superior Israeli position, the Palestinians have drawn the short straw.
> 
> The sooner that relocation can be imagined and consensus built and the sooner that the practicalities can be conjured, in order to get underway with the damned thing, the better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you can't simply relocate people against their will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Riiiiiiiight*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They settlers who are illegally residing there - in some cases violating Israeli law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, how about this proposal.  All illegal Israeli settlers & all illegal Palestinian squatters with no titles or deeds whatsoever to the land they stole have to leave the land?  Fair enough?
Click to expand...


No.  You have people who have been living there for generations if not centuries.  Even some of the settlers are established for several generations at some of the oldest settlements.  You can't simply evict people like that and still call yourself "civilized".  Both sides need to negotiate a just and humane solution.  Both sides will need to give up some land and move some populations but in the end it's the only just way to settle things.


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't simply relocate people?
> 
> You might want to ask that question of the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from Czechoslovakia's 'Sudatenland' by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from East Prussia (now Poland, after the land-grab) by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Muslims relocated to Pakistan and the Hindus relocated to India, when the old British Imperial India achieved her independence in 1947 and immediately split into modern-day Pakistan and India as we now know them, or the Jews of much of Islam, expelled or forced or nudged out of several Muslim countries, during the period 1948-1975... all of that involving millions, and all of that well within the bounds of Living Memory.
> 
> So long as the relocated people - the Palestinians in this case - receive Wergeld (compensation) and high-quality logistics support and are given land that they can truly call their own - someplace else - and are provided with large-scale assistance to build infrastructure sufficient to support them, and so long as they are assisted for a couple of decades after the Grand Moving Day, to get them well-launched into the world - relocation would be a blessing, both for the otherwise largely weak and powerless and degenerating-declining Palestinians, and their adversaries.
> 
> The Israelis and Palestinians hate each other too much to live peacefully, side by side. Too much blood has been spilled. Therefore, if that is true, logic indicates the removal of one or the other. Given that the Israelis are already the victors in this long-running fracas, and given that they are a regional superpower which can no longer be dislodged without the most extraordinary efforts, and given that the victors of a conflict dictate terms, not the losers, the burden will be upon the Palestinians, to take the "sucker's walk", and to leave.
> 
> So long as the Palestinians are well supported in this relocation by the world community, the idea of relocation stands a better chance of working than any other option still on the table. A one-state solution hasn't been on the table since the 1948-1949 timeframe. The idea of a two-state solution died with the Intifadas and the Gaza Wars. All that's left is for either the Israelis or the Palestinians to pack up and move out of harm's way, and, given the vastly superior Israeli position, the Palestinians have drawn the short straw.
> 
> The sooner that relocation can be imagined and consensus built and the sooner that the practicalities can be conjured, in order to get underway with the damned thing, the better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you can't simply relocate people against their will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Riiiiiiiight*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They settlers who are illegally residing there - in some cases violating Israeli law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and some are reclaiming jewish land taken under jordanian rule or land that was bought and then sale nullified by jordanian/palestinian law with no return of money or compensation, just because the buyer was jewish.
> *Why should the WB or G be "jew free".*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said it should be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it OK for palestinians to be racists but not for Israel to seek to maintain a jewish majority, while protecting minority rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said it was ok.  But look at how you word it:  one side is "racist", the other side merely "seeks to maintain a jewish majority".  Your choice of wording is telling in this.
Click to expand...


Israel never said it wanted to be muslim free.  Israel does not want an influx of angry palestinians to be forced on them that would threaten the jewish homeland.
Palestinians want a jew free palestinian.  It wants a jew free territory consisting of the whole mandate.
Israel is trying to be reasonable.  It had a family reunification program for decades.  At one point it was even willing to take back those arabs that had left, not the whole extended generations as well.  It also offered for a time to take in 100,000 over a period of years to gradually integrate them, find housing and or jobs.  Several options were put forward and later withdraw when there was no willingness to negotiate or compromise.
So yes I am being careful with the phrasing because Israel has shown they are not acting in a racist manner.  Palestinians have proven to be highly racist not allowing jews to remain and become palestinian citizens, and this from Abbas.  Hamas is not going to be persuaded if Abbas is not willing to try and consider the possibility.
Do you have a better way of determining which side is racist and which one is just being cautious under a dire threat?


----------



## Coyote

aris2chat said:


> Israel never said it wanted to be muslim free.  Israel does not want an influx of angry palestinians to be forced on them that would threaten the jewish homeland.



No..they did not say that but they sure are working hard to reduce the Muslim population aren't they?  Why is it Israeli-Arab communities so seldom get building or expansion permits?  How many new Israeli settlements have been built and how many Arab ones?  Why is it citizenship is defined by ethnicity?

I actually agree that "right of return" is an impossible demand for Israel and I don't see it as an option.  But still - historically - Israel actively particpated in driving non-Jewish Palestinians out of Israel and legislating to bar their return.  How many did you say were allowed back...2000?  Out of how many?



> Palestinians want a jew free palestinian.  It wants a jew free territory consisting of the whole mandate.



Actually what Abbas said (in discussing a Palestinian state) was: “In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single *Israeli — civilian or soldier* — on our lands,” Abbas said following a meeting with interim Egyptian President Adly Mansour in Cairo.  That means no Israeli's.  It means those who choose to stay become Palestinians.  Somewhere it got morphed into "No Jews".  At least I'm assuming this is the statement?  It's the one that has been most brought up.



> Israel is trying to be reasonable.  It had a family reunification program for decades.  At one point it was even willing to take back those arabs that had left, not the whole extended generations as well.  It also offered for a time to take in 100,000 over a period of years to gradually integrate them, find housing and or jobs.  Several options were put forward and later withdraw when there was no willingness to negotiate or compromise.
> So yes I am being careful with the phrasing because Israel has shown they are not acting in a racist manner. * Palestinians have proven to be highly racist not allowing jews to remain and become palestinian citizens, and this from Abbas. *



Except that is not what Abbas said.



> Hamas is not going to be persuaded if Abbas is not willing to try and consider the possibility.
> Do you have a better way of determining which side is racist and which one is just being cautious under a dire threat?



Yes.  Take an honest look at the treatment of people and see who's racist and who is not.  There are a lot of inequities in Israel's system - the way Palestinians are treated in the judicial system and by the police and military for instance (particularly juviniles) and contrast that with how Israeli juviniles are treated.  The permit system for expansion.  Settlers throw stones at Palestinian children who have to pass in order to go to school.  How is it handled?  They go under military escort which might or might not show up.  How are Palestinian stone throwers threated?  Shot or arrested.  So...there is racism there.  It's not so pristine and clear cut as you would make it.  Does that mean the Palestinians are not racist?  I think many are as well and a culture based on a policy of complete seperation encourages that on both sides.


----------



## MJB12741

Coyote said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't simply relocate people?
> 
> You might want to ask that question of the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from Czechoslovakia's 'Sudatenland' by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from East Prussia (now Poland, after the land-grab) by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Muslims relocated to Pakistan and the Hindus relocated to India, when the old British Imperial India achieved her independence in 1947 and immediately split into modern-day Pakistan and India as we now know them, or the Jews of much of Islam, expelled or forced or nudged out of several Muslim countries, during the period 1948-1975... all of that involving millions, and all of that well within the bounds of Living Memory.
> 
> So long as the relocated people - the Palestinians in this case - receive Wergeld (compensation) and high-quality logistics support and are given land that they can truly call their own - someplace else - and are provided with large-scale assistance to build infrastructure sufficient to support them, and so long as they are assisted for a couple of decades after the Grand Moving Day, to get them well-launched into the world - relocation would be a blessing, both for the otherwise largely weak and powerless and degenerating-declining Palestinians, and their adversaries.
> 
> The Israelis and Palestinians hate each other too much to live peacefully, side by side. Too much blood has been spilled. Therefore, if that is true, logic indicates the removal of one or the other. Given that the Israelis are already the victors in this long-running fracas, and given that they are a regional superpower which can no longer be dislodged without the most extraordinary efforts, and given that the victors of a conflict dictate terms, not the losers, the burden will be upon the Palestinians, to take the "sucker's walk", and to leave.
> 
> So long as the Palestinians are well supported in this relocation by the world community, the idea of relocation stands a better chance of working than any other option still on the table. A one-state solution hasn't been on the table since the 1948-1949 timeframe. The idea of a two-state solution died with the Intifadas and the Gaza Wars. All that's left is for either the Israelis or the Palestinians to pack up and move out of harm's way, and, given the vastly superior Israeli position, the Palestinians have drawn the short straw.
> 
> The sooner that relocation can be imagined and consensus built and the sooner that the practicalities can be conjured, in order to get underway with the damned thing, the better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you can't simply relocate people against their will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Riiiiiiiight*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They settlers who are illegally residing there - in some cases violating Israeli law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, how about this proposal.  All illegal Israeli settlers & all illegal Palestinian squatters with no titles or deeds whatsoever to the land they stole have to leave the land?  Fair enough?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  You have people who have been living there for generations if not centuries.  Even some of the settlers are established for several generations at some of the oldest settlements.  You can't simply evict people like that and still call yourself "civilized".  Both sides need to negotiate a just and humane solution.  Both sides will need to give up some land and move some populations but in the end it's the only just way to settle things.
Click to expand...


That will never happen as long as the Palestinians elect leaders who vow to annihilate Israel.  Never, ever.


----------



## Coyote

MJB12741 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you can't simply relocate people against their will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Riiiiiiiight*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They settlers who are illegally residing there - in some cases violating Israeli law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, how about this proposal.  All illegal Israeli settlers & all illegal Palestinian squatters with no titles or deeds whatsoever to the land they stole have to leave the land?  Fair enough?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  You have people who have been living there for generations if not centuries.  Even some of the settlers are established for several generations at some of the oldest settlements.  You can't simply evict people like that and still call yourself "civilized".  Both sides need to negotiate a just and humane solution.  Both sides will need to give up some land and move some populations but in the end it's the only just way to settle things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That will never happen as long as the Palestinians elect leaders who vow to annihilate Israel.  Never, ever.
Click to expand...


They need to recognize Israel's right to exist...I do agree there.


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't simply relocate people?
> 
> You might want to ask that question of the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from Czechoslovakia's 'Sudatenland' by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from East Prussia (now Poland, after the land-grab) by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Muslims relocated to Pakistan and the Hindus relocated to India, when the old British Imperial India achieved her independence in 1947 and immediately split into modern-day Pakistan and India as we now know them, or the Jews of much of Islam, expelled or forced or nudged out of several Muslim countries, during the period 1948-1975... all of that involving millions, and all of that well within the bounds of Living Memory.
> 
> So long as the relocated people - the Palestinians in this case - receive Wergeld (compensation) and high-quality logistics support and are given land that they can truly call their own - someplace else - and are provided with large-scale assistance to build infrastructure sufficient to support them, and so long as they are assisted for a couple of decades after the Grand Moving Day, to get them well-launched into the world - relocation would be a blessing, both for the otherwise largely weak and powerless and degenerating-declining Palestinians, and their adversaries.
> 
> The Israelis and Palestinians hate each other too much to live peacefully, side by side. Too much blood has been spilled. Therefore, if that is true, logic indicates the removal of one or the other. Given that the Israelis are already the victors in this long-running fracas, and given that they are a regional superpower which can no longer be dislodged without the most extraordinary efforts, and given that the victors of a conflict dictate terms, not the losers, the burden will be upon the Palestinians, to take the "sucker's walk", and to leave.
> 
> So long as the Palestinians are well supported in this relocation by the world community, the idea of relocation stands a better chance of working than any other option still on the table. A one-state solution hasn't been on the table since the 1948-1949 timeframe. The idea of a two-state solution died with the Intifadas and the Gaza Wars. All that's left is for either the Israelis or the Palestinians to pack up and move out of harm's way, and, given the vastly superior Israeli position, the Palestinians have drawn the short straw. Who knows? Perhaps the Egyptians can be persuaded or paid to part with a slice of the Sinai, or some other nearby country(ies) might be persuaded to take them (or some of them) in. Cash, and trade incentives, would work wonders, in greasing that particular wheel.
> 
> The sooner that relocation can be imagined and consensus built and the sooner that the practicalities can be conjured, in order to get underway with the damned thing, the better - and what better 'umbrella' under which to organize that humanitarian effort, than the United Nations itself? Hell, the Israelis could probably be persuaded to float the first few billions, to get the thing started, and I'm sure that the US, and much of the EU, would be willing to chip-in, if asked, in connection with a serious and viable effort along those lines... a chance to do something nice for the so-called Palestinian People that actually stands a decent chance of doing some sustainable good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural disaster, war or modern progress, populations have and continue to be displaced and land taken.
> Palestinians had a 10 yr period to return and claim land before it was considered abandoned.
> In Lebanon, palestinians were not allowed by the PLO to return to Israel except to carry out attacks and some special circumstances such as medical or educational wavers.  To apply and manage to arrange the journey was a long process.
> Arafat had fake deeds printed in Beirut and old keys handed out to make claims on land in Israel.  Pictures would be taken of people holding up these keys as proof of ownership of a home or land.  Keys that had no locks.
> There were exceptions here and there, but the majority were brainwashed or convinced themselves that land was their own even if it was not.  These stories and lies were handed down through generations and taken as fact.  It was part of the war.  Most (of course not all) cases where claims were brought before courts in Israel on land claims the courts were in palestinian favor.  Land that could not be returned were compensated with money or other land.  Yes some were forced out by Israelis but this was not a standard policy.  Usually it had to do with a strategic location or that the village had been complicit in the fighting or killing of jews.  Israel before the main exodus and even during the war continued to ask palestinians to stay and work together to build a state.
> Half left to avoid or escape war, or out of fear due to arab radio broadcasts that they would be raped or massacred.  False reports were put out.  Israel did not always jump to refute these reports, and in some cases too advantage of the claims, but it was far from the general policy or intent of Israel against the palestinians.
> Half the population stayed and enjoyed more rights and privileges that most of the rest of the arab world.
> Palestinian refugees were for the most part pawns, used by the arab states and their own leaders.  Their plight could have been ended in many ways, but they were kept as the "perpetual victims of Israel " both to feed hostility among the population and as propaganda tools in the world press.  That hostility spilled over in some cases to attack the host countries and justify massacres by the PLO. Bloody savagery that had been part of the taught narrative became the practice of those palestinians on fellow arabs and even in tribal blood feuds and political or sectarian wars within the camps against each other.
> Nothing about the palestinian/Israeli situation is clear cut and there is blame enough to be shared by all, but the palestinians as a people are not the victims that some would have everyone believe.  Much of their suffering is of their own making not wholly the fault of Israelis or jews.
> The hate has been carefully crafted, spread and nurtured instead of practical solution that might have benefited all involved with a more realistic and fact based approach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't wait to see any rebuttals to the facts you have posted here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already made my rebuttal when I showed that the Palestinians did not all leave voluntarily and that there was a deliberate plan by the Israeli's to drive them out and prevent them from returning - contrary to claims being made (which you haven't rebutted either).  I don't disagree with all Aris has to say except that the Israeli's are by no means benevolent angels here and their actions are often overlooked, white washed or excused.  The Palestinians are their own worst enemy and Hamas the worst by far - but I get tired of the constant re-writing of Israel's own actions - such as the claim that the Palestinians left on their own or at the urging of the Arabs and leaving out their own part in it and their role in deliberately preventing their return.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *How benevolent would you be if your neighbors wanted to kill you and steal the land you have invested in developing?  How would you feel if they attacked you constantly calling you all types of name and comparing you to the most vial of creatures? * How would you respond to massacres of civilians, women and children, sometimes in the most horrific way?
> Would you put locks on your doors and close your windows or remove the doors and invite your neighbors to have their way with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a considerable amount of mistrust and hatred of the other on both sides.  *The Israelis aren't exactly angels here* but their transgressions get excused.  None of that changes the fact that the Israeli's were instrumental and as culpable as the Arabs in driving the Palestinians out and making sure most could not return.  You can not keep claiming that they had nothing to do with it or only barred the return of those who were terrorists.  That simply isn't true.
Click to expand...


I worked for almost five years with the palestinians.  I helped some of the families apply for reunification and arranged transport to cyprus or egypt.  I knew the threats they faced even applying.  I knew the controls within the camps and at the borders to Israel.  So yes I can claim certain facts. Is there anyone else with more direct experience?  
I'm not without bias, no human is, but I try to be fair.
Perhaps you can find people with more direct experience with the palestinians, spent more time in the camps.  Someone that has seen more victims of palestinian and more palestinian victims.  Someone who has spent more time studying the region and is more involved in the current politics.
I am just sharing my own knowledge and experience as well as proving other research, news and opinions hoping other can benefit.  If people didn't care they wouldn't be involved in discussion forums where information and ideas are being shared.


----------



## aris2chat

Israel has built towns for the bedouin with infrastructure and social services near by.
Building a new room on an old house with no electric or water, no a permit would not be given.  Building new housing with plumbing and proper sewage probably would be.  I remember my grandma's home in the mountains, she had exposed wire stung like christmas lights over windows and taped to the ceiling because electric came to the area long after the two room rock dwelling was built.  Plumbing was added to a bathroom/kitchen brick outhouse on the balcony.  She cooked with charcoal on a small grill not much bigger than a shoe box.  She used to pump water till she finally let us install pipes from the village water system.  Glass windows were a luxury she did not think she needed but since she began the season early and stayed till well into fall we had to talk her into it.
If she had to get permits and get hooked up to town services it would have made more sense to tear down and rebuild.  Eventually she did have to give up the place for modernization to come and new roads to be laid over the piping and sewage.
I can understand Israel not just letting the average person build on or make patchwork improvements with no standards or inspections that we in the west have to pay for and wait for appointments and re-inspections several time over till final approval.  Nit pick over how many outlets a room has or how many nail in a wall or the right sheetrock for a bedroom vs a garage wall and the beams 16 and not 18 inches, etc.
Israel wants the people to have safe housing especially in an earthquake prone land.  can you see California letting any old construction or improvement without inspections or high standards?  Buildings have to be retro fitted with vibration pads and any renovations or refits won't be allowed to even begin if steps for upgrades are no included.  You can't even put up a log cabin without filing plans for approval.  You can't dig in your own yard without knowing were the pipes and cables are buried and have someone come out and mark and later inspect to make sure you have not damage anything.
No arabs cannot get permits unless the right steps are taken and the right type of improvements are planned.
As for jewish vs arab towns in the WB?  There are not just palestinian planners but Israelis as well building modern towns for the palestinians in the WB.  It is not just jewish settlements.  You just don't hear a lot about what is built for the palestinians because there is no controversy.
No you can't out up a tin shed and call it a dwelling.  You can't go from tent to press board with maybe an outhouse.  Israel wants buildings to have safe plumbing, electric and such if any construction is to be done.  No log cabin next to a luxury apartment building.  You have to improve the value of the land and not diminish the value of your neighbor's property.
It does matter what you want and what is expected by the state.
Palestinians permits for building should also connect to services and not be an eyesore or be a health risk to the those who will be on the land or next door.
Permits cost money and palestinians, and some arabs, don't want to pay the fees to file for permits and inspections.  They go ahead and build anyway and it later is torn down because the construction was not approved first.
Too often there is a conflict between a wild west homestead mentality and a modern urban building code and proper material requirements.
Saying they can't get permits is vague and often not correct.
Most multi family building in the middle east are rebar, cement and cinder block.  If you don't have the right foundation and install the right piping and wiring before the wall go up, you will have the structure torn down.  If you don't file proper blueprints you won't get a permit.  If you don't have the right material or inspections you will not get final approval.  If you don't know the laws or try to bypass them, you will get in trouble.
Just digging in Israel and the PA can be a long and costly hardship.  Antiquities have to sign off on everything and anything found in the process.  It could be years of delay or the land becomes protected and building denied.
No getting a permit is not an easy process for Israelis or palestinians.


----------



## P F Tinmore

aris2chat said:


> Israel has built towns for the bedouin with infrastructure and social services near by.
> Building a new room on an old house with no electric or water, no a permit would not be given.  Building new housing with plumbing and proper sewage probably would be.  I remember my grandma's home in the mountains, she had exposed wire stung like christmas lights over windows and taped to the ceiling because electric came to the area long after the two room rock dwelling was built.  Plumbing was added to a bathroom/kitchen brick outhouse on the balcony.  She cooked with charcoal on a small grill not much bigger than a shoe box.  She used to pump water till she finally let us install pipes from the village water system.  Glass windows were a luxury she did not think she needed but since she began the season early and stayed till well into fall we had to talk her into it.
> If she had to get permits and get hooked up to town services it would have made more sense to tear down and rebuild.  Eventually she did have to give up the place for modernization to come and new roads to be laid over the piping and sewage.
> I can understand Israel not just letting the average person build on or make patchwork improvements with no standards or inspections that we in the west have to pay for and wait for appointments and re-inspections several time over till final approval.  Nit pick over how many outlets a room has or how many nail in a wall or the right sheetrock for a bedroom vs a garage wall and the beams 16 and not 18 inches, etc.
> Israel wants the people to have safe housing especially in an earthquake prone land.  can you see California letting any old construction or improvement without inspections or high standards?  Buildings have to be retro fitted with vibration pads and any renovations or refits won't be allowed to even begin if steps for upgrades are no included.  You can't even put up a log cabin without filing plans for approval.  You can't dig in your own yard without knowing were the pipes and cables are buried and have someone come out and mark and later inspect to make sure you have not damage anything.
> No arabs cannot get permits unless the right steps are taken and the right type of improvements are planned.
> As for jewish vs arab towns in the WB?  There are not just palestinian planners but Israelis as well building modern towns for the palestinians in the WB.  It is not just jewish settlements.  You just don't hear a lot about what is built for the palestinians because there is no controversy.
> No you can't out up a tin shed and call it a dwelling.  You can't go from tent to press board with maybe an outhouse.  Israel wants buildings to have safe plumbing, electric and such if any construction is to be done.  No log cabin next to a luxury apartment building.  You have to improve the value of the land and not diminish the value of your neighbor's property.
> It does matter what you want and what is expected by the state.
> Palestinians permits for building should also connect to services and not be an eyesore or be a health risk to the those who will be on the land or next door.
> Permits cost money and palestinians, and some arabs, don't want to pay the fees to file for permits and inspections.  They go ahead and build anyway and it later is torn down because the construction was not approved first.
> Too often there is a conflict between a wild west homestead mentality and a modern urban building code and proper material requirements.
> Saying they can't get permits is vague and often not correct.
> Most multi family building in the middle east are rebar, cement and cinder block.  If you don't have the right foundation and install the right piping and wiring before the wall go up, you will have the structure torn down.  If you don't file proper blueprints you won't get a permit.  If you don't have the right material or inspections you will not get final approval.  If you don't know the laws or try to bypass them, you will get in trouble.
> Just digging in Israel and the PA can be a long and costly hardship.  Antiquities have to sign off on everything and anything found in the process.  It could be years of delay or the land becomes protected and building denied.
> No getting a permit is not an easy process for Israelis or palestinians.


Where did you get that pantload?

Got a link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Huwaida Arraf, Gaza Freedom Flotilla Organizer *


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are people.  Human beings. Men and women and children.
> 
> Who would have thought it would be this difficult a question to answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because these men, women and children are afraid to admit that they are not from Palestine originally and are recent migrants. When for 150 years they called themselves Syrians, Egyptians and Saudis and would start a war if they were called Palestinians. That is why it is so difficult to answer this question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As the record shows in Mandatory reports to the LoN and the UN later.  Nearly all the immigration was Jewish.  The Christians and Muslims are the natives. Read note 5. below from the official report of the Mandatory.:
Click to expand...





 Only according to the ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA, the demographics paint a completely different picture. The only way the arab muslims could have increased as they did was through illegal migration. There was no way every female could give birth to triplets every 9 months to sustain the population increase in the poor 3rd world conditions. S how did they do it when the live birth rate was less than 12%


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has built towns for the bedouin with infrastructure and social services near by.
> Building a new room on an old house with no electric or water, no a permit would not be given.  Building new housing with plumbing and proper sewage probably would be.  I remember my grandma's home in the mountains, she had exposed wire stung like christmas lights over windows and taped to the ceiling because electric came to the area long after the two room rock dwelling was built.  Plumbing was added to a bathroom/kitchen brick outhouse on the balcony.  She cooked with charcoal on a small grill not much bigger than a shoe box.  She used to pump water till she finally let us install pipes from the village water system.  Glass windows were a luxury she did not think she needed but since she began the season early and stayed till well into fall we had to talk her into it.
> If she had to get permits and get hooked up to town services it would have made more sense to tear down and rebuild.  Eventually she did have to give up the place for modernization to come and new roads to be laid over the piping and sewage.
> I can understand Israel not just letting the average person build on or make patchwork improvements with no standards or inspections that we in the west have to pay for and wait for appointments and re-inspections several time over till final approval.  Nit pick over how many outlets a room has or how many nail in a wall or the right sheetrock for a bedroom vs a garage wall and the beams 16 and not 18 inches, etc.
> Israel wants the people to have safe housing especially in an earthquake prone land.  can you see California letting any old construction or improvement without inspections or high standards?  Buildings have to be retro fitted with vibration pads and any renovations or refits won't be allowed to even begin if steps for upgrades are no included.  You can't even put up a log cabin without filing plans for approval.  You can't dig in your own yard without knowing were the pipes and cables are buried and have someone come out and mark and later inspect to make sure you have not damage anything.
> No arabs cannot get permits unless the right steps are taken and the right type of improvements are planned.
> As for jewish vs arab towns in the WB?  There are not just palestinian planners but Israelis as well building modern towns for the palestinians in the WB.  It is not just jewish settlements.  You just don't hear a lot about what is built for the palestinians because there is no controversy.
> No you can't out up a tin shed and call it a dwelling.  You can't go from tent to press board with maybe an outhouse.  Israel wants buildings to have safe plumbing, electric and such if any construction is to be done.  No log cabin next to a luxury apartment building.  You have to improve the value of the land and not diminish the value of your neighbor's property.
> It does matter what you want and what is expected by the state.
> Palestinians permits for building should also connect to services and not be an eyesore or be a health risk to the those who will be on the land or next door.
> Permits cost money and palestinians, and some arabs, don't want to pay the fees to file for permits and inspections.  They go ahead and build anyway and it later is torn down because the construction was not approved first.
> Too often there is a conflict between a wild west homestead mentality and a modern urban building code and proper material requirements.
> Saying they can't get permits is vague and often not correct.
> Most multi family building in the middle east are rebar, cement and cinder block.  If you don't have the right foundation and install the right piping and wiring before the wall go up, you will have the structure torn down.  If you don't file proper blueprints you won't get a permit.  If you don't have the right material or inspections you will not get final approval.  If you don't know the laws or try to bypass them, you will get in trouble.
> Just digging in Israel and the PA can be a long and costly hardship.  Antiquities have to sign off on everything and anything found in the process.  It could be years of delay or the land becomes protected and building denied.
> No getting a permit is not an easy process for Israelis or palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get that pantload?
> 
> Got a link?
Click to expand...


New palestinian towns of Rawabi, Talet Nueima and Batir in the WB  with another to be planned in the jordan valley.  Jdeideh will be a new palestinians town in Israel.  Rahat and Tel as-Sabi were built for the bedouin in the negev.
New construction in Jerusalem will be for jews and arabs.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has built towns for the bedouin with infrastructure and social services near by.
> Building a new room on an old house with no electric or water, no a permit would not be given.  Building new housing with plumbing and proper sewage probably would be.  I remember my grandma's home in the mountains, she had exposed wire stung like christmas lights over windows and taped to the ceiling because electric came to the area long after the two room rock dwelling was built.  Plumbing was added to a bathroom/kitchen brick outhouse on the balcony.  She cooked with charcoal on a small grill not much bigger than a shoe box.  She used to pump water till she finally let us install pipes from the village water system.  Glass windows were a luxury she did not think she needed but since she began the season early and stayed till well into fall we had to talk her into it.
> If she had to get permits and get hooked up to town services it would have made more sense to tear down and rebuild.  Eventually she did have to give up the place for modernization to come and new roads to be laid over the piping and sewage.
> I can understand Israel not just letting the average person build on or make patchwork improvements with no standards or inspections that we in the west have to pay for and wait for appointments and re-inspections several time over till final approval.  Nit pick over how many outlets a room has or how many nail in a wall or the right sheetrock for a bedroom vs a garage wall and the beams 16 and not 18 inches, etc.
> Israel wants the people to have safe housing especially in an earthquake prone land.  can you see California letting any old construction or improvement without inspections or high standards?  Buildings have to be retro fitted with vibration pads and any renovations or refits won't be allowed to even begin if steps for upgrades are no included.  You can't even put up a log cabin without filing plans for approval.  You can't dig in your own yard without knowing were the pipes and cables are buried and have someone come out and mark and later inspect to make sure you have not damage anything.
> No arabs cannot get permits unless the right steps are taken and the right type of improvements are planned.
> As for jewish vs arab towns in the WB?  There are not just palestinian planners but Israelis as well building modern towns for the palestinians in the WB.  It is not just jewish settlements.  You just don't hear a lot about what is built for the palestinians because there is no controversy.
> No you can't out up a tin shed and call it a dwelling.  You can't go from tent to press board with maybe an outhouse.  Israel wants buildings to have safe plumbing, electric and such if any construction is to be done.  No log cabin next to a luxury apartment building.  You have to improve the value of the land and not diminish the value of your neighbor's property.
> It does matter what you want and what is expected by the state.
> Palestinians permits for building should also connect to services and not be an eyesore or be a health risk to the those who will be on the land or next door.
> Permits cost money and palestinians, and some arabs, don't want to pay the fees to file for permits and inspections.  They go ahead and build anyway and it later is torn down because the construction was not approved first.
> Too often there is a conflict between a wild west homestead mentality and a modern urban building code and proper material requirements.
> Saying they can't get permits is vague and often not correct.
> Most multi family building in the middle east are rebar, cement and cinder block.  If you don't have the right foundation and install the right piping and wiring before the wall go up, you will have the structure torn down.  If you don't file proper blueprints you won't get a permit.  If you don't have the right material or inspections you will not get final approval.  If you don't know the laws or try to bypass them, you will get in trouble.
> Just digging in Israel and the PA can be a long and costly hardship.  Antiquities have to sign off on everything and anything found in the process.  It could be years of delay or the land becomes protected and building denied.
> No getting a permit is not an easy process for Israelis or palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get that pantload?
> 
> Got a link?
Click to expand...

Tinmore, I just got rid of a pantload. Want a link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

aris2chat said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has built towns for the bedouin with infrastructure and social services near by.
> Building a new room on an old house with no electric or water, no a permit would not be given.  Building new housing with plumbing and proper sewage probably would be.  I remember my grandma's home in the mountains, she had exposed wire stung like christmas lights over windows and taped to the ceiling because electric came to the area long after the two room rock dwelling was built.  Plumbing was added to a bathroom/kitchen brick outhouse on the balcony.  She cooked with charcoal on a small grill not much bigger than a shoe box.  She used to pump water till she finally let us install pipes from the village water system.  Glass windows were a luxury she did not think she needed but since she began the season early and stayed till well into fall we had to talk her into it.
> If she had to get permits and get hooked up to town services it would have made more sense to tear down and rebuild.  Eventually she did have to give up the place for modernization to come and new roads to be laid over the piping and sewage.
> I can understand Israel not just letting the average person build on or make patchwork improvements with no standards or inspections that we in the west have to pay for and wait for appointments and re-inspections several time over till final approval.  Nit pick over how many outlets a room has or how many nail in a wall or the right sheetrock for a bedroom vs a garage wall and the beams 16 and not 18 inches, etc.
> Israel wants the people to have safe housing especially in an earthquake prone land.  can you see California letting any old construction or improvement without inspections or high standards?  Buildings have to be retro fitted with vibration pads and any renovations or refits won't be allowed to even begin if steps for upgrades are no included.  You can't even put up a log cabin without filing plans for approval.  You can't dig in your own yard without knowing were the pipes and cables are buried and have someone come out and mark and later inspect to make sure you have not damage anything.
> No arabs cannot get permits unless the right steps are taken and the right type of improvements are planned.
> As for jewish vs arab towns in the WB?  There are not just palestinian planners but Israelis as well building modern towns for the palestinians in the WB.  It is not just jewish settlements.  You just don't hear a lot about what is built for the palestinians because there is no controversy.
> No you can't out up a tin shed and call it a dwelling.  You can't go from tent to press board with maybe an outhouse.  Israel wants buildings to have safe plumbing, electric and such if any construction is to be done.  No log cabin next to a luxury apartment building.  You have to improve the value of the land and not diminish the value of your neighbor's property.
> It does matter what you want and what is expected by the state.
> Palestinians permits for building should also connect to services and not be an eyesore or be a health risk to the those who will be on the land or next door.
> Permits cost money and palestinians, and some arabs, don't want to pay the fees to file for permits and inspections.  They go ahead and build anyway and it later is torn down because the construction was not approved first.
> Too often there is a conflict between a wild west homestead mentality and a modern urban building code and proper material requirements.
> Saying they can't get permits is vague and often not correct.
> Most multi family building in the middle east are rebar, cement and cinder block.  If you don't have the right foundation and install the right piping and wiring before the wall go up, you will have the structure torn down.  If you don't file proper blueprints you won't get a permit.  If you don't have the right material or inspections you will not get final approval.  If you don't know the laws or try to bypass them, you will get in trouble.
> Just digging in Israel and the PA can be a long and costly hardship.  Antiquities have to sign off on everything and anything found in the process.  It could be years of delay or the land becomes protected and building denied.
> No getting a permit is not an easy process for Israelis or palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get that pantload?
> 
> Got a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> New palestinian towns of Rawabi, Talet Nueima and Batir in the WB  with another to be planned in the jordan valley.  Jdeideh will be a new palestinians town in Israel.  *Rahat and Tel as-Sabi were built for the bedouin in the negev.*
> New construction in Jerusalem will be for jews and arabs.
Click to expand...

Rahat is a ghetto built to dump the Bedouins when Israel steals their land.

*Evicting the Bedouin - Israel/Palestine *


----------



## MJB12741

aris2chat said:


> Israel has built towns for the bedouin with infrastructure and social services near by.
> Building a new room on an old house with no electric or water, no a permit would not be given.  Building new housing with plumbing and proper sewage probably would be.  I remember my grandma's home in the mountains, she had exposed wire stung like christmas lights over windows and taped to the ceiling because electric came to the area long after the two room rock dwelling was built.  Plumbing was added to a bathroom/kitchen brick outhouse on the balcony.  She cooked with charcoal on a small grill not much bigger than a shoe box.  She used to pump water till she finally let us install pipes from the village water system.  Glass windows were a luxury she did not think she needed but since she began the season early and stayed till well into fall we had to talk her into it.
> If she had to get permits and get hooked up to town services it would have made more sense to tear down and rebuild.  Eventually she did have to give up the place for modernization to come and new roads to be laid over the piping and sewage.
> I can understand Israel not just letting the average person build on or make patchwork improvements with no standards or inspections that we in the west have to pay for and wait for appointments and re-inspections several time over till final approval.  Nit pick over how many outlets a room has or how many nail in a wall or the right sheetrock for a bedroom vs a garage wall and the beams 16 and not 18 inches, etc.
> Israel wants the people to have safe housing especially in an earthquake prone land.  can you see California letting any old construction or improvement without inspections or high standards?  Buildings have to be retro fitted with vibration pads and any renovations or refits won't be allowed to even begin if steps for upgrades are no included.  You can't even put up a log cabin without filing plans for approval.  You can't dig in your own yard without knowing were the pipes and cables are buried and have someone come out and mark and later inspect to make sure you have not damage anything.
> No arabs cannot get permits unless the right steps are taken and the right type of improvements are planned.
> As for jewish vs arab towns in the WB?  There are not just palestinian planners but Israelis as well building modern towns for the palestinians in the WB.  It is not just jewish settlements.  You just don't hear a lot about what is built for the palestinians because there is no controversy.
> No you can't out up a tin shed and call it a dwelling.  You can't go from tent to press board with maybe an outhouse.  Israel wants buildings to have safe plumbing, electric and such if any construction is to be done.  No log cabin next to a luxury apartment building.  You have to improve the value of the land and not diminish the value of your neighbor's property.
> It does matter what you want and what is expected by the state.
> Palestinians permits for building should also connect to services and not be an eyesore or be a health risk to the those who will be on the land or next door.
> Permits cost money and palestinians, and some arabs, don't want to pay the fees to file for permits and inspections.  They go ahead and build anyway and it later is torn down because the construction was not approved first.
> Too often there is a conflict between a wild west homestead mentality and a modern urban building code and proper material requirements.
> Saying they can't get permits is vague and often not correct.
> Most multi family building in the middle east are rebar, cement and cinder block.  If you don't have the right foundation and install the right piping and wiring before the wall go up, you will have the structure torn down.  If you don't file proper blueprints you won't get a permit.  If you don't have the right material or inspections you will not get final approval.  If you don't know the laws or try to bypass them, you will get in trouble.
> Just digging in Israel and the PA can be a long and costly hardship.  Antiquities have to sign off on everything and anything found in the process.  It could be years of delay or the land becomes protected and building denied.
> No getting a permit is not an easy process for Israelis or palestinians.



Let the facts speak for all of us.  Sure is interesting how the majority of Palestinians bitch about Israel & yet how many Palestinian citizens of Israel have opted to leave Israel after all Israel has provided for them?


----------



## Hossfly

aris2chat said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has built towns for the bedouin with infrastructure and social services near by.
> Building a new room on an old house with no electric or water, no a permit would not be given.  Building new housing with plumbing and proper sewage probably would be.  I remember my grandma's home in the mountains, she had exposed wire stung like christmas lights over windows and taped to the ceiling because electric came to the area long after the two room rock dwelling was built.  Plumbing was added to a bathroom/kitchen brick outhouse on the balcony.  She cooked with charcoal on a small grill not much bigger than a shoe box.  She used to pump water till she finally let us install pipes from the village water system.  Glass windows were a luxury she did not think she needed but since she began the season early and stayed till well into fall we had to talk her into it.
> If she had to get permits and get hooked up to town services it would have made more sense to tear down and rebuild.  Eventually she did have to give up the place for modernization to come and new roads to be laid over the piping and sewage.
> I can understand Israel not just letting the average person build on or make patchwork improvements with no standards or inspections that we in the west have to pay for and wait for appointments and re-inspections several time over till final approval.  Nit pick over how many outlets a room has or how many nail in a wall or the right sheetrock for a bedroom vs a garage wall and the beams 16 and not 18 inches, etc.
> Israel wants the people to have safe housing especially in an earthquake prone land.  can you see California letting any old construction or improvement without inspections or high standards?  Buildings have to be retro fitted with vibration pads and any renovations or refits won't be allowed to even begin if steps for upgrades are no included.  You can't even put up a log cabin without filing plans for approval.  You can't dig in your own yard without knowing were the pipes and cables are buried and have someone come out and mark and later inspect to make sure you have not damage anything.
> No arabs cannot get permits unless the right steps are taken and the right type of improvements are planned.
> As for jewish vs arab towns in the WB?  There are not just palestinian planners but Israelis as well building modern towns for the palestinians in the WB.  It is not just jewish settlements.  You just don't hear a lot about what is built for the palestinians because there is no controversy.
> No you can't out up a tin shed and call it a dwelling.  You can't go from tent to press board with maybe an outhouse.  Israel wants buildings to have safe plumbing, electric and such if any construction is to be done.  No log cabin next to a luxury apartment building.  You have to improve the value of the land and not diminish the value of your neighbor's property.
> It does matter what you want and what is expected by the state.
> Palestinians permits for building should also connect to services and not be an eyesore or be a health risk to the those who will be on the land or next door.
> Permits cost money and palestinians, and some arabs, don't want to pay the fees to file for permits and inspections.  They go ahead and build anyway and it later is torn down because the construction was not approved first.
> Too often there is a conflict between a wild west homestead mentality and a modern urban building code and proper material requirements.
> Saying they can't get permits is vague and often not correct.
> Most multi family building in the middle east are rebar, cement and cinder block.  If you don't have the right foundation and install the right piping and wiring before the wall go up, you will have the structure torn down.  If you don't file proper blueprints you won't get a permit.  If you don't have the right material or inspections you will not get final approval.  If you don't know the laws or try to bypass them, you will get in trouble.
> Just digging in Israel and the PA can be a long and costly hardship.  Antiquities have to sign off on everything and anything found in the process.  It could be years of delay or the land becomes protected and building denied.
> No getting a permit is not an easy process for Israelis or palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get that pantload?
> 
> Got a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> New palestinian towns of Rawabi, Talet Nueima and Batir in the WB  with another to be planned in the jordan valley.  Jdeideh will be a new palestinians town in Israel.  Rahat and Tel as-Sabi were built for the bedouin in the negev.
> New construction in Jerusalem will be for jews and arabs.
Click to expand...


........New construction in Jerusalem will be for jews and arabs.[/QUOTE]
However Abu Mazen doesn't like the idea.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has called for a special meeting of the Security Council demanding international intervention to investigate "Israeli attacks" in Jerusalem as well as "attacks" by "Jewish settlers" on the Al-Aqsa Mosque. The Palestinians want a ban on Israeli building beyond the "Green Line" including in Eastern Jerusalem. In response Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, "We have every right to build in Jerusalem."

At the opening of the winter session of the Israeli parliament Netanyahu said that, "the violence we are experiencing is not as a result of construction activities in Jerusalem. The violence is rather due to the desire of Israel's enemies, that we should not be here." The Prime Minister criticized the Palestinian demands of their own state without guarantees of peace and security. "They demand our withdrawal, their right of return of Palestinian "refugees" and the division of Jerusalem. But they refuse the elementary prerequisite of peace between the two nations. Mutual recognition!"

Meanwhile, Jordan supports the Palestinian call for a special session of the Security Council. The Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh said that Israeli construction plans in the Palestinian territories are "a slap in the face of the international efforts to bring the negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians back on track."

Netanyahu We must build in Jerusalem - Israel Today Israel News


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has built towns for the bedouin with infrastructure and social services near by.
> Building a new room on an old house with no electric or water, no a permit would not be given.  Building new housing with plumbing and proper sewage probably would be.  I remember my grandma's home in the mountains, she had exposed wire stung like christmas lights over windows and taped to the ceiling because electric came to the area long after the two room rock dwelling was built.  Plumbing was added to a bathroom/kitchen brick outhouse on the balcony.  She cooked with charcoal on a small grill not much bigger than a shoe box.  She used to pump water till she finally let us install pipes from the village water system.  Glass windows were a luxury she did not think she needed but since she began the season early and stayed till well into fall we had to talk her into it.
> If she had to get permits and get hooked up to town services it would have made more sense to tear down and rebuild.  Eventually she did have to give up the place for modernization to come and new roads to be laid over the piping and sewage.
> I can understand Israel not just letting the average person build on or make patchwork improvements with no standards or inspections that we in the west have to pay for and wait for appointments and re-inspections several time over till final approval.  Nit pick over how many outlets a room has or how many nail in a wall or the right sheetrock for a bedroom vs a garage wall and the beams 16 and not 18 inches, etc.
> Israel wants the people to have safe housing especially in an earthquake prone land.  can you see California letting any old construction or improvement without inspections or high standards?  Buildings have to be retro fitted with vibration pads and any renovations or refits won't be allowed to even begin if steps for upgrades are no included.  You can't even put up a log cabin without filing plans for approval.  You can't dig in your own yard without knowing were the pipes and cables are buried and have someone come out and mark and later inspect to make sure you have not damage anything.
> No arabs cannot get permits unless the right steps are taken and the right type of improvements are planned.
> As for jewish vs arab towns in the WB?  There are not just palestinian planners but Israelis as well building modern towns for the palestinians in the WB.  It is not just jewish settlements.  You just don't hear a lot about what is built for the palestinians because there is no controversy.
> No you can't out up a tin shed and call it a dwelling.  You can't go from tent to press board with maybe an outhouse.  Israel wants buildings to have safe plumbing, electric and such if any construction is to be done.  No log cabin next to a luxury apartment building.  You have to improve the value of the land and not diminish the value of your neighbor's property.
> It does matter what you want and what is expected by the state.
> Palestinians permits for building should also connect to services and not be an eyesore or be a health risk to the those who will be on the land or next door.
> Permits cost money and palestinians, and some arabs, don't want to pay the fees to file for permits and inspections.  They go ahead and build anyway and it later is torn down because the construction was not approved first.
> Too often there is a conflict between a wild west homestead mentality and a modern urban building code and proper material requirements.
> Saying they can't get permits is vague and often not correct.
> Most multi family building in the middle east are rebar, cement and cinder block.  If you don't have the right foundation and install the right piping and wiring before the wall go up, you will have the structure torn down.  If you don't file proper blueprints you won't get a permit.  If you don't have the right material or inspections you will not get final approval.  If you don't know the laws or try to bypass them, you will get in trouble.
> Just digging in Israel and the PA can be a long and costly hardship.  Antiquities have to sign off on everything and anything found in the process.  It could be years of delay or the land becomes protected and building denied.
> No getting a permit is not an easy process for Israelis or palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get that pantload?
> 
> Got a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> New palestinian towns of Rawabi, Talet Nueima and Batir in the WB  with another to be planned in the jordan valley.  Jdeideh will be a new palestinians town in Israel.  *Rahat and Tel as-Sabi were built for the bedouin in the negev.*
> New construction in Jerusalem will be for jews and arabs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rahat is a ghetto built to dump the Bedouins when Israel steals their land.
> 
> *Evicting the Bedouin - Israel/Palestine *
Click to expand...



Ghettos don't usually win ISOCARP awards

http://www.restorationplanning.com/


----------



## P F Tinmore

aris2chat said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has built towns for the bedouin with infrastructure and social services near by.
> Building a new room on an old house with no electric or water, no a permit would not be given.  Building new housing with plumbing and proper sewage probably would be.  I remember my grandma's home in the mountains, she had exposed wire stung like christmas lights over windows and taped to the ceiling because electric came to the area long after the two room rock dwelling was built.  Plumbing was added to a bathroom/kitchen brick outhouse on the balcony.  She cooked with charcoal on a small grill not much bigger than a shoe box.  She used to pump water till she finally let us install pipes from the village water system.  Glass windows were a luxury she did not think she needed but since she began the season early and stayed till well into fall we had to talk her into it.
> If she had to get permits and get hooked up to town services it would have made more sense to tear down and rebuild.  Eventually she did have to give up the place for modernization to come and new roads to be laid over the piping and sewage.
> I can understand Israel not just letting the average person build on or make patchwork improvements with no standards or inspections that we in the west have to pay for and wait for appointments and re-inspections several time over till final approval.  Nit pick over how many outlets a room has or how many nail in a wall or the right sheetrock for a bedroom vs a garage wall and the beams 16 and not 18 inches, etc.
> Israel wants the people to have safe housing especially in an earthquake prone land.  can you see California letting any old construction or improvement without inspections or high standards?  Buildings have to be retro fitted with vibration pads and any renovations or refits won't be allowed to even begin if steps for upgrades are no included.  You can't even put up a log cabin without filing plans for approval.  You can't dig in your own yard without knowing were the pipes and cables are buried and have someone come out and mark and later inspect to make sure you have not damage anything.
> No arabs cannot get permits unless the right steps are taken and the right type of improvements are planned.
> As for jewish vs arab towns in the WB?  There are not just palestinian planners but Israelis as well building modern towns for the palestinians in the WB.  It is not just jewish settlements.  You just don't hear a lot about what is built for the palestinians because there is no controversy.
> No you can't out up a tin shed and call it a dwelling.  You can't go from tent to press board with maybe an outhouse.  Israel wants buildings to have safe plumbing, electric and such if any construction is to be done.  No log cabin next to a luxury apartment building.  You have to improve the value of the land and not diminish the value of your neighbor's property.
> It does matter what you want and what is expected by the state.
> Palestinians permits for building should also connect to services and not be an eyesore or be a health risk to the those who will be on the land or next door.
> Permits cost money and palestinians, and some arabs, don't want to pay the fees to file for permits and inspections.  They go ahead and build anyway and it later is torn down because the construction was not approved first.
> Too often there is a conflict between a wild west homestead mentality and a modern urban building code and proper material requirements.
> Saying they can't get permits is vague and often not correct.
> Most multi family building in the middle east are rebar, cement and cinder block.  If you don't have the right foundation and install the right piping and wiring before the wall go up, you will have the structure torn down.  If you don't file proper blueprints you won't get a permit.  If you don't have the right material or inspections you will not get final approval.  If you don't know the laws or try to bypass them, you will get in trouble.
> Just digging in Israel and the PA can be a long and costly hardship.  Antiquities have to sign off on everything and anything found in the process.  It could be years of delay or the land becomes protected and building denied.
> No getting a permit is not an easy process for Israelis or palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get that pantload?
> 
> Got a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> New palestinian towns of Rawabi, Talet Nueima and Batir in the WB  with another to be planned in the jordan valley.  Jdeideh will be a new palestinians town in Israel.  *Rahat and Tel as-Sabi were built for the bedouin in the negev.*
> New construction in Jerusalem will be for jews and arabs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rahat is a ghetto built to dump the Bedouins when Israel steals their land.
> 
> *Evicting the Bedouin - Israel/Palestine *
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ghettos don't usually win ISOCARP awards
> 
> http://www.restorationplanning.com/
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with anything?


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel never said it wanted to be muslim free.  Israel does not want an influx of angry palestinians to be forced on them that would threaten the jewish homeland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No..they did not say that but they sure are working hard to reduce the Muslim population aren't they?  Why is it Israeli-Arab communities so seldom get building or expansion permits?  How many new Israeli settlements have been built and how many Arab ones?  Why is it citizenship is defined by ethnicity?
> 
> I actually agree that "right of return" is an impossible demand for Israel and I don't see it as an option.  But still - historically - Israel actively particpated in driving non-Jewish Palestinians out of Israel and legislating to bar their return.  How many did you say were allowed back...2000?  Out of how many?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians want a jew free palestinian.  It wants a jew free territory consisting of the whole mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually what Abbas said (in discussing a Palestinian state) was: “In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single *Israeli — civilian or soldier* — on our lands,” Abbas said following a meeting with interim Egyptian President Adly Mansour in Cairo.  That means no Israeli's.  It means those who choose to stay become Palestinians.  Somewhere it got morphed into "No Jews".  At least I'm assuming this is the statement?  It's the one that has been most brought up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is trying to be reasonable.  It had a family reunification program for decades.  At one point it was even willing to take back those arabs that had left, not the whole extended generations as well.  It also offered for a time to take in 100,000 over a period of years to gradually integrate them, find housing and or jobs.  Several options were put forward and later withdraw when there was no willingness to negotiate or compromise.
> So yes I am being careful with the phrasing because Israel has shown they are not acting in a racist manner. * Palestinians have proven to be highly racist not allowing jews to remain and become palestinian citizens, and this from Abbas. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that is not what Abbas said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas is not going to be persuaded if Abbas is not willing to try and consider the possibility.
> Do you have a better way of determining which side is racist and which one is just being cautious under a dire threat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Take an honest look at the treatment of people and see who's racist and who is not.  There are a lot of inequities in Israel's system - the way Palestinians are treated in the judicial system and by the police and military for instance (particularly juviniles) and contrast that with how Israeli juviniles are treated.  The permit system for expansion.  Settlers throw stones at Palestinian children who have to pass in order to go to school.  How is it handled?  They go under military escort which might or might not show up.  How are Palestinian stone throwers threated?  Shot or arrested.  So...there is racism there.  It's not so pristine and clear cut as you would make it.  Does that mean the Palestinians are not racist?  I think many are as well and a culture based on a policy of complete seperation encourages that on both sides.
Click to expand...


Why Does the State Department Endorse Palestinian Fight to Exclude Jews Commentary Magazine

Israel Daily News Stream 0730 2013

Abbas Palestine will be Judenrein - Middle East - News - Arutz Sheva

Abbas No Jews in Palestinian State

Abbas 8217 Palestine No Jews Allowed

Abbas Toughens Law Against Palestinians Selling Land To Jews Matzav.com - The Online Voice of Torah Jewry

Abbas Falsely Claims that Palestinian Authority Doesn t Incite Hatred Against Jews VIDEO Why Israel


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has built towns for the bedouin with infrastructure and social services near by.
> Building a new room on an old house with no electric or water, no a permit would not be given.  Building new housing with plumbing and proper sewage probably would be.  I remember my grandma's home in the mountains, she had exposed wire stung like christmas lights over windows and taped to the ceiling because electric came to the area long after the two room rock dwelling was built.  Plumbing was added to a bathroom/kitchen brick outhouse on the balcony.  She cooked with charcoal on a small grill not much bigger than a shoe box.  She used to pump water till she finally let us install pipes from the village water system.  Glass windows were a luxury she did not think she needed but since she began the season early and stayed till well into fall we had to talk her into it.
> If she had to get permits and get hooked up to town services it would have made more sense to tear down and rebuild.  Eventually she did have to give up the place for modernization to come and new roads to be laid over the piping and sewage.
> I can understand Israel not just letting the average person build on or make patchwork improvements with no standards or inspections that we in the west have to pay for and wait for appointments and re-inspections several time over till final approval.  Nit pick over how many outlets a room has or how many nail in a wall or the right sheetrock for a bedroom vs a garage wall and the beams 16 and not 18 inches, etc.
> Israel wants the people to have safe housing especially in an earthquake prone land.  can you see California letting any old construction or improvement without inspections or high standards?  Buildings have to be retro fitted with vibration pads and any renovations or refits won't be allowed to even begin if steps for upgrades are no included.  You can't even put up a log cabin without filing plans for approval.  You can't dig in your own yard without knowing were the pipes and cables are buried and have someone come out and mark and later inspect to make sure you have not damage anything.
> No arabs cannot get permits unless the right steps are taken and the right type of improvements are planned.
> As for jewish vs arab towns in the WB?  There are not just palestinian planners but Israelis as well building modern towns for the palestinians in the WB.  It is not just jewish settlements.  You just don't hear a lot about what is built for the palestinians because there is no controversy.
> No you can't out up a tin shed and call it a dwelling.  You can't go from tent to press board with maybe an outhouse.  Israel wants buildings to have safe plumbing, electric and such if any construction is to be done.  No log cabin next to a luxury apartment building.  You have to improve the value of the land and not diminish the value of your neighbor's property.
> It does matter what you want and what is expected by the state.
> Palestinians permits for building should also connect to services and not be an eyesore or be a health risk to the those who will be on the land or next door.
> Permits cost money and palestinians, and some arabs, don't want to pay the fees to file for permits and inspections.  They go ahead and build anyway and it later is torn down because the construction was not approved first.
> Too often there is a conflict between a wild west homestead mentality and a modern urban building code and proper material requirements.
> Saying they can't get permits is vague and often not correct.
> Most multi family building in the middle east are rebar, cement and cinder block.  If you don't have the right foundation and install the right piping and wiring before the wall go up, you will have the structure torn down.  If you don't file proper blueprints you won't get a permit.  If you don't have the right material or inspections you will not get final approval.  If you don't know the laws or try to bypass them, you will get in trouble.
> Just digging in Israel and the PA can be a long and costly hardship.  Antiquities have to sign off on everything and anything found in the process.  It could be years of delay or the land becomes protected and building denied.
> No getting a permit is not an easy process for Israelis or palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get that pantload?
> 
> Got a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> New palestinian towns of Rawabi, Talet Nueima and Batir in the WB  with another to be planned in the jordan valley.  Jdeideh will be a new palestinians town in Israel.  *Rahat and Tel as-Sabi were built for the bedouin in the negev.*
> New construction in Jerusalem will be for jews and arabs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rahat is a ghetto built to dump the Bedouins when Israel steals their land.
> 
> *Evicting the Bedouin - Israel/Palestine *
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ghettos don't usually win ISOCARP awards
> 
> http://www.restorationplanning.com/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with anything?
Click to expand...


What bedouin live in horrid conditions and Israel is trying to get them to live in decent modern housing


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hoss, many are as indiginous to Palestine as the Jews.
> 
> Beyond that - does it matter?
> 
> They are people and it's all to easy to marginalize them with these sort of arguments.
> 
> The question to ask is why is it so important to some how make them less worthy of inclusion by asking these sorts of questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No the vast majority are illegal immigrants with less than 150 years occupancy in Palestine, the Jews have a common ancestry to the M.E. as shown by DNA testing of all the worlds Jews. The Jews who never left the land have a very close match to the Jews of Eastern Europe, Iran, Ethiopia, America and the UK. The arab muslims show a varied DNA mix with very little in common wit even people living in the same village. Now this is either inter breeding with close family members or recent migration  from outside the area. So how can they be as indigenous a the Jews when less than 10% of their DNA is the same. ( outside of the human genome )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are going to use DNA (and those studies are by no means definitive in that many Palestinians share the same markers) - then you need to send everyone - Jews and Palestinians - to Africa.  After all, that is their genetic homeland.  hmmm...maybe that will solve the problem
> 
> As far as "vast majority" - that too has been debunked as population records show some Arab migration (just as there was Jewish migration) but are not accurate enough to support the claim of "vast majority".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The DNA testing done shows that 50% of the DNA of every living thing is identical, it also shows that all primates share a common 80%-85% DNA. *That is what most pro Palestinians point  when they make their claims of inter breeding between Jews and muslims. It is onlyy when you look at the 15% left that you see the genetic markers that single out individual races, areas, cities, towns and villages.*
> Now you are being very silly as you know that was  in the depths of pre history.
> You forget  the forced migration from muslim lands put the European jews in the minority, the demographics of the arab muslims show that they could not have increased their population by such a large amount without there being immigration in very large numbers. They did not have the medical advances to better an infant survival rate of 10%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not "pro-Palis" or "pro-Israeli's" making these determinations.  It's scientists who's profession is genetics.  They aren't drawing their conclusions based upon the large amount of genetic matter that is common to most humans, they are looking at markers that are uniquely shared within certain groups - in otherwords, that 15%.
> 
> I'm not being silly - I'm asking you to support your claim.
Click to expand...





 The scientists and geneticists produce the results, then the various people use the  results to further their own POV. In the case of team Palestine this is to discount the 15% of DNA that can place a person heritage and concentrate on the 85% that is common across all races, nationalities and genetic groups including primates. It is only when that 15% is brought into the equation that we see the gulf between arab muslims and Jews. Just as it also shows that the European Jews, African Jews and American Jews are very closely linked. But team palestine  repeatedly use just the 85% of common DNA as their basis for showing that Jews and arabs are the same, they may as well say that Jews and Inuit are the same or that arabs and monkees are the same.


----------



## aris2chat

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hoss, many are as indiginous to Palestine as the Jews.
> 
> Beyond that - does it matter?
> 
> They are people and it's all to easy to marginalize them with these sort of arguments.
> 
> The question to ask is why is it so important to some how make them less worthy of inclusion by asking these sorts of questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No the vast majority are illegal immigrants with less than 150 years occupancy in Palestine, the Jews have a common ancestry to the M.E. as shown by DNA testing of all the worlds Jews. The Jews who never left the land have a very close match to the Jews of Eastern Europe, Iran, Ethiopia, America and the UK. The arab muslims show a varied DNA mix with very little in common wit even people living in the same village. Now this is either inter breeding with close family members or recent migration  from outside the area. So how can they be as indigenous a the Jews when less than 10% of their DNA is the same. ( outside of the human genome )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are going to use DNA (and those studies are by no means definitive in that many Palestinians share the same markers) - then you need to send everyone - Jews and Palestinians - to Africa.  After all, that is their genetic homeland.  hmmm...maybe that will solve the problem
> 
> As far as "vast majority" - that too has been debunked as population records show some Arab migration (just as there was Jewish migration) but are not accurate enough to support the claim of "vast majority".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The DNA testing done shows that 50% of the DNA of every living thing is identical, it also shows that all primates share a common 80%-85% DNA. *That is what most pro Palestinians point  when they make their claims of inter breeding between Jews and muslims. It is onlyy when you look at the 15% left that you see the genetic markers that single out individual races, areas, cities, towns and villages.*
> Now you are being very silly as you know that was  in the depths of pre history.
> You forget  the forced migration from muslim lands put the European jews in the minority, the demographics of the arab muslims show that they could not have increased their population by such a large amount without there being immigration in very large numbers. They did not have the medical advances to better an infant survival rate of 10%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not "pro-Palis" or "pro-Israeli's" making these determinations.  It's scientists who's profession is genetics.  They aren't drawing their conclusions based upon the large amount of genetic matter that is common to most humans, they are looking at markers that are uniquely shared within certain groups - in otherwords, that 15%.
> 
> I'm not being silly - I'm asking you to support your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientists and geneticists produce the results, then the various people use the  results to further their own POV. In the case of team Palestine this is to discount the 15% of DNA that can place a person heritage and concentrate on the 85% that is common across all races, nationalities and genetic groups including primates. It is only when that 15% is brought into the equation that we see the gulf between arab muslims and Jews. Just as it also shows that the European Jews, African Jews and American Jews are very closely linked. But team palestine  repeatedly use just the 85% of common DNA as their basis for showing that Jews and arabs are the same, they may as well say that Jews and Inuit are the same or that arabs and monkees are the same.
Click to expand...


Search for Autosomal DNA Y-DNA and mtDNA - DNA Ancestry Project

Family Tree DNA - Genetic Testing for Ancestry Family History Genealogy

23andMe - Genetic Ancestry Find Relatives


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I realize and understand that but my point is that in 1948 the Arabs living there abandoned the country "until the Jews could be swept into the sea." That act nullified any claim to the land and to the right of return. Then with the complicity of the Russians, Arafat named the people and the land, Palestine and tried to make it look like Israel was the bad guys. I won't buy that and nor should anyone. That's my personal opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see it in terms of people.  It doesn't matter if Araft named the people and the land - the people pre-existed the label.  They have rights.  They belong there.  Now, I'm not saying the right of return is an option any more, I don't think so.  But they have a right to the West Bank and the constant attempt to delegitimize them as a people who have rights is as evil as those who insist Jews should just go back to Europe.
> 
> It won't happen - there must be a just solution that recognizes and respects the shared humanity and needs of both peoples...it's the constant dehumanizing that I object to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "just solution that recognizes and respects the shared humanity and needs of both peoples" would you suggest for Israel with a people who duly elected Hamas to annihilate Israel off the face of the earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Give them a state and hold them accountable just as you would any other state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHERE should Israel "give them a state & hold them accountable" where they cannot continue to suuport Hamas to annihilate Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Negotiate for parts of the West Bank as was originally invisioned.  Keep in mind - Israel got it's state despite it's terrorist activities against the Brits and Arabs.
> 
> Once they have a state they have something to lose.  They can b e held accountable as a state for aggression or terrorism and be held to the same sanctions as any other state.
Click to expand...





 And the Palestinians have their state despite their terrorist activities against the British, Jews, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Germany and the USA. So why aren't they held accountable now for their aggression and terrorism. They have nothing to lose as they have put nothing into their state since 1988. The UN should give them a deadline to prove their ability to govern themselves or withdraw their membership of the UN


----------



## Coyote

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel never said it wanted to be muslim free.  Israel does not want an influx of angry palestinians to be forced on them that would threaten the jewish homeland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No..they did not say that but they sure are working hard to reduce the Muslim population aren't they?  Why is it Israeli-Arab communities so seldom get building or expansion permits?  How many new Israeli settlements have been built and how many Arab ones?  Why is it citizenship is defined by ethnicity?
> 
> I actually agree that "right of return" is an impossible demand for Israel and I don't see it as an option.  But still - historically - Israel actively particpated in driving non-Jewish Palestinians out of Israel and legislating to bar their return.  How many did you say were allowed back...2000?  Out of how many?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians want a jew free palestinian.  It wants a jew free territory consisting of the whole mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually what Abbas said (in discussing a Palestinian state) was: “In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single *Israeli — civilian or soldier* — on our lands,” Abbas said following a meeting with interim Egyptian President Adly Mansour in Cairo.  That means no Israeli's.  It means those who choose to stay become Palestinians.  Somewhere it got morphed into "No Jews".  At least I'm assuming this is the statement?  It's the one that has been most brought up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is trying to be reasonable.  It had a family reunification program for decades.  At one point it was even willing to take back those arabs that had left, not the whole extended generations as well.  It also offered for a time to take in 100,000 over a period of years to gradually integrate them, find housing and or jobs.  Several options were put forward and later withdraw when there was no willingness to negotiate or compromise.
> So yes I am being careful with the phrasing because Israel has shown they are not acting in a racist manner. * Palestinians have proven to be highly racist not allowing jews to remain and become palestinian citizens, and this from Abbas. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that is not what Abbas said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas is not going to be persuaded if Abbas is not willing to try and consider the possibility.
> Do you have a better way of determining which side is racist and which one is just being cautious under a dire threat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Take an honest look at the treatment of people and see who's racist and who is not.  There are a lot of inequities in Israel's system - the way Palestinians are treated in the judicial system and by the police and military for instance (particularly juviniles) and contrast that with how Israeli juviniles are treated.  The permit system for expansion.  Settlers throw stones at Palestinian children who have to pass in order to go to school.  How is it handled?  They go under military escort which might or might not show up.  How are Palestinian stone throwers threated?  Shot or arrested.  So...there is racism there.  It's not so pristine and clear cut as you would make it.  Does that mean the Palestinians are not racist?  I think many are as well and a culture based on a policy of complete seperation encourages that on both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why Does the State Department Endorse Palestinian Fight to Exclude Jews Commentary Magazine
Click to expand...


I read this and no where is there an actual quote from Abbas about "no Jews".  The issue of Jeruselum does however show that the issue is not that clear.

One of the radio shows I listen to on NPR had a piece on Jerusalem and the the issue of property in East Jerusalum.  There is a lot of anger towards Jews buying property there as well as the feeling (justified) that there is an intentional government effort to reduce the resident Palestinian population and increase the Jewish population.  There is a lack of transparency in the process of buying property and multiple layers of front-groups hiding the identity of the real purchasers so often, a Palestinian seller is led to think he is sellling to a Palestinian but in reality, it's a front for a Jewish developer. The dark side of this, of course is the Palestinian intolerance to Jews moving into that area and if a Palestinian is known to have sold to a Jew, he becomes a target for violence or death threats.

The Israeli government is also complicit in the process.  Through use of the zoning process, they allot zones for Jewish purposes but withhold permits for Palestinians.  The government also actively subsidizes Jewish projects and there are areas specifically designated for Jews only.  They have also used the zoning process to redraw Jerusalem's municipal boundaries in such a way that they enlarge Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and exclude Palestinian areas from Jeruselums boundaries.  When you consider the fact that Palestinians residing outside of Jerusalem  can lose their Jerusalem residency status if they are gone 7 or more years (but NOT Jewish residents) -it paints a compellling picture of how demographics are being manipulated.

MIDEAST Israel Moves to Judaise East Jerusalem Inter Press Service

_According to UN figures, in 2006 at least 1,360 Palestinians had their ID cards revoked. This was five times more than in 2005, and more than in any previous year since Israel began occupying East Jerusalem.

In 2003, the Citizenship and Entry into Israel law was enacted, which denies spouses from the occupied Palestinian territories, who are married to Israeli citizens or permanent residents (Jerusalem ID card holders), the right to acquire citizenship or residency status, and thus the opportunity to live with their partners in Israel and Jerusalem.

As a result, thousands of married couples are forced to live apart from one another.

In Israel, foreign spouses who are Jewish are automatically granted citizenship under Israel's Law of Return.

Furthermore, since 1982 the Israeli Interior Ministry has not permitted the registration of Palestinian children as Jerusalem residents if the child's father does not hold a Jerusalem ID card, even if the mother is a Jerusalem ID cardholder._​
East Jerusalem - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

_Until 1995, those who lived abroad for more than seven years or obtained residency or citizenship in another country were deemed liable to lose their residency status. In 1995, Israel began revoking permanent residency status from former Arab residents of Jerusalem who could not prove that their "center of life" was still in Jerusalem. This policy was rescinded four years later. In March 2000, the Minister of the Interior, Natan Sharansky, stated that the "quiet deportation" policy would cease, the prior policy would be restored, and Arab natives to Jerusalem would be able to regain residency[62] if they could prove that they have visited Israel at least once every three years. Since December 1995, permanent residency of more than 3,000 individuals "expired," leaving them with neither citizenship nor residency.[62] Despite changes in policy under Sharansky, in 2006 the number of former Arab Jerusalemites to lose their residency status was 1,363, a sixfold increase on the year before.[63] The loss of status is automatic and sometimes occurs without their knowledge._​
Israel also has severely curtailed it's "family reunification" to the point where it's disengenious to use that as an indication that there is no racism.  Israeli communities are allowed to reject potential applicants  based on ethnic or cultural characteristics thus encourging ever more isolation between the two groups. According to one poll - 42% of Israeli's had never met a Palestinian. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/opinion/rula-jebreal-minority-life-in-israel.html?_r=0
_In September, Israel’s Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the Admissions Committees Law, which allows communities to reject housing applicants based on “cultural and social suitability” — a legal pretext to deny residency to non-Jews. In practice, even before the law was passed, it was virtually impossible for a Palestinian to buy or rent a home in any majority-Jewish city._​
So when you look at this...who is racist?  The Palestinians? The Israeli's?  Both? Neither?



> Israel Daily News Stream 0730 2013
> 
> Abbas Palestine will be Judenrein - Middle East - News - Arutz Sheva
> 
> Abbas No Jews in Palestinian State
> 
> Abbas 8217 Palestine No Jews Allowed



Each of these - it's the same deliberately contorted quote.

These all say the same thing:

Claim :  Abbas: Palestinian state will be judenrein or Jew free.
Then right below it it shows the quote:  "In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli -- civilian or soldier -- on our lands".
No Israeli's.  In otherwords - they will all be, whatever they are - Palestinian citizens and there will be no foreign military presence or "settlers" who do not take on Palestinian citizenship.

It does NOT say "judenrein" nor does it say "jew free" - that is a dishonest and misleading claim attempting, through the use of the german term - to equate this and Abbas to Hitler and the Nazi's.  Very dishonest in my opinion.

In doing so - is this also an attempt to incite hate?

Who is racist?


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see it in terms of people.  It doesn't matter if Araft named the people and the land - the people pre-existed the label.  They have rights.  They belong there.  Now, I'm not saying the right of return is an option any more, I don't think so.  But they have a right to the West Bank and the constant attempt to delegitimize them as a people who have rights is as evil as those who insist Jews should just go back to Europe.
> 
> It won't happen - there must be a just solution that recognizes and respects the shared humanity and needs of both peoples...it's the constant dehumanizing that I object to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "just solution that recognizes and respects the shared humanity and needs of both peoples" would you suggest for Israel with a people who duly elected Hamas to annihilate Israel off the face of the earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Give them a state and hold them accountable just as you would any other state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHERE should Israel "give them a state & hold them accountable" where they cannot continue to suuport Hamas to annihilate Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Negotiate for parts of the West Bank as was originally invisioned.  Keep in mind - Israel got it's state despite it's terrorist activities against the Brits and Arabs.
> 
> Once they have a state they have something to lose.  They can b e held accountable as a state for aggression or terrorism and be held to the same sanctions as any other state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the Palestinians have their state despite their terrorist activities against the British, Jews, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Germany and the USA. So why aren't they held accountable now for their aggression and terrorism. They have nothing to lose as they have put nothing into their state since 1988. The UN should give them a deadline to prove their ability to govern themselves or withdraw their membership of the UN
Click to expand...


What state?


----------



## Coyote

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural disaster, war or modern progress, populations have and continue to be displaced and land taken.
> Palestinians had a 10 yr period to return and claim land before it was considered abandoned.
> In Lebanon, palestinians were not allowed by the PLO to return to Israel except to carry out attacks and some special circumstances such as medical or educational wavers.  To apply and manage to arrange the journey was a long process.
> Arafat had fake deeds printed in Beirut and old keys handed out to make claims on land in Israel.  Pictures would be taken of people holding up these keys as proof of ownership of a home or land.  Keys that had no locks.
> There were exceptions here and there, but the majority were brainwashed or convinced themselves that land was their own even if it was not.  These stories and lies were handed down through generations and taken as fact.  It was part of the war.  Most (of course not all) cases where claims were brought before courts in Israel on land claims the courts were in palestinian favor.  Land that could not be returned were compensated with money or other land.  Yes some were forced out by Israelis but this was not a standard policy.  Usually it had to do with a strategic location or that the village had been complicit in the fighting or killing of jews.  Israel before the main exodus and even during the war continued to ask palestinians to stay and work together to build a state.
> Half left to avoid or escape war, or out of fear due to arab radio broadcasts that they would be raped or massacred.  False reports were put out.  Israel did not always jump to refute these reports, and in some cases too advantage of the claims, but it was far from the general policy or intent of Israel against the palestinians.
> Half the population stayed and enjoyed more rights and privileges that most of the rest of the arab world.
> Palestinian refugees were for the most part pawns, used by the arab states and their own leaders.  Their plight could have been ended in many ways, but they were kept as the "perpetual victims of Israel " both to feed hostility among the population and as propaganda tools in the world press.  That hostility spilled over in some cases to attack the host countries and justify massacres by the PLO. Bloody savagery that had been part of the taught narrative became the practice of those palestinians on fellow arabs and even in tribal blood feuds and political or sectarian wars within the camps against each other.
> Nothing about the palestinian/Israeli situation is clear cut and there is blame enough to be shared by all, but the palestinians as a people are not the victims that some would have everyone believe.  Much of their suffering is of their own making not wholly the fault of Israelis or jews.
> The hate has been carefully crafted, spread and nurtured instead of practical solution that might have benefited all involved with a more realistic and fact based approach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't wait to see any rebuttals to the facts you have posted here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already made my rebuttal when I showed that the Palestinians did not all leave voluntarily and that there was a deliberate plan by the Israeli's to drive them out and prevent them from returning - contrary to claims being made (which you haven't rebutted either).  I don't disagree with all Aris has to say except that the Israeli's are by no means benevolent angels here and their actions are often overlooked, white washed or excused.  The Palestinians are their own worst enemy and Hamas the worst by far - but I get tired of the constant re-writing of Israel's own actions - such as the claim that the Palestinians left on their own or at the urging of the Arabs and leaving out their own part in it and their role in deliberately preventing their return.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *How benevolent would you be if your neighbors wanted to kill you and steal the land you have invested in developing?  How would you feel if they attacked you constantly calling you all types of name and comparing you to the most vial of creatures? * How would you respond to massacres of civilians, women and children, sometimes in the most horrific way?
> Would you put locks on your doors and close your windows or remove the doors and invite your neighbors to have their way with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a considerable amount of mistrust and hatred of the other on both sides.  *The Israelis aren't exactly angels here* but their transgressions get excused.  None of that changes the fact that the Israeli's were instrumental and as culpable as the Arabs in driving the Palestinians out and making sure most could not return.  You can not keep claiming that they had nothing to do with it or only barred the return of those who were terrorists.  That simply isn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I worked for almost five years with the palestinians.  I helped some of the families apply for reunification and arranged transport to cyprus or egypt.  I knew the threats they faced even applying.  I knew the controls within the camps and at the borders to Israel.  So yes I can claim certain facts. Is there anyone else with more direct experience?
> I'm not without bias, no human is, but I try to be fair.
> Perhaps you can find people with more direct experience with the palestinians, spent more time in the camps.  Someone that has seen more victims of palestinian and more palestinian victims.  Someone who has spent more time studying the region and is more involved in the current politics.
> I am just sharing my own knowledge and experience as well as proving other research, news and opinions hoping other can benefit.  If people didn't care they wouldn't be involved in discussion forums where information and ideas are being shared.
Click to expand...


Aris, I appreciate and respect that but even some one who is personally involved can have bias - it's only human.  As a participant, I am also allowed to share my opinions on it and since I can't lay claim to direct experience (in fact few here can) I try to support my opinions with articles and sources.  In what I just said, that you are responding to - I supported my claims with sources that show that the Israeli's too are culpable in creating the situation as it now plays out.  I've never said the Palestinians are blameless innocents - but the Israel's have a hand in this too.  It's not a rejection of your knowledge or your observations - but a disagreements with some of your conclusions and claims and that too is part of a messageboard discussion.


----------



## P F Tinmore

aris2chat said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get that pantload?
> 
> Got a link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New palestinian towns of Rawabi, Talet Nueima and Batir in the WB  with another to be planned in the jordan valley.  Jdeideh will be a new palestinians town in Israel.  *Rahat and Tel as-Sabi were built for the bedouin in the negev.*
> New construction in Jerusalem will be for jews and arabs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rahat is a ghetto built to dump the Bedouins when Israel steals their land.
> 
> *Evicting the Bedouin - Israel/Palestine *
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ghettos don't usually win ISOCARP awards
> 
> http://www.restorationplanning.com/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What bedouin live in horrid conditions and Israel is trying to get them to live in decent modern housing
Click to expand...

*ISRAEL, Bedouin Ghetto*


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hoss, many are as indiginous to Palestine as the Jews.
> 
> Beyond that - does it matter?
> 
> They are people and it's all to easy to marginalize them with these sort of arguments.
> 
> The question to ask is why is it so important to some how make them less worthy of inclusion by asking these sorts of questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No the vast majority are illegal immigrants with less than 150 years occupancy in Palestine, the Jews have a common ancestry to the M.E. as shown by DNA testing of all the worlds Jews. The Jews who never left the land have a very close match to the Jews of Eastern Europe, Iran, Ethiopia, America and the UK. The arab muslims show a varied DNA mix with very little in common wit even people living in the same village. Now this is either inter breeding with close family members or recent migration  from outside the area. So how can they be as indigenous a the Jews when less than 10% of their DNA is the same. ( outside of the human genome )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are going to use DNA (and those studies are by no means definitive in that many Palestinians share the same markers) - then you need to send everyone - Jews and Palestinians - to Africa.  After all, that is their genetic homeland.  hmmm...maybe that will solve the problem
> 
> As far as "vast majority" - that too has been debunked as population records show some Arab migration (just as there was Jewish migration) but are not accurate enough to support the claim of "vast majority".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The DNA testing done shows that 50% of the DNA of every living thing is identical, it also shows that all primates share a common 80%-85% DNA. *That is what most pro Palestinians point  when they make their claims of inter breeding between Jews and muslims. It is onlyy when you look at the 15% left that you see the genetic markers that single out individual races, areas, cities, towns and villages.*
> Now you are being very silly as you know that was  in the depths of pre history.
> You forget  the forced migration from muslim lands put the European jews in the minority, the demographics of the arab muslims show that they could not have increased their population by such a large amount without there being immigration in very large numbers. They did not have the medical advances to better an infant survival rate of 10%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not "pro-Palis" or "pro-Israeli's" making these determinations.  It's scientists who's profession is genetics.  They aren't drawing their conclusions based upon the large amount of genetic matter that is common to most humans, they are looking at markers that are uniquely shared within certain groups - in otherwords, that 15%.
> 
> I'm not being silly - I'm asking you to support your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientists and geneticists produce the results, then the various people use the  results to further their own POV. In the case of team Palestine this is to discount the 15% of DNA that can place a person heritage and concentrate on the 85% that is common across all races, nationalities and genetic groups including primates. It is only when that 15% is brought into the equation that we see the gulf between arab muslims and Jews. Just as it also shows that the European Jews, African Jews and American Jews are very closely linked. But team palestine  repeatedly use just the 85% of common DNA as their basis for showing that Jews and arabs are the same, they may as well say that Jews and Inuit are the same or that arabs and monkees are the same.
Click to expand...


These articles are not from "team Palestine":

http://www.rense.com/general48/palestinians.pdf
Many surprised by genetic and cultural links between Palestinians and Jews God Reports


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> New palestinian towns of Rawabi, Talet Nueima and Batir in the WB  with another to be planned in the jordan valley.  Jdeideh will be a new palestinians town in Israel.  *Rahat and Tel as-Sabi were built for the bedouin in the negev.*
> New construction in Jerusalem will be for jews and arabs.
> 
> 
> 
> Rahat is a ghetto built to dump the Bedouins when Israel steals their land.
> 
> *Evicting the Bedouin - Israel/Palestine *
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ghettos don't usually win ISOCARP awards
> 
> http://www.restorationplanning.com/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What bedouin live in horrid conditions and Israel is trying to get them to live in decent modern housing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *ISRAEL, Bedouin Ghetto*
Click to expand...


Unrecognized villages can't connect to utilities, that is why the Israeli are trying to get the bedouin to live in planned communities.  They can have access to building for their crafts and industries.  They will have schools.  They will have health care.  Internet and transportation for their trades. Even stables and farms near by were part of the plan just outside.
Most of the bedouin to be located in the recognized and planned towns are within walking distance from the retched conditions they now live in.
The bedouin were not running their startup businesses out of tent but regularly constructed buildings. Building that were planned to aid the bedouin in maintaining that part of the culture and providing for the women.  They were not dying their yarn outdoors over open fires or weaving in tents with no electricity.  They had access to printed labels, receipts, advertizing which would not have been available easily otherwise.  They would have have been able to form cooperative with other women isolated in dispersed stops of tents over a wide area the way they were living before.
Israel is trying to help the bedouin not leave them on the edge of uncontrolled garbage dumps or without proper facilities.  Bedouin can keep the best part of their tradition but they can't live forever in the 7th century.  They want Israel to provide services for them but the logistics or reaching each family when they are spread out the way they were was impractical.  Even running infrastructure would mean digging straight lines not zigzagging around a tent here and a corrugated steal shed there.  Providing clean water instead of trekking water from dirty contaminated well that were dug centuries ago and helping recycling of material rather than contaminated the ground or free burning items with lead, plastics and human feces or attacking dangerous pests that carry disease.
Israel is trying to minimize or eliminating the risk of things like malaria, yellow fever and typhoid and or provide regular vaccinations to the people.
The conditions of slum living is what Israel is trying to change with planned towns.
If it makes you feel better can think of it as Israelis being selfish by helping provide a healthier living condition of the bedouin it will in turn prevent the spread of killer diseases infecting urban "jewish" communities.
Helping the bedouin earn a living wage it takes the stress of social services on the tax payers.
Education and women's rights are advanced and hopefully building closer ties to the rest of the Israelis and make them all feel like a nation instead tribes or separate "arab" being displaced or marginalized by the rest of the population.


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No the vast majority are illegal immigrants with less than 150 years occupancy in Palestine, the Jews have a common ancestry to the M.E. as shown by DNA testing of all the worlds Jews. The Jews who never left the land have a very close match to the Jews of Eastern Europe, Iran, Ethiopia, America and the UK. The arab muslims show a varied DNA mix with very little in common wit even people living in the same village. Now this is either inter breeding with close family members or recent migration  from outside the area. So how can they be as indigenous a the Jews when less than 10% of their DNA is the same. ( outside of the human genome )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are going to use DNA (and those studies are by no means definitive in that many Palestinians share the same markers) - then you need to send everyone - Jews and Palestinians - to Africa.  After all, that is their genetic homeland.  hmmm...maybe that will solve the problem
> 
> As far as "vast majority" - that too has been debunked as population records show some Arab migration (just as there was Jewish migration) but are not accurate enough to support the claim of "vast majority".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The DNA testing done shows that 50% of the DNA of every living thing is identical, it also shows that all primates share a common 80%-85% DNA. *That is what most pro Palestinians point  when they make their claims of inter breeding between Jews and muslims. It is onlyy when you look at the 15% left that you see the genetic markers that single out individual races, areas, cities, towns and villages.*
> Now you are being very silly as you know that was  in the depths of pre history.
> You forget  the forced migration from muslim lands put the European jews in the minority, the demographics of the arab muslims show that they could not have increased their population by such a large amount without there being immigration in very large numbers. They did not have the medical advances to better an infant survival rate of 10%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not "pro-Palis" or "pro-Israeli's" making these determinations.  It's scientists who's profession is genetics.  They aren't drawing their conclusions based upon the large amount of genetic matter that is common to most humans, they are looking at markers that are uniquely shared within certain groups - in otherwords, that 15%.
> 
> I'm not being silly - I'm asking you to support your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientists and geneticists produce the results, then the various people use the  results to further their own POV. In the case of team Palestine this is to discount the 15% of DNA that can place a person heritage and concentrate on the 85% that is common across all races, nationalities and genetic groups including primates. It is only when that 15% is brought into the equation that we see the gulf between arab muslims and Jews. Just as it also shows that the European Jews, African Jews and American Jews are very closely linked. But team palestine  repeatedly use just the 85% of common DNA as their basis for showing that Jews and arabs are the same, they may as well say that Jews and Inuit are the same or that arabs and monkees are the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These articles are not from "team Palestine":
> 
> http://www.rense.com/general48/palestinians.pdf
> Many surprised by genetic and cultural links between Palestinians and Jews God Reports
Click to expand...





So why are the palestinians calling jews foreign invaders and refusing to acknowledge the jews right to living in Israel?
Israel did not deny the palestinians a right to live in Israel or even to have their own state side by side.  Palestinians want the extermination of Israel and jews for the last two hundred years.
Of course palestinians are also related the egyptian, turks, iranians and cretans.  Just because they come the same grouping does not mean they are the same as jews.   They did not exist as a "people" but now claim to be indigenous while denying the origins of jews.
If you are trying to prove palestinians have origins in the middle east, of course.  If you are trying to prove they are jews, no.  If your trying to disprove the jews right to their homeland, no.
We are not talking tribes in brazil vs jews or jews vs south arficans.  But there is not denying the jews have maintains their identity both culturally and genetically to the jews forced out by the romans or the jews that returned centuries ago or less than a hundred years ago.
The document basically says their share less than a 10% genetic markers, not that they are identical or indistinguishable. 
Explain to the palestinians they should recognize Israels right to exist as a jewish state and that jews have as much right, if not more so, to their own state and identity.
The paper does not dispute egyptian or other middle eastern origins for the palestinians.  It does not disprove that close to half those given the name of palestinians at the end of the mandate were immigrants from egypt, jordan, syria or elsewhere in the region.
It was an abstract hypotheses for considerations.  A thought exercise common in college and in beginning a scientific study.
Palestinians try to claim that jews, be they sephardi,  ashkenazi, lembi or bnei menashe, etc. have no history or religious ties to ancient or modern Israel.  They deny the right of jews to live in the area Israel, WB or G.
That is not what the paper suggests.
Please explain how muslim palestinians are the only group to have a right to access the temple mount or pray in Jerusalem? Why did palestinians/jordanians destroy so many synagogues in Jerusalem and the WB?  Why did they use them as stables and toilets?  Why to they throw stones on the jews at the kotel?  Why do they riot and set fires on the mount just because a non-muslim visits?  Why do they run over infants at train stations?  Why do they fire rockets at Jews?  Why do they refuse to talk to jews about peace, coexistance or statehood for the palestinian people?
How does the 12 page abstract advance peace in the region for all parties?


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## aris2chat

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are going to use DNA (and those studies are by no means definitive in that many Palestinians share the same markers) - then you need to send everyone - Jews and Palestinians - to Africa.  After all, that is their genetic homeland.  hmmm...maybe that will solve the problem
> 
> As far as "vast majority" - that too has been debunked as population records show some Arab migration (just as there was Jewish migration) but are not accurate enough to support the claim of "vast majority".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The DNA testing done shows that 50% of the DNA of every living thing is identical, it also shows that all primates share a common 80%-85% DNA. *That is what most pro Palestinians point  when they make their claims of inter breeding between Jews and muslims. It is onlyy when you look at the 15% left that you see the genetic markers that single out individual races, areas, cities, towns and villages.*
> Now you are being very silly as you know that was  in the depths of pre history.
> You forget  the forced migration from muslim lands put the European jews in the minority, the demographics of the arab muslims show that they could not have increased their population by such a large amount without there being immigration in very large numbers. They did not have the medical advances to better an infant survival rate of 10%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not "pro-Palis" or "pro-Israeli's" making these determinations.  It's scientists who's profession is genetics.  They aren't drawing their conclusions based upon the large amount of genetic matter that is common to most humans, they are looking at markers that are uniquely shared within certain groups - in otherwords, that 15%.
> 
> I'm not being silly - I'm asking you to support your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientists and geneticists produce the results, then the various people use the  results to further their own POV. In the case of team Palestine this is to discount the 15% of DNA that can place a person heritage and concentrate on the 85% that is common across all races, nationalities and genetic groups including primates. It is only when that 15% is brought into the equation that we see the gulf between arab muslims and Jews. Just as it also shows that the European Jews, African Jews and American Jews are very closely linked. But team palestine  repeatedly use just the 85% of common DNA as their basis for showing that Jews and arabs are the same, they may as well say that Jews and Inuit are the same or that arabs and monkees are the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These articles are not from "team Palestine":
> 
> http://www.rense.com/general48/palestinians.pdf
> Many surprised by genetic and cultural links between Palestinians and Jews God Reports
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 33549
> So why are the palestinians calling jews foreign invaders and refusing to acknowledge the jews right to living in Israel?
> Israel did not deny the palestinians a right to live in Israel or even to have their own state side by side.  Palestinians want the extermination of Israel and jews for the last two hundred years.
> Of course palestinians are also related the egyptian, turks, iranians and cretans.  Just because they come the same grouping does not mean they are the same as jews.   They did not exist as a "people" but now claim to be indigenous while denying the origins of jews.
> If you are trying to prove palestinians have origins in the middle east, of course.  If you are trying to prove they are jews, no.  If your trying to disprove the jews right to their homeland, no.
> We are not talking tribes in brazil vs jews or jews vs south arficans.  But there is not denying the jews have maintains their identity both culturally and genetically to the jews forced out by the romans or the jews that returned centuries ago or less than a hundred years ago.
> The document basically says their share less than a 10% genetic markers, not that they are identical or indistinguishable.
> Explain to the palestinians they should recognize Israels right to exist as a jewish state and that jews have as much right, if not more so, to their own state and identity.
> The paper does not dispute egyptian or other middle eastern origins for the palestinians.  It does not disprove that close to half those given the name of palestinians at the end of the mandate were immigrants from egypt, jordan, syria or elsewhere in the region.
> It was an abstract hypotheses for considerations.  A thought exercise common in college and in beginning a scientific study.
> Palestinians try to claim that jews, be they sephardi,  ashkenazi, lembi or bnei menashe, etc. have no history or religious ties to ancient or modern Israel.  They deny the right of jews to live in the area Israel, WB or G.
> That is not what the paper suggests.
> Please explain how muslim palestinians are the only group to have a right to access the temple mount or pray in Jerusalem? Why did palestinians/jordanians destroy so many synagogues in Jerusalem and the WB?  Why did they use them as stables and toilets?  Why to they throw stones on the jews at the kotel?  Why do they riot and set fires on the mount just because a non-muslim visits?  Why do they run over infants at train stations?  Why do they fire rockets at Jews?  Why do they refuse to talk to jews about peace, coexistance or statehood for the palestinian people?
> How does the 12 page abstract advance peace in the region for all parties?
Click to expand...


You want to compare modern jews and palestinians to neanderthal or the genetic "adam" as well for similar markers? Why not to apes or back to the first mammals going more than 4 million years?  You think our DNA is not going to show more than 90% similarities?  So why would it be surprising that human share certain markers?
The trace of particular marker unique to a single branch of judaism and not to other arabs not markers the have in common.

Scientists Reconstruct 45 000-Year-Old Human Genome History in the Headlines

Y-Chromosomal Adam Lived 208 300 Years Ago Says New Study Genetics Sci-News.com

NOVA The DNA of Human Evolution

Jews Are a Race Genes Reveal Forward.com

I'm not a geneticist but my daughter is a nurse and I've know enough doctors and other medical experts to not get totally cross eyed over certain scientific articals.  Yes, even palestinians and other arabs are more like pigs, apes and even dogs than different from them.

Explain to palestinians why they do not have a right to kill or object to jews or a jewish state side by side a potential palestinian state.  Convince them that violence is not the answer and that they are the racists to think the middle east (or the world) should be jew-free.
You can argue religion, history or science, they all work to show the bond of jews to the the region.
Demographics also negate the idea that palestinians were displaced or that land was stole from them.  Even recent changes to the PA laws prove that land was sold to jews and is still being sold, other wise why the legislation against such sales?  No comparable laws in Israel that private land for sale can only be bought by a jew.  Even the knesset land is not owned by Israel or even a jew.  It is leased to the government.

Granted Israel is hardly at the head of the list for sainthood but they are far from the demons that so much of the palestinian propaganda claims.  Racist?  Apartheid?  Violent?  Hateful?  Liars?  The edge goes to palestinians on all counts.  Change the threat to Israel and the jews if you want things to get better for the palestinians.  Protest the leadership that perpetuates the rhetoric.  Take the weapons from groups like hamas.  Condemn at the top of your voice the riots and killings of Israelis.  Champagne to the rest of the arab and muslim world to normalize relations with Israel and stop supporting the weapons smuggling and hate from gaza and even the PA.  Encourage free discourse of Islam past and present.  Improve the right of the rest of the MENA especially toward the female half of the population.  Stress the teachings of peace and brotherhood towards others of the "book" and end the recruiting of groups from hezbullah to ISIS as islamic or serving allah in some way.
Forbid the preaching such as "first the saturday then the sunday people", "first jerusalem then rome" as unislamic.

Seek solutions instead of just pointing out the problems.
Bring constructive ideas to the table.  Encourage discourse not conflict on forums like this and all the way to heads of state.


----------



## MJB12741

What is with Israel?  Why can't those Zionists make peace with a government that vows to annihilate them?


----------



## Coyote

aris2chat said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The DNA testing done shows that 50% of the DNA of every living thing is identical, it also shows that all primates share a common 80%-85% DNA. *That is what most pro Palestinians point  when they make their claims of inter breeding between Jews and muslims. It is onlyy when you look at the 15% left that you see the genetic markers that single out individual races, areas, cities, towns and villages.*
> Now you are being very silly as you know that was  in the depths of pre history.
> You forget  the forced migration from muslim lands put the European jews in the minority, the demographics of the arab muslims show that they could not have increased their population by such a large amount without there being immigration in very large numbers. They did not have the medical advances to better an infant survival rate of 10%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not "pro-Palis" or "pro-Israeli's" making these determinations.  It's scientists who's profession is genetics.  They aren't drawing their conclusions based upon the large amount of genetic matter that is common to most humans, they are looking at markers that are uniquely shared within certain groups - in otherwords, that 15%.
> 
> I'm not being silly - I'm asking you to support your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientists and geneticists produce the results, then the various people use the  results to further their own POV. In the case of team Palestine this is to discount the 15% of DNA that can place a person heritage and concentrate on the 85% that is common across all races, nationalities and genetic groups including primates. It is only when that 15% is brought into the equation that we see the gulf between arab muslims and Jews. Just as it also shows that the European Jews, African Jews and American Jews are very closely linked. But team palestine  repeatedly use just the 85% of common DNA as their basis for showing that Jews and arabs are the same, they may as well say that Jews and Inuit are the same or that arabs and monkees are the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These articles are not from "team Palestine":
> 
> http://www.rense.com/general48/palestinians.pdf
> Many surprised by genetic and cultural links between Palestinians and Jews God Reports
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 33549
> So why are the palestinians calling jews foreign invaders and refusing to acknowledge the jews right to living in Israel?
> Israel did not deny the palestinians a right to live in Israel or even to have their own state side by side.  Palestinians want the extermination of Israel and jews for the last two hundred years.
> Of course palestinians are also related the egyptian, turks, iranians and cretans.  Just because they come the same grouping does not mean they are the same as jews.   They did not exist as a "people" but now claim to be indigenous while denying the origins of jews.
> If you are trying to prove palestinians have origins in the middle east, of course.  If you are trying to prove they are jews, no.  If your trying to disprove the jews right to their homeland, no.
> We are not talking tribes in brazil vs jews or jews vs south arficans.  But there is not denying the jews have maintains their identity both culturally and genetically to the jews forced out by the romans or the jews that returned centuries ago or less than a hundred years ago.
> The document basically says their share less than a 10% genetic markers, not that they are identical or indistinguishable.
> Explain to the palestinians they should recognize Israels right to exist as a jewish state and that jews have as much right, if not more so, to their own state and identity.
> The paper does not dispute egyptian or other middle eastern origins for the palestinians.  It does not disprove that close to half those given the name of palestinians at the end of the mandate were immigrants from egypt, jordan, syria or elsewhere in the region.
> It was an abstract hypotheses for considerations.  A thought exercise common in college and in beginning a scientific study.
> Palestinians try to claim that jews, be they sephardi,  ashkenazi, lembi or bnei menashe, etc. have no history or religious ties to ancient or modern Israel.  They deny the right of jews to live in the area Israel, WB or G.
> That is not what the paper suggests.
> Please explain how muslim palestinians are the only group to have a right to access the temple mount or pray in Jerusalem? Why did palestinians/jordanians destroy so many synagogues in Jerusalem and the WB?  Why did they use them as stables and toilets?  Why to they throw stones on the jews at the kotel?  Why do they riot and set fires on the mount just because a non-muslim visits?  Why do they run over infants at train stations?  Why do they fire rockets at Jews?  Why do they refuse to talk to jews about peace, coexistance or statehood for the palestinian people?
> How does the 12 page abstract advance peace in the region for all parties?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want to compare modern jews and palestinians to neanderthal or the genetic "adam" as well for similar markers? Why not to apes or back to the first mammals going more than 4 million years?  You think our DNA is not going to show more than 90% similarities?  So why would it be surprising that human share certain markers?
> The trace of particular marker unique to a single branch of judaism and not to other arabs not markers the have in common.
> 
> Scientists Reconstruct 45 000-Year-Old Human Genome History in the Headlines
> 
> Y-Chromosomal Adam Lived 208 300 Years Ago Says New Study Genetics Sci-News.com
> 
> NOVA The DNA of Human Evolution
> 
> Jews Are a Race Genes Reveal Forward.com
> 
> I'm not a geneticist but my daughter is a nurse and I've know enough doctors and other medical experts to not get totally cross eyed over certain scientific articals.  Yes, even palestinians and other arabs are more like pigs, apes and even dogs than different from them.
> 
> Explain to palestinians why they do not have a right to kill or object to jews or a jewish state side by side a potential palestinian state.  Convince them that violence is not the answer and that they are the racists to think the middle east (or the world) should be jew-free.
> You can argue religion, history or science, they all work to show the bond of jews to the the region.
> Demographics also negate the idea that palestinians were displaced or that land was stole from them.  Even recent changes to the PA laws prove that land was sold to jews and is still being sold, other wise why the legislation against such sales?  No comparable laws in Israel that private land for sale can only be bought by a jew.  Even the knesset land is not owned by Israel or even a jew.  It is leased to the government.
> 
> Granted Israel is hardly at the head of the list for sainthood but they are far from the demons that so much of the palestinian propaganda claims.  Racist?  Apartheid?  Violent?  Hateful?  Liars?  The edge goes to palestinians on all counts.  Change the threat to Israel and the jews if you want things to get better for the palestinians.  Protest the leadership that perpetuates the rhetoric.  Take the weapons from groups like hamas.  Condemn at the top of your voice the riots and killings of Israelis.  Champagne to the rest of the arab and muslim world to normalize relations with Israel and stop supporting the weapons smuggling and hate from gaza and even the PA.  Encourage free discourse of Islam past and present.  Improve the right of the rest of the MENA especially toward the female half of the population.  Stress the teachings of peace and brotherhood towards others of the "book" and end the recruiting of groups from hezbullah to ISIS as islamic or serving allah in some way.
> Forbid the preaching such as "first the saturday then the sunday people", "first jerusalem then rome" as unislamic.
> 
> Seek solutions instead of just pointing out the problems.
> Bring constructive ideas to the table.  Encourage discourse not conflict on forums like this and all the way to heads of state.
Click to expand...



In the end, the sillyness of the argument is this:  Palestinians and Jews have more in common (excluding the genes we share with other species) than different.  So what is the big deal?  They are brothers and they fight like brothers.  They are religious brothers.  They are genetic brothers.  Genetics can only tell us so much and one thing they do tell us is we came out of Africa.  To try to use it to claim a "right" is false.  Yes, Jews are tied to the land.  So are Palestinians.  They need to learn to deal with it and they need to sit down and negotiate in good faith.   No one has truly done that.  You point out the failings of the Palestinians and I agree - but Israel needs to stop it's "ethnic cleansing" and settlement building in the occupied territories, take a hard look at it's system in regards to the treatment of Palestinian juviniles, it's system for approving permits and new settlements and other issues of equality.  Israel has it's own teaching of "hate" to combat, and to Israel's credit - it is trying to and taking this seriously but right now their policies have created two completely seperated societies in which many of it's members have never met the other.  Is this a good thing?  If you've never met a Jew - how easy it is to believe the propaganda and demonize.  If you've never met a Palestinian - same.  Condemn the settlements.  Condemn the system of residency permits.  Condemn the lack of progress in family unification.  Equality can not simply exist on paper and through a few token representatives.

I fully agree with you on what the Palestinians and few seem to speak out on what Israel needs to do.


----------



## Coyote

aris2chat said:


> View attachment 33549
> So why are the palestinians calling jews foreign invaders and refusing to acknowledge the jews right to living in Israel?



For the same reason Jews are calling Palestinians "squatters" and refusing to acknowledge their right to live in Israel.  You've seen this over and over in these threads.  The majority of the Palestinians are foreign invaders from other countries or the majority of Jews are foreign invaders from Europe.  In the end -it's the same thing.  They are a mixture of immigrants and descendents of the indiginous populations that have lived there forever.



> Israel did not deny the palestinians a right to live in Israel or even to have their own state side by side.  Palestinians want the extermination of Israel and jews for the last two hundred years.



*That is not entirely true.*

There was a concerted campaign to encourage Palestinians to flee and thought the "official" narrative claims it was the Arabs and the Palestinian leaders who did this, Israeli archival documents show that was not the entire truth.  There was an active and successful campaign from the Israeli's including their militias, to drive Palestinians out and prevent their return very few have been allowed to return.  There is an active campaign of quietly cleansing areas of Palestinians through a system of zoning, land use permits, residency laws, etc. 

Also - the two-state solution.  Palestinian support for this has gone up and down in polls depending on the details and state of conflict and currently is at a *dismal low with  60% wanting one state of Palestine*.  That doesn't mean, however, an "extermination of Jews" and phrasing it that way smacks of propaganda going back to the deliberate distortion of Abass' quote.  It would mean, however, an end of Israel as a Jewish majority state.  There have been arguments on whether or not the solution is one or two states and whether Israel is established well enough in culture and law to withstand the demographic shifts of "one state" or whether two states is the only answer.  Personally, I don't think one state can be done.  The levels of distrust, hate, enforced separation and propoganda is so high they can not live together in one unified state without violence/

On the Israeli side....higher levels of support but by no means unanimous and - the devil is in the details:  _*Turns out most Israelis support the establishment of a Palestinian state – until they read the fine print.*_


_A survey of Palestinians from June by the right-leaning Washington Institute for Near East Policy found that more than twice as many respondents now support “reclaiming all of historic Palestine,” than those who choose “end the occupation and reach a two state solution.” In response to +972’s query, the Institute says this is a new finding compared to similar (but not identical) questions asked in the past, when support for a two state-solution typically ranged between 40-55 percent. Here is the data (n= 1200 Palestinians in West Bank and Gaza, margin of error, +/-3%):


“Please state your view about the main Palestinian goal for the next five years”


- The goal should be to work toward reclaiming all of historic Palestine from the river to the sea: 60%
- The goal should be to end the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and achieve a two state solution: 27%
- The goal should be to work for a one state solution in all of the land, in which Arabs and Jews will have equal rights in one country, from the river to the sea: 10%


Two further questions on this topic yielded similar data: one asked how people would perceive a negotiated two-state solution (accept that as end of the conflict, or continue seeking to liberate all of historic Palestine) and what people believe the leadership’s actual goal in such a case would be (to end the conflict, or liberate historic Palestine in phases). *Again, roughly twice as many chose the “all of Palestine” option*.


I usually advise against trusting a single survey for an unusual finding. The key is to see if other surveys show similar trends. They do. A Pew Research poll from April and May 2014 (with a sizable sample of 1000 each – Palestinians and Israelis) provides similar insight.


In this comparative poll, when asked *“Do you think a way can be found for Israel and an independent Palestinian state to co-exist peacefully or not?”*


*- 63 percent of Palestinians said “no.”
- Israelis were split in half (45% “no” to 40% “yes”)*
- Jordanians, who have greatest interest in seeing such an arrangement, expressed skepticism: 39 percent said “no,” 29 percent said “it depends”  and 26 percent said “yes”- making Jordan among the most optimistic of the seven nations tested.


There is a certain irony here: According to the survey, Palestinians may retain a maximalist dream, but Israel is the one that is actually physically expanding its sovereignty over the territory under question.

At first glance, a recent Haaretz poll showed different results. Sixty percent of Israelis said they support an agreement with the establishment of a Palestinian state (from a representative sample of 500 – which means that probably fewer than 100 Arabs were polled – and error of +/-4.4%).


“If the Prime Minister reached an agreement in the framework of which a Palestinian state would be established alongside Israel would you support or not support the agreement?”


- Support: 60%
- Do not support: 32% (Haaretz’s article uses this wording, rather than “oppose”)


Nir Hasson of Haaretz writes that compared to similar (not identical) polls in December 2012 (just weeks after the last Gaza war), the current data represents a drop from around two-thirds support then.

However when simple details are given about the two-state agreement, support crumbles. The basic outline in the subsequent question mirrors the Camp David talks from 14 years ago, and many doubt whether this formula is even applicable anymore.


“Consider that in the framework of an agreement, most settlers are annexed to Israel [sic – ds], Jerusalem will be divided, refugees won’t return to Israel and there will be a strict security arrangement, would you support this agreement?”

_
- Yes: 35%
- No: 58%


As a pollster, the contrast between the idea of a two-state agreement and the lack of support for the detailed version is dramatic enough to warrant methodological suspicion. When my polls show results like that, I automatically check for technical errors or glitches in data processing.


But supporting data from other polls and questions usually signal that there is no technical error, only the contradictions of human nature. Notably, there is little contradiction given findings from two polls nearly one year ago that are remarkably similar, which I wrote about then: when the Prime Minister presents a general agreement, 55 percent supported it; when the details are given (without mentioning the Prime Minister), precisely the same portion accept or reject it (38% to 56%) as this year.


Further, in the current poll, when asked if people would prefer to evacuate settlements for a peace agreement, or give up on an agreement to preserve settlements, Israelis are evenly split (45% to 43% respectively – a statistical tie). The 43 percent who resist dismantling any settlements, since the question didn’t specify, are probably mostly right-wing. It’s not hard to imagine another 15 percent drawn from the center or even self-described left who are in no mood for this arrangement at present.


*There are other ominous findings: the majority of Israelis supports unequal rights for Palestinians:*


“If Israel were to annex territories, do you think it should give Palestinians living there full rights, including the right to vote in Knesset, or partial rights, without Knesset vote?


- Full: 31%
- Partial: 56%


*So when shown the details, the majority of Israelis are opposed to a two-state agreement and support denying civil rights to Palestinians. This finding may be mitigated by the fact that 62 percent do not support Naftali Bennett’s plan of annexing Area C. But that itself is mitigated by the fact that Israel is already doing so.*

​


> Of course palestinians are also related the egyptian, turks, iranians and cretans.  Just because they come the same grouping does not mean they are the same as jews.   They did not exist as a "people" but now claim to be indigenous while denying the origins of jews.
> If you are trying to prove palestinians have origins in the middle east, of course.  If you are trying to prove they are jews, no.  If your trying to disprove the jews right to their homeland, no.
> We are not talking tribes in brazil vs jews or jews vs south arficans.  But there is not denying the jews have maintains their identity both culturally and genetically to the jews forced out by the romans or the jews that returned centuries ago or less than a hundred years ago.
> The document basically says their share less than a 10% genetic markers, not that they are identical or indistinguishable.



They share a bit more: Epiphenom The shared genetic heritage of Jews and Palestinians


Let me add - I am NOT trying to "disprove Jews of a right to their homeland" - my argument is that both the Palestinians and the Jews represent groups of people who are both the remnants of ancient and indiginous peoples and an influx of relatively newer peoples.  Some Jewish groups for instance share far more genetic markers with Europeans than with other Jews who in turn share many of the same markers with indiginous non-Jews.  This indicates a considerable amount of "conversions" and non-Jewish marriages during their wanderings.  Attempting to use genetics as a means of determining rights is a method that has only one agenda behind it:  the marginalization of the rights of which ever group can't claim the right genetics.  When you are talking about a people that lived in the region thousands of years ago and who since then spread across the world, it becomes even more glaringly obvious that as a means of establishing rights it's full of holes.  You have to look at the people who are there now, and who have been living there in relatively recent times - not thousands of years ago.  You can't say one or the other has fewer rights or more rights based on genetics.



> Explain to the palestinians they should recognize Israels right to exist as a jewish state and that jews have as much right, if not more so, to their own state and identity.
> The paper does not dispute egyptian or other middle eastern origins for the palestinians.  It does not disprove that close to half those given the name of palestinians at the end of the mandate were immigrants from egypt, jordan, syria or elsewhere in the region.



And how many Jews immigrated from elsewhere?



> It was an abstract hypotheses for considerations.  A thought exercise common in college and in beginning a scientific study.
> Palestinians try to claim that jews, be they sephardi,  ashkenazi, lembi or bnei menashe, etc. have no history or religious ties to ancient or modern Israel.  They deny the right of jews to live in the area Israel, WB or G.
> *That is not what the paper suggests.*



And that is not what I suggest either.  *I don't deny the right of Jews to live in any of those areas.  I also don't deny the right of Palestinians to live in those areas.  I never have.*  Pointing out that both groups have legitimacy is not denying either one their rights.  The Pro-Israeli's make the argument that the Palestinians are squatters.  The Pro-Palestinians make the argument that the Jews are foreign invaders.  Neither statement is accurate.  It doesn't matter if your "ties" are to a land some of your ancestors inhabited thousands of years ago or if your ties are to a land your family has been inhabiting for centuries - you can't discount cultural and familial ties to land.



> *Please explain how *muslim palestinians are the only group to have a right to access the temple mount or pray in Jerusalem? Why did palestinians/jordanians destroy so many synagogues in Jerusalem and the WB?  Why did they use them as stables and toilets?  Why to they throw stones on the jews at the kotel?  Why do they riot and set fires on the mount just because a non-muslim visits?  Why do they run over infants at train stations?  Why do they fire rockets at Jews?  Why do they refuse to talk to jews about peace, coexistance or statehood for the palestinian people?
> How does the 12 page abstract advance peace in the region for all parties?



*Why do I need to explain it?*  I don't support it.

Why do settlers throw rocks at Palestinian children going to school bad enough that they need a military escort yet the settler kids don't get arrested for rock throwing?

I mean if you are going in that direction do you support it on the Israeli side since the other side is worse?


----------



## MJB12741

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not "pro-Palis" or "pro-Israeli's" making these determinations.  It's scientists who's profession is genetics.  They aren't drawing their conclusions based upon the large amount of genetic matter that is common to most humans, they are looking at markers that are uniquely shared within certain groups - in otherwords, that 15%.
> 
> I'm not being silly - I'm asking you to support your claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientists and geneticists produce the results, then the various people use the  results to further their own POV. In the case of team Palestine this is to discount the 15% of DNA that can place a person heritage and concentrate on the 85% that is common across all races, nationalities and genetic groups including primates. It is only when that 15% is brought into the equation that we see the gulf between arab muslims and Jews. Just as it also shows that the European Jews, African Jews and American Jews are very closely linked. But team palestine  repeatedly use just the 85% of common DNA as their basis for showing that Jews and arabs are the same, they may as well say that Jews and Inuit are the same or that arabs and monkees are the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These articles are not from "team Palestine":
> 
> http://www.rense.com/general48/palestinians.pdf
> Many surprised by genetic and cultural links between Palestinians and Jews God Reports
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 33549
> So why are the palestinians calling jews foreign invaders and refusing to acknowledge the jews right to living in Israel?
> Israel did not deny the palestinians a right to live in Israel or even to have their own state side by side.  Palestinians want the extermination of Israel and jews for the last two hundred years.
> Of course palestinians are also related the egyptian, turks, iranians and cretans.  Just because they come the same grouping does not mean they are the same as jews.   They did not exist as a "people" but now claim to be indigenous while denying the origins of jews.
> If you are trying to prove palestinians have origins in the middle east, of course.  If you are trying to prove they are jews, no.  If your trying to disprove the jews right to their homeland, no.
> We are not talking tribes in brazil vs jews or jews vs south arficans.  But there is not denying the jews have maintains their identity both culturally and genetically to the jews forced out by the romans or the jews that returned centuries ago or less than a hundred years ago.
> The document basically says their share less than a 10% genetic markers, not that they are identical or indistinguishable.
> Explain to the palestinians they should recognize Israels right to exist as a jewish state and that jews have as much right, if not more so, to their own state and identity.
> The paper does not dispute egyptian or other middle eastern origins for the palestinians.  It does not disprove that close to half those given the name of palestinians at the end of the mandate were immigrants from egypt, jordan, syria or elsewhere in the region.
> It was an abstract hypotheses for considerations.  A thought exercise common in college and in beginning a scientific study.
> Palestinians try to claim that jews, be they sephardi,  ashkenazi, lembi or bnei menashe, etc. have no history or religious ties to ancient or modern Israel.  They deny the right of jews to live in the area Israel, WB or G.
> That is not what the paper suggests.
> Please explain how muslim palestinians are the only group to have a right to access the temple mount or pray in Jerusalem? Why did palestinians/jordanians destroy so many synagogues in Jerusalem and the WB?  Why did they use them as stables and toilets?  Why to they throw stones on the jews at the kotel?  Why do they riot and set fires on the mount just because a non-muslim visits?  Why do they run over infants at train stations?  Why do they fire rockets at Jews?  Why do they refuse to talk to jews about peace, coexistance or statehood for the palestinian people?
> How does the 12 page abstract advance peace in the region for all parties?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want to compare modern jews and palestinians to neanderthal or the genetic "adam" as well for similar markers? Why not to apes or back to the first mammals going more than 4 million years?  You think our DNA is not going to show more than 90% similarities?  So why would it be surprising that human share certain markers?
> The trace of particular marker unique to a single branch of judaism and not to other arabs not markers the have in common.
> 
> Scientists Reconstruct 45 000-Year-Old Human Genome History in the Headlines
> 
> Y-Chromosomal Adam Lived 208 300 Years Ago Says New Study Genetics Sci-News.com
> 
> NOVA The DNA of Human Evolution
> 
> Jews Are a Race Genes Reveal Forward.com
> 
> I'm not a geneticist but my daughter is a nurse and I've know enough doctors and other medical experts to not get totally cross eyed over certain scientific articals.  Yes, even palestinians and other arabs are more like pigs, apes and even dogs than different from them.
> 
> Explain to palestinians why they do not have a right to kill or object to jews or a jewish state side by side a potential palestinian state.  Convince them that violence is not the answer and that they are the racists to think the middle east (or the world) should be jew-free.
> You can argue religion, history or science, they all work to show the bond of jews to the the region.
> Demographics also negate the idea that palestinians were displaced or that land was stole from them.  Even recent changes to the PA laws prove that land was sold to jews and is still being sold, other wise why the legislation against such sales?  No comparable laws in Israel that private land for sale can only be bought by a jew.  Even the knesset land is not owned by Israel or even a jew.  It is leased to the government.
> 
> Granted Israel is hardly at the head of the list for sainthood but they are far from the demons that so much of the palestinian propaganda claims.  Racist?  Apartheid?  Violent?  Hateful?  Liars?  The edge goes to palestinians on all counts.  Change the threat to Israel and the jews if you want things to get better for the palestinians.  Protest the leadership that perpetuates the rhetoric.  Take the weapons from groups like hamas.  Condemn at the top of your voice the riots and killings of Israelis.  Champagne to the rest of the arab and muslim world to normalize relations with Israel and stop supporting the weapons smuggling and hate from gaza and even the PA.  Encourage free discourse of Islam past and present.  Improve the right of the rest of the MENA especially toward the female half of the population.  Stress the teachings of peace and brotherhood towards others of the "book" and end the recruiting of groups from hezbullah to ISIS as islamic or serving allah in some way.
> Forbid the preaching such as "first the saturday then the sunday people", "first jerusalem then rome" as unislamic.
> 
> Seek solutions instead of just pointing out the problems.
> Bring constructive ideas to the table.  Encourage discourse not conflict on forums like this and all the way to heads of state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In the end, the sillyness of the argument is this:  Palestinians and Jews have more in common (excluding the genes we share with other species) than different.  So what is the big deal?  They are brothers and they fight like brothers.  They are religious brothers.  They are genetic brothers.  Genetics can only tell us so much and one thing they do tell us is we came out of Africa.  To try to use it to claim a "right" is false.  Yes, Jews are tied to the land.  So are Palestinians.  They need to learn to deal with it and they need to sit down and negotiate in good faith.   No one has truly done that.  You point out the failings of the Palestinians and I agree - but Israel needs to stop it's "ethnic cleansing" and settlement building in the occupied territories, take a hard look at it's system in regards to the treatment of Palestinian juviniles, it's system for approving permits and new settlements and other issues of equality.  Israel has it's own teaching of "hate" to combat, and to Israel's credit - it is trying to and taking this seriously but right now their policies have created two completely seperated societies in which many of it's members have never met the other.  Is this a good thing?  If you've never met a Jew - how easy it is to believe the propaganda and demonize.  If you've never met a Palestinian - same.  Condemn the settlements.  Condemn the system of residency permits.  Condemn the lack of progress in family unification.  Equality can not simply exist on paper and through a few token representatives.
> 
> I fully agree with you on what the Palestinians and few seem to speak out on what Israel needs to do.
Click to expand...


The settlerments would not have even developed at all had the Arab nations not united to annihilate Israel.  And please tell us more about Israel's "ethnic cleansing" you refer to.


----------



## Coyote

MJB12741 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The scientists and geneticists produce the results, then the various people use the  results to further their own POV. In the case of team Palestine this is to discount the 15% of DNA that can place a person heritage and concentrate on the 85% that is common across all races, nationalities and genetic groups including primates. It is only when that 15% is brought into the equation that we see the gulf between arab muslims and Jews. Just as it also shows that the European Jews, African Jews and American Jews are very closely linked. But team palestine  repeatedly use just the 85% of common DNA as their basis for showing that Jews and arabs are the same, they may as well say that Jews and Inuit are the same or that arabs and monkees are the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These articles are not from "team Palestine":
> 
> http://www.rense.com/general48/palestinians.pdf
> Many surprised by genetic and cultural links between Palestinians and Jews God Reports
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 33549
> So why are the palestinians calling jews foreign invaders and refusing to acknowledge the jews right to living in Israel?
> Israel did not deny the palestinians a right to live in Israel or even to have their own state side by side.  Palestinians want the extermination of Israel and jews for the last two hundred years.
> Of course palestinians are also related the egyptian, turks, iranians and cretans.  Just because they come the same grouping does not mean they are the same as jews.   They did not exist as a "people" but now claim to be indigenous while denying the origins of jews.
> If you are trying to prove palestinians have origins in the middle east, of course.  If you are trying to prove they are jews, no.  If your trying to disprove the jews right to their homeland, no.
> We are not talking tribes in brazil vs jews or jews vs south arficans.  But there is not denying the jews have maintains their identity both culturally and genetically to the jews forced out by the romans or the jews that returned centuries ago or less than a hundred years ago.
> The document basically says their share less than a 10% genetic markers, not that they are identical or indistinguishable.
> Explain to the palestinians they should recognize Israels right to exist as a jewish state and that jews have as much right, if not more so, to their own state and identity.
> The paper does not dispute egyptian or other middle eastern origins for the palestinians.  It does not disprove that close to half those given the name of palestinians at the end of the mandate were immigrants from egypt, jordan, syria or elsewhere in the region.
> It was an abstract hypotheses for considerations.  A thought exercise common in college and in beginning a scientific study.
> Palestinians try to claim that jews, be they sephardi,  ashkenazi, lembi or bnei menashe, etc. have no history or religious ties to ancient or modern Israel.  They deny the right of jews to live in the area Israel, WB or G.
> That is not what the paper suggests.
> Please explain how muslim palestinians are the only group to have a right to access the temple mount or pray in Jerusalem? Why did palestinians/jordanians destroy so many synagogues in Jerusalem and the WB?  Why did they use them as stables and toilets?  Why to they throw stones on the jews at the kotel?  Why do they riot and set fires on the mount just because a non-muslim visits?  Why do they run over infants at train stations?  Why do they fire rockets at Jews?  Why do they refuse to talk to jews about peace, coexistance or statehood for the palestinian people?
> How does the 12 page abstract advance peace in the region for all parties?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want to compare modern jews and palestinians to neanderthal or the genetic "adam" as well for similar markers? Why not to apes or back to the first mammals going more than 4 million years?  You think our DNA is not going to show more than 90% similarities?  So why would it be surprising that human share certain markers?
> The trace of particular marker unique to a single branch of judaism and not to other arabs not markers the have in common.
> 
> Scientists Reconstruct 45 000-Year-Old Human Genome History in the Headlines
> 
> Y-Chromosomal Adam Lived 208 300 Years Ago Says New Study Genetics Sci-News.com
> 
> NOVA The DNA of Human Evolution
> 
> Jews Are a Race Genes Reveal Forward.com
> 
> I'm not a geneticist but my daughter is a nurse and I've know enough doctors and other medical experts to not get totally cross eyed over certain scientific articals.  Yes, even palestinians and other arabs are more like pigs, apes and even dogs than different from them.
> 
> Explain to palestinians why they do not have a right to kill or object to jews or a jewish state side by side a potential palestinian state.  Convince them that violence is not the answer and that they are the racists to think the middle east (or the world) should be jew-free.
> You can argue religion, history or science, they all work to show the bond of jews to the the region.
> Demographics also negate the idea that palestinians were displaced or that land was stole from them.  Even recent changes to the PA laws prove that land was sold to jews and is still being sold, other wise why the legislation against such sales?  No comparable laws in Israel that private land for sale can only be bought by a jew.  Even the knesset land is not owned by Israel or even a jew.  It is leased to the government.
> 
> Granted Israel is hardly at the head of the list for sainthood but they are far from the demons that so much of the palestinian propaganda claims.  Racist?  Apartheid?  Violent?  Hateful?  Liars?  The edge goes to palestinians on all counts.  Change the threat to Israel and the jews if you want things to get better for the palestinians.  Protest the leadership that perpetuates the rhetoric.  Take the weapons from groups like hamas.  Condemn at the top of your voice the riots and killings of Israelis.  Champagne to the rest of the arab and muslim world to normalize relations with Israel and stop supporting the weapons smuggling and hate from gaza and even the PA.  Encourage free discourse of Islam past and present.  Improve the right of the rest of the MENA especially toward the female half of the population.  Stress the teachings of peace and brotherhood towards others of the "book" and end the recruiting of groups from hezbullah to ISIS as islamic or serving allah in some way.
> Forbid the preaching such as "first the saturday then the sunday people", "first jerusalem then rome" as unislamic.
> 
> Seek solutions instead of just pointing out the problems.
> Bring constructive ideas to the table.  Encourage discourse not conflict on forums like this and all the way to heads of state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In the end, the sillyness of the argument is this:  Palestinians and Jews have more in common (excluding the genes we share with other species) than different.  So what is the big deal?  They are brothers and they fight like brothers.  They are religious brothers.  They are genetic brothers.  Genetics can only tell us so much and one thing they do tell us is we came out of Africa.  To try to use it to claim a "right" is false.  Yes, Jews are tied to the land.  So are Palestinians.  They need to learn to deal with it and they need to sit down and negotiate in good faith.   No one has truly done that.  You point out the failings of the Palestinians and I agree - but Israel needs to stop it's "ethnic cleansing" and settlement building in the occupied territories, take a hard look at it's system in regards to the treatment of Palestinian juviniles, it's system for approving permits and new settlements and other issues of equality.  Israel has it's own teaching of "hate" to combat, and to Israel's credit - it is trying to and taking this seriously but right now their policies have created two completely seperated societies in which many of it's members have never met the other.  Is this a good thing?  If you've never met a Jew - how easy it is to believe the propaganda and demonize.  If you've never met a Palestinian - same.  Condemn the settlements.  Condemn the system of residency permits.  Condemn the lack of progress in family unification.  Equality can not simply exist on paper and through a few token representatives.
> 
> I fully agree with you on what the Palestinians and few seem to speak out on what Israel needs to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The settlerments would not have even developed at all had the Arab nations not united to annihilate Israel. * And please tell us more about Israel's "ethnic cleansing" you refer to.
Click to expand...


That's kind of like saying it's ok to beat up Billy Bob because he swung at me last week.  Two wrongs don't make a right.  I already talked about on part of "ethnic cleansing" earlier in this thread regarding policies in Jerusalem for example.  I'm not going to go and repeat it all again.


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not "pro-Palis" or "pro-Israeli's" making these determinations.  It's scientists who's profession is genetics.  They aren't drawing their conclusions based upon the large amount of genetic matter that is common to most humans, they are looking at markers that are uniquely shared within certain groups - in otherwords, that 15%.
> 
> I'm not being silly - I'm asking you to support your claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientists and geneticists produce the results, then the various people use the  results to further their own POV. In the case of team Palestine this is to discount the 15% of DNA that can place a person heritage and concentrate on the 85% that is common across all races, nationalities and genetic groups including primates. It is only when that 15% is brought into the equation that we see the gulf between arab muslims and Jews. Just as it also shows that the European Jews, African Jews and American Jews are very closely linked. But team palestine  repeatedly use just the 85% of common DNA as their basis for showing that Jews and arabs are the same, they may as well say that Jews and Inuit are the same or that arabs and monkees are the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These articles are not from "team Palestine":
> 
> http://www.rense.com/general48/palestinians.pdf
> Many surprised by genetic and cultural links between Palestinians and Jews God Reports
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 33549
> So why are the palestinians calling jews foreign invaders and refusing to acknowledge the jews right to living in Israel?
> Israel did not deny the palestinians a right to live in Israel or even to have their own state side by side.  Palestinians want the extermination of Israel and jews for the last two hundred years.
> Of course palestinians are also related the egyptian, turks, iranians and cretans.  Just because they come the same grouping does not mean they are the same as jews.   They did not exist as a "people" but now claim to be indigenous while denying the origins of jews.
> If you are trying to prove palestinians have origins in the middle east, of course.  If you are trying to prove they are jews, no.  If your trying to disprove the jews right to their homeland, no.
> We are not talking tribes in brazil vs jews or jews vs south arficans.  But there is not denying the jews have maintains their identity both culturally and genetically to the jews forced out by the romans or the jews that returned centuries ago or less than a hundred years ago.
> The document basically says their share less than a 10% genetic markers, not that they are identical or indistinguishable.
> Explain to the palestinians they should recognize Israels right to exist as a jewish state and that jews have as much right, if not more so, to their own state and identity.
> The paper does not dispute egyptian or other middle eastern origins for the palestinians.  It does not disprove that close to half those given the name of palestinians at the end of the mandate were immigrants from egypt, jordan, syria or elsewhere in the region.
> It was an abstract hypotheses for considerations.  A thought exercise common in college and in beginning a scientific study.
> Palestinians try to claim that jews, be they sephardi,  ashkenazi, lembi or bnei menashe, etc. have no history or religious ties to ancient or modern Israel.  They deny the right of jews to live in the area Israel, WB or G.
> That is not what the paper suggests.
> Please explain how muslim palestinians are the only group to have a right to access the temple mount or pray in Jerusalem? Why did palestinians/jordanians destroy so many synagogues in Jerusalem and the WB?  Why did they use them as stables and toilets?  Why to they throw stones on the jews at the kotel?  Why do they riot and set fires on the mount just because a non-muslim visits?  Why do they run over infants at train stations?  Why do they fire rockets at Jews?  Why do they refuse to talk to jews about peace, coexistance or statehood for the palestinian people?
> How does the 12 page abstract advance peace in the region for all parties?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want to compare modern jews and palestinians to neanderthal or the genetic "adam" as well for similar markers? Why not to apes or back to the first mammals going more than 4 million years?  You think our DNA is not going to show more than 90% similarities?  So why would it be surprising that human share certain markers?
> The trace of particular marker unique to a single branch of judaism and not to other arabs not markers the have in common.
> 
> Scientists Reconstruct 45 000-Year-Old Human Genome History in the Headlines
> 
> Y-Chromosomal Adam Lived 208 300 Years Ago Says New Study Genetics Sci-News.com
> 
> NOVA The DNA of Human Evolution
> 
> Jews Are a Race Genes Reveal Forward.com
> 
> I'm not a geneticist but my daughter is a nurse and I've know enough doctors and other medical experts to not get totally cross eyed over certain scientific articals.  Yes, even palestinians and other arabs are more like pigs, apes and even dogs than different from them.
> 
> Explain to palestinians why they do not have a right to kill or object to jews or a jewish state side by side a potential palestinian state.  Convince them that violence is not the answer and that they are the racists to think the middle east (or the world) should be jew-free.
> You can argue religion, history or science, they all work to show the bond of jews to the the region.
> Demographics also negate the idea that palestinians were displaced or that land was stole from them.  Even recent changes to the PA laws prove that land was sold to jews and is still being sold, other wise why the legislation against such sales?  No comparable laws in Israel that private land for sale can only be bought by a jew.  Even the knesset land is not owned by Israel or even a jew.  It is leased to the government.
> 
> Granted Israel is hardly at the head of the list for sainthood but they are far from the demons that so much of the palestinian propaganda claims.  Racist?  Apartheid?  Violent?  Hateful?  Liars?  The edge goes to palestinians on all counts.  Change the threat to Israel and the jews if you want things to get better for the palestinians.  Protest the leadership that perpetuates the rhetoric.  Take the weapons from groups like hamas.  Condemn at the top of your voice the riots and killings of Israelis.  Champagne to the rest of the arab and muslim world to normalize relations with Israel and stop supporting the weapons smuggling and hate from gaza and even the PA.  Encourage free discourse of Islam past and present.  Improve the right of the rest of the MENA especially toward the female half of the population.  Stress the teachings of peace and brotherhood towards others of the "book" and end the recruiting of groups from hezbullah to ISIS as islamic or serving allah in some way.
> Forbid the preaching such as "first the saturday then the sunday people", "first jerusalem then rome" as unislamic.
> 
> Seek solutions instead of just pointing out the problems.
> Bring constructive ideas to the table.  Encourage discourse not conflict on forums like this and all the way to heads of state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In the end, the sillyness of the argument is this:  Palestinians and Jews have more in common (excluding the genes we share with other species) than different.  So what is the big deal?  They are brothers and they fight like brothers.  They are religious brothers.  They are genetic brothers.  Genetics can only tell us so much and one thing they do tell us is we came out of Africa.  To try to use it to claim a "right" is false.  Yes, Jews are tied to the land.  So are Palestinians.  They need to learn to deal with it and they need to sit down and negotiate in good faith.   No one has truly done that.  You point out the failings of the Palestinians and I agree - but Israel needs to stop it's "ethnic cleansing" and settlement building in the occupied territories, take a hard look at it's system in regards to the treatment of Palestinian juviniles, it's system for approving permits and new settlements and other issues of equality.  Israel has it's own teaching of "hate" to combat, and to Israel's credit - it is trying to and taking this seriously but right now their policies have created two completely seperated societies in which many of it's members have never met the other.  Is this a good thing?  If you've never met a Jew - how easy it is to believe the propaganda and demonize.  If you've never met a Palestinian - same.  Condemn the settlements.  Condemn the system of residency permits.  Condemn the lack of progress in family unification.  Equality can not simply exist on paper and through a few token representatives.
> 
> I fully agree with you on what the Palestinians and few seem to speak out on what Israel needs to do.
Click to expand...


It was not how many were repatriated but rather how few applied. 
At Lausanne Israel offered 100,000 of the refugees to return.  Family reunification was one way of bringing palestinians back.  By 1950 35,000 have returned through the program, then it varied from year to year but was around 2000 a year till 2002.  90,000 found a way to returned on their own before 1954.
Part of the repatriating 100,000 refugees was contingent on the arab states absorbing the rest.  Israel also was taking on 800,000 jewish refugee from around the MENA that had been forced out.
It was not just about space but the logistics of housing, jobs, resources and providing services for so many in the first few years of statehood.
Even till 2000 the idea of 12-20% of the palestinian refugees returning was still part of the equation.
There were scholarship programs for students and their parents.  Medical necessity that brought palestinians into Israel and often arranged for them to stay.  After '67 10's of thousand palestinians were given jobs both in the WB & G but also in the Israel.
'98-06 more than 20,000 application for citizenship with close to 80% approval.  These are all PLO SMC figures issued within the last 10 yrs.  UN figures for reunification applications over a 25 yr period was 88,000
Applications still had to go through back ground check for links to terrorism or criminal arrests.
Reunification with family that never left was only a part of what was happening.


----------



## P F Tinmore

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are going to use DNA (and those studies are by no means definitive in that many Palestinians share the same markers) - then you need to send everyone - Jews and Palestinians - to Africa.  After all, that is their genetic homeland.  hmmm...maybe that will solve the problem
> 
> As far as "vast majority" - that too has been debunked as population records show some Arab migration (just as there was Jewish migration) but are not accurate enough to support the claim of "vast majority".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The DNA testing done shows that 50% of the DNA of every living thing is identical, it also shows that all primates share a common 80%-85% DNA. *That is what most pro Palestinians point  when they make their claims of inter breeding between Jews and muslims. It is onlyy when you look at the 15% left that you see the genetic markers that single out individual races, areas, cities, towns and villages.*
> Now you are being very silly as you know that was  in the depths of pre history.
> You forget  the forced migration from muslim lands put the European jews in the minority, the demographics of the arab muslims show that they could not have increased their population by such a large amount without there being immigration in very large numbers. They did not have the medical advances to better an infant survival rate of 10%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not "pro-Palis" or "pro-Israeli's" making these determinations.  It's scientists who's profession is genetics.  They aren't drawing their conclusions based upon the large amount of genetic matter that is common to most humans, they are looking at markers that are uniquely shared within certain groups - in otherwords, that 15%.
> 
> I'm not being silly - I'm asking you to support your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientists and geneticists produce the results, then the various people use the  results to further their own POV. In the case of team Palestine this is to discount the 15% of DNA that can place a person heritage and concentrate on the 85% that is common across all races, nationalities and genetic groups including primates. It is only when that 15% is brought into the equation that we see the gulf between arab muslims and Jews. Just as it also shows that the European Jews, African Jews and American Jews are very closely linked. But team palestine  repeatedly use just the 85% of common DNA as their basis for showing that Jews and arabs are the same, they may as well say that Jews and Inuit are the same or that arabs and monkees are the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These articles are not from "team Palestine":
> 
> http://www.rense.com/general48/palestinians.pdf
> Many surprised by genetic and cultural links between Palestinians and Jews God Reports
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 33549
> So why are the palestinians calling jews foreign invaders and refusing to acknowledge the jews right to living in Israel?
> Israel did not deny the palestinians a right to live in Israel or even to have their own state side by side.  Palestinians want the extermination of Israel and jews for the last two hundred years.
> Of course palestinians are also related the egyptian, turks, iranians and cretans.  Just because they come the same grouping does not mean they are the same as jews.   They did not exist as a "people" but now claim to be indigenous while denying the origins of jews.
> If you are trying to prove palestinians have origins in the middle east, of course.  If you are trying to prove they are jews, no.  If your trying to disprove the jews right to their homeland, no.
> We are not talking tribes in brazil vs jews or jews vs south arficans.  But there is not denying the jews have maintains their identity both culturally and genetically to the jews forced out by the romans or the jews that returned centuries ago or less than a hundred years ago.
> The document basically says their share less than a 10% genetic markers, not that they are identical or indistinguishable.
> Explain to the palestinians they should recognize Israels right to exist as a jewish state and that jews have as much right, if not more so, to their own state and identity.
> The paper does not dispute egyptian or other middle eastern origins for the palestinians.  It does not disprove that close to half those given the name of palestinians at the end of the mandate were immigrants from egypt, jordan, syria or elsewhere in the region.
> It was an abstract hypotheses for considerations.  A thought exercise common in college and in beginning a scientific study.
> Palestinians try to claim that jews, be they sephardi,  ashkenazi, lembi or bnei menashe, etc. have no history or religious ties to ancient or modern Israel.  They deny the right of jews to live in the area Israel, WB or G.
> That is not what the paper suggests.
> Please explain how muslim palestinians are the only group to have a right to access the temple mount or pray in Jerusalem? Why did palestinians/jordanians destroy so many synagogues in Jerusalem and the WB?  Why did they use them as stables and toilets?  Why to they throw stones on the jews at the kotel?  Why do they riot and set fires on the mount just because a non-muslim visits?  Why do they run over infants at train stations?  Why do they fire rockets at Jews?  Why do they refuse to talk to jews about peace, coexistance or statehood for the palestinian people?
> How does the 12 page abstract advance peace in the region for all parties?
Click to expand...

"So why are the palestinians calling jews foreign invaders and refusing to acknowledge the jews right to living in Israel?​
There is no such things as "the Jews." There were native Jews and foreign Jews.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The DNA testing done shows that 50% of the DNA of every living thing is identical, it also shows that all primates share a common 80%-85% DNA. *That is what most pro Palestinians point  when they make their claims of inter breeding between Jews and muslims. It is onlyy when you look at the 15% left that you see the genetic markers that single out individual races, areas, cities, towns and villages.*
> Now you are being very silly as you know that was  in the depths of pre history.
> You forget  the forced migration from muslim lands put the European jews in the minority, the demographics of the arab muslims show that they could not have increased their population by such a large amount without there being immigration in very large numbers. They did not have the medical advances to better an infant survival rate of 10%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not "pro-Palis" or "pro-Israeli's" making these determinations.  It's scientists who's profession is genetics.  They aren't drawing their conclusions based upon the large amount of genetic matter that is common to most humans, they are looking at markers that are uniquely shared within certain groups - in otherwords, that 15%.
> 
> I'm not being silly - I'm asking you to support your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientists and geneticists produce the results, then the various people use the  results to further their own POV. In the case of team Palestine this is to discount the 15% of DNA that can place a person heritage and concentrate on the 85% that is common across all races, nationalities and genetic groups including primates. It is only when that 15% is brought into the equation that we see the gulf between arab muslims and Jews. Just as it also shows that the European Jews, African Jews and American Jews are very closely linked. But team palestine  repeatedly use just the 85% of common DNA as their basis for showing that Jews and arabs are the same, they may as well say that Jews and Inuit are the same or that arabs and monkees are the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These articles are not from "team Palestine":
> 
> http://www.rense.com/general48/palestinians.pdf
> Many surprised by genetic and cultural links between Palestinians and Jews God Reports
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 33549
> So why are the palestinians calling jews foreign invaders and refusing to acknowledge the jews right to living in Israel?
> Israel did not deny the palestinians a right to live in Israel or even to have their own state side by side.  Palestinians want the extermination of Israel and jews for the last two hundred years.
> Of course palestinians are also related the egyptian, turks, iranians and cretans.  Just because they come the same grouping does not mean they are the same as jews.   They did not exist as a "people" but now claim to be indigenous while denying the origins of jews.
> If you are trying to prove palestinians have origins in the middle east, of course.  If you are trying to prove they are jews, no.  If your trying to disprove the jews right to their homeland, no.
> We are not talking tribes in brazil vs jews or jews vs south arficans.  But there is not denying the jews have maintains their identity both culturally and genetically to the jews forced out by the romans or the jews that returned centuries ago or less than a hundred years ago.
> The document basically says their share less than a 10% genetic markers, not that they are identical or indistinguishable.
> Explain to the palestinians they should recognize Israels right to exist as a jewish state and that jews have as much right, if not more so, to their own state and identity.
> The paper does not dispute egyptian or other middle eastern origins for the palestinians.  It does not disprove that close to half those given the name of palestinians at the end of the mandate were immigrants from egypt, jordan, syria or elsewhere in the region.
> It was an abstract hypotheses for considerations.  A thought exercise common in college and in beginning a scientific study.
> Palestinians try to claim that jews, be they sephardi,  ashkenazi, lembi or bnei menashe, etc. have no history or religious ties to ancient or modern Israel.  They deny the right of jews to live in the area Israel, WB or G.
> That is not what the paper suggests.
> Please explain how muslim palestinians are the only group to have a right to access the temple mount or pray in Jerusalem? Why did palestinians/jordanians destroy so many synagogues in Jerusalem and the WB?  Why did they use them as stables and toilets?  Why to they throw stones on the jews at the kotel?  Why do they riot and set fires on the mount just because a non-muslim visits?  Why do they run over infants at train stations?  Why do they fire rockets at Jews?  Why do they refuse to talk to jews about peace, coexistance or statehood for the palestinian people?
> How does the 12 page abstract advance peace in the region for all parties?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "So why are the palestinians calling jews foreign invaders and refusing to acknowledge the jews right to living in Israel?​
> There is no such things as "the Jews." There were native Jews and foreign Jews.
Click to expand...

There you go again, Tinmore. Arguing with the teacher.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The DNA testing done shows that 50% of the DNA of every living thing is identical, it also shows that all primates share a common 80%-85% DNA. *That is what most pro Palestinians point  when they make their claims of inter breeding between Jews and muslims. It is onlyy when you look at the 15% left that you see the genetic markers that single out individual races, areas, cities, towns and villages.*
> Now you are being very silly as you know that was  in the depths of pre history.
> You forget  the forced migration from muslim lands put the European jews in the minority, the demographics of the arab muslims show that they could not have increased their population by such a large amount without there being immigration in very large numbers. They did not have the medical advances to better an infant survival rate of 10%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not "pro-Palis" or "pro-Israeli's" making these determinations.  It's scientists who's profession is genetics.  They aren't drawing their conclusions based upon the large amount of genetic matter that is common to most humans, they are looking at markers that are uniquely shared within certain groups - in otherwords, that 15%.
> 
> I'm not being silly - I'm asking you to support your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientists and geneticists produce the results, then the various people use the  results to further their own POV. In the case of team Palestine this is to discount the 15% of DNA that can place a person heritage and concentrate on the 85% that is common across all races, nationalities and genetic groups including primates. It is only when that 15% is brought into the equation that we see the gulf between arab muslims and Jews. Just as it also shows that the European Jews, African Jews and American Jews are very closely linked. But team palestine  repeatedly use just the 85% of common DNA as their basis for showing that Jews and arabs are the same, they may as well say that Jews and Inuit are the same or that arabs and monkees are the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These articles are not from "team Palestine":
> 
> http://www.rense.com/general48/palestinians.pdf
> Many surprised by genetic and cultural links between Palestinians and Jews God Reports
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 33549
> So why are the palestinians calling jews foreign invaders and refusing to acknowledge the jews right to living in Israel?
> Israel did not deny the palestinians a right to live in Israel or even to have their own state side by side.  Palestinians want the extermination of Israel and jews for the last two hundred years.
> Of course palestinians are also related the egyptian, turks, iranians and cretans.  Just because they come the same grouping does not mean they are the same as jews.   They did not exist as a "people" but now claim to be indigenous while denying the origins of jews.
> If you are trying to prove palestinians have origins in the middle east, of course.  If you are trying to prove they are jews, no.  If your trying to disprove the jews right to their homeland, no.
> We are not talking tribes in brazil vs jews or jews vs south arficans.  But there is not denying the jews have maintains their identity both culturally and genetically to the jews forced out by the romans or the jews that returned centuries ago or less than a hundred years ago.
> The document basically says their share less than a 10% genetic markers, not that they are identical or indistinguishable.
> Explain to the palestinians they should recognize Israels right to exist as a jewish state and that jews have as much right, if not more so, to their own state and identity.
> The paper does not dispute egyptian or other middle eastern origins for the palestinians.  It does not disprove that close to half those given the name of palestinians at the end of the mandate were immigrants from egypt, jordan, syria or elsewhere in the region.
> It was an abstract hypotheses for considerations.  A thought exercise common in college and in beginning a scientific study.
> Palestinians try to claim that jews, be they sephardi,  ashkenazi, lembi or bnei menashe, etc. have no history or religious ties to ancient or modern Israel.  They deny the right of jews to live in the area Israel, WB or G.
> That is not what the paper suggests.
> Please explain how muslim palestinians are the only group to have a right to access the temple mount or pray in Jerusalem? Why did palestinians/jordanians destroy so many synagogues in Jerusalem and the WB?  Why did they use them as stables and toilets?  Why to they throw stones on the jews at the kotel?  Why do they riot and set fires on the mount just because a non-muslim visits?  Why do they run over infants at train stations?  Why do they fire rockets at Jews?  Why do they refuse to talk to jews about peace, coexistance or statehood for the palestinian people?
> How does the 12 page abstract advance peace in the region for all parties?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "So why are the palestinians calling jews foreign invaders and refusing to acknowledge the jews right to living in Israel?​
> There is no such things as "the Jews." There were native Jews and foreign Jews.
Click to expand...


YEP!  The native Jews were the indigenous Palestinians.


----------



## Coyote

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not "pro-Palis" or "pro-Israeli's" making these determinations.  It's scientists who's profession is genetics.  They aren't drawing their conclusions based upon the large amount of genetic matter that is common to most humans, they are looking at markers that are uniquely shared within certain groups - in otherwords, that 15%.
> 
> I'm not being silly - I'm asking you to support your claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientists and geneticists produce the results, then the various people use the  results to further their own POV. In the case of team Palestine this is to discount the 15% of DNA that can place a person heritage and concentrate on the 85% that is common across all races, nationalities and genetic groups including primates. It is only when that 15% is brought into the equation that we see the gulf between arab muslims and Jews. Just as it also shows that the European Jews, African Jews and American Jews are very closely linked. But team palestine  repeatedly use just the 85% of common DNA as their basis for showing that Jews and arabs are the same, they may as well say that Jews and Inuit are the same or that arabs and monkees are the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These articles are not from "team Palestine":
> 
> http://www.rense.com/general48/palestinians.pdf
> Many surprised by genetic and cultural links between Palestinians and Jews God Reports
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 33549
> So why are the palestinians calling jews foreign invaders and refusing to acknowledge the jews right to living in Israel?
> Israel did not deny the palestinians a right to live in Israel or even to have their own state side by side.  Palestinians want the extermination of Israel and jews for the last two hundred years.
> Of course palestinians are also related the egyptian, turks, iranians and cretans.  Just because they come the same grouping does not mean they are the same as jews.   They did not exist as a "people" but now claim to be indigenous while denying the origins of jews.
> If you are trying to prove palestinians have origins in the middle east, of course.  If you are trying to prove they are jews, no.  If your trying to disprove the jews right to their homeland, no.
> We are not talking tribes in brazil vs jews or jews vs south arficans.  But there is not denying the jews have maintains their identity both culturally and genetically to the jews forced out by the romans or the jews that returned centuries ago or less than a hundred years ago.
> The document basically says their share less than a 10% genetic markers, not that they are identical or indistinguishable.
> Explain to the palestinians they should recognize Israels right to exist as a jewish state and that jews have as much right, if not more so, to their own state and identity.
> The paper does not dispute egyptian or other middle eastern origins for the palestinians.  It does not disprove that close to half those given the name of palestinians at the end of the mandate were immigrants from egypt, jordan, syria or elsewhere in the region.
> It was an abstract hypotheses for considerations.  A thought exercise common in college and in beginning a scientific study.
> Palestinians try to claim that jews, be they sephardi,  ashkenazi, lembi or bnei menashe, etc. have no history or religious ties to ancient or modern Israel.  They deny the right of jews to live in the area Israel, WB or G.
> That is not what the paper suggests.
> Please explain how muslim palestinians are the only group to have a right to access the temple mount or pray in Jerusalem? Why did palestinians/jordanians destroy so many synagogues in Jerusalem and the WB?  Why did they use them as stables and toilets?  Why to they throw stones on the jews at the kotel?  Why do they riot and set fires on the mount just because a non-muslim visits?  Why do they run over infants at train stations?  Why do they fire rockets at Jews?  Why do they refuse to talk to jews about peace, coexistance or statehood for the palestinian people?
> How does the 12 page abstract advance peace in the region for all parties?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "So why are the palestinians calling jews foreign invaders and refusing to acknowledge the jews right to living in Israel?​
> There is no such things as "the Jews." There were native Jews and foreign Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YEP!  The native Jews were the indigenous Palestinians.
Click to expand...


Along with other non Jews.


----------



## MJB12741

Coyote said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The scientists and geneticists produce the results, then the various people use the  results to further their own POV. In the case of team Palestine this is to discount the 15% of DNA that can place a person heritage and concentrate on the 85% that is common across all races, nationalities and genetic groups including primates. It is only when that 15% is brought into the equation that we see the gulf between arab muslims and Jews. Just as it also shows that the European Jews, African Jews and American Jews are very closely linked. But team palestine  repeatedly use just the 85% of common DNA as their basis for showing that Jews and arabs are the same, they may as well say that Jews and Inuit are the same or that arabs and monkees are the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These articles are not from "team Palestine":
> 
> http://www.rense.com/general48/palestinians.pdf
> Many surprised by genetic and cultural links between Palestinians and Jews God Reports
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 33549
> So why are the palestinians calling jews foreign invaders and refusing to acknowledge the jews right to living in Israel?
> Israel did not deny the palestinians a right to live in Israel or even to have their own state side by side.  Palestinians want the extermination of Israel and jews for the last two hundred years.
> Of course palestinians are also related the egyptian, turks, iranians and cretans.  Just because they come the same grouping does not mean they are the same as jews.   They did not exist as a "people" but now claim to be indigenous while denying the origins of jews.
> If you are trying to prove palestinians have origins in the middle east, of course.  If you are trying to prove they are jews, no.  If your trying to disprove the jews right to their homeland, no.
> We are not talking tribes in brazil vs jews or jews vs south arficans.  But there is not denying the jews have maintains their identity both culturally and genetically to the jews forced out by the romans or the jews that returned centuries ago or less than a hundred years ago.
> The document basically says their share less than a 10% genetic markers, not that they are identical or indistinguishable.
> Explain to the palestinians they should recognize Israels right to exist as a jewish state and that jews have as much right, if not more so, to their own state and identity.
> The paper does not dispute egyptian or other middle eastern origins for the palestinians.  It does not disprove that close to half those given the name of palestinians at the end of the mandate were immigrants from egypt, jordan, syria or elsewhere in the region.
> It was an abstract hypotheses for considerations.  A thought exercise common in college and in beginning a scientific study.
> Palestinians try to claim that jews, be they sephardi,  ashkenazi, lembi or bnei menashe, etc. have no history or religious ties to ancient or modern Israel.  They deny the right of jews to live in the area Israel, WB or G.
> That is not what the paper suggests.
> Please explain how muslim palestinians are the only group to have a right to access the temple mount or pray in Jerusalem? Why did palestinians/jordanians destroy so many synagogues in Jerusalem and the WB?  Why did they use them as stables and toilets?  Why to they throw stones on the jews at the kotel?  Why do they riot and set fires on the mount just because a non-muslim visits?  Why do they run over infants at train stations?  Why do they fire rockets at Jews?  Why do they refuse to talk to jews about peace, coexistance or statehood for the palestinian people?
> How does the 12 page abstract advance peace in the region for all parties?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "So why are the palestinians calling jews foreign invaders and refusing to acknowledge the jews right to living in Israel?​
> There is no such things as "the Jews." There were native Jews and foreign Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YEP!  The native Jews were the indigenous Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Along with other non Jews.
Click to expand...


Correct.  And not a single land theiving Muslim Palestinian like those of today.


----------



## Coyote

MJB12741 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> These articles are not from "team Palestine":
> 
> http://www.rense.com/general48/palestinians.pdf
> Many surprised by genetic and cultural links between Palestinians and Jews God Reports
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 33549
> So why are the palestinians calling jews foreign invaders and refusing to acknowledge the jews right to living in Israel?
> Israel did not deny the palestinians a right to live in Israel or even to have their own state side by side.  Palestinians want the extermination of Israel and jews for the last two hundred years.
> Of course palestinians are also related the egyptian, turks, iranians and cretans.  Just because they come the same grouping does not mean they are the same as jews.   They did not exist as a "people" but now claim to be indigenous while denying the origins of jews.
> If you are trying to prove palestinians have origins in the middle east, of course.  If you are trying to prove they are jews, no.  If your trying to disprove the jews right to their homeland, no.
> We are not talking tribes in brazil vs jews or jews vs south arficans.  But there is not denying the jews have maintains their identity both culturally and genetically to the jews forced out by the romans or the jews that returned centuries ago or less than a hundred years ago.
> The document basically says their share less than a 10% genetic markers, not that they are identical or indistinguishable.
> Explain to the palestinians they should recognize Israels right to exist as a jewish state and that jews have as much right, if not more so, to their own state and identity.
> The paper does not dispute egyptian or other middle eastern origins for the palestinians.  It does not disprove that close to half those given the name of palestinians at the end of the mandate were immigrants from egypt, jordan, syria or elsewhere in the region.
> It was an abstract hypotheses for considerations.  A thought exercise common in college and in beginning a scientific study.
> Palestinians try to claim that jews, be they sephardi,  ashkenazi, lembi or bnei menashe, etc. have no history or religious ties to ancient or modern Israel.  They deny the right of jews to live in the area Israel, WB or G.
> That is not what the paper suggests.
> Please explain how muslim palestinians are the only group to have a right to access the temple mount or pray in Jerusalem? Why did palestinians/jordanians destroy so many synagogues in Jerusalem and the WB?  Why did they use them as stables and toilets?  Why to they throw stones on the jews at the kotel?  Why do they riot and set fires on the mount just because a non-muslim visits?  Why do they run over infants at train stations?  Why do they fire rockets at Jews?  Why do they refuse to talk to jews about peace, coexistance or statehood for the palestinian people?
> How does the 12 page abstract advance peace in the region for all parties?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "So why are the palestinians calling jews foreign invaders and refusing to acknowledge the jews right to living in Israel?​
> There is no such things as "the Jews." There were native Jews and foreign Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YEP!  The native Jews were the indigenous Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Along with other non Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct.  And not a single land theiving Muslim Palestinian like those of today.
Click to expand...


Incorrect.  Those you call "land thieving Muslim Palestinians" are closely related to those "land thieving" Jewish Palestinians.


----------



## aris2chat

Bought land is not stolen.  Arabs and palestinians that owned land were willing enough to sell to jews.  Abbas' change in the law regarding land sale would not be an issue if land was not still being sold to jews.
Money exchanged, deeds registered, this is not stolen.  Abandoned for ten years or more and taxes paid, this is not stolen.  State land developed and rented out by Israel is not stolen.  Land taken by Jordan from jews and reclaimed now is not being stolen by jews, it was stolen from them.  Land owned by jews in gaza that they were forced to leave and handed over to the palestinians was stolen.
In any country, land can be appropriated for public works, military, security, unpaid taxes, environmental reason and even confiscated because of criminal activity.  
Fake deed printed in Beirut in the 70's and 80's were handed out to just about every family.  This does not give them the right to claim the land or accuse Israel/jews of stealing the land.
I suggest most of the claims should be more carefully examined on an individual basis rather than blindly accepting the attacks and slurs of systematic stealing. 
Even a threat of death under palestinian law has not stopped the sale of land.
Planting of saplings on unused land does not mean ownership of land.  Regular cutting back of trees to increase the next harvest is not destruction of palestinian property by jews.
Just because a accusation is made does not mean it is always true, nor is the spreading of lies helpful to a negotiated peace process.


----------



## Coyote

aris2chat said:


> Bought land is not stolen.  Arabs and palestinians that owned land were willing enough to sell to jews.  Abbas' change in the law regarding land sale would not be an issue if land was not still being sold to jews.
> Money exchanged, deeds registered, this is not stolen.  Abandoned for ten years or more and taxes paid, this is not stolen.  State land developed and rented out by Israel is not stolen.  Land taken by Jordan from jews and reclaimed now is not being stolen by jews, it was stolen from them.  Land owned by jews in gaza that they were forced to leave and handed over to the palestinians was stolen.



Some is bought.  Some is stolen.  Regardless of who did the theft to whom - it is still theft is it not or is that fact that Jews lost land elsewhere justify it being done to the Palestinians?



> *In any country, land can be appropriated for public works, military, security, unpaid taxes, environmental reason and even confiscated because of criminal activity.  *
> Fake deed printed in Beirut in the 70's and 80's were handed out to just about every family.  This does not give them the right to claim the land or accuse Israel/jews of stealing the land.



True.  However - is that land "appropriated" disproportionately from Palestinians?



> *I suggest most of the claims should be more carefully examined on an individual basis rather than blindly accepting the attacks and slurs of systematic stealing. *
> Even a threat of death under palestinian law has not stopped the sale of land.



I agree,* they should be examined individualy. * Does that include the frequent claims of "land theiving Palestinians" or "Palestinian squatters"?   Or do you only apply it to the anti-Israeli propaganda?  There has been property confiscated from Palestinians in unjust ways with laws that are not applied to Jewish citizens.  Multiple sources support that and you can't keep claiming it's all propoganda.



> Planting of saplings on unused land does not mean ownership of land.  *Regular cutting back of trees to increase the next harvest is not destruction of palestinian property by jews.*
> Just because a accusation is made does not mean it is always true, nor is the spreading of lies helpful to a negotiated peace process.



True, but it depends on who's trees are being cut.

Spreading lies is not helpful and that includes anti-Palestinian lies as well.  Systemically denying both their rights to any claims or their rights to live there is not helpful.


----------



## MJB12741

Any hopes for peace between Israel & the Palestinians in our generation is long dead.  So what are the children being taught for peace in their generation?

Palestinian TV Teaches Kids The Way to Jihad Street The Investigative Project on Terrorism


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bought land is not stolen.  Arabs and palestinians that owned land were willing enough to sell to jews.  Abbas' change in the law regarding land sale would not be an issue if land was not still being sold to jews.
> Money exchanged, deeds registered, this is not stolen.  Abandoned for ten years or more and taxes paid, this is not stolen.  State land developed and rented out by Israel is not stolen.  Land taken by Jordan from jews and reclaimed now is not being stolen by jews, it was stolen from them.  Land owned by jews in gaza that they were forced to leave and handed over to the palestinians was stolen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some is bought.  Some is stolen.  Regardless of who did the theft to whom - it is still theft is it not or is that fact that Jews lost land elsewhere justify it being done to the Palestinians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In any country, land can be appropriated for public works, military, security, unpaid taxes, environmental reason and even confiscated because of criminal activity.  *
> Fake deed printed in Beirut in the 70's and 80's were handed out to just about every family.  This does not give them the right to claim the land or accuse Israel/jews of stealing the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  However - is that land "appropriated" disproportionately from Palestinians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I suggest most of the claims should be more carefully examined on an individual basis rather than blindly accepting the attacks and slurs of systematic stealing. *
> Even a threat of death under palestinian law has not stopped the sale of land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree,* they should be examined individualy. * Does that include the frequent claims of "land theiving Palestinians" or "Palestinian squatters"?   Or do you only apply it to the anti-Israeli propaganda?  There has been property confiscated from Palestinians in unjust ways with laws that are not applied to Jewish citizens.  Multiple sources support that and you can't keep claiming it's all propoganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Planting of saplings on unused land does not mean ownership of land.  *Regular cutting back of trees to increase the next harvest is not destruction of palestinian property by jews.*
> Just because a accusation is made does not mean it is always true, nor is the spreading of lies helpful to a negotiated peace process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but it depends on who's trees are being cut.
> 
> Spreading lies is not helpful and that includes anti-Palestinian lies as well.  Systemically denying both their rights to any claims or their rights to live there is not helpful.
Click to expand...


Is it right for Israel to have so many arab/palestinian citizens while palestinians outside of Israel demand a jew free state?  If Israel were to force all the jews in the WB to give up their lives, homes and businesses to start over in Israel, should Israel kick out all the arab/palestinians/muslims out of Israel?
Israel does not kill people for selling their land in Israel to a non-jew, but the PA does.  Even if half of "settlement" land was not previously owned by jews before '48 or bought from palestinians after '67, should all those jews who do own the land be forced to leave if they are willing to become palestinian citizens?
If palestinians are unwilling to make peace with Israel, should Israel give up the high ground vital their security?  Israel pulled out of Gaza and it did not bring a more peaceful cooperative relationship. If palestinians won't even talk with Israel and prefer the , why should Israel


----------



## Coyote

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bought land is not stolen.  Arabs and palestinians that owned land were willing enough to sell to jews.  Abbas' change in the law regarding land sale would not be an issue if land was not still being sold to jews.
> Money exchanged, deeds registered, this is not stolen.  Abandoned for ten years or more and taxes paid, this is not stolen.  State land developed and rented out by Israel is not stolen.  Land taken by Jordan from jews and reclaimed now is not being stolen by jews, it was stolen from them.  Land owned by jews in gaza that they were forced to leave and handed over to the palestinians was stolen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some is bought.  Some is stolen.  Regardless of who did the theft to whom - it is still theft is it not or is that fact that Jews lost land elsewhere justify it being done to the Palestinians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In any country, land can be appropriated for public works, military, security, unpaid taxes, environmental reason and even confiscated because of criminal activity.  *
> Fake deed printed in Beirut in the 70's and 80's were handed out to just about every family.  This does not give them the right to claim the land or accuse Israel/jews of stealing the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  However - is that land "appropriated" disproportionately from Palestinians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I suggest most of the claims should be more carefully examined on an individual basis rather than blindly accepting the attacks and slurs of systematic stealing. *
> Even a threat of death under palestinian law has not stopped the sale of land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree,* they should be examined individualy. * Does that include the frequent claims of "land theiving Palestinians" or "Palestinian squatters"?   Or do you only apply it to the anti-Israeli propaganda?  There has been property confiscated from Palestinians in unjust ways with laws that are not applied to Jewish citizens.  Multiple sources support that and you can't keep claiming it's all propoganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Planting of saplings on unused land does not mean ownership of land.  *Regular cutting back of trees to increase the next harvest is not destruction of palestinian property by jews.*
> Just because a accusation is made does not mean it is always true, nor is the spreading of lies helpful to a negotiated peace process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but it depends on who's trees are being cut.
> 
> Spreading lies is not helpful and that includes anti-Palestinian lies as well.  Systemically denying both their rights to any claims or their rights to live there is not helpful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it right for Israel to have so many arab/palestinian citizens while palestinians outside of Israel demand a jew free state?
Click to expand...


They haven't demanded a "jew free state".

Who is spreading lies here?  If it's based on Abbas' quote, then it's an outright lie.



> If Israel were to force all the jews in the WB to give up their lives, homes and businesses to start over in Israel, should Israel kick out all the arab/palestinians/muslims out of Israel?



No.

The solution would be for those Israelis who remain in whatever portions of WB that is negotiated into a Palestinian states to have a choice.  They can elect to stay in the new Palestinian state and become Palestinian citizens or elect to reject that and move to Israel.  For those portions of the WB that become part of Israel - the Palestinians can have the same choice - stay and become Israeli citizens or move to Palestine.  That seems fair to me.



> Israel does not kill people for selling their land in Israel to a non-jew, but the PA does.



The PA?  Or, individual Palestinians?



> Even if half of "settlement" land was not previously owned by jews before '48 or bought from palestinians after '67, should all those jews who do own the land be forced to leave if they are willing to become palestinian citizens?



Do you mean if they are "unwilling" to become Palestinian citizens?  In that case - it would have to be resolved in some manner through the process of negotiations and how is the rightful owner of the land.  If they don't wish to become Palestinian citizens they could sell up and move.



> If palestinians are unwilling to make peace with Israel, should Israel give up the high ground vital their security?  Israel pulled out of Gaza and it did not bring a more peaceful cooperative relationship. If palestinians won't even talk with Israel and prefer the , why should Israel



No, I agree that Israel has to be secure (keeping the Golan Heights comes to mind here) - however, Israel has also stretched the justification of "security" to excessive limits.


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bought land is not stolen.  Arabs and palestinians that owned land were willing enough to sell to jews.  Abbas' change in the law regarding land sale would not be an issue if land was not still being sold to jews.
> Money exchanged, deeds registered, this is not stolen.  Abandoned for ten years or more and taxes paid, this is not stolen.  State land developed and rented out by Israel is not stolen.  Land taken by Jordan from jews and reclaimed now is not being stolen by jews, it was stolen from them.  Land owned by jews in gaza that they were forced to leave and handed over to the palestinians was stolen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some is bought.  Some is stolen.  Regardless of who did the theft to whom - it is still theft is it not or is that fact that Jews lost land elsewhere justify it being done to the Palestinians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In any country, land can be appropriated for public works, military, security, unpaid taxes, environmental reason and even confiscated because of criminal activity.  *
> Fake deed printed in Beirut in the 70's and 80's were handed out to just about every family.  This does not give them the right to claim the land or accuse Israel/jews of stealing the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  However - is that land "appropriated" disproportionately from Palestinians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I suggest most of the claims should be more carefully examined on an individual basis rather than blindly accepting the attacks and slurs of systematic stealing. *
> Even a threat of death under palestinian law has not stopped the sale of land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree,* they should be examined individualy. * Does that include the frequent claims of "land theiving Palestinians" or "Palestinian squatters"?   Or do you only apply it to the anti-Israeli propaganda?  There has been property confiscated from Palestinians in unjust ways with laws that are not applied to Jewish citizens.  Multiple sources support that and you can't keep claiming it's all propoganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Planting of saplings on unused land does not mean ownership of land.  *Regular cutting back of trees to increase the next harvest is not destruction of palestinian property by jews.*
> Just because a accusation is made does not mean it is always true, nor is the spreading of lies helpful to a negotiated peace process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but it depends on who's trees are being cut.
> 
> Spreading lies is not helpful and that includes anti-Palestinian lies as well.  Systemically denying both their rights to any claims or their rights to live there is not helpful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it right for Israel to have so many arab/palestinian citizens while palestinians outside of Israel demand a jew free state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They haven't demanded a "jew free state".
> 
> Who is spreading lies here?  If it's based on Abbas' quote, then it's an outright lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Israel were to force all the jews in the WB to give up their lives, homes and businesses to start over in Israel, should Israel kick out all the arab/palestinians/muslims out of Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> The solution would be for those Israelis who remain in whatever portions of WB that is negotiated into a Palestinian states to have a choice.  They can elect to stay in the new Palestinian state and become Palestinian citizens or elect to reject that and move to Israel.  For those portions of the WB that become part of Israel - the Palestinians can have the same choice - stay and become Israeli citizens or move to Palestine.  That seems fair to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel does not kill people for selling their land in Israel to a non-jew, but the PA does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The PA?  Or, individual Palestinians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if half of "settlement" land was not previously owned by jews before '48 or bought from palestinians after '67, should all those jews who do own the land be forced to leave if they are willing to become palestinian citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you mean if they are "unwilling" to become Palestinian citizens?  In that case - it would have to be resolved in some manner through the process of negotiations and how is the rightful owner of the land.  If they don't wish to become Palestinian citizens they could sell up and move.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If palestinians are unwilling to make peace with Israel, should Israel give up the high ground vital their security?  Israel pulled out of Gaza and it did not bring a more peaceful cooperative relationship. If palestinians won't even talk with Israel and prefer the , why should Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I agree that Israel has to be secure (keeping the Golan Heights comes to mind here) - however, Israel has also stretched the justification of "security" to excessive limits.
Click to expand...


You should listen to rallies, speeches and sermons over the last century in arab.  Politicians, militia members, clerics, students and just the average Ali on the streets.  Read the speeches from the UN, TV, radio and even the arab press.
I grew up listening how jews, Israelis and anyone that thinks Israel has a right to exist should be wiped off the face of the earth.  I was targeted for not spouting the arab rhetoric.  I've been verbally attack by rabid pro-Israelis for arguing certain point on behalf the the palestinians.
If you get rid of the language of hate I like to believe there is a chance for so existence, even friendship.
I even hid myself and tried to ignore what was happening in the middle east for years.  I eventually found I could not live with my head buried.  I still don't understand how anyone can think of themselves as moral individuals and support the hostilities in the region or elsewhere.
I'd like all sides to listen and try to understand other view point and make decisions on logic and not passions or lies passed down through generations.
I've seen the results of hate and violence both against Israel and in civil war.  I don't think security and peace agreements can be taken casually when to do so could well mean genocide.  I've also seen how differing faiths, politics, races and nations can work and live together in friendship.
I prefer the later.

If you don't feel safe you can not be happy or lead a productive life in general or within a family unit.  Feeling safe is more importance that feeling loved.  You can't freely give of yourself if you are always on edge or looking over your shoulder.  So no I don't think stressing security can be limited.  If you feel safe within a group you can openly discuss and examine all points of view.  You can search and experiment for alternative and improvements.  Even failures can be a be a positive learning process in a safe environment.

Do you really think security can be so easily dismissed?  Why do nations have armies or make agreements with other nations.  Why do you lock your door?  Why do you look both was when crossing the road?  Why do you get vaccines?  Why do you teach kids not to talk to strangers or get in a strange car?  Why do we have passwords on our computers?  Why don't people jump out of airplanes without a parachute or go play sports without safety equipment?  Why don't we ban seat belts and airbags or even car doors and bumpers?  Do you truly live without thinking about safety, without concern for what the future will hold for your or the generations that follow?  Why do we recycle?  Why do we object to spilling poisonous chemicals in our water or soil?  Why do we have firefighters or even smoke alarms?

Why should Israel take it's security for granted when billions of people surrounding them are calling for their extermination?  When millions of jews were killed less than a century ago?  When Israel has been involved in 15 wars in less than 70 years?  When neighbors are firing rocket, bombing and killing it's citizens?


----------



## Coyote

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bought land is not stolen.  Arabs and palestinians that owned land were willing enough to sell to jews.  Abbas' change in the law regarding land sale would not be an issue if land was not still being sold to jews.
> Money exchanged, deeds registered, this is not stolen.  Abandoned for ten years or more and taxes paid, this is not stolen.  State land developed and rented out by Israel is not stolen.  Land taken by Jordan from jews and reclaimed now is not being stolen by jews, it was stolen from them.  Land owned by jews in gaza that they were forced to leave and handed over to the palestinians was stolen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some is bought.  Some is stolen.  Regardless of who did the theft to whom - it is still theft is it not or is that fact that Jews lost land elsewhere justify it being done to the Palestinians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In any country, land can be appropriated for public works, military, security, unpaid taxes, environmental reason and even confiscated because of criminal activity.  *
> Fake deed printed in Beirut in the 70's and 80's were handed out to just about every family.  This does not give them the right to claim the land or accuse Israel/jews of stealing the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  However - is that land "appropriated" disproportionately from Palestinians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I suggest most of the claims should be more carefully examined on an individual basis rather than blindly accepting the attacks and slurs of systematic stealing. *
> Even a threat of death under palestinian law has not stopped the sale of land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree,* they should be examined individualy. * Does that include the frequent claims of "land theiving Palestinians" or "Palestinian squatters"?   Or do you only apply it to the anti-Israeli propaganda?  There has been property confiscated from Palestinians in unjust ways with laws that are not applied to Jewish citizens.  Multiple sources support that and you can't keep claiming it's all propoganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Planting of saplings on unused land does not mean ownership of land.  *Regular cutting back of trees to increase the next harvest is not destruction of palestinian property by jews.*
> Just because a accusation is made does not mean it is always true, nor is the spreading of lies helpful to a negotiated peace process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but it depends on who's trees are being cut.
> 
> Spreading lies is not helpful and that includes anti-Palestinian lies as well.  Systemically denying both their rights to any claims or their rights to live there is not helpful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it right for Israel to have so many arab/palestinian citizens while palestinians outside of Israel demand a jew free state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They haven't demanded a "jew free state".
> 
> Who is spreading lies here?  If it's based on Abbas' quote, then it's an outright lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Israel were to force all the jews in the WB to give up their lives, homes and businesses to start over in Israel, should Israel kick out all the arab/palestinians/muslims out of Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> The solution would be for those Israelis who remain in whatever portions of WB that is negotiated into a Palestinian states to have a choice.  They can elect to stay in the new Palestinian state and become Palestinian citizens or elect to reject that and move to Israel.  For those portions of the WB that become part of Israel - the Palestinians can have the same choice - stay and become Israeli citizens or move to Palestine.  That seems fair to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel does not kill people for selling their land in Israel to a non-jew, but the PA does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The PA?  Or, individual Palestinians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if half of "settlement" land was not previously owned by jews before '48 or bought from palestinians after '67, should all those jews who do own the land be forced to leave if they are willing to become palestinian citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you mean if they are "unwilling" to become Palestinian citizens?  In that case - it would have to be resolved in some manner through the process of negotiations and how is the rightful owner of the land.  If they don't wish to become Palestinian citizens they could sell up and move.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If palestinians are unwilling to make peace with Israel, should Israel give up the high ground vital their security?  Israel pulled out of Gaza and it did not bring a more peaceful cooperative relationship. If palestinians won't even talk with Israel and prefer the , why should Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I agree that Israel has to be secure (keeping the Golan Heights comes to mind here) - however, Israel has also stretched the justification of "security" to excessive limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should listen to rallies, speeches and sermons over the last century in arab.  Politicians, militia members, clerics, students and just the average Ali on the streets.  Read the speeches from the UN, TV, radio and even the arab press.
> I grew up listening how jews, Israelis and anyone that thinks Israel has a right to exist should be wiped off the face of the earth.  I was targeted for not spouting the arab rhetoric.  I've been verbally attack by rabid pro-Israelis for arguing certain point on behalf the the palestinians.
> If you get rid of the language of hate I like to believe there is a chance for so existence, even friendship.
> I even hid myself and tried to ignore what was happening in the middle east for years.  I eventually found I could not live with my head buried.  I still don't understand how anyone can think of themselves as moral individuals and support the hostilities in the region or elsewhere.
> I'd like all sides to listen and try to understand other view point and make decisions on logic and not passions or lies passed down through generations.
> I've seen the results of hate and violence both against Israel and in civil war.  I don't think security and peace agreements can be taken casually when to do so could well mean genocide.  I've also seen how differing faiths, politics, races and nations can work and live together in friendship.
> I prefer the later.
> 
> If you don't feel safe you can not be happy or lead a productive life in general or within a family unit.  Feeling safe is more importance that feeling loved.  You can't freely give of yourself if you are always on edge or looking over your shoulder.  So no I don't think stressing security can be limited.  If you feel safe within a group you can openly discuss and examine all points of view.  You can search and experiment for alternative and improvements.  Even failures can be a be a positive learning process in a safe environment.
> 
> Do you really think security can be so easily dismissed?  Why do nations have armies or make agreements with other nations.  Why do you lock your door?  Why do you look both was when crossing the road?  Why do you get vaccines?  Why do you teach kids not to talk to strangers or get in a strange car?  Why do we have passwords on our computers?  Why don't people jump out of airplanes without a parachute or go play sports without safety equipment?  Why don't we ban seat belts and airbags or even car doors and bumpers?  Do you truly live without thinking about safety, without concern for what the future will hold for your or the generations that follow?  Why do we recycle?  Why do we object to spilling poisonous chemicals in our water or soil?  Why do we have firefighters or even smoke alarms?
> 
> Why should Israel take it's security for granted when billions of people surrounding them are calling for their extermination?  When millions of jews were killed less than a century ago?  When Israel has been involved in 15 wars in less than 70 years?  When neighbors are firing rocket, bombing and killing it's citizens?
Click to expand...


Aris...there is a lot of what you say that I agree with.  When you talk about Israel's security - I already said - I agree with and understand that need.  Israel can not compromise on it's national security and I gave as an example the Golan heights.  I do understand that.  I also don't criticize Israel for going after Hamas in Gaza this last time - no nation would tolerate rocket fire into it's territory.

But there are always two sides here.  No one can thrive without feeling safe.  No learning can occur without safety being met first.  The funny thing is, I learned this in dog training.  If minimal needs - most prime - safety and security - aren't met - nothing else matters.  All I want to say here is that yes - safety and security are important but also is a sense of belonging.  Of citizenship.  Of being a people.  Of having a home.  Israeli's lack security.  Palestinians lack both security and a home.  Of the former - their actions bring it on themselves in many ways.  Of the latter - this needs to be addressed.  

On the language of hate?  I agree.  And the Palestinians are very guilty of that.

Let me ask you this Aris - what do you think of the ongoing policy of increased seperation of Palestinians and Jews?  Do you think this is benificial to the process or harmful?  I think it's harmful.  I think when you have Palestinians who have never met a Jew and Jews who have never met a Palestinian - then it is becomes easy to buy into the rhetoric of hate.  Because you don't know any REAL people as people. I think this has had a role in the deterioration of relations and the ease with which each side sees the other as subhuman.

Thank you for a very very good post!


----------



## P F Tinmore

I don't see any real difference between Arabs and Jews.The differences all seem to be Israel related. I think that the animosities are fueled by Israel's policies.


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bought land is not stolen.  Arabs and palestinians that owned land were willing enough to sell to jews.  Abbas' change in the law regarding land sale would not be an issue if land was not still being sold to jews.
> Money exchanged, deeds registered, this is not stolen.  Abandoned for ten years or more and taxes paid, this is not stolen.  State land developed and rented out by Israel is not stolen.  Land taken by Jordan from jews and reclaimed now is not being stolen by jews, it was stolen from them.  Land owned by jews in gaza that they were forced to leave and handed over to the palestinians was stolen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some is bought.  Some is stolen.  Regardless of who did the theft to whom - it is still theft is it not or is that fact that Jews lost land elsewhere justify it being done to the Palestinians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In any country, land can be appropriated for public works, military, security, unpaid taxes, environmental reason and even confiscated because of criminal activity.  *
> Fake deed printed in Beirut in the 70's and 80's were handed out to just about every family.  This does not give them the right to claim the land or accuse Israel/jews of stealing the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  However - is that land "appropriated" disproportionately from Palestinians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I suggest most of the claims should be more carefully examined on an individual basis rather than blindly accepting the attacks and slurs of systematic stealing. *
> Even a threat of death under palestinian law has not stopped the sale of land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree,* they should be examined individualy. * Does that include the frequent claims of "land theiving Palestinians" or "Palestinian squatters"?   Or do you only apply it to the anti-Israeli propaganda?  There has been property confiscated from Palestinians in unjust ways with laws that are not applied to Jewish citizens.  Multiple sources support that and you can't keep claiming it's all propoganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Planting of saplings on unused land does not mean ownership of land.  *Regular cutting back of trees to increase the next harvest is not destruction of palestinian property by jews.*
> Just because a accusation is made does not mean it is always true, nor is the spreading of lies helpful to a negotiated peace process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but it depends on who's trees are being cut.
> 
> Spreading lies is not helpful and that includes anti-Palestinian lies as well.  Systemically denying both their rights to any claims or their rights to live there is not helpful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it right for Israel to have so many arab/palestinian citizens while palestinians outside of Israel demand a jew free state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They haven't demanded a "jew free state".
> 
> Who is spreading lies here?  If it's based on Abbas' quote, then it's an outright lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Israel were to force all the jews in the WB to give up their lives, homes and businesses to start over in Israel, should Israel kick out all the arab/palestinians/muslims out of Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> The solution would be for those Israelis who remain in whatever portions of WB that is negotiated into a Palestinian states to have a choice.  They can elect to stay in the new Palestinian state and become Palestinian citizens or elect to reject that and move to Israel.  For those portions of the WB that become part of Israel - the Palestinians can have the same choice - stay and become Israeli citizens or move to Palestine.  That seems fair to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel does not kill people for selling their land in Israel to a non-jew, but the PA does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The PA?  Or, individual Palestinians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if half of "settlement" land was not previously owned by jews before '48 or bought from palestinians after '67, should all those jews who do own the land be forced to leave if they are willing to become palestinian citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you mean if they are "unwilling" to become Palestinian citizens?  In that case - it would have to be resolved in some manner through the process of negotiations and how is the rightful owner of the land.  If they don't wish to become Palestinian citizens they could sell up and move.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If palestinians are unwilling to make peace with Israel, should Israel give up the high ground vital their security?  Israel pulled out of Gaza and it did not bring a more peaceful cooperative relationship. If palestinians won't even talk with Israel and prefer the , why should Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I agree that Israel has to be secure (keeping the Golan Heights comes to mind here) - however, Israel has also stretched the justification of "security" to excessive limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should listen to rallies, speeches and sermons over the last century in arab.  Politicians, militia members, clerics, students and just the average Ali on the streets.  Read the speeches from the UN, TV, radio and even the arab press.
> I grew up listening how jews, Israelis and anyone that thinks Israel has a right to exist should be wiped off the face of the earth.  I was targeted for not spouting the arab rhetoric.  I've been verbally attack by rabid pro-Israelis for arguing certain point on behalf the the palestinians.
> If you get rid of the language of hate I like to believe there is a chance for so existence, even friendship.
> I even hid myself and tried to ignore what was happening in the middle east for years.  I eventually found I could not live with my head buried.  I still don't understand how anyone can think of themselves as moral individuals and support the hostilities in the region or elsewhere.
> I'd like all sides to listen and try to understand other view point and make decisions on logic and not passions or lies passed down through generations.
> I've seen the results of hate and violence both against Israel and in civil war.  I don't think security and peace agreements can be taken casually when to do so could well mean genocide.  I've also seen how differing faiths, politics, races and nations can work and live together in friendship.
> I prefer the later.
> 
> If you don't feel safe you can not be happy or lead a productive life in general or within a family unit.  Feeling safe is more importance that feeling loved.  You can't freely give of yourself if you are always on edge or looking over your shoulder.  So no I don't think stressing security can be limited.  If you feel safe within a group you can openly discuss and examine all points of view.  You can search and experiment for alternative and improvements.  Even failures can be a be a positive learning process in a safe environment.
> 
> Do you really think security can be so easily dismissed?  Why do nations have armies or make agreements with other nations.  Why do you lock your door?  Why do you look both was when crossing the road?  Why do you get vaccines?  Why do you teach kids not to talk to strangers or get in a strange car?  Why do we have passwords on our computers?  Why don't people jump out of airplanes without a parachute or go play sports without safety equipment?  Why don't we ban seat belts and airbags or even car doors and bumpers?  Do you truly live without thinking about safety, without concern for what the future will hold for your or the generations that follow?  Why do we recycle?  Why do we object to spilling poisonous chemicals in our water or soil?  Why do we have firefighters or even smoke alarms?
> 
> Why should Israel take it's security for granted when billions of people surrounding them are calling for their extermination?  When millions of jews were killed less than a century ago?  When Israel has been involved in 15 wars in less than 70 years?  When neighbors are firing rocket, bombing and killing it's citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aris...there is a lot of what you say that I agree with.  When you talk about Israel's security - I already said - I agree with and understand that need.  Israel can not compromise on it's national security and I gave as an example the Golan heights.  I do understand that.  I also don't criticize Israel for going after Hamas in Gaza this last time - no nation would tolerate rocket fire into it's territory.
> 
> But there are always two sides here.  No one can thrive without feeling safe.  No learning can occur without safety being met first.  The funny thing is, I learned this in dog training.  If minimal needs - most prime - safety and security - aren't met - nothing else matters.  All I want to say here is that yes - safety and security are important but also is a sense of belonging.  Of citizenship.  Of being a people.  Of having a home.  Israeli's lack security.  Palestinians lack both security and a home.  Of the former - their actions bring it on themselves in many ways.  Of the latter - this needs to be addressed.
> 
> On the language of hate?  I agree.  And the Palestinians are very guilty of that.
> 
> Let me ask you this Aris - what do you think of the ongoing policy of increased seperation of Palestinians and Jews?  Do you think this is benificial to the process or harmful?  I think it's harmful.  I think when you have Palestinians who have never met a Jew and Jews who have never met a Palestinian - then it is becomes easy to buy into the rhetoric of hate.  Because you don't know any REAL people as people. I think this has had a role in the deterioration of relations and the ease with which each side sees the other as subhuman.
> 
> Thank you for a very very good post!
Click to expand...


I perfer coexistance, mixing and blending of people with differences.  The world is a melting pot, why not countries, towns or neighborhoods?  Israel has people of all faiths, they are a mix of ancient and modern races semitic and non-semitic.  I've never believed that a palestinians state, or either part of the PA should be racially or religiously pure.  I think "settlements" good for coexisting.  Israelis/jews bring with them a new century, new science, medicine, curiosity, discovery.  I've seen too many in that part of the world living in primitive, even my middle east standards, culture.
Muslims come out the desert and at least in the cities they couldn't get enough of learning and philosophy.  They, along with the jews translated greek literature.  They preserved the knowledge of the ancients, before they rejected and destroyed it, There was a time when the cities had libraries, universities and even public services comparable to the modern day.  I'd like to see a return to that kind of openness and exchange of ideas.

I might not have seen what life was like before WWI in what became the mandate but I've seen what life in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Arabia and beyond was like both from pictures and even the way life was like after WWII.  I've traveled the world and seen how people existed without electric, radio, vehicles, sanitary water, or health care.  I've seen people farming and raising live stock with bone and wood tools they crafted themselves.  I remember the vast spaces of Jordan, Syria and Lebanon with little but desert or brush and the overcrowding of cities and shopping the markets that were little change in more than a millennium.  The mandate would have been little different.

I know people can preserve the best of their heritage and culture without having to still live like it was centuries ago.  I've lived in part of the US that are little change in more than four hundred years.  There are people in Alaska and Montana that don't have plumbing, water or stoves indoors.  I don't recommend it for more than a few weeks.  I learned to hunt and fish for my food, I prefer a super market.  I learned to treat many heath problems with the herbs in the back yard, but I know it is limited and for somethings modern medicine is better.

Israel and palestinians working together will be a benefit to each other on every level.  I think with the right education and security that a one state might have been a better option.  One country balanced between the races and religions working as one people.  Unfortunately it is not really practical at this time or likely to be in the near future.  Maybe after a century of peace .....

I know that a middle east with a disproportionate muslim majority that does not have political and moral protection and respect for all the minorities resorts to internal strife between the sects and does not progress as more open societies in the west.  I dream, but I am also practical and know there will always be hate and jealousy within families, between neighbors and between nations.  The garden is always greener.  A small amount can be a good thing and stimulate competitiveness and challenge each other.  There is not utopia, not everyone can be totally equal in everything.  There will always be someone who makes a better pie or that comes up with better ideas.  Smarter, faster, more creative or just people that are naturally kinder or even better looking.  We are not meant to be clones with the same programing.  Viva la difference!


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> I don't see any real difference between Arabs and Jews.The differences all seem to be Israel related. I think that the animosities are fueled by Israel's policies.



My father could tell from what part of town, what country of almost every person from the middle east.  Even europeans he could tell what part of the country or city by the way the spoke and moved.  It was not racist, it just was like recognizing someone had black hair or green eyes.
When you live around people in the middle east you know if they are syrian, iraqi, their religion, their education, their politics of even people you just met or that happen to be shopping in the same store.
I wish sometimes we were blind to the difference between people, but even in the US we know if someone is form the south or north east.  We know a lot of their beliefs and politics by what they say or even how they carry themselves.
People in the middle east have a knack for noticing if strangers are like themselves or different.  It just is.  It does not have to be a good or bad thing unless it turns to hate or violence.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> I don't see any real difference between Arabs and Jews.The differences all seem to be Israel related. I think that the animosities are fueled by Israel's policies.



Right on!  I agree Israel is to blame for this ongoing conflict with their treatment of the Palestinians.  Peace offerings, a security fence & land concessions to keep them in Israel.  Never once have those Zionists in Israel even tried to free the Palestinians back to their indigenous homelands.  Shame on Israel.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel never said it wanted to be muslim free.  Israel does not want an influx of angry palestinians to be forced on them that would threaten the jewish homeland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No..they did not say that but they sure are working hard to reduce the Muslim population aren't they?  Why is it Israeli-Arab communities so seldom get building or expansion permits?  How many new Israeli settlements have been built and how many Arab ones?  Why is it citizenship is defined by ethnicity?
> 
> I actually agree that "right of return" is an impossible demand for Israel and I don't see it as an option.  But still - historically - Israel actively particpated in driving non-Jewish Palestinians out of Israel and legislating to bar their return.  How many did you say were allowed back...2000?  Out of how many?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians want a jew free palestinian.  It wants a jew free territory consisting of the whole mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually what Abbas said (in discussing a Palestinian state) was: “In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single *Israeli — civilian or soldier* — on our lands,” Abbas said following a meeting with interim Egyptian President Adly Mansour in Cairo.  That means no Israeli's.  It means those who choose to stay become Palestinians.  Somewhere it got morphed into "No Jews".  At least I'm assuming this is the statement?  It's the one that has been most brought up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is trying to be reasonable.  It had a family reunification program for decades.  At one point it was even willing to take back those arabs that had left, not the whole extended generations as well.  It also offered for a time to take in 100,000 over a period of years to gradually integrate them, find housing and or jobs.  Several options were put forward and later withdraw when there was no willingness to negotiate or compromise.
> So yes I am being careful with the phrasing because Israel has shown they are not acting in a racist manner. * Palestinians have proven to be highly racist not allowing jews to remain and become palestinian citizens, and this from Abbas. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that is not what Abbas said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas is not going to be persuaded if Abbas is not willing to try and consider the possibility.
> Do you have a better way of determining which side is racist and which one is just being cautious under a dire threat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Take an honest look at the treatment of people and see who's racist and who is not.  There are a lot of inequities in Israel's system - the way Palestinians are treated in the judicial system and by the police and military for instance (particularly juviniles) and contrast that with how Israeli juviniles are treated.  The permit system for expansion.  Settlers throw stones at Palestinian children who have to pass in order to go to school.  How is it handled?  They go under military escort which might or might not show up.  How are Palestinian stone throwers threated?  Shot or arrested.  So...there is racism there.  It's not so pristine and clear cut as you would make it.  Does that mean the Palestinians are not racist?  I think many are as well and a culture based on a policy of complete seperation encourages that on both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why Does the State Department Endorse Palestinian Fight to Exclude Jews Commentary Magazine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read this and no where is there an actual quote from Abbas about "no Jews".  The issue of Jeruselum does however show that the issue is not that clear.
> 
> One of the radio shows I listen to on NPR had a piece on Jerusalem and the the issue of property in East Jerusalum.  There is a lot of anger towards Jews buying property there as well as the feeling (justified) that there is an intentional government effort to reduce the resident Palestinian population and increase the Jewish population.  There is a lack of transparency in the process of buying property and multiple layers of front-groups hiding the identity of the real purchasers so often, a Palestinian seller is led to think he is sellling to a Palestinian but in reality, it's a front for a Jewish developer. The dark side of this, of course is the Palestinian intolerance to Jews moving into that area and if a Palestinian is known to have sold to a Jew, he becomes a target for violence or death threats.
> 
> The Israeli government is also complicit in the process.  Through use of the zoning process, they allot zones for Jewish purposes but withhold permits for Palestinians.  The government also actively subsidizes Jewish projects and there are areas specifically designated for Jews only.  They have also used the zoning process to redraw Jerusalem's municipal boundaries in such a way that they enlarge Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and exclude Palestinian areas from Jeruselums boundaries.  When you consider the fact that Palestinians residing outside of Jerusalem  can lose their Jerusalem residency status if they are gone 7 or more years (but NOT Jewish residents) -it paints a compellling picture of how demographics are being manipulated.
> 
> MIDEAST Israel Moves to Judaise East Jerusalem Inter Press Service
> 
> _According to UN figures, in 2006 at least 1,360 Palestinians had their ID cards revoked. This was five times more than in 2005, and more than in any previous year since Israel began occupying East Jerusalem.
> 
> In 2003, the Citizenship and Entry into Israel law was enacted, which denies spouses from the occupied Palestinian territories, who are married to Israeli citizens or permanent residents (Jerusalem ID card holders), the right to acquire citizenship or residency status, and thus the opportunity to live with their partners in Israel and Jerusalem.
> 
> As a result, thousands of married couples are forced to live apart from one another.
> 
> In Israel, foreign spouses who are Jewish are automatically granted citizenship under Israel's Law of Return.
> 
> Furthermore, since 1982 the Israeli Interior Ministry has not permitted the registration of Palestinian children as Jerusalem residents if the child's father does not hold a Jerusalem ID card, even if the mother is a Jerusalem ID cardholder._​
> East Jerusalem - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> _Until 1995, those who lived abroad for more than seven years or obtained residency or citizenship in another country were deemed liable to lose their residency status. In 1995, Israel began revoking permanent residency status from former Arab residents of Jerusalem who could not prove that their "center of life" was still in Jerusalem. This policy was rescinded four years later. In March 2000, the Minister of the Interior, Natan Sharansky, stated that the "quiet deportation" policy would cease, the prior policy would be restored, and Arab natives to Jerusalem would be able to regain residency[62] if they could prove that they have visited Israel at least once every three years. Since December 1995, permanent residency of more than 3,000 individuals "expired," leaving them with neither citizenship nor residency.[62] Despite changes in policy under Sharansky, in 2006 the number of former Arab Jerusalemites to lose their residency status was 1,363, a sixfold increase on the year before.[63] The loss of status is automatic and sometimes occurs without their knowledge._​
> Israel also has severely curtailed it's "family reunification" to the point where it's disengenious to use that as an indication that there is no racism.  Israeli communities are allowed to reject potential applicants  based on ethnic or cultural characteristics thus encourging ever more isolation between the two groups. According to one poll - 42% of Israeli's had never met a Palestinian.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/opinion/rula-jebreal-minority-life-in-israel.html?_r=0
> _In September, Israel’s Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the Admissions Committees Law, which allows communities to reject housing applicants based on “cultural and social suitability” — a legal pretext to deny residency to non-Jews. In practice, even before the law was passed, it was virtually impossible for a Palestinian to buy or rent a home in any majority-Jewish city._​
> So when you look at this...who is racist?  The Palestinians? The Israeli's?  Both? Neither?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel Daily News Stream 0730 2013
> 
> Abbas Palestine will be Judenrein - Middle East - News - Arutz Sheva
> 
> Abbas No Jews in Palestinian State
> 
> Abbas 8217 Palestine No Jews Allowed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Each of these - it's the same deliberately contorted quote.
> 
> These all say the same thing:
> 
> Claim :  Abbas: Palestinian state will be judenrein or Jew free.
> Then right below it it shows the quote:  "In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli -- civilian or soldier -- on our lands".
> No Israeli's.  In otherwords - they will all be, whatever they are - Palestinian citizens and there will be no foreign military presence or "settlers" who do not take on Palestinian citizenship.
> 
> It does NOT say "judenrein" nor does it say "jew free" - that is a dishonest and misleading claim attempting, through the use of the german term - to equate this and Abbas to Hitler and the Nazi's.  Very dishonest in my opinion.
> 
> In doing so - is this also an attempt to incite hate?
> 
> Who is racist?
Click to expand...






 Who is RACIST look no further than the arab muslims, and here is the link that prove Abbas said no jews in Palestine

Abbas Arabs in Israel No Jews in Palestine Commentary Magazine


 Abbas left no doubt about what his vision of peace entails:
“In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli — civilian or soldier — on our lands,” Abbas said following a meeting with interim Egyptian President Adly Mansour in Cairo.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What "just solution that recognizes and respects the shared humanity and needs of both peoples" would you suggest for Israel with a people who duly elected Hamas to annihilate Israel off the face of the earth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give them a state and hold them accountable just as you would any other state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHERE should Israel "give them a state & hold them accountable" where they cannot continue to suuport Hamas to annihilate Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Negotiate for parts of the West Bank as was originally invisioned.  Keep in mind - Israel got it's state despite it's terrorist activities against the Brits and Arabs.
> 
> Once they have a state they have something to lose.  They can b e held accountable as a state for aggression or terrorism and be held to the same sanctions as any other state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the Palestinians have their state despite their terrorist activities against the British, Jews, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Germany and the USA. So why aren't they held accountable now for their aggression and terrorism. They have nothing to lose as they have put nothing into their state since 1988. The UN should give them a deadline to prove their ability to govern themselves or withdraw their membership of the UN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What state?
Click to expand...





 The one they declared in 1988 and that the UN has accepted, I did not say that they had declared any land as Palestine because to do so would mean they would need to prove themselves capable of governing.

State of Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 The State of Palestine has claimed sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza Strip,[16] and has designated Jerusalem as its capital,[ii][3][4] with partial control of those areas assumed in 1994 as the Palestinian Authority. Most of the areas claimed by the State of Palestine have been occupied by Israel since 1967 in the aftermath of the Six-Day War.[7] In 2012, the State of Palestine was granted non-member observer status by the United Nations (UN


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> New palestinian towns of Rawabi, Talet Nueima and Batir in the WB  with another to be planned in the jordan valley.  Jdeideh will be a new palestinians town in Israel.  *Rahat and Tel as-Sabi were built for the bedouin in the negev.*
> New construction in Jerusalem will be for jews and arabs.
> 
> 
> 
> Rahat is a ghetto built to dump the Bedouins when Israel steals their land.
> 
> *Evicting the Bedouin - Israel/Palestine *
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ghettos don't usually win ISOCARP awards
> 
> http://www.restorationplanning.com/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What bedouin live in horrid conditions and Israel is trying to get them to live in decent modern housing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *ISRAEL, Bedouin Ghetto*
Click to expand...





And who built those ghettos, as it wasn't the Israelis was it. The Bedouin are squatting illegally on Israeli land so the Israelis have offered them a place to call their own in Israel, very easy to find out the truth if you look on the internet.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No the vast majority are illegal immigrants with less than 150 years occupancy in Palestine, the Jews have a common ancestry to the M.E. as shown by DNA testing of all the worlds Jews. The Jews who never left the land have a very close match to the Jews of Eastern Europe, Iran, Ethiopia, America and the UK. The arab muslims show a varied DNA mix with very little in common wit even people living in the same village. Now this is either inter breeding with close family members or recent migration  from outside the area. So how can they be as indigenous a the Jews when less than 10% of their DNA is the same. ( outside of the human genome )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are going to use DNA (and those studies are by no means definitive in that many Palestinians share the same markers) - then you need to send everyone - Jews and Palestinians - to Africa.  After all, that is their genetic homeland.  hmmm...maybe that will solve the problem
> 
> As far as "vast majority" - that too has been debunked as population records show some Arab migration (just as there was Jewish migration) but are not accurate enough to support the claim of "vast majority".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The DNA testing done shows that 50% of the DNA of every living thing is identical, it also shows that all primates share a common 80%-85% DNA. *That is what most pro Palestinians point  when they make their claims of inter breeding between Jews and muslims. It is onlyy when you look at the 15% left that you see the genetic markers that single out individual races, areas, cities, towns and villages.*
> Now you are being very silly as you know that was  in the depths of pre history.
> You forget  the forced migration from muslim lands put the European jews in the minority, the demographics of the arab muslims show that they could not have increased their population by such a large amount without there being immigration in very large numbers. They did not have the medical advances to better an infant survival rate of 10%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not "pro-Palis" or "pro-Israeli's" making these determinations.  It's scientists who's profession is genetics.  They aren't drawing their conclusions based upon the large amount of genetic matter that is common to most humans, they are looking at markers that are uniquely shared within certain groups - in otherwords, that 15%.
> 
> I'm not being silly - I'm asking you to support your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientists and geneticists produce the results, then the various people use the  results to further their own POV. In the case of team Palestine this is to discount the 15% of DNA that can place a person heritage and concentrate on the 85% that is common across all races, nationalities and genetic groups including primates. It is only when that 15% is brought into the equation that we see the gulf between arab muslims and Jews. Just as it also shows that the European Jews, African Jews and American Jews are very closely linked. But team palestine  repeatedly use just the 85% of common DNA as their basis for showing that Jews and arabs are the same, they may as well say that Jews and Inuit are the same or that arabs and monkees are the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These articles are not from "team Palestine":
> 
> http://www.rense.com/general48/palestinians.pdf
> Many surprised by genetic and cultural links between Palestinians and Jews God Reports
Click to expand...





 The first is very pro Palestinian if you look at the editorial, so making it team Palestine. The second is a blog, one persons own views, so again is very pro Palestinian, making it team Palestine.


 Keep trying


----------



## MJB12741

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are going to use DNA (and those studies are by no means definitive in that many Palestinians share the same markers) - then you need to send everyone - Jews and Palestinians - to Africa.  After all, that is their genetic homeland.  hmmm...maybe that will solve the problem
> 
> As far as "vast majority" - that too has been debunked as population records show some Arab migration (just as there was Jewish migration) but are not accurate enough to support the claim of "vast majority".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The DNA testing done shows that 50% of the DNA of every living thing is identical, it also shows that all primates share a common 80%-85% DNA. *That is what most pro Palestinians point  when they make their claims of inter breeding between Jews and muslims. It is onlyy when you look at the 15% left that you see the genetic markers that single out individual races, areas, cities, towns and villages.*
> Now you are being very silly as you know that was  in the depths of pre history.
> You forget  the forced migration from muslim lands put the European jews in the minority, the demographics of the arab muslims show that they could not have increased their population by such a large amount without there being immigration in very large numbers. They did not have the medical advances to better an infant survival rate of 10%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not "pro-Palis" or "pro-Israeli's" making these determinations.  It's scientists who's profession is genetics.  They aren't drawing their conclusions based upon the large amount of genetic matter that is common to most humans, they are looking at markers that are uniquely shared within certain groups - in otherwords, that 15%.
> 
> I'm not being silly - I'm asking you to support your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientists and geneticists produce the results, then the various people use the  results to further their own POV. In the case of team Palestine this is to discount the 15% of DNA that can place a person heritage and concentrate on the 85% that is common across all races, nationalities and genetic groups including primates. It is only when that 15% is brought into the equation that we see the gulf between arab muslims and Jews. Just as it also shows that the European Jews, African Jews and American Jews are very closely linked. But team palestine  repeatedly use just the 85% of common DNA as their basis for showing that Jews and arabs are the same, they may as well say that Jews and Inuit are the same or that arabs and monkees are the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These articles are not from "team Palestine":
> 
> http://www.rense.com/general48/palestinians.pdf
> Many surprised by genetic and cultural links between Palestinians and Jews God Reports
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first is very pro Palestinian if you look at the editorial, so making it team Palestine. The second is a blog, one persons own views, so again is very pro Palestinian, making it team Palestine.
> 
> 
> Keep trying
Click to expand...



Gosh I wonder if the Palestinian supporters would agree to this?  All settlers & all Palestrinians on the land without any titles or deeds have to go.  Would that not be fair?


----------



## Coyote

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some is bought.  Some is stolen.  Regardless of who did the theft to whom - it is still theft is it not or is that fact that Jews lost land elsewhere justify it being done to the Palestinians?
> 
> True.  However - is that land "appropriated" disproportionately from Palestinians?
> 
> I agree,* they should be examined individualy. * Does that include the frequent claims of "land theiving Palestinians" or "Palestinian squatters"?   Or do you only apply it to the anti-Israeli propaganda?  There has been property confiscated from Palestinians in unjust ways with laws that are not applied to Jewish citizens.  Multiple sources support that and you can't keep claiming it's all propoganda.
> 
> True, but it depends on who's trees are being cut.
> 
> Spreading lies is not helpful and that includes anti-Palestinian lies as well.  Systemically denying both their rights to any claims or their rights to live there is not helpful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it right for Israel to have so many arab/palestinian citizens while palestinians outside of Israel demand a jew free state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They haven't demanded a "jew free state".
> 
> Who is spreading lies here?  If it's based on Abbas' quote, then it's an outright lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Israel were to force all the jews in the WB to give up their lives, homes and businesses to start over in Israel, should Israel kick out all the arab/palestinians/muslims out of Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> The solution would be for those Israelis who remain in whatever portions of WB that is negotiated into a Palestinian states to have a choice.  They can elect to stay in the new Palestinian state and become Palestinian citizens or elect to reject that and move to Israel.  For those portions of the WB that become part of Israel - the Palestinians can have the same choice - stay and become Israeli citizens or move to Palestine.  That seems fair to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel does not kill people for selling their land in Israel to a non-jew, but the PA does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The PA?  Or, individual Palestinians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if half of "settlement" land was not previously owned by jews before '48 or bought from palestinians after '67, should all those jews who do own the land be forced to leave if they are willing to become palestinian citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you mean if they are "unwilling" to become Palestinian citizens?  In that case - it would have to be resolved in some manner through the process of negotiations and how is the rightful owner of the land.  If they don't wish to become Palestinian citizens they could sell up and move.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If palestinians are unwilling to make peace with Israel, should Israel give up the high ground vital their security?  Israel pulled out of Gaza and it did not bring a more peaceful cooperative relationship. If palestinians won't even talk with Israel and prefer the , why should Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I agree that Israel has to be secure (keeping the Golan Heights comes to mind here) - however, Israel has also stretched the justification of "security" to excessive limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should listen to rallies, speeches and sermons over the last century in arab.  Politicians, militia members, clerics, students and just the average Ali on the streets.  Read the speeches from the UN, TV, radio and even the arab press.
> I grew up listening how jews, Israelis and anyone that thinks Israel has a right to exist should be wiped off the face of the earth.  I was targeted for not spouting the arab rhetoric.  I've been verbally attack by rabid pro-Israelis for arguing certain point on behalf the the palestinians.
> If you get rid of the language of hate I like to believe there is a chance for so existence, even friendship.
> I even hid myself and tried to ignore what was happening in the middle east for years.  I eventually found I could not live with my head buried.  I still don't understand how anyone can think of themselves as moral individuals and support the hostilities in the region or elsewhere.
> I'd like all sides to listen and try to understand other view point and make decisions on logic and not passions or lies passed down through generations.
> I've seen the results of hate and violence both against Israel and in civil war.  I don't think security and peace agreements can be taken casually when to do so could well mean genocide.  I've also seen how differing faiths, politics, races and nations can work and live together in friendship.
> I prefer the later.
> 
> If you don't feel safe you can not be happy or lead a productive life in general or within a family unit.  Feeling safe is more importance that feeling loved.  You can't freely give of yourself if you are always on edge or looking over your shoulder.  So no I don't think stressing security can be limited.  If you feel safe within a group you can openly discuss and examine all points of view.  You can search and experiment for alternative and improvements.  Even failures can be a be a positive learning process in a safe environment.
> 
> Do you really think security can be so easily dismissed?  Why do nations have armies or make agreements with other nations.  Why do you lock your door?  Why do you look both was when crossing the road?  Why do you get vaccines?  Why do you teach kids not to talk to strangers or get in a strange car?  Why do we have passwords on our computers?  Why don't people jump out of airplanes without a parachute or go play sports without safety equipment?  Why don't we ban seat belts and airbags or even car doors and bumpers?  Do you truly live without thinking about safety, without concern for what the future will hold for your or the generations that follow?  Why do we recycle?  Why do we object to spilling poisonous chemicals in our water or soil?  Why do we have firefighters or even smoke alarms?
> 
> Why should Israel take it's security for granted when billions of people surrounding them are calling for their extermination?  When millions of jews were killed less than a century ago?  When Israel has been involved in 15 wars in less than 70 years?  When neighbors are firing rocket, bombing and killing it's citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aris...there is a lot of what you say that I agree with.  When you talk about Israel's security - I already said - I agree with and understand that need.  Israel can not compromise on it's national security and I gave as an example the Golan heights.  I do understand that.  I also don't criticize Israel for going after Hamas in Gaza this last time - no nation would tolerate rocket fire into it's territory.
> 
> But there are always two sides here.  No one can thrive without feeling safe.  No learning can occur without safety being met first.  The funny thing is, I learned this in dog training.  If minimal needs - most prime - safety and security - aren't met - nothing else matters.  All I want to say here is that yes - safety and security are important but also is a sense of belonging.  Of citizenship.  Of being a people.  Of having a home.  Israeli's lack security.  Palestinians lack both security and a home.  Of the former - their actions bring it on themselves in many ways.  Of the latter - this needs to be addressed.
> 
> On the language of hate?  I agree.  And the Palestinians are very guilty of that.
> 
> Let me ask you this Aris - what do you think of the ongoing policy of increased seperation of Palestinians and Jews?  Do you think this is benificial to the process or harmful?  I think it's harmful.  I think when you have Palestinians who have never met a Jew and Jews who have never met a Palestinian - then it is becomes easy to buy into the rhetoric of hate.  Because you don't know any REAL people as people. I think this has had a role in the deterioration of relations and the ease with which each side sees the other as subhuman.
> 
> Thank you for a very very good post!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I perfer coexistance, mixing and blending of people with differences.  The world is a melting pot, why not countries, towns or neighborhoods?  Israel has people of all faiths, they are a mix of ancient and modern races semitic and non-semitic.  I've never believed that a palestinians state, or either part of the PA should be racially or religiously pure.  I think "settlements" good for coexisting.  Israelis/jews bring with them a new century, new science, medicine, curiosity, discovery.  I've seen too many in that part of the world living in primitive, even my middle east standards, culture.
> Muslims come out the desert and at least in the cities they couldn't get enough of learning and philosophy.  They, along with the jews translated greek literature.  They preserved the knowledge of the ancients, before they rejected and destroyed it, There was a time when the cities had libraries, universities and even public services comparable to the modern day.  I'd like to see a return to that kind of openness and exchange of ideas.
> 
> I might not have seen what life was like before WWI in what became the mandate but I've seen what life in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Arabia and beyond was like both from pictures and even the way life was like after WWII.  I've traveled the world and seen how people existed without electric, radio, vehicles, sanitary water, or health care.  I've seen people farming and raising live stock with bone and wood tools they crafted themselves.  I remember the vast spaces of Jordan, Syria and Lebanon with little but desert or brush and the overcrowding of cities and shopping the markets that were little change in more than a millennium.  The mandate would have been little different.
> 
> I know people can preserve the best of their heritage and culture without having to still live like it was centuries ago.  I've lived in part of the US that are little change in more than four hundred years.  There are people in Alaska and Montana that don't have plumbing, water or stoves indoors.  I don't recommend it for more than a few weeks.  I learned to hunt and fish for my food, I prefer a super market.  I learned to treat many heath problems with the herbs in the back yard, but I know it is limited and for somethings modern medicine is better.
> 
> Israel and palestinians working together will be a benefit to each other on every level.  I think with the right education and security that a one state might have been a better option.  One country balanced between the races and religions working as one people.  Unfortunately it is not really practical at this time or likely to be in the near future.  Maybe after a century of peace .....
> 
> I know that a middle east with a disproportionate muslim majority that does not have political and moral protection and respect for all the minorities resorts to internal strife between the sects and does not progress as more open societies in the west.  I dream, but I am also practical and know there will always be hate and jealousy within families, between neighbors and between nations.  The garden is always greener.  A small amount can be a good thing and stimulate competitiveness and challenge each other.  There is not utopia, not everyone can be totally equal in everything.  There will always be someone who makes a better pie or that comes up with better ideas.  Smarter, faster, more creative or just people that are naturally kinder or even better looking.  *We are not meant to be clones with the same programing.  Viva la difference!*
Click to expand...


That is a beautiful post...and I so agree.  I know we may seem on the opposite sides of an issue here...but I really really really agree!

I'm American.  I love the wealth of cultures that create the patchwork quilt of our society.  Everyone of them is us - enriches us as American encriches them.

I wish the world could be like that.  I wish ALL America could be like that.  You are so right Aris.

I wish more could see the value in this.  All of us are richer for our diversity.


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel never said it wanted to be muslim free.  Israel does not want an influx of angry palestinians to be forced on them that would threaten the jewish homeland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No..they did not say that but they sure are working hard to reduce the Muslim population aren't they?  Why is it Israeli-Arab communities so seldom get building or expansion permits?  How many new Israeli settlements have been built and how many Arab ones?  Why is it citizenship is defined by ethnicity?
> 
> I actually agree that "right of return" is an impossible demand for Israel and I don't see it as an option.  But still - historically - Israel actively particpated in driving non-Jewish Palestinians out of Israel and legislating to bar their return.  How many did you say were allowed back...2000?  Out of how many?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians want a jew free palestinian.  It wants a jew free territory consisting of the whole mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually what Abbas said (in discussing a Palestinian state) was: “In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single *Israeli — civilian or soldier* — on our lands,” Abbas said following a meeting with interim Egyptian President Adly Mansour in Cairo.  That means no Israeli's.  It means those who choose to stay become Palestinians.  Somewhere it got morphed into "No Jews".  At least I'm assuming this is the statement?  It's the one that has been most brought up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is trying to be reasonable.  It had a family reunification program for decades.  At one point it was even willing to take back those arabs that had left, not the whole extended generations as well.  It also offered for a time to take in 100,000 over a period of years to gradually integrate them, find housing and or jobs.  Several options were put forward and later withdraw when there was no willingness to negotiate or compromise.
> So yes I am being careful with the phrasing because Israel has shown they are not acting in a racist manner. * Palestinians have proven to be highly racist not allowing jews to remain and become palestinian citizens, and this from Abbas. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that is not what Abbas said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas is not going to be persuaded if Abbas is not willing to try and consider the possibility.
> Do you have a better way of determining which side is racist and which one is just being cautious under a dire threat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Take an honest look at the treatment of people and see who's racist and who is not.  There are a lot of inequities in Israel's system - the way Palestinians are treated in the judicial system and by the police and military for instance (particularly juviniles) and contrast that with how Israeli juviniles are treated.  The permit system for expansion.  Settlers throw stones at Palestinian children who have to pass in order to go to school.  How is it handled?  They go under military escort which might or might not show up.  How are Palestinian stone throwers threated?  Shot or arrested.  So...there is racism there.  It's not so pristine and clear cut as you would make it.  Does that mean the Palestinians are not racist?  I think many are as well and a culture based on a policy of complete seperation encourages that on both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why Does the State Department Endorse Palestinian Fight to Exclude Jews Commentary Magazine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read this and no where is there an actual quote from Abbas about "no Jews".  The issue of Jeruselum does however show that the issue is not that clear.
> 
> One of the radio shows I listen to on NPR had a piece on Jerusalem and the the issue of property in East Jerusalum.  There is a lot of anger towards Jews buying property there as well as the feeling (justified) that there is an intentional government effort to reduce the resident Palestinian population and increase the Jewish population.  There is a lack of transparency in the process of buying property and multiple layers of front-groups hiding the identity of the real purchasers so often, a Palestinian seller is led to think he is sellling to a Palestinian but in reality, it's a front for a Jewish developer. The dark side of this, of course is the Palestinian intolerance to Jews moving into that area and if a Palestinian is known to have sold to a Jew, he becomes a target for violence or death threats.
> 
> The Israeli government is also complicit in the process.  Through use of the zoning process, they allot zones for Jewish purposes but withhold permits for Palestinians.  The government also actively subsidizes Jewish projects and there are areas specifically designated for Jews only.  They have also used the zoning process to redraw Jerusalem's municipal boundaries in such a way that they enlarge Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and exclude Palestinian areas from Jeruselums boundaries.  When you consider the fact that Palestinians residing outside of Jerusalem  can lose their Jerusalem residency status if they are gone 7 or more years (but NOT Jewish residents) -it paints a compellling picture of how demographics are being manipulated.
> 
> MIDEAST Israel Moves to Judaise East Jerusalem Inter Press Service
> 
> _According to UN figures, in 2006 at least 1,360 Palestinians had their ID cards revoked. This was five times more than in 2005, and more than in any previous year since Israel began occupying East Jerusalem.
> 
> In 2003, the Citizenship and Entry into Israel law was enacted, which denies spouses from the occupied Palestinian territories, who are married to Israeli citizens or permanent residents (Jerusalem ID card holders), the right to acquire citizenship or residency status, and thus the opportunity to live with their partners in Israel and Jerusalem.
> 
> As a result, thousands of married couples are forced to live apart from one another.
> 
> In Israel, foreign spouses who are Jewish are automatically granted citizenship under Israel's Law of Return.
> 
> Furthermore, since 1982 the Israeli Interior Ministry has not permitted the registration of Palestinian children as Jerusalem residents if the child's father does not hold a Jerusalem ID card, even if the mother is a Jerusalem ID cardholder._​
> East Jerusalem - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> _Until 1995, those who lived abroad for more than seven years or obtained residency or citizenship in another country were deemed liable to lose their residency status. In 1995, Israel began revoking permanent residency status from former Arab residents of Jerusalem who could not prove that their "center of life" was still in Jerusalem. This policy was rescinded four years later. In March 2000, the Minister of the Interior, Natan Sharansky, stated that the "quiet deportation" policy would cease, the prior policy would be restored, and Arab natives to Jerusalem would be able to regain residency[62] if they could prove that they have visited Israel at least once every three years. Since December 1995, permanent residency of more than 3,000 individuals "expired," leaving them with neither citizenship nor residency.[62] Despite changes in policy under Sharansky, in 2006 the number of former Arab Jerusalemites to lose their residency status was 1,363, a sixfold increase on the year before.[63] The loss of status is automatic and sometimes occurs without their knowledge._​
> Israel also has severely curtailed it's "family reunification" to the point where it's disengenious to use that as an indication that there is no racism.  Israeli communities are allowed to reject potential applicants  based on ethnic or cultural characteristics thus encourging ever more isolation between the two groups. According to one poll - 42% of Israeli's had never met a Palestinian.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/opinion/rula-jebreal-minority-life-in-israel.html?_r=0
> _In September, Israel’s Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the Admissions Committees Law, which allows communities to reject housing applicants based on “cultural and social suitability” — a legal pretext to deny residency to non-Jews. In practice, even before the law was passed, it was virtually impossible for a Palestinian to buy or rent a home in any majority-Jewish city._​
> So when you look at this...who is racist?  The Palestinians? The Israeli's?  Both? Neither?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel Daily News Stream 0730 2013
> 
> Abbas Palestine will be Judenrein - Middle East - News - Arutz Sheva
> 
> Abbas No Jews in Palestinian State
> 
> Abbas 8217 Palestine No Jews Allowed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Each of these - it's the same deliberately contorted quote.
> 
> These all say the same thing:
> 
> Claim :  Abbas: Palestinian state will be judenrein or Jew free.
> Then right below it it shows the quote:  "In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli -- civilian or soldier -- on our lands".
> No Israeli's.  In otherwords - they will all be, whatever they are - Palestinian citizens and there will be no foreign military presence or "settlers" who do not take on Palestinian citizenship.
> 
> It does NOT say "judenrein" nor does it say "jew free" - that is a dishonest and misleading claim attempting, through the use of the german term - to equate this and Abbas to Hitler and the Nazi's.  Very dishonest in my opinion.
> 
> In doing so - is this also an attempt to incite hate?
> 
> Who is racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is RACIST look no further than the arab muslims, and here is the link that prove Abbas said no jews in Palestine
> 
> Abbas Arabs in Israel No Jews in Palestine Commentary Magazine
> 
> 
> Abbas left no doubt about what his vision of peace entails:
> “In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli — civilian or soldier — on our lands,” Abbas said following a meeting with interim Egyptian President Adly Mansour in Cairo.
Click to expand...



Phoenall.  Find me ONE direct quote from Abbas saying "NO JEWS".

I challange you to that.


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel never said it wanted to be muslim free.  Israel does not want an influx of angry palestinians to be forced on them that would threaten the jewish homeland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No..they did not say that but they sure are working hard to reduce the Muslim population aren't they?  Why is it Israeli-Arab communities so seldom get building or expansion permits?  How many new Israeli settlements have been built and how many Arab ones?  Why is it citizenship is defined by ethnicity?
> 
> I actually agree that "right of return" is an impossible demand for Israel and I don't see it as an option.  But still - historically - Israel actively particpated in driving non-Jewish Palestinians out of Israel and legislating to bar their return.  How many did you say were allowed back...2000?  Out of how many?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians want a jew free palestinian.  It wants a jew free territory consisting of the whole mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually what Abbas said (in discussing a Palestinian state) was: “In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single *Israeli — civilian or soldier* — on our lands,” Abbas said following a meeting with interim Egyptian President Adly Mansour in Cairo.  That means no Israeli's.  It means those who choose to stay become Palestinians.  Somewhere it got morphed into "No Jews".  At least I'm assuming this is the statement?  It's the one that has been most brought up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is trying to be reasonable.  It had a family reunification program for decades.  At one point it was even willing to take back those arabs that had left, not the whole extended generations as well.  It also offered for a time to take in 100,000 over a period of years to gradually integrate them, find housing and or jobs.  Several options were put forward and later withdraw when there was no willingness to negotiate or compromise.
> So yes I am being careful with the phrasing because Israel has shown they are not acting in a racist manner. * Palestinians have proven to be highly racist not allowing jews to remain and become palestinian citizens, and this from Abbas. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that is not what Abbas said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas is not going to be persuaded if Abbas is not willing to try and consider the possibility.
> Do you have a better way of determining which side is racist and which one is just being cautious under a dire threat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Take an honest look at the treatment of people and see who's racist and who is not.  There are a lot of inequities in Israel's system - the way Palestinians are treated in the judicial system and by the police and military for instance (particularly juviniles) and contrast that with how Israeli juviniles are treated.  The permit system for expansion.  Settlers throw stones at Palestinian children who have to pass in order to go to school.  How is it handled?  They go under military escort which might or might not show up.  How are Palestinian stone throwers threated?  Shot or arrested.  So...there is racism there.  It's not so pristine and clear cut as you would make it.  Does that mean the Palestinians are not racist?  I think many are as well and a culture based on a policy of complete seperation encourages that on both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why Does the State Department Endorse Palestinian Fight to Exclude Jews Commentary Magazine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read this and no where is there an actual quote from Abbas about "no Jews".  The issue of Jeruselum does however show that the issue is not that clear.
> 
> One of the radio shows I listen to on NPR had a piece on Jerusalem and the the issue of property in East Jerusalum.  There is a lot of anger towards Jews buying property there as well as the feeling (justified) that there is an intentional government effort to reduce the resident Palestinian population and increase the Jewish population.  There is a lack of transparency in the process of buying property and multiple layers of front-groups hiding the identity of the real purchasers so often, a Palestinian seller is led to think he is sellling to a Palestinian but in reality, it's a front for a Jewish developer. The dark side of this, of course is the Palestinian intolerance to Jews moving into that area and if a Palestinian is known to have sold to a Jew, he becomes a target for violence or death threats.
> 
> The Israeli government is also complicit in the process.  Through use of the zoning process, they allot zones for Jewish purposes but withhold permits for Palestinians.  The government also actively subsidizes Jewish projects and there are areas specifically designated for Jews only.  They have also used the zoning process to redraw Jerusalem's municipal boundaries in such a way that they enlarge Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and exclude Palestinian areas from Jeruselums boundaries.  When you consider the fact that Palestinians residing outside of Jerusalem  can lose their Jerusalem residency status if they are gone 7 or more years (but NOT Jewish residents) -it paints a compellling picture of how demographics are being manipulated.
> 
> MIDEAST Israel Moves to Judaise East Jerusalem Inter Press Service
> 
> _According to UN figures, in 2006 at least 1,360 Palestinians had their ID cards revoked. This was five times more than in 2005, and more than in any previous year since Israel began occupying East Jerusalem.
> 
> In 2003, the Citizenship and Entry into Israel law was enacted, which denies spouses from the occupied Palestinian territories, who are married to Israeli citizens or permanent residents (Jerusalem ID card holders), the right to acquire citizenship or residency status, and thus the opportunity to live with their partners in Israel and Jerusalem.
> 
> As a result, thousands of married couples are forced to live apart from one another.
> 
> In Israel, foreign spouses who are Jewish are automatically granted citizenship under Israel's Law of Return.
> 
> Furthermore, since 1982 the Israeli Interior Ministry has not permitted the registration of Palestinian children as Jerusalem residents if the child's father does not hold a Jerusalem ID card, even if the mother is a Jerusalem ID cardholder._​
> East Jerusalem - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> _Until 1995, those who lived abroad for more than seven years or obtained residency or citizenship in another country were deemed liable to lose their residency status. In 1995, Israel began revoking permanent residency status from former Arab residents of Jerusalem who could not prove that their "center of life" was still in Jerusalem. This policy was rescinded four years later. In March 2000, the Minister of the Interior, Natan Sharansky, stated that the "quiet deportation" policy would cease, the prior policy would be restored, and Arab natives to Jerusalem would be able to regain residency[62] if they could prove that they have visited Israel at least once every three years. Since December 1995, permanent residency of more than 3,000 individuals "expired," leaving them with neither citizenship nor residency.[62] Despite changes in policy under Sharansky, in 2006 the number of former Arab Jerusalemites to lose their residency status was 1,363, a sixfold increase on the year before.[63] The loss of status is automatic and sometimes occurs without their knowledge._​
> Israel also has severely curtailed it's "family reunification" to the point where it's disengenious to use that as an indication that there is no racism.  Israeli communities are allowed to reject potential applicants  based on ethnic or cultural characteristics thus encourging ever more isolation between the two groups. According to one poll - 42% of Israeli's had never met a Palestinian.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/opinion/rula-jebreal-minority-life-in-israel.html?_r=0
> _In September, Israel’s Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the Admissions Committees Law, which allows communities to reject housing applicants based on “cultural and social suitability” — a legal pretext to deny residency to non-Jews. In practice, even before the law was passed, it was virtually impossible for a Palestinian to buy or rent a home in any majority-Jewish city._​
> So when you look at this...who is racist?  The Palestinians? The Israeli's?  Both? Neither?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel Daily News Stream 0730 2013
> 
> Abbas Palestine will be Judenrein - Middle East - News - Arutz Sheva
> 
> Abbas No Jews in Palestinian State
> 
> Abbas 8217 Palestine No Jews Allowed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Each of these - it's the same deliberately contorted quote.
> 
> These all say the same thing:
> 
> Claim :  Abbas: Palestinian state will be judenrein or Jew free.
> Then right below it it shows the quote:  "In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli -- civilian or soldier -- on our lands".
> No Israeli's.  In otherwords - they will all be, whatever they are - Palestinian citizens and there will be no foreign military presence or "settlers" who do not take on Palestinian citizenship.
> 
> It does NOT say "judenrein" nor does it say "jew free" - that is a dishonest and misleading claim attempting, through the use of the german term - to equate this and Abbas to Hitler and the Nazi's.  Very dishonest in my opinion.
> 
> In doing so - is this also an attempt to incite hate?
> 
> Who is racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is RACIST look no further than the arab muslims, and here is the link that prove Abbas said no jews in Palestine
> 
> Abbas Arabs in Israel No Jews in Palestine Commentary Magazine
> 
> 
> Abbas left no doubt about what his vision of peace entails:
> “In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli — civilian or soldier — on our lands,” Abbas said following a meeting with interim Egyptian President Adly Mansour in Cairo.
Click to expand...



Phoenall.  Find me ONE direct quote from Abbas saying "NO JEWS".

He said "No ISRAELI's"....

Israeli's include Muslims, Jews, Christians, Druze.


----------



## MJB12741

What does it matter what Abbas has to say.  The Palestinian people duly elected Hamas to represent them & help them.  Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.


Hamas Killed 160 Palestinian Children to Build Gaza Tunnels ndash Tablet Magazine


----------



## Mindful

Who are they?

Some questions:

1) When was it founded and by whom? 

2) What were its borders?

 3) What was its capital?

 4) What were its major cities?

 5) What constituted the basis of its economy? 

6) What was its form of government?

 7) Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat? 

8) Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation? 

9) What was the language of the country of Palestine ? 

10) What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine ?

 11) What was the name of its currency? Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese yuan on that date. -


----------



## Phoenall

MJB12741 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The DNA testing done shows that 50% of the DNA of every living thing is identical, it also shows that all primates share a common 80%-85% DNA. *That is what most pro Palestinians point  when they make their claims of inter breeding between Jews and muslims. It is onlyy when you look at the 15% left that you see the genetic markers that single out individual races, areas, cities, towns and villages.*
> Now you are being very silly as you know that was  in the depths of pre history.
> You forget  the forced migration from muslim lands put the European jews in the minority, the demographics of the arab muslims show that they could not have increased their population by such a large amount without there being immigration in very large numbers. They did not have the medical advances to better an infant survival rate of 10%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not "pro-Palis" or "pro-Israeli's" making these determinations.  It's scientists who's profession is genetics.  They aren't drawing their conclusions based upon the large amount of genetic matter that is common to most humans, they are looking at markers that are uniquely shared within certain groups - in otherwords, that 15%.
> 
> I'm not being silly - I'm asking you to support your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientists and geneticists produce the results, then the various people use the  results to further their own POV. In the case of team Palestine this is to discount the 15% of DNA that can place a person heritage and concentrate on the 85% that is common across all races, nationalities and genetic groups including primates. It is only when that 15% is brought into the equation that we see the gulf between arab muslims and Jews. Just as it also shows that the European Jews, African Jews and American Jews are very closely linked. But team palestine  repeatedly use just the 85% of common DNA as their basis for showing that Jews and arabs are the same, they may as well say that Jews and Inuit are the same or that arabs and monkees are the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These articles are not from "team Palestine":
> 
> http://www.rense.com/general48/palestinians.pdf
> Many surprised by genetic and cultural links between Palestinians and Jews God Reports
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first is very pro Palestinian if you look at the editorial, so making it team Palestine. The second is a blog, one persons own views, so again is very pro Palestinian, making it team Palestine.
> 
> 
> Keep trying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh I wonder if the Palestinian supporters would agree to this?  All settlers & all Palestrinians on the land without any titles or deeds have to go.  Would that not be fair?
Click to expand...




 Very fair, and then for Palestine to produce the signed treaties giving the land to them under the mandate ?


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel never said it wanted to be muslim free.  Israel does not want an influx of angry palestinians to be forced on them that would threaten the jewish homeland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No..they did not say that but they sure are working hard to reduce the Muslim population aren't they?  Why is it Israeli-Arab communities so seldom get building or expansion permits?  How many new Israeli settlements have been built and how many Arab ones?  Why is it citizenship is defined by ethnicity?
> 
> I actually agree that "right of return" is an impossible demand for Israel and I don't see it as an option.  But still - historically - Israel actively particpated in driving non-Jewish Palestinians out of Israel and legislating to bar their return.  How many did you say were allowed back...2000?  Out of how many?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians want a jew free palestinian.  It wants a jew free territory consisting of the whole mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually what Abbas said (in discussing a Palestinian state) was: “In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single *Israeli — civilian or soldier* — on our lands,” Abbas said following a meeting with interim Egyptian President Adly Mansour in Cairo.  That means no Israeli's.  It means those who choose to stay become Palestinians.  Somewhere it got morphed into "No Jews".  At least I'm assuming this is the statement?  It's the one that has been most brought up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is trying to be reasonable.  It had a family reunification program for decades.  At one point it was even willing to take back those arabs that had left, not the whole extended generations as well.  It also offered for a time to take in 100,000 over a period of years to gradually integrate them, find housing and or jobs.  Several options were put forward and later withdraw when there was no willingness to negotiate or compromise.
> So yes I am being careful with the phrasing because Israel has shown they are not acting in a racist manner. * Palestinians have proven to be highly racist not allowing jews to remain and become palestinian citizens, and this from Abbas. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that is not what Abbas said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas is not going to be persuaded if Abbas is not willing to try and consider the possibility.
> Do you have a better way of determining which side is racist and which one is just being cautious under a dire threat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Take an honest look at the treatment of people and see who's racist and who is not.  There are a lot of inequities in Israel's system - the way Palestinians are treated in the judicial system and by the police and military for instance (particularly juviniles) and contrast that with how Israeli juviniles are treated.  The permit system for expansion.  Settlers throw stones at Palestinian children who have to pass in order to go to school.  How is it handled?  They go under military escort which might or might not show up.  How are Palestinian stone throwers threated?  Shot or arrested.  So...there is racism there.  It's not so pristine and clear cut as you would make it.  Does that mean the Palestinians are not racist?  I think many are as well and a culture based on a policy of complete seperation encourages that on both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why Does the State Department Endorse Palestinian Fight to Exclude Jews Commentary Magazine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read this and no where is there an actual quote from Abbas about "no Jews".  The issue of Jeruselum does however show that the issue is not that clear.
> 
> One of the radio shows I listen to on NPR had a piece on Jerusalem and the the issue of property in East Jerusalum.  There is a lot of anger towards Jews buying property there as well as the feeling (justified) that there is an intentional government effort to reduce the resident Palestinian population and increase the Jewish population.  There is a lack of transparency in the process of buying property and multiple layers of front-groups hiding the identity of the real purchasers so often, a Palestinian seller is led to think he is sellling to a Palestinian but in reality, it's a front for a Jewish developer. The dark side of this, of course is the Palestinian intolerance to Jews moving into that area and if a Palestinian is known to have sold to a Jew, he becomes a target for violence or death threats.
> 
> The Israeli government is also complicit in the process.  Through use of the zoning process, they allot zones for Jewish purposes but withhold permits for Palestinians.  The government also actively subsidizes Jewish projects and there are areas specifically designated for Jews only.  They have also used the zoning process to redraw Jerusalem's municipal boundaries in such a way that they enlarge Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and exclude Palestinian areas from Jeruselums boundaries.  When you consider the fact that Palestinians residing outside of Jerusalem  can lose their Jerusalem residency status if they are gone 7 or more years (but NOT Jewish residents) -it paints a compellling picture of how demographics are being manipulated.
> 
> MIDEAST Israel Moves to Judaise East Jerusalem Inter Press Service
> 
> _According to UN figures, in 2006 at least 1,360 Palestinians had their ID cards revoked. This was five times more than in 2005, and more than in any previous year since Israel began occupying East Jerusalem.
> 
> In 2003, the Citizenship and Entry into Israel law was enacted, which denies spouses from the occupied Palestinian territories, who are married to Israeli citizens or permanent residents (Jerusalem ID card holders), the right to acquire citizenship or residency status, and thus the opportunity to live with their partners in Israel and Jerusalem.
> 
> As a result, thousands of married couples are forced to live apart from one another.
> 
> In Israel, foreign spouses who are Jewish are automatically granted citizenship under Israel's Law of Return.
> 
> Furthermore, since 1982 the Israeli Interior Ministry has not permitted the registration of Palestinian children as Jerusalem residents if the child's father does not hold a Jerusalem ID card, even if the mother is a Jerusalem ID cardholder._​
> East Jerusalem - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> _Until 1995, those who lived abroad for more than seven years or obtained residency or citizenship in another country were deemed liable to lose their residency status. In 1995, Israel began revoking permanent residency status from former Arab residents of Jerusalem who could not prove that their "center of life" was still in Jerusalem. This policy was rescinded four years later. In March 2000, the Minister of the Interior, Natan Sharansky, stated that the "quiet deportation" policy would cease, the prior policy would be restored, and Arab natives to Jerusalem would be able to regain residency[62] if they could prove that they have visited Israel at least once every three years. Since December 1995, permanent residency of more than 3,000 individuals "expired," leaving them with neither citizenship nor residency.[62] Despite changes in policy under Sharansky, in 2006 the number of former Arab Jerusalemites to lose their residency status was 1,363, a sixfold increase on the year before.[63] The loss of status is automatic and sometimes occurs without their knowledge._​
> Israel also has severely curtailed it's "family reunification" to the point where it's disengenious to use that as an indication that there is no racism.  Israeli communities are allowed to reject potential applicants  based on ethnic or cultural characteristics thus encourging ever more isolation between the two groups. According to one poll - 42% of Israeli's had never met a Palestinian.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/opinion/rula-jebreal-minority-life-in-israel.html?_r=0
> _In September, Israel’s Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the Admissions Committees Law, which allows communities to reject housing applicants based on “cultural and social suitability” — a legal pretext to deny residency to non-Jews. In practice, even before the law was passed, it was virtually impossible for a Palestinian to buy or rent a home in any majority-Jewish city._​
> So when you look at this...who is racist?  The Palestinians? The Israeli's?  Both? Neither?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel Daily News Stream 0730 2013
> 
> Abbas Palestine will be Judenrein - Middle East - News - Arutz Sheva
> 
> Abbas No Jews in Palestinian State
> 
> Abbas 8217 Palestine No Jews Allowed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Each of these - it's the same deliberately contorted quote.
> 
> These all say the same thing:
> 
> Claim :  Abbas: Palestinian state will be judenrein or Jew free.
> Then right below it it shows the quote:  "In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli -- civilian or soldier -- on our lands".
> No Israeli's.  In otherwords - they will all be, whatever they are - Palestinian citizens and there will be no foreign military presence or "settlers" who do not take on Palestinian citizenship.
> 
> It does NOT say "judenrein" nor does it say "jew free" - that is a dishonest and misleading claim attempting, through the use of the german term - to equate this and Abbas to Hitler and the Nazi's.  Very dishonest in my opinion.
> 
> In doing so - is this also an attempt to incite hate?
> 
> Who is racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is RACIST look no further than the arab muslims, and here is the link that prove Abbas said no jews in Palestine
> 
> Abbas Arabs in Israel No Jews in Palestine Commentary Magazine
> 
> 
> Abbas left no doubt about what his vision of peace entails:
> “In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli — civilian or soldier — on our lands,” Abbas said following a meeting with interim Egyptian President Adly Mansour in Cairo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall.  Find me ONE direct quote from Abbas saying "NO JEWS".
> 
> I challange you to that.
Click to expand...





 Here you go

No Jews in future Palestinian state Abbas says Israel Jewish Journal

 Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told Egyptian journalists that no Israelis, civilians or soldiers, will remain in a future Palestinian state.

NO to Palestine Abbas says No Jews in future Palestine Rabbi Jonathan Ginsburg

PA leader Mahmoud Abbas told visiting U.S. congressmen that the independent Palestinian state he says he wants will have no Jewish settlements. This demand for an ethnically cleansed Palestine would mean the forced removal of all Jews living in the territories. Since he is calling for that state to exist in all of the territory of the West Bank, Gaza and the part of Jerusalem that was illegally occupied by Jordan from 1949 to 1967, that would mean in theory the eviction of over half a million Jews to accommodate his ambition.


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No..they did not say that but they sure are working hard to reduce the Muslim population aren't they?  Why is it Israeli-Arab communities so seldom get building or expansion permits?  How many new Israeli settlements have been built and how many Arab ones?  Why is it citizenship is defined by ethnicity?
> 
> I actually agree that "right of return" is an impossible demand for Israel and I don't see it as an option.  But still - historically - Israel actively particpated in driving non-Jewish Palestinians out of Israel and legislating to bar their return.  How many did you say were allowed back...2000?  Out of how many?
> 
> Actually what Abbas said (in discussing a Palestinian state) was: “In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single *Israeli — civilian or soldier* — on our lands,” Abbas said following a meeting with interim Egyptian President Adly Mansour in Cairo.  That means no Israeli's.  It means those who choose to stay become Palestinians.  Somewhere it got morphed into "No Jews".  At least I'm assuming this is the statement?  It's the one that has been most brought up.
> 
> Except that is not what Abbas said.
> 
> Yes.  Take an honest look at the treatment of people and see who's racist and who is not.  There are a lot of inequities in Israel's system - the way Palestinians are treated in the judicial system and by the police and military for instance (particularly juviniles) and contrast that with how Israeli juviniles are treated.  The permit system for expansion.  Settlers throw stones at Palestinian children who have to pass in order to go to school.  How is it handled?  They go under military escort which might or might not show up.  How are Palestinian stone throwers threated?  Shot or arrested.  So...there is racism there.  It's not so pristine and clear cut as you would make it.  Does that mean the Palestinians are not racist?  I think many are as well and a culture based on a policy of complete seperation encourages that on both sides.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why Does the State Department Endorse Palestinian Fight to Exclude Jews Commentary Magazine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read this and no where is there an actual quote from Abbas about "no Jews".  The issue of Jeruselum does however show that the issue is not that clear.
> 
> One of the radio shows I listen to on NPR had a piece on Jerusalem and the the issue of property in East Jerusalum.  There is a lot of anger towards Jews buying property there as well as the feeling (justified) that there is an intentional government effort to reduce the resident Palestinian population and increase the Jewish population.  There is a lack of transparency in the process of buying property and multiple layers of front-groups hiding the identity of the real purchasers so often, a Palestinian seller is led to think he is sellling to a Palestinian but in reality, it's a front for a Jewish developer. The dark side of this, of course is the Palestinian intolerance to Jews moving into that area and if a Palestinian is known to have sold to a Jew, he becomes a target for violence or death threats.
> 
> The Israeli government is also complicit in the process.  Through use of the zoning process, they allot zones for Jewish purposes but withhold permits for Palestinians.  The government also actively subsidizes Jewish projects and there are areas specifically designated for Jews only.  They have also used the zoning process to redraw Jerusalem's municipal boundaries in such a way that they enlarge Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and exclude Palestinian areas from Jeruselums boundaries.  When you consider the fact that Palestinians residing outside of Jerusalem  can lose their Jerusalem residency status if they are gone 7 or more years (but NOT Jewish residents) -it paints a compellling picture of how demographics are being manipulated.
> 
> MIDEAST Israel Moves to Judaise East Jerusalem Inter Press Service
> 
> _According to UN figures, in 2006 at least 1,360 Palestinians had their ID cards revoked. This was five times more than in 2005, and more than in any previous year since Israel began occupying East Jerusalem.
> 
> In 2003, the Citizenship and Entry into Israel law was enacted, which denies spouses from the occupied Palestinian territories, who are married to Israeli citizens or permanent residents (Jerusalem ID card holders), the right to acquire citizenship or residency status, and thus the opportunity to live with their partners in Israel and Jerusalem.
> 
> As a result, thousands of married couples are forced to live apart from one another.
> 
> In Israel, foreign spouses who are Jewish are automatically granted citizenship under Israel's Law of Return.
> 
> Furthermore, since 1982 the Israeli Interior Ministry has not permitted the registration of Palestinian children as Jerusalem residents if the child's father does not hold a Jerusalem ID card, even if the mother is a Jerusalem ID cardholder._​
> East Jerusalem - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> _Until 1995, those who lived abroad for more than seven years or obtained residency or citizenship in another country were deemed liable to lose their residency status. In 1995, Israel began revoking permanent residency status from former Arab residents of Jerusalem who could not prove that their "center of life" was still in Jerusalem. This policy was rescinded four years later. In March 2000, the Minister of the Interior, Natan Sharansky, stated that the "quiet deportation" policy would cease, the prior policy would be restored, and Arab natives to Jerusalem would be able to regain residency[62] if they could prove that they have visited Israel at least once every three years. Since December 1995, permanent residency of more than 3,000 individuals "expired," leaving them with neither citizenship nor residency.[62] Despite changes in policy under Sharansky, in 2006 the number of former Arab Jerusalemites to lose their residency status was 1,363, a sixfold increase on the year before.[63] The loss of status is automatic and sometimes occurs without their knowledge._​
> Israel also has severely curtailed it's "family reunification" to the point where it's disengenious to use that as an indication that there is no racism.  Israeli communities are allowed to reject potential applicants  based on ethnic or cultural characteristics thus encourging ever more isolation between the two groups. According to one poll - 42% of Israeli's had never met a Palestinian.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/opinion/rula-jebreal-minority-life-in-israel.html?_r=0
> _In September, Israel’s Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the Admissions Committees Law, which allows communities to reject housing applicants based on “cultural and social suitability” — a legal pretext to deny residency to non-Jews. In practice, even before the law was passed, it was virtually impossible for a Palestinian to buy or rent a home in any majority-Jewish city._​
> So when you look at this...who is racist?  The Palestinians? The Israeli's?  Both? Neither?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel Daily News Stream 0730 2013
> 
> Abbas Palestine will be Judenrein - Middle East - News - Arutz Sheva
> 
> Abbas No Jews in Palestinian State
> 
> Abbas 8217 Palestine No Jews Allowed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Each of these - it's the same deliberately contorted quote.
> 
> These all say the same thing:
> 
> Claim :  Abbas: Palestinian state will be judenrein or Jew free.
> Then right below it it shows the quote:  "In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli -- civilian or soldier -- on our lands".
> No Israeli's.  In otherwords - they will all be, whatever they are - Palestinian citizens and there will be no foreign military presence or "settlers" who do not take on Palestinian citizenship.
> 
> It does NOT say "judenrein" nor does it say "jew free" - that is a dishonest and misleading claim attempting, through the use of the german term - to equate this and Abbas to Hitler and the Nazi's.  Very dishonest in my opinion.
> 
> In doing so - is this also an attempt to incite hate?
> 
> Who is racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is RACIST look no further than the arab muslims, and here is the link that prove Abbas said no jews in Palestine
> 
> Abbas Arabs in Israel No Jews in Palestine Commentary Magazine
> 
> 
> Abbas left no doubt about what his vision of peace entails:
> “In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli — civilian or soldier — on our lands,” Abbas said following a meeting with interim Egyptian President Adly Mansour in Cairo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall.  Find me ONE direct quote from Abbas saying "NO JEWS".
> 
> I challange you to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go
> 
> No Jews in future Palestinian state Abbas says Israel Jewish Journal
> 
> Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told Egyptian journalists that no *Israelis*, civilians or soldiers, will remain in a future Palestinian state.
Click to expand...


No.  Read what Abbas actually said.




> NO to Palestine Abbas says No Jews in future Palestine Rabbi Jonathan Ginsburg
> 
> PA leader Mahmoud Abbas told visiting U.S. congressmen that the independent Palestinian state he says he wants will have no Jewish settlements. This demand for an ethnically cleansed Palestine would mean the forced removal of all Jews living in the territories. Since he is calling for that state to exist in all of the territory of the West Bank, Gaza and the part of Jerusalem that was illegally occupied by Jordan from 1949 to 1967, that would mean in theory the eviction of over half a million Jews to accommodate his ambition.



Wow.  What a hellacious spin put on this.

Abbas says seeking Palestinian state without settlements

What he said was "no settlements" - no enclaves of Israeli owned territory creating a non-contiguous state.  Not "no Jews". Not genocide.  Not ethnic cleansing.  Just no settlements.


----------



## Hossfly

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why Does the State Department Endorse Palestinian Fight to Exclude Jews Commentary Magazine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read this and no where is there an actual quote from Abbas about "no Jews".  The issue of Jeruselum does however show that the issue is not that clear.
> 
> One of the radio shows I listen to on NPR had a piece on Jerusalem and the the issue of property in East Jerusalum.  There is a lot of anger towards Jews buying property there as well as the feeling (justified) that there is an intentional government effort to reduce the resident Palestinian population and increase the Jewish population.  There is a lack of transparency in the process of buying property and multiple layers of front-groups hiding the identity of the real purchasers so often, a Palestinian seller is led to think he is sellling to a Palestinian but in reality, it's a front for a Jewish developer. The dark side of this, of course is the Palestinian intolerance to Jews moving into that area and if a Palestinian is known to have sold to a Jew, he becomes a target for violence or death threats.
> 
> The Israeli government is also complicit in the process.  Through use of the zoning process, they allot zones for Jewish purposes but withhold permits for Palestinians.  The government also actively subsidizes Jewish projects and there are areas specifically designated for Jews only.  They have also used the zoning process to redraw Jerusalem's municipal boundaries in such a way that they enlarge Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and exclude Palestinian areas from Jeruselums boundaries.  When you consider the fact that Palestinians residing outside of Jerusalem  can lose their Jerusalem residency status if they are gone 7 or more years (but NOT Jewish residents) -it paints a compellling picture of how demographics are being manipulated.
> 
> MIDEAST Israel Moves to Judaise East Jerusalem Inter Press Service
> 
> _According to UN figures, in 2006 at least 1,360 Palestinians had their ID cards revoked. This was five times more than in 2005, and more than in any previous year since Israel began occupying East Jerusalem.
> 
> In 2003, the Citizenship and Entry into Israel law was enacted, which denies spouses from the occupied Palestinian territories, who are married to Israeli citizens or permanent residents (Jerusalem ID card holders), the right to acquire citizenship or residency status, and thus the opportunity to live with their partners in Israel and Jerusalem.
> 
> As a result, thousands of married couples are forced to live apart from one another.
> 
> In Israel, foreign spouses who are Jewish are automatically granted citizenship under Israel's Law of Return.
> 
> Furthermore, since 1982 the Israeli Interior Ministry has not permitted the registration of Palestinian children as Jerusalem residents if the child's father does not hold a Jerusalem ID card, even if the mother is a Jerusalem ID cardholder._​
> East Jerusalem - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> _Until 1995, those who lived abroad for more than seven years or obtained residency or citizenship in another country were deemed liable to lose their residency status. In 1995, Israel began revoking permanent residency status from former Arab residents of Jerusalem who could not prove that their "center of life" was still in Jerusalem. This policy was rescinded four years later. In March 2000, the Minister of the Interior, Natan Sharansky, stated that the "quiet deportation" policy would cease, the prior policy would be restored, and Arab natives to Jerusalem would be able to regain residency[62] if they could prove that they have visited Israel at least once every three years. Since December 1995, permanent residency of more than 3,000 individuals "expired," leaving them with neither citizenship nor residency.[62] Despite changes in policy under Sharansky, in 2006 the number of former Arab Jerusalemites to lose their residency status was 1,363, a sixfold increase on the year before.[63] The loss of status is automatic and sometimes occurs without their knowledge._​
> Israel also has severely curtailed it's "family reunification" to the point where it's disengenious to use that as an indication that there is no racism.  Israeli communities are allowed to reject potential applicants  based on ethnic or cultural characteristics thus encourging ever more isolation between the two groups. According to one poll - 42% of Israeli's had never met a Palestinian.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/opinion/rula-jebreal-minority-life-in-israel.html?_r=0
> _In September, Israel’s Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the Admissions Committees Law, which allows communities to reject housing applicants based on “cultural and social suitability” — a legal pretext to deny residency to non-Jews. In practice, even before the law was passed, it was virtually impossible for a Palestinian to buy or rent a home in any majority-Jewish city._​
> So when you look at this...who is racist?  The Palestinians? The Israeli's?  Both? Neither?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel Daily News Stream 0730 2013
> 
> Abbas Palestine will be Judenrein - Middle East - News - Arutz Sheva
> 
> Abbas No Jews in Palestinian State
> 
> Abbas 8217 Palestine No Jews Allowed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Each of these - it's the same deliberately contorted quote.
> 
> These all say the same thing:
> 
> Claim :  Abbas: Palestinian state will be judenrein or Jew free.
> Then right below it it shows the quote:  "In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli -- civilian or soldier -- on our lands".
> No Israeli's.  In otherwords - they will all be, whatever they are - Palestinian citizens and there will be no foreign military presence or "settlers" who do not take on Palestinian citizenship.
> 
> It does NOT say "judenrein" nor does it say "jew free" - that is a dishonest and misleading claim attempting, through the use of the german term - to equate this and Abbas to Hitler and the Nazi's.  Very dishonest in my opinion.
> 
> In doing so - is this also an attempt to incite hate?
> 
> Who is racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is RACIST look no further than the arab muslims, and here is the link that prove Abbas said no jews in Palestine
> 
> Abbas Arabs in Israel No Jews in Palestine Commentary Magazine
> 
> 
> Abbas left no doubt about what his vision of peace entails:
> “In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli — civilian or soldier — on our lands,” Abbas said following a meeting with interim Egyptian President Adly Mansour in Cairo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall.  Find me ONE direct quote from Abbas saying "NO JEWS".
> 
> I challange you to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go
> 
> No Jews in future Palestinian state Abbas says Israel Jewish Journal
> 
> Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told Egyptian journalists that no *Israelis*, civilians or soldiers, will remain in a future Palestinian state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Read what Abbas actually said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO to Palestine Abbas says No Jews in future Palestine Rabbi Jonathan Ginsburg
> 
> PA leader Mahmoud Abbas told visiting U.S. congressmen that the independent Palestinian state he says he wants will have no Jewish settlements. This demand for an ethnically cleansed Palestine would mean the forced removal of all Jews living in the territories. Since he is calling for that state to exist in all of the territory of the West Bank, Gaza and the part of Jerusalem that was illegally occupied by Jordan from 1949 to 1967, that would mean in theory the eviction of over half a million Jews to accommodate his ambition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.  What a hellacious spin put on this.
> 
> Abbas says seeking Palestinian state without settlements
> 
> What he said was "no settlements" - no enclaves of Israeli owned territory creating a non-contiguous state.  Not "no Jews". Not genocide.  Not ethnic cleansing.  Just no settlements.
Click to expand...

No settlements = no Jews.  Plain as day.


----------



## Coyote

Hossfly said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read this and no where is there an actual quote from Abbas about "no Jews".  The issue of Jeruselum does however show that the issue is not that clear.
> 
> One of the radio shows I listen to on NPR had a piece on Jerusalem and the the issue of property in East Jerusalum.  There is a lot of anger towards Jews buying property there as well as the feeling (justified) that there is an intentional government effort to reduce the resident Palestinian population and increase the Jewish population.  There is a lack of transparency in the process of buying property and multiple layers of front-groups hiding the identity of the real purchasers so often, a Palestinian seller is led to think he is sellling to a Palestinian but in reality, it's a front for a Jewish developer. The dark side of this, of course is the Palestinian intolerance to Jews moving into that area and if a Palestinian is known to have sold to a Jew, he becomes a target for violence or death threats.
> 
> The Israeli government is also complicit in the process.  Through use of the zoning process, they allot zones for Jewish purposes but withhold permits for Palestinians.  The government also actively subsidizes Jewish projects and there are areas specifically designated for Jews only.  They have also used the zoning process to redraw Jerusalem's municipal boundaries in such a way that they enlarge Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and exclude Palestinian areas from Jeruselums boundaries.  When you consider the fact that Palestinians residing outside of Jerusalem  can lose their Jerusalem residency status if they are gone 7 or more years (but NOT Jewish residents) -it paints a compellling picture of how demographics are being manipulated.
> 
> MIDEAST Israel Moves to Judaise East Jerusalem Inter Press Service
> 
> _According to UN figures, in 2006 at least 1,360 Palestinians had their ID cards revoked. This was five times more than in 2005, and more than in any previous year since Israel began occupying East Jerusalem.
> 
> In 2003, the Citizenship and Entry into Israel law was enacted, which denies spouses from the occupied Palestinian territories, who are married to Israeli citizens or permanent residents (Jerusalem ID card holders), the right to acquire citizenship or residency status, and thus the opportunity to live with their partners in Israel and Jerusalem.
> 
> As a result, thousands of married couples are forced to live apart from one another.
> 
> In Israel, foreign spouses who are Jewish are automatically granted citizenship under Israel's Law of Return.
> 
> Furthermore, since 1982 the Israeli Interior Ministry has not permitted the registration of Palestinian children as Jerusalem residents if the child's father does not hold a Jerusalem ID card, even if the mother is a Jerusalem ID cardholder._​
> East Jerusalem - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> _Until 1995, those who lived abroad for more than seven years or obtained residency or citizenship in another country were deemed liable to lose their residency status. In 1995, Israel began revoking permanent residency status from former Arab residents of Jerusalem who could not prove that their "center of life" was still in Jerusalem. This policy was rescinded four years later. In March 2000, the Minister of the Interior, Natan Sharansky, stated that the "quiet deportation" policy would cease, the prior policy would be restored, and Arab natives to Jerusalem would be able to regain residency[62] if they could prove that they have visited Israel at least once every three years. Since December 1995, permanent residency of more than 3,000 individuals "expired," leaving them with neither citizenship nor residency.[62] Despite changes in policy under Sharansky, in 2006 the number of former Arab Jerusalemites to lose their residency status was 1,363, a sixfold increase on the year before.[63] The loss of status is automatic and sometimes occurs without their knowledge._​
> Israel also has severely curtailed it's "family reunification" to the point where it's disengenious to use that as an indication that there is no racism.  Israeli communities are allowed to reject potential applicants  based on ethnic or cultural characteristics thus encourging ever more isolation between the two groups. According to one poll - 42% of Israeli's had never met a Palestinian.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/opinion/rula-jebreal-minority-life-in-israel.html?_r=0
> _In September, Israel’s Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the Admissions Committees Law, which allows communities to reject housing applicants based on “cultural and social suitability” — a legal pretext to deny residency to non-Jews. In practice, even before the law was passed, it was virtually impossible for a Palestinian to buy or rent a home in any majority-Jewish city._​
> So when you look at this...who is racist?  The Palestinians? The Israeli's?  Both? Neither?
> 
> Each of these - it's the same deliberately contorted quote.
> 
> These all say the same thing:
> 
> Claim :  Abbas: Palestinian state will be judenrein or Jew free.
> Then right below it it shows the quote:  "In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli -- civilian or soldier -- on our lands".
> No Israeli's.  In otherwords - they will all be, whatever they are - Palestinian citizens and there will be no foreign military presence or "settlers" who do not take on Palestinian citizenship.
> 
> It does NOT say "judenrein" nor does it say "jew free" - that is a dishonest and misleading claim attempting, through the use of the german term - to equate this and Abbas to Hitler and the Nazi's.  Very dishonest in my opinion.
> 
> In doing so - is this also an attempt to incite hate?
> 
> Who is racist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is RACIST look no further than the arab muslims, and here is the link that prove Abbas said no jews in Palestine
> 
> Abbas Arabs in Israel No Jews in Palestine Commentary Magazine
> 
> 
> Abbas left no doubt about what his vision of peace entails:
> “In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli — civilian or soldier — on our lands,” Abbas said following a meeting with interim Egyptian President Adly Mansour in Cairo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall.  Find me ONE direct quote from Abbas saying "NO JEWS".
> 
> I challange you to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go
> 
> No Jews in future Palestinian state Abbas says Israel Jewish Journal
> 
> Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told Egyptian journalists that no *Israelis*, civilians or soldiers, will remain in a future Palestinian state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Read what Abbas actually said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO to Palestine Abbas says No Jews in future Palestine Rabbi Jonathan Ginsburg
> 
> PA leader Mahmoud Abbas told visiting U.S. congressmen that the independent Palestinian state he says he wants will have no Jewish settlements. This demand for an ethnically cleansed Palestine would mean the forced removal of all Jews living in the territories. Since he is calling for that state to exist in all of the territory of the West Bank, Gaza and the part of Jerusalem that was illegally occupied by Jordan from 1949 to 1967, that would mean in theory the eviction of over half a million Jews to accommodate his ambition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.  What a hellacious spin put on this.
> 
> Abbas says seeking Palestinian state without settlements
> 
> What he said was "no settlements" - no enclaves of Israeli owned territory creating a non-contiguous state.  Not "no Jews". Not genocide.  Not ethnic cleansing.  Just no settlements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No settlements = no Jews.  Plain as day.
Click to expand...


No settlements = no Israeli controlled islands, which are settlements.  Let's go  by what he says, not the anti-Pali spin.

Edited to add:  


Abbas Not a single Israeli in future Palestinian state
_Abbas said that no Israeli settlers or border forces could remain in a future Palestinian state and that Palestinians deem illegal all Jewish settlement building within the land occupied in the 1967 Six Days War.

...

On the future of Jewish settlements on the West Bank and the status of Jerusalem - among the most contentious issues facing the two sides - Abbas signaled no softening of his stance.

"We've already made all the necessary concessions," he said.

"East Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Palestine ... if there were and must be some kind of small exchange (of land) equal in size and value, we are ready to discuss this - no more, no less," he said._​In other words - he's talking about the issue of whether Israeli-controlled settlements are allowed to remain in a proposed future state.


----------



## aris2chat

MJB12741 said:


> What does it matter what Abbas has to say.  The Palestinian people duly elected Hamas to represent them & help them.  Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.
> 
> 
> Hamas Killed 160 Palestinian Children to Build Gaza Tunnels ndash Tablet Magazine



Egypt found a few hundred more tunnels.  They are displacing 10,000 people to create the security zone.
Yes, states can take land for security, or several other reason.  It is all about feeling safe from Hamas.


----------



## MJB12741

Coyote said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is RACIST look no further than the arab muslims, and here is the link that prove Abbas said no jews in Palestine
> 
> Abbas Arabs in Israel No Jews in Palestine Commentary Magazine
> 
> 
> Abbas left no doubt about what his vision of peace entails:
> “In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli — civilian or soldier — on our lands,” Abbas said following a meeting with interim Egyptian President Adly Mansour in Cairo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall.  Find me ONE direct quote from Abbas saying "NO JEWS".
> 
> I challange you to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go
> 
> No Jews in future Palestinian state Abbas says Israel Jewish Journal
> 
> Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told Egyptian journalists that no *Israelis*, civilians or soldiers, will remain in a future Palestinian state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Read what Abbas actually said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO to Palestine Abbas says No Jews in future Palestine Rabbi Jonathan Ginsburg
> 
> PA leader Mahmoud Abbas told visiting U.S. congressmen that the independent Palestinian state he says he wants will have no Jewish settlements. This demand for an ethnically cleansed Palestine would mean the forced removal of all Jews living in the territories. Since he is calling for that state to exist in all of the territory of the West Bank, Gaza and the part of Jerusalem that was illegally occupied by Jordan from 1949 to 1967, that would mean in theory the eviction of over half a million Jews to accommodate his ambition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.  What a hellacious spin put on this.
> 
> Abbas says seeking Palestinian state without settlements
> 
> What he said was "no settlements" - no enclaves of Israeli owned territory creating a non-contiguous state.  Not "no Jews". Not genocide.  Not ethnic cleansing.  Just no settlements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No settlements = no Jews.  Plain as day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No settlements = no Israeli controlled islands, which are settlements.  Let's go  by what he says, not the anti-Pali spin.
> 
> Edited to add:
> 
> 
> Abbas Not a single Israeli in future Palestinian state
> _Abbas said that no Israeli settlers or border forces could remain in a future Palestinian state and that Palestinians deem illegal all Jewish settlement building within the land occupied in the 1967 Six Days War.
> 
> ...
> 
> On the future of Jewish settlements on the West Bank and the status of Jerusalem - among the most contentious issues facing the two sides - Abbas signaled no softening of his stance.
> 
> "We've already made all the necessary concessions," he said.
> 
> "East Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Palestine ... if there were and must be some kind of small exchange (of land) equal in size and value, we are ready to discuss this - no more, no less," he said._​In other words - he's talking about the issue of whether Israeli-controlled settlements are allowed to remain in a proposed future state.
Click to expand...


European countries fought many wars against each other, won, gained additional land, built settlements on it & changed the borders.  The USA fought a war with Mexico, won, gained additional  land, built settlements on it & changed the borders.  Israel fought a war with the Arab countries, won, gained addtional land & built settlements on it.  I do agree with the Palestinain supporters that it's time for Israel to declare new borders.


aris2chat said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does it matter what Abbas has to say.  The Palestinian people duly elected Hamas to represent them & help them.  Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.
> 
> 
> Hamas Killed 160 Palestinian Children to Build Gaza Tunnels ndash Tablet Magazine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt found a few hundred more tunnels.  They are displacing 10,000 people to create the security zone.
> Yes, states can take land for security, or several other reason.  It is all about feeling safe from Hamas.
> 
> Truly what Hamas has done to get Palestinians killed & displaced is hard to forgive.  But then just how sorry can anyone feel for the Palestinians when it is they themselves who elected Hamas to lead & represent them?
Click to expand...


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Ali Abunimah*


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Maysoon Zayid*


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Maysoon Zayid*



Propaganda video  


Seriously though, she's a talented comedian. I always have respect for people who overcome disabilities.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Maysoon Zayid*


I just read her bio and it says she was in the movie "You don't mess with the Zohan" . I recognize her now, she was one of the hairdressers in the Palestinian Salon.


----------



## gtopa1

Arafat murdered anyone who agreed with Sadat's Plan for a Palestinian state. Why? It meant peace with Israel. Hamas kill anyone who wants peace with Israel. There's a pattern there; and no wonder no Pals are putting up their hands saying "Peace with Israel". How many Palestinians has Hamas murdered lately?? There are real victims here; Israelis murdered by Hamas and Palestinians murdered by Palestinian terrorists. I feel sorry for all of the victims and demand JUSTICE for them.

Greg


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why Does the State Department Endorse Palestinian Fight to Exclude Jews Commentary Magazine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read this and no where is there an actual quote from Abbas about "no Jews".  The issue of Jeruselum does however show that the issue is not that clear.
> 
> One of the radio shows I listen to on NPR had a piece on Jerusalem and the the issue of property in East Jerusalum.  There is a lot of anger towards Jews buying property there as well as the feeling (justified) that there is an intentional government effort to reduce the resident Palestinian population and increase the Jewish population.  There is a lack of transparency in the process of buying property and multiple layers of front-groups hiding the identity of the real purchasers so often, a Palestinian seller is led to think he is sellling to a Palestinian but in reality, it's a front for a Jewish developer. The dark side of this, of course is the Palestinian intolerance to Jews moving into that area and if a Palestinian is known to have sold to a Jew, he becomes a target for violence or death threats.
> 
> The Israeli government is also complicit in the process.  Through use of the zoning process, they allot zones for Jewish purposes but withhold permits for Palestinians.  The government also actively subsidizes Jewish projects and there are areas specifically designated for Jews only.  They have also used the zoning process to redraw Jerusalem's municipal boundaries in such a way that they enlarge Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and exclude Palestinian areas from Jeruselums boundaries.  When you consider the fact that Palestinians residing outside of Jerusalem  can lose their Jerusalem residency status if they are gone 7 or more years (but NOT Jewish residents) -it paints a compellling picture of how demographics are being manipulated.
> 
> MIDEAST Israel Moves to Judaise East Jerusalem Inter Press Service
> 
> _According to UN figures, in 2006 at least 1,360 Palestinians had their ID cards revoked. This was five times more than in 2005, and more than in any previous year since Israel began occupying East Jerusalem.
> 
> In 2003, the Citizenship and Entry into Israel law was enacted, which denies spouses from the occupied Palestinian territories, who are married to Israeli citizens or permanent residents (Jerusalem ID card holders), the right to acquire citizenship or residency status, and thus the opportunity to live with their partners in Israel and Jerusalem.
> 
> As a result, thousands of married couples are forced to live apart from one another.
> 
> In Israel, foreign spouses who are Jewish are automatically granted citizenship under Israel's Law of Return.
> 
> Furthermore, since 1982 the Israeli Interior Ministry has not permitted the registration of Palestinian children as Jerusalem residents if the child's father does not hold a Jerusalem ID card, even if the mother is a Jerusalem ID cardholder._​
> East Jerusalem - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> _Until 1995, those who lived abroad for more than seven years or obtained residency or citizenship in another country were deemed liable to lose their residency status. In 1995, Israel began revoking permanent residency status from former Arab residents of Jerusalem who could not prove that their "center of life" was still in Jerusalem. This policy was rescinded four years later. In March 2000, the Minister of the Interior, Natan Sharansky, stated that the "quiet deportation" policy would cease, the prior policy would be restored, and Arab natives to Jerusalem would be able to regain residency[62] if they could prove that they have visited Israel at least once every three years. Since December 1995, permanent residency of more than 3,000 individuals "expired," leaving them with neither citizenship nor residency.[62] Despite changes in policy under Sharansky, in 2006 the number of former Arab Jerusalemites to lose their residency status was 1,363, a sixfold increase on the year before.[63] The loss of status is automatic and sometimes occurs without their knowledge._​
> Israel also has severely curtailed it's "family reunification" to the point where it's disengenious to use that as an indication that there is no racism.  Israeli communities are allowed to reject potential applicants  based on ethnic or cultural characteristics thus encourging ever more isolation between the two groups. According to one poll - 42% of Israeli's had never met a Palestinian.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/opinion/rula-jebreal-minority-life-in-israel.html?_r=0
> _In September, Israel’s Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the Admissions Committees Law, which allows communities to reject housing applicants based on “cultural and social suitability” — a legal pretext to deny residency to non-Jews. In practice, even before the law was passed, it was virtually impossible for a Palestinian to buy or rent a home in any majority-Jewish city._​
> So when you look at this...who is racist?  The Palestinians? The Israeli's?  Both? Neither?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel Daily News Stream 0730 2013
> 
> Abbas Palestine will be Judenrein - Middle East - News - Arutz Sheva
> 
> Abbas No Jews in Palestinian State
> 
> Abbas 8217 Palestine No Jews Allowed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Each of these - it's the same deliberately contorted quote.
> 
> These all say the same thing:
> 
> Claim :  Abbas: Palestinian state will be judenrein or Jew free.
> Then right below it it shows the quote:  "In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli -- civilian or soldier -- on our lands".
> No Israeli's.  In otherwords - they will all be, whatever they are - Palestinian citizens and there will be no foreign military presence or "settlers" who do not take on Palestinian citizenship.
> 
> It does NOT say "judenrein" nor does it say "jew free" - that is a dishonest and misleading claim attempting, through the use of the german term - to equate this and Abbas to Hitler and the Nazi's.  Very dishonest in my opinion.
> 
> In doing so - is this also an attempt to incite hate?
> 
> Who is racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is RACIST look no further than the arab muslims, and here is the link that prove Abbas said no jews in Palestine
> 
> Abbas Arabs in Israel No Jews in Palestine Commentary Magazine
> 
> 
> Abbas left no doubt about what his vision of peace entails:
> “In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli — civilian or soldier — on our lands,” Abbas said following a meeting with interim Egyptian President Adly Mansour in Cairo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall.  Find me ONE direct quote from Abbas saying "NO JEWS".
> 
> I challange you to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go
> 
> No Jews in future Palestinian state Abbas says Israel Jewish Journal
> 
> Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told Egyptian journalists that no *Israelis*, civilians or soldiers, will remain in a future Palestinian state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Read what Abbas actually said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO to Palestine Abbas says No Jews in future Palestine Rabbi Jonathan Ginsburg
> 
> PA leader Mahmoud Abbas told visiting U.S. congressmen that the independent Palestinian state he says he wants will have no Jewish settlements. This demand for an ethnically cleansed Palestine would mean the forced removal of all Jews living in the territories. Since he is calling for that state to exist in all of the territory of the West Bank, Gaza and the part of Jerusalem that was illegally occupied by Jordan from 1949 to 1967, that would mean in theory the eviction of over half a million Jews to accommodate his ambition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.  What a hellacious spin put on this.
> 
> Abbas says seeking Palestinian state without settlements
> 
> What he said was "no settlements" - no enclaves of Israeli owned territory creating a non-contiguous state.  Not "no Jews". Not genocide.  Not ethnic cleansing.  Just no settlements.
Click to expand...






 Try reading it again as he said NO JEWS even living on Jewish owned land, just like it was in 1949 till 1967 when they evicted by force all the Jews in gaza and the west bank. Against the terms of the mandate that the Islamic nations had agreed to stand by, you know the one that team Palestine often throws into the equation when talking of the declaration of independence from the Jews.

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

 Once the arab muslims had breached that declaration then the preceding part was also nullified.


 But back to the matter at hand the Palestinian charter clearly and distinctly  Jews will be allowed to exist in Palestine unless they were living there before the first Zionist migrated to the area. This goes back to 1875 when the first Zionist migrated to Palestine under the direct invitation of the Ottomans. So even their charter says that the Jews will not be allowed to exist in any part of Palestine.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is RACIST look no further than the arab muslims, and here is the link that prove Abbas said no jews in Palestine
> 
> Abbas Arabs in Israel No Jews in Palestine Commentary Magazine
> 
> 
> Abbas left no doubt about what his vision of peace entails:
> “In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli — civilian or soldier — on our lands,” Abbas said following a meeting with interim Egyptian President Adly Mansour in Cairo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall.  Find me ONE direct quote from Abbas saying "NO JEWS".
> 
> I challange you to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go
> 
> No Jews in future Palestinian state Abbas says Israel Jewish Journal
> 
> Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told Egyptian journalists that no *Israelis*, civilians or soldiers, will remain in a future Palestinian state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Read what Abbas actually said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO to Palestine Abbas says No Jews in future Palestine Rabbi Jonathan Ginsburg
> 
> PA leader Mahmoud Abbas told visiting U.S. congressmen that the independent Palestinian state he says he wants will have no Jewish settlements. This demand for an ethnically cleansed Palestine would mean the forced removal of all Jews living in the territories. Since he is calling for that state to exist in all of the territory of the West Bank, Gaza and the part of Jerusalem that was illegally occupied by Jordan from 1949 to 1967, that would mean in theory the eviction of over half a million Jews to accommodate his ambition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.  What a hellacious spin put on this.
> 
> Abbas says seeking Palestinian state without settlements
> 
> What he said was "no settlements" - no enclaves of Israeli owned territory creating a non-contiguous state.  Not "no Jews". Not genocide.  Not ethnic cleansing.  Just no settlements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No settlements = no Jews.  Plain as day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No settlements = no Israeli controlled islands, which are settlements.  Let's go  by what he says, not the anti-Pali spin.
> 
> Edited to add:
> 
> 
> Abbas Not a single Israeli in future Palestinian state
> _Abbas said that no Israeli settlers or border forces could remain in a future Palestinian state and that Palestinians deem illegal all Jewish settlement building within the land occupied in the 1967 Six Days War.
> 
> ...
> 
> On the future of Jewish settlements on the West Bank and the status of Jerusalem - among the most contentious issues facing the two sides - Abbas signaled no softening of his stance.
> 
> "We've already made all the necessary concessions," he said.
> 
> "East Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Palestine ... if there were and must be some kind of small exchange (of land) equal in size and value, we are ready to discuss this - no more, no less," he said._​In other words - he's talking about the issue of whether Israeli-controlled settlements are allowed to remain in a proposed future state.
Click to expand...





 Then that puts the "right of return" of the negotiations doesn't it as the Jews were forcibly removed from their property and had their goods stolen. That is were most of the settlements are placed, on Jewish owned land.


----------



## MJB12741

gtopa1 said:


> Arafat murdered anyone who agreed with Sadat's Plan for a Palestinian state. Why? It meant peace with Israel. Hamas kill anyone who wants peace with Israel. There's a pattern there; and no wonder no Pals are putting up their hands saying "Peace with Israel". How many Palestinians has Hamas murdered lately?? There are real victims here; Israelis murdered by Hamas and Palestinians murdered by Palestinian terrorists. I feel sorry for all of the victims and demand JUSTICE for them.
> 
> Greg




So true what Hamas has done & is still doing to kill Palestinians is hard to forgive.  But then just how sorry can we feel for them when it is the Palestinian people themselves who duly elected Hamas to represent them?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Maysoon Zayid*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Propaganda video
> 
> 
> Seriously though, she's a talented comedian. I always have respect for people who overcome disabilities.
Click to expand...

There are some thing you can't overcome. She is in this video.


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arafat murdered anyone who agreed with Sadat's Plan for a Palestinian state. Why? It meant peace with Israel. Hamas kill anyone who wants peace with Israel. There's a pattern there; and no wonder no Pals are putting up their hands saying "Peace with Israel". How many Palestinians has Hamas murdered lately?? There are real victims here; Israelis murdered by Hamas and Palestinians murdered by Palestinian terrorists. I feel sorry for all of the victims and demand JUSTICE for them.
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arafat murdered anyone who agreed with Sadat's Plan for a Palestinian state. Why? It meant peace with Israel. Hamas kill anyone who wants peace with Israel. There's a pattern there; and no wonder no Pals are putting up their hands saying "Peace with Israel". How many Palestinians has Hamas murdered lately?? There are real victims here; Israelis murdered by Hamas and Palestinians murdered by Palestinian terrorists. I feel sorry for all of the victims and demand JUSTICE for them.
> 
> Greg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So true what Hamas has done & is still doing to kill Palestinians is hard to forgive.  But then just how sorry can we feel for them when it is the Palestinian people themselves who duly elected Hamas to represent them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Report Hamas Used Child Labor to Build Terror Tunnels Hundreds Killed
Click to expand...


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Maysoon Zayid*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Propaganda video
> 
> 
> Seriously though, she's a talented comedian. I always have respect for people who overcome disabilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are some thing you can't overcome. She is in this video.
Click to expand...


You just HAD to post a Palestinian propaganda video Tinmore, didn't you


----------



## Dogmaphobe

toastman said:


> You just HAD to post a Palestinian propaganda video Tinmore, didn't you




But if he didn't, he might get thrown him out of the cult, toasty.  

 I think they are required to submit a certain number of offerings per day or else they lose their membership in good standing.


----------



## Kondor3

Dogmaphobe said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just HAD to post a Palestinian propaganda video Tinmore, didn't you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But if he didn't, he might get thrown him out of the cult, toasty.
> 
> I think they are required to submit a certain number of offerings per day or else they lose their membership in good standing.
Click to expand...

Or they lose their Muslim Brotherhood stipend.


----------



## aris2chat

gtopa1 said:


> Arafat murdered anyone who agreed with Sadat's Plan for a Palestinian state. Why? It meant peace with Israel. Hamas kill anyone who wants peace with Israel. There's a pattern there; and no wonder no Pals are putting up their hands saying "Peace with Israel". How many Palestinians has Hamas murdered lately?? There are real victims here; Israelis murdered by Hamas and Palestinians murdered by Palestinian terrorists. I feel sorry for all of the victims and demand JUSTICE for them.
> 
> Greg



I was in the Cairo lobby when al-Tal was killed.


----------



## gtopa1

aris2chat said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arafat murdered anyone who agreed with Sadat's Plan for a Palestinian state. Why? It meant peace with Israel. Hamas kill anyone who wants peace with Israel. There's a pattern there; and no wonder no Pals are putting up their hands saying "Peace with Israel". How many Palestinians has Hamas murdered lately?? There are real victims here; Israelis murdered by Hamas and Palestinians murdered by Palestinian terrorists. I feel sorry for all of the victims and demand JUSTICE for them.
> 
> Greg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was in the Cairo lobby when al-Tal was killed.
Click to expand...


"Peace with Israel" is a death sentence enforced by Arafat of old and Hamas of late!!

Greg


----------



## aris2chat

despite all the hate, why do so many family members of hamas leaders get expressed to the front of the list for treatment in Israel?


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall.  Find me ONE direct quote from Abbas saying "NO JEWS".
> 
> I challange you to that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go
> 
> No Jews in future Palestinian state Abbas says Israel Jewish Journal
> 
> Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told Egyptian journalists that no *Israelis*, civilians or soldiers, will remain in a future Palestinian state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Read what Abbas actually said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO to Palestine Abbas says No Jews in future Palestine Rabbi Jonathan Ginsburg
> 
> PA leader Mahmoud Abbas told visiting U.S. congressmen that the independent Palestinian state he says he wants will have no Jewish settlements. This demand for an ethnically cleansed Palestine would mean the forced removal of all Jews living in the territories. Since he is calling for that state to exist in all of the territory of the West Bank, Gaza and the part of Jerusalem that was illegally occupied by Jordan from 1949 to 1967, that would mean in theory the eviction of over half a million Jews to accommodate his ambition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.  What a hellacious spin put on this.
> 
> Abbas says seeking Palestinian state without settlements
> 
> What he said was "no settlements" - no enclaves of Israeli owned territory creating a non-contiguous state.  Not "no Jews". Not genocide.  Not ethnic cleansing.  Just no settlements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No settlements = no Jews.  Plain as day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No settlements = no Israeli controlled islands, which are settlements.  Let's go  by what he says, not the anti-Pali spin.
> 
> Edited to add:
> 
> 
> Abbas Not a single Israeli in future Palestinian state
> _Abbas said that no Israeli settlers or border forces could remain in a future Palestinian state and that Palestinians deem illegal all Jewish settlement building within the land occupied in the 1967 Six Days War.
> 
> ...
> 
> On the future of Jewish settlements on the West Bank and the status of Jerusalem - among the most contentious issues facing the two sides - Abbas signaled no softening of his stance.
> 
> "We've already made all the necessary concessions," he said.
> 
> "East Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Palestine ... if there were and must be some kind of small exchange (of land) equal in size and value, we are ready to discuss this - no more, no less," he said._​In other words - he's talking about the issue of whether Israeli-controlled settlements are allowed to remain in a proposed future state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then that puts the "right of return" of the negotiations doesn't it as the Jews were forcibly removed from their property and had their goods stolen. That is were most of the settlements are placed, on Jewish owned land.
Click to expand...


Not when the settlements were built illegally in defiance of international law.


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read this and no where is there an actual quote from Abbas about "no Jews".  The issue of Jeruselum does however show that the issue is not that clear.
> 
> One of the radio shows I listen to on NPR had a piece on Jerusalem and the the issue of property in East Jerusalum.  There is a lot of anger towards Jews buying property there as well as the feeling (justified) that there is an intentional government effort to reduce the resident Palestinian population and increase the Jewish population.  There is a lack of transparency in the process of buying property and multiple layers of front-groups hiding the identity of the real purchasers so often, a Palestinian seller is led to think he is sellling to a Palestinian but in reality, it's a front for a Jewish developer. The dark side of this, of course is the Palestinian intolerance to Jews moving into that area and if a Palestinian is known to have sold to a Jew, he becomes a target for violence or death threats.
> 
> The Israeli government is also complicit in the process.  Through use of the zoning process, they allot zones for Jewish purposes but withhold permits for Palestinians.  The government also actively subsidizes Jewish projects and there are areas specifically designated for Jews only.  They have also used the zoning process to redraw Jerusalem's municipal boundaries in such a way that they enlarge Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and exclude Palestinian areas from Jeruselums boundaries.  When you consider the fact that Palestinians residing outside of Jerusalem  can lose their Jerusalem residency status if they are gone 7 or more years (but NOT Jewish residents) -it paints a compellling picture of how demographics are being manipulated.
> 
> MIDEAST Israel Moves to Judaise East Jerusalem Inter Press Service
> 
> _According to UN figures, in 2006 at least 1,360 Palestinians had their ID cards revoked. This was five times more than in 2005, and more than in any previous year since Israel began occupying East Jerusalem.
> 
> In 2003, the Citizenship and Entry into Israel law was enacted, which denies spouses from the occupied Palestinian territories, who are married to Israeli citizens or permanent residents (Jerusalem ID card holders), the right to acquire citizenship or residency status, and thus the opportunity to live with their partners in Israel and Jerusalem.
> 
> As a result, thousands of married couples are forced to live apart from one another.
> 
> In Israel, foreign spouses who are Jewish are automatically granted citizenship under Israel's Law of Return.
> 
> Furthermore, since 1982 the Israeli Interior Ministry has not permitted the registration of Palestinian children as Jerusalem residents if the child's father does not hold a Jerusalem ID card, even if the mother is a Jerusalem ID cardholder._​
> East Jerusalem - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> _Until 1995, those who lived abroad for more than seven years or obtained residency or citizenship in another country were deemed liable to lose their residency status. In 1995, Israel began revoking permanent residency status from former Arab residents of Jerusalem who could not prove that their "center of life" was still in Jerusalem. This policy was rescinded four years later. In March 2000, the Minister of the Interior, Natan Sharansky, stated that the "quiet deportation" policy would cease, the prior policy would be restored, and Arab natives to Jerusalem would be able to regain residency[62] if they could prove that they have visited Israel at least once every three years. Since December 1995, permanent residency of more than 3,000 individuals "expired," leaving them with neither citizenship nor residency.[62] Despite changes in policy under Sharansky, in 2006 the number of former Arab Jerusalemites to lose their residency status was 1,363, a sixfold increase on the year before.[63] The loss of status is automatic and sometimes occurs without their knowledge._​
> Israel also has severely curtailed it's "family reunification" to the point where it's disengenious to use that as an indication that there is no racism.  Israeli communities are allowed to reject potential applicants  based on ethnic or cultural characteristics thus encourging ever more isolation between the two groups. According to one poll - 42% of Israeli's had never met a Palestinian.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/opinion/rula-jebreal-minority-life-in-israel.html?_r=0
> _In September, Israel’s Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the Admissions Committees Law, which allows communities to reject housing applicants based on “cultural and social suitability” — a legal pretext to deny residency to non-Jews. In practice, even before the law was passed, it was virtually impossible for a Palestinian to buy or rent a home in any majority-Jewish city._​
> So when you look at this...who is racist?  The Palestinians? The Israeli's?  Both? Neither?
> 
> Each of these - it's the same deliberately contorted quote.
> 
> These all say the same thing:
> 
> Claim :  Abbas: Palestinian state will be judenrein or Jew free.
> Then right below it it shows the quote:  "In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli -- civilian or soldier -- on our lands".
> No Israeli's.  In otherwords - they will all be, whatever they are - Palestinian citizens and there will be no foreign military presence or "settlers" who do not take on Palestinian citizenship.
> 
> It does NOT say "judenrein" nor does it say "jew free" - that is a dishonest and misleading claim attempting, through the use of the german term - to equate this and Abbas to Hitler and the Nazi's.  Very dishonest in my opinion.
> 
> In doing so - is this also an attempt to incite hate?
> 
> Who is racist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is RACIST look no further than the arab muslims, and here is the link that prove Abbas said no jews in Palestine
> 
> Abbas Arabs in Israel No Jews in Palestine Commentary Magazine
> 
> 
> Abbas left no doubt about what his vision of peace entails:
> “In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli — civilian or soldier — on our lands,” Abbas said following a meeting with interim Egyptian President Adly Mansour in Cairo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall.  Find me ONE direct quote from Abbas saying "NO JEWS".
> 
> I challange you to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go
> 
> No Jews in future Palestinian state Abbas says Israel Jewish Journal
> 
> Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told Egyptian journalists that no *Israelis*, civilians or soldiers, will remain in a future Palestinian state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Read what Abbas actually said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO to Palestine Abbas says No Jews in future Palestine Rabbi Jonathan Ginsburg
> 
> PA leader Mahmoud Abbas told visiting U.S. congressmen that the independent Palestinian state he says he wants will have no Jewish settlements. This demand for an ethnically cleansed Palestine would mean the forced removal of all Jews living in the territories. Since he is calling for that state to exist in all of the territory of the West Bank, Gaza and the part of Jerusalem that was illegally occupied by Jordan from 1949 to 1967, that would mean in theory the eviction of over half a million Jews to accommodate his ambition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.  What a hellacious spin put on this.
> 
> Abbas says seeking Palestinian state without settlements
> 
> What he said was "no settlements" - no enclaves of Israeli owned territory creating a non-contiguous state.  Not "no Jews". Not genocide.  Not ethnic cleansing.  Just no settlements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Try reading it again as he said NO JEWS even living on Jewish owned land*, just like it was in 1949 till 1967 when they evicted by force all the Jews in gaza and the west bank. Against the terms of the mandate that the Islamic nations had agreed to stand by, you know the one that team Palestine often throws into the equation when talking of the declaration of independence from the Jews.
Click to expand...


Show me exactly where he said "No JEWS" even on Jewish owned land because I can't find it in any of Abbas' quotes incuding the articles you referenced.


----------



## gtopa1

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go
> 
> No Jews in future Palestinian state Abbas says Israel Jewish Journal
> 
> Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told Egyptian journalists that no *Israelis*, civilians or soldiers, will remain in a future Palestinian state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Read what Abbas actually said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO to Palestine Abbas says No Jews in future Palestine Rabbi Jonathan Ginsburg
> 
> PA leader Mahmoud Abbas told visiting U.S. congressmen that the independent Palestinian state he says he wants will have no Jewish settlements. This demand for an ethnically cleansed Palestine would mean the forced removal of all Jews living in the territories. Since he is calling for that state to exist in all of the territory of the West Bank, Gaza and the part of Jerusalem that was illegally occupied by Jordan from 1949 to 1967, that would mean in theory the eviction of over half a million Jews to accommodate his ambition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.  What a hellacious spin put on this.
> 
> Abbas says seeking Palestinian state without settlements
> 
> What he said was "no settlements" - no enclaves of Israeli owned territory creating a non-contiguous state.  Not "no Jews". Not genocide.  Not ethnic cleansing.  Just no settlements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No settlements = no Jews.  Plain as day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No settlements = no Israeli controlled islands, which are settlements.  Let's go  by what he says, not the anti-Pali spin.
> 
> Edited to add:
> 
> 
> Abbas Not a single Israeli in future Palestinian state
> _Abbas said that no Israeli settlers or border forces could remain in a future Palestinian state and that Palestinians deem illegal all Jewish settlement building within the land occupied in the 1967 Six Days War.
> 
> ...
> 
> On the future of Jewish settlements on the West Bank and the status of Jerusalem - among the most contentious issues facing the two sides - Abbas signaled no softening of his stance.
> 
> "We've already made all the necessary concessions," he said.
> 
> "East Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Palestine ... if there were and must be some kind of small exchange (of land) equal in size and value, we are ready to discuss this - no more, no less," he said._​In other words - he's talking about the issue of whether Israeli-controlled settlements are allowed to remain in a proposed future state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then that puts the "right of return" of the negotiations doesn't it as the Jews were forcibly removed from their property and had their goods stolen. That is were most of the settlements are placed, on Jewish owned land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when the settlements were built illegally in defiance of international law.
Click to expand...


They were not!!

See "*Report on the Legal Status of Building in Judea and Samaria" posted earlier. Why do you liars keep on with that Hamas apologia?*

*Greg*


----------



## RoccoR

gtopa1, Coyote, P F Tinmore, _et al,_

Both perspective here are flawed --- just a bit.



gtopa1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not when the settlements were built illegally in defiance of international law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were not!!
> 
> See "*Report on the Legal Status of Building in Judea and Samaria" posted earlier. Why do you liars keep on with that Hamas apologia?*
> 
> *Greg*
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

I do not think it is correct in saying that the Area "C" Settlements "were built illegally in defiance of international law."  That has yet to be determined given that there is an arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians _(the Oslo Accords)_ which sets this aside under the Permanent Status of Negotiations.  While the Article 49 of the Geneva Convention (GCIV) and Article 8(2b)(viii) of the Rome Statutes have a prohibitions, neither apply when the parties have made a consent arrangement.

As discussed earlier with P F Tinmore _(Posting #38 --- Rock Throwing Thread)_, there the Conclusions of the Levy Report (_The Commission to Examine the Status of Building in Judea and Samaria --- Conclusions and Recommendations_) are very questionable in respect to certain findings.  Most certainly, I find the position that _"the classical laws of "occupation" as set out in the relevant international conventions cannot be considered applicable."_  And is one of the reasons I asked P F Tinmore to explain his position on "occupation."

I've noticed that both P F Tinmore (Pro-Palestinian) and the Levy Commission (Pro-Israeli) take issue with whether Israel is considered an "Occupying Power;" obviously for different reasons.  But however different the reasons may be, the outcome will have a grave impact on a number of different levels.  If Israel is determined to be an "Occupying Power" then Article 68 (GCIV) is applicable and the armed struggle and resistance movement that injures the "Occupying Power" is illegal and punishable under local legal procedures.  But if P F Tinmore and the Levy Commission are correct, and the 1907 Hague Convention (Article 42) is not strictly applicable, then neither Article 49 GCIV or Article 8 Rome Statutes is applicable; as both pertain to the prohibition of an Occupying Power.  Thus, under the interpretation of both P F Tinmore (Pro-Palestinian) and the Levy Commission (Pro-Israeli), settlements would no longer be and issue of legality relative to international humanitarian law, the International criminal code, or the laws of war.

Most Respectfully,
R

PS:  I found it unusual to see P F Tinmore and the Israelis in agreement.  It is only the second time I've noticed it on a major issue.  The other, of course is the applicability of Resolution 181(II).


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> gtopa1, Coyote, P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Both perspective here are flawed --- just a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not when the settlements were built illegally in defiance of international law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were not!!
> 
> See "*Report on the Legal Status of Building in Judea and Samaria" posted earlier. Why do you liars keep on with that Hamas apologia?*
> 
> *Greg*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I do not think it is correct in saying that the Area "C" Settlements "were built illegally in defiance of international law."  That has yet to be determined given that there is an arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians _(the Oslo Accords)_ which sets this aside under the Permanent Status of Negotiations.  While the Article 49 of the Geneva Convention (GCIV) and Article 8(2b)(viii) of the Rome Statutes have a prohibitions, neither apply when the parties have made a consent arrangement.
Click to expand...


International law considers agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void if they deprive civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation and restitution."

Read more: Articles The Jihad Lawyer​So we can put Oslo and other agreements that Arafat was duped into signing to bed, shall we?

When Hamas refuses to recognize previous agreements it is because they are invalid.


> As discussed earlier with P F Tinmore _(Posting #38 --- Rock Throwing Thread)_, there the Conclusions of the Levy Report (_The Commission to Examine the Status of Building in Judea and Samaria --- Conclusions and Recommendations_) are very questionable in respect to certain findings.  Most certainly, I find the position that *"the classical laws of "occupation" as set out in the relevant international conventions cannot be considered applicable." * And is one of the reasons I asked P F Tinmore to explain his position on "occupation."


It is not that I see them as inapplicable as much as universally violated. Israel wants the fruits of occupation while it thumbs its nose at the restrictions and obligations. Although it still fits the definition of an occupation, its actions, depending on time and place, better fit colonization and invasion.




> I've noticed that both P F Tinmore (Pro-Palestinian) and the Levy Commission (Pro-Israeli) take issue with whether Israel is considered an "Occupying Power;" obviously for different reasons.  But however different the reasons may be, the outcome will have a grave impact on a number of different levels.  If Israel is determined to be an "Occupying Power" then Article 68 (GCIV) is applicable and the armed struggle and resistance movement that injures the "Occupying Power" is illegal and punishable under local legal procedures.  But if P F Tinmore and the Levy Commission are correct, and the 1907 Hague Convention (Article 42) is not strictly applicable, then neither Article 49 GCIV or Article 8 Rome Statutes is applicable; as both pertain to the prohibition of an Occupying Power.  Thus, under the interpretation of both P F Tinmore (Pro-Palestinian) and the Levy Commission (Pro-Israeli), settlements would no longer be and issue of legality relative to international humanitarian law, the International criminal code, or the laws of war.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> PS:  I found it unusual to see P F Tinmore and the Israelis in agreement.  It is only the second time I've noticed it on a major issue.  The other, of course is the applicability of Resolution 181(II).



Regardless of which definition you use, it is still illegal to acquire land through the threat or use of force. All of "Israel's land" has been acquired at the point of a gun.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1, Coyote, P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Both perspective here are flawed --- just a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not when the settlements were built illegally in defiance of international law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were not!!
> 
> See "*Report on the Legal Status of Building in Judea and Samaria" posted earlier. Why do you liars keep on with that Hamas apologia?*
> 
> *Greg*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I do not think it is correct in saying that the Area "C" Settlements "were built illegally in defiance of international law."  That has yet to be determined given that there is an arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians _(the Oslo Accords)_ which sets this aside under the Permanent Status of Negotiations.  While the Article 49 of the Geneva Convention (GCIV) and Article 8(2b)(viii) of the Rome Statutes have a prohibitions, neither apply when the parties have made a consent arrangement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> International law considers agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void if they deprive civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation and restitution."
> 
> Read more: Articles The Jihad Lawyer​So we can put Oslo and other agreements that Arafat was duped into signing to bed, shall we?
> 
> When Hamas refuses to recognize previous agreements it is because they are invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> As discussed earlier with P F Tinmore _(Posting #38 --- Rock Throwing Thread)_, there the Conclusions of the Levy Report (_The Commission to Examine the Status of Building in Judea and Samaria --- Conclusions and Recommendations_) are very questionable in respect to certain findings.  Most certainly, I find the position that *"the classical laws of "occupation" as set out in the relevant international conventions cannot be considered applicable." * And is one of the reasons I asked P F Tinmore to explain his position on "occupation."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not that I see them as inapplicable as much as universally violated. Israel wants the fruits of occupation while it thumbs its nose at the restrictions and obligations. Although it still fits the definition of an occupation, its actions, depending on time and place, better fit colonization and invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that both P F Tinmore (Pro-Palestinian) and the Levy Commission (Pro-Israeli) take issue with whether Israel is considered an "Occupying Power;" obviously for different reasons.  But however different the reasons may be, the outcome will have a grave impact on a number of different levels.  If Israel is determined to be an "Occupying Power" then Article 68 (GCIV) is applicable and the armed struggle and resistance movement that injures the "Occupying Power" is illegal and punishable under local legal procedures.  But if P F Tinmore and the Levy Commission are correct, and the 1907 Hague Convention (Article 42) is not strictly applicable, then neither Article 49 GCIV or Article 8 Rome Statutes is applicable; as both pertain to the prohibition of an Occupying Power.  Thus, under the interpretation of both P F Tinmore (Pro-Palestinian) and the Levy Commission (Pro-Israeli), settlements would no longer be and issue of legality relative to international humanitarian law, the International criminal code, or the laws of war.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> PS:  I found it unusual to see P F Tinmore and the Israelis in agreement.  It is only the second time I've noticed it on a major issue.  The other, of course is the applicability of Resolution 181(II).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regardless of which definition you use, it is still illegal to acquire land through the threat or use of force. All of "Israel's land" has been acquired at the point of a gun.
Click to expand...


"All of "Israel's land" has been acquired at the point of a gun"

That's a HUGE lie. Just because YOU don't accept Israel's DOI , doesn't mean squat. If your statement was true, then Israel would never have come into existence. 
Just because you hate Israel, doesn't mean you can make up your own rules and change history.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1, Coyote, P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Both perspective here are flawed --- just a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not when the settlements were built illegally in defiance of international law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were not!!
> 
> See "*Report on the Legal Status of Building in Judea and Samaria" posted earlier. Why do you liars keep on with that Hamas apologia?*
> 
> *Greg*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I do not think it is correct in saying that the Area "C" Settlements "were built illegally in defiance of international law."  That has yet to be determined given that there is an arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians _(the Oslo Accords)_ which sets this aside under the Permanent Status of Negotiations.  While the Article 49 of the Geneva Convention (GCIV) and Article 8(2b)(viii) of the Rome Statutes have a prohibitions, neither apply when the parties have made a consent arrangement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> International law considers agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void if they deprive civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation and restitution."
> 
> Read more: Articles The Jihad Lawyer​So we can put Oslo and other agreements that Arafat was duped into signing to bed, shall we?
> 
> When Hamas refuses to recognize previous agreements it is because they are invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> As discussed earlier with P F Tinmore _(Posting #38 --- Rock Throwing Thread)_, there the Conclusions of the Levy Report (_The Commission to Examine the Status of Building in Judea and Samaria --- Conclusions and Recommendations_) are very questionable in respect to certain findings.  Most certainly, I find the position that *"the classical laws of "occupation" as set out in the relevant international conventions cannot be considered applicable." * And is one of the reasons I asked P F Tinmore to explain his position on "occupation."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not that I see them as inapplicable as much as universally violated. Israel wants the fruits of occupation while it thumbs its nose at the restrictions and obligations. Although it still fits the definition of an occupation, its actions, depending on time and place, better fit colonization and invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that both P F Tinmore (Pro-Palestinian) and the Levy Commission (Pro-Israeli) take issue with whether Israel is considered an "Occupying Power;" obviously for different reasons.  But however different the reasons may be, the outcome will have a grave impact on a number of different levels.  If Israel is determined to be an "Occupying Power" then Article 68 (GCIV) is applicable and the armed struggle and resistance movement that injures the "Occupying Power" is illegal and punishable under local legal procedures.  But if P F Tinmore and the Levy Commission are correct, and the 1907 Hague Convention (Article 42) is not strictly applicable, then neither Article 49 GCIV or Article 8 Rome Statutes is applicable; as both pertain to the prohibition of an Occupying Power.  Thus, under the interpretation of both P F Tinmore (Pro-Palestinian) and the Levy Commission (Pro-Israeli), settlements would no longer be and issue of legality relative to international humanitarian law, the International criminal code, or the laws of war.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> PS:  I found it unusual to see P F Tinmore and the Israelis in agreement.  It is only the second time I've noticed it on a major issue.  The other, of course is the applicability of Resolution 181(II).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regardless of which definition you use, it is still illegal to acquire land through the threat or use of force. All of "Israel's land" has been acquired at the point of a gun.
Click to expand...


"International law considers agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void if they deprive civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation and restitution."

Even if this is true, which I doubt (link), I don't recall ever hearing about any agreements between Israel and the PA being void

"When Hamas refuses to recognize previous agreements it is because they are invalid."

Did Hamas actually say this or are you making this up?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1, Coyote, P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Both perspective here are flawed --- just a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not when the settlements were built illegally in defiance of international law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were not!!
> 
> See "*Report on the Legal Status of Building in Judea and Samaria" posted earlier. Why do you liars keep on with that Hamas apologia?*
> 
> *Greg*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I do not think it is correct in saying that the Area "C" Settlements "were built illegally in defiance of international law."  That has yet to be determined given that there is an arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians _(the Oslo Accords)_ which sets this aside under the Permanent Status of Negotiations.  While the Article 49 of the Geneva Convention (GCIV) and Article 8(2b)(viii) of the Rome Statutes have a prohibitions, neither apply when the parties have made a consent arrangement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> International law considers agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void if they deprive civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation and restitution."
> 
> Read more: Articles The Jihad Lawyer​So we can put Oslo and other agreements that Arafat was duped into signing to bed, shall we?
> 
> When Hamas refuses to recognize previous agreements it is because they are invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> As discussed earlier with P F Tinmore _(Posting #38 --- Rock Throwing Thread)_, there the Conclusions of the Levy Report (_The Commission to Examine the Status of Building in Judea and Samaria --- Conclusions and Recommendations_) are very questionable in respect to certain findings.  Most certainly, I find the position that *"the classical laws of "occupation" as set out in the relevant international conventions cannot be considered applicable." * And is one of the reasons I asked P F Tinmore to explain his position on "occupation."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not that I see them as inapplicable as much as universally violated. Israel wants the fruits of occupation while it thumbs its nose at the restrictions and obligations. Although it still fits the definition of an occupation, its actions, depending on time and place, better fit colonization and invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that both P F Tinmore (Pro-Palestinian) and the Levy Commission (Pro-Israeli) take issue with whether Israel is considered an "Occupying Power;" obviously for different reasons.  But however different the reasons may be, the outcome will have a grave impact on a number of different levels.  If Israel is determined to be an "Occupying Power" then Article 68 (GCIV) is applicable and the armed struggle and resistance movement that injures the "Occupying Power" is illegal and punishable under local legal procedures.  But if P F Tinmore and the Levy Commission are correct, and the 1907 Hague Convention (Article 42) is not strictly applicable, then neither Article 49 GCIV or Article 8 Rome Statutes is applicable; as both pertain to the prohibition of an Occupying Power.  Thus, under the interpretation of both P F Tinmore (Pro-Palestinian) and the Levy Commission (Pro-Israeli), settlements would no longer be and issue of legality relative to international humanitarian law, the International criminal code, or the laws of war.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> PS:  I found it unusual to see P F Tinmore and the Israelis in agreement.  It is only the second time I've noticed it on a major issue.  The other, of course is the applicability of Resolution 181(II).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regardless of which definition you use, it is still illegal to acquire land through the threat or use of force. All of "Israel's land" has been acquired at the point of a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "International law considers agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void if they deprive civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation and restitution."
> 
> Even if this is true, which I doubt (link), I don't recall ever hearing about any agreements between Israel and the PA being void
> 
> "When Hamas refuses to recognize previous agreements it is because they are invalid."
> 
> Did Hamas actually say this or are you making this up?
Click to expand...

You know that I do not make stuff up.


Article 53
Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of general international law (jus cogens)

A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.

http://www.oas.org/legal/english/docs/Vienna Convention Treaties.htm​


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1, Coyote, P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Both perspective here are flawed --- just a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not when the settlements were built illegally in defiance of international law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were not!!
> 
> See "*Report on the Legal Status of Building in Judea and Samaria" posted earlier. Why do you liars keep on with that Hamas apologia?*
> 
> *Greg*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I do not think it is correct in saying that the Area "C" Settlements "were built illegally in defiance of international law."  That has yet to be determined given that there is an arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians _(the Oslo Accords)_ which sets this aside under the Permanent Status of Negotiations.  While the Article 49 of the Geneva Convention (GCIV) and Article 8(2b)(viii) of the Rome Statutes have a prohibitions, neither apply when the parties have made a consent arrangement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> International law considers agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void if they deprive civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation and restitution."
> 
> Read more: Articles The Jihad Lawyer​So we can put Oslo and other agreements that Arafat was duped into signing to bed, shall we?
> 
> When Hamas refuses to recognize previous agreements it is because they are invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> As discussed earlier with P F Tinmore _(Posting #38 --- Rock Throwing Thread)_, there the Conclusions of the Levy Report (_The Commission to Examine the Status of Building in Judea and Samaria --- Conclusions and Recommendations_) are very questionable in respect to certain findings.  Most certainly, I find the position that *"the classical laws of "occupation" as set out in the relevant international conventions cannot be considered applicable." * And is one of the reasons I asked P F Tinmore to explain his position on "occupation."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not that I see them as inapplicable as much as universally violated. Israel wants the fruits of occupation while it thumbs its nose at the restrictions and obligations. Although it still fits the definition of an occupation, its actions, depending on time and place, better fit colonization and invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that both P F Tinmore (Pro-Palestinian) and the Levy Commission (Pro-Israeli) take issue with whether Israel is considered an "Occupying Power;" obviously for different reasons.  But however different the reasons may be, the outcome will have a grave impact on a number of different levels.  If Israel is determined to be an "Occupying Power" then Article 68 (GCIV) is applicable and the armed struggle and resistance movement that injures the "Occupying Power" is illegal and punishable under local legal procedures.  But if P F Tinmore and the Levy Commission are correct, and the 1907 Hague Convention (Article 42) is not strictly applicable, then neither Article 49 GCIV or Article 8 Rome Statutes is applicable; as both pertain to the prohibition of an Occupying Power.  Thus, under the interpretation of both P F Tinmore (Pro-Palestinian) and the Levy Commission (Pro-Israeli), settlements would no longer be and issue of legality relative to international humanitarian law, the International criminal code, or the laws of war.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> PS:  I found it unusual to see P F Tinmore and the Israelis in agreement.  It is only the second time I've noticed it on a major issue.  The other, of course is the applicability of Resolution 181(II).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regardless of which definition you use, it is still illegal to acquire land through the threat or use of force. All of "Israel's land" has been acquired at the point of a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "International law considers agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void if they deprive civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation and restitution."
> 
> Even if this is true, which I doubt (link), I don't recall ever hearing about any agreements between Israel and the PA being void
> 
> "When Hamas refuses to recognize previous agreements it is because they are invalid."
> 
> Did Hamas actually say this or are you making this up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know that I do not make stuff up.
> 
> 
> Article 53
> Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of general international law (jus cogens)
> 
> A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.
> 
> http://www.oas.org/legal/english/docs/Vienna Convention Treaties.htm​
Click to expand...


Actually, you do make stuff up. But lets not get into that again ... 

Thanks for posting the link...


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, _et al,_

Well, your source is close.



P F Tinmore said:


> International law considers agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void if they deprive civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation and restitution."
> ​Read more: Articles The Jihad Lawyer
> So we can put Oslo and other agreements that Arafat was duped into signing to bed, shall we?  When Hamas refuses to recognize previous agreements it is because they are invalid.


*(REFERENCES)*



"Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. 8)." * SOURCE:* Occupation and international humanitarian law: questions and answers ICRC



Part I. General Provisions


Art. 8. Protected persons may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention, and by the special agreements referred to in the foregoing Article, if such there be.


Section III. Occupied territories

Art. 47. Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.

*(COMMENT)*

What your source _(Articles The Jihad Lawyer)_ interprets the Geneva Convention to say, and what it actually says --- are two different things; as you can see.  And again, it depends on whether you want to accept the concept that the Israelis are an "Occupation Power" or a "Colonial Power."  If you argue the case that Israel is a "Colonial Power" then the GC IV does not apply.  But if the Israeli is a "Occupation Power" --- THEN --- the prohibition is very specific (GCIV Article 47).  It does not say:  "agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void."



P F Tinmore said:


> It is not that I see them as inapplicable as much as universally violated. Israel wants the fruits of occupation while it thumbs its nose at the restrictions and obligations. Although it still fits the definition of an occupation, its actions, depending on time and place, better fit colonization and invasion.


*(COMMENT)*

Actually, Israel argues, like you, that the GCIV doesn't really apply, except by Security Council Mandate; "_Calls once more upon_ Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention," Security Council Resolution 446.  



P F Tinmore said:


> Regardless of which definition you use, it is still illegal to acquire land through the threat or use of force. All of "Israel's land" has been acquired at the point of a gun.


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, reading this carefully, this is an application of:

Palestine National Charter of 1968

Article 1. Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the greater Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.

Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.​
This is a concept that dates back to Israeli Independence over a half century ago, in which the right of self-determination was exercised pursuant to the UN "Steps Preparatory to Independence."  Prior to May '48, it was a Civil War.  After May '48, it was an invasion by Arab Armies attempting to use force to interrupt the implementation of the Partition Plan and subvert the will of the UN.

Now, in terms of the territory and the sovereignty, this is something that the Palestinians have consistently said is a "violation of international law."  Yet in over half a century, they have never availed themselves to the recognized dispute resolution processes.

The Law is quite clear:


"Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States."  A/RES/25/2625
Not once did the Palestinians attempt peaceful means to resolve the issues.  The policy is:

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

First, this is not even remotely applicable.



P F Tinmore said:


> You know that I do not make stuff up.
> 
> Article 53
> Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of general international law (jus cogens)
> 
> A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.
> 
> http://www.oas.org/legal/english/docs/Vienna Convention Treaties.htm​


(COMMENT)

First you have to establish that a specific prohibition has been violated, and the timeline.  You have neither.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Well, your source is close.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> International law considers agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void if they deprive civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation and restitution."
> ​Read more: Articles The Jihad Lawyer
> So we can put Oslo and other agreements that Arafat was duped into signing to bed, shall we?  When Hamas refuses to recognize previous agreements it is because they are invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCES)*
> 
> 
> 
> "Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. 8)." * SOURCE:* Occupation and international humanitarian law: questions and answers ICRC
> 
> 
> Part I. General Provisions
> 
> 
> Art. 8. Protected persons may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention, and by the special agreements referred to in the foregoing Article, if such there be.
> 
> 
> Section III. Occupied territories
> 
> Art. 47. Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What your source _(Articles The Jihad Lawyer)_ interprets the Geneva Convention to say, and what it actually says --- are two different things; as you can see.  And again, it depends on whether you want to accept the concept that the Israelis are an "Occupation Power" or a "Colonial Power."  If you argue the case that Israel is a "Colonial Power" then the GC IV does not apply.  But if the Israeli is a "Occupation Power" --- THEN --- the prohibition is very specific (GCIV Article 47).  It does not say:  "agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not that I see them as inapplicable as much as universally violated. Israel wants the fruits of occupation while it thumbs its nose at the restrictions and obligations. Although it still fits the definition of an occupation, its actions, depending on time and place, better fit colonization and invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Actually, Israel argues, like you, that the GCIV doesn't really apply, except by Security Council Mandate; "_Calls once more upon_ Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention," Security Council Resolution 446.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of which definition you use, it is still illegal to acquire land through the threat or use of force. All of "Israel's land" has been acquired at the point of a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes, reading this carefully, this is an application of:
> 
> Palestine National Charter of 1968
> 
> Article 1. Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the greater Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.
> 
> Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.​
> This is a concept that dates back to Israeli Independence over a half century ago, in which the right of self-determination was exercised pursuant to the UN "Steps Preparatory to Independence."  Prior to May '48, it was a Civil War.  After May '48, it was an invasion by Arab Armies attempting to use force to interrupt the implementation of the Partition Plan and subvert the will of the UN.
> 
> Now, in terms of the territory and the sovereignty, this is something that the Palestinians have consistently said is a "violation of international law."  Yet in over half a century, they have never availed themselves to the recognized dispute resolution processes.
> 
> The Law is quite clear:
> 
> 
> "Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States."  A/RES/25/2625
> Not once did the Palestinians attempt peaceful means to resolve the issues.  The policy is:
> 
> There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

What is the "dispute" and what is the recognized dispute resolution processes?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

I'm not playing defense.  The plaintiff or claimant, has been for more than half a century, the Arab Palestinian.  They have to articulate the "dispute."



P F Tinmore said:


> What is the "dispute" and what is the recognized dispute resolution processes?


*(COMMENT)*

You claim that the Israelis "took the territory at gun point."  But I need a better complaint to answer; what they did, when they did it, and who they did it to.

You can't use a domestic issue _[(events during a Civil War)(Jewish Palestinians 'vs' Arab Palestinians)]_, for that is not covered by international laws.

Relative to the Area "C" Settlements, the Oslo Accords stipulate the Process.  

Article X, OSLO I
JOINT ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN LIAISON COMMITTEE
In order to provide for a smooth implementation of this Declaration of Principles and any subsequent agreements pertaining to the interim period, upon the entry into force of this Declaration of Principles, a Joint Israeli-Palestinian Liaison Committee will be established in order to deal with issues requiring coordination, other issues of common interest and disputes.​Article XV, OSLO I
RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES
1. Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Declaration of Principles, or any subsequent agreements pertaining to the interim period, shall be resolved by negotiations through the Joint Liaison Committee to be established pursuant to Article X above.

2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be resolved by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed upon by the parties.

3. The parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both parties, the parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.​
ARTICLE XXI, OSLO II
Settlement of Differences and Disputes

Any difference relating to the application of this Agreement shall be referred to the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism established under this Agreement. The provisions of Article XV of the DOP shall apply to any such difference which is not settled through the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism, namely:

1.Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Agreement or any related agreements pertaining to the interim shall be settled through the Liaison Committee.

2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be settled by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed between the Parties.

3. The Parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both Parties, the Parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I'm not playing defense.  The plaintiff or claimant, has been for more than half a century, the Arab Palestinian.  They have to articulate the "dispute."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the "dispute" and what is the recognized dispute resolution processes?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You claim that the Israelis "took the territory at gun point."  But I need a better complaint to answer; what they did, when they did it, and who they did it to.
> 
> You can't use a domestic issue _[(events during a Civil War)(Jewish Palestinians 'vs' Arab Palestinians)]_, for that is not covered by international laws.
> 
> Relative to the Area "C" Settlements, the Oslo Accords stipulate the Process.
> 
> Article X, OSLO I
> JOINT ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN LIAISON COMMITTEE
> In order to provide for a smooth implementation of this Declaration of Principles and any subsequent agreements pertaining to the interim period, upon the entry into force of this Declaration of Principles, a Joint Israeli-Palestinian Liaison Committee will be established in order to deal with issues requiring coordination, other issues of common interest and disputes.​Article XV, OSLO I
> RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES
> 1. Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Declaration of Principles, or any subsequent agreements pertaining to the interim period, shall be resolved by negotiations through the Joint Liaison Committee to be established pursuant to Article X above.
> 
> 2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be resolved by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed upon by the parties.
> 
> 3. The parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both parties, the parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.​
> ARTICLE XXI, OSLO II
> Settlement of Differences and Disputes
> 
> Any difference relating to the application of this Agreement shall be referred to the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism established under this Agreement. The provisions of Article XV of the DOP shall apply to any such difference which is not settled through the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism, namely:
> 
> 1.Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Agreement or any related agreements pertaining to the interim shall be settled through the Liaison Committee.
> 
> 2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be settled by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed between the Parties.
> 
> 3. The Parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both Parties, the Parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

That does not answer my questions.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

What is the question?



P F Tinmore said:


> ​That does not answer my questions.


*(COMMENT)*

What is the question?  What is the dispute which the Arab Palestinians claim is justification for Jihad?

v/r
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> What is the question?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​That does not answer my questions.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What is the question?  What is the dispute which the Arab Palestinians claim is justification for Jihad?
> 
> v/r
> R
Click to expand...

What is the "dispute" and what is the recognized dispute resolution processes?


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arab Palestinians *not in place* on 15 May 1948 are NOT Israeli Citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what the law says. The Palestinians who's residence was inside what became Israel automatically became Israelis.
> 
> Being temporarily away from home does not change their place of residence.
> 
> 
> *III.*
> 
> 8.
> 
> 
> a. In all cases of State succession, the successor State shall grant its nationality to all nationals of the predecessor State residing permanently on the transferred territory.
> 
> b. Such nationality shall be granted without any discrimination in particular on the basis of ethnic origin, colour, religion, language or political opinions.
> 
> c. Those persons to whom this nationality has been granted shall enjoy perfect equality of treatment with the other nationals of the successor State.
> 
> 
> http://legislationline.org/documents/action/popup/id/7960
> 
> However, there is a different view.
> 
> *In occupied territories*
> The mass naturalization of native persons in occupied territories is illegal under the laws of war (Hague and Geneva Conventions)​Naturalization - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> So, if Israel is the successor state the Palestinians became Israelis.
> 
> If Israel occupies Palestine, (history points to this scenario) then the Palestinians are still Palestinians. It is illegal for the occupying power to exile natives from occupied territory.
Click to expand...


and if americans commit treason they can go to jail or loose the US citizenship, becoming a person without  a country unless some place takes them in.

If arab Israelis commit treason, attack Israeli from within or gives aid to other who do, they can be kicked out and have their citizenship revoked.


----------



## gtopa1

This is interesting.



> “*Thus the legal status of the territory was restored to its original status, namely territory intended to serve as a national home for the Jewish people, which, during the period of Jordanian rule, constituted the party ‘holding the stronger claim’ that was absent from the territory for a number of years, due to a war that was forced upon it, and now has returned to it* [emphasis in original-SB] (page 12).”



Israeli human rights lawyer Levy Report shows occupation is not temporary 972 Magazine

There IS no problem. The settlements are legal.

Greg


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go
> 
> No Jews in future Palestinian state Abbas says Israel Jewish Journal
> 
> Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told Egyptian journalists that no *Israelis*, civilians or soldiers, will remain in a future Palestinian state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Read what Abbas actually said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO to Palestine Abbas says No Jews in future Palestine Rabbi Jonathan Ginsburg
> 
> PA leader Mahmoud Abbas told visiting U.S. congressmen that the independent Palestinian state he says he wants will have no Jewish settlements. This demand for an ethnically cleansed Palestine would mean the forced removal of all Jews living in the territories. Since he is calling for that state to exist in all of the territory of the West Bank, Gaza and the part of Jerusalem that was illegally occupied by Jordan from 1949 to 1967, that would mean in theory the eviction of over half a million Jews to accommodate his ambition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.  What a hellacious spin put on this.
> 
> Abbas says seeking Palestinian state without settlements
> 
> What he said was "no settlements" - no enclaves of Israeli owned territory creating a non-contiguous state.  Not "no Jews". Not genocide.  Not ethnic cleansing.  Just no settlements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No settlements = no Jews.  Plain as day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No settlements = no Israeli controlled islands, which are settlements.  Let's go  by what he says, not the anti-Pali spin.
> 
> Edited to add:
> 
> 
> Abbas Not a single Israeli in future Palestinian state
> _Abbas said that no Israeli settlers or border forces could remain in a future Palestinian state and that Palestinians deem illegal all Jewish settlement building within the land occupied in the 1967 Six Days War.
> 
> ...
> 
> On the future of Jewish settlements on the West Bank and the status of Jerusalem - among the most contentious issues facing the two sides - Abbas signaled no softening of his stance.
> 
> "We've already made all the necessary concessions," he said.
> 
> "East Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Palestine ... if there were and must be some kind of small exchange (of land) equal in size and value, we are ready to discuss this - no more, no less," he said._​In other words - he's talking about the issue of whether Israeli-controlled settlements are allowed to remain in a proposed future state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then that puts the "right of return" of the negotiations doesn't it as the Jews were forcibly removed from their property and had their goods stolen. That is were most of the settlements are placed, on Jewish owned land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when the settlements were built illegally in defiance of international law.
Click to expand...






 I take it that you know about the illegal settlements built by arab muslims in Jerusalem then. But it still does not alter the fact that the settlements are built on Jewish land under a treaty signed with the P.A. called the Oslo accords 2. So how are the settlements illegal when they are covered by Treaty and the UN charter ?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You always mix up your timeline.  And, you misrepresent what I've said.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arab Palestinians *not in place* on 15 May 1948 are NOT Israeli Citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what the law says. The Palestinians who's residence was inside what became Israel automatically became Israelis.
> 
> Being temporarily away from home does not change their place of residence.
> 
> 
> *III.*
> 
> 8.
> 
> 
> a. In all cases of State succession, the successor State shall grant its nationality to all nationals of the predecessor State residing permanently on the transferred territory.
> 
> b. Such nationality shall be granted without any discrimination in particular on the basis of ethnic origin, colour, religion, language or political opinions.
> 
> c. Those persons to whom this nationality has been granted shall enjoy perfect equality of treatment with the other nationals of the successor State.
> 
> 
> http://legislationline.org/documents/action/popup/id/7960
> 
> However, there is a different view.
> 
> *In occupied territories*
> The mass naturalization of native persons in occupied territories is illegal under the laws of war (Hague and Geneva Conventions)​Naturalization - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> So, if Israel is the successor state the Palestinians became Israelis.
> 
> If Israel occupies Palestine, (history points to this scenario) then the Palestinians are still Palestinians. It is illegal for the occupying power to exile natives from occupied territory.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

First off, the DECLARATION ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF STATE SUCCESSION FOR THE NATIONALITY OF NATURAL PERSONS was adopted by the European Commission for Democracy through Law at its 28th Plenary Meeting, Venice, *13-14 September 1996;* that is 48 years after the Independence of Israel, more than a quarter century after the 1967 Six-Day War, 23 years after the 1973 Yom Kipper War, 17 years after the Israeli-Egyptian Peace Treaty (1979), and a year after the 1995 Peace Treaty with Jordan - and the Oslo I Accord.  Whatever you interpret it to say, *it is not retroactively applicable* to events prior to its adoption. You cannot apply a modern law to a historical event.

Second, there are no refugee Arab Palestinians from Israel in either the West Bank or Gaza Strip.  Under Article 1C(3) of the UNHCR Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the "Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if: (3) He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the
country of his new nationality."  In 1988, the sole representative of the Palestinian People, declared independence.  And the Arab Palestinians, no matter their point of origin, automatically became citizens of the State of Palestine.  _(Note:  This does not negate compensation, restitution, reparations, or tort civil claims.)  _This is without regard to the the UNRWA Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) currently being applied.

Third, the Jewish State of Israel did not exist until 15 MAY 1948.  Any Arab Palestinian living in Israel after that date assumes, automatically, Israeli citizenship.  Refugees that migrated prior to the establishment of the State cannot retroactively assume Israeli citizenship for a state that did not exist at that time prior.  

"The *1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine* was the first phase of the 1948 Palestine war. It broke out after the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution on 29 November 1947 recommending the adoption of the Partition Plan for Palestine. When the British Mandate of Palestine expired on 14 May 1948, and with the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, the surrounding Arab states, Egypt, Transjordan, Iraq and Syria invaded what had just ceased to be Mandatory Palestine, and immediately attacked Israeli forces and several Jewish settlements. The conflict then turned into the 1948 Arab–Israeli War."​
Fourth:  The prohibition against "mass nationalization" prohibits Israel _(the Occupying Power)_ from extending forced citizenship upon the Palestinians _(the occupied protected constituency)_.  It does not prohibit the Arab Palestinians, which exercised their right to self-determination, from establishing their own State, Nationality and Citizenship. 

Finally, the Israelis, in 1967, did not exile any Arab Palestinians.  There was a refugee migration during the Civil War (1947-48), and a migration during the War of Independence (1948-49).  But again, there are no standing refugees in the State of Palestine.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You always mix up your timeline.  And, you misrepresent what I've said.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arab Palestinians *not in place* on 15 May 1948 are NOT Israeli Citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what the law says. The Palestinians who's residence was inside what became Israel automatically became Israelis.
> 
> Being temporarily away from home does not change their place of residence.
> 
> 
> *III.*
> 
> 8.
> 
> 
> a. In all cases of State succession, the successor State shall grant its nationality to all nationals of the predecessor State residing permanently on the transferred territory.
> 
> b. Such nationality shall be granted without any discrimination in particular on the basis of ethnic origin, colour, religion, language or political opinions.
> 
> c. Those persons to whom this nationality has been granted shall enjoy perfect equality of treatment with the other nationals of the successor State.
> 
> 
> http://legislationline.org/documents/action/popup/id/7960
> 
> However, there is a different view.
> 
> *In occupied territories*
> The mass naturalization of native persons in occupied territories is illegal under the laws of war (Hague and Geneva Conventions)​Naturalization - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> So, if Israel is the successor state the Palestinians became Israelis.
> 
> If Israel occupies Palestine, (history points to this scenario) then the Palestinians are still Palestinians. It is illegal for the occupying power to exile natives from occupied territory.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First off, the DECLARATION ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF STATE SUCCESSION FOR THE NATIONALITY OF NATURAL PERSONS was adopted by the European Commission for Democracy through Law at its 28th Plenary Meeting, Venice, *13-14 September 1996;* that is 48 years after the Independence of Israel, more than a quarter century after the 1967 Six-Day War, 23 years after the 1973 Yom Kipper War, 17 years after the Israeli-Egyptian Peace Treaty (1979), and a year after the 1995 Peace Treaty with Jordan - and the Oslo I Accord.  Whatever you interpret it to say, *it is not retroactively applicable* to events prior to its adoption. You cannot apply a modern law to a historical event.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

You are always trying to confuse the people with irrelevance. The European Commission did not create this law it merely adopted existing law. I used this link for it clarity.

This concept was in article 123 of the Treaty of Sevres, article 30 in the Treaty of Lausanne, and in the Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925.

So why would you consider it retroactive?


----------



## Coyote

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You always mix up your timeline.  And, you misrepresent what I've said.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arab Palestinians *not in place* on 15 May 1948 are NOT Israeli Citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what the law says. The Palestinians who's residence was inside what became Israel automatically became Israelis.
> 
> Being temporarily away from home does not change their place of residence.
> 
> 
> *III.*
> 
> 8.
> 
> 
> a. In all cases of State succession, the successor State shall grant its nationality to all nationals of the predecessor State residing permanently on the transferred territory.
> 
> b. Such nationality shall be granted without any discrimination in particular on the basis of ethnic origin, colour, religion, language or political opinions.
> 
> c. Those persons to whom this nationality has been granted shall enjoy perfect equality of treatment with the other nationals of the successor State.
> 
> 
> http://legislationline.org/documents/action/popup/id/7960
> 
> However, there is a different view.
> 
> *In occupied territories*
> The mass naturalization of native persons in occupied territories is illegal under the laws of war (Hague and Geneva Conventions)​Naturalization - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> So, if Israel is the successor state the Palestinians became Israelis.
> 
> If Israel occupies Palestine, (history points to this scenario) then the Palestinians are still Palestinians. It is illegal for the occupying power to exile natives from occupied territory.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First off, the DECLARATION ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF STATE SUCCESSION FOR THE NATIONALITY OF NATURAL PERSONS was adopted by the European Commission for Democracy through Law at its 28th Plenary Meeting, Venice, *13-14 September 1996;* that is 48 years after the Independence of Israel, more than a quarter century after the 1967 Six-Day War, 23 years after the 1973 Yom Kipper War, 17 years after the Israeli-Egyptian Peace Treaty (1979), and a year after the 1995 Peace Treaty with Jordan - and the Oslo I Accord.  Whatever you interpret it to say, *it is not retroactively applicable* to events prior to its adoption. You cannot apply a modern law to a historical event.
> 
> Second, there are no refugee Arab Palestinians from Israel in either the West Bank or Gaza Strip.  Under Article 1C(3) of the UNHCR Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the "Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if: (3) He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the
> country of his new nationality."  In 1988, the sole representative of the Palestinian People, declared independence.  And the Arab Palestinians, no matter their point of origin, automatically became citizens of the State of Palestine.  _(Note:  This does not negate compensation, restitution, reparations, or tort civil claims.)  _This is without regard to the the UNRWA Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) currently being applied.
> 
> Third, the Jewish State of Israel did not exist until 15 MAY 1948.  Any Arab Palestinian living in Israel after that date assumes, automatically, Israeli citizenship.  Refugees that migrated prior to the establishment of the State cannot retroactively assume Israeli citizenship for a state that did not exist at that time prior.
> 
> "The *1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine* was the first phase of the 1948 Palestine war. It broke out after the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution on 29 November 1947 recommending the adoption of the Partition Plan for Palestine. When the British Mandate of Palestine expired on 14 May 1948, and with the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, the surrounding Arab states, Egypt, Transjordan, Iraq and Syria invaded what had just ceased to be Mandatory Palestine, and immediately attacked Israeli forces and several Jewish settlements. The conflict then turned into the 1948 Arab–Israeli War."​
> Fourth:  The prohibition against "mass nationalization" prohibits Israel _(the Occupying Power)_ from extending forced citizenship upon the Palestinians _(the occupied protected constituency)_.  It does not prohibit the Arab Palestinians, which exercised their right to self-determination, from establishing their own State, Nationality and Citizenship.
> 
> Finally, the Israelis, in 1967, did not exile any Arab Palestinians.  *There was a refugee migration during the Civil War (1947-48), and a migration during the War of Independence (1948-49).*  But again, there are no standing refugees in the State of Palestine.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


What you call a "refugee migration" was in part a deliberate driving out by Israeli's of Palestinians who then became "exiled".  This was not just a "migration" - it was a deliberate planned effort.


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Read what Abbas actually said.
> 
> 
> Wow.  What a hellacious spin put on this.
> 
> Abbas says seeking Palestinian state without settlements
> 
> What he said was "no settlements" - no enclaves of Israeli owned territory creating a non-contiguous state.  Not "no Jews". Not genocide.  Not ethnic cleansing.  Just no settlements.
> 
> 
> 
> No settlements = no Jews.  Plain as day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No settlements = no Israeli controlled islands, which are settlements.  Let's go  by what he says, not the anti-Pali spin.
> 
> Edited to add:
> 
> 
> Abbas Not a single Israeli in future Palestinian state
> _Abbas said that no Israeli settlers or border forces could remain in a future Palestinian state and that Palestinians deem illegal all Jewish settlement building within the land occupied in the 1967 Six Days War.
> 
> ...
> 
> On the future of Jewish settlements on the West Bank and the status of Jerusalem - among the most contentious issues facing the two sides - Abbas signaled no softening of his stance.
> 
> "We've already made all the necessary concessions," he said.
> 
> "East Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Palestine ... if there were and must be some kind of small exchange (of land) equal in size and value, we are ready to discuss this - no more, no less," he said._​In other words - he's talking about the issue of whether Israeli-controlled settlements are allowed to remain in a proposed future state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then that puts the "right of return" of the negotiations doesn't it as the Jews were forcibly removed from their property and had their goods stolen. That is were most of the settlements are placed, on Jewish owned land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when the settlements were built illegally in defiance of international law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it that you know about the illegal settlements built by arab muslims in Jerusalem then. But it still does not alter the fact that the settlements are built on Jewish land under a treaty signed with the P.A. called the Oslo accords 2. So how are the settlements illegal when they are covered by Treaty and the UN charter ?
Click to expand...


What illegal arab settlements in Jerusalem?

If Israel is an Occupying Power, which it is - then the settlements are not legal, correct?  Thus far they still seem to be an occupying power according to what Rocco said.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You always mix up your timeline.  And, you misrepresent what I've said.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arab Palestinians *not in place* on 15 May 1948 are NOT Israeli Citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what the law says. The Palestinians who's residence was inside what became Israel automatically became Israelis.
> 
> Being temporarily away from home does not change their place of residence.
> 
> 
> *III.*
> 
> 8.
> 
> 
> a. In all cases of State succession, the successor State shall grant its nationality to all nationals of the predecessor State residing permanently on the transferred territory.
> 
> b. Such nationality shall be granted without any discrimination in particular on the basis of ethnic origin, colour, religion, language or political opinions.
> 
> c. Those persons to whom this nationality has been granted shall enjoy perfect equality of treatment with the other nationals of the successor State.
> 
> 
> http://legislationline.org/documents/action/popup/id/7960
> 
> However, there is a different view.
> 
> *In occupied territories*
> The mass naturalization of native persons in occupied territories is illegal under the laws of war (Hague and Geneva Conventions)​Naturalization - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> So, if Israel is the successor state the Palestinians became Israelis.
> 
> If Israel occupies Palestine, (history points to this scenario) then the Palestinians are still Palestinians. It is illegal for the occupying power to exile natives from occupied territory.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 
> 
> Third, the Jewish State of Israel did not exist until 15 MAY 1948. * Any Arab Palestinian living in Israel after that date *assumes, automatically, Israeli citizenship.  Refugees that migrated prior to the establishment of the State cannot retroactively assume Israeli citizenship for a state that did not exist at that time prior.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

You are always trying to confuse the people with irrelevance. Presence in their homes is irrelevant. The defining criteria is normal residence.

Physical presence at any specific time does not matter. It is where they normally live.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al_,

Again, you are trying to confuse the issue.



P F Tinmore said:


> You are always trying to confuse the people with irrelevance. The European Commission did not create this law it merely adopted existing law. I used this link for it clarity.
> 
> This concept was in article 123 of the Treaty of Sevres, article 30 in the Treaty of Lausanne, and in the Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925.
> 
> So why would you consider it retroactive?


*(COMMENT)*

As it pertains to the Palestinians:

The Treaty of Sevres (unratified) spoke directly to the issue of Palestine (as determined by the Allied Powers), and the Successor Government was the Mandatory having control.  In this case, the issues of nationality and citizenship were covered by the Palestine Order in Council; as amended by the Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925.

The follow-on Treaty of Lausanne, did not speak directly to Palestine, as it was included in the territory of Syria, as amended by the Mandates (French and British).  It is also the case that the Successor Government was the Mandatories assigned.​
This did not change until 15 MAY 1948, when the Successor Government became the UN Palestine Commission.  By that time, the various populations of the territory had already been had already been granted Independence under the "right of self-determination" (or, in the case of Jordan - Sovereignty to Sovereignty), overtaking the Treaty of Lausanne, pursuant to Article 22 of the Covenant.  The Sovereignties of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Israel were no longer obligated to determinations or requirements under the Treaty.  They were their own sovereign entities.

*(VERY IMPORTANT)*

The Treaties mentioned, while historical in nature, do not supersede or create an estoppel to the exercise to the right of self-determination.  Nor is the treaty a universal law; applicable to all cases over an indefinite period.  The Treaty of Lausanne superseded the Treaty of Sevres; and was between the Allied Powers and the Government of Turkey _[(the people of the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied - were not a party to the Treaty and Israel is not a party to the Treaty --- in fact the parties to the Treaty are exclusive)(British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, and the "Serbo-Croat-Slovene" State on one part - and - Turkey on the other)]_.  The obligations, relative to nationality and citizenship _(Article 123 --- Treaty of Sevres (sic), and Article 30 --- Treaty of Lausanne (sic))_ have long since been met and concluded through means uncontested by the parties to the treaty. 

On the other hand, the DECLARATION ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF STATE SUCCESSION FOR THE NATIONALITY OF NATURAL PERSONS  is international law.  It is not a matter of whether the concepts are similar, it is a matter of who is obligated under the law and when.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

You are confusing the issue, not me. 



P F Tinmore said:


> You are always trying to confuse the people with irrelevance. Presence in their homes is irrelevant. The defining criteria is normal residence.
> 
> Physical presence at any specific time does not matter. It is where they normally live.


*(COMMENT)*

We are talking about "automatic" citizenship _(as I assume you wish to apply to the greater issue of refugee status and the "right of return)_. 


_*QUESTION:*_  What are you using as a basis for your "criteria is normal residence?"

If a person was in Israel at the time of the Declaration of Independence, THEN, it is "automatic" _(no questions asked)_.  If you are outside _(no matter the reason)_, then it is a "claim to citizenship" under Israeli Nationality and Citizenship laws.  And we were talking about the "automatic status," - "refugee status" - and the impact the assumption of Palestinian Citizenship _(State of Palestine) (and others)_ had on the determination.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al_,
> 
> Again, you are trying to confuse the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are always trying to confuse the people with irrelevance. The European Commission did not create this law it merely adopted existing law. I used this link for it clarity.
> 
> This concept was in article 123 of the Treaty of Sevres, article 30 in the Treaty of Lausanne, and in the Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925.
> 
> So why would you consider it retroactive?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As it pertains to the Palestinians:
> 
> The Treaty of Sevres (unratified) spoke directly to the issue of Palestine (as determined by the Allied Powers), and the Successor Government was the Mandatory having control.  In this case, the issues of nationality and citizenship were covered by the Palestine Order in Council; as amended by the Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925.
> 
> The follow-on Treaty of Lausanne, did not speak directly to Palestine, as it was included in the territory of Syria, as amended by the Mandates (French and British).  It is also the case that the Successor Government was the Mandatories assigned.​
> This did not change until 15 MAY 1948, when the Successor Government because the UN Palestine Commission.  By that time, the various populations of the territory had already been had already been granted Independence under the "right of self-determination" (or, in the case of Jordan - Sovereignty to Sovereignty), overtaking the Treaty of Lausanne, pursuant to Article 22 of the Covenant.  The Sovereignties of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Israel were no longer obligated to determinations or requirements under the Treaty.  They were their own sovereign entities.
> 
> *(VERY IMPORTANT)*
> 
> The Treaties mentioned, while historical in nature, do not supersede or create an estoppel to the exercise to the right of self-determination.  Nor is the treaty a universal law; applicable to all cases over an indefinite period.  The Treaty of Lausanne superseded the Treaty of Sevres; and was between the Allied Powers and the Government of Turkey _[(the people of the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied - were not a party to the Treaty and Israel is not a party to the Treaty --- in fact the parties to the Treaty are exclusive)(British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, and the "Serbo-Croat-Slovene" State on one part - and - Turkey on the other)]_.  The obligations, relative to nationality and citizenship _(Article 123 --- Treaty of Sevres (sic), and Article 30 --- Treaty of Lausanne (sic))_ have long since been met and concluded through means uncontested by the parties to the treaty.
> 
> On the other hand, the DECLARATION ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF STATE SUCCESSION FOR THE NATIONALITY OF NATURAL PERSONS  is international law.  It is not a matter of whether the concepts are similar, it is a matter of who is obligated under the law and when.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

*"Successor Government was the Mandatory having control."*​
But the mandate was not Palestine. The mandate was a temporary assignment to Palestine. Palestine existed separate from the mandate and continued to exist after the mandate left Palestine.

The Palestinians still had the inalienable right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity.

Israel was unilaterally declared in Palestine by foreigners. Neither the mandate nor the UN had anything to do with it.

This was a direct violation of the Palestinian's inalienable rights.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> You are confusing the issue, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are always trying to confuse the people with irrelevance. Presence in their homes is irrelevant. The defining criteria is normal residence.
> 
> Physical presence at any specific time does not matter. It is where they normally live.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> We are talking about "automatic" citizenship _(as I assume you wish to apply to the greater issue of refugee status and the "right of return)_.
> 
> 
> _*QUESTION:*_  What are you using as a basis for your "criteria is normal residence?"
> 
> If a person was in Israel at the time of the Declaration of Independence, THEN, it is "automatic" _(no questions asked)_.  If you are outside _(no matter the reason)_, then it is a "claim to citizenship" under Israeli Nationality and Citizenship laws.  And we were talking about the "automatic status," - "refugee status" - and the impact the assumption of Palestinian Citizenship _(State of Palestine) (and others)_ hand on the determination.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Normal residence is where you normally live. Being away from home for whatever reason does not change your place of residence.


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You always mix up your timeline.  And, you misrepresent what I've said.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arab Palestinians *not in place* on 15 May 1948 are NOT Israeli Citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what the law says. The Palestinians who's residence was inside what became Israel automatically became Israelis.
> 
> Being temporarily away from home does not change their place of residence.
> 
> 
> *III.*
> 
> 8.
> 
> 
> a. In all cases of State succession, the successor State shall grant its nationality to all nationals of the predecessor State residing permanently on the transferred territory.
> 
> b. Such nationality shall be granted without any discrimination in particular on the basis of ethnic origin, colour, religion, language or political opinions.
> 
> c. Those persons to whom this nationality has been granted shall enjoy perfect equality of treatment with the other nationals of the successor State.
> 
> 
> http://legislationline.org/documents/action/popup/id/7960
> 
> However, there is a different view.
> 
> *In occupied territories*
> The mass naturalization of native persons in occupied territories is illegal under the laws of war (Hague and Geneva Conventions)​Naturalization - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> So, if Israel is the successor state the Palestinians became Israelis.
> 
> If Israel occupies Palestine, (history points to this scenario) then the Palestinians are still Palestinians. It is illegal for the occupying power to exile natives from occupied territory.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First off, the DECLARATION ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF STATE SUCCESSION FOR THE NATIONALITY OF NATURAL PERSONS was adopted by the European Commission for Democracy through Law at its 28th Plenary Meeting, Venice, *13-14 September 1996;* that is 48 years after the Independence of Israel, more than a quarter century after the 1967 Six-Day War, 23 years after the 1973 Yom Kipper War, 17 years after the Israeli-Egyptian Peace Treaty (1979), and a year after the 1995 Peace Treaty with Jordan - and the Oslo I Accord.  Whatever you interpret it to say, *it is not retroactively applicable* to events prior to its adoption. You cannot apply a modern law to a historical event.
> 
> Second, there are no refugee Arab Palestinians from Israel in either the West Bank or Gaza Strip.  Under Article 1C(3) of the UNHCR Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the "Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if: (3) He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the
> country of his new nationality."  In 1988, the sole representative of the Palestinian People, declared independence.  And the Arab Palestinians, no matter their point of origin, automatically became citizens of the State of Palestine.  _(Note:  This does not negate compensation, restitution, reparations, or tort civil claims.)  _This is without regard to the the UNRWA Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) currently being applied.
> 
> Third, the Jewish State of Israel did not exist until 15 MAY 1948.  Any Arab Palestinian living in Israel after that date assumes, automatically, Israeli citizenship.  Refugees that migrated prior to the establishment of the State cannot retroactively assume Israeli citizenship for a state that did not exist at that time prior.
> 
> "The *1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine* was the first phase of the 1948 Palestine war. It broke out after the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution on 29 November 1947 recommending the adoption of the Partition Plan for Palestine. When the British Mandate of Palestine expired on 14 May 1948, and with the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, the surrounding Arab states, Egypt, Transjordan, Iraq and Syria invaded what had just ceased to be Mandatory Palestine, and immediately attacked Israeli forces and several Jewish settlements. The conflict then turned into the 1948 Arab–Israeli War."​
> Fourth:  The prohibition against "mass nationalization" prohibits Israel _(the Occupying Power)_ from extending forced citizenship upon the Palestinians _(the occupied protected constituency)_.  It does not prohibit the Arab Palestinians, which exercised their right to self-determination, from establishing their own State, Nationality and Citizenship.
> 
> Finally, the Israelis, in 1967, did not exile any Arab Palestinians.  *There was a refugee migration during the Civil War (1947-48), and a migration during the War of Independence (1948-49).*  But again, there are no standing refugees in the State of Palestine.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you call a "refugee migration" was in part a deliberate driving out by Israeli's of Palestinians who then became "exiled".  This was not just a "migration" - it was a deliberate planned effort.
Click to expand...

 
Very few palestinians were forced out by the Israelis in 47-48.  Arab news, radio and leaders told stories of what would happen to them in they stayed, they made promises of rewards after the Israelis were forced out or killed, They warned the palestinians to move out of the way to avoid be casualties so the arab armies could clear out the area of israeli/jews.
Of the arab villages that harbored fighters or engaged in terrorism against the Israelis, some of the were forced to leave.  Of the palestinians that stayed where stories of "atrocities" were spread by those from the outside, there have been clarifications by the arab Israelis denouncing that any abuse took place.  Stories of rape were proven to be propaganda.  Stories of mass executions were proven to be just more lies to incite the refugees or scare those wanting to return from trying to do so. 
What is little reported amongst all the abuses of palestinians is how many dies because Syrian tanks did not wait for the refugees to move off the roads, or how many palestinians were killed to prevent them reaching Syria, Jordan or Egypt.  You don't hear about the conditions they lived in as refugees in the host states.  You don't hear about how many are killed or jailed for criminal activity within those states.  You don't hear about the terrorist training not just of palestinians but of terrorist from around the world.  You don't hear about the gun and drug enterprises carried out by the palestinians.  Few really understand the atrocities carried out against the host states.  How many assassinations, massacres, bombings, attacks or even the internal fighting among the various factions within the camps or how they mistreat their own people.
People exaggerate the few villages where palestinians were forced to leave as a blanket policy planned and executed across what became Israel.  That was not the case.  Some of those villages had been involved in attacks of jews farm communities or were part of the attacks on relief convoys during the siege of Jerusalem.
Half the arab stayed and became part of Israel.  They enjoy more rights and privileges than most arabs to do in their own countries.  They participate in government.  They speak out.  They engage in peaceful protest.  They enjoy education and medical coverage.  They enjoy higher wages.  They can move freely within Israel.  They vote.  They have freedom of religion.  They are mostly connected to pubic works and if needed get social services.  They are free to travel outside the country, except to arab countries that do not recognize Israel.
Palestinians were asked to stay by the incoming Israeli government, but they chose to leave.  Israel has accepted a lot of palestinians back and offered to take in even more.  They won't take them all back of the generations of refugees with no no valid property claims.  The won't take back terrorists or those involved in activity against Israel.  They won't take back criminals.
Israel took in 800,000 refugees from around the MENA but those same countries would not take in palestinians refugees.
It is incorrect to blame Israel for forcing the palestinians to leave their homes when only a few were forced to move for hostilities or in some cases after the war to relocated because of public works, military, roads, etc.
At most a few thousand were "forced" to relocate.  There was not "force" that made 600,000 refugees leave the country.

There have been hundreds of books with documentation and references about what really happened.  There is only so much that has been used or scanned that is free on the internet.  There is always the library to get more information.  There are documentaries, TV and radio reports.  There are even articles in the arab press about how scare tactics were used to create falsely create the refugee problem and how the arab states have take decades to accept their part in the tragedy.  Information is there if you want to accept it, be it Israel, arab or western sources.
There are even papers, books and dissertations that can be accessed through university libraries that are not available for free on the net.

The lazy or ignorant person will expect others to do all the work to prove or disprove what they claim instead of do the the work themselves.  They use questionable sources, misinformation propaganda that took them a few seconds to copy and paste as fact on forums like this.  So much has been present to support certain claims by a particular side while others use lies and hate mongering instead.  Some offer reason and logic to explain or suggest options, while others make excuses, whine and attack others that try to offer up some balanced truths.

A few cases where things could have been dealt with in a better way does not a massive human rights abuse make.  The vast majority left at the urging of the arabs, out of a panic of uncertainty or they were scared into leaving by lies. The vast majority, not every single case among those 800,000 or so that became refugees listed by the UN.

1 out of a thousand or ten thousand does not a pattern make.

Even 1 out of an hundred does not suggest the other 99 should be included as proof of guilt that all palestinians were force by Israelis to leave.


----------



## P F Tinmore

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You always mix up your timeline.  And, you misrepresent what I've said.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arab Palestinians *not in place* on 15 May 1948 are NOT Israeli Citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what the law says. The Palestinians who's residence was inside what became Israel automatically became Israelis.
> 
> Being temporarily away from home does not change their place of residence.
> 
> 
> *III.*
> 
> 8.
> 
> 
> a. In all cases of State succession, the successor State shall grant its nationality to all nationals of the predecessor State residing permanently on the transferred territory.
> 
> b. Such nationality shall be granted without any discrimination in particular on the basis of ethnic origin, colour, religion, language or political opinions.
> 
> c. Those persons to whom this nationality has been granted shall enjoy perfect equality of treatment with the other nationals of the successor State.
> 
> 
> http://legislationline.org/documents/action/popup/id/7960
> 
> However, there is a different view.
> 
> *In occupied territories*
> The mass naturalization of native persons in occupied territories is illegal under the laws of war (Hague and Geneva Conventions)​Naturalization - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> So, if Israel is the successor state the Palestinians became Israelis.
> 
> If Israel occupies Palestine, (history points to this scenario) then the Palestinians are still Palestinians. It is illegal for the occupying power to exile natives from occupied territory.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First off, the DECLARATION ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF STATE SUCCESSION FOR THE NATIONALITY OF NATURAL PERSONS was adopted by the European Commission for Democracy through Law at its 28th Plenary Meeting, Venice, *13-14 September 1996;* that is 48 years after the Independence of Israel, more than a quarter century after the 1967 Six-Day War, 23 years after the 1973 Yom Kipper War, 17 years after the Israeli-Egyptian Peace Treaty (1979), and a year after the 1995 Peace Treaty with Jordan - and the Oslo I Accord.  Whatever you interpret it to say, *it is not retroactively applicable* to events prior to its adoption. You cannot apply a modern law to a historical event.
> 
> Second, there are no refugee Arab Palestinians from Israel in either the West Bank or Gaza Strip.  Under Article 1C(3) of the UNHCR Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the "Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if: (3) He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the
> country of his new nationality."  In 1988, the sole representative of the Palestinian People, declared independence.  And the Arab Palestinians, no matter their point of origin, automatically became citizens of the State of Palestine.  _(Note:  This does not negate compensation, restitution, reparations, or tort civil claims.)  _This is without regard to the the UNRWA Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) currently being applied.
> 
> Third, the Jewish State of Israel did not exist until 15 MAY 1948.  Any Arab Palestinian living in Israel after that date assumes, automatically, Israeli citizenship.  Refugees that migrated prior to the establishment of the State cannot retroactively assume Israeli citizenship for a state that did not exist at that time prior.
> 
> "The *1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine* was the first phase of the 1948 Palestine war. It broke out after the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution on 29 November 1947 recommending the adoption of the Partition Plan for Palestine. When the British Mandate of Palestine expired on 14 May 1948, and with the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, the surrounding Arab states, Egypt, Transjordan, Iraq and Syria invaded what had just ceased to be Mandatory Palestine, and immediately attacked Israeli forces and several Jewish settlements. The conflict then turned into the 1948 Arab–Israeli War."​
> Fourth:  The prohibition against "mass nationalization" prohibits Israel _(the Occupying Power)_ from extending forced citizenship upon the Palestinians _(the occupied protected constituency)_.  It does not prohibit the Arab Palestinians, which exercised their right to self-determination, from establishing their own State, Nationality and Citizenship.
> 
> Finally, the Israelis, in 1967, did not exile any Arab Palestinians.  *There was a refugee migration during the Civil War (1947-48), and a migration during the War of Independence (1948-49).*  But again, there are no standing refugees in the State of Palestine.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you call a "refugee migration" was in part a deliberate driving out by Israeli's of Palestinians who then became "exiled".  This was not just a "migration" - it was a deliberate planned effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very few palestinians were forced out by the Israelis in 47-48.  Arab news, radio and leaders told stories of what would happen to them in they stayed, they made promises of rewards after the Israelis were forced out or killed, They warned the palestinians to move out of the way to avoid be casualties so the arab armies could clear out the area of israeli/jews.
> Of the arab villages that harbored fighters or engaged in terrorism against the Israelis, some of the were forced to leave.  Of the palestinians that stayed where stories of "atrocities" were spread by those from the outside, there have been clarifications by the arab Israelis denouncing that any abuse took place.  Stories of rape were proven to be propaganda.  Stories of mass executions were proven to be just more lies to incite the refugees or scare those wanting to return from trying to do so.
> What is little reported amongst all the abuses of palestinians is how many dies because Syrian tanks did not wait for the refugees to move off the roads, or how many palestinians were killed to prevent them reaching Syria, Jordan or Egypt.  You don't hear about the conditions they lived in as refugees in the host states.  You don't hear about how many are killed or jailed for criminal activity within those states.  You don't hear about the terrorist training not just of palestinians but of terrorist from around the world.  You don't hear about the gun and drug enterprises carried out by the palestinians.  Few really understand the atrocities carried out against the host states.  How many assassinations, massacres, bombings, attacks or even the internal fighting among the various factions within the camps or how they mistreat their own people.
> People exaggerate the few villages where palestinians were forced to leave as a blanket policy planned and executed across what became Israel.  That was not the case.  Some of those villages had been involved in attacks of jews farm communities or were part of the attacks on relief convoys during the siege of Jerusalem.
> Half the arab stayed and became part of Israel.  They enjoy more rights and privileges than most arabs to do in their own countries.  They participate in government.  They speak out.  They engage in peaceful protest.  They enjoy education and medical coverage.  They enjoy higher wages.  They can move freely within Israel.  They vote.  They have freedom of religion.  They are mostly connected to pubic works and if needed get social services.  They are free to travel outside the country, except to arab countries that do not recognize Israel.
> Palestinians were asked to stay by the incoming Israeli government, but they chose to leave.  Israel has accepted a lot of palestinians back and offered to take in even more.  They won't take them all back of the generations of refugees with no no valid property claims.  The won't take back terrorists or those involved in activity against Israel.  They won't take back criminals.
> Israel took in 800,000 refugees from around the MENA but those same countries would not take in palestinians refugees.
> It is incorrect to blame Israel for forcing the palestinians to leave their homes when only a few were forced to move for hostilities or in some cases after the war to relocated because of public works, military, roads, etc.
> At most a few thousand were "forced" to relocate.  There was not "force" that made 600,000 refugees leave the country.
> 
> There have been hundreds of books with documentation and references about what really happened.  There is only so much that has been used or scanned that is free on the internet.  There is always the library to get more information.  There are documentaries, TV and radio reports.  There are even articles in the arab press about how scare tactics were used to create falsely create the refugee problem and how the arab states have take decades to accept their part in the tragedy.  Information is there if you want to accept it, be it Israel, arab or western sources.
> There are even papers, books and dissertations that can be accessed through university libraries that are not available for free on the net.
> 
> The lazy or ignorant person will expect others to do all the work to prove or disprove what they claim instead of do the the work themselves.  They use questionable sources, misinformation propaganda that took them a few seconds to copy and paste as fact on forums like this.  So much has been present to support certain claims by a particular side while others use lies and hate mongering instead.  Some offer reason and logic to explain or suggest options, while others make excuses, whine and attack others that try to offer up some balanced truths.
> 
> A few cases where things could have been dealt with in a better way does not a massive human rights abuse make.  The vast majority left at the urging of the arabs, out of a panic of uncertainty or they were scared into leaving by lies. The vast majority, not every single case among those 800,000 or so that became refugees listed by the UN.
> 
> 1 out of a thousand or ten thousand does not a pattern make.
> 
> Even 1 out of an hundred does not suggest the other 99 should be included as proof of guilt that all palestinians were force by Israelis to leave.
Click to expand...

Of course none of that changes someone's normal place of residence.


----------



## RoccoR

Coyote, _ et al,_

Not exactly!



Coyote said:


> If Israel is an Occupying Power, which it is - then the settlements are not legal, correct?  Thus far they still seem to be an occupying power according to what Rocco said.


*(COMMENT)*

The issue of Settlements are part of the Oslo Accords; the agreement between the State of Israel and the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated" _(the independent national authority under the command of the Palestine Liberation Organization)_.  

Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (AKA: Oslo I); A/48/486  S/26560  11 October 1993 
Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (AKA: Oslo II);  A/51/889 S/1997/357 5 May 1997

Under agreements, there is a couple key clauses relative to the "Permanent Status of Negotiations":  _(I don't understand why they titled it that - it just is.)_


"It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest."  (Article V - Oslo I)
 Jurisdiction of the Council will cover West Bank and Gaza Strip territory, except for issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations: Jerusalem, settlements, military locations and Israelis.  (Agreed Minutes to the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, Section B, Article IV)
In order to guarantee public order and internal security for the Palestinians of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the Council shall establish a strong police force as set out in Article XIV below. Israel shall continue to carry the responsibility for defense against external threats, including the responsibility for protecting the Egyptian and Jordanian borders, and for defense against external threats from thesea and from the air, as well as the responsibility for overall security of Israelis and Settlements, for the purpose of safeguarding their internal security and public order, and will have all the powers to take the steps necessary to meet this responsibility. (Para 1 ARTICLE XII - Arrangements for Security and Public Order - Oslo II)
For the purpose of this Agreement, "the Settlements" means, in the West Bank - the settlements in Area C; and in the Gaza Strip - the Gush Katif and Erez settlement areas, as well as the other settlements in the Gaza Strip, as shown on attached map No. 2.  (Para 5 ARTICLE XII - Arrangements for Security and Public Order - Oslo II)

As one can discern, the Oslo Accords have a major impact on the issue of Settlements (Article IV to Annex III, Oslo II).

In accordance with the DOP, in Area C, the Council will have functional jurisdiction with regard to the powers and responsibilities transferred pursuant to this Annex. This jurisdiction shall not apply to issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations, as set out in Article XVII, paragraph 1 of this Agreement.



The transfer of powers and responsibilities in Area C shall not affect Israel's continued authority to exercise its powers and responsibilities with regard to internal security and public order, as well as with regard to other powers and responsibilities not transferred.
So, no --- I'm not saying the Settlements are illegal.  What I'm saying is that there is a basis for which the Settlement exist and that the Palestinians have a recourse:

Article X - Oslo I

JOINT ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN LIAISON COMMITTEE

In order to provide for a smooth implementation of this Declaration of Principles and any subsequent agreements pertaining to the interim period, upon the entry into force of this Declaration of Principles, a Joint Israeli-Palestinian Liaison Committee will be established in order to deal with issues requiring coordination, other issues of common interest and disputes.​
ARTICLE XXI - OSLO II

Settlement of Differences and Disputes

Any difference relating to the application of this Agreement shall be referred to the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism established under this Agreement. The provisions of Article XV of the DOP shall apply to any such difference which is not settled through the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism, namely:

1.Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Agreement or any related agreements pertaining to the interim shall be settled through the Liaison Committee.

2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be settled by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed between the Parties.

3. The Parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both Parties, the Parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

This is merely your interpretation.



P F Tinmore said:


> But the mandate was not Palestine. The mandate was a temporary assignment to Palestine. Palestine existed separate from the mandate and continued to exist after the mandate left Palestine.


*(COMMENT)*

Palestine was a designation assigned by the Allied Powers at the San Remo Convention (SRC) and Codified by the Palestine Order in Council.  (POiC)


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

The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognized as independent States, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. *The boundaries of the said States will be determined, and the selection of the Mandatories made, by the Principal Allied Powers.*  (SRC)

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, *within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers,* to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.



P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians still had the inalienable right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity.


*(COMMENT)*

The concept of "inalienable right to self determination without external interference" applies just as much to the Jewish People, as it does to the Arab People.  This clinging to the "inalienable right to self determination without external interference" is heavily over used by the Hostile Arab Palestinian.  Remember, it is not exclusive right.

In regards to "right to territorial integrity" --- in the time frame in which we are speaking, the "territorial integrity" was the province of the Successor Government to the Ottoman/Turkish Government.  That was also established at the San Remo Convention.  The territory was remanded into the custody of the Mandatory:

The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power. (SRC)
The territorial integrity was not in the providence of the indigenous population; pursuant to the instructions of the Allied Power to which the territory was surrendered.  



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel was unilaterally declared in Palestine by foreigners. Neither the mandate nor the UN had anything to do with it.
> 
> This was a direct violation of the Palestinian's inalienable rights.


*(COMMENT)*

This is totally wrong.  Jewish Agency, under the lead of the UN Palestine Commission --- "guided in its activities by the recommendations of the General Assembly and by such instructions as the Security Council may consider necessary to issue" assisted in the accomplishment of all the "Step Preparatory to Independence" outlined in Resolution 181(II).  It was not a unilateral move on the part of the Jewish Agency.  

The measures taken by the Commission, within the recommendations of the General Assembly, shall become immediately effective unless the Commission has previously received contrary instructions from the Security Council.
There was no unilateralism about it.

The text of this resolution was communicated by the Secretary-General on 9 January to the Government of the United Kingdom, as the Mandatory Power, to the Arab Higher Committee, and to the Jewish Agency for Palestine. The invitation extended by the resolution was promptly accepted by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, both of which designated representatives to assist the commission. The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”​The process of going through the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" formally began in January 1948. 

There was no violation to the "Palestinian's inalienable rights."  The "Arab League" declined to participate.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

> The concept of "inalienable right to self determination without external interference" applies just as much to the Jewish People, as it does to the Arab People.



Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> The territory was remanded into the *custody* of the Mandatory:



A custodian oversees something for somebody else. That is not an ownership position.

Palestine and the mandate were two separate entities. Palestine existed after the end of the mandate.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> The concept of "inalienable right to self determination without external interference" applies just as much to the Jewish People, as it does to the Arab People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


Seems like whenever you get yourself backed against a wall after losing the debate, *again*, you start asking for links for something ridiculous like this.
Rocco has provided plenty of links to back up his statements. 

You always run around talking about inalienable rights for Palestinians. What makes you think it doesn't apply for Jews either?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The territory was remanded into the *custody* of the Mandatory:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A custodian oversees something for somebody else. That is not an ownership position.
> 
> Palestine and the mandate were two separate entities. Palestine existed after the end of the mandate.
Click to expand...


Link ?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Sometimes I think you do this to test me.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The concept of "inalienable right to self determination without external interference" applies just as much to the Jewish People, as it does to the Arab People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

*(REFERENCES)*

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

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

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

*HUMAN RIGHTS, THE RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION AND THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM - International Journal of Peace Studies - George Mason University*
All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Why is the peoples’ right of self-determination emphasized to this extent? Because if the right of self-determination of people as a group is not secured, then the basic right of each individual in the group will not be secured.

*Self-determination UNREPRESENTED NATIONS AND PEOPLES ORGANIZATION (UNPO)*
All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.


*Legal Aspects of Self-Determination - The Princeton Encyclopedia of Self-determination - Princeton University*
Self-determination was addressed, if not necessarily clarified, ten years later in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations ("Declaration on Friendly Relations").  This declaration is believed by many legal commentators to reflect customary international law, and it remains the most authoritative statement on the meaning of self-determination.

The Declaration on Friendly Relations reiterates that "all peoples" have the right to self-determination and identifies two purposes which will achieved by its realization: 1) promoting friendly relations and co-operation among States and 2) bringing a speedy end to colonialism. No definition of peoples is offered, and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state. The resolution reaffirms that self-determination may be achieved through independence, free association, or integration, as well as through "the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people."

*(QUESTION)*

Under what theory would the "right of self-determination" not apply equally to Israel?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

You got one right!



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The territory was remanded into the *custody* of the Mandatory:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A custodian oversees something for somebody else. That is not an ownership position.
> 
> Palestine and the mandate were two separate entities. Palestine existed after the end of the mandate.
Click to expand...

*(REFERENCE)*

PAL/138 27 February 1948  UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT 
"The Government of the United Kingdom, in a memorandum on the "Legal Meaning of the Termination of the Mandate", has advised the United Nations Palestine Commission that so fas the Mandatory Power is concerned the United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine after 15 May 1948." 



"Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.

"After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.

"Where the sovereignty of Palestine lies at the present time is a disputed and perhaps academic legal question about which writers have expressed a number of different conclusions. Where the sovereignty of Palestine will lie after the 15th May, 1948, is perhaps also a question on which different views will be held, but so far as His Majesty's Government are aware, it is a question which it is unnecessary to answer in connection with any practical issues."After the 15th May, 1948, the United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine. It does not seem very material whether it is considered to be the de facto or the de jure Government. In any case, its title to be the Government of Palestine will rest on the resolution of the General Assembly.
*(COMMENT)*

After the Mandate terminated, the Successor Government for Palestine _(as defined in the Palestine Order in Council)_ transferred to the the UN Palestine Commission under Article 77(1a), Chapter XII, of the UN Charter as a non-self-governing "legal entity" formerly under the Mandate Program; pursuant to Part I, Section B, GA/RES/181(II) wherein:

1. A Commission shall be set up consisting of one representative of each of five Member States. The Members represented on the Commission shall be elected by the General Assembly on as broad a basis, geographically and otherwise, as possible.

2. The administration of Palestine shall, as the mandatory Power withdraws its armed forces, be progressively turned over to the Commission; which shall act in conformity with the recommendations of the General Assembly, under the guidance of the Security Council. The mandatory Power shall to the fullest possible extent co-ordinate its plans for withdrawal with the plans of the Commission to take over and administer areas which have been evacuated.​Ownership is a real-estate term.  It has nothing to do with sovereignty or government.  I have ownership of my home, but the territory is under sovereign control of the United States.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## gtopa1

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No settlements = no Jews.  Plain as day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No settlements = no Israeli controlled islands, which are settlements.  Let's go  by what he says, not the anti-Pali spin.
> 
> Edited to add:
> 
> 
> Abbas Not a single Israeli in future Palestinian state
> _Abbas said that no Israeli settlers or border forces could remain in a future Palestinian state and that Palestinians deem illegal all Jewish settlement building within the land occupied in the 1967 Six Days War.
> 
> ...
> 
> On the future of Jewish settlements on the West Bank and the status of Jerusalem - among the most contentious issues facing the two sides - Abbas signaled no softening of his stance.
> 
> "We've already made all the necessary concessions," he said.
> 
> "East Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Palestine ... if there were and must be some kind of small exchange (of land) equal in size and value, we are ready to discuss this - no more, no less," he said._​In other words - he's talking about the issue of whether Israeli-controlled settlements are allowed to remain in a proposed future state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then that puts the "right of return" of the negotiations doesn't it as the Jews were forcibly removed from their property and had their goods stolen. That is were most of the settlements are placed, on Jewish owned land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when the settlements were built illegally in defiance of international law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it that you know about the illegal settlements built by arab muslims in Jerusalem then. But it still does not alter the fact that the settlements are built on Jewish land under a treaty signed with the P.A. called the Oslo accords 2. So how are the settlements illegal when they are covered by Treaty and the UN charter ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What illegal arab settlements in Jerusalem?
> 
> If Israel is an Occupying Power, which it is - then the settlements are not legal, correct?  Thus far they still seem to be an occupying power according to what Rocco said.
Click to expand...


Read the Levy Commission report you dopey twit!!

Greg


----------



## Mindful

I wonder if the Arab Palestinians see themselves as a separate nation within the Arab world.


----------



## Mindful

How can one occupy something which doesn't exist?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Sometimes I think you do this to test me.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The concept of "inalienable right to self determination without external interference" applies just as much to the Jewish People, as it does to the Arab People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(REFERENCES)*
> 
> *Self determination (international law)  Legal Information Institute - Cornell University Law School*
> _Self-determination_ denotes the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order.  Self-determination is a core principle of international law, arising from customary international law, but also recognized as a general principle of law, and enshrined in a number of international treaties.  For instance, self-determination is protected in the United Nations Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a right of “all peoples.”
> 
> The scope and purpose of the principle of self-determination has evolved significantly in the 20th century.  In the early 1900’s, international support grew for the right of all people to self-determination.  This led to successful secessionist movements during and after WWI, WWII and laid the groundwork for decolonization in the 1960s.
> 
> Contemporary notions of self-determination usually distinguish between “internal” and “external” self-determination, suggesting that "self-determination" exists on a spectrum. _Internal self-determination_ may refer to various political and social rights; by contrast, _external self-determination_ refers to full legal independence/secession for the given 'people' from the larger politico-legal state.
> 
> *HUMAN RIGHTS, THE RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION AND THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM - International Journal of Peace Studies - George Mason University*
> All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> Why is the peoples’ right of self-determination emphasized to this extent? Because if the right of self-determination of people as a group is not secured, then the basic right of each individual in the group will not be secured.
> 
> *Self-determination UNREPRESENTED NATIONS AND PEOPLES ORGANIZATION (UNPO)*
> All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> 
> *Legal Aspects of Self-Determination - The Princeton Encyclopedia of Self-determination - Princeton University*
> Self-determination was addressed, if not necessarily clarified, ten years later in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations ("Declaration on Friendly Relations").  This declaration is believed by many legal commentators to reflect customary international law, and it remains the most authoritative statement on the meaning of self-determination.
> 
> The Declaration on Friendly Relations reiterates that "all peoples" have the right to self-determination and identifies two purposes which will achieved by its realization: 1) promoting friendly relations and co-operation among States and 2) bringing a speedy end to colonialism. No definition of peoples is offered, and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state. The resolution reaffirms that self-determination may be achieved through independence, free association, or integration, as well as through "the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people."
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> *Under what theory would the "right of self-determination" not apply equally to Israel?*
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Good post, thanks.
"...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state."
And then there is:
No definition of peoples is offered,..​Well they do, kind of. Look at the definition of people.

Person is singular.
People is plural.
Peoples is a plural plural.
A people is a singular plural.

A people is a group of people who have common characteristics. Peoples can be defined by geographical location. The French are a people. The British are a people. The Palestinians are a people. All of these are within defined territories and are naturals for self determination within a country or state.

Then there are people who have other defining characteristics, like race, color, or religion. These are distributed throughout the world and do not lend themselves suitable for statehood. In fact segregation according to these characteristics is viewed as undesirable in the civilized world.

As they say:
"...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state."​
You asked. That is my answer.​


----------



## RoccoR

Mindful,  _et al,_

In a manner of speaking --- yes.  In March 2013 _(just over a year ago)_, Khaled Meshal, Political Leader of HAMAS, published a major Position Paper  to explain its political positions.



Mindful said:


> I wonder if the Arab Palestinians see themselves as a separate nation within the Arab world.


*(COMMENT)*

It is the HAMAS position that "Palestine - all of Palestine _(from the river to the sea)_ - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation" --- "is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland."  HAMAS views the Palestinian people and the territory as an Arab and Islamic nation.

It is the HAMAS position _(Position Point #3: Under the Heading HAMAS: The Palestine Issue)_ that the State of Israel has no legitimacy and that HAMAS does not recognize the "presence on any part of Palestine."  As far as HAMAS is concerned, the entire State of Israel is an occupation of Palestinian territory; the liberation of which is a national duty for the Palestinian People.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Coyote

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You always mix up your timeline.  And, you misrepresent what I've said.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arab Palestinians *not in place* on 15 May 1948 are NOT Israeli Citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what the law says. The Palestinians who's residence was inside what became Israel automatically became Israelis.
> 
> Being temporarily away from home does not change their place of residence.
> 
> 
> *III.*
> 
> 8.
> 
> 
> a. In all cases of State succession, the successor State shall grant its nationality to all nationals of the predecessor State residing permanently on the transferred territory.
> 
> b. Such nationality shall be granted without any discrimination in particular on the basis of ethnic origin, colour, religion, language or political opinions.
> 
> c. Those persons to whom this nationality has been granted shall enjoy perfect equality of treatment with the other nationals of the successor State.
> 
> 
> http://legislationline.org/documents/action/popup/id/7960
> 
> However, there is a different view.
> 
> *In occupied territories*
> The mass naturalization of native persons in occupied territories is illegal under the laws of war (Hague and Geneva Conventions)​Naturalization - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> So, if Israel is the successor state the Palestinians became Israelis.
> 
> If Israel occupies Palestine, (history points to this scenario) then the Palestinians are still Palestinians. It is illegal for the occupying power to exile natives from occupied territory.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First off, the DECLARATION ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF STATE SUCCESSION FOR THE NATIONALITY OF NATURAL PERSONS was adopted by the European Commission for Democracy through Law at its 28th Plenary Meeting, Venice, *13-14 September 1996;* that is 48 years after the Independence of Israel, more than a quarter century after the 1967 Six-Day War, 23 years after the 1973 Yom Kipper War, 17 years after the Israeli-Egyptian Peace Treaty (1979), and a year after the 1995 Peace Treaty with Jordan - and the Oslo I Accord.  Whatever you interpret it to say, *it is not retroactively applicable* to events prior to its adoption. You cannot apply a modern law to a historical event.
> 
> Second, there are no refugee Arab Palestinians from Israel in either the West Bank or Gaza Strip.  Under Article 1C(3) of the UNHCR Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the "Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if: (3) He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the
> country of his new nationality."  In 1988, the sole representative of the Palestinian People, declared independence.  And the Arab Palestinians, no matter their point of origin, automatically became citizens of the State of Palestine.  _(Note:  This does not negate compensation, restitution, reparations, or tort civil claims.)  _This is without regard to the the UNRWA Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) currently being applied.
> 
> Third, the Jewish State of Israel did not exist until 15 MAY 1948.  Any Arab Palestinian living in Israel after that date assumes, automatically, Israeli citizenship.  Refugees that migrated prior to the establishment of the State cannot retroactively assume Israeli citizenship for a state that did not exist at that time prior.
> 
> "The *1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine* was the first phase of the 1948 Palestine war. It broke out after the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution on 29 November 1947 recommending the adoption of the Partition Plan for Palestine. When the British Mandate of Palestine expired on 14 May 1948, and with the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, the surrounding Arab states, Egypt, Transjordan, Iraq and Syria invaded what had just ceased to be Mandatory Palestine, and immediately attacked Israeli forces and several Jewish settlements. The conflict then turned into the 1948 Arab–Israeli War."​
> Fourth:  The prohibition against "mass nationalization" prohibits Israel _(the Occupying Power)_ from extending forced citizenship upon the Palestinians _(the occupied protected constituency)_.  It does not prohibit the Arab Palestinians, which exercised their right to self-determination, from establishing their own State, Nationality and Citizenship.
> 
> Finally, the Israelis, in 1967, did not exile any Arab Palestinians.  *There was a refugee migration during the Civil War (1947-48), and a migration during the War of Independence (1948-49).*  But again, there are no standing refugees in the State of Palestine.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you call a "refugee migration" was in part a deliberate driving out by Israeli's of Palestinians who then became "exiled".  This was not just a "migration" - it was a deliberate planned effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very few palestinians were forced out by the Israelis in 47-48.  Arab news, radio and leaders told stories of what would happen to them in they stayed, they made promises of rewards after the Israelis were forced out or killed, They warned the palestinians to move out of the way to avoid be casualties so the arab armies could clear out the area of israeli/jews.
> Of the arab villages that harbored fighters or engaged in terrorism against the Israelis, some of the were forced to leave.  Of the palestinians that stayed where stories of "atrocities" were spread by those from the outside, there have been clarifications by the arab Israelis denouncing that any abuse took place.  Stories of rape were proven to be propaganda.  Stories of mass executions were proven to be just more lies to incite the refugees or scare those wanting to return from trying to do so.
> What is little reported amongst all the abuses of palestinians is how many dies because Syrian tanks did not wait for the refugees to move off the roads, or how many palestinians were killed to prevent them reaching Syria, Jordan or Egypt.  You don't hear about the conditions they lived in as refugees in the host states.  You don't hear about how many are killed or jailed for criminal activity within those states.  You don't hear about the terrorist training not just of palestinians but of terrorist from around the world.  You don't hear about the gun and drug enterprises carried out by the palestinians.  Few really understand the atrocities carried out against the host states.  How many assassinations, massacres, bombings, attacks or even the internal fighting among the various factions within the camps or how they mistreat their own people.
> People exaggerate the few villages where palestinians were forced to leave as a blanket policy planned and executed across what became Israel.  That was not the case.  Some of those villages had been involved in attacks of jews farm communities or were part of the attacks on relief convoys during the siege of Jerusalem.
> Half the arab stayed and became part of Israel.  They enjoy more rights and privileges than most arabs to do in their own countries.  They participate in government.  They speak out.  They engage in peaceful protest.  They enjoy education and medical coverage.  They enjoy higher wages.  They can move freely within Israel.  They vote.  They have freedom of religion.  They are mostly connected to pubic works and if needed get social services.  They are free to travel outside the country, except to arab countries that do not recognize Israel.
> Palestinians were asked to stay by the incoming Israeli government, but they chose to leave.  Israel has accepted a lot of palestinians back and offered to take in even more.  They won't take them all back of the generations of refugees with no no valid property claims.  The won't take back terrorists or those involved in activity against Israel.  They won't take back criminals.
> Israel took in 800,000 refugees from around the MENA but those same countries would not take in palestinians refugees.
> It is incorrect to blame Israel for forcing the palestinians to leave their homes when only a few were forced to move for hostilities or in some cases after the war to relocated because of public works, military, roads, etc.
> At most a few thousand were "forced" to relocate.  There was not "force" that made 600,000 refugees leave the country.
> 
> There have been hundreds of books with documentation and references about what really happened.  There is only so much that has been used or scanned that is free on the internet.  There is always the library to get more information.  There are documentaries, TV and radio reports.  There are even articles in the arab press about how scare tactics were used to create falsely create the refugee problem and how the arab states have take decades to accept their part in the tragedy.  Information is there if you want to accept it, be it Israel, arab or western sources.
> There are even papers, books and dissertations that can be accessed through university libraries that are not available for free on the net.
> 
> *The lazy or ignorant person will expect others to do all the work to prove or disprove what they claim instead of do the the work themselves.  They use questionable sources, misinformation propaganda that took them a few seconds to copy and paste as fact on forums like this.*  So much has been present to support certain claims by a particular side while others use lies and hate mongering instead.  Some offer reason and logic to explain or suggest options, while others make excuses, whine and attack others that try to offer up some balanced truths.
> 
> A few cases where things could have been dealt with in a better way does not a massive human rights abuse make.  The vast majority left at the urging of the arabs, out of a panic of uncertainty or they were scared into leaving by lies. The vast majority, not every single case among those 800,000 or so that became refugees listed by the UN.
> 
> 1 out of a thousand or ten thousand does not a pattern make.
> 
> Even 1 out of an hundred does not suggest the other 99 should be included as proof of guilt that all palestinians were force by Israelis to leave.
Click to expand...


Bull.  I used perfectly good sources to show that there was a deliberate and well orchestrated attempt to force Palestinians out by the Israeli's and it was not simply because they were "hostile" - the source I used based it on government documents.   You seem to label sources that disagree with you "misinformation propaganda" and in turn use your own questionable sources.


----------



## aris2chat

Mindful said:


> I wonder if the Arab Palestinians see themselves as a separate nation within the Arab world.



They have begun to but it did not start that way.  They used to just think if themselves as arab, syrian or jordanian. The second generation of of refugees identified more with the term palestinian.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

The "right of self-determination" falls within a special category of conceptual understandings.  When I was in college, they had a very complex definition for it; but in this case, I like the "wikipedia" description the best.  It is a case that of "indeterminacy."

*Indeterminacy*
Indeterminacy, in philosophy, can refer both to common scientific and mathematical concepts of uncertainty and their implications 
and to another kind of indeterminacy deriving from the nature of definition or meaning. It is related to deconstructionism and to 
Nietzsche's criticism of the Kantian noumenon.​
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminacy_(philosophy)​


P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> Under what theory would the "right of self-determination" not apply equally to Israel?
> 
> 
> 
> Good post, thanks.
> "...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state."
> And then there is:
> No definition of peoples is offered,..​Well they do, kind of. Look at the definition of people.
> 
> Person is singular.
> People is plural.
> Peoples is a plural plural.
> A people is a singular plural.
> 
> A people is a group of people who have common characteristics. Peoples can be defined by geographical location. The French are a people. The British are a people. The Palestinians are a people. All of these are within defined territories and are naturals for self determination within a country or state.
> 
> Then there are people who have other defining characteristics, like race, color, or religion. These are distributed throughout the world and do not lend themselves suitable for statehood. In fact segregation according to these characteristics is viewed as undesirable in the civilized world.
> 
> As they say:
> "...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state."​You asked. That is my answer.​
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The hidden beauty of an "indeterminacy" is much like the "Heisenberg uncertainty principle;" in quantum mechanics holding that increasing the accuracy of measurement of one observable quantity increases the uncertainty _[(energy and position) and (momentum within a quantum system) cannot both be accurately measured simultaneously)]_.  In the case of the "right of self-determination" the "right" of the Jewish People and the "right" of the Arab People cannot both be evaluated simultaneously without causing some injury to one or the other _(it is indeterminate)_.  Thus any argument made --- which is based --- on the "right of self-determination" for either side is inconclusive.  The "rights" cancel each other out because they cannot be applied individually without prejudice to the other.

One can argue that "...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state;" one can also say that that neither of the purposes precludes the establishment of "an ethnically distinct people with a state" as a possible outcome.  This would be especially possible since the intent, at the very outset, was to establish a National Homeland and that these national aspirations _(goals in common)_ were recognized by the Arab and Jewish Leadership at the outset _(Faisal-Weizmann Agreement of 1919)_.  Both sides understood that the "racial kindship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realising that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations, is through the closest possible, collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MJB12741

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The "right of self-determination" falls within a special category of conceptual understandings.  When I was in college, they had a very complex definition for it; but in this case, I like the "wikipedia" description the best.  It is a case that of "indeterminacy."
> 
> *Indeterminacy*
> Indeterminacy, in philosophy, can refer both to common scientific and mathematical concepts of uncertainty and their implications
> and to another kind of indeterminacy deriving from the nature of definition or meaning. It is related to deconstructionism and to
> Nietzsche's criticism of the Kantian noumenon.​
> Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminacy_(philosophy)​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> Under what theory would the "right of self-determination" not apply equally to Israel?
> 
> 
> 
> Good post, thanks.
> "...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state."
> And then there is:
> No definition of peoples is offered,..​Well they do, kind of. Look at the definition of people.
> 
> Person is singular.
> People is plural.
> Peoples is a plural plural.
> A people is a singular plural.
> 
> A people is a group of people who have common characteristics. Peoples can be defined by geographical location. The French are a people. The British are a people. The Palestinians are a people. All of these are within defined territories and are naturals for self determination within a country or state.
> 
> Then there are people who have other defining characteristics, like race, color, or religion. These are distributed throughout the world and do not lend themselves suitable for statehood. In fact segregation according to these characteristics is viewed as undesirable in the civilized world.
> 
> As they say:
> "...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state."​You asked. That is my answer.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The hidden beauty of an "indeterminacy" is much like the "Heisenberg uncertainty principle;" in quantum mechanics holding that increasing the accuracy of measurement of one observable quantity increases the uncertainty _[(energy and position) and (momentum within a quantum system) cannot both be accurately measured simultaneously)]_.  In the case of the "right of self-determination" the "right" of the Jewish People and the "right" of the Arab People cannot both be evaluated simultaneously without causing some injury to one or the other _(it is indeterminate)_.  Thus any argument made --- which is based --- on the "right of self-determination" for either side is inconclusive.  The "rights" cancel each other out because they cannot be applied individually without prejudice to the other.
> 
> One can argue that "...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state;" one can also say that that neither of the purposes precludes the establishment of "an ethnically distinct people with a state" as a possible outcome.  This would be especially possible since the intent, at the very outset, was to establish a National Homeland and that these national aspirations _(goals in common)_ were recognized by the Arab and Jewish Leadership at the outset _(Faisal-Weizmann Agreement of 1919)_.  Both sides understood that the "racial kindship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realising that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations, is through the closest possible, collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


I believe the right of "self determination" could be appllied to both sides if some surrounding Arab country wiould grant the Palestinians their own Palestinian State.  However, knowing the Palestinians like they do, I doubt this will ever happen.


----------



## aris2chat

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The territory was remanded into the *custody* of the Mandatory:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A custodian oversees something for somebody else. That is not an ownership position.
> 
> Palestine and the mandate were two separate entities. Palestine existed after the end of the mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link ?
Click to expand...


When you see a text in blue, that is a link.  Roc has never been short on proof of facts.  He always is quoting documents and text from other sources.  His comments are to present those facts in proper context.
Do you even read what he posts or just expect everyone else to do the research for you that you swiftly dismiss off hand.  A book could be written on the evidence he has presented in the last year, or a very good start to the research required to write such a book.

Unfortunately most of what you have brought is complaints or basically  calling others liars.  If you don't want to hear and understand the answers, don't ask the question.  Most people on this forum would do better to come with more curiosity rather than shoveling canned propaganda from "arab" sites.  Be willing to learn.  Too often people with a chip on their shoulder have little direct experience and their chip is based on personal bias or lies that have they have too long accepted as facts.

It is one thing to be upset about too many civilian casualties and another to blame all the deaths were intentionally planned.  When palestinians attack within Israel and aim at civilians you act like they were accidents or so insignificant as to be dismissed as anomalies.  When muslims attack people doing nothing more than sightseeing or even praying and are pelted with rocks and molotov cocktails or setting smoke fires at their own "holy" sites you make it into a justified defense.  How is dropping rocks, not even tiny pebbles, on the heads of jews down below self defense?  Far too often rocks kill.  It is not like a water balloon or a bucket or feathers are being dropped as a sign of protest.  Muslims have not right, and are even going against the teaching of the quran, to object or prevent those of the book from praying to "the one god".  Mohammed change the qibla away from that used by jews and christians to one that more arabs could identify with.  Mohammed basically surrendered Jerusalem to jews and christians and gave muslims a place all their own, so they would not feel like step children that were not welcomed into the family.  Mohammed was familiar enough with jerusalem, but never mentioned by name or location the far mosque in his dream.
Mohammed was giving the arab their own path to Allah and not making them walk in the foot steps of jews and christians.  Ironically, at Mecca where there had been 365 different god that brought in pilgrims from around the region, the ritual practiced at the kaaba is little changed from those times.

Muslims do not have a right to force their faith on others not attack other practicing their faith.  The cleaning of the mount and building of the framework of what is now the dome was done to bring in more pilgrims not to  prevent pilgrimages to the mount or to make it exclusively a place of muslim prayer.  People of other faiths are allowed into mosques elsewhere around the world, with the exception of mecca, if they remove their shoes and women use a scarf to place over their head, not to  totally hide their hair like a hijab of today does.  Most people out of respect use a lace veil, scarf or handkerchief to cover their heads when visiting a catholic church, or they used to in my day.  My grandmother was deeply catholic but she loved to travel and visit every type of religious site around the world.  To her they were all houses of god(s) and she would sit and soak in the feeling and even say a pray quietly as if god would hear it more clearly than if she was sitting at a bus stop in a major city.  Thought she would pray there too while waiting for the bus.  All places of worship should be open.  If needed such places can be cleared or moved to just outside the doors during ceremonies or services and visitors can reenter when the service is over.  Some churches might just ask for the tourist to sit quietly in the back if they want to observe as long as they do not interfere with those praying, being married, memorials, etc.

The waqf manage the buildings on the mount but the mount is itself is under Israeli control.  It was out of respect that Israel let the religious activity continue, but there is not reason to be rude or hostile to those visiting.  So perhaps large groups of tourist don't actually enter in prayer hall at al-Aqsa, but the should welcome other that want to see and learn about Islam, to witness it a the religion of peace that most claim it is.  To enjoy the beauty and tranquility of the sites.  Such visits dispels rumors and fosters more understanding and brotherhood.  Islam should not be treated as some secretive cult that hides in shadows.  Muslims pray in the streets, they can pray anywhere, almost.  Why should their buildings be forbidden to outsiders?

Even synagogues permit visitors and in the reform, spouses who are not jewish to observe services. 

The riots and threats by muslims over the mount is just a pretext to another violent conflict that will cost more palestinian lives and rally other muslims against Israel.  To start a muslim crusade to take back not just jerusalem but all of Israel.  To incite a genocide of jews in the region and even around the world.

Jews in the past avoided the mount, not because it was forbidden by muslims but rather so they did not set food on the place where the holy of holy was supposed to have been.  Most of the court was open to them.  The ritual bathing and purification or sacrifices are only carried out if the temple existed.  The "holy", even if leveled or hidden is the only place jews might want to avoid.  It is the exact spot where the ark was placed.

It is unfortunate that so many muslims are not aware of their own history or faith.  It is in part why there is so much hostility and suspicion on both sides.


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote >>What you call a "refugee migration" was in part a deliberate driving out by Israeli's of Palestinians who then became "exiled". This was not just a "migration" - it was a deliberate planned effort.<<

>>Bull. I used perfectly good sources to show that there was a deliberate and well orchestrated attempt to force Palestinians out by the Israeli's and it was not simply because they were "hostile" - the source I used based it on government documents. You seem to label sources that disagree with you "misinformation propaganda" and in turn use your own questionable sources.<<

What sources?  Did I mention you by name?  I was explaining how the majority of palestinians were not force at Israeli gun point to leave the country.  There are tales and a pinch of truth that there were cases where palestinians felt or were forced to move out of their homes or off the land they occupied, but that is not the majority or even 100% of every single case.
If one person's home is confiscated by the state because of criminal activity, that does not suggest the state will confiscate every home/apartment of every criminal, even misnomers, or result in all the occupants being forced to not just leave the premisses but to leave the country?
You, and others, implied that all palestinians were force to leave.  they were not.  Why did so many leave even before the attack on Israel?  Why did so many leave even though their village was not directly involved in any fighting?  Why were the arabs telling palestinians to leave well before the first shots?
Israel pleaded for the leaving or told to leave to become part of Israel and help build a strong nation where all faiths co-existed.
As with most conflicts in the region, and around the world, if you hear the sound of fighting or see people preparing for a fight, people will seek safety while it is still safe to get out of the way.  Most of the refugees from syria were not escorted to the border at gun point and force to leave the country.  People that expect to be unable to move freely, get their children to schools, be able to work or that want to prevent their family being collateral damage sent their family away till it is safe to return.  They were not force to leave or thrown out by the establish government.
Some move out of town, some move across the country, some leave the country.  They make that choice.  That is not the same as forced out of their homes or out of the country by the hostiles.  Mostly they leave out a precaution.  When someone bust down your down and say they are taking your home at gun point and threaten to kill you if you are not out in the nest ten minutes or begin to kill your family while you and the rest escape, that is being forced out.

We moved to avoid the fighting, many times both across the country and out of the country.  We the except of being directly targeted outside of my home or one incident at our front door, we were not forced to leave.  We often stayed and just took shelter in the basements with the rocket being fired at our neighbors fell short.  The apartment that we owned down stairs was for a time occupied.  We still have property that have palestinian squatters living in by the shore.  We were not there at the time.  Most of the places in that neighborhood were taken.

Seeking safety is your choice.  Being force out is different.  I valued my safety and that of my child over trying to stay.  My parents and brother remained for a few more years and left more so my brother could continue his education that out of any direct threat.  The threat was having to travel through a zone with heavy fighting to get to his school.  We were lucky to have a blanket of protection because of my father and god father.  We also had for former soldier that served my father and later become a UN guard to act as drive our drive.  When bullets are flying no one checks your ID before firing on you.

Most refugees leave out a fear of the future and expected threat, not because they were directly forced to leave.  You leave because it is or expected to be too difficult to remain and carry on any normality of life.  Palestinians exodus was not part of some planned genocide of arabs to e carried out by jews.  They were scared into leaving by their fellow arab and the propaganda that they would be killed, raped or otherwise abuse by the jews if they stayed.  They left before any combat or direct threat.  They chose to leave.


----------



## Mindful

aris2chat said:


> Coyote >>What you call a "refugee migration" was in part a deliberate driving out by Israeli's of Palestinians who then became "exiled". This was not just a "migration" - it was a deliberate planned effort.<<
> 
> >>Bull. I used perfectly good sources to show that there was a deliberate and well orchestrated attempt to force Palestinians out by the Israeli's and it was not simply because they were "hostile" - the source I used based it on government documents. You seem to label sources that disagree with you "misinformation propaganda" and in turn use your own questionable sources.<<
> 
> What sources?  Did I mention you by name?  I was explaining how the majority of palestinians were not force at Israeli gun point to leave the country.  There are tales and a pinch of truth that there were cases where palestinians felt or were forced to move out of their homes or off the land they occupied, but that is not the majority or even 100% of every single case.
> If one person's home is confiscated by the state because of criminal activity, that does not suggest the state will confiscate every home/apartment of every criminal, even misnomers, or result in all the occupants being forced to not just leave the premisses but to leave the country?
> You, and others, implied that all palestinians were force to leave.  they were not.  Why did so many leave even before the attack on Israel?  Why did so many leave even though their village was not directly involved in any fighting?  Why were the arabs telling palestinians to leave well before the first shots?
> Israel pleaded for the leaving or told to leave to become part of Israel and help build a strong nation where all faiths co-existed.
> As with most conflicts in the region, and around the world, if you hear the sound of fighting or see people preparing for a fight, people will seek safety while it is still safe to get out of the way.  Most of the refugees from syria were not escorted to the border at gun point and force to leave the country.  People that expect to be unable to move freely, get their children to schools, be able to work or that want to prevent their family being collateral damage sent their family away till it is safe to return.  They were not force to leave or thrown out by the establish government.
> Some move out of town, some move across the country, some leave the country.  They make that choice.  That is not the same as forced out of their homes or out of the country by the hostiles.  Mostly they leave out a precaution.  When someone bust down your down and say they are taking your home at gun point and threaten to kill you if you are not out in the nest ten minutes or begin to kill your family while you and the rest escape, that is being forced out.
> 
> We moved to avoid the fighting, many times both across the country and out of the country.  We the except of being directly targeted outside of my home or one incident at our front door, we were not forced to leave.  We often stayed and just took shelter in the basements with the rocket being fired at our neighbors fell short.  The apartment that we owned down stairs was for a time occupied.  We still have property that have palestinian squatters living in by the shore.  We were not there at the time.  Most of the places in that neighborhood were taken.
> 
> Seeking safety is your choice.  Being force out is different.  I valued my safety and that of my child over trying to stay.  My parents and brother remained for a few more years and left more so my brother could continue his education that out of any direct threat.  The threat was having to travel through a zone with heavy fighting to get to his school.  We were lucky to have a blanket of protection because of my father and god father.  We also had for former soldier that served my father and later become a UN guard to act as drive our drive.  When bullets are flying no one checks your ID before firing on you.
> 
> Most refugees leave out a fear of the future and expected threat, not because they were directly forced to leave.  You leave because it is or expected to be too difficult to remain and carry on any normality of life.  Palestinians exodus was not part of some planned genocide of arabs to e carried out by jews.  They were scared into leaving by their fellow arab and the propaganda that they would be killed, raped or otherwise abuse by the jews if they stayed.  They left before any combat or direct threat.  They chose to leave.



I think they were also promised a return to their homes by the Arabs. Once the fledgeling  State of Israel had been destroyed. Which didn't happen.


----------



## Coyote

aris2chat said:


> Coyote >>What you call a "refugee migration" was in part a deliberate driving out by Israeli's of Palestinians who then became "exiled". This was not just a "migration" - it was a deliberate planned effort.<<
> 
> >>Bull. I used perfectly good sources to show that there was a deliberate and well orchestrated attempt to force Palestinians out by the Israeli's and it was not simply because they were "hostile" - the source I used based it on government documents. You seem to label sources that disagree with you "misinformation propaganda" and in turn use your own questionable sources.<<
> 
> What sources?  Did I mention you by name?  I was explaining how the majority of palestinians were not force at Israeli gun point to leave the country.  There are tales and a pinch of truth that there were cases where palestinians felt or were forced to move out of their homes or off the land they occupied, but that is not the majority or even 100% of every single case.
> If one person's home is confiscated by the state because of criminal activity, that does not suggest the state will confiscate every home/apartment of every criminal, even misnomers, or result in all the occupants being forced to not just leave the premisses but to leave the country?
> *You, and others, implied that all palestinians were force to leave.*  they were not.  Why did so many leave even before the attack on Israel?  Why did so many leave even though their village was not directly involved in any fighting?  Why were the arabs telling palestinians to leave well before the first shots?
> Israel pleaded for the leaving or told to leave to become part of Israel and help build a strong nation where all faiths co-existed.



No.  I did not.  What I've said - repeatedly, is that *it is not true that they all or mostly left voluntarily at the urging of their leaders and the other Arab countries* which is what *keeps getting implied by the Pro-Israeli contingen*t.  Yes - I agree with you - that, like refugees today many left in fear of the fighting and for a variety of reasons.  But a substantial number were driven out by the Israeli's themselves in a deliberate plan and this keeps getting ignored or it's claimed that they were removed because they were violent.

Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
_*Opening of archives*

In the 1980s Israel and United Kingdom opened up part of their archives for investigation by historians. This favored a more critical and factual analysis of the 1948 events. *As a result more detailed and comprehensive description of the Palestinian exodus was published*, notably Morris' The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem.[5] Morris distinguishes four waves of refugees, the second, third and fourth of them coinciding with Israeli military offensives, when Arab Palestinians fled the fighting, were frightened away, or were expelled.


A document produced by the Israeli Defence Forces Intelligence Service entitled "The Emigration of the Arabs of Palestine in the Period 1/12/1947 – 1/6/1948" was dated 30 June 1948 and became widely known around 1985.


T*he document details 11 factors which caused the exodus, and lists them "in order of importance":*

_

_Direct, hostile Jewish [ Haganah/IDF ] operations against Arab settlements._
_The effect of our [Haganah/IDF] hostile operations against nearby [Arab] settlements... (... especially the fall of large neighbouring centers)._
_Operation of [Jewish] dissidents [ Irgun Tzvai Leumi and Lohamei Herut Yisrael]_
_Orders and decrees by Arab institutions and gangs [irregulars]._
_Jewish whispering operations [psychological warfare], aimed at frightening away Arab inhabitants._
_Ultimate expulsion orders [by Jewish forces]_
_Fear of Jewish [retaliatory] response [following] major Arab attack on Jews._
_The appearance of gangs [irregular Arab forces] and non-local fighters in the vicinity of a village._
_Fear of Arab invasion and its consequences [mainly near the borders]._
_Isolated Arab villages in purely [predominantly] Jewish areas._
_Various local factors and general fear of the future.[6]_
_ 
"In the past two decades, following the powerful reverberations (concerning the cause of the Nakba) triggered by the publication of books written by those dubbed the “New Historians,” the Israeli archives revoked access to much of the explosive material. Archived Israeli documents that reported the expulsion of Palestinians, massacres or rapes perpetrated by Israeli soldiers, along with other events considered embarrassing by the establishment, were reclassified as “top secret.”[7]
_​


> As with most conflicts in the region, and around the world, if you hear the sound of fighting or see people preparing for a fight, people will seek safety while it is still safe to get out of the way.  Most of the refugees from syria were not escorted to the border at gun point and force to leave the country.  People that expect to be unable to move freely, get their children to schools, be able to work or that want to prevent their family being collateral damage sent their family away till it is safe to return.  They were not force to leave or thrown out by the establish government.
> Some move out of town, some move across the country, some leave the country.  They make that choice.  That is not the same as forced out of their homes or out of the country by the hostiles.  Mostly they leave out a precaution.  When someone bust down your down and say they are taking your home at gun point and threaten to kill you if you are not out in the nest ten minutes or begin to kill your family while you and the rest escape, that is being forced out.
> 
> We moved to avoid the fighting, many times both across the country and out of the country.  We the except of being directly targeted outside of my home or one incident at our front door, we were not forced to leave.  We often stayed and just took shelter in the basements with the rocket being fired at our neighbors fell short.  The apartment that we owned down stairs was for a time occupied.  We still have property that have palestinian squatters living in by the shore.  We were not there at the time.  Most of the places in that neighborhood were taken.
> 
> Seeking safety is your choice.  Being force out is different.  I valued my safety and that of my child over trying to stay.  My parents and brother remained for a few more years and left more so my brother could continue his education that out of any direct threat.  The threat was having to travel through a zone with heavy fighting to get to his school.  We were lucky to have a blanket of protection because of my father and god father.  We also had for former soldier that served my father and later become a UN guard to act as drive our drive.  When bullets are flying no one checks your ID before firing on you.
> 
> *Most refugees leave out a fear of the future and expected threat, not because they were directly forced to leave.  You leave because it is or expected to be too difficult to remain and carry on any normality of life*.  Palestinians exodus was not part of some planned genocide of arabs to e carried out by jews.  They were scared into leaving by their fellow arab and the propaganda that they would be killed, raped or otherwise abuse by the jews if they stayed.  They left before any combat or direct threat.  They chose to leave.



I agree.  But you can't keep denying that the Israeli's themselves had a hand in forcing many of them out through a delliberate campaign and claiming they were all scared into leaving by their fellow arabs.


----------



## Mindful

_One million Palestinians were expelled by Israel from 1947–49.”_

*FACT *
The Palestinians left their homes in 1947–49 for a variety of reasons. Thousands of wealthy Arabs left in anticipation of a war, thousands more responded to Arab leaders’ calls to get out of the way of the advancing armies, a handful were expelled, but most simply fled to avoid being caught in the cross fire of a battle.

Many Arabs claim that 800,000 to 1,000,000 Palestinians became refugees in 1947–49. The last census taken by the British in 1945 found approximately 1.2 million permanent Arab residents in _all_ of Palestine. A 1949 census conducted by the government of Israel counted 160,000 Arabs living in the new state after the war. In 1947, a total of 809,100 Arabs lived in the same area.1 This meant no more than 650,000 Palestinian Arabs could have become refugees. A report by the UN Mediator on Palestine arrived at an even lower refugee figure—472,000. 

JVL


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1, Coyote, P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Both perspective here are flawed --- just a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not when the settlements were built illegally in defiance of international law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were not!!
> 
> See "*Report on the Legal Status of Building in Judea and Samaria" posted earlier. Why do you liars keep on with that Hamas apologia?*
> 
> *Greg*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I do not think it is correct in saying that the Area "C" Settlements "were built illegally in defiance of international law."  That has yet to be determined given that there is an arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians _(the Oslo Accords)_ which sets this aside under the Permanent Status of Negotiations.  While the Article 49 of the Geneva Convention (GCIV) and Article 8(2b)(viii) of the Rome Statutes have a prohibitions, neither apply when the parties have made a consent arrangement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> International law considers agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void if they deprive civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation and restitution."
> 
> Read more: Articles The Jihad Lawyer​So we can put Oslo and other agreements that Arafat was duped into signing to bed, shall we?
> 
> When Hamas refuses to recognize previous agreements it is because they are invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> As discussed earlier with P F Tinmore _(Posting #38 --- Rock Throwing Thread)_, there the Conclusions of the Levy Report (_The Commission to Examine the Status of Building in Judea and Samaria --- Conclusions and Recommendations_) are very questionable in respect to certain findings.  Most certainly, I find the position that *"the classical laws of "occupation" as set out in the relevant international conventions cannot be considered applicable." *And is one of the reasons I asked P F Tinmore to explain his position on "occupation."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not that I see them as inapplicable as much as universally violated. Israel wants the fruits of occupation while it thumbs its nose at the restrictions and obligations. Although it still fits the definition of an occupation, its actions, depending on time and place, better fit colonization and invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that both P F Tinmore (Pro-Palestinian) and the Levy Commission (Pro-Israeli) take issue with whether Israel is considered an "Occupying Power;" obviously for different reasons.  But however different the reasons may be, the outcome will have a grave impact on a number of different levels.  If Israel is determined to be an "Occupying Power" then Article 68 (GCIV) is applicable and the armed struggle and resistance movement that injures the "Occupying Power" is illegal and punishable under local legal procedures.  But if P F Tinmore and the Levy Commission are correct, and the 1907 Hague Convention (Article 42) is not strictly applicable, then neither Article 49 GCIV or Article 8 Rome Statutes is applicable; as both pertain to the prohibition of an Occupying Power.  Thus, under the interpretation of both P F Tinmore (Pro-Palestinian) and the Levy Commission (Pro-Israeli), settlements would no longer be and issue of legality relative to international humanitarian law, the International criminal code, or the laws of war.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> PS:  I found it unusual to see P F Tinmore and the Israelis in agreement.  It is only the second time I've noticed it on a major issue.  The other, of course is the applicability of Resolution 181(II).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regardless of which definition you use, it is still illegal to acquire land through the threat or use of force. All of "Israel's land" has been acquired at the point of a gun.
Click to expand...

 



 S does this mean that Israel can take back gaza and place the residents under an iron fist, as you claim Oslo is not valid. At the same time disband the P.A. and take away all power from hamas and fatah who were created under Oslo. If you are going to do away with Oslo than you have to do away with all aspects and this will mean complete lockdown of gaza and the west bank.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1, Coyote, P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Both perspective here are flawed --- just a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not when the settlements were built illegally in defiance of international law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were not!!
> 
> See "*Report on the Legal Status of Building in Judea and Samaria" posted earlier. Why do you liars keep on with that Hamas apologia?*
> 
> *Greg*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I do not think it is correct in saying that the Area "C" Settlements "were built illegally in defiance of international law."  That has yet to be determined given that there is an arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians _(the Oslo Accords)_ which sets this aside under the Permanent Status of Negotiations.  While the Article 49 of the Geneva Convention (GCIV) and Article 8(2b)(viii) of the Rome Statutes have a prohibitions, neither apply when the parties have made a consent arrangement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> International law considers agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void if they deprive civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation and restitution."
> 
> Read more: Articles The Jihad Lawyer​So we can put Oslo and other agreements that Arafat was duped into signing to bed, shall we?
> 
> When Hamas refuses to recognize previous agreements it is because they are invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> As discussed earlier with P F Tinmore _(Posting #38 --- Rock Throwing Thread)_, there the Conclusions of the Levy Report (_The Commission to Examine the Status of Building in Judea and Samaria --- Conclusions and Recommendations_) are very questionable in respect to certain findings.  Most certainly, I find the position that *"the classical laws of "occupation" as set out in the relevant international conventions cannot be considered applicable." *And is one of the reasons I asked P F Tinmore to explain his position on "occupation."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not that I see them as inapplicable as much as universally violated. Israel wants the fruits of occupation while it thumbs its nose at the restrictions and obligations. Although it still fits the definition of an occupation, its actions, depending on time and place, better fit colonization and invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that both P F Tinmore (Pro-Palestinian) and the Levy Commission (Pro-Israeli) take issue with whether Israel is considered an "Occupying Power;" obviously for different reasons.  But however different the reasons may be, the outcome will have a grave impact on a number of different levels.  If Israel is determined to be an "Occupying Power" then Article 68 (GCIV) is applicable and the armed struggle and resistance movement that injures the "Occupying Power" is illegal and punishable under local legal procedures.  But if P F Tinmore and the Levy Commission are correct, and the 1907 Hague Convention (Article 42) is not strictly applicable, then neither Article 49 GCIV or Article 8 Rome Statutes is applicable; as both pertain to the prohibition of an Occupying Power.  Thus, under the interpretation of both P F Tinmore (Pro-Palestinian) and the Levy Commission (Pro-Israeli), settlements would no longer be and issue of legality relative to international humanitarian law, the International criminal code, or the laws of war.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> PS:  I found it unusual to see P F Tinmore and the Israelis in agreement.  It is only the second time I've noticed it on a major issue.  The other, of course is the applicability of Resolution 181(II).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regardless of which definition you use, it is still illegal to acquire land through the threat or use of force. All of "Israel's land" has been acquired at the point of a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "International law considers agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void if they deprive civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation and restitution."
> 
> Even if this is true, which I doubt (link), I don't recall ever hearing about any agreements between Israel and the PA being void
> 
> "When Hamas refuses to recognize previous agreements it is because they are invalid."
> 
> Did Hamas actually say this or are you making this up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know that I do not make stuff up.
> 
> 
> Article 53
> Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of general international law (jus cogens)
> 
> A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.
> 
> http://www.oas.org/legal/english/docs/Vienna Convention Treaties.htm​
Click to expand...

 


 Wich does not apply as the general International law accepts that Oslo was a valid treaty signed between two parties as part of a larger treaty bringing an end to violence between Israel and the arab muslims.Without Oslo there can be no palestine as palestine was brought into existence through Oslo.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Well, your source is close.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> International law considers agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void if they deprive civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation and restitution."
> ​Read more: Articles The Jihad Lawyer
> So we can put Oslo and other agreements that Arafat was duped into signing to bed, shall we?  When Hamas refuses to recognize previous agreements it is because they are invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCES)*
> 
> 
> 
> "Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. 8)." *SOURCE:* Occupation and international humanitarian law: questions and answers ICRC
> Part I. General Provisions
> 
> 
> Art. 8. Protected persons may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention, and by the special agreements referred to in the foregoing Article, if such there be.
> 
> 
> Section III. Occupied territories
> 
> Art. 47. Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What your source _(Articles The Jihad Lawyer)_ interprets the Geneva Convention to say, and what it actually says --- are two different things; as you can see.  And again, it depends on whether you want to accept the concept that the Israelis are an "Occupation Power" or a "Colonial Power."  If you argue the case that Israel is a "Colonial Power" then the GC IV does not apply.  But if the Israeli is a "Occupation Power" --- THEN --- the prohibition is very specific (GCIV Article 47).  It does not say:  "agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not that I see them as inapplicable as much as universally violated. Israel wants the fruits of occupation while it thumbs its nose at the restrictions and obligations. Although it still fits the definition of an occupation, its actions, depending on time and place, better fit colonization and invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Actually, Israel argues, like you, that the GCIV doesn't really apply, except by Security Council Mandate; "_Calls once more upon_ Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention," Security Council Resolution 446.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of which definition you use, it is still illegal to acquire land through the threat or use of force. All of "Israel's land" has been acquired at the point of a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes, reading this carefully, this is an application of:
> 
> Palestine National Charter of 1968
> 
> Article 1. Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the greater Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.
> 
> Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.​
> This is a concept that dates back to Israeli Independence over a half century ago, in which the right of self-determination was exercised pursuant to the UN "Steps Preparatory to Independence."  Prior to May '48, it was a Civil War.  After May '48, it was an invasion by Arab Armies attempting to use force to interrupt the implementation of the Partition Plan and subvert the will of the UN.
> 
> Now, in terms of the territory and the sovereignty, this is something that the Palestinians have consistently said is a "violation of international law."  Yet in over half a century, they have never availed themselves to the recognized dispute resolution processes.
> 
> The Law is quite clear:
> 
> 
> "Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States."  A/RES/25/2625
> Not once did the Palestinians attempt peaceful means to resolve the issues.  The policy is:
> 
> There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the "dispute" and what is the recognized dispute resolution processes?
Click to expand...

 



 The dispute is about Israel occupying palestine, the dispute resolution process is the one laid down in the UN resolutions. These say an end to all violence beligerence and terrorism and negotiations to a peace and mutual borders


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote >>What you call a "refugee migration" was in part a deliberate driving out by Israeli's of Palestinians who then became "exiled". This was not just a "migration" - it was a deliberate planned effort.<<
> 
> >>Bull. I used perfectly good sources to show that there was a deliberate and well orchestrated attempt to force Palestinians out by the Israeli's and it was not simply because they were "hostile" - the source I used based it on government documents. You seem to label sources that disagree with you "misinformation propaganda" and in turn use your own questionable sources.<<
> 
> What sources?  Did I mention you by name?  I was explaining how the majority of palestinians were not force at Israeli gun point to leave the country.  There are tales and a pinch of truth that there were cases where palestinians felt or were forced to move out of their homes or off the land they occupied, but that is not the majority or even 100% of every single case.
> If one person's home is confiscated by the state because of criminal activity, that does not suggest the state will confiscate every home/apartment of every criminal, even misnomers, or result in all the occupants being forced to not just leave the premisses but to leave the country?
> *You, and others, implied that all palestinians were force to leave.*  they were not.  Why did so many leave even before the attack on Israel?  Why did so many leave even though their village was not directly involved in any fighting?  Why were the arabs telling palestinians to leave well before the first shots?
> Israel pleaded for the leaving or told to leave to become part of Israel and help build a strong nation where all faiths co-existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I did not.  What I've said - repeatedly, is that *it is not true that they all or mostly left voluntarily at the urging of their leaders and the other Arab countries* which is what *keeps getting implied by the Pro-Israeli contingen*t.  Yes - I agree with you - that, like refugees today many left in fear of the fighting and for a variety of reasons.  But a substantial number were driven out by the Israeli's themselves in a deliberate plan and this keeps getting ignored or it's claimed that they were removed because they were violent.
> 
> Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> _*Opening of archives*
> 
> In the 1980s Israel and United Kingdom opened up part of their archives for investigation by historians. This favored a more critical and factual analysis of the 1948 events. *As a result more detailed and comprehensive description of the Palestinian exodus was published*, notably Morris' The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem.[5] Morris distinguishes four waves of refugees, the second, third and fourth of them coinciding with Israeli military offensives, when Arab Palestinians fled the fighting, were frightened away, or were expelled.
> 
> 
> A document produced by the Israeli Defence Forces Intelligence Service entitled "The Emigration of the Arabs of Palestine in the Period 1/12/1947 – 1/6/1948" was dated 30 June 1948 and became widely known around 1985.
> 
> 
> T*he document details 11 factors which caused the exodus, and lists them "in order of importance":*
> 
> _
> 
> _Direct, hostile Jewish [ Haganah/IDF ] operations against Arab settlements._
> _The effect of our [Haganah/IDF] hostile operations against nearby [Arab] settlements... (... especially the fall of large neighbouring centers)._
> _Operation of [Jewish] dissidents [ Irgun Tzvai Leumi and Lohamei Herut Yisrael]_
> _Orders and decrees by Arab institutions and gangs [irregulars]._
> _Jewish whispering operations [psychological warfare], aimed at frightening away Arab inhabitants._
> _Ultimate expulsion orders [by Jewish forces]_
> _Fear of Jewish [retaliatory] response [following] major Arab attack on Jews._
> _The appearance of gangs [irregular Arab forces] and non-local fighters in the vicinity of a village._
> _Fear of Arab invasion and its consequences [mainly near the borders]._
> _Isolated Arab villages in purely [predominantly] Jewish areas._
> _Various local factors and general fear of the future.[6]_
> _
> "In the past two decades, following the powerful reverberations (concerning the cause of the Nakba) triggered by the publication of books written by those dubbed the “New Historians,” the Israeli archives revoked access to much of the explosive material. Archived Israeli documents that reported the expulsion of Palestinians, massacres or rapes perpetrated by Israeli soldiers, along with other events considered embarrassing by the establishment, were reclassified as “top secret.”[7]
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> As with most conflicts in the region, and around the world, if you hear the sound of fighting or see people preparing for a fight, people will seek safety while it is still safe to get out of the way.  Most of the refugees from syria were not escorted to the border at gun point and force to leave the country.  People that expect to be unable to move freely, get their children to schools, be able to work or that want to prevent their family being collateral damage sent their family away till it is safe to return.  They were not force to leave or thrown out by the establish government.
> Some move out of town, some move across the country, some leave the country.  They make that choice.  That is not the same as forced out of their homes or out of the country by the hostiles.  Mostly they leave out a precaution.  When someone bust down your down and say they are taking your home at gun point and threaten to kill you if you are not out in the nest ten minutes or begin to kill your family while you and the rest escape, that is being forced out.
> 
> We moved to avoid the fighting, many times both across the country and out of the country.  We the except of being directly targeted outside of my home or one incident at our front door, we were not forced to leave.  We often stayed and just took shelter in the basements with the rocket being fired at our neighbors fell short.  The apartment that we owned down stairs was for a time occupied.  We still have property that have palestinian squatters living in by the shore.  We were not there at the time.  Most of the places in that neighborhood were taken.
> 
> Seeking safety is your choice.  Being force out is different.  I valued my safety and that of my child over trying to stay.  My parents and brother remained for a few more years and left more so my brother could continue his education that out of any direct threat.  The threat was having to travel through a zone with heavy fighting to get to his school.  We were lucky to have a blanket of protection because of my father and god father.  We also had for former soldier that served my father and later become a UN guard to act as drive our drive.  When bullets are flying no one checks your ID before firing on you.
> 
> *Most refugees leave out a fear of the future and expected threat, not because they were directly forced to leave.  You leave because it is or expected to be too difficult to remain and carry on any normality of life*.  Palestinians exodus was not part of some planned genocide of arabs to e carried out by jews.  They were scared into leaving by their fellow arab and the propaganda that they would be killed, raped or otherwise abuse by the jews if they stayed.  They left before any combat or direct threat.  They chose to leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  But you can't keep denying that the Israeli's themselves had a hand in forcing many of them out through a delliberate campaign and claiming they were all scared into leaving by their fellow arabs.
Click to expand...



Around ten villages have made the claim, or it was claimed on their behalf, of less than a thousand people in each.  I'm lazy at this moment so lets double that and say 20,000 out of more than 800,000, perhaps.  We are not talking about 100,000 or even 400,000 of the refugees.
If you check most of those villages had less than 300-400 people.
It was not a policy to force palestinians out of their villages or force them to leave to other countries.
Of those villages where residents were forced to leave, not all left the country.  Some were moved to other locations within Israel.  Only those villages that harbored terrorist or engaged and aided attacks on Israelis were among those "forced" to leave.
I've listened to so many stories and while trying to help them I had to do research.  Too often their stories did not prove to be correct or only had a few small truths and far too much exaggeration.
If I was to help process their cases I could not just take their word as absolute.  The longer I was with them the less credible their stories were and I little of no facts on which to turn over to the next level.  
Palestinians from Israel moved to the WB or G and those in G and the WB moved to other countries.  It was one set of palestinians displacing another.  When Israel ended up with control of the WB and G palestinians from there left for jordan and egypt rather than accept Israeli authority.  Refugees from Jordan moved to Lebanon and Tunisia.  Refugees from Lebanon went to Tunisia, Iraq or Kuwait, etc.
By no stretch of the imagination were most palestinians kicked out by Israel.

Again, they left because they made the choice to, not because they were forced.  The nakba was in phases over a period of wars, it was not one quick mass exodus, though most did leave before at the start of the 48 war on Israel.
Too many lies.


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote >>What you call a "refugee migration" was in part a deliberate driving out by Israeli's of Palestinians who then became "exiled". This was not just a "migration" - it was a deliberate planned effort.<<
> 
> >>Bull. I used perfectly good sources to show that there was a deliberate and well orchestrated attempt to force Palestinians out by the Israeli's and it was not simply because they were "hostile" - the source I used based it on government documents. You seem to label sources that disagree with you "misinformation propaganda" and in turn use your own questionable sources.<<
> 
> What sources?  Did I mention you by name?  I was explaining how the majority of palestinians were not force at Israeli gun point to leave the country.  There are tales and a pinch of truth that there were cases where palestinians felt or were forced to move out of their homes or off the land they occupied, but that is not the majority or even 100% of every single case.
> If one person's home is confiscated by the state because of criminal activity, that does not suggest the state will confiscate every home/apartment of every criminal, even misnomers, or result in all the occupants being forced to not just leave the premisses but to leave the country?
> *You, and others, implied that all palestinians were force to leave.*  they were not.  Why did so many leave even before the attack on Israel?  Why did so many leave even though their village was not directly involved in any fighting?  Why were the arabs telling palestinians to leave well before the first shots?
> Israel pleaded for the leaving or told to leave to become part of Israel and help build a strong nation where all faiths co-existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I did not.  What I've said - repeatedly, is that *it is not true that they all or mostly left voluntarily at the urging of their leaders and the other Arab countries* which is what *keeps getting implied by the Pro-Israeli contingen*t.  Yes - I agree with you - that, like refugees today many left in fear of the fighting and for a variety of reasons.  But a substantial number were driven out by the Israeli's themselves in a deliberate plan and this keeps getting ignored or it's claimed that they were removed because they were violent.
> 
> Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> _*Opening of archives*
> 
> In the 1980s Israel and United Kingdom opened up part of their archives for investigation by historians. This favored a more critical and factual analysis of the 1948 events. *As a result more detailed and comprehensive description of the Palestinian exodus was published*, notably Morris' The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem.[5] Morris distinguishes four waves of refugees, the second, third and fourth of them coinciding with Israeli military offensives, when Arab Palestinians fled the fighting, were frightened away, or were expelled.
> 
> 
> A document produced by the Israeli Defence Forces Intelligence Service entitled "The Emigration of the Arabs of Palestine in the Period 1/12/1947 – 1/6/1948" was dated 30 June 1948 and became widely known around 1985.
> 
> 
> T*he document details 11 factors which caused the exodus, and lists them "in order of importance":*
> 
> _
> 
> _Direct, hostile Jewish [ Haganah/IDF ] operations against Arab settlements._
> _The effect of our [Haganah/IDF] hostile operations against nearby [Arab] settlements... (... especially the fall of large neighbouring centers)._
> _Operation of [Jewish] dissidents [ Irgun Tzvai Leumi and Lohamei Herut Yisrael]_
> _Orders and decrees by Arab institutions and gangs [irregulars]._
> _Jewish whispering operations [psychological warfare], aimed at frightening away Arab inhabitants._
> _Ultimate expulsion orders [by Jewish forces]_
> _Fear of Jewish [retaliatory] response [following] major Arab attack on Jews._
> _The appearance of gangs [irregular Arab forces] and non-local fighters in the vicinity of a village._
> _Fear of Arab invasion and its consequences [mainly near the borders]._
> _Isolated Arab villages in purely [predominantly] Jewish areas._
> _Various local factors and general fear of the future.[6]_
> _
> "In the past two decades, following the powerful reverberations (concerning the cause of the Nakba) triggered by the publication of books written by those dubbed the “New Historians,” the Israeli archives revoked access to much of the explosive material. Archived Israeli documents that reported the expulsion of Palestinians, massacres or rapes perpetrated by Israeli soldiers, along with other events considered embarrassing by the establishment, were reclassified as “top secret.”[7]
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> As with most conflicts in the region, and around the world, if you hear the sound of fighting or see people preparing for a fight, people will seek safety while it is still safe to get out of the way.  Most of the refugees from syria were not escorted to the border at gun point and force to leave the country.  People that expect to be unable to move freely, get their children to schools, be able to work or that want to prevent their family being collateral damage sent their family away till it is safe to return.  They were not force to leave or thrown out by the establish government.
> Some move out of town, some move across the country, some leave the country.  They make that choice.  That is not the same as forced out of their homes or out of the country by the hostiles.  Mostly they leave out a precaution.  When someone bust down your down and say they are taking your home at gun point and threaten to kill you if you are not out in the nest ten minutes or begin to kill your family while you and the rest escape, that is being forced out.
> 
> We moved to avoid the fighting, many times both across the country and out of the country.  We the except of being directly targeted outside of my home or one incident at our front door, we were not forced to leave.  We often stayed and just took shelter in the basements with the rocket being fired at our neighbors fell short.  The apartment that we owned down stairs was for a time occupied.  We still have property that have palestinian squatters living in by the shore.  We were not there at the time.  Most of the places in that neighborhood were taken.
> 
> Seeking safety is your choice.  Being force out is different.  I valued my safety and that of my child over trying to stay.  My parents and brother remained for a few more years and left more so my brother could continue his education that out of any direct threat.  The threat was having to travel through a zone with heavy fighting to get to his school.  We were lucky to have a blanket of protection because of my father and god father.  We also had for former soldier that served my father and later become a UN guard to act as drive our drive.  When bullets are flying no one checks your ID before firing on you.
> 
> *Most refugees leave out a fear of the future and expected threat, not because they were directly forced to leave.  You leave because it is or expected to be too difficult to remain and carry on any normality of life*.  Palestinians exodus was not part of some planned genocide of arabs to e carried out by jews.  They were scared into leaving by their fellow arab and the propaganda that they would be killed, raped or otherwise abuse by the jews if they stayed.  They left before any combat or direct threat.  They chose to leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  But you can't keep denying that the Israeli's themselves had a hand in forcing many of them out through a delliberate campaign and claiming they were all scared into leaving by their fellow arabs.
Click to expand...


Only #6 applies to force being used to kick arabs/palestinians out of Israel.  Combat with villages in the beginning did not mean the whole family or ever the whole village had to leave.  Only those directly involved in hostilities.  Most of the fighters were not even arab/palestinians.  They were fighters from other arab states that invaded Israel.  Most arab/palestinians would have been untouched since they were not actually shooting at Israelis or killing civilians.
Whispers and scare tactics by arabs made the palestinians run, not the Israelis.  In some cases the Israelis took advantage and did not counter the lies.  If people want to believe the worst and are so filled with hate, why would Israel encourage them to stay.  They should be asked to remain so they can be terrorists?  It would eventually have led to them in jail or shown the door.  Yes, it was easier to let the refugees believe a lie at some point.  If they did not want to stay why should Israel force them.  The could direct their attention to not being killed by other armies invading Israel.  Would that not have been as bad?  Considering how out numbered the Israelis were, the could not afford to keeping people in that did not want to stay.


----------



## Coyote

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote >>What you call a "refugee migration" was in part a deliberate driving out by Israeli's of Palestinians who then became "exiled". This was not just a "migration" - it was a deliberate planned effort.<<
> 
> >>Bull. I used perfectly good sources to show that there was a deliberate and well orchestrated attempt to force Palestinians out by the Israeli's and it was not simply because they were "hostile" - the source I used based it on government documents. You seem to label sources that disagree with you "misinformation propaganda" and in turn use your own questionable sources.<<
> 
> What sources?  Did I mention you by name?  I was explaining how the majority of palestinians were not force at Israeli gun point to leave the country.  There are tales and a pinch of truth that there were cases where palestinians felt or were forced to move out of their homes or off the land they occupied, but that is not the majority or even 100% of every single case.
> If one person's home is confiscated by the state because of criminal activity, that does not suggest the state will confiscate every home/apartment of every criminal, even misnomers, or result in all the occupants being forced to not just leave the premisses but to leave the country?
> *You, and others, implied that all palestinians were force to leave.*  they were not.  Why did so many leave even before the attack on Israel?  Why did so many leave even though their village was not directly involved in any fighting?  Why were the arabs telling palestinians to leave well before the first shots?
> Israel pleaded for the leaving or told to leave to become part of Israel and help build a strong nation where all faiths co-existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I did not.  What I've said - repeatedly, is that *it is not true that they all or mostly left voluntarily at the urging of their leaders and the other Arab countries* which is what *keeps getting implied by the Pro-Israeli contingen*t.  Yes - I agree with you - that, like refugees today many left in fear of the fighting and for a variety of reasons.  But a substantial number were driven out by the Israeli's themselves in a deliberate plan and this keeps getting ignored or it's claimed that they were removed because they were violent.
> 
> Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> _*Opening of archives*
> 
> In the 1980s Israel and United Kingdom opened up part of their archives for investigation by historians. This favored a more critical and factual analysis of the 1948 events. *As a result more detailed and comprehensive description of the Palestinian exodus was published*, notably Morris' The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem.[5] Morris distinguishes four waves of refugees, the second, third and fourth of them coinciding with Israeli military offensives, when Arab Palestinians fled the fighting, were frightened away, or were expelled.
> 
> 
> A document produced by the Israeli Defence Forces Intelligence Service entitled "The Emigration of the Arabs of Palestine in the Period 1/12/1947 – 1/6/1948" was dated 30 June 1948 and became widely known around 1985.
> 
> 
> T*he document details 11 factors which caused the exodus, and lists them "in order of importance":*
> 
> _
> 
> _Direct, hostile Jewish [ Haganah/IDF ] operations against Arab settlements._
> _The effect of our [Haganah/IDF] hostile operations against nearby [Arab] settlements... (... especially the fall of large neighbouring centers)._
> _Operation of [Jewish] dissidents [ Irgun Tzvai Leumi and Lohamei Herut Yisrael]_
> _Orders and decrees by Arab institutions and gangs [irregulars]._
> _Jewish whispering operations [psychological warfare], aimed at frightening away Arab inhabitants._
> _Ultimate expulsion orders [by Jewish forces]_
> _Fear of Jewish [retaliatory] response [following] major Arab attack on Jews._
> _The appearance of gangs [irregular Arab forces] and non-local fighters in the vicinity of a village._
> _Fear of Arab invasion and its consequences [mainly near the borders]._
> _Isolated Arab villages in purely [predominantly] Jewish areas._
> _Various local factors and general fear of the future.[6]_
> _
> "In the past two decades, following the powerful reverberations (concerning the cause of the Nakba) triggered by the publication of books written by those dubbed the “New Historians,” the Israeli archives revoked access to much of the explosive material. Archived Israeli documents that reported the expulsion of Palestinians, massacres or rapes perpetrated by Israeli soldiers, along with other events considered embarrassing by the establishment, were reclassified as “top secret.”[7]
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> As with most conflicts in the region, and around the world, if you hear the sound of fighting or see people preparing for a fight, people will seek safety while it is still safe to get out of the way.  Most of the refugees from syria were not escorted to the border at gun point and force to leave the country.  People that expect to be unable to move freely, get their children to schools, be able to work or that want to prevent their family being collateral damage sent their family away till it is safe to return.  They were not force to leave or thrown out by the establish government.
> Some move out of town, some move across the country, some leave the country.  They make that choice.  That is not the same as forced out of their homes or out of the country by the hostiles.  Mostly they leave out a precaution.  When someone bust down your down and say they are taking your home at gun point and threaten to kill you if you are not out in the nest ten minutes or begin to kill your family while you and the rest escape, that is being forced out.
> 
> We moved to avoid the fighting, many times both across the country and out of the country.  We the except of being directly targeted outside of my home or one incident at our front door, we were not forced to leave.  We often stayed and just took shelter in the basements with the rocket being fired at our neighbors fell short.  The apartment that we owned down stairs was for a time occupied.  We still have property that have palestinian squatters living in by the shore.  We were not there at the time.  Most of the places in that neighborhood were taken.
> 
> Seeking safety is your choice.  Being force out is different.  I valued my safety and that of my child over trying to stay.  My parents and brother remained for a few more years and left more so my brother could continue his education that out of any direct threat.  The threat was having to travel through a zone with heavy fighting to get to his school.  We were lucky to have a blanket of protection because of my father and god father.  We also had for former soldier that served my father and later become a UN guard to act as drive our drive.  When bullets are flying no one checks your ID before firing on you.
> 
> *Most refugees leave out a fear of the future and expected threat, not because they were directly forced to leave.  You leave because it is or expected to be too difficult to remain and carry on any normality of life*.  Palestinians exodus was not part of some planned genocide of arabs to e carried out by jews.  They were scared into leaving by their fellow arab and the propaganda that they would be killed, raped or otherwise abuse by the jews if they stayed.  They left before any combat or direct threat.  They chose to leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  But you can't keep denying that the Israeli's themselves had a hand in forcing many of them out through a delliberate campaign and claiming they were all scared into leaving by their fellow arabs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Only #6 applies to force being used to kick arabs/palestinians out of Israel.  *Combat with villages in the beginning did not mean the whole family or ever the whole village had to leave.  Only those directly involved in hostilities.  Most of the fighters were not even arab/palestinians.  They were fighters from other arab states that invaded Israel.  Most arab/palestinians would have been untouched since they were not actually shooting at Israelis or killing civilians.
> Whispers and scare tactics by arabs made the palestinians run, not the Israelis.  In some cases the Israelis took advantage and did not counter the lies.  If people want to believe the worst and are so filled with hate, why would Israel encourage them to stay.  They should be asked to remain so they can be terrorists?  It would eventually have led to them in jail or shown the door.  Yes, it was easier to let the refugees believe a lie at some point.  If they did not want to stay why should Israel force them.  The could direct their attention to not being killed by other armies invading Israel.  Would that not have been as bad?  Considering how out numbered the Israelis were, the could not afford to keeping people in that did not want to stay.
Click to expand...


#1, 2, and 3 appear to as well.

This article makes some interesting points it's information isn't dependent on the Arab or Palestinian version of events:  The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition

_This research activity was originally stimulated by two separate sets of events. First, the opening of Israeli archives, both state and private, covering the period in question. Here *it is worth noting that the historians appear to have ignored almost entirely both the archives of the Arab countries (not that these are notable for their accessibility) and oral history potential among Palestinians themselves*, where considerable work has been done by other historians. As the Palestinian historian, Nur Masalha, rightly says: “History and historiography ought not necessarily be written, exclusively or mainly, by the victors (7)"...

...In the opening pages of “The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem”, Benny Morris offers the outlines of an overall answer: using a map that shows the 369 Arab towns and villages in Israel (within its 1949 borders), he lists, area by area, the reasons for the departure of the local population (9). In 45 cases he admits that he does not know. *The inhabitants of the other 228 localities left under attack by Jewish troops, and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force*. In 90 other localities, the Palestinians were in a state of panic following the fall of a neighbouring town or village, or for fear of an enemy attack, or because of rumours circulated by the Jewish army - particularly after the 9 April 1948 massacre of 250 inhabitants of Deir Yassin, where the news of the killings swept the country like wildfire.


*By contrast, he found only six cases of departures at the instigation of local Arab authorities. “There is no evidence to show that the Arab states and the AHC wanted a mass exodus or issued blanket orders or appeals to the Palestinians to flee their homes* (though in certain areas the inhabitants of specific villages were ordered by Arab commanders or the AHC to leave, mainly for strategic reasons).” ("The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem", p. 129). On the contrary, anyone who fled was actually threatened with “severe punishment”. *As for the broadcasts by Arab radio stations allegedly calling on people to flee, a detailed listening to recordings of their programmes of that period shows that the claims were invented for pure propaganda.*

In “1948 and After” Benny Morris examines the first phase of the exodus and produces *a detailed analysis of a source that he considers basically reliable: a report prepared by the intelligence services of the Israeli army, dated 30 June 1948 and entitled “The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948”. This document sets at 391,000 the number of Palestinians who had already left the territory that was by then in the hands of Israel, and evaluates the various factors that had prompted their decisions to leave*. “At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations.” To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which “directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration”. A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. *This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis*. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to “fears” and “a crisis of confidence” affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases.._​
It goes on to note more in the next exodus:

_In short, as Morris puts it, this report* “undermines the traditional official Israeli ’explanation’ of a mass flight ordered or ’invited’ by the Arab leadership”.* Neither, as he points out, “does [the report] uphold the traditional Arab explanation of the exodus - that the Jews, with premeditation and in a centralised fashion, had systematically waged a campaign aimed at the wholesale expulsion of the native Palestinian population.” However, he says that “the circumstances of the second half of the exodus” - which he estimates as having involved between 300,000 and 400,000 people - “are a different story.”

One example of this second phase was the expulsion of Arabs living in Lydda (present-day Lod) and Ramleh. On 12 July 1948, within the framework of Operation Dani, a skirmish with Jordanian armoured forces served as a pretext for a violent backlash, with 250 killed, some of whom were unarmed prisoners. *This was followed by a forced evacuation characterised by summary executions and looting and involving upwards of 70,000 Palestinian civilians - almost 10% of the total exodus of 1947- 49. Similar scenarios were enacted, as Morris shows, in central Galilee, Upper Galilee and the northern Negev, as well as in the post-war expulsion of the Palestinians of Al Majdal (Ashkelon). Most of these operations (with the exception of the latter) were marked by atrocities* - a fact which led Aharon Zisling, the minister of agriculture, to tell the Israeli cabinet on 17 November 1948: “I couldn’t sleep all night. I felt that things that were going on were hurting my soul, the soul of my family and all of us here (...) Now Jews too have behaved like Nazis and my entire being has been shaken (10).”

The Israeli government of the time *pursued a policy of non- compromise, in order to prevent the return of the refugees* “at any price” (as Ben Gurion himself put it), despite the fact that the UN General Assembly had been calling for this since 11 December 1948. Their villages were either destroyed or occupied by Jewish immigrants, and their lands were shared out between the surrounding kibbutzim. The law on “abandoned properties” - which was designed to make possible the seizure of any land belonging to persons who were “absent” - “legalised” this project of general confiscation as of December 1948. Almost 400 Arab villages were thus either wiped off the map or Judaised, as were most of the Arab quarters in mixed towns. According to a report drawn up in 1952, Israel had thus succeeded in expropriating 73,000 rooms in abandoned houses, 7,800 shops, workshops and warehouses, 5 million Palestinian pounds in bank accounts, and - most important of all - 300,000 hectares of land  (11)._​


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote >>What you call a "refugee migration" was in part a deliberate driving out by Israeli's of Palestinians who then became "exiled". This was not just a "migration" - it was a deliberate planned effort.<<
> 
> >>Bull. I used perfectly good sources to show that there was a deliberate and well orchestrated attempt to force Palestinians out by the Israeli's and it was not simply because they were "hostile" - the source I used based it on government documents. You seem to label sources that disagree with you "misinformation propaganda" and in turn use your own questionable sources.<<
> 
> What sources?  Did I mention you by name?  I was explaining how the majority of palestinians were not force at Israeli gun point to leave the country.  There are tales and a pinch of truth that there were cases where palestinians felt or were forced to move out of their homes or off the land they occupied, but that is not the majority or even 100% of every single case.
> If one person's home is confiscated by the state because of criminal activity, that does not suggest the state will confiscate every home/apartment of every criminal, even misnomers, or result in all the occupants being forced to not just leave the premisses but to leave the country?
> *You, and others, implied that all palestinians were force to leave.*  they were not.  Why did so many leave even before the attack on Israel?  Why did so many leave even though their village was not directly involved in any fighting?  Why were the arabs telling palestinians to leave well before the first shots?
> Israel pleaded for the leaving or told to leave to become part of Israel and help build a strong nation where all faiths co-existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I did not.  What I've said - repeatedly, is that *it is not true that they all or mostly left voluntarily at the urging of their leaders and the other Arab countries* which is what *keeps getting implied by the Pro-Israeli contingen*t.  Yes - I agree with you - that, like refugees today many left in fear of the fighting and for a variety of reasons.  But a substantial number were driven out by the Israeli's themselves in a deliberate plan and this keeps getting ignored or it's claimed that they were removed because they were violent.
> 
> Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> _*Opening of archives*
> 
> In the 1980s Israel and United Kingdom opened up part of their archives for investigation by historians. This favored a more critical and factual analysis of the 1948 events. *As a result more detailed and comprehensive description of the Palestinian exodus was published*, notably Morris' The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem.[5] Morris distinguishes four waves of refugees, the second, third and fourth of them coinciding with Israeli military offensives, when Arab Palestinians fled the fighting, were frightened away, or were expelled.
> 
> 
> A document produced by the Israeli Defence Forces Intelligence Service entitled "The Emigration of the Arabs of Palestine in the Period 1/12/1947 – 1/6/1948" was dated 30 June 1948 and became widely known around 1985.
> 
> 
> T*he document details 11 factors which caused the exodus, and lists them "in order of importance":*
> 
> _
> 
> _Direct, hostile Jewish [ Haganah/IDF ] operations against Arab settlements._
> _The effect of our [Haganah/IDF] hostile operations against nearby [Arab] settlements... (... especially the fall of large neighbouring centers)._
> _Operation of [Jewish] dissidents [ Irgun Tzvai Leumi and Lohamei Herut Yisrael]_
> _Orders and decrees by Arab institutions and gangs [irregulars]._
> _Jewish whispering operations [psychological warfare], aimed at frightening away Arab inhabitants._
> _Ultimate expulsion orders [by Jewish forces]_
> _Fear of Jewish [retaliatory] response [following] major Arab attack on Jews._
> _The appearance of gangs [irregular Arab forces] and non-local fighters in the vicinity of a village._
> _Fear of Arab invasion and its consequences [mainly near the borders]._
> _Isolated Arab villages in purely [predominantly] Jewish areas._
> _Various local factors and general fear of the future.[6]_
> _
> "In the past two decades, following the powerful reverberations (concerning the cause of the Nakba) triggered by the publication of books written by those dubbed the “New Historians,” the Israeli archives revoked access to much of the explosive material. Archived Israeli documents that reported the expulsion of Palestinians, massacres or rapes perpetrated by Israeli soldiers, along with other events considered embarrassing by the establishment, were reclassified as “top secret.”[7]
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> As with most conflicts in the region, and around the world, if you hear the sound of fighting or see people preparing for a fight, people will seek safety while it is still safe to get out of the way.  Most of the refugees from syria were not escorted to the border at gun point and force to leave the country.  People that expect to be unable to move freely, get their children to schools, be able to work or that want to prevent their family being collateral damage sent their family away till it is safe to return.  They were not force to leave or thrown out by the establish government.
> Some move out of town, some move across the country, some leave the country.  They make that choice.  That is not the same as forced out of their homes or out of the country by the hostiles.  Mostly they leave out a precaution.  When someone bust down your down and say they are taking your home at gun point and threaten to kill you if you are not out in the nest ten minutes or begin to kill your family while you and the rest escape, that is being forced out.
> 
> We moved to avoid the fighting, many times both across the country and out of the country.  We the except of being directly targeted outside of my home or one incident at our front door, we were not forced to leave.  We often stayed and just took shelter in the basements with the rocket being fired at our neighbors fell short.  The apartment that we owned down stairs was for a time occupied.  We still have property that have palestinian squatters living in by the shore.  We were not there at the time.  Most of the places in that neighborhood were taken.
> 
> Seeking safety is your choice.  Being force out is different.  I valued my safety and that of my child over trying to stay.  My parents and brother remained for a few more years and left more so my brother could continue his education that out of any direct threat.  The threat was having to travel through a zone with heavy fighting to get to his school.  We were lucky to have a blanket of protection because of my father and god father.  We also had for former soldier that served my father and later become a UN guard to act as drive our drive.  When bullets are flying no one checks your ID before firing on you.
> 
> *Most refugees leave out a fear of the future and expected threat, not because they were directly forced to leave.  You leave because it is or expected to be too difficult to remain and carry on any normality of life*.  Palestinians exodus was not part of some planned genocide of arabs to e carried out by jews.  They were scared into leaving by their fellow arab and the propaganda that they would be killed, raped or otherwise abuse by the jews if they stayed.  They left before any combat or direct threat.  They chose to leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  But you can't keep denying that the Israeli's themselves had a hand in forcing many of them out through a delliberate campaign and claiming they were all scared into leaving by their fellow arabs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Only #6 applies to force being used to kick arabs/palestinians out of Israel.  *Combat with villages in the beginning did not mean the whole family or ever the whole village had to leave.  Only those directly involved in hostilities.  Most of the fighters were not even arab/palestinians.  They were fighters from other arab states that invaded Israel.  Most arab/palestinians would have been untouched since they were not actually shooting at Israelis or killing civilians.
> Whispers and scare tactics by arabs made the palestinians run, not the Israelis.  In some cases the Israelis took advantage and did not counter the lies.  If people want to believe the worst and are so filled with hate, why would Israel encourage them to stay.  They should be asked to remain so they can be terrorists?  It would eventually have led to them in jail or shown the door.  Yes, it was easier to let the refugees believe a lie at some point.  If they did not want to stay why should Israel force them.  The could direct their attention to not being killed by other armies invading Israel.  Would that not have been as bad?  Considering how out numbered the Israelis were, the could not afford to keeping people in that did not want to stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> #1, 2, and 3 appear to as well.
> 
> This article makes some interesting points it's information isn't dependent on the Arab or Palestinian version of events:  The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition
> 
> _This research activity was originally stimulated by two separate sets of events. First, the opening of Israeli archives, both state and private, covering the period in question. Here *it is worth noting that the historians appear to have ignored almost entirely both the archives of the Arab countries (not that these are notable for their accessibility) and oral history potential among Palestinians themselves*, where considerable work has been done by other historians. As the Palestinian historian, Nur Masalha, rightly says: “History and historiography ought not necessarily be written, exclusively or mainly, by the victors (7)"...
> 
> ...In the opening pages of “The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem”, Benny Morris offers the outlines of an overall answer: using a map that shows the 369 Arab towns and villages in Israel (within its 1949 borders), he lists, area by area, the reasons for the departure of the local population (9). In 45 cases he admits that he does not know. *The inhabitants of the other 228 localities left under attack by Jewish troops, and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force*. In 90 other localities, the Palestinians were in a state of panic following the fall of a neighbouring town or village, or for fear of an enemy attack, or because of rumours circulated by the Jewish army - particularly after the 9 April 1948 massacre of 250 inhabitants of Deir Yassin, where the news of the killings swept the country like wildfire.
> 
> 
> *By contrast, he found only six cases of departures at the instigation of local Arab authorities. “There is no evidence to show that the Arab states and the AHC wanted a mass exodus or issued blanket orders or appeals to the Palestinians to flee their homes* (though in certain areas the inhabitants of specific villages were ordered by Arab commanders or the AHC to leave, mainly for strategic reasons).” ("The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem", p. 129). On the contrary, anyone who fled was actually threatened with “severe punishment”. *As for the broadcasts by Arab radio stations allegedly calling on people to flee, a detailed listening to recordings of their programmes of that period shows that the claims were invented for pure propaganda.*
> 
> In “1948 and After” Benny Morris examines the first phase of the exodus and produces *a detailed analysis of a source that he considers basically reliable: a report prepared by the intelligence services of the Israeli army, dated 30 June 1948 and entitled “The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948”. This document sets at 391,000 the number of Palestinians who had already left the territory that was by then in the hands of Israel, and evaluates the various factors that had prompted their decisions to leave*. “At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations.” To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which “directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration”. A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. *This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis*. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to “fears” and “a crisis of confidence” affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases.._​
> It goes on to note more in the next exodus:
> 
> _In short, as Morris puts it, this report* “undermines the traditional official Israeli ’explanation’ of a mass flight ordered or ’invited’ by the Arab leadership”.* Neither, as he points out, “does [the report] uphold the traditional Arab explanation of the exodus - that the Jews, with premeditation and in a centralised fashion, had systematically waged a campaign aimed at the wholesale expulsion of the native Palestinian population.” However, he says that “the circumstances of the second half of the exodus” - which he estimates as having involved between 300,000 and 400,000 people - “are a different story.”
> 
> One example of this second phase was the expulsion of Arabs living in Lydda (present-day Lod) and Ramleh. On 12 July 1948, within the framework of Operation Dani, a skirmish with Jordanian armoured forces served as a pretext for a violent backlash, with 250 killed, some of whom were unarmed prisoners. *This was followed by a forced evacuation characterised by summary executions and looting and involving upwards of 70,000 Palestinian civilians - almost 10% of the total exodus of 1947- 49. Similar scenarios were enacted, as Morris shows, in central Galilee, Upper Galilee and the northern Negev, as well as in the post-war expulsion of the Palestinians of Al Majdal (Ashkelon). Most of these operations (with the exception of the latter) were marked by atrocities* - a fact which led Aharon Zisling, the minister of agriculture, to tell the Israeli cabinet on 17 November 1948: “I couldn’t sleep all night. I felt that things that were going on were hurting my soul, the soul of my family and all of us here (...) Now Jews too have behaved like Nazis and my entire being has been shaken (10).”
> 
> The Israeli government of the time *pursued a policy of non- compromise, in order to prevent the return of the refugees* “at any price” (as Ben Gurion himself put it), despite the fact that the UN General Assembly had been calling for this since 11 December 1948. Their villages were either destroyed or occupied by Jewish immigrants, and their lands were shared out between the surrounding kibbutzim. The law on “abandoned properties” - which was designed to make possible the seizure of any land belonging to persons who were “absent” - “legalised” this project of general confiscation as of December 1948. Almost 400 Arab villages were thus either wiped off the map or Judaised, as were most of the Arab quarters in mixed towns. According to a report drawn up in 1952, Israel had thus succeeded in expropriating 73,000 rooms in abandoned houses, 7,800 shops, workshops and warehouses, 5 million Palestinian pounds in bank accounts, and - most important of all - 300,000 hectares of land  (11)._​
Click to expand...


>>The exodus was divided into two broadly equal waves: one before and one after the decisive turning-point of the declaration of the State of Israel on 14 May 1948 and the intervention of the armies of the neighboring Arab states on the following day. One can agree that the flight of thousands of well-to-do Palestinians during the first few weeks following the adoption of the UN partition plan - particularly from Haifa and Jaffa - was essentially voluntary. The question is what was the truth of the departures that happened subsequently?
.....................and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force.
...........90 other localities, the Palestinians were in a state of panic following the fall of a neighboring town or village, or for fear of an enemy attack, or because of rumors circulated by the Jewish army<< also from mondediplo

>>
_“One million Palestinians were expelled by Israel from 1947–49.”_

*FACT *
The Palestinians left their homes in 1947–49 for a variety of reasons. Thousands of wealthy Arabs left in anticipation of a war, thousands more responded to Arab leaders’ calls to get out of the way of the advancing armies, a handful were expelled, but most simply fled to avoid being caught in the cross fire of a battle.

Many Arabs claim that 800,000 to 1,000,000 Palestinians became refugees in 1947–49. The last census taken by the British in 1945 found approximately 1.2 million permanent Arab residents in _all_ of Palestine. A 1949 census conducted by the government of Israel counted 160,000 Arabs living in the new state after the war. In 1947, a total of 809,100 Arabs lived in the same area.1 This meant no more than 650,000 Palestinian Arabs could have become refugees. A report by the UN Mediator on Palestine arrived at an even lower refugee figure—472,000.<<Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine, Submitted to the Secretary-General for Transmission to the Members of the United Nations, General Assembly Official Records: Third Session, Supplement No. 11 (A/648), Paris, 1948, p. 47 and Supplement No. 11A (A/689 and A/689/Add.1, p. 5; and “Conclusions from Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine,” (September 16, 1948), U.N. doc. A/648 (part 1, p. 29; part 2, p. 23; part 3, p. 11), (September 18, 1948).

BBC NEWS Middle East Jordan s refugees long to return


----------



## Delta4Embassy

MJB12741 said:


> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine



Palestinians are the Israeli version of American Indians. And just as the Indians got the finger and no one cares, so to with the Palestinians. And just like the Indians, can conform and be Israeli, or resist and stay Palestinians and go extinct in a couple centuries.


----------



## MJB12741

Delta4Embassy said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians are the Israeli version of American Indians. And just as the Indians got the finger and no one cares, so to with the Palestinians. And just like the Indians, can conform and be Israeli, or resist and stay Palestinians and go extinct in a couple centuries.
Click to expand...


And just how will the Palestinians "go extinct" in a couple of centuries if they resist & stay Palestinians when their numbers have grown rapidly, especially since 1948?


----------



## theliq

Delta4Embassy said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians are the Israeli version of American Indians. And just as the Indians got the finger and no one cares, so to with the Palestinians. And just like the Indians, can conform and be Israeli, or resist and stay Palestinians and go extinct in a couple centuries.
Click to expand...

You know nothing.....back to your reservation we call the USA.....don't call us thanks,you just didn't make it


----------



## theliq

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote >>What you call a "refugee migration" was in part a deliberate driving out by Israeli's of Palestinians who then became "exiled". This was not just a "migration" - it was a deliberate planned effort.<<
> 
> >>Bull. I used perfectly good sources to show that there was a deliberate and well orchestrated attempt to force Palestinians out by the Israeli's and it was not simply because they were "hostile" - the source I used based it on government documents. You seem to label sources that disagree with you "misinformation propaganda" and in turn use your own questionable sources.<<
> 
> What sources?  Did I mention you by name?  I was explaining how the majority of palestinians were not force at Israeli gun point to leave the country.  There are tales and a pinch of truth that there were cases where palestinians felt or were forced to move out of their homes or off the land they occupied, but that is not the majority or even 100% of every single case.
> If one person's home is confiscated by the state because of criminal activity, that does not suggest the state will confiscate every home/apartment of every criminal, even misnomers, or result in all the occupants being forced to not just leave the premisses but to leave the country?
> *You, and others, implied that all palestinians were force to leave.*  they were not.  Why did so many leave even before the attack on Israel?  Why did so many leave even though their village was not directly involved in any fighting?  Why were the arabs telling palestinians to leave well before the first shots?
> Israel pleaded for the leaving or told to leave to become part of Israel and help build a strong nation where all faiths co-existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I did not.  What I've said - repeatedly, is that *it is not true that they all or mostly left voluntarily at the urging of their leaders and the other Arab countries* which is what *keeps getting implied by the Pro-Israeli contingen*t.  Yes - I agree with you - that, like refugees today many left in fear of the fighting and for a variety of reasons.  But a substantial number were driven out by the Israeli's themselves in a deliberate plan and this keeps getting ignored or it's claimed that they were removed because they were violent.
> 
> Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> _*Opening of archives*
> 
> In the 1980s Israel and United Kingdom opened up part of their archives for investigation by historians. This favored a more critical and factual analysis of the 1948 events. *As a result more detailed and comprehensive description of the Palestinian exodus was published*, notably Morris' The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem.[5] Morris distinguishes four waves of refugees, the second, third and fourth of them coinciding with Israeli military offensives, when Arab Palestinians fled the fighting, were frightened away, or were expelled.
> 
> 
> A document produced by the Israeli Defence Forces Intelligence Service entitled "The Emigration of the Arabs of Palestine in the Period 1/12/1947 – 1/6/1948" was dated 30 June 1948 and became widely known around 1985.
> 
> 
> T*he document details 11 factors which caused the exodus, and lists them "in order of importance":*
> 
> _
> 
> _Direct, hostile Jewish [ Haganah/IDF ] operations against Arab settlements._
> _The effect of our [Haganah/IDF] hostile operations against nearby [Arab] settlements... (... especially the fall of large neighbouring centers)._
> _Operation of [Jewish] dissidents [ Irgun Tzvai Leumi and Lohamei Herut Yisrael]_
> _Orders and decrees by Arab institutions and gangs [irregulars]._
> _Jewish whispering operations [psychological warfare], aimed at frightening away Arab inhabitants._
> _Ultimate expulsion orders [by Jewish forces]_
> _Fear of Jewish [retaliatory] response [following] major Arab attack on Jews._
> _The appearance of gangs [irregular Arab forces] and non-local fighters in the vicinity of a village._
> _Fear of Arab invasion and its consequences [mainly near the borders]._
> _Isolated Arab villages in purely [predominantly] Jewish areas._
> _Various local factors and general fear of the future.[6]_
> _
> "In the past two decades, following the powerful reverberations (concerning the cause of the Nakba) triggered by the publication of books written by those dubbed the “New Historians,” the Israeli archives revoked access to much of the explosive material. Archived Israeli documents that reported the expulsion of Palestinians, massacres or rapes perpetrated by Israeli soldiers, along with other events considered embarrassing by the establishment, were reclassified as “top secret.”[7]
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> As with most conflicts in the region, and around the world, if you hear the sound of fighting or see people preparing for a fight, people will seek safety while it is still safe to get out of the way.  Most of the refugees from syria were not escorted to the border at gun point and force to leave the country.  People that expect to be unable to move freely, get their children to schools, be able to work or that want to prevent their family being collateral damage sent their family away till it is safe to return.  They were not force to leave or thrown out by the establish government.
> Some move out of town, some move across the country, some leave the country.  They make that choice.  That is not the same as forced out of their homes or out of the country by the hostiles.  Mostly they leave out a precaution.  When someone bust down your down and say they are taking your home at gun point and threaten to kill you if you are not out in the nest ten minutes or begin to kill your family while you and the rest escape, that is being forced out.
> 
> We moved to avoid the fighting, many times both across the country and out of the country.  We the except of being directly targeted outside of my home or one incident at our front door, we were not forced to leave.  We often stayed and just took shelter in the basements with the rocket being fired at our neighbors fell short.  The apartment that we owned down stairs was for a time occupied.  We still have property that have palestinian squatters living in by the shore.  We were not there at the time.  Most of the places in that neighborhood were taken.
> 
> Seeking safety is your choice.  Being force out is different.  I valued my safety and that of my child over trying to stay.  My parents and brother remained for a few more years and left more so my brother could continue his education that out of any direct threat.  The threat was having to travel through a zone with heavy fighting to get to his school.  We were lucky to have a blanket of protection because of my father and god father.  We also had for former soldier that served my father and later become a UN guard to act as drive our drive.  When bullets are flying no one checks your ID before firing on you.
> 
> *Most refugees leave out a fear of the future and expected threat, not because they were directly forced to leave.  You leave because it is or expected to be too difficult to remain and carry on any normality of life*.  Palestinians exodus was not part of some planned genocide of arabs to e carried out by jews.  They were scared into leaving by their fellow arab and the propaganda that they would be killed, raped or otherwise abuse by the jews if they stayed.  They left before any combat or direct threat.  They chose to leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  But you can't keep denying that the Israeli's themselves had a hand in forcing many of them out through a delliberate campaign and claiming they were all scared into leaving by their fellow arabs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Only #6 applies to force being used to kick arabs/palestinians out of Israel.  *Combat with villages in the beginning did not mean the whole family or ever the whole village had to leave.  Only those directly involved in hostilities.  Most of the fighters were not even arab/palestinians.  They were fighters from other arab states that invaded Israel.  Most arab/palestinians would have been untouched since they were not actually shooting at Israelis or killing civilians.
> Whispers and scare tactics by arabs made the palestinians run, not the Israelis.  In some cases the Israelis took advantage and did not counter the lies.  If people want to believe the worst and are so filled with hate, why would Israel encourage them to stay.  They should be asked to remain so they can be terrorists?  It would eventually have led to them in jail or shown the door.  Yes, it was easier to let the refugees believe a lie at some point.  If they did not want to stay why should Israel force them.  The could direct their attention to not being killed by other armies invading Israel.  Would that not have been as bad?  Considering how out numbered the Israelis were, the could not afford to keeping people in that did not want to stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> #1, 2, and 3 appear to as well.
> 
> This article makes some interesting points it's information isn't dependent on the Arab or Palestinian version of events:  The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition
> 
> _This research activity was originally stimulated by two separate sets of events. First, the opening of Israeli archives, both state and private, covering the period in question. Here *it is worth noting that the historians appear to have ignored almost entirely both the archives of the Arab countries (not that these are notable for their accessibility) and oral history potential among Palestinians themselves*, where considerable work has been done by other historians. As the Palestinian historian, Nur Masalha, rightly says: “History and historiography ought not necessarily be written, exclusively or mainly, by the victors (7)"...
> 
> ...In the opening pages of “The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem”, Benny Morris offers the outlines of an overall answer: using a map that shows the 369 Arab towns and villages in Israel (within its 1949 borders), he lists, area by area, the reasons for the departure of the local population (9). In 45 cases he admits that he does not know. *The inhabitants of the other 228 localities left under attack by Jewish troops, and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force*. In 90 other localities, the Palestinians were in a state of panic following the fall of a neighbouring town or village, or for fear of an enemy attack, or because of rumours circulated by the Jewish army - particularly after the 9 April 1948 massacre of 250 inhabitants of Deir Yassin, where the news of the killings swept the country like wildfire.
> 
> 
> *By contrast, he found only six cases of departures at the instigation of local Arab authorities. “There is no evidence to show that the Arab states and the AHC wanted a mass exodus or issued blanket orders or appeals to the Palestinians to flee their homes* (though in certain areas the inhabitants of specific villages were ordered by Arab commanders or the AHC to leave, mainly for strategic reasons).” ("The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem", p. 129). On the contrary, anyone who fled was actually threatened with “severe punishment”. *As for the broadcasts by Arab radio stations allegedly calling on people to flee, a detailed listening to recordings of their programmes of that period shows that the claims were invented for pure propaganda.*
> 
> In “1948 and After” Benny Morris examines the first phase of the exodus and produces *a detailed analysis of a source that he considers basically reliable: a report prepared by the intelligence services of the Israeli army, dated 30 June 1948 and entitled “The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948”. This document sets at 391,000 the number of Palestinians who had already left the territory that was by then in the hands of Israel, and evaluates the various factors that had prompted their decisions to leave*. “At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations.” To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which “directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration”. A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. *This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis*. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to “fears” and “a crisis of confidence” affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases.._​
> It goes on to note more in the next exodus:
> 
> _In short, as Morris puts it, this report* “undermines the traditional official Israeli ’explanation’ of a mass flight ordered or ’invited’ by the Arab leadership”.* Neither, as he points out, “does [the report] uphold the traditional Arab explanation of the exodus - that the Jews, with premeditation and in a centralised fashion, had systematically waged a campaign aimed at the wholesale expulsion of the native Palestinian population.” However, he says that “the circumstances of the second half of the exodus” - which he estimates as having involved between 300,000 and 400,000 people - “are a different story.”
> 
> One example of this second phase was the expulsion of Arabs living in Lydda (present-day Lod) and Ramleh. On 12 July 1948, within the framework of Operation Dani, a skirmish with Jordanian armoured forces served as a pretext for a violent backlash, with 250 killed, some of whom were unarmed prisoners. *This was followed by a forced evacuation characterised by summary executions and looting and involving upwards of 70,000 Palestinian civilians - almost 10% of the total exodus of 1947- 49. Similar scenarios were enacted, as Morris shows, in central Galilee, Upper Galilee and the northern Negev, as well as in the post-war expulsion of the Palestinians of Al Majdal (Ashkelon). Most of these operations (with the exception of the latter) were marked by atrocities* - a fact which led Aharon Zisling, the minister of agriculture, to tell the Israeli cabinet on 17 November 1948: “I couldn’t sleep all night. I felt that things that were going on were hurting my soul, the soul of my family and all of us here (...) Now Jews too have behaved like Nazis and my entire being has been shaken (10).”
> 
> The Israeli government of the time *pursued a policy of non- compromise, in order to prevent the return of the refugees* “at any price” (as Ben Gurion himself put it), despite the fact that the UN General Assembly had been calling for this since 11 December 1948. Their villages were either destroyed or occupied by Jewish immigrants, and their lands were shared out between the surrounding kibbutzim. The law on “abandoned properties” - which was designed to make possible the seizure of any land belonging to persons who were “absent” - “legalised” this project of general confiscation as of December 1948. Almost 400 Arab villages were thus either wiped off the map or Judaised, as were most of the Arab quarters in mixed towns. According to a report drawn up in 1952, Israel had thus succeeded in expropriating 73,000 rooms in abandoned houses, 7,800 shops, workshops and warehouses, 5 million Palestinian pounds in bank accounts, and - most important of all - 300,000 hectares of land  (11)._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>The exodus was divided into two broadly equal waves: one before and one after the decisive turning-point of the declaration of the State of Israel on 14 May 1948 and the intervention of the armies of the neighboring Arab states on the following day. One can agree that the flight of thousands of well-to-do Palestinians during the first few weeks following the adoption of the UN partition plan - particularly from Haifa and Jaffa - was essentially voluntary. The question is what was the truth of the departures that happened subsequently?
> .....................and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force.
> ...........90 other localities, the Palestinians were in a state of panic following the fall of a neighboring town or village, or for fear of an enemy attack, or because of rumors circulated by the Jewish army<< also from mondediplo
> 
> >>
> _“One million Palestinians were expelled by Israel from 1947–49.”_
> 
> *FACT *
> The Palestinians left their homes in 1947–49 for a variety of reasons. Thousands of wealthy Arabs left in anticipation of a war, thousands more responded to Arab leaders’ calls to get out of the way of the advancing armies, a handful were expelled, but most simply fled to avoid being caught in the cross fire of a battle.
> 
> Many Arabs claim that 800,000 to 1,000,000 Palestinians became refugees in 1947–49. The last census taken by the British in 1945 found approximately 1.2 million permanent Arab residents in _all_ of Palestine. A 1949 census conducted by the government of Israel counted 160,000 Arabs living in the new state after the war. In 1947, a total of 809,100 Arabs lived in the same area.1 This meant no more than 650,000 Palestinian Arabs could have become refugees. A report by the UN Mediator on Palestine arrived at an even lower refugee figure—472,000.<<Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine, Submitted to the Secretary-General for Transmission to the Members of the United Nations, General Assembly Official Records: Third Session, Supplement No. 11 (A/648), Paris, 1948, p. 47 and Supplement No. 11A (A/689 and A/689/Add.1, p. 5; and “Conclusions from Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine,” (September 16, 1948), U.N. doc. A/648 (part 1, p. 29; part 2, p. 23; part 3, p. 11), (September 18, 1948).
> 
> BBC NEWS Middle East Jordan s refugees long to return
Click to expand...

The MAJORITY OF PALESTINIANS WERE FORCIBLY REMOVED FOR THEIR OWN LAND.....not a few.......and their towns and villages were then razed to the ground......always though you were bright  ...............but DUH now comes to mind.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Well, your source is close.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> International law considers agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void if they deprive civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation and restitution."
> ​Read more: Articles The Jihad Lawyer
> So we can put Oslo and other agreements that Arafat was duped into signing to bed, shall we?  When Hamas refuses to recognize previous agreements it is because they are invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCES)*
> 
> 
> 
> "Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. 8)." *SOURCE:* Occupation and international humanitarian law: questions and answers ICRC
> Part I. General Provisions
> 
> 
> Art. 8. Protected persons may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention, and by the special agreements referred to in the foregoing Article, if such there be.
> 
> 
> Section III. Occupied territories
> 
> Art. 47. Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What your source _(Articles The Jihad Lawyer)_ interprets the Geneva Convention to say, and what it actually says --- are two different things; as you can see.  And again, it depends on whether you want to accept the concept that the Israelis are an "Occupation Power" or a "Colonial Power."  If you argue the case that Israel is a "Colonial Power" then the GC IV does not apply.  But if the Israeli is a "Occupation Power" --- THEN --- the prohibition is very specific (GCIV Article 47).  It does not say:  "agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not that I see them as inapplicable as much as universally violated. Israel wants the fruits of occupation while it thumbs its nose at the restrictions and obligations. Although it still fits the definition of an occupation, its actions, depending on time and place, better fit colonization and invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Actually, Israel argues, like you, that the GCIV doesn't really apply, except by Security Council Mandate; "_Calls once more upon_ Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention," Security Council Resolution 446.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of which definition you use, it is still illegal to acquire land through the threat or use of force. All of "Israel's land" has been acquired at the point of a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes, reading this carefully, this is an application of:
> 
> Palestine National Charter of 1968
> 
> Article 1. Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the greater Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.
> 
> Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.​
> This is a concept that dates back to Israeli Independence over a half century ago, in which the right of self-determination was exercised pursuant to the UN "Steps Preparatory to Independence."  Prior to May '48, it was a Civil War.  After May '48, it was an invasion by Arab Armies attempting to use force to interrupt the implementation of the Partition Plan and subvert the will of the UN.
> 
> Now, in terms of the territory and the sovereignty, this is something that the Palestinians have consistently said is a "violation of international law."  Yet in over half a century, they have never availed themselves to the recognized dispute resolution processes.
> 
> The Law is quite clear:
> 
> 
> "Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States."  A/RES/25/2625
> Not once did the Palestinians attempt peaceful means to resolve the issues.  The policy is:
> 
> There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the "dispute" and what is the recognized dispute resolution processes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dispute is about Israel occupying palestine, the dispute resolution process is the one laid down in the UN resolutions. These say an end to all violence beligerence and terrorism and negotiations to a peace and mutual borders
Click to expand...

What UN resolution references the occupation?


----------



## Mindful

Delta4Embassy said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians are the Israeli version of American Indians. And just as the Indians got the finger and no one cares, so to with the Palestinians. And just like the Indians, can conform and be Israeli, or resist and stay Palestinians and go extinct in a couple centuries.
Click to expand...


Are you implying the Palestinians are not Arabs? What happened to them during Jordanian occupation? 

And not to forget, that the Jews of the region were also Palestinians, prior to the state of Israel.

As for the analogy to the Indians( American?)..........maybe another time.


----------



## Mindful

Inventing the 8220 Palestinian people 8221 8230 the biggest scam to ever hit the world


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The "right of self-determination" falls within a special category of conceptual understandings.  When I was in college, they had a very complex definition for it; but in this case, I like the "wikipedia" description the best.  It is a case that of "indeterminacy."
> 
> *Indeterminacy*
> Indeterminacy, in philosophy, can refer both to common scientific and mathematical concepts of uncertainty and their implications
> and to another kind of indeterminacy deriving from the nature of definition or meaning. It is related to deconstructionism and to
> Nietzsche's criticism of the Kantian noumenon.​
> Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminacy_(philosophy)​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> Under what theory would the "right of self-determination" not apply equally to Israel?
> 
> 
> 
> Good post, thanks.
> "...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state."
> And then there is:
> No definition of peoples is offered,..​Well they do, kind of. Look at the definition of people.
> 
> Person is singular.
> People is plural.
> Peoples is a plural plural.
> A people is a singular plural.
> 
> A people is a group of people who have common characteristics. Peoples can be defined by geographical location. The French are a people. The British are a people. The Palestinians are a people. All of these are within defined territories and are naturals for self determination within a country or state.
> 
> Then there are people who have other defining characteristics, like race, color, or religion. These are distributed throughout the world and do not lend themselves suitable for statehood. In fact segregation according to these characteristics is viewed as undesirable in the civilized world.
> 
> As they say:
> "...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state."​You asked. That is my answer.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The hidden beauty of an "indeterminacy" is much like the "Heisenberg uncertainty principle;" in quantum mechanics holding that increasing the accuracy of measurement of one observable quantity increases the uncertainty _[(energy and position) and (momentum within a quantum system) cannot both be accurately measured simultaneously)]_.  In the case of the "right of self-determination" the "right" of the Jewish People and the "right" of the Arab People cannot both be evaluated simultaneously without causing some injury to one or the other _(it is indeterminate)_.  Thus any argument made --- which is based --- on the "right of self-determination" for either side is inconclusive.  The "rights" cancel each other out because they cannot be applied individually without prejudice to the other.
> 
> One can argue that "...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state;" one can also say that that neither of the purposes precludes the establishment of "an ethnically distinct people with a state" as a possible outcome.  This would be especially possible since the intent, at the very outset, was to establish a National Homeland and that these national aspirations _(goals in common)_ were recognized by the Arab and Jewish Leadership at the outset _(Faisal-Weizmann Agreement of 1919)_.  Both sides understood that the "racial kindship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realising that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations, is through the closest possible, collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

"The hidden beauty of an "indeterminacy" is much like..."​
The hidden beauty is that you can smokescreen the issues with verbosity.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

One can argue that there is a certain indeterminacy to the issue, or one can argue that --- one side or the other --- has more of a "right to self-determination."  In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the indeterminate position is neutral position; a case of "equal rights."



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The "right of self-determination" falls within a special category of conceptual understandings.  When I was in college, they had a very complex definition for it; but in this case, I like the "wikipedia" description the best.  It is a case that of "indeterminacy."
> 
> *Indeterminacy*
> Indeterminacy, in philosophy, can refer both to common scientific and mathematical concepts of uncertainty and their implications
> and to another kind of indeterminacy deriving from the nature of definition or meaning. It is related to deconstructionism and to
> Nietzsche's criticism of the Kantian noumenon.​
> Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminacy_(philosophy)​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> Under what theory would the "right of self-determination" not apply equally to Israel?
> 
> 
> 
> Good post, thanks.
> "...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state."
> And then there is:
> No definition of peoples is offered,..​Well they do, kind of. Look at the definition of people.
> 
> Person is singular.
> People is plural.
> Peoples is a plural plural.
> A people is a singular plural.
> 
> A people is a group of people who have common characteristics. Peoples can be defined by geographical location. The French are a people. The British are a people. The Palestinians are a people. All of these are within defined territories and are naturals for self determination within a country or state.
> 
> Then there are people who have other defining characteristics, like race, color, or religion. These are distributed throughout the world and do not lend themselves suitable for statehood. In fact segregation according to these characteristics is viewed as undesirable in the civilized world.
> 
> As they say:
> "...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state."​You asked. That is my answer.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The hidden beauty of an "indeterminacy" is much like the "Heisenberg uncertainty principle;" in quantum mechanics holding that increasing the accuracy of measurement of one observable quantity increases the uncertainty _[(energy and position) and (momentum within a quantum system) cannot both be accurately measured simultaneously)]_.  In the case of the "right of self-determination" the "right" of the Jewish People and the "right" of the Arab People cannot both be evaluated simultaneously without causing some injury to one or the other _(it is indeterminate)_.  Thus any argument made --- which is based --- on the "right of self-determination" for either side is inconclusive.  The "rights" cancel each other out because they cannot be applied individually without prejudice to the other.
> 
> One can argue that "...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state;" one can also say that that neither of the purposes precludes the establishment of "an ethnically distinct people with a state" as a possible outcome.  This would be especially possible since the intent, at the very outset, was to establish a National Homeland and that these national aspirations _(goals in common)_ were recognized by the Arab and Jewish Leadership at the outset _(Faisal-Weizmann Agreement of 1919)_.  Both sides understood that the "racial kindship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realising that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations, is through the closest possible, collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The hidden beauty of an "indeterminacy" is much like..."​
> The hidden beauty is that you can smokescreen the issues with verbosity.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Is it a "smokescreen?"  Or is it a case in which the Arab-Palestinian claims more of a "right" of some sort than has been endowed upon them?  _(As it pertains to this particular argument.)_

I tried to stay away from the issue of suitability; that is, your claim that some "do not lend themselves suitable for statehood."  Clearly, the suitability _(and capability)_ of the Arab Palestinian, both then and now, is a condition subject to an entirely different discussion.

If you rule-out the indeterminate factor intertwined in the distinction between "people" 'vs' "peoples" --- then you are left with the underlying theory behind the "right of self-determination" --- that:  "the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order" is somehow recognized.  (See Post #563")  That would be the people of Israel _(one people)_ and the people of the West Bank and Gaza _(one people)_; or collectively, the "peoples" _(the collective)_.    *Note*:  For the sake of your plural distinction:  _(one people) + (one people) = (one peoples - or - the collective)_

The Leaders of the early 20th Century _(trained 19th Century thinkers)_ did not quibble over such distinctions _(people 'vs' peoples)_.  If they saw a universal right, then it applied to everyone equally - and was not a matter of distinguishing characteristics _(and they saw very few universal rights --- let alone the "contemporary notions of self-determination usually distinguish between “internal” and “external” self-determination, suggesting that "self-determination" exists on a spectrum")_.  And most certainly, as the Allied Powers were determining the establishment of a Jewish National Home _(in whatever form it would ultimately take - that being undetermined in San Remo)_, it was quite clear that they held the power to make the determinations and not the indigenous enemy population of lands surrendered to them at the outcome of the war _(there was no spectrum of self-determination - they made the determination)_.  The idea of the right to self-determination was not yet a consideration.  "In international law, the right of self-determination that became recognized in the post-WWII years were interpreted as the right of all colonial territories to become independent or to adopt any other status they freely chose;" had not yet been established.  And the Leaders of the early 20th Century _(trained 19th Century thinkers)_ did not quibble about it - these were not new colonial interests, but "Mandates."  And as such, "no right to secession has yet been recognized under international law;" no right to self-determination except what was granted to them by the powers-that-be.

One of the earliest proponents of a right to self-determination was U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. A month after his famous "Fourteen Points" speech to the U.S. Congress in January 1918 (in which the term "self-determination" does not appear), he proclaimed:

"Self-determination" is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril....​Despite Wilson's injunction, attempts to turn self-determination from a "mere phrase" into a binding norm did not occur for over 40 years, following the deaths of tens of millions in two major wars. *While the Covenant of the League of Nations did indirectly address the principle of self-determination (without using the word) in the system of mandates that it established, identification of the mandates and implementation of the system was wholly dependent on politics, not law.* In most of the territorial adjustments that followed the end of World War I, *winners and losers were determined by the political calculations and perceived needs of the Great Powers rather than on the basis of which groups had the strongest claims to self-determination.*
_*SOURCE:*_ Legal Aspects of Self-Determination - Princeton University Encyclopedia of Self-determination​
For the sake of emphasis, let me repeat something here:  "In most of the territorial adjustments that followed the end of World War I, winners and losers were *determined by* the political calculations and perceived needs of *the Great Powers* rather than on the basis of which groups had the strongest claims to self-determination."  This was the political landscape at the time the decisions were made to establish the "Jewish National Home."

Thus _(whether you like the "theory of indeterminism" or not)_, the Arab-Palestinian "right to self-determination" was NOT extended based on the strongest claim or any inherent right they perceived as being owed to them, but were determined on the basis of the wants and needs of the Allied Powers; that being the establishment of the Jewish National Home _(in whatever form it would ultimately take - that being undetermined in San Remo)_.

I know this interpretation sounds hard and harsh _(maybe even unfair)_, but that was the characteristics of the times.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Coyote

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote >>What you call a "refugee migration" was in part a deliberate driving out by Israeli's of Palestinians who then became "exiled". This was not just a "migration" - it was a deliberate planned effort.<<
> 
> >>Bull. I used perfectly good sources to show that there was a deliberate and well orchestrated attempt to force Palestinians out by the Israeli's and it was not simply because they were "hostile" - the source I used based it on government documents. You seem to label sources that disagree with you "misinformation propaganda" and in turn use your own questionable sources.<<
> 
> What sources?  Did I mention you by name?  I was explaining how the majority of palestinians were not force at Israeli gun point to leave the country.  There are tales and a pinch of truth that there were cases where palestinians felt or were forced to move out of their homes or off the land they occupied, but that is not the majority or even 100% of every single case.
> If one person's home is confiscated by the state because of criminal activity, that does not suggest the state will confiscate every home/apartment of every criminal, even misnomers, or result in all the occupants being forced to not just leave the premisses but to leave the country?
> *You, and others, implied that all palestinians were force to leave.*  they were not.  Why did so many leave even before the attack on Israel?  Why did so many leave even though their village was not directly involved in any fighting?  Why were the arabs telling palestinians to leave well before the first shots?
> Israel pleaded for the leaving or told to leave to become part of Israel and help build a strong nation where all faiths co-existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I did not.  What I've said - repeatedly, is that *it is not true that they all or mostly left voluntarily at the urging of their leaders and the other Arab countries* which is what *keeps getting implied by the Pro-Israeli contingen*t.  Yes - I agree with you - that, like refugees today many left in fear of the fighting and for a variety of reasons.  But a substantial number were driven out by the Israeli's themselves in a deliberate plan and this keeps getting ignored or it's claimed that they were removed because they were violent.
> 
> Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> _*Opening of archives*
> 
> In the 1980s Israel and United Kingdom opened up part of their archives for investigation by historians. This favored a more critical and factual analysis of the 1948 events. *As a result more detailed and comprehensive description of the Palestinian exodus was published*, notably Morris' The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem.[5] Morris distinguishes four waves of refugees, the second, third and fourth of them coinciding with Israeli military offensives, when Arab Palestinians fled the fighting, were frightened away, or were expelled.
> 
> 
> A document produced by the Israeli Defence Forces Intelligence Service entitled "The Emigration of the Arabs of Palestine in the Period 1/12/1947 – 1/6/1948" was dated 30 June 1948 and became widely known around 1985.
> 
> 
> T*he document details 11 factors which caused the exodus, and lists them "in order of importance":*
> 
> _
> 
> _Direct, hostile Jewish [ Haganah/IDF ] operations against Arab settlements._
> _The effect of our [Haganah/IDF] hostile operations against nearby [Arab] settlements... (... especially the fall of large neighbouring centers)._
> _Operation of [Jewish] dissidents [ Irgun Tzvai Leumi and Lohamei Herut Yisrael]_
> _Orders and decrees by Arab institutions and gangs [irregulars]._
> _Jewish whispering operations [psychological warfare], aimed at frightening away Arab inhabitants._
> _Ultimate expulsion orders [by Jewish forces]_
> _Fear of Jewish [retaliatory] response [following] major Arab attack on Jews._
> _The appearance of gangs [irregular Arab forces] and non-local fighters in the vicinity of a village._
> _Fear of Arab invasion and its consequences [mainly near the borders]._
> _Isolated Arab villages in purely [predominantly] Jewish areas._
> _Various local factors and general fear of the future.[6]_
> _
> "In the past two decades, following the powerful reverberations (concerning the cause of the Nakba) triggered by the publication of books written by those dubbed the “New Historians,” the Israeli archives revoked access to much of the explosive material. Archived Israeli documents that reported the expulsion of Palestinians, massacres or rapes perpetrated by Israeli soldiers, along with other events considered embarrassing by the establishment, were reclassified as “top secret.”[7]
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> As with most conflicts in the region, and around the world, if you hear the sound of fighting or see people preparing for a fight, people will seek safety while it is still safe to get out of the way.  Most of the refugees from syria were not escorted to the border at gun point and force to leave the country.  People that expect to be unable to move freely, get their children to schools, be able to work or that want to prevent their family being collateral damage sent their family away till it is safe to return.  They were not force to leave or thrown out by the establish government.
> Some move out of town, some move across the country, some leave the country.  They make that choice.  That is not the same as forced out of their homes or out of the country by the hostiles.  Mostly they leave out a precaution.  When someone bust down your down and say they are taking your home at gun point and threaten to kill you if you are not out in the nest ten minutes or begin to kill your family while you and the rest escape, that is being forced out.
> 
> We moved to avoid the fighting, many times both across the country and out of the country.  We the except of being directly targeted outside of my home or one incident at our front door, we were not forced to leave.  We often stayed and just took shelter in the basements with the rocket being fired at our neighbors fell short.  The apartment that we owned down stairs was for a time occupied.  We still have property that have palestinian squatters living in by the shore.  We were not there at the time.  Most of the places in that neighborhood were taken.
> 
> Seeking safety is your choice.  Being force out is different.  I valued my safety and that of my child over trying to stay.  My parents and brother remained for a few more years and left more so my brother could continue his education that out of any direct threat.  The threat was having to travel through a zone with heavy fighting to get to his school.  We were lucky to have a blanket of protection because of my father and god father.  We also had for former soldier that served my father and later become a UN guard to act as drive our drive.  When bullets are flying no one checks your ID before firing on you.
> 
> *Most refugees leave out a fear of the future and expected threat, not because they were directly forced to leave.  You leave because it is or expected to be too difficult to remain and carry on any normality of life*.  Palestinians exodus was not part of some planned genocide of arabs to e carried out by jews.  They were scared into leaving by their fellow arab and the propaganda that they would be killed, raped or otherwise abuse by the jews if they stayed.  They left before any combat or direct threat.  They chose to leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  But you can't keep denying that the Israeli's themselves had a hand in forcing many of them out through a delliberate campaign and claiming they were all scared into leaving by their fellow arabs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Only #6 applies to force being used to kick arabs/palestinians out of Israel.  *Combat with villages in the beginning did not mean the whole family or ever the whole village had to leave.  Only those directly involved in hostilities.  Most of the fighters were not even arab/palestinians.  They were fighters from other arab states that invaded Israel.  Most arab/palestinians would have been untouched since they were not actually shooting at Israelis or killing civilians.
> Whispers and scare tactics by arabs made the palestinians run, not the Israelis.  In some cases the Israelis took advantage and did not counter the lies.  If people want to believe the worst and are so filled with hate, why would Israel encourage them to stay.  They should be asked to remain so they can be terrorists?  It would eventually have led to them in jail or shown the door.  Yes, it was easier to let the refugees believe a lie at some point.  If they did not want to stay why should Israel force them.  The could direct their attention to not being killed by other armies invading Israel.  Would that not have been as bad?  Considering how out numbered the Israelis were, the could not afford to keeping people in that did not want to stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> #1, 2, and 3 appear to as well.
> 
> This article makes some interesting points it's information isn't dependent on the Arab or Palestinian version of events:  The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition
> 
> _This research activity was originally stimulated by two separate sets of events. First, the opening of Israeli archives, both state and private, covering the period in question. Here *it is worth noting that the historians appear to have ignored almost entirely both the archives of the Arab countries (not that these are notable for their accessibility) and oral history potential among Palestinians themselves*, where considerable work has been done by other historians. As the Palestinian historian, Nur Masalha, rightly says: “History and historiography ought not necessarily be written, exclusively or mainly, by the victors (7)"...
> 
> ...In the opening pages of “The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem”, Benny Morris offers the outlines of an overall answer: using a map that shows the 369 Arab towns and villages in Israel (within its 1949 borders), he lists, area by area, the reasons for the departure of the local population (9). In 45 cases he admits that he does not know. *The inhabitants of the other 228 localities left under attack by Jewish troops, and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force*. In 90 other localities, the Palestinians were in a state of panic following the fall of a neighbouring town or village, or for fear of an enemy attack, or because of rumours circulated by the Jewish army - particularly after the 9 April 1948 massacre of 250 inhabitants of Deir Yassin, where the news of the killings swept the country like wildfire.
> 
> 
> *By contrast, he found only six cases of departures at the instigation of local Arab authorities. “There is no evidence to show that the Arab states and the AHC wanted a mass exodus or issued blanket orders or appeals to the Palestinians to flee their homes* (though in certain areas the inhabitants of specific villages were ordered by Arab commanders or the AHC to leave, mainly for strategic reasons).” ("The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem", p. 129). On the contrary, anyone who fled was actually threatened with “severe punishment”. *As for the broadcasts by Arab radio stations allegedly calling on people to flee, a detailed listening to recordings of their programmes of that period shows that the claims were invented for pure propaganda.*
> 
> In “1948 and After” Benny Morris examines the first phase of the exodus and produces *a detailed analysis of a source that he considers basically reliable: a report prepared by the intelligence services of the Israeli army, dated 30 June 1948 and entitled “The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948”. This document sets at 391,000 the number of Palestinians who had already left the territory that was by then in the hands of Israel, and evaluates the various factors that had prompted their decisions to leave*. “At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations.” To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which “directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration”. A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. *This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis*. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to “fears” and “a crisis of confidence” affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases.._​
> It goes on to note more in the next exodus:
> 
> _In short, as Morris puts it, this report* “undermines the traditional official Israeli ’explanation’ of a mass flight ordered or ’invited’ by the Arab leadership”.* Neither, as he points out, “does [the report] uphold the traditional Arab explanation of the exodus - that the Jews, with premeditation and in a centralised fashion, had systematically waged a campaign aimed at the wholesale expulsion of the native Palestinian population.” However, he says that “the circumstances of the second half of the exodus” - which he estimates as having involved between 300,000 and 400,000 people - “are a different story.”
> 
> One example of this second phase was the expulsion of Arabs living in Lydda (present-day Lod) and Ramleh. On 12 July 1948, within the framework of Operation Dani, a skirmish with Jordanian armoured forces served as a pretext for a violent backlash, with 250 killed, some of whom were unarmed prisoners. *This was followed by a forced evacuation characterised by summary executions and looting and involving upwards of 70,000 Palestinian civilians - almost 10% of the total exodus of 1947- 49. Similar scenarios were enacted, as Morris shows, in central Galilee, Upper Galilee and the northern Negev, as well as in the post-war expulsion of the Palestinians of Al Majdal (Ashkelon). Most of these operations (with the exception of the latter) were marked by atrocities* - a fact which led Aharon Zisling, the minister of agriculture, to tell the Israeli cabinet on 17 November 1948: “I couldn’t sleep all night. I felt that things that were going on were hurting my soul, the soul of my family and all of us here (...) Now Jews too have behaved like Nazis and my entire being has been shaken (10).”
> 
> The Israeli government of the time *pursued a policy of non- compromise, in order to prevent the return of the refugees* “at any price” (as Ben Gurion himself put it), despite the fact that the UN General Assembly had been calling for this since 11 December 1948. Their villages were either destroyed or occupied by Jewish immigrants, and their lands were shared out between the surrounding kibbutzim. The law on “abandoned properties” - which was designed to make possible the seizure of any land belonging to persons who were “absent” - “legalised” this project of general confiscation as of December 1948. Almost 400 Arab villages were thus either wiped off the map or Judaised, as were most of the Arab quarters in mixed towns. According to a report drawn up in 1952, Israel had thus succeeded in expropriating 73,000 rooms in abandoned houses, 7,800 shops, workshops and warehouses, 5 million Palestinian pounds in bank accounts, and - most important of all - 300,000 hectares of land  (11)._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>The exodus was divided into two broadly equal waves: one before and one after the decisive turning-point of the declaration of the State of Israel on 14 May 1948 and the intervention of the armies of the neighboring Arab states on the following day. One can agree that the flight of thousands of well-to-do Palestinians during the first few weeks following the adoption of the UN partition plan - particularly from Haifa and Jaffa - was essentially voluntary. The question is what was the truth of the departures that happened subsequently?
> .....................and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force.
> ...........90 other localities, the Palestinians were in a state of panic following the fall of a neighboring town or village, or for fear of an enemy attack, or because of rumors circulated by the Jewish army<< also from mondediplo
Click to expand...


...*The inhabitants of the other 228 localities left under attack by Jewish troops, *_and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force_




> >>
> _“One million Palestinians were expelled by Israel from 1947–49.”_
> 
> *FACT *
> The Palestinians left their homes in 1947–49 for a variety of reasons. Thousands of wealthy Arabs left in anticipation of a war, thousands more responded to Arab leaders’ calls to get out of the way of the advancing armies, a handful were expelled, but most simply fled to avoid being caught in the cross fire of a battle.



Agree - they left for a variety of reasons however you repeatedly minimize the effects and efforts of the Israeli factions and militias themselves on promoting this departure.  You say thousands more responded to Arab leaders calls to get out of the way yet the historian I quoted, working from archival  government documents, states that the number who left for that reason was quite minimal and some of the claims (such as radio programs from Arabs telling them to flee) was nothing more than propaganda from the Israeli's.



> Many Arabs claim that 800,000 to 1,000,000 Palestinians became refugees in 1947–49. The last census taken by the British in 1945 found approximately 1.2 million permanent Arab residents in _all_ of Palestine. A 1949 census conducted by the government of Israel counted 160,000 Arabs living in the new state after the war. In 1947, a total of 809,100 Arabs lived in the same area.1 This meant no more than 650,000 Palestinian Arabs could have become refugees. A report by the UN Mediator on Palestine arrived at an even lower refugee figure—472,000.<<Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine, Submitted to the Secretary-General for Transmission to the Members of the United Nations, General Assembly Official Records: Third Session, Supplement No. 11 (A/648), Paris, 1948, p. 47 and Supplement No. 11A (A/689 and A/689/Add.1, p. 5; and “Conclusions from Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine,” (September 16, 1948), U.N. doc. A/648 (part 1, p. 29; part 2, p. 23; part 3, p. 11), (September 18, 1948).
> 
> BBC NEWS Middle East Jordan s refugees long to return



I'm not sure about actual numbers...I will leave any argument there for others.  What I am arguing is that Israel had a deliberate policy of forcing out the Palestinians and preventing their return.


----------



## aris2chat

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> One can argue that there is a certain indeterminacy to the issue, or one can argue that --- one side or the other --- has more of a "right to self-determination."  In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the indeterminate position is neutral position; a case of "equal rights."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The "right of self-determination" falls within a special category of conceptual understandings.  When I was in college, they had a very complex definition for it; but in this case, I like the "wikipedia" description the best.  It is a case that of "indeterminacy."
> 
> *Indeterminacy*
> Indeterminacy, in philosophy, can refer both to common scientific and mathematical concepts of uncertainty and their implications
> and to another kind of indeterminacy deriving from the nature of definition or meaning. It is related to deconstructionism and to
> Nietzsche's criticism of the Kantian noumenon.​
> Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminacy_(philosophy)​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> Under what theory would the "right of self-determination" not apply equally to Israel?
> 
> 
> 
> Good post, thanks.
> "...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state."
> And then there is:
> No definition of peoples is offered,..​Well they do, kind of. Look at the definition of people.
> 
> Person is singular.
> People is plural.
> Peoples is a plural plural.
> A people is a singular plural.
> 
> A people is a group of people who have common characteristics. Peoples can be defined by geographical location. The French are a people. The British are a people. The Palestinians are a people. All of these are within defined territories and are naturals for self determination within a country or state.
> 
> Then there are people who have other defining characteristics, like race, color, or religion. These are distributed throughout the world and do not lend themselves suitable for statehood. In fact segregation according to these characteristics is viewed as undesirable in the civilized world.
> 
> As they say:
> "...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state."​You asked. That is my answer.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The hidden beauty of an "indeterminacy" is much like the "Heisenberg uncertainty principle;" in quantum mechanics holding that increasing the accuracy of measurement of one observable quantity increases the uncertainty _[(energy and position) and (momentum within a quantum system) cannot both be accurately measured simultaneously)]_.  In the case of the "right of self-determination" the "right" of the Jewish People and the "right" of the Arab People cannot both be evaluated simultaneously without causing some injury to one or the other _(it is indeterminate)_.  Thus any argument made --- which is based --- on the "right of self-determination" for either side is inconclusive.  The "rights" cancel each other out because they cannot be applied individually without prejudice to the other.
> 
> One can argue that "...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state;" one can also say that that neither of the purposes precludes the establishment of "an ethnically distinct people with a state" as a possible outcome.  This would be especially possible since the intent, at the very outset, was to establish a National Homeland and that these national aspirations _(goals in common)_ were recognized by the Arab and Jewish Leadership at the outset _(Faisal-Weizmann Agreement of 1919)_.  Both sides understood that the "racial kindship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realising that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations, is through the closest possible, collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The hidden beauty of an "indeterminacy" is much like..."​
> The hidden beauty is that you can smokescreen the issues with verbosity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Is it a "smokescreen?"  Or is it a case in which the Arab-Palestinian claims more of a "right" of some sort than has been endowed upon them?  _(As it pertains to this particular argument.)_
> 
> I tried to stay away from the issue of suitability; that is, your claim that some "do not lend themselves suitable for statehood."  Clearly, the suitability _(and capability)_ of the Arab Palestinian, both then and now, is a condition subject to an entirely different discussion.
> 
> If you rule-out the indeterminate factor intertwined in the distinction between "people" 'vs' "peoples" --- then you are left with the underlying theory behind the "right of self-determination" --- that:  "the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order" is somehow recognized.  (See Post #563")  That would be the people of Israel _(one people)_ and the people of the West Bank and Gaza _(one people)_; or collectively, the "peoples" _(the collective)_.    *Note*:  For the sake of your plural distinction:  _(one people) + (one people) = (one peoples - or - the collective)_
> 
> The Leaders of the early 20th Century _(trained 19th Century thinkers)_ did not quibble over such distinctions _(people 'vs' peoples)_.  If they saw a universal right, then it applied to everyone equally - and was not a matter of distinguishing characteristics _(and they saw very few universal rights --- let alone the "contemporary notions of self-determination usually distinguish between “internal” and “external” self-determination, suggesting that "self-determination" exists on a spectrum")_.  And most certainly, as the Allied Powers were determining the establishment of a Jewish National Home _(in whatever form it would ultimately take - that being undetermined in San Remo)_, it was quite clear that they held the power to make the determinations and not the indigenous enemy population of lands surrendered to them at the outcome of the war _(there was no spectrum of self-determination - they made the determination)_.  The idea of the right to self-determination was not yet a consideration.  "In international law, the right of self-determination that became recognized in the post-WWII years were interpreted as the right of all colonial territories to become independent or to adopt any other status they freely chose;" had not yet been established.  And the Leaders of the early 20th Century _(trained 19th Century thinkers)_ did not quibble about it - these were not new colonial interests, but "Mandates."  And as such, "no right to secession has yet been recognized under international law;" no right to self-determination except what was granted to them by the powers-that-be.
> 
> One of the earliest proponents of a right to self-determination was U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. A month after his famous "Fourteen Points" speech to the U.S. Congress in January 1918 (in which the term "self-determination" does not appear), he proclaimed:
> 
> "Self-determination" is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril....​Despite Wilson's injunction, attempts to turn self-determination from a "mere phrase" into a binding norm did not occur for over 40 years, following the deaths of tens of millions in two major wars. *While the Covenant of the League of Nations did indirectly address the principle of self-determination (without using the word) in the system of mandates that it established, identification of the mandates and implementation of the system was wholly dependent on politics, not law.* In most of the territorial adjustments that followed the end of World War I, *winners and losers were determined by the political calculations and perceived needs of the Great Powers rather than on the basis of which groups had the strongest claims to self-determination.*
> _*SOURCE:*_ Legal Aspects of Self-Determination - Princeton University Encyclopedia of Self-determination​For the sake of emphasis, let me repeat something here:  "In most of the territorial adjustments that followed the end of World War I, winners and losers were *determined by* the political calculations and perceived needs of *the Great Powers* rather than on the basis of which groups had the strongest claims to self-determination."  This was the political landscape at the time the decisions were made to establish the "Jewish National Home."
> 
> Thus _(whether you like the "theory of indeterminism" or not)_, the Arab-Palestinian "right to self-determination" was NOT extended based on the strongest claim or any inherent right they perceived as being owed to them, but were determined on the basis of the wants and needs of the Allied Powers; that being the establishment of the Jewish National Home _(in whatever form it would ultimately take - that being undetermined in San Remo)_.
> 
> I know this interpretation sounds hard and harsh _(maybe even unfair)_, but that was the characteristics of the times.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Self determination is not just teen wanting to not be boss or have rules made by a parent.  The child has to be skilled enough to support itself,  understand budgeting to pay the rent and bill on time and not just go wild with a charge card.  It is being responsible enough not to get into legal trouble or get taken by criminals and fair weather friends.  It is having a plan for a future (perhaps getting married, kids, buying a home, retirement, etc).  It understanding when he is sick, getting medical care, eating right and exercising to stay healthy.
What a child should not do is veg in front of a video came and expect everyone else to give their money support he "right of self determination to do nothing".

Palestinians are at odds internally.  They can't handle their own finances.  They can't manage their own health care, water, sewage.  Can't control it's own people from waging war on Israel.  Can't adapt it educational system to teach non-violence and cooperation instead of hate and destruction.  It can't provide enough jobs.
Palestinians are more of less playing violent video games and expecting the world to support their violent addiction as well as their personal needs.  These games result in very real human death or maimed bodies and can even result in the player's life.  Perhaps they should begin with Sims so they can learn what is requires to function in the real world.

Palestinians are not prepared for self determination.  They have devoted the last 70+ years to the killing of Israelis and the annihilation of Israel.  They have to learn to build a nation, a united government with a potential of growth.  They need to shift their mind set from war to peace.


----------



## Mindful

Over 100 Years of Chronic Arab Rejectionism

The history of the Arab-Israeli conflict reveals 24 major junctures when compromise was offered since the 1920s, dating from pre-state, League of Nations Mandate to the present time. Plan after plan, including patently pro-Arab proposals, were put on the table. Since the 1993 Oslo Accords, 15 agreements and memorandums have been signed. This chapter examines those agreements and Arab response or compliance in each case. 


“The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.“ 
_Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban_

Arab claims that the Israeli “Occupation” prevents peace is nothing more than a red herring. It is not “The Occupation” that Arabs reject; it is Israel's right to exist as a Jewish, sovereign and legitimate political entity. 

What prevents achieving peace is Arab rejectionism, which began in the 1880s when the first Jewish immigrants returned to the land of Israel . 1 Since the 1920s, long before the establishment of Israel or the 1967 Six-Day War, Palestinian Arabs have used a combination of diplomatic moves and violence, particularly terrorism 2 against Jewish civilians, effectively rejecting every form of compromise. 

*At the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the Arab world's refusal to accept a non-Muslim political entity in the Middle East.

*
Rejectionism - Over 100 Years of Chronic Arab Rejectionism


----------



## Coyote

aris2chat said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> One can argue that there is a certain indeterminacy to the issue, or one can argue that --- one side or the other --- has more of a "right to self-determination."  In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the indeterminate position is neutral position; a case of "equal rights."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The "right of self-determination" falls within a special category of conceptual understandings.  When I was in college, they had a very complex definition for it; but in this case, I like the "wikipedia" description the best.  It is a case that of "indeterminacy."
> 
> *Indeterminacy*
> Indeterminacy, in philosophy, can refer both to common scientific and mathematical concepts of uncertainty and their implications
> and to another kind of indeterminacy deriving from the nature of definition or meaning. It is related to deconstructionism and to
> Nietzsche's criticism of the Kantian noumenon.​
> Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminacy_(philosophy)​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> Under what theory would the "right of self-determination" not apply equally to Israel?
> 
> 
> 
> Good post, thanks.
> "...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state."
> And then there is:
> No definition of peoples is offered,..​Well they do, kind of. Look at the definition of people.
> 
> Person is singular.
> People is plural.
> Peoples is a plural plural.
> A people is a singular plural.
> 
> A people is a group of people who have common characteristics. Peoples can be defined by geographical location. The French are a people. The British are a people. The Palestinians are a people. All of these are within defined territories and are naturals for self determination within a country or state.
> 
> Then there are people who have other defining characteristics, like race, color, or religion. These are distributed throughout the world and do not lend themselves suitable for statehood. In fact segregation according to these characteristics is viewed as undesirable in the civilized world.
> 
> As they say:
> "...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state."​You asked. That is my answer.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The hidden beauty of an "indeterminacy" is much like the "Heisenberg uncertainty principle;" in quantum mechanics holding that increasing the accuracy of measurement of one observable quantity increases the uncertainty _[(energy and position) and (momentum within a quantum system) cannot both be accurately measured simultaneously)]_.  In the case of the "right of self-determination" the "right" of the Jewish People and the "right" of the Arab People cannot both be evaluated simultaneously without causing some injury to one or the other _(it is indeterminate)_.  Thus any argument made --- which is based --- on the "right of self-determination" for either side is inconclusive.  The "rights" cancel each other out because they cannot be applied individually without prejudice to the other.
> 
> One can argue that "...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state;" one can also say that that neither of the purposes precludes the establishment of "an ethnically distinct people with a state" as a possible outcome.  This would be especially possible since the intent, at the very outset, was to establish a National Homeland and that these national aspirations _(goals in common)_ were recognized by the Arab and Jewish Leadership at the outset _(Faisal-Weizmann Agreement of 1919)_.  Both sides understood that the "racial kindship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realising that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations, is through the closest possible, collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The hidden beauty of an "indeterminacy" is much like..."​
> The hidden beauty is that you can smokescreen the issues with verbosity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Is it a "smokescreen?"  Or is it a case in which the Arab-Palestinian claims more of a "right" of some sort than has been endowed upon them?  _(As it pertains to this particular argument.)_
> 
> I tried to stay away from the issue of suitability; that is, your claim that some "do not lend themselves suitable for statehood."  Clearly, the suitability _(and capability)_ of the Arab Palestinian, both then and now, is a condition subject to an entirely different discussion.
> 
> If you rule-out the indeterminate factor intertwined in the distinction between "people" 'vs' "peoples" --- then you are left with the underlying theory behind the "right of self-determination" --- that:  "the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order" is somehow recognized.  (See Post #563")  That would be the people of Israel _(one people)_ and the people of the West Bank and Gaza _(one people)_; or collectively, the "peoples" _(the collective)_.    *Note*:  For the sake of your plural distinction:  _(one people) + (one people) = (one peoples - or - the collective)_
> 
> The Leaders of the early 20th Century _(trained 19th Century thinkers)_ did not quibble over such distinctions _(people 'vs' peoples)_.  If they saw a universal right, then it applied to everyone equally - and was not a matter of distinguishing characteristics _(and they saw very few universal rights --- let alone the "contemporary notions of self-determination usually distinguish between “internal” and “external” self-determination, suggesting that "self-determination" exists on a spectrum")_.  And most certainly, as the Allied Powers were determining the establishment of a Jewish National Home _(in whatever form it would ultimately take - that being undetermined in San Remo)_, it was quite clear that they held the power to make the determinations and not the indigenous enemy population of lands surrendered to them at the outcome of the war _(there was no spectrum of self-determination - they made the determination)_.  The idea of the right to self-determination was not yet a consideration.  "In international law, the right of self-determination that became recognized in the post-WWII years were interpreted as the right of all colonial territories to become independent or to adopt any other status they freely chose;" had not yet been established.  And the Leaders of the early 20th Century _(trained 19th Century thinkers)_ did not quibble about it - these were not new colonial interests, but "Mandates."  And as such, "no right to secession has yet been recognized under international law;" no right to self-determination except what was granted to them by the powers-that-be.
> 
> One of the earliest proponents of a right to self-determination was U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. A month after his famous "Fourteen Points" speech to the U.S. Congress in January 1918 (in which the term "self-determination" does not appear), he proclaimed:
> 
> "Self-determination" is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril....​Despite Wilson's injunction, attempts to turn self-determination from a "mere phrase" into a binding norm did not occur for over 40 years, following the deaths of tens of millions in two major wars. *While the Covenant of the League of Nations did indirectly address the principle of self-determination (without using the word) in the system of mandates that it established, identification of the mandates and implementation of the system was wholly dependent on politics, not law.* In most of the territorial adjustments that followed the end of World War I, *winners and losers were determined by the political calculations and perceived needs of the Great Powers rather than on the basis of which groups had the strongest claims to self-determination.*
> _*SOURCE:*_ Legal Aspects of Self-Determination - Princeton University Encyclopedia of Self-determination​For the sake of emphasis, let me repeat something here:  "In most of the territorial adjustments that followed the end of World War I, winners and losers were *determined by* the political calculations and perceived needs of *the Great Powers* rather than on the basis of which groups had the strongest claims to self-determination."  This was the political landscape at the time the decisions were made to establish the "Jewish National Home."
> 
> Thus _(whether you like the "theory of indeterminism" or not)_, the Arab-Palestinian "right to self-determination" was NOT extended based on the strongest claim or any inherent right they perceived as being owed to them, but were determined on the basis of the wants and needs of the Allied Powers; that being the establishment of the Jewish National Home _(in whatever form it would ultimately take - that being undetermined in San Remo)_.
> 
> I know this interpretation sounds hard and harsh _(maybe even unfair)_, but that was the characteristics of the times.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Self determination is not just teen wanting to not be boss or have rules made by a parent.  The child has to be skilled enough to support itself,  understand budgeting to pay the rent and bill on time and not just go wild with a charge card.  It is being responsible enough not to get into legal trouble or get taken by criminals and fair weather friends.  It is having a plan for a future (perhaps getting married, kids, buying a home, retirement, etc).  It understanding when he is sick, getting medical care, eating right and exercising to stay healthy.
> What a child should not do is veg in front of a video came and expect everyone else to give their money support he "right of self determination to do nothing".
> 
> Palestinians are at odds internally.  They can't handle their own finances.  They can't manage their own health care, water, sewage.  Can't control it's own people from waging war on Israel.  Can't adapt it educational system to teach non-violence and cooperation instead of hate and destruction.  It can't provide enough jobs.
> Palestinians are more of less playing violent video games and expecting the world to support their violent addiction as well as their personal needs.  These games result in very real human death or maimed bodies and can even result in the player's life.  Perhaps they should begin with Sims so they can learn what is requires to function in the real world.
> 
> Palestinians are not prepared for self determination.  They have devoted the last 70+ years to the killing of Israelis and the annihilation of Israel.  They have to learn to build a nation, a united government with a potential of growth.  They need to shift their mind set from war to peace.
Click to expand...


Who has the right to determine whether or not a people have the "right" to self-determination?  Has any other people or group been required to some-how "prove themselves" or viewed somehow as "children" incapable of handling it?  That was the attitude of many colonial powers towards their subject colonies.

In fact - most seperatist groups end up "proving" themselves and earning their nations through warfare and conflict.  Israel itself is one of many examples of this.  Some make the successful transition from war to governance while others fail.  It's not up to any other powers to make that decision for them.

They have the right to self determination just as does Israel.  Give it to them.  Give them complete control over their borders, airspace, coast, trade, utilities, treaties.  Just like any other nation.  Hold them to the same standards as any other nation.  If they violate those standards they risk the same penalties, sanctions or military actions against.

Once people are responsible for their own fate and their own nation - THEN is the time to make the transition from fighting to governing.


----------



## RoccoR

Coyote,  _et al,_

Clearly, this is a variation of 21st Century thinking.



Coyote said:


> Who has the right to determine whether or not a people have the "right" to self-determination?  Has any other people or group been required to some-how "prove themselves" or viewed somehow as "children" incapable of handling it?  That was the attitude of many colonial powers towards their subject colonies.
> 
> In fact - most seperatist groups end up "proving" themselves and earning their nations through warfare and conflict.  Israel itself is one of many examples of this.  Some make the successful transition from war to governance while others fail.  It's not up to any other powers to make that decision for them.
> 
> They have the right to self determination just as does Israel.  Give it to them.  Give them complete control over their borders, airspace, coast, trade, utilities, treaties.  Just like any other nation.  Hold them to the same standards as any other nation.  If they violate those standards they risk the same penalties, sanctions or military actions against.
> 
> Once people are responsible for their own fate and their own nation - THEN is the time to make the transition from fighting to governing.


*(COMMENT)
*
First, the "right" to self-determination did not come about automatically.  It is an evolutionary process.  In as much as the League of Nations, twice, examined the question of "self-determination.

The first body of experts was clear that self-determination had not obtained the status of international law. It observed that although the principle of self-determination of peoples plays an important part in modern political thought, especially since the Great War, it must be pointed out that there is no mention of it in the covenant of the League of Nations. The recognition of this principle in a certain number of international treaties cannot be considered as sufficient to put it upon the same footing as a positive rule of the Law of Nations._[Report of the International Committee of Jurists entrusted by the Council of the League of Nations with the task of giving an advisory opinion upon the legal aspects of the Aaland Islands question, League of Nations Off. J., Spec. Supp. No. 3 (Oct. 1920)]_

The second group of experts reached a similar conclusion as to the scope of self-determination, which it termed "a principle of justice and of liberty, expressed by a vague and general formula which has given rise to the most varied interpretations and differences of opinion."  _[The Aaland Islands Question, Report presented to the Council of the League by the Commission of Rapporteurs, League of Nations Doc. B.7.21/68/106 (1921)]

Principle Source Work:  Princeton Encyclopedia on Self-determination_​
What you are expressing is a culmination of the evolutionary process.  But in the beginning, "self-determination" was not supported by International Law until much into the decade between 1960 and 1970.  In your initial opening question:  "Who has the right to determine whether or not a people have the "right" to self-determination?"  It was made a "right" by the International Community representing the United Nations.  While in 1945, the concept of "self-determination" is mentioned exactly twice in the UN Charter, it in neither case embodies it in law or makes it a "right."   The Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 (III) as the International Bill of Human Rights on 10 December 1948 never mentions "self-determination" as a Human Right.  That doesn't happen until 1960 and 1970.


Chapter I, Article 1, Paragraph 2:  To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

Chapter IX, Article 55:  With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:

However, decades later, the International Community, in Adopting by General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960:  the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and later adopting by the General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970:  the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, brought the two concepts into customary law.  

*(HAVING SAID THAT)*

The given "right" of "self-determination" has two aspects to it: 

Internal self-determination is the right of the people of a state to govern themselves without outside interference. 
External self-determination is the right of peoples to determine their own political status and to be free of alien domination, including formation of their own independent state. However, independence is not the only possible outcome of an exercise of self-determination.
Your proposal is a viable implementation strategy; _albeit_ a risky implementation for the Israelis.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote >>What you call a "refugee migration" was in part a deliberate driving out by Israeli's of Palestinians who then became "exiled". This was not just a "migration" - it was a deliberate planned effort.<<
> 
> >>Bull. I used perfectly good sources to show that there was a deliberate and well orchestrated attempt to force Palestinians out by the Israeli's and it was not simply because they were "hostile" - the source I used based it on government documents. You seem to label sources that disagree with you "misinformation propaganda" and in turn use your own questionable sources.<<
> 
> What sources?  Did I mention you by name?  I was explaining how the majority of palestinians were not force at Israeli gun point to leave the country.  There are tales and a pinch of truth that there were cases where palestinians felt or were forced to move out of their homes or off the land they occupied, but that is not the majority or even 100% of every single case.
> If one person's home is confiscated by the state because of criminal activity, that does not suggest the state will confiscate every home/apartment of every criminal, even misnomers, or result in all the occupants being forced to not just leave the premisses but to leave the country?
> *You, and others, implied that all palestinians were force to leave.*  they were not.  Why did so many leave even before the attack on Israel?  Why did so many leave even though their village was not directly involved in any fighting?  Why were the arabs telling palestinians to leave well before the first shots?
> Israel pleaded for the leaving or told to leave to become part of Israel and help build a strong nation where all faiths co-existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I did not.  What I've said - repeatedly, is that *it is not true that they all or mostly left voluntarily at the urging of their leaders and the other Arab countries* which is what *keeps getting implied by the Pro-Israeli contingen*t.  Yes - I agree with you - that, like refugees today many left in fear of the fighting and for a variety of reasons.  But a substantial number were driven out by the Israeli's themselves in a deliberate plan and this keeps getting ignored or it's claimed that they were removed because they were violent.
> 
> Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> _*Opening of archives*
> 
> In the 1980s Israel and United Kingdom opened up part of their archives for investigation by historians. This favored a more critical and factual analysis of the 1948 events. *As a result more detailed and comprehensive description of the Palestinian exodus was published*, notably Morris' The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem.[5] Morris distinguishes four waves of refugees, the second, third and fourth of them coinciding with Israeli military offensives, when Arab Palestinians fled the fighting, were frightened away, or were expelled.
> 
> 
> A document produced by the Israeli Defence Forces Intelligence Service entitled "The Emigration of the Arabs of Palestine in the Period 1/12/1947 – 1/6/1948" was dated 30 June 1948 and became widely known around 1985.
> 
> 
> T*he document details 11 factors which caused the exodus, and lists them "in order of importance":*
> 
> _
> 
> _Direct, hostile Jewish [ Haganah/IDF ] operations against Arab settlements._
> _The effect of our [Haganah/IDF] hostile operations against nearby [Arab] settlements... (... especially the fall of large neighbouring centers)._
> _Operation of [Jewish] dissidents [ Irgun Tzvai Leumi and Lohamei Herut Yisrael]_
> _Orders and decrees by Arab institutions and gangs [irregulars]._
> _Jewish whispering operations [psychological warfare], aimed at frightening away Arab inhabitants._
> _Ultimate expulsion orders [by Jewish forces]_
> _Fear of Jewish [retaliatory] response [following] major Arab attack on Jews._
> _The appearance of gangs [irregular Arab forces] and non-local fighters in the vicinity of a village._
> _Fear of Arab invasion and its consequences [mainly near the borders]._
> _Isolated Arab villages in purely [predominantly] Jewish areas._
> _Various local factors and general fear of the future.[6]_
> _
> "In the past two decades, following the powerful reverberations (concerning the cause of the Nakba) triggered by the publication of books written by those dubbed the “New Historians,” the Israeli archives revoked access to much of the explosive material. Archived Israeli documents that reported the expulsion of Palestinians, massacres or rapes perpetrated by Israeli soldiers, along with other events considered embarrassing by the establishment, were reclassified as “top secret.”[7]
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> As with most conflicts in the region, and around the world, if you hear the sound of fighting or see people preparing for a fight, people will seek safety while it is still safe to get out of the way.  Most of the refugees from syria were not escorted to the border at gun point and force to leave the country.  People that expect to be unable to move freely, get their children to schools, be able to work or that want to prevent their family being collateral damage sent their family away till it is safe to return.  They were not force to leave or thrown out by the establish government.
> Some move out of town, some move across the country, some leave the country.  They make that choice.  That is not the same as forced out of their homes or out of the country by the hostiles.  Mostly they leave out a precaution.  When someone bust down your down and say they are taking your home at gun point and threaten to kill you if you are not out in the nest ten minutes or begin to kill your family while you and the rest escape, that is being forced out.
> 
> We moved to avoid the fighting, many times both across the country and out of the country.  We the except of being directly targeted outside of my home or one incident at our front door, we were not forced to leave.  We often stayed and just took shelter in the basements with the rocket being fired at our neighbors fell short.  The apartment that we owned down stairs was for a time occupied.  We still have property that have palestinian squatters living in by the shore.  We were not there at the time.  Most of the places in that neighborhood were taken.
> 
> Seeking safety is your choice.  Being force out is different.  I valued my safety and that of my child over trying to stay.  My parents and brother remained for a few more years and left more so my brother could continue his education that out of any direct threat.  The threat was having to travel through a zone with heavy fighting to get to his school.  We were lucky to have a blanket of protection because of my father and god father.  We also had for former soldier that served my father and later become a UN guard to act as drive our drive.  When bullets are flying no one checks your ID before firing on you.
> 
> *Most refugees leave out a fear of the future and expected threat, not because they were directly forced to leave.  You leave because it is or expected to be too difficult to remain and carry on any normality of life*.  Palestinians exodus was not part of some planned genocide of arabs to e carried out by jews.  They were scared into leaving by their fellow arab and the propaganda that they would be killed, raped or otherwise abuse by the jews if they stayed.  They left before any combat or direct threat.  They chose to leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  But you can't keep denying that the Israeli's themselves had a hand in forcing many of them out through a delliberate campaign and claiming they were all scared into leaving by their fellow arabs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Only #6 applies to force being used to kick arabs/palestinians out of Israel.  *Combat with villages in the beginning did not mean the whole family or ever the whole village had to leave.  Only those directly involved in hostilities.  Most of the fighters were not even arab/palestinians.  They were fighters from other arab states that invaded Israel.  Most arab/palestinians would have been untouched since they were not actually shooting at Israelis or killing civilians.
> Whispers and scare tactics by arabs made the palestinians run, not the Israelis.  In some cases the Israelis took advantage and did not counter the lies.  If people want to believe the worst and are so filled with hate, why would Israel encourage them to stay.  They should be asked to remain so they can be terrorists?  It would eventually have led to them in jail or shown the door.  Yes, it was easier to let the refugees believe a lie at some point.  If they did not want to stay why should Israel force them.  The could direct their attention to not being killed by other armies invading Israel.  Would that not have been as bad?  Considering how out numbered the Israelis were, the could not afford to keeping people in that did not want to stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> #1, 2, and 3 appear to as well.
> 
> This article makes some interesting points it's information isn't dependent on the Arab or Palestinian version of events:  The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition
> 
> _This research activity was originally stimulated by two separate sets of events. First, the opening of Israeli archives, both state and private, covering the period in question. Here *it is worth noting that the historians appear to have ignored almost entirely both the archives of the Arab countries (not that these are notable for their accessibility) and oral history potential among Palestinians themselves*, where considerable work has been done by other historians. As the Palestinian historian, Nur Masalha, rightly says: “History and historiography ought not necessarily be written, exclusively or mainly, by the victors (7)"...
> 
> ...In the opening pages of “The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem”, Benny Morris offers the outlines of an overall answer: using a map that shows the 369 Arab towns and villages in Israel (within its 1949 borders), he lists, area by area, the reasons for the departure of the local population (9). In 45 cases he admits that he does not know. *The inhabitants of the other 228 localities left under attack by Jewish troops, and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force*. In 90 other localities, the Palestinians were in a state of panic following the fall of a neighbouring town or village, or for fear of an enemy attack, or because of rumours circulated by the Jewish army - particularly after the 9 April 1948 massacre of 250 inhabitants of Deir Yassin, where the news of the killings swept the country like wildfire.
> 
> 
> *By contrast, he found only six cases of departures at the instigation of local Arab authorities. “There is no evidence to show that the Arab states and the AHC wanted a mass exodus or issued blanket orders or appeals to the Palestinians to flee their homes* (though in certain areas the inhabitants of specific villages were ordered by Arab commanders or the AHC to leave, mainly for strategic reasons).” ("The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem", p. 129). On the contrary, anyone who fled was actually threatened with “severe punishment”. *As for the broadcasts by Arab radio stations allegedly calling on people to flee, a detailed listening to recordings of their programmes of that period shows that the claims were invented for pure propaganda.*
> 
> In “1948 and After” Benny Morris examines the first phase of the exodus and produces *a detailed analysis of a source that he considers basically reliable: a report prepared by the intelligence services of the Israeli army, dated 30 June 1948 and entitled “The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948”. This document sets at 391,000 the number of Palestinians who had already left the territory that was by then in the hands of Israel, and evaluates the various factors that had prompted their decisions to leave*. “At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations.” To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which “directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration”. A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. *This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis*. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to “fears” and “a crisis of confidence” affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases.._​
> It goes on to note more in the next exodus:
> 
> _In short, as Morris puts it, this report* “undermines the traditional official Israeli ’explanation’ of a mass flight ordered or ’invited’ by the Arab leadership”.* Neither, as he points out, “does [the report] uphold the traditional Arab explanation of the exodus - that the Jews, with premeditation and in a centralised fashion, had systematically waged a campaign aimed at the wholesale expulsion of the native Palestinian population.” However, he says that “the circumstances of the second half of the exodus” - which he estimates as having involved between 300,000 and 400,000 people - “are a different story.”
> 
> One example of this second phase was the expulsion of Arabs living in Lydda (present-day Lod) and Ramleh. On 12 July 1948, within the framework of Operation Dani, a skirmish with Jordanian armoured forces served as a pretext for a violent backlash, with 250 killed, some of whom were unarmed prisoners. *This was followed by a forced evacuation characterised by summary executions and looting and involving upwards of 70,000 Palestinian civilians - almost 10% of the total exodus of 1947- 49. Similar scenarios were enacted, as Morris shows, in central Galilee, Upper Galilee and the northern Negev, as well as in the post-war expulsion of the Palestinians of Al Majdal (Ashkelon). Most of these operations (with the exception of the latter) were marked by atrocities* - a fact which led Aharon Zisling, the minister of agriculture, to tell the Israeli cabinet on 17 November 1948: “I couldn’t sleep all night. I felt that things that were going on were hurting my soul, the soul of my family and all of us here (...) Now Jews too have behaved like Nazis and my entire being has been shaken (10).”
> 
> The Israeli government of the time *pursued a policy of non- compromise, in order to prevent the return of the refugees* “at any price” (as Ben Gurion himself put it), despite the fact that the UN General Assembly had been calling for this since 11 December 1948. Their villages were either destroyed or occupied by Jewish immigrants, and their lands were shared out between the surrounding kibbutzim. The law on “abandoned properties” - which was designed to make possible the seizure of any land belonging to persons who were “absent” - “legalised” this project of general confiscation as of December 1948. Almost 400 Arab villages were thus either wiped off the map or Judaised, as were most of the Arab quarters in mixed towns. According to a report drawn up in 1952, Israel had thus succeeded in expropriating 73,000 rooms in abandoned houses, 7,800 shops, workshops and warehouses, 5 million Palestinian pounds in bank accounts, and - most important of all - 300,000 hectares of land  (11)._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>The exodus was divided into two broadly equal waves: one before and one after the decisive turning-point of the declaration of the State of Israel on 14 May 1948 and the intervention of the armies of the neighboring Arab states on the following day. One can agree that the flight of thousands of well-to-do Palestinians during the first few weeks following the adoption of the UN partition plan - particularly from Haifa and Jaffa - was essentially voluntary. The question is what was the truth of the departures that happened subsequently?
> .....................and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force.
> ...........90 other localities, the Palestinians were in a state of panic following the fall of a neighboring town or village, or for fear of an enemy attack, or because of rumors circulated by the Jewish army<< also from mondediplo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...*The inhabitants of the other 228 localities left under attack by Jewish troops, *_and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>
> _“One million Palestinians were expelled by Israel from 1947–49.”_
> 
> *FACT *
> The Palestinians left their homes in 1947–49 for a variety of reasons. Thousands of wealthy Arabs left in anticipation of a war, thousands more responded to Arab leaders’ calls to get out of the way of the advancing armies, a handful were expelled, but most simply fled to avoid being caught in the cross fire of a battle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree - they left for a variety of reasons however you repeatedly minimize the effects and efforts of the Israeli factions and militias themselves on promoting this departure.  You say thousands more responded to Arab leaders calls to get out of the way yet the historian I quoted, working from archival  government documents, states that the number who left for that reason was quite minimal and some of the claims (such as radio programs from Arabs telling them to flee) was nothing more than propaganda from the Israeli's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many Arabs claim that 800,000 to 1,000,000 Palestinians became refugees in 1947–49. The last census taken by the British in 1945 found approximately 1.2 million permanent Arab residents in _all_ of Palestine. A 1949 census conducted by the government of Israel counted 160,000 Arabs living in the new state after the war. In 1947, a total of 809,100 Arabs lived in the same area.1 This meant no more than 650,000 Palestinian Arabs could have become refugees. A report by the UN Mediator on Palestine arrived at an even lower refugee figure—472,000.<<Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine, Submitted to the Secretary-General for Transmission to the Members of the United Nations, General Assembly Official Records: Third Session, Supplement No. 11 (A/648), Paris, 1948, p. 47 and Supplement No. 11A (A/689 and A/689/Add.1, p. 5; and “Conclusions from Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine,” (September 16, 1948), U.N. doc. A/648 (part 1, p. 29; part 2, p. 23; part 3, p. 11), (September 18, 1948).
> 
> BBC NEWS Middle East Jordan s refugees long to return
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure about actual numbers...I will leave any argument there for others.  What I am arguing is that Israel had a deliberate policy of forcing out the Palestinians and preventing their return.
Click to expand...




Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> One can argue that there is a certain indeterminacy to the issue, or one can argue that --- one side or the other --- has more of a "right to self-determination."  In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the indeterminate position is neutral position; a case of "equal rights."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The "right of self-determination" falls within a special category of conceptual understandings.  When I was in college, they had a very complex definition for it; but in this case, I like the "wikipedia" description the best.  It is a case that of "indeterminacy."
> 
> *Indeterminacy*
> Indeterminacy, in philosophy, can refer both to common scientific and mathematical concepts of uncertainty and their implications
> and to another kind of indeterminacy deriving from the nature of definition or meaning. It is related to deconstructionism and to
> Nietzsche's criticism of the Kantian noumenon.​
> Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminacy_(philosophy)​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good post, thanks.
> "...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state."
> And then there is:
> No definition of peoples is offered,..​Well they do, kind of. Look at the definition of people.
> 
> Person is singular.
> People is plural.
> Peoples is a plural plural.
> A people is a singular plural.
> 
> A people is a group of people who have common characteristics. Peoples can be defined by geographical location. The French are a people. The British are a people. The Palestinians are a people. All of these are within defined territories and are naturals for self determination within a country or state.
> 
> Then there are people who have other defining characteristics, like race, color, or religion. These are distributed throughout the world and do not lend themselves suitable for statehood. In fact segregation according to these characteristics is viewed as undesirable in the civilized world.
> 
> As they say:
> "...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state."​You asked. That is my answer.​
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The hidden beauty of an "indeterminacy" is much like the "Heisenberg uncertainty principle;" in quantum mechanics holding that increasing the accuracy of measurement of one observable quantity increases the uncertainty _[(energy and position) and (momentum within a quantum system) cannot both be accurately measured simultaneously)]_.  In the case of the "right of self-determination" the "right" of the Jewish People and the "right" of the Arab People cannot both be evaluated simultaneously without causing some injury to one or the other _(it is indeterminate)_.  Thus any argument made --- which is based --- on the "right of self-determination" for either side is inconclusive.  The "rights" cancel each other out because they cannot be applied individually without prejudice to the other.
> 
> One can argue that "...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state;" one can also say that that neither of the purposes precludes the establishment of "an ethnically distinct people with a state" as a possible outcome.  This would be especially possible since the intent, at the very outset, was to establish a National Homeland and that these national aspirations _(goals in common)_ were recognized by the Arab and Jewish Leadership at the outset _(Faisal-Weizmann Agreement of 1919)_.  Both sides understood that the "racial kindship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realising that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations, is through the closest possible, collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The hidden beauty of an "indeterminacy" is much like..."​
> The hidden beauty is that you can smokescreen the issues with verbosity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Is it a "smokescreen?"  Or is it a case in which the Arab-Palestinian claims more of a "right" of some sort than has been endowed upon them?  _(As it pertains to this particular argument.)_
> 
> I tried to stay away from the issue of suitability; that is, your claim that some "do not lend themselves suitable for statehood."  Clearly, the suitability _(and capability)_ of the Arab Palestinian, both then and now, is a condition subject to an entirely different discussion.
> 
> If you rule-out the indeterminate factor intertwined in the distinction between "people" 'vs' "peoples" --- then you are left with the underlying theory behind the "right of self-determination" --- that:  "the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order" is somehow recognized.  (See Post #563")  That would be the people of Israel _(one people)_ and the people of the West Bank and Gaza _(one people)_; or collectively, the "peoples" _(the collective)_.    *Note*:  For the sake of your plural distinction:  _(one people) + (one people) = (one peoples - or - the collective)_
> 
> The Leaders of the early 20th Century _(trained 19th Century thinkers)_ did not quibble over such distinctions _(people 'vs' peoples)_.  If they saw a universal right, then it applied to everyone equally - and was not a matter of distinguishing characteristics _(and they saw very few universal rights --- let alone the "contemporary notions of self-determination usually distinguish between “internal” and “external” self-determination, suggesting that "self-determination" exists on a spectrum")_.  And most certainly, as the Allied Powers were determining the establishment of a Jewish National Home _(in whatever form it would ultimately take - that being undetermined in San Remo)_, it was quite clear that they held the power to make the determinations and not the indigenous enemy population of lands surrendered to them at the outcome of the war _(there was no spectrum of self-determination - they made the determination)_.  The idea of the right to self-determination was not yet a consideration.  "In international law, the right of self-determination that became recognized in the post-WWII years were interpreted as the right of all colonial territories to become independent or to adopt any other status they freely chose;" had not yet been established.  And the Leaders of the early 20th Century _(trained 19th Century thinkers)_ did not quibble about it - these were not new colonial interests, but "Mandates."  And as such, "no right to secession has yet been recognized under international law;" no right to self-determination except what was granted to them by the powers-that-be.
> 
> One of the earliest proponents of a right to self-determination was U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. A month after his famous "Fourteen Points" speech to the U.S. Congress in January 1918 (in which the term "self-determination" does not appear), he proclaimed:
> 
> "Self-determination" is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril....​Despite Wilson's injunction, attempts to turn self-determination from a "mere phrase" into a binding norm did not occur for over 40 years, following the deaths of tens of millions in two major wars. *While the Covenant of the League of Nations did indirectly address the principle of self-determination (without using the word) in the system of mandates that it established, identification of the mandates and implementation of the system was wholly dependent on politics, not law.* In most of the territorial adjustments that followed the end of World War I, *winners and losers were determined by the political calculations and perceived needs of the Great Powers rather than on the basis of which groups had the strongest claims to self-determination.*
> _*SOURCE:*_ Legal Aspects of Self-Determination - Princeton University Encyclopedia of Self-determination​For the sake of emphasis, let me repeat something here:  "In most of the territorial adjustments that followed the end of World War I, winners and losers were *determined by* the political calculations and perceived needs of *the Great Powers* rather than on the basis of which groups had the strongest claims to self-determination."  This was the political landscape at the time the decisions were made to establish the "Jewish National Home."
> 
> Thus _(whether you like the "theory of indeterminism" or not)_, the Arab-Palestinian "right to self-determination" was NOT extended based on the strongest claim or any inherent right they perceived as being owed to them, but were determined on the basis of the wants and needs of the Allied Powers; that being the establishment of the Jewish National Home _(in whatever form it would ultimately take - that being undetermined in San Remo)_.
> 
> I know this interpretation sounds hard and harsh _(maybe even unfair)_, but that was the characteristics of the times.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Self determination is not just teen wanting to not be boss or have rules made by a parent.  The child has to be skilled enough to support itself,  understand budgeting to pay the rent and bill on time and not just go wild with a charge card.  It is being responsible enough not to get into legal trouble or get taken by criminals and fair weather friends.  It is having a plan for a future (perhaps getting married, kids, buying a home, retirement, etc).  It understanding when he is sick, getting medical care, eating right and exercising to stay healthy.
> What a child should not do is veg in front of a video came and expect everyone else to give their money support he "right of self determination to do nothing".
> 
> Palestinians are at odds internally.  They can't handle their own finances.  They can't manage their own health care, water, sewage.  Can't control it's own people from waging war on Israel.  Can't adapt it educational system to teach non-violence and cooperation instead of hate and destruction.  It can't provide enough jobs.
> Palestinians are more of less playing violent video games and expecting the world to support their violent addiction as well as their personal needs.  These games result in very real human death or maimed bodies and can even result in the player's life.  Perhaps they should begin with Sims so they can learn what is requires to function in the real world.
> 
> Palestinians are not prepared for self determination.  They have devoted the last 70+ years to the killing of Israelis and the annihilation of Israel.  They have to learn to build a nation, a united government with a potential of growth.  They need to shift their mind set from war to peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who has the right to determine whether or not a people have the "right" to self-determination?  Has any other people or group been required to some-how "prove themselves" or viewed somehow as "children" incapable of handling it?  That was the attitude of many colonial powers towards their subject colonies.
> 
> In fact - most seperatist groups end up "proving" themselves and earning their nations through warfare and conflict.  Israel itself is one of many examples of this.  Some make the successful transition from war to governance while others fail.  It's not up to any other powers to make that decision for them.
> 
> They have the right to self determination just as does Israel.  Give it to them.  Give them complete control over their borders, airspace, coast, trade, utilities, treaties.  Just like any other nation.  Hold them to the same standards as any other nation.  If they violate those standards they risk the same penalties, sanctions or military actions against.
> 
> Once people are responsible for their own fate and their own nation - THEN is the time to make the transition from fighting to governing.
Click to expand...

 
On your premiss any family or group on a ranch could have the right to self determination.  Nor can any state decide to succeed and become it's own nation.

There has to be a form of income or barter within the "state" and trade with other nations.  Police, laws, some form of court, fire department, monetary system, communication (mail, phone, internet), health system, waste disposal that does not pollute the soil or water of it's neighbor, banking system, education, etc.
Right now a large section of the palestinian population is dependent on other agencies and nations to provide these things.
It is far more than just wanting to be out on your own but being "able" to do so. Palestinians can not manage even the most basis needs without relying on outside sources.  If you buy products and services, you have to earn enough to pay.  Countries refer to this as balance of trade.  You want more going out rather than coming in.  Palestinians have no means to support this.
The palestinians have devoted too much into waging war and don't know how or are not ready to devote all their people to peace which would help build the nation they dream of.
Building tunnels and stealing from or attacking other is not a skill set to create a nation.  It is a skill set to  create criminals.


----------



## rhodescholar

The so-called "palestinians" as the media calls them today - they were known as "arabs" before the 1960s when arafat began receiving lots of free publicity - are as artificial as margarine and rene zellweger's face.  They are a social construct, a KGB-designed ploy used to counter the world-wide sympathy for the jews after the holocaust.  Given the horrific suffering of the jews during WW2, the KGB and its lackey arafat realized they would need to really work hard to develop a group of people whose false narrative could be even remotely compared to the jews, so they created the notion of the "palestinians," an allegedly "native" or "indigenous" group of people who have endured a terrible situation, and with lots of dosings of lies, nonsense and falsehoods, could be placed before the cameras and called "victims."

The unfortunate truth for the jews in israel is that the worldwide media represents the major corporate interests, which have a great deal of influence on most of the major governments, and do not like the jews, so they were all too eager to embrace the notion of the romantic revolutionary (i.e., che guevera, castro, etc.) against the nascent jewish state.  With decades of KGB-driven propaganda funneled into the all-too-embracing media, college indoctrination through "department chairs" purchased by wealthy arab muslims through which to promulgate the propaganda about the artificial palestinians "suffering" into younger Western minds, and the funding of fabricated think tanks ("WRMEA")/fake human rights organizations ("CAIR") also spewing the same bile, it has generated a groundswell amongst the dim, uneducated and unsuccessful of Western society a level of support for the "palestinians" that is unmatched for even the most genuinely afflicted groups of peoples.

But on the other hand, even with this mountain of funding, media outlets, and orgs aligned against it, when polls are taken in modern countries with highly educated populaces Israel still retains a wide level of support that generally dwarfs that of the "palestinians," a group so undeserving of support it is hard to compare them to any other.


----------



## rhodescholar

Coyote said:


> What you call a "refugee migration" was in part a deliberate driving out by Israeli's of Palestinians who then became "exiled".  This was not just a "migration" - it was a deliberate planned effort.



Really?  You have proof that the israeli government and military under its command ordered it to ethnically cleanse most or all of the arab muslims in the region?  Good luck finding it.


----------



## theliq

rhodescholar said:


> The so-called "palestinians" as the media calls them today - they were known as "arabs" before the 1960s when arafat began receiving lots of free publicity - are as artificial as margarine and rene zellweger's face.  They are a social construct, a KGB-designed ploy used to counter the world-wide sympathy for the jews after the holocaust.  Given the horrific suffering of the jews during WW2, the KGB and its lackey arafat realized they would need to really work hard to develop a group of people whose false narrative could be even remotely compared to the jews, so they created the notion of the "palestinians," an allegedly "native" or "indigenous" group of people who have endured a terrible situation, and with lots of dosings of lies, nonsense and falsehoods, could be placed before the cameras and called "victims."
> 
> The unfortunate truth for the jews in israel is that the worldwide media represents the major corporate interests, which have a great deal of influence on most of the major governments, and do not like the jews, so they were all too eager to embrace the notion of the romantic revolutionary (i.e., che guevera, castro, etc.) against the nascent jewish state.  With decades of KGB-driven propaganda funneled into the all-too-embracing media, college indoctrination through "department chairs" purchased by wealthy arab muslims through which to promulgate the propaganda about the artificial palestinians "suffering" into younger Western minds, and the funding of fabricated think tanks ("WRMEA")/fake human rights organizations ("CAIR") also spewing the same bile, it has generated a groundswell amongst the dim, uneducated and unsuccessful of Western society a level of support for the "palestinians" that is unmatched for even the most genuinely afflicted groups of peoples.
> 
> But on the other hand, even with this mountain of funding, media outlets, and orgs aligned against it, when polls are taken in modern countries with highly educated populaces Israel still retains a wide level of support that generally dwarfs that of the "palestinians," a group so undeserving of support it is hard to compare them to any other.


What a complete load of ROT and denial of the truth and facts.......you need to be mentally examined.steve


----------



## aris2chat

rhodescholar said:


> The so-called "palestinians" as the media calls them today - they were known as "arabs" before the 1960s when arafat began receiving lots of free publicity - are as artificial as margarine and rene zellweger's face.  They are a social construct, a KGB-designed ploy used to counter the world-wide sympathy for the jews after the holocaust.  Given the horrific suffering of the jews during WW2, the KGB and its lackey arafat realized they would need to really work hard to develop a group of people whose false narrative could be even remotely compared to the jews, so they created the notion of the "palestinians," an allegedly "native" or "indigenous" group of people who have endured a terrible situation, and with lots of dosings of lies, nonsense and falsehoods, could be placed before the cameras and called "victims."
> 
> The unfortunate truth for the jews in israel is that the worldwide media represents the major corporate interests, which have a great deal of influence on most of the major governments, and do not like the jews, so they were all too eager to embrace the notion of the romantic revolutionary (i.e., che guevera, castro, etc.) against the nascent jewish state.  With decades of KGB-driven propaganda funneled into the all-too-embracing media, college indoctrination through "department chairs" purchased by wealthy arab muslims through which to promulgate the propaganda about the artificial palestinians "suffering" into younger Western minds, and the funding of fabricated think tanks ("WRMEA")/fake human rights organizations ("CAIR") also spewing the same bile, it has generated a groundswell amongst the dim, uneducated and unsuccessful of Western society a level of support for the "palestinians" that is unmatched for even the most genuinely afflicted groups of peoples.
> 
> But on the other hand, even with this mountain of funding, media outlets, and orgs aligned against it, when polls are taken in modern countries with highly educated populaces Israel still retains a wide level of support that generally dwarfs that of the "palestinians," a group so undeserving of support it is hard to compare them to any other.



Perhaps a better question would be "which country would you rather live next to, Israel or Palestine"
On the moral ground of giving the palestinians a determinant home, either among their fellow arabs or a "palestinian" state, we would all likely want them to have a place to settle down, have jobs, ID/Passports.  But would the palestinians supports want the palestinians as their neighbors?  Jordan wants Israel to retain control of the Jordan valley, Egypt offer the palestinians land next to gaza n the sinai.  They don't want the palestinians up against their own populated areas as we have seen egypt create a security zone.  An island in the middle of the pacific with no airport or deep water ports, sure that can learn to live in peace or destroy themselves, not everyone else.  Build them a mount and a gloriously beautiful large mosque if they can't build one for themselves.  Farms/greenhouses, housing etc., might cost less than this endless pit where billions are dropped every year.  If it makes them happy they can live in tents and raise sheep and goats or develop their own arts and crafts, tool, businesses.  Countries hosting the refugee don't want them and won't let them get jobs, or only certain lower paying jobs.
Sure give them a country, just not at our back door.  If Sweden want to eager to recognize them, given them half their land and recognize them as neighbors.  Many countries of europe want to put limits on immigration of muslims in general and only willing to give a very small pecentage of their quota to palestinians willing to become citizens.
If palestinians were peaceful people that had lost their land to a natural disaster, the worlds national would be opening their arms to welcome them in.  For too long the major industry of the palestinians has been hate and warfare.  They are unwilling to give that up even if the price is their own state.  That is all Israel has really been asking of them "let us live securely in peace"  For the end of the 19th through the 21st if palestinians had agreed the could have had their state.
It is not a state, it is wanting Israelis' state, their ancient and religious homeland.  For the majority of muslims their religious homeland is Mecca.  As a race they are a blend of the entire region and the races than came through as traders or conquerors.  They are not an ancient race with culture, language, religion that go back a millennium or more.  There was never a nation of people or palestine till the mandate ended.  They were offered a state and refused.
We hope that recognition would bring peace, but it won't, not till they recognize Israel's right to exist and are willing to live in peace and cooperation with Israel.  Does any one or any nation really believe it will happen?  Sure give them a state over there in Israel's back yard, just not ours.  That is what the world is really saying.
How do you teach palestinians to think first of peace and how do you get them to give up their arms and hateful rhetoric against Israel and it's supporters?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Well, your source is close.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> International law considers agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void if they deprive civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation and restitution."
> ​Read more: Articles The Jihad Lawyer
> So we can put Oslo and other agreements that Arafat was duped into signing to bed, shall we?  When Hamas refuses to recognize previous agreements it is because they are invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCES)*
> 
> 
> 
> "Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. 8)." *SOURCE:* Occupation and international humanitarian law: questions and answers ICRC
> Part I. General Provisions
> 
> 
> Art. 8. Protected persons may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention, and by the special agreements referred to in the foregoing Article, if such there be.
> 
> 
> Section III. Occupied territories
> 
> Art. 47. Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What your source _(Articles The Jihad Lawyer)_ interprets the Geneva Convention to say, and what it actually says --- are two different things; as you can see.  And again, it depends on whether you want to accept the concept that the Israelis are an "Occupation Power" or a "Colonial Power."  If you argue the case that Israel is a "Colonial Power" then the GC IV does not apply.  But if the Israeli is a "Occupation Power" --- THEN --- the prohibition is very specific (GCIV Article 47).  It does not say:  "agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not that I see them as inapplicable as much as universally violated. Israel wants the fruits of occupation while it thumbs its nose at the restrictions and obligations. Although it still fits the definition of an occupation, its actions, depending on time and place, better fit colonization and invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Actually, Israel argues, like you, that the GCIV doesn't really apply, except by Security Council Mandate; "_Calls once more upon_ Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention," Security Council Resolution 446.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of which definition you use, it is still illegal to acquire land through the threat or use of force. All of "Israel's land" has been acquired at the point of a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes, reading this carefully, this is an application of:
> 
> Palestine National Charter of 1968
> 
> Article 1. Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the greater Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.
> 
> Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.​
> This is a concept that dates back to Israeli Independence over a half century ago, in which the right of self-determination was exercised pursuant to the UN "Steps Preparatory to Independence."  Prior to May '48, it was a Civil War.  After May '48, it was an invasion by Arab Armies attempting to use force to interrupt the implementation of the Partition Plan and subvert the will of the UN.
> 
> Now, in terms of the territory and the sovereignty, this is something that the Palestinians have consistently said is a "violation of international law."  Yet in over half a century, they have never availed themselves to the recognized dispute resolution processes.
> 
> The Law is quite clear:
> 
> 
> "Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States."  A/RES/25/2625
> Not once did the Palestinians attempt peaceful means to resolve the issues.  The policy is:
> 
> There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the "dispute" and what is the recognized dispute resolution processes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dispute is about Israel occupying palestine, the dispute resolution process is the one laid down in the UN resolutions. These say an end to all violence beligerence and terrorism and negotiations to a peace and mutual borders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What UN resolution references the occupation?
Click to expand...






 For starters 242 lays down the ground rules of peace and mutual borders. And the Palestinians are for ever quoting that one aren't they ?


----------



## Coyote

RoccoR said:


> Coyote,  _et al,_
> 
> Clearly, this is a variation of 21st Century thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who has the right to determine whether or not a people have the "right" to self-determination?  Has any other people or group been required to some-how "prove themselves" or viewed somehow as "children" incapable of handling it?  That was the attitude of many colonial powers towards their subject colonies.
> 
> In fact - most seperatist groups end up "proving" themselves and earning their nations through warfare and conflict.  Israel itself is one of many examples of this.  Some make the successful transition from war to governance while others fail.  It's not up to any other powers to make that decision for them.
> 
> They have the right to self determination just as does Israel.  Give it to them.  Give them complete control over their borders, airspace, coast, trade, utilities, treaties.  Just like any other nation.  Hold them to the same standards as any other nation.  If they violate those standards they risk the same penalties, sanctions or military actions against.
> 
> Once people are responsible for their own fate and their own nation - THEN is the time to make the transition from fighting to governing.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)
> *
> First, the "right" to self-determination did not come about automatically.  It is an evolutionary process.  In as much as the League of Nations, twice, examined the question of "self-determination.
> 
> The first body of experts was clear that self-determination had not obtained the status of international law. It observed that although the principle of self-determination of peoples plays an important part in modern political thought, especially since the Great War, it must be pointed out that there is no mention of it in the covenant of the League of Nations. The recognition of this principle in a certain number of international treaties cannot be considered as sufficient to put it upon the same footing as a positive rule of the Law of Nations._[Report of the International Committee of Jurists entrusted by the Council of the League of Nations with the task of giving an advisory opinion upon the legal aspects of the Aaland Islands question, League of Nations Off. J., Spec. Supp. No. 3 (Oct. 1920)]_
> 
> The second group of experts reached a similar conclusion as to the scope of self-determination, which it termed "a principle of justice and of liberty, expressed by a vague and general formula which has given rise to the most varied interpretations and differences of opinion."  _[The Aaland Islands Question, Report presented to the Council of the League by the Commission of Rapporteurs, League of Nations Doc. B.7.21/68/106 (1921)]
> 
> Principle Source Work:  Princeton Encyclopedia on Self-determination_​
> What you are expressing is a culmination of the evolutionary process.  But in the beginning, "self-determination" was not supported by International Law until much into the decade between 1960 and 1970.  In your initial opening question:  "Who has the right to determine whether or not a people have the "right" to self-determination?"  It was made a "right" by the International Community representing the United Nations.  While in 1945, the concept of "self-determination" is mentioned exactly twice in the UN Charter, it in neither case embodies it in law or makes it a "right."   The Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 (III) as the International Bill of Human Rights on 10 December 1948 never mentions "self-determination" as a Human Right.  That doesn't happen until 1960 and 1970.
> 
> 
> Chapter I, Article 1, Paragraph 2:  To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
> 
> Chapter IX, Article 55:  With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
> However, decades later, the International Community, in Adopting by General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960:  the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and later adopting by the General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970:  the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, brought the two concepts into customary law.
> 
> *(HAVING SAID THAT)*
> 
> The given "right" of "self-determination" has two aspects to it:
> 
> Internal self-determination is the right of the people of a state to govern themselves without outside interference.
> External self-determination is the right of peoples to determine their own political status and to be free of alien domination, including formation of their own independent state. However, independence is not the only possible outcome of an exercise of self-determination.
> Your proposal is a viable implementation strategy; _albeit_ a risky implementation for the Israelis.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Risky or not Rocco - it is the only one that is just.  Aris points out for example, how they can not even handle their own economy etc.  But the truth is - they have never been free from outside interference.  They have no control over their borders, their own security.  They have little control over trade and none over their territorial waters or the resources there in.  They have no control over their own airspace, they can not form trade agreements with other nations.  Everything filters through Israel and can be stopped for any or not reason.  Israel can completely halt and destroy their economy at any time for any reason.  Just one example - when they elected Hamas in what was considered a free and fair election and Israel chose not to work with them in any manner whatsoever and impose embargos and blockades.  This is not saying Hamas is good - but it is saying that they were elected in an election that Hamas won not for reasons of it's broader international agenda but for reasons to do with the local economy and domestic issues.  When you have a people in an area that is almost completely subject to an outside nation in this way, saying things like the fact that they can not handle their own economy is a bit disengenius.  You can point to things like corruption (a huge problem) but you can't ignore this other reality.

The other aspect of this is this:  what other people have have been subject to this "test" of "fitness" for "self-determination"?  Many nations have been won through violent means which did not end until self-determination was established.  Why are the Palestinians kept to a different standard?


----------



## Coyote

rhodescholar said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you call a "refugee migration" was in part a deliberate driving out by Israeli's of Palestinians who then became "exiled".  This was not just a "migration" - it was a deliberate planned effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You have proof that the israeli government and military under its command ordered it to ethnically cleanse most or all of the arab muslims in the region?  Good luck finding it.
Click to expand...


I already gave my sources for this.


----------



## MJB12741

Coyote said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote,  _et al,_
> 
> Clearly, this is a variation of 21st Century thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who has the right to determine whether or not a people have the "right" to self-determination?  Has any other people or group been required to some-how "prove themselves" or viewed somehow as "children" incapable of handling it?  That was the attitude of many colonial powers towards their subject colonies.
> 
> In fact - most seperatist groups end up "proving" themselves and earning their nations through warfare and conflict.  Israel itself is one of many examples of this.  Some make the successful transition from war to governance while others fail.  It's not up to any other powers to make that decision for them.
> 
> They have the right to self determination just as does Israel.  Give it to them.  Give them complete control over their borders, airspace, coast, trade, utilities, treaties.  Just like any other nation.  Hold them to the same standards as any other nation.  If they violate those standards they risk the same penalties, sanctions or military actions against.
> 
> Once people are responsible for their own fate and their own nation - THEN is the time to make the transition from fighting to governing.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)
> *
> First, the "right" to self-determination did not come about automatically.  It is an evolutionary process.  In as much as the League of Nations, twice, examined the question of "self-determination.
> 
> The first body of experts was clear that self-determination had not obtained the status of international law. It observed that although the principle of self-determination of peoples plays an important part in modern political thought, especially since the Great War, it must be pointed out that there is no mention of it in the covenant of the League of Nations. The recognition of this principle in a certain number of international treaties cannot be considered as sufficient to put it upon the same footing as a positive rule of the Law of Nations._[Report of the International Committee of Jurists entrusted by the Council of the League of Nations with the task of giving an advisory opinion upon the legal aspects of the Aaland Islands question, League of Nations Off. J., Spec. Supp. No. 3 (Oct. 1920)]_
> 
> The second group of experts reached a similar conclusion as to the scope of self-determination, which it termed "a principle of justice and of liberty, expressed by a vague and general formula which has given rise to the most varied interpretations and differences of opinion."  _[The Aaland Islands Question, Report presented to the Council of the League by the Commission of Rapporteurs, League of Nations Doc. B.7.21/68/106 (1921)]
> 
> Principle Source Work:  Princeton Encyclopedia on Self-determination_​
> What you are expressing is a culmination of the evolutionary process.  But in the beginning, "self-determination" was not supported by International Law until much into the decade between 1960 and 1970.  In your initial opening question:  "Who has the right to determine whether or not a people have the "right" to self-determination?"  It was made a "right" by the International Community representing the United Nations.  While in 1945, the concept of "self-determination" is mentioned exactly twice in the UN Charter, it in neither case embodies it in law or makes it a "right."   The Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 (III) as the International Bill of Human Rights on 10 December 1948 never mentions "self-determination" as a Human Right.  That doesn't happen until 1960 and 1970.
> 
> 
> Chapter I, Article 1, Paragraph 2:  To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
> 
> Chapter IX, Article 55:  With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
> However, decades later, the International Community, in Adopting by General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960:  the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and later adopting by the General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970:  the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, brought the two concepts into customary law.
> 
> *(HAVING SAID THAT)*
> 
> The given "right" of "self-determination" has two aspects to it:
> 
> Internal self-determination is the right of the people of a state to govern themselves without outside interference.
> External self-determination is the right of peoples to determine their own political status and to be free of alien domination, including formation of their own independent state. However, independence is not the only possible outcome of an exercise of self-determination.
> Your proposal is a viable implementation strategy; _albeit_ a risky implementation for the Israelis.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Risky or not Rocco - it is the only one that is just.  Aris points out for example, how they can not even handle their own economy etc.  But the truth is - they have never been free from outside interference.  They have no control over their borders, their own security.  They have little control over trade and none over their territorial waters or the resources there in.  They have no control over their own airspace, they can not form trade agreements with other nations.  Everything filters through Israel and can be stopped for any or not reason.  Israel can completely halt and destroy their economy at any time for any reason.  Just one example - when they elected Hamas in what was considered a free and fair election and Israel chose not to work with them in any manner whatsoever and impose embargos and blockades.  This is not saying Hamas is good - but it is saying that they were elected in an election that Hamas won not for reasons of it's broader international agenda but for reasons to do with the local economy and domestic issues.  When you have a people in an area that is almost completely subject to an outside nation in this way, saying things like the fact that they can not handle their own economy is a bit disengenius.  You can point to things like corruption (a huge problem) but you can't ignore this other reality.
> 
> The other aspect of this is this:  what other people have have been subject to this "test" of "fitness" for "self-determination"?  Many nations have been won through violent means which did not end until self-determination was established.  Why are the Palestinians kept to a different standard?
Click to expand...


I am totally supportive of a Palestinian State with self determination.  What a relief that would be for Israel to not have to provide for them & be in an endless conflict with them anymore.  Problem is where to put it.  Palestinians want to be free from Israel & no surrounding Arab country will grant the Palestinians a Palestinian State.


----------



## Coyote

aris2chat said:


> On your premiss any family or group on a ranch could have the right to self determination.  Nor can any state decide to succeed and become it's own nation.



Not necessarily.

The difference is that currently, the Palestinians exist in a stateless and citizenless void where their lives are controlled by a hostile power.



> There has to be a form of income or barter within the "state" and trade with other nations.  Police, laws, some form of court, fire department, monetary system, communication (mail, phone, internet), health system, waste disposal that does not pollute the soil or water of it's neighbor, banking system, education, etc.
> *Right now a large section of the palestinian population is dependent on other agencies and nations to provide these thing*s.



Yes.  But who controls trade and access ultimately?  Who controls potential wealth such as off-shore resources on the Palestinian coast?  How will you find ready investors (as opposed to donors) for long standing economic growth when you have such an uncertain future?  No state, no borders, multiple layers of governance that ultimately depend on Isreal's goodwill?



> It is far more than just wanting to be out on your own but being "able" to do so. Palestinians can not manage even the most basis needs without relying on outside sources.  If you buy products and services, you have to earn enough to pay.  Countries refer to this as balance of trade.  You want more going out rather than coming in.  Palestinians have no means to support this.
> The palestinians have devoted too much into waging war and don't know how or are not ready to devote all their people to peace which would help build the nation they dream of.
> Building tunnels and stealing from or attacking other is not a skill set to create a nation.  It is a skill set to  create criminals.



Implement the two state solution, and let them build what they need.  Isn't that what Israel did once they drove out the British?

If they fail, they fail.  If they succeed, they succeed.  But how long can you keep a people stateless, citizenless, subject to a foreign power's occupation?


----------



## Coyote

MJB12741 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote,  _et al,_
> 
> Clearly, this is a variation of 21st Century thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who has the right to determine whether or not a people have the "right" to self-determination?  Has any other people or group been required to some-how "prove themselves" or viewed somehow as "children" incapable of handling it?  That was the attitude of many colonial powers towards their subject colonies.
> 
> In fact - most seperatist groups end up "proving" themselves and earning their nations through warfare and conflict.  Israel itself is one of many examples of this.  Some make the successful transition from war to governance while others fail.  It's not up to any other powers to make that decision for them.
> 
> They have the right to self determination just as does Israel.  Give it to them.  Give them complete control over their borders, airspace, coast, trade, utilities, treaties.  Just like any other nation.  Hold them to the same standards as any other nation.  If they violate those standards they risk the same penalties, sanctions or military actions against.
> 
> Once people are responsible for their own fate and their own nation - THEN is the time to make the transition from fighting to governing.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)
> *
> First, the "right" to self-determination did not come about automatically.  It is an evolutionary process.  In as much as the League of Nations, twice, examined the question of "self-determination.
> 
> The first body of experts was clear that self-determination had not obtained the status of international law. It observed that although the principle of self-determination of peoples plays an important part in modern political thought, especially since the Great War, it must be pointed out that there is no mention of it in the covenant of the League of Nations. The recognition of this principle in a certain number of international treaties cannot be considered as sufficient to put it upon the same footing as a positive rule of the Law of Nations._[Report of the International Committee of Jurists entrusted by the Council of the League of Nations with the task of giving an advisory opinion upon the legal aspects of the Aaland Islands question, League of Nations Off. J., Spec. Supp. No. 3 (Oct. 1920)]_
> 
> The second group of experts reached a similar conclusion as to the scope of self-determination, which it termed "a principle of justice and of liberty, expressed by a vague and general formula which has given rise to the most varied interpretations and differences of opinion."  _[The Aaland Islands Question, Report presented to the Council of the League by the Commission of Rapporteurs, League of Nations Doc. B.7.21/68/106 (1921)]
> 
> Principle Source Work:  Princeton Encyclopedia on Self-determination_​
> What you are expressing is a culmination of the evolutionary process.  But in the beginning, "self-determination" was not supported by International Law until much into the decade between 1960 and 1970.  In your initial opening question:  "Who has the right to determine whether or not a people have the "right" to self-determination?"  It was made a "right" by the International Community representing the United Nations.  While in 1945, the concept of "self-determination" is mentioned exactly twice in the UN Charter, it in neither case embodies it in law or makes it a "right."   The Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 (III) as the International Bill of Human Rights on 10 December 1948 never mentions "self-determination" as a Human Right.  That doesn't happen until 1960 and 1970.
> 
> 
> Chapter I, Article 1, Paragraph 2:  To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
> 
> Chapter IX, Article 55:  With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
> However, decades later, the International Community, in Adopting by General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960:  the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and later adopting by the General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970:  the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, brought the two concepts into customary law.
> 
> *(HAVING SAID THAT)*
> 
> The given "right" of "self-determination" has two aspects to it:
> 
> Internal self-determination is the right of the people of a state to govern themselves without outside interference.
> External self-determination is the right of peoples to determine their own political status and to be free of alien domination, including formation of their own independent state. However, independence is not the only possible outcome of an exercise of self-determination.
> Your proposal is a viable implementation strategy; _albeit_ a risky implementation for the Israelis.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Risky or not Rocco - it is the only one that is just.  Aris points out for example, how they can not even handle their own economy etc.  But the truth is - they have never been free from outside interference.  They have no control over their borders, their own security.  They have little control over trade and none over their territorial waters or the resources there in.  They have no control over their own airspace, they can not form trade agreements with other nations.  Everything filters through Israel and can be stopped for any or not reason.  Israel can completely halt and destroy their economy at any time for any reason.  Just one example - when they elected Hamas in what was considered a free and fair election and Israel chose not to work with them in any manner whatsoever and impose embargos and blockades.  This is not saying Hamas is good - but it is saying that they were elected in an election that Hamas won not for reasons of it's broader international agenda but for reasons to do with the local economy and domestic issues.  When you have a people in an area that is almost completely subject to an outside nation in this way, saying things like the fact that they can not handle their own economy is a bit disengenius.  You can point to things like corruption (a huge problem) but you can't ignore this other reality.
> 
> The other aspect of this is this:  what other people have have been subject to this "test" of "fitness" for "self-determination"?  Many nations have been won through violent means which did not end until self-determination was established.  Why are the Palestinians kept to a different standard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am totally supportive of a Palestinian State with self determination.  What a relief that would be for Israel to not have to provide for them & be in an endless conflict with them anymore.  Problem is where to put it.  Palestinians want to be free from Israel & no surrounding Arab country will grant the Palestinians a Palestinian State.
Click to expand...


Negotiate for Gaza, West Bank and landswaps.  Otherwise you are no better than the people who insist the Jews be returned to Europe.


----------



## Coyote

Actually...in these arguments, it would probably be good to make a distinction between Palestinians in the West Bank and those in Gaza....


----------



## Lipush

Gaza is not to be negotiated. It's under Arab control, and the only reason Israel gets involved in that hellhole is because of the armed forces and terror organizations in there.

Jerusalem is not under negotiation, either.


----------



## Coyote

Jerusalem needs to be.  Everything needs to be on the table.  It can be removed later or negotiated out but it needs to be.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Coyote said:


> Risky or not Rocco - it is the only one that is just.  Aris points out for example, how they can not even handle their own economy etc.  But the truth is - they have never been free from outside interference.  They have no control over their borders, their own security.  They have little control over trade and none over their territorial waters or the resources there in.  They have no control over their own airspace, they can not form trade agreements with other nations.  Everything filters through Israel and can be stopped for any or not reason.  Israel can completely halt and destroy their economy at any time for any reason.  Just one example - when they elected Hamas in what was considered a free and fair election and Israel chose not to work with them in any manner whatsoever and impose embargos and blockades.  This is not saying Hamas is good - but it is saying that they were elected in an election that Hamas won not for reasons of it's broader international agenda but for reasons to do with the local economy and domestic issues.  When you have a people in an area that is almost completely subject to an outside nation in this way, saying things like the fact that they can not handle their own economy is a bit disengenius.  You can point to things like corruption (a huge problem) but you can't ignore this other reality.
> 
> The other aspect of this is this:  what other people have have been subject to this "test" of "fitness" for "self-determination"?  Many nations have been won through violent means which did not end until self-determination was established.  Why are the Palestinians kept to a different standard?




 Your championing of Hamas as the legitimate leader of the Palestinians here directly contradicts all the many lies you have told in regards to your supposed lack of support for them.

 One cannot simultaneously say they oppose something while legitimizing them.  Now, I realize your very purpose on discussion boards has to do with the dispensation of agitprop designed to deceive, but any group that chooses an organization dedicated to genocide of an ethnic minority in this "free and fair" election of yours has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are most certainly NOT fit for self determination.  

As far as being held to a different standard, the invented people called "Palestinian" are not held to any standard at all by their useful idiot supporters, and that is the real problem here.  Human beings simply do not elect genocidal monsters in a fair and free election.


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote,  _et al,_
> 
> Clearly, this is a variation of 21st Century thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who has the right to determine whether or not a people have the "right" to self-determination?  Has any other people or group been required to some-how "prove themselves" or viewed somehow as "children" incapable of handling it?  That was the attitude of many colonial powers towards their subject colonies.
> 
> In fact - most seperatist groups end up "proving" themselves and earning their nations through warfare and conflict.  Israel itself is one of many examples of this.  Some make the successful transition from war to governance while others fail.  It's not up to any other powers to make that decision for them.
> 
> They have the right to self determination just as does Israel.  Give it to them.  Give them complete control over their borders, airspace, coast, trade, utilities, treaties.  Just like any other nation.  Hold them to the same standards as any other nation.  If they violate those standards they risk the same penalties, sanctions or military actions against.
> 
> Once people are responsible for their own fate and their own nation - THEN is the time to make the transition from fighting to governing.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)
> *
> First, the "right" to self-determination did not come about automatically.  It is an evolutionary process.  In as much as the League of Nations, twice, examined the question of "self-determination.
> 
> The first body of experts was clear that self-determination had not obtained the status of international law. It observed that although the principle of self-determination of peoples plays an important part in modern political thought, especially since the Great War, it must be pointed out that there is no mention of it in the covenant of the League of Nations. The recognition of this principle in a certain number of international treaties cannot be considered as sufficient to put it upon the same footing as a positive rule of the Law of Nations._[Report of the International Committee of Jurists entrusted by the Council of the League of Nations with the task of giving an advisory opinion upon the legal aspects of the Aaland Islands question, League of Nations Off. J., Spec. Supp. No. 3 (Oct. 1920)]_
> 
> The second group of experts reached a similar conclusion as to the scope of self-determination, which it termed "a principle of justice and of liberty, expressed by a vague and general formula which has given rise to the most varied interpretations and differences of opinion."  _[The Aaland Islands Question, Report presented to the Council of the League by the Commission of Rapporteurs, League of Nations Doc. B.7.21/68/106 (1921)]
> 
> Principle Source Work:  Princeton Encyclopedia on Self-determination_​
> What you are expressing is a culmination of the evolutionary process.  But in the beginning, "self-determination" was not supported by International Law until much into the decade between 1960 and 1970.  In your initial opening question:  "Who has the right to determine whether or not a people have the "right" to self-determination?"  It was made a "right" by the International Community representing the United Nations.  While in 1945, the concept of "self-determination" is mentioned exactly twice in the UN Charter, it in neither case embodies it in law or makes it a "right."   The Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 (III) as the International Bill of Human Rights on 10 December 1948 never mentions "self-determination" as a Human Right.  That doesn't happen until 1960 and 1970.
> 
> 
> Chapter I, Article 1, Paragraph 2:  To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
> 
> Chapter IX, Article 55:  With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
> However, decades later, the International Community, in Adopting by General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960:  the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and later adopting by the General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970:  the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, brought the two concepts into customary law.
> 
> *(HAVING SAID THAT)*
> 
> The given "right" of "self-determination" has two aspects to it:
> 
> Internal self-determination is the right of the people of a state to govern themselves without outside interference.
> External self-determination is the right of peoples to determine their own political status and to be free of alien domination, including formation of their own independent state. However, independence is not the only possible outcome of an exercise of self-determination.
> Your proposal is a viable implementation strategy; _albeit_ a risky implementation for the Israelis.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Risky or not Rocco - it is the only one that is just.  Aris points out for example, how they can not even handle their own economy etc.  But the truth is - they have never been free from outside interference.  They have no control over their borders, their own security.  They have little control over trade and none over their territorial waters or the resources there in.  They have no control over their own airspace, they can not form trade agreements with other nations.  Everything filters through Israel and can be stopped for any or not reason.  Israel can completely halt and destroy their economy at any time for any reason.  Just one example - when they elected Hamas in what was considered a free and fair election and Israel chose not to work with them in any manner whatsoever and impose embargos and blockades.  This is not saying Hamas is good - but it is saying that they were elected in an election that Hamas won not for reasons of it's broader international agenda but for reasons to do with the local economy and domestic issues.  When you have a people in an area that is almost completely subject to an outside nation in this way, saying things like the fact that they can not handle their own economy is a bit disengenius.  You can point to things like corruption (a huge problem) but you can't ignore this other reality.
> 
> The other aspect of this is this:  what other people have have been subject to this "test" of "fitness" for "self-determination"?  Many nations have been won through violent means which did not end until self-determination was established.  Why are the Palestinians kept to a different standard?
Click to expand...


In the works or scheduled

An airport located to the east of Jericho with plans for another in the WB

An a railway line between Gaza and Cairo

Other plans for a deep water port in Gaza is planned, condition permitting.


----------



## Lipush

Coyote said:


> Jerusalem needs to be.  Everything needs to be on the table.  It can be removed later or negotiated out but it needs to be.



Jerusalem is not under negotiation, because the mass majority in Israel is not interested in hearing about it, with good reason. Any leader saying "we may compromise on Jerusalem" can kiss his government goodbye, the people will chase down anyone offering to give up on our holy city.


----------



## Coyote

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Risky or not Rocco - it is the only one that is just.  Aris points out for example, how they can not even handle their own economy etc.  But the truth is - they have never been free from outside interference.  They have no control over their borders, their own security.  They have little control over trade and none over their territorial waters or the resources there in.  They have no control over their own airspace, they can not form trade agreements with other nations.  Everything filters through Israel and can be stopped for any or not reason.  Israel can completely halt and destroy their economy at any time for any reason.  Just one example - when they elected Hamas in what was considered a free and fair election and Israel chose not to work with them in any manner whatsoever and impose embargos and blockades.  This is not saying Hamas is good - but it is saying that they were elected in an election that Hamas won not for reasons of it's broader international agenda but for reasons to do with the local economy and domestic issues.  When you have a people in an area that is almost completely subject to an outside nation in this way, saying things like the fact that they can not handle their own economy is a bit disengenius.  You can point to things like corruption (a huge problem) but you can't ignore this other reality.
> 
> The other aspect of this is this:  what other people have have been subject to this "test" of "fitness" for "self-determination"?  Many nations have been won through violent means which did not end until self-determination was established.  Why are the Palestinians kept to a different standard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your championing of Hamas as the legitimate leader of the Palestinians here directly contradicts all the many lies you have told in regards to your supposed lack of support for them.
> 
> One cannot simultaneously say they oppose something while legitimizing them.  Now, I realize your very purpose on discussion boards has to do with the dispensation of agitprop designed to deceive, but any group that chooses an organization dedicated to genocide of an ethnic minority in this "free and fair" election of yours has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are most certainly NOT fit for self determination.
> 
> As far as being held to a different standard, the invented people called "Palestinian" are not held to any standard at all by their useful idiot supporters, and that is the real problem here.  Human beings simply do not elect genocidal monsters in a fair and free election.
Click to expand...


I've never championed Hamas.  I do however, support free and fair elections even if I don't agree with the results.  As to the rest, it's little more than a regurgitation of your typical sophomoric generalizations and simplistic hyperbole.  You obviously have an issue with me.  I recommend you take it to the Flame Zone where it is better suited.


----------



## Coyote

Lipush said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jerusalem needs to be.  Everything needs to be on the table.  It can be removed later or negotiated out but it needs to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jerusalem is not under negotiation, because the mass majority in Israel is not interested in hearing about it, with good reason. Any leader saying "we may compromise on Jerusalem" can kiss his government goodbye, the people will chase down anyone offering to give up on our holy city.
Click to expand...


Abbas faces a similar problem on the right of return.


----------



## aris2chat

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Risky or not Rocco - it is the only one that is just.  Aris points out for example, how they can not even handle their own economy etc.  But the truth is - they have never been free from outside interference.  They have no control over their borders, their own security.  They have little control over trade and none over their territorial waters or the resources there in.  They have no control over their own airspace, they can not form trade agreements with other nations.  Everything filters through Israel and can be stopped for any or not reason.  Israel can completely halt and destroy their economy at any time for any reason.  Just one example - when they elected Hamas in what was considered a free and fair election and Israel chose not to work with them in any manner whatsoever and impose embargos and blockades.  This is not saying Hamas is good - but it is saying that they were elected in an election that Hamas won not for reasons of it's broader international agenda but for reasons to do with the local economy and domestic issues.  When you have a people in an area that is almost completely subject to an outside nation in this way, saying things like the fact that they can not handle their own economy is a bit disengenius.  You can point to things like corruption (a huge problem) but you can't ignore this other reality.
> 
> The other aspect of this is this:  what other people have have been subject to this "test" of "fitness" for "self-determination"?  Many nations have been won through violent means which did not end until self-determination was established.  Why are the Palestinians kept to a different standard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your championing of Hamas as the legitimate leader of the Palestinians here directly contradicts all the many lies you have told in regards to your supposed lack of support for them.
> 
> One cannot simultaneously say they oppose something while legitimizing them.  Now, I realize your very purpose on discussion boards has to do with the dispensation of agitprop designed to deceive, but any group that chooses an organization dedicated to genocide of an ethnic minority in this "free and fair" election of yours has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are most certainly NOT fit for self determination.
> 
> As far as being held to a different standard, the invented people called "Palestinian" are not held to any standard at all by their useful idiot supporters, and that is the real problem here.  Human beings simply do not elect genocidal monsters in a fair and free election.
Click to expand...


Till Hamas permits new election.  Unity government collapse '07 when after armed conflict Fatah was thrown out of Gaza.  WB is controlled by Fatah and PA.  Gaza is controlled by Hamas.
The election was a majority for Fatah, but because more than one Fatah member ran for the same seat the Hamas candidate won the seat.  When Hamas attacked the Fatah in Gaza, the unity government fell apart and many Hamas representative have since be imprisoned for various crimes.
Hamas has recently allowed some Fatah representative back into Gaza but elections are still up in the air.


----------



## MJB12741

aris2chat said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Risky or not Rocco - it is the only one that is just.  Aris points out for example, how they can not even handle their own economy etc.  But the truth is - they have never been free from outside interference.  They have no control over their borders, their own security.  They have little control over trade and none over their territorial waters or the resources there in.  They have no control over their own airspace, they can not form trade agreements with other nations.  Everything filters through Israel and can be stopped for any or not reason.  Israel can completely halt and destroy their economy at any time for any reason.  Just one example - when they elected Hamas in what was considered a free and fair election and Israel chose not to work with them in any manner whatsoever and impose embargos and blockades.  This is not saying Hamas is good - but it is saying that they were elected in an election that Hamas won not for reasons of it's broader international agenda but for reasons to do with the local economy and domestic issues.  When you have a people in an area that is almost completely subject to an outside nation in this way, saying things like the fact that they can not handle their own economy is a bit disengenius.  You can point to things like corruption (a huge problem) but you can't ignore this other reality.
> 
> The other aspect of this is this:  what other people have have been subject to this "test" of "fitness" for "self-determination"?  Many nations have been won through violent means which did not end until self-determination was established.  Why are the Palestinians kept to a different standard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your championing of Hamas as the legitimate leader of the Palestinians here directly contradicts all the many lies you have told in regards to your supposed lack of support for them.
> 
> One cannot simultaneously say they oppose something while legitimizing them.  Now, I realize your very purpose on discussion boards has to do with the dispensation of agitprop designed to deceive, but any group that chooses an organization dedicated to genocide of an ethnic minority in this "free and fair" election of yours has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are most certainly NOT fit for self determination.
> 
> As far as being held to a different standard, the invented people called "Palestinian" are not held to any standard at all by their useful idiot supporters, and that is the real problem here.  Human beings simply do not elect genocidal monsters in a fair and free election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Till Hamas permits new election.  Unity government collapse '07 when after armed conflict Fatah was thrown out of Gaza.  WB is controlled by Fatah and PA.  Gaza is controlled by Hamas.
> The election was a majority for Fatah, but because more than one Fatah member ran for the same seat the Hamas candidate won the seat.  When Hamas attacked the Fatah in Gaza, the unity government fell apart and many Hamas representative have since be imprisoned for various crimes.
> Hamas has recently allowed some Fatah representative back into Gaza but elections are still up in the air.
Click to expand...


The Palestinian people themselves duly elected the terrorist organization Hamas to represent them & carry out their wishes regarding Israel.  Now they must accept the result of their own doing.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Coyote said:


> I've never championed Hamas.  I do however, support free and fair elections even if I don't agree with the results.  As to the rest, it's little more than a regurgitation of your typical sophomoric generalizations and simplistic hyperbole.  You obviously have an issue with me.  I recommend you take it to the Flame Zone where it is better suited.




I have an issue with you because you continuously claim you support one thing while displaying beyond a doubt that you don't, and have not diverted from this M.O. one iota in the years I have witnessed your pattern of deceit

 When faced with the fact that Palestinian Arabs elected terrorists to represent them -- terrorists whose stated aim is genocide -- any decent human being would take stock of the situation. Only a propagandist with dishonest intent would keep indulging in self-aggrandizing pap about supporting the elections that propelled them to power. 

Over and over, you claim to oppose Hamas, yet right here you do no such thing.  You are a liar and a fraud.


----------



## Coyote

aris2chat said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Risky or not Rocco - it is the only one that is just.  Aris points out for example, how they can not even handle their own economy etc.  But the truth is - they have never been free from outside interference.  They have no control over their borders, their own security.  They have little control over trade and none over their territorial waters or the resources there in.  They have no control over their own airspace, they can not form trade agreements with other nations.  Everything filters through Israel and can be stopped for any or not reason.  Israel can completely halt and destroy their economy at any time for any reason.  Just one example - when they elected Hamas in what was considered a free and fair election and Israel chose not to work with them in any manner whatsoever and impose embargos and blockades.  This is not saying Hamas is good - but it is saying that they were elected in an election that Hamas won not for reasons of it's broader international agenda but for reasons to do with the local economy and domestic issues.  When you have a people in an area that is almost completely subject to an outside nation in this way, saying things like the fact that they can not handle their own economy is a bit disengenius.  You can point to things like corruption (a huge problem) but you can't ignore this other reality.
> 
> The other aspect of this is this:  what other people have have been subject to this "test" of "fitness" for "self-determination"?  Many nations have been won through violent means which did not end until self-determination was established.  Why are the Palestinians kept to a different standard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your championing of Hamas as the legitimate leader of the Palestinians here directly contradicts all the many lies you have told in regards to your supposed lack of support for them.
> 
> One cannot simultaneously say they oppose something while legitimizing them.  Now, I realize your very purpose on discussion boards has to do with the dispensation of agitprop designed to deceive, but any group that chooses an organization dedicated to genocide of an ethnic minority in this "free and fair" election of yours has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are most certainly NOT fit for self determination.
> 
> As far as being held to a different standard, the invented people called "Palestinian" are not held to any standard at all by their useful idiot supporters, and that is the real problem here.  Human beings simply do not elect genocidal monsters in a fair and free election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Till Hamas permits new election*.  Unity government collapse '07 when after armed conflict Fatah was thrown out of Gaza.  WB is controlled by Fatah and PA.  Gaza is controlled by Hamas.
> The election was a majority for Fatah, but because more than one Fatah member ran for the same seat the Hamas candidate won the seat.  When Hamas attacked the Fatah in Gaza, the unity government fell apart and many Hamas representative have since be imprisoned for various crimes.
> Hamas has recently allowed some Fatah representative back into Gaza but elections are still up in the air.
Click to expand...


IMO Hamas has lost it's legitimacy at this point by not permitting further election although it was fairly elected originally.

I find the parlimentary system confusing and did not realize that was why Fatah lost...thanks for the info


----------



## aris2chat

Lipush said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jerusalem needs to be.  Everything needs to be on the table.  It can be removed later or negotiated out but it needs to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jerusalem is not under negotiation, because the mass majority in Israel is not interested in hearing about it, with good reason. Any leader saying "we may compromise on Jerusalem" can kiss his government goodbye, the people will chase down anyone offering to give up on our holy city.
Click to expand...


The buildings on the mount belong to the waqf.  The mount belongs to Israel.
Can't split the baby in half again.  Jews will not be denied access to the Kotel again.
Palestinians could have had half of Jerusalem and access to the mount before the second intafada in 2000.  Arafat refused the best offer.  The intafata carried on for five year and not they threaten another.
Israel is not going to let Jerusalem be divided again like it was with Jordan.


----------



## Coyote

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never championed Hamas.  I do however, support free and fair elections even if I don't agree with the results.  As to the rest, it's little more than a regurgitation of your typical sophomoric generalizations and simplistic hyperbole.  You obviously have an issue with me.  I recommend you take it to the Flame Zone where it is better suited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have an issue with you because you continuously claim you support one thing while displaying beyond a doubt that you don't, and have not diverted from this M.O. one iota in the years I have witnessed your pattern of deceit
> 
> When faced with the fact that Palestinian Arabs elected terrorists to represent them -- terrorists whose stated aim is genocide -- any decent human being would take stock of the situation. Only a propagandist with dishonest intent would keep indulging in self-aggrandizing pap about supporting the elections that propelled them to power.
> 
> Over and over, you claim to oppose Hamas, yet right here you do no such thing.  You are a liar and a fraud.
Click to expand...


Your issues with me are your problem, not mine, as is your childish attitude.

The election that brought Hamas to power in Gaza was not over Hamas' relationship to Israel but over domestic issues and corruption and the inability of Fatah to address those issues or reign in corruption.


----------



## Coyote

aris2chat said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jerusalem needs to be.  Everything needs to be on the table.  It can be removed later or negotiated out but it needs to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jerusalem is not under negotiation, because the mass majority in Israel is not interested in hearing about it, with good reason. Any leader saying "we may compromise on Jerusalem" can kiss his government goodbye, the people will chase down anyone offering to give up on our holy city.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The buildings on the mount belong to the waqf.  The mount belongs to Israel.
> Can't split the baby in half again.  Jews will not be denied access to the Kotel again.
> Palestinians could have had half of Jerusalem and access to the mount before the second intafada in 2000.  Arafat refused the best offer.  The intafata carried on for five year and not they threaten another.
> Israel is not going to let Jerusalem be divided again like it was with Jordan.
Click to expand...


You're probably right - you can't split it again.  But I still think it needs to be part of any negotiations as a matter of good faith.  Same with right of return.  Everything needs to be discussed.  No preconditions for talks.  No preconditions for peace.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Coyote said:


> Your issues with me are your problem, not mine as is your childish attitude.
> 
> The election that brought Hamas to power in Gaza was not over Hamas' relationship to Israel but over domestic issues and corruption and the inability of Fatah to address those issues or reign in corruption.




Yep -- any old excuse to support the terrorism and genocidal ambitions will do, won't it?.


----------



## Coyote

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your issues with me are your problem, not mine as is your childish attitude.
> 
> The election that brought Hamas to power in Gaza was not over Hamas' relationship to Israel but over domestic issues and corruption and the inability of Fatah to address those issues or reign in corruption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep -- any old excuse to support the terrorism and genocidal ambitions will do, won't it?.
Click to expand...


What do YOU think the election was about and can you support your view with any facts or sources?


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Risky or not Rocco - it is the only one that is just.  Aris points out for example, how they can not even handle their own economy etc.  But the truth is - they have never been free from outside interference.  They have no control over their borders, their own security.  They have little control over trade and none over their territorial waters or the resources there in.  They have no control over their own airspace, they can not form trade agreements with other nations.  Everything filters through Israel and can be stopped for any or not reason.  Israel can completely halt and destroy their economy at any time for any reason.  Just one example - when they elected Hamas in what was considered a free and fair election and Israel chose not to work with them in any manner whatsoever and impose embargos and blockades.  This is not saying Hamas is good - but it is saying that they were elected in an election that Hamas won not for reasons of it's broader international agenda but for reasons to do with the local economy and domestic issues.  When you have a people in an area that is almost completely subject to an outside nation in this way, saying things like the fact that they can not handle their own economy is a bit disengenius.  You can point to things like corruption (a huge problem) but you can't ignore this other reality.
> 
> The other aspect of this is this:  what other people have have been subject to this "test" of "fitness" for "self-determination"?  Many nations have been won through violent means which did not end until self-determination was established.  Why are the Palestinians kept to a different standard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your championing of Hamas as the legitimate leader of the Palestinians here directly contradicts all the many lies you have told in regards to your supposed lack of support for them.
> 
> One cannot simultaneously say they oppose something while legitimizing them.  Now, I realize your very purpose on discussion boards has to do with the dispensation of agitprop designed to deceive, but any group that chooses an organization dedicated to genocide of an ethnic minority in this "free and fair" election of yours has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are most certainly NOT fit for self determination.
> 
> As far as being held to a different standard, the invented people called "Palestinian" are not held to any standard at all by their useful idiot supporters, and that is the real problem here.  Human beings simply do not elect genocidal monsters in a fair and free election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Till Hamas permits new election*.  Unity government collapse '07 when after armed conflict Fatah was thrown out of Gaza.  WB is controlled by Fatah and PA.  Gaza is controlled by Hamas.
> The election was a majority for Fatah, but because more than one Fatah member ran for the same seat the Hamas candidate won the seat.  When Hamas attacked the Fatah in Gaza, the unity government fell apart and many Hamas representative have since be imprisoned for various crimes.
> Hamas has recently allowed some Fatah representative back into Gaza but elections are still up in the air.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IMO Hamas has lost it's legitimacy at this point by not permitting further election although it was fairly elected originally.
> 
> I find the parlimentary system confusing and did not realize that was why Fatah lost...thanks for the info
Click to expand...


There were a few seats in Gaza where Fatah did not run, or persuaded not with draw.  The other seat were a surprise even to Hamas because the votes just barely out numbers that of the other two or more candidates from the PLO.  If it had been by popular vote, hamas would have lost all but the few seat where they were uncontested.
They don't have run off elections or primaries to get down to two candidate.  PA has not had that many election or envisioned such an outcome when planning their election process.
If the US still used the original election rules of the founding fathers, only white males that owned land would be allowed to vote.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote >>What you call a "refugee migration" was in part a deliberate driving out by Israeli's of Palestinians who then became "exiled". This was not just a "migration" - it was a deliberate planned effort.<<
> 
> >>Bull. I used perfectly good sources to show that there was a deliberate and well orchestrated attempt to force Palestinians out by the Israeli's and it was not simply because they were "hostile" - the source I used based it on government documents. You seem to label sources that disagree with you "misinformation propaganda" and in turn use your own questionable sources.<<
> 
> What sources?  Did I mention you by name?  I was explaining how the majority of palestinians were not force at Israeli gun point to leave the country.  There are tales and a pinch of truth that there were cases where palestinians felt or were forced to move out of their homes or off the land they occupied, but that is not the majority or even 100% of every single case.
> If one person's home is confiscated by the state because of criminal activity, that does not suggest the state will confiscate every home/apartment of every criminal, even misnomers, or result in all the occupants being forced to not just leave the premisses but to leave the country?
> *You, and others, implied that all palestinians were force to leave.*  they were not.  Why did so many leave even before the attack on Israel?  Why did so many leave even though their village was not directly involved in any fighting?  Why were the arabs telling palestinians to leave well before the first shots?
> Israel pleaded for the leaving or told to leave to become part of Israel and help build a strong nation where all faiths co-existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I did not.  What I've said - repeatedly, is that *it is not true that they all or mostly left voluntarily at the urging of their leaders and the other Arab countries* which is what *keeps getting implied by the Pro-Israeli contingen*t.  Yes - I agree with you - that, like refugees today many left in fear of the fighting and for a variety of reasons.  But a substantial number were driven out by the Israeli's themselves in a deliberate plan and this keeps getting ignored or it's claimed that they were removed because they were violent.
> 
> Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> _*Opening of archives*
> 
> In the 1980s Israel and United Kingdom opened up part of their archives for investigation by historians. This favored a more critical and factual analysis of the 1948 events. *As a result more detailed and comprehensive description of the Palestinian exodus was published*, notably Morris' The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem.[5] Morris distinguishes four waves of refugees, the second, third and fourth of them coinciding with Israeli military offensives, when Arab Palestinians fled the fighting, were frightened away, or were expelled.
> 
> 
> A document produced by the Israeli Defence Forces Intelligence Service entitled "The Emigration of the Arabs of Palestine in the Period 1/12/1947 – 1/6/1948" was dated 30 June 1948 and became widely known around 1985.
> 
> 
> T*he document details 11 factors which caused the exodus, and lists them "in order of importance":*
> 
> _
> 
> _Direct, hostile Jewish [ Haganah/IDF ] operations against Arab settlements._
> _The effect of our [Haganah/IDF] hostile operations against nearby [Arab] settlements... (... especially the fall of large neighbouring centers)._
> _Operation of [Jewish] dissidents [ Irgun Tzvai Leumi and Lohamei Herut Yisrael]_
> _Orders and decrees by Arab institutions and gangs [irregulars]._
> _Jewish whispering operations [psychological warfare], aimed at frightening away Arab inhabitants._
> _Ultimate expulsion orders [by Jewish forces]_
> _Fear of Jewish [retaliatory] response [following] major Arab attack on Jews._
> _The appearance of gangs [irregular Arab forces] and non-local fighters in the vicinity of a village._
> _Fear of Arab invasion and its consequences [mainly near the borders]._
> _Isolated Arab villages in purely [predominantly] Jewish areas._
> _Various local factors and general fear of the future.[6]_
> _
> "In the past two decades, following the powerful reverberations (concerning the cause of the Nakba) triggered by the publication of books written by those dubbed the “New Historians,” the Israeli archives revoked access to much of the explosive material. Archived Israeli documents that reported the expulsion of Palestinians, massacres or rapes perpetrated by Israeli soldiers, along with other events considered embarrassing by the establishment, were reclassified as “top secret.”[7]
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> As with most conflicts in the region, and around the world, if you hear the sound of fighting or see people preparing for a fight, people will seek safety while it is still safe to get out of the way.  Most of the refugees from syria were not escorted to the border at gun point and force to leave the country.  People that expect to be unable to move freely, get their children to schools, be able to work or that want to prevent their family being collateral damage sent their family away till it is safe to return.  They were not force to leave or thrown out by the establish government.
> Some move out of town, some move across the country, some leave the country.  They make that choice.  That is not the same as forced out of their homes or out of the country by the hostiles.  Mostly they leave out a precaution.  When someone bust down your down and say they are taking your home at gun point and threaten to kill you if you are not out in the nest ten minutes or begin to kill your family while you and the rest escape, that is being forced out.
> 
> We moved to avoid the fighting, many times both across the country and out of the country.  We the except of being directly targeted outside of my home or one incident at our front door, we were not forced to leave.  We often stayed and just took shelter in the basements with the rocket being fired at our neighbors fell short.  The apartment that we owned down stairs was for a time occupied.  We still have property that have palestinian squatters living in by the shore.  We were not there at the time.  Most of the places in that neighborhood were taken.
> 
> Seeking safety is your choice.  Being force out is different.  I valued my safety and that of my child over trying to stay.  My parents and brother remained for a few more years and left more so my brother could continue his education that out of any direct threat.  The threat was having to travel through a zone with heavy fighting to get to his school.  We were lucky to have a blanket of protection because of my father and god father.  We also had for former soldier that served my father and later become a UN guard to act as drive our drive.  When bullets are flying no one checks your ID before firing on you.
> 
> *Most refugees leave out a fear of the future and expected threat, not because they were directly forced to leave.  You leave because it is or expected to be too difficult to remain and carry on any normality of life*.  Palestinians exodus was not part of some planned genocide of arabs to e carried out by jews.  They were scared into leaving by their fellow arab and the propaganda that they would be killed, raped or otherwise abuse by the jews if they stayed.  They left before any combat or direct threat.  They chose to leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  But you can't keep denying that the Israeli's themselves had a hand in forcing many of them out through a delliberate campaign and claiming they were all scared into leaving by their fellow arabs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Only #6 applies to force being used to kick arabs/palestinians out of Israel.  *Combat with villages in the beginning did not mean the whole family or ever the whole village had to leave.  Only those directly involved in hostilities.  Most of the fighters were not even arab/palestinians.  They were fighters from other arab states that invaded Israel.  Most arab/palestinians would have been untouched since they were not actually shooting at Israelis or killing civilians.
> Whispers and scare tactics by arabs made the palestinians run, not the Israelis.  In some cases the Israelis took advantage and did not counter the lies.  If people want to believe the worst and are so filled with hate, why would Israel encourage them to stay.  They should be asked to remain so they can be terrorists?  It would eventually have led to them in jail or shown the door.  Yes, it was easier to let the refugees believe a lie at some point.  If they did not want to stay why should Israel force them.  The could direct their attention to not being killed by other armies invading Israel.  Would that not have been as bad?  Considering how out numbered the Israelis were, the could not afford to keeping people in that did not want to stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> #1, 2, and 3 appear to as well.
> 
> This article makes some interesting points it's information isn't dependent on the Arab or Palestinian version of events:  The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition
> 
> _This research activity was originally stimulated by two separate sets of events. First, the opening of Israeli archives, both state and private, covering the period in question. Here *it is worth noting that the historians appear to have ignored almost entirely both the archives of the Arab countries (not that these are notable for their accessibility) and oral history potential among Palestinians themselves*, where considerable work has been done by other historians. As the Palestinian historian, Nur Masalha, rightly says: “History and historiography ought not necessarily be written, exclusively or mainly, by the victors (7)"...
> 
> ...In the opening pages of “The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem”, Benny Morris offers the outlines of an overall answer: using a map that shows the 369 Arab towns and villages in Israel (within its 1949 borders), he lists, area by area, the reasons for the departure of the local population (9). In 45 cases he admits that he does not know. *The inhabitants of the other 228 localities left under attack by Jewish troops, and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force*. In 90 other localities, the Palestinians were in a state of panic following the fall of a neighbouring town or village, or for fear of an enemy attack, or because of rumours circulated by the Jewish army - particularly after the 9 April 1948 massacre of 250 inhabitants of Deir Yassin, where the news of the killings swept the country like wildfire.
> 
> 
> *By contrast, he found only six cases of departures at the instigation of local Arab authorities. “There is no evidence to show that the Arab states and the AHC wanted a mass exodus or issued blanket orders or appeals to the Palestinians to flee their homes* (though in certain areas the inhabitants of specific villages were ordered by Arab commanders or the AHC to leave, mainly for strategic reasons).” ("The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem", p. 129). On the contrary, anyone who fled was actually threatened with “severe punishment”. *As for the broadcasts by Arab radio stations allegedly calling on people to flee, a detailed listening to recordings of their programmes of that period shows that the claims were invented for pure propaganda.*
> 
> In “1948 and After” Benny Morris examines the first phase of the exodus and produces *a detailed analysis of a source that he considers basically reliable: a report prepared by the intelligence services of the Israeli army, dated 30 June 1948 and entitled “The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948”. This document sets at 391,000 the number of Palestinians who had already left the territory that was by then in the hands of Israel, and evaluates the various factors that had prompted their decisions to leave*. “At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations.” To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which “directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration”. A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. *This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis*. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to “fears” and “a crisis of confidence” affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases.._​
> It goes on to note more in the next exodus:
> 
> _In short, as Morris puts it, this report* “undermines the traditional official Israeli ’explanation’ of a mass flight ordered or ’invited’ by the Arab leadership”.* Neither, as he points out, “does [the report] uphold the traditional Arab explanation of the exodus - that the Jews, with premeditation and in a centralised fashion, had systematically waged a campaign aimed at the wholesale expulsion of the native Palestinian population.” However, he says that “the circumstances of the second half of the exodus” - which he estimates as having involved between 300,000 and 400,000 people - “are a different story.”
> 
> One example of this second phase was the expulsion of Arabs living in Lydda (present-day Lod) and Ramleh. On 12 July 1948, within the framework of Operation Dani, a skirmish with Jordanian armoured forces served as a pretext for a violent backlash, with 250 killed, some of whom were unarmed prisoners. *This was followed by a forced evacuation characterised by summary executions and looting and involving upwards of 70,000 Palestinian civilians - almost 10% of the total exodus of 1947- 49. Similar scenarios were enacted, as Morris shows, in central Galilee, Upper Galilee and the northern Negev, as well as in the post-war expulsion of the Palestinians of Al Majdal (Ashkelon). Most of these operations (with the exception of the latter) were marked by atrocities* - a fact which led Aharon Zisling, the minister of agriculture, to tell the Israeli cabinet on 17 November 1948: “I couldn’t sleep all night. I felt that things that were going on were hurting my soul, the soul of my family and all of us here (...) Now Jews too have behaved like Nazis and my entire being has been shaken (10).”
> 
> The Israeli government of the time *pursued a policy of non- compromise, in order to prevent the return of the refugees* “at any price” (as Ben Gurion himself put it), despite the fact that the UN General Assembly had been calling for this since 11 December 1948. Their villages were either destroyed or occupied by Jewish immigrants, and their lands were shared out between the surrounding kibbutzim. The law on “abandoned properties” - which was designed to make possible the seizure of any land belonging to persons who were “absent” - “legalised” this project of general confiscation as of December 1948. Almost 400 Arab villages were thus either wiped off the map or Judaised, as were most of the Arab quarters in mixed towns. According to a report drawn up in 1952, Israel had thus succeeded in expropriating 73,000 rooms in abandoned houses, 7,800 shops, workshops and warehouses, 5 million Palestinian pounds in bank accounts, and - most important of all - 300,000 hectares of land  (11)._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>The exodus was divided into two broadly equal waves: one before and one after the decisive turning-point of the declaration of the State of Israel on 14 May 1948 and the intervention of the armies of the neighboring Arab states on the following day. One can agree that the flight of thousands of well-to-do Palestinians during the first few weeks following the adoption of the UN partition plan - particularly from Haifa and Jaffa - was essentially voluntary. The question is what was the truth of the departures that happened subsequently?
> .....................and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force.
> ...........90 other localities, the Palestinians were in a state of panic following the fall of a neighboring town or village, or for fear of an enemy attack, or because of rumors circulated by the Jewish army<< also from mondediplo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...*The inhabitants of the other 228 localities left under attack by Jewish troops, *_and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>
> _“One million Palestinians were expelled by Israel from 1947–49.”_
> 
> *FACT *
> The Palestinians left their homes in 1947–49 for a variety of reasons. Thousands of wealthy Arabs left in anticipation of a war, thousands more responded to Arab leaders’ calls to get out of the way of the advancing armies, a handful were expelled, but most simply fled to avoid being caught in the cross fire of a battle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree - they left for a variety of reasons however you repeatedly minimize the effects and efforts of the Israeli factions and militias themselves on promoting this departure.  You say thousands more responded to Arab leaders calls to get out of the way yet the historian I quoted, working from archival  government documents, states that the number who left for that reason was quite minimal and some of the claims (such as radio programs from Arabs telling them to flee) was nothing more than propaganda from the Israeli's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many Arabs claim that 800,000 to 1,000,000 Palestinians became refugees in 1947–49. The last census taken by the British in 1945 found approximately 1.2 million permanent Arab residents in _all_ of Palestine. A 1949 census conducted by the government of Israel counted 160,000 Arabs living in the new state after the war. In 1947, a total of 809,100 Arabs lived in the same area.1 This meant no more than 650,000 Palestinian Arabs could have become refugees. A report by the UN Mediator on Palestine arrived at an even lower refugee figure—472,000.<<Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine, Submitted to the Secretary-General for Transmission to the Members of the United Nations, General Assembly Official Records: Third Session, Supplement No. 11 (A/648), Paris, 1948, p. 47 and Supplement No. 11A (A/689 and A/689/Add.1, p. 5; and “Conclusions from Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine,” (September 16, 1948), U.N. doc. A/648 (part 1, p. 29; part 2, p. 23; part 3, p. 11), (September 18, 1948).
> 
> BBC NEWS Middle East Jordan s refugees long to return
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure about actual numbers...I will leave any argument there for others.  What I am arguing is that Israel had a deliberate policy of forcing out the Palestinians and preventing their return.
Click to expand...







 Is that any different to the Palestinians policy of forcing out the Jews. I know two wrongs don't make a right, but the Palestinians had no Jews at all in the west bank or gaza from 1948 to 1967 while Israel had arab muslims living in Israel as full citizens. So if Israel had a deliberate policy of forcing out the Palestinians what were they doing allowing 25% + of Israels population to be arab muslims, and at the same time allowing Palestinians that had been displaced the right to return to their homes.

It is all in the history books, but then this would mean that you had been brainwashed into believing a LIE and cant quite reconcile yourself to the reality.  The evidence proves your POV wrong


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Coyote said:


> What do YOU think the election was about and can you support your view with any facts or sources?




 The election was about who the Arabs who now call themselves "Palestinian" wished to lead them.

 Considering the fact that their very sense of identity only developed out of their hatred for Zionism, and reputable opinion polls have always shown strong support for terrorism, to discount the appeal of hateful rhetoric is foolish.

Any idiot can regurgitate the excuses offered by those who support the terrorism as a means to rationalize it. It takes intelligence to see through the b.s.  and be willing to stand up and say "no, that does not ring true".


----------



## Coyote

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do YOU think the election was about and can you support your view with any facts or sources?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The election was about who the Arabs who now call themselves "Palestinian" wished to lead them.
Click to expand...


EVERY election is ostensibly about  who we wish to lead us but ultimately revolves around - not "who" -  but what - what can that person or party do for us on critical issues?



> Considering the fact that their very sense of identity only developed out of their hatred for Zionism, and reputable opinion polls have always shown strong support for terrorism, to discount the appeal of hateful rhetoric is foolish.



In the end - most politics are "local" and this election is no different.  Hamas wood them, provided lots of incentives and promised things it never delivered.  

You have yet to show any evidence that the election was about "hatred of Zionism" rather than corruption or domestic issues.



> Any idiot can regurgitate the excuses offered by those who support the terrorism as a means to rationalize it. It takes intelligence to see through the b.s.  and be willing to stand up and say "no, that does not ring true".



Any idiot can regurgitate.  Yes.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> One can argue that there is a certain indeterminacy to the issue, or one can argue that --- one side or the other --- has more of a "right to self-determination."  In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the indeterminate position is neutral position; a case of "equal rights."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The "right of self-determination" falls within a special category of conceptual understandings.  When I was in college, they had a very complex definition for it; but in this case, I like the "wikipedia" description the best.  It is a case that of "indeterminacy."
> 
> *Indeterminacy*
> Indeterminacy, in philosophy, can refer both to common scientific and mathematical concepts of uncertainty and their implications
> and to another kind of indeterminacy deriving from the nature of definition or meaning. It is related to deconstructionism and to
> Nietzsche's criticism of the Kantian noumenon.​
> Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminacy_(philosophy)​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good post, thanks.
> "...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state."
> And then there is:
> No definition of peoples is offered,..​Well they do, kind of. Look at the definition of people.
> 
> Person is singular.
> People is plural.
> Peoples is a plural plural.
> A people is a singular plural.
> 
> A people is a group of people who have common characteristics. Peoples can be defined by geographical location. The French are a people. The British are a people. The Palestinians are a people. All of these are within defined territories and are naturals for self determination within a country or state.
> 
> Then there are people who have other defining characteristics, like race, color, or religion. These are distributed throughout the world and do not lend themselves suitable for statehood. In fact segregation according to these characteristics is viewed as undesirable in the civilized world.
> 
> As they say:
> "...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state."​You asked. That is my answer.​
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The hidden beauty of an "indeterminacy" is much like the "Heisenberg uncertainty principle;" in quantum mechanics holding that increasing the accuracy of measurement of one observable quantity increases the uncertainty _[(energy and position) and (momentum within a quantum system) cannot both be accurately measured simultaneously)]_.  In the case of the "right of self-determination" the "right" of the Jewish People and the "right" of the Arab People cannot both be evaluated simultaneously without causing some injury to one or the other _(it is indeterminate)_.  Thus any argument made --- which is based --- on the "right of self-determination" for either side is inconclusive.  The "rights" cancel each other out because they cannot be applied individually without prejudice to the other.
> 
> One can argue that "...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state;" one can also say that that neither of the purposes precludes the establishment of "an ethnically distinct people with a state" as a possible outcome.  This would be especially possible since the intent, at the very outset, was to establish a National Homeland and that these national aspirations _(goals in common)_ were recognized by the Arab and Jewish Leadership at the outset _(Faisal-Weizmann Agreement of 1919)_.  Both sides understood that the "racial kindship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realising that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations, is through the closest possible, collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The hidden beauty of an "indeterminacy" is much like..."​
> The hidden beauty is that you can smokescreen the issues with verbosity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Is it a "smokescreen?"  Or is it a case in which the Arab-Palestinian claims more of a "right" of some sort than has been endowed upon them?  _(As it pertains to this particular argument.)_
> 
> I tried to stay away from the issue of suitability; that is, your claim that some "do not lend themselves suitable for statehood."  Clearly, the suitability _(and capability)_ of the Arab Palestinian, both then and now, is a condition subject to an entirely different discussion.
> 
> If you rule-out the indeterminate factor intertwined in the distinction between "people" 'vs' "peoples" --- then you are left with the underlying theory behind the "right of self-determination" --- that:  "the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order" is somehow recognized.  (See Post #563")  That would be the people of Israel _(one people)_ and the people of the West Bank and Gaza _(one people)_; or collectively, the "peoples" _(the collective)_.    *Note*:  For the sake of your plural distinction:  _(one people) + (one people) = (one peoples - or - the collective)_
> 
> The Leaders of the early 20th Century _(trained 19th Century thinkers)_ did not quibble over such distinctions _(people 'vs' peoples)_.  If they saw a universal right, then it applied to everyone equally - and was not a matter of distinguishing characteristics _(and they saw very few universal rights --- let alone the "contemporary notions of self-determination usually distinguish between “internal” and “external” self-determination, suggesting that "self-determination" exists on a spectrum")_.  And most certainly, as the Allied Powers were determining the establishment of a Jewish National Home _(in whatever form it would ultimately take - that being undetermined in San Remo)_, it was quite clear that they held the power to make the determinations and not the indigenous enemy population of lands surrendered to them at the outcome of the war _(there was no spectrum of self-determination - they made the determination)_.  The idea of the right to self-determination was not yet a consideration.  "In international law, the right of self-determination that became recognized in the post-WWII years were interpreted as the right of all colonial territories to become independent or to adopt any other status they freely chose;" had not yet been established.  And the Leaders of the early 20th Century _(trained 19th Century thinkers)_ did not quibble about it - these were not new colonial interests, but "Mandates."  And as such, "no right to secession has yet been recognized under international law;" no right to self-determination except what was granted to them by the powers-that-be.
> 
> One of the earliest proponents of a right to self-determination was U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. A month after his famous "Fourteen Points" speech to the U.S. Congress in January 1918 (in which the term "self-determination" does not appear), he proclaimed:
> 
> "Self-determination" is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril....​Despite Wilson's injunction, attempts to turn self-determination from a "mere phrase" into a binding norm did not occur for over 40 years, following the deaths of tens of millions in two major wars. *While the Covenant of the League of Nations did indirectly address the principle of self-determination (without using the word) in the system of mandates that it established, identification of the mandates and implementation of the system was wholly dependent on politics, not law.* In most of the territorial adjustments that followed the end of World War I, *winners and losers were determined by the political calculations and perceived needs of the Great Powers rather than on the basis of which groups had the strongest claims to self-determination.*
> _*SOURCE:*_ Legal Aspects of Self-Determination - Princeton University Encyclopedia of Self-determination​For the sake of emphasis, let me repeat something here:  "In most of the territorial adjustments that followed the end of World War I, winners and losers were *determined by* the political calculations and perceived needs of *the Great Powers* rather than on the basis of which groups had the strongest claims to self-determination."  This was the political landscape at the time the decisions were made to establish the "Jewish National Home."
> 
> Thus _(whether you like the "theory of indeterminism" or not)_, the Arab-Palestinian "right to self-determination" was NOT extended based on the strongest claim or any inherent right they perceived as being owed to them, but were determined on the basis of the wants and needs of the Allied Powers; that being the establishment of the Jewish National Home _(in whatever form it would ultimately take - that being undetermined in San Remo)_.
> 
> I know this interpretation sounds hard and harsh _(maybe even unfair)_, but that was the characteristics of the times.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Self determination is not just teen wanting to not be boss or have rules made by a parent.  The child has to be skilled enough to support itself,  understand budgeting to pay the rent and bill on time and not just go wild with a charge card.  It is being responsible enough not to get into legal trouble or get taken by criminals and fair weather friends.  It is having a plan for a future (perhaps getting married, kids, buying a home, retirement, etc).  It understanding when he is sick, getting medical care, eating right and exercising to stay healthy.
> What a child should not do is veg in front of a video came and expect everyone else to give their money support he "right of self determination to do nothing".
> 
> Palestinians are at odds internally.  They can't handle their own finances.  They can't manage their own health care, water, sewage.  Can't control it's own people from waging war on Israel.  Can't adapt it educational system to teach non-violence and cooperation instead of hate and destruction.  It can't provide enough jobs.
> Palestinians are more of less playing violent video games and expecting the world to support their violent addiction as well as their personal needs.  These games result in very real human death or maimed bodies and can even result in the player's life.  Perhaps they should begin with Sims so they can learn what is requires to function in the real world.
> 
> Palestinians are not prepared for self determination.  They have devoted the last 70+ years to the killing of Israelis and the annihilation of Israel.  They have to learn to build a nation, a united government with a potential of growth.  They need to shift their mind set from war to peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who has the right to determine whether or not a people have the "right" to self-determination?  Has any other people or group been required to some-how "prove themselves" or viewed somehow as "children" incapable of handling it?  That was the attitude of many colonial powers towards their subject colonies.
> 
> In fact - most seperatist groups end up "proving" themselves and earning their nations through warfare and conflict.  Israel itself is one of many examples of this.  Some make the successful transition from war to governance while others fail.  It's not up to any other powers to make that decision for them.
> 
> They have the right to self determination just as does Israel.  Give it to them.  Give them complete control over their borders, airspace, coast, trade, utilities, treaties.  Just like any other nation.  Hold them to the same standards as any other nation.  If they violate those standards they risk the same penalties, sanctions or military actions against.
> 
> Once people are responsible for their own fate and their own nation - THEN is the time to make the transition from fighting to governing.
Click to expand...





 You cant give the Palestinians the right to free determination, they have to bring it into being themselves. Giving them full control of their air space, borders, coast, trade, utilities and treaties is not giving them free determination, it is giving them the means to destroy themselves. Do you think for one second that they did not have all these things in 1966, and proved to the world that they could not handle the pressure but still wanted more land. They were held to the same high standards that Jordan and Egypt were held to and proved they were not ready. Then in 1988 the world held its breath waiting to see if the Palestinians had realised what was needed and were about to take the bull by the horns. Guess the world is still waiting  some 26 year later, and still no sign of the Palestinians showing their self determination. Who gave the Lebanese their Free Determination, the Iraqis, the Syrians and the Jordanians back in 1949. Or did they just up and declare it themselves to the whole world and got on with exercising their new found FREE DETERMINATION.

 Now is the time to transition from fighting a losing battle for something that cant be given and to learn how to govern themselves with all the mistakes that FREE DETERMINATION entails


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jerusalem needs to be.  Everything needs to be on the table.  It can be removed later or negotiated out but it needs to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jerusalem is not under negotiation, because the mass majority in Israel is not interested in hearing about it, with good reason. Any leader saying "we may compromise on Jerusalem" can kiss his government goodbye, the people will chase down anyone offering to give up on our holy city.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The buildings on the mount belong to the waqf.  The mount belongs to Israel.
> Can't split the baby in half again.  Jews will not be denied access to the Kotel again.
> Palestinians could have had half of Jerusalem and access to the mount before the second intafada in 2000.  Arafat refused the best offer.  The intafata carried on for five year and not they threaten another.
> Israel is not going to let Jerusalem be divided again like it was with Jordan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably right - you can't split it again.  But I still think it needs to be part of any negotiations as a matter of good faith.  Same with right of return.  Everything needs to be discussed.  No preconditions for talks.  No preconditions for peace.
Click to expand...


Do you really think South Korea should let a million or more North Koreans when most of the might wage war on South Korea from within?  If they have family in the south or perhaps held land in the south and are not members of any hostile groups, some might be welcomed, but not so many that would pose a threat to the south.

Israel did many time offer to take in part of the refugees, but not all.  That offer is likely off the table after what Israel has gone through since giving up gaza in hopes for peace.  There may be some clause where after a period of so many years after a peace agreement where application to apply for something like immigration visa and green card may be possible, but no flood of refugees from all directions.  PA can take in their own people and get them out of camps through out the region.
Among the refugees that were born or lived in what is now Israel, that are still alive, they could be among those to be given first consideration, but not the whole extended family and certainly not with out check for terrorist or criminal ties.
When children are being recruited and brainwash at such early ages, how many do you really expect Israel to allow back?
The offer to return by Israel was contingent on the other refugees being absorbed by the other arab nations, and no one else really wants that many palestinians either.  The presence of refugees in Lebanon tipped the balance and were responsible for a very long war.  Now with syria refugee more than a third of the population in Lebanon are refugees.  Do you really expect Lebanon to be able to take in so many at one time?
It is nice to say "left the refugees return" but how are you going to determine which ones came from Israel and which from the WB or G?  Wage after wave have push other palestinians out.  How do you reverse the process?  After close to 70 yrs of fighting, how many of the refugees do you think even have ties to Israel anymore?
You have to consider the logistics of housing, jobs and other resources and services require for so many "returning".  Refugees should be the responsibility of the PA not Israel


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I did not.  What I've said - repeatedly, is that *it is not true that they all or mostly left voluntarily at the urging of their leaders and the other Arab countries* which is what *keeps getting implied by the Pro-Israeli contingen*t.  Yes - I agree with you - that, like refugees today many left in fear of the fighting and for a variety of reasons.  But a substantial number were driven out by the Israeli's themselves in a deliberate plan and this keeps getting ignored or it's claimed that they were removed because they were violent.
> 
> Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> _*Opening of archives*
> 
> In the 1980s Israel and United Kingdom opened up part of their archives for investigation by historians. This favored a more critical and factual analysis of the 1948 events. *As a result more detailed and comprehensive description of the Palestinian exodus was published*, notably Morris' The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem.[5] Morris distinguishes four waves of refugees, the second, third and fourth of them coinciding with Israeli military offensives, when Arab Palestinians fled the fighting, were frightened away, or were expelled.
> 
> 
> A document produced by the Israeli Defence Forces Intelligence Service entitled "The Emigration of the Arabs of Palestine in the Period 1/12/1947 – 1/6/1948" was dated 30 June 1948 and became widely known around 1985.
> 
> 
> T*he document details 11 factors which caused the exodus, and lists them "in order of importance":*
> 
> _
> 
> _Direct, hostile Jewish [ Haganah/IDF ] operations against Arab settlements._
> _The effect of our [Haganah/IDF] hostile operations against nearby [Arab] settlements... (... especially the fall of large neighbouring centers)._
> _Operation of [Jewish] dissidents [ Irgun Tzvai Leumi and Lohamei Herut Yisrael]_
> _Orders and decrees by Arab institutions and gangs [irregulars]._
> _Jewish whispering operations [psychological warfare], aimed at frightening away Arab inhabitants._
> _Ultimate expulsion orders [by Jewish forces]_
> _Fear of Jewish [retaliatory] response [following] major Arab attack on Jews._
> _The appearance of gangs [irregular Arab forces] and non-local fighters in the vicinity of a village._
> _Fear of Arab invasion and its consequences [mainly near the borders]._
> _Isolated Arab villages in purely [predominantly] Jewish areas._
> _Various local factors and general fear of the future.[6]_
> _
> "In the past two decades, following the powerful reverberations (concerning the cause of the Nakba) triggered by the publication of books written by those dubbed the “New Historians,” the Israeli archives revoked access to much of the explosive material. Archived Israeli documents that reported the expulsion of Palestinians, massacres or rapes perpetrated by Israeli soldiers, along with other events considered embarrassing by the establishment, were reclassified as “top secret.”[7]
> _​I agree.  But you can't keep denying that the Israeli's themselves had a hand in forcing many of them out through a delliberate campaign and claiming they were all scared into leaving by their fellow arabs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Only #6 applies to force being used to kick arabs/palestinians out of Israel.  *Combat with villages in the beginning did not mean the whole family or ever the whole village had to leave.  Only those directly involved in hostilities.  Most of the fighters were not even arab/palestinians.  They were fighters from other arab states that invaded Israel.  Most arab/palestinians would have been untouched since they were not actually shooting at Israelis or killing civilians.
> Whispers and scare tactics by arabs made the palestinians run, not the Israelis.  In some cases the Israelis took advantage and did not counter the lies.  If people want to believe the worst and are so filled with hate, why would Israel encourage them to stay.  They should be asked to remain so they can be terrorists?  It would eventually have led to them in jail or shown the door.  Yes, it was easier to let the refugees believe a lie at some point.  If they did not want to stay why should Israel force them.  The could direct their attention to not being killed by other armies invading Israel.  Would that not have been as bad?  Considering how out numbered the Israelis were, the could not afford to keeping people in that did not want to stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> #1, 2, and 3 appear to as well.
> 
> This article makes some interesting points it's information isn't dependent on the Arab or Palestinian version of events:  The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition
> 
> _This research activity was originally stimulated by two separate sets of events. First, the opening of Israeli archives, both state and private, covering the period in question. Here *it is worth noting that the historians appear to have ignored almost entirely both the archives of the Arab countries (not that these are notable for their accessibility) and oral history potential among Palestinians themselves*, where considerable work has been done by other historians. As the Palestinian historian, Nur Masalha, rightly says: “History and historiography ought not necessarily be written, exclusively or mainly, by the victors (7)"...
> 
> ...In the opening pages of “The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem”, Benny Morris offers the outlines of an overall answer: using a map that shows the 369 Arab towns and villages in Israel (within its 1949 borders), he lists, area by area, the reasons for the departure of the local population (9). In 45 cases he admits that he does not know. *The inhabitants of the other 228 localities left under attack by Jewish troops, and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force*. In 90 other localities, the Palestinians were in a state of panic following the fall of a neighbouring town or village, or for fear of an enemy attack, or because of rumours circulated by the Jewish army - particularly after the 9 April 1948 massacre of 250 inhabitants of Deir Yassin, where the news of the killings swept the country like wildfire.
> 
> 
> *By contrast, he found only six cases of departures at the instigation of local Arab authorities. “There is no evidence to show that the Arab states and the AHC wanted a mass exodus or issued blanket orders or appeals to the Palestinians to flee their homes* (though in certain areas the inhabitants of specific villages were ordered by Arab commanders or the AHC to leave, mainly for strategic reasons).” ("The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem", p. 129). On the contrary, anyone who fled was actually threatened with “severe punishment”. *As for the broadcasts by Arab radio stations allegedly calling on people to flee, a detailed listening to recordings of their programmes of that period shows that the claims were invented for pure propaganda.*
> 
> In “1948 and After” Benny Morris examines the first phase of the exodus and produces *a detailed analysis of a source that he considers basically reliable: a report prepared by the intelligence services of the Israeli army, dated 30 June 1948 and entitled “The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948”. This document sets at 391,000 the number of Palestinians who had already left the territory that was by then in the hands of Israel, and evaluates the various factors that had prompted their decisions to leave*. “At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations.” To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which “directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration”. A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. *This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis*. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to “fears” and “a crisis of confidence” affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases.._​
> It goes on to note more in the next exodus:
> 
> _In short, as Morris puts it, this report* “undermines the traditional official Israeli ’explanation’ of a mass flight ordered or ’invited’ by the Arab leadership”.* Neither, as he points out, “does [the report] uphold the traditional Arab explanation of the exodus - that the Jews, with premeditation and in a centralised fashion, had systematically waged a campaign aimed at the wholesale expulsion of the native Palestinian population.” However, he says that “the circumstances of the second half of the exodus” - which he estimates as having involved between 300,000 and 400,000 people - “are a different story.”
> 
> One example of this second phase was the expulsion of Arabs living in Lydda (present-day Lod) and Ramleh. On 12 July 1948, within the framework of Operation Dani, a skirmish with Jordanian armoured forces served as a pretext for a violent backlash, with 250 killed, some of whom were unarmed prisoners. *This was followed by a forced evacuation characterised by summary executions and looting and involving upwards of 70,000 Palestinian civilians - almost 10% of the total exodus of 1947- 49. Similar scenarios were enacted, as Morris shows, in central Galilee, Upper Galilee and the northern Negev, as well as in the post-war expulsion of the Palestinians of Al Majdal (Ashkelon). Most of these operations (with the exception of the latter) were marked by atrocities* - a fact which led Aharon Zisling, the minister of agriculture, to tell the Israeli cabinet on 17 November 1948: “I couldn’t sleep all night. I felt that things that were going on were hurting my soul, the soul of my family and all of us here (...) Now Jews too have behaved like Nazis and my entire being has been shaken (10).”
> 
> The Israeli government of the time *pursued a policy of non- compromise, in order to prevent the return of the refugees* “at any price” (as Ben Gurion himself put it), despite the fact that the UN General Assembly had been calling for this since 11 December 1948. Their villages were either destroyed or occupied by Jewish immigrants, and their lands were shared out between the surrounding kibbutzim. The law on “abandoned properties” - which was designed to make possible the seizure of any land belonging to persons who were “absent” - “legalised” this project of general confiscation as of December 1948. Almost 400 Arab villages were thus either wiped off the map or Judaised, as were most of the Arab quarters in mixed towns. According to a report drawn up in 1952, Israel had thus succeeded in expropriating 73,000 rooms in abandoned houses, 7,800 shops, workshops and warehouses, 5 million Palestinian pounds in bank accounts, and - most important of all - 300,000 hectares of land  (11)._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>The exodus was divided into two broadly equal waves: one before and one after the decisive turning-point of the declaration of the State of Israel on 14 May 1948 and the intervention of the armies of the neighboring Arab states on the following day. One can agree that the flight of thousands of well-to-do Palestinians during the first few weeks following the adoption of the UN partition plan - particularly from Haifa and Jaffa - was essentially voluntary. The question is what was the truth of the departures that happened subsequently?
> .....................and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force.
> ...........90 other localities, the Palestinians were in a state of panic following the fall of a neighboring town or village, or for fear of an enemy attack, or because of rumors circulated by the Jewish army<< also from mondediplo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...*The inhabitants of the other 228 localities left under attack by Jewish troops, *_and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>
> _“One million Palestinians were expelled by Israel from 1947–49.”_
> 
> *FACT *
> The Palestinians left their homes in 1947–49 for a variety of reasons. Thousands of wealthy Arabs left in anticipation of a war, thousands more responded to Arab leaders’ calls to get out of the way of the advancing armies, a handful were expelled, but most simply fled to avoid being caught in the cross fire of a battle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree - they left for a variety of reasons however you repeatedly minimize the effects and efforts of the Israeli factions and militias themselves on promoting this departure.  You say thousands more responded to Arab leaders calls to get out of the way yet the historian I quoted, working from archival  government documents, states that the number who left for that reason was quite minimal and some of the claims (such as radio programs from Arabs telling them to flee) was nothing more than propaganda from the Israeli's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many Arabs claim that 800,000 to 1,000,000 Palestinians became refugees in 1947–49. The last census taken by the British in 1945 found approximately 1.2 million permanent Arab residents in _all_ of Palestine. A 1949 census conducted by the government of Israel counted 160,000 Arabs living in the new state after the war. In 1947, a total of 809,100 Arabs lived in the same area.1 This meant no more than 650,000 Palestinian Arabs could have become refugees. A report by the UN Mediator on Palestine arrived at an even lower refugee figure—472,000.<<Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine, Submitted to the Secretary-General for Transmission to the Members of the United Nations, General Assembly Official Records: Third Session, Supplement No. 11 (A/648), Paris, 1948, p. 47 and Supplement No. 11A (A/689 and A/689/Add.1, p. 5; and “Conclusions from Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine,” (September 16, 1948), U.N. doc. A/648 (part 1, p. 29; part 2, p. 23; part 3, p. 11), (September 18, 1948).
> 
> BBC NEWS Middle East Jordan s refugees long to return
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure about actual numbers...I will leave any argument there for others.  What I am arguing is that Israel had a deliberate policy of forcing out the Palestinians and preventing their return.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that any different to the Palestinians policy of forcing out the Jews. I know two wrongs don't make a right, but the Palestinians had no Jews at all in the west bank or gaza from 1948 to 1967 while Israel had arab muslims living in Israel as full citizens. So if Israel had a deliberate policy of forcing out the Palestinians what were they doing allowing 25% + of Israels population to be arab muslims, and at the same time allowing Palestinians that had been displaced the right to return to their homes.
> 
> It is all in the history books, but then this would mean that you had been brainwashed into believing a LIE and cant quite reconcile yourself to the reality.  The evidence proves your POV wrong
Click to expand...


My point of view was based material that was found in official Israeli documents.  Just because they didn't force out all the Palestinians doesn't mean there wasn't a concerted effort to do so as was shown by those documents in the  archives which, I might add - the Israeli government has since removed from public access.


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> One can argue that there is a certain indeterminacy to the issue, or one can argue that --- one side or the other --- has more of a "right to self-determination."  In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the indeterminate position is neutral position; a case of "equal rights."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The "right of self-determination" falls within a special category of conceptual understandings.  When I was in college, they had a very complex definition for it; but in this case, I like the "wikipedia" description the best.  It is a case that of "indeterminacy."
> 
> *Indeterminacy*
> Indeterminacy, in philosophy, can refer both to common scientific and mathematical concepts of uncertainty and their implications
> and to another kind of indeterminacy deriving from the nature of definition or meaning. It is related to deconstructionism and to
> Nietzsche's criticism of the Kantian noumenon.​
> Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminacy_(philosophy)​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The hidden beauty of an "indeterminacy" is much like the "Heisenberg uncertainty principle;" in quantum mechanics holding that increasing the accuracy of measurement of one observable quantity increases the uncertainty _[(energy and position) and (momentum within a quantum system) cannot both be accurately measured simultaneously)]_.  In the case of the "right of self-determination" the "right" of the Jewish People and the "right" of the Arab People cannot both be evaluated simultaneously without causing some injury to one or the other _(it is indeterminate)_.  Thus any argument made --- which is based --- on the "right of self-determination" for either side is inconclusive.  The "rights" cancel each other out because they cannot be applied individually without prejudice to the other.
> 
> One can argue that "...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state;" one can also say that that neither of the purposes precludes the establishment of "an ethnically distinct people with a state" as a possible outcome.  This would be especially possible since the intent, at the very outset, was to establish a National Homeland and that these national aspirations _(goals in common)_ were recognized by the Arab and Jewish Leadership at the outset _(Faisal-Weizmann Agreement of 1919)_.  Both sides understood that the "racial kindship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realising that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations, is through the closest possible, collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> "The hidden beauty of an "indeterminacy" is much like..."​
> The hidden beauty is that you can smokescreen the issues with verbosity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Is it a "smokescreen?"  Or is it a case in which the Arab-Palestinian claims more of a "right" of some sort than has been endowed upon them?  _(As it pertains to this particular argument.)_
> 
> I tried to stay away from the issue of suitability; that is, your claim that some "do not lend themselves suitable for statehood."  Clearly, the suitability _(and capability)_ of the Arab Palestinian, both then and now, is a condition subject to an entirely different discussion.
> 
> If you rule-out the indeterminate factor intertwined in the distinction between "people" 'vs' "peoples" --- then you are left with the underlying theory behind the "right of self-determination" --- that:  "the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order" is somehow recognized.  (See Post #563")  That would be the people of Israel _(one people)_ and the people of the West Bank and Gaza _(one people)_; or collectively, the "peoples" _(the collective)_.    *Note*:  For the sake of your plural distinction:  _(one people) + (one people) = (one peoples - or - the collective)_
> 
> The Leaders of the early 20th Century _(trained 19th Century thinkers)_ did not quibble over such distinctions _(people 'vs' peoples)_.  If they saw a universal right, then it applied to everyone equally - and was not a matter of distinguishing characteristics _(and they saw very few universal rights --- let alone the "contemporary notions of self-determination usually distinguish between “internal” and “external” self-determination, suggesting that "self-determination" exists on a spectrum")_.  And most certainly, as the Allied Powers were determining the establishment of a Jewish National Home _(in whatever form it would ultimately take - that being undetermined in San Remo)_, it was quite clear that they held the power to make the determinations and not the indigenous enemy population of lands surrendered to them at the outcome of the war _(there was no spectrum of self-determination - they made the determination)_.  The idea of the right to self-determination was not yet a consideration.  "In international law, the right of self-determination that became recognized in the post-WWII years were interpreted as the right of all colonial territories to become independent or to adopt any other status they freely chose;" had not yet been established.  And the Leaders of the early 20th Century _(trained 19th Century thinkers)_ did not quibble about it - these were not new colonial interests, but "Mandates."  And as such, "no right to secession has yet been recognized under international law;" no right to self-determination except what was granted to them by the powers-that-be.
> 
> One of the earliest proponents of a right to self-determination was U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. A month after his famous "Fourteen Points" speech to the U.S. Congress in January 1918 (in which the term "self-determination" does not appear), he proclaimed:
> 
> "Self-determination" is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril....​Despite Wilson's injunction, attempts to turn self-determination from a "mere phrase" into a binding norm did not occur for over 40 years, following the deaths of tens of millions in two major wars. *While the Covenant of the League of Nations did indirectly address the principle of self-determination (without using the word) in the system of mandates that it established, identification of the mandates and implementation of the system was wholly dependent on politics, not law.* In most of the territorial adjustments that followed the end of World War I, *winners and losers were determined by the political calculations and perceived needs of the Great Powers rather than on the basis of which groups had the strongest claims to self-determination.*
> _*SOURCE:*_ Legal Aspects of Self-Determination - Princeton University Encyclopedia of Self-determination​For the sake of emphasis, let me repeat something here:  "In most of the territorial adjustments that followed the end of World War I, winners and losers were *determined by* the political calculations and perceived needs of *the Great Powers* rather than on the basis of which groups had the strongest claims to self-determination."  This was the political landscape at the time the decisions were made to establish the "Jewish National Home."
> 
> Thus _(whether you like the "theory of indeterminism" or not)_, the Arab-Palestinian "right to self-determination" was NOT extended based on the strongest claim or any inherent right they perceived as being owed to them, but were determined on the basis of the wants and needs of the Allied Powers; that being the establishment of the Jewish National Home _(in whatever form it would ultimately take - that being undetermined in San Remo)_.
> 
> I know this interpretation sounds hard and harsh _(maybe even unfair)_, but that was the characteristics of the times.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Self determination is not just teen wanting to not be boss or have rules made by a parent.  The child has to be skilled enough to support itself,  understand budgeting to pay the rent and bill on time and not just go wild with a charge card.  It is being responsible enough not to get into legal trouble or get taken by criminals and fair weather friends.  It is having a plan for a future (perhaps getting married, kids, buying a home, retirement, etc).  It understanding when he is sick, getting medical care, eating right and exercising to stay healthy.
> What a child should not do is veg in front of a video came and expect everyone else to give their money support he "right of self determination to do nothing".
> 
> Palestinians are at odds internally.  They can't handle their own finances.  They can't manage their own health care, water, sewage.  Can't control it's own people from waging war on Israel.  Can't adapt it educational system to teach non-violence and cooperation instead of hate and destruction.  It can't provide enough jobs.
> Palestinians are more of less playing violent video games and expecting the world to support their violent addiction as well as their personal needs.  These games result in very real human death or maimed bodies and can even result in the player's life.  Perhaps they should begin with Sims so they can learn what is requires to function in the real world.
> 
> Palestinians are not prepared for self determination.  They have devoted the last 70+ years to the killing of Israelis and the annihilation of Israel.  They have to learn to build a nation, a united government with a potential of growth.  They need to shift their mind set from war to peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who has the right to determine whether or not a people have the "right" to self-determination?  Has any other people or group been required to some-how "prove themselves" or viewed somehow as "children" incapable of handling it?  That was the attitude of many colonial powers towards their subject colonies.
> 
> In fact - most seperatist groups end up "proving" themselves and earning their nations through warfare and conflict.  Israel itself is one of many examples of this.  Some make the successful transition from war to governance while others fail.  It's not up to any other powers to make that decision for them.
> 
> They have the right to self determination just as does Israel.  Give it to them.  Give them complete control over their borders, airspace, coast, trade, utilities, treaties.  Just like any other nation.  Hold them to the same standards as any other nation.  If they violate those standards they risk the same penalties, sanctions or military actions against.
> 
> Once people are responsible for their own fate and their own nation - THEN is the time to make the transition from fighting to governing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cant give the Palestinians the right to free determination, they have to bring it into being themselves. Giving them full control of their air space, borders, coast, trade, utilities and treaties is not giving them free determination, it is giving them the means to destroy themselves. Do you think for one second that they did not have all these things in 1966, and proved to the world that they could not handle the pressure but still wanted more land. They were held to the same high standards that Jordan and Egypt were held to and proved they were not ready. Then in 1988 the world held its breath waiting to see if the Palestinians had realised what was needed and were about to take the bull by the horns. Guess the world is still waiting  some 26 year later, and still no sign of the Palestinians showing their self determination. Who gave the Lebanese their Free Determination, the Iraqis, the Syrians and the Jordanians back in 1949. Or did they just up and declare it themselves to the whole world and got on with exercising their new found FREE DETERMINATION.
> 
> Now is the time to transition from fighting a losing battle for something that cant be given and to learn how to govern themselves with all the mistakes that FREE DETERMINATION entails
Click to expand...


Did Israel transition from fighting to governance BEFORE they obtained their state?"  Did they cease the use of violence prior to that?  Did Egypt?  Did Jordan?  They were territories held by paternalistic colonial powers.  Does this mean Israel is a colonial power - last remnant of a legacy?


----------



## Coyote

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jerusalem needs to be.  Everything needs to be on the table.  It can be removed later or negotiated out but it needs to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jerusalem is not under negotiation, because the mass majority in Israel is not interested in hearing about it, with good reason. Any leader saying "we may compromise on Jerusalem" can kiss his government goodbye, the people will chase down anyone offering to give up on our holy city.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The buildings on the mount belong to the waqf.  The mount belongs to Israel.
> Can't split the baby in half again.  Jews will not be denied access to the Kotel again.
> Palestinians could have had half of Jerusalem and access to the mount before the second intafada in 2000.  Arafat refused the best offer.  The intafata carried on for five year and not they threaten another.
> Israel is not going to let Jerusalem be divided again like it was with Jordan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably right - you can't split it again.  But I still think it needs to be part of any negotiations as a matter of good faith.  Same with right of return.  Everything needs to be discussed.  No preconditions for talks.  No preconditions for peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really think South Korea should let a million or more North Koreans when most of the might wage war on South Korea from within?  If they have family in the south or perhaps held land in the south and are not members of any hostile groups, some might be welcomed, but not so many that would pose a threat to the south.
> 
> Israel did many time offer to take in part of the refugees, but not all.  That offer is likely off the table after what Israel has gone through since giving up gaza in hopes for peace.  There may be some clause where after a period of so many years after a peace agreement where application to apply for something like immigration visa and green card may be possible, but no flood of refugees from all directions.  PA can take in their own people and get them out of camps through out the region.
> Among the refugees that were born or lived in what is now Israel, that are still alive, they could be among those to be given first consideration, but not the whole extended family and certainly not with out check for terrorist or criminal ties.
> When children are being recruited and brainwash at such early ages, how many do you really expect Israel to allow back?
> The offer to return by Israel was contingent on the other refugees being absorbed by the other arab nations, and no one else really wants that many palestinians either.  The presence of refugees in Lebanon tipped the balance and were responsible for a very long war.  Now with syria refugee more than a third of the population in Lebanon are refugees.  Do you really expect Lebanon to be able to take in so many at one time?
> It is nice to say "left the refugees return" but how are you going to determine which ones came from Israel and which from the WB or G?  Wage after wave have push other palestinians out.  How do you reverse the process?  After close to 70 yrs of fighting, how many of the refugees do you think even have ties to Israel anymore?
> You have to consider the logistics of housing, jobs and other resources and services require for so many "returning".  Refugees should be the responsibility of the PA not Israel
Click to expand...


I don't support right of return - it's not going to happen and it would be demographic suicide.  What I'm saying is the Palestinians can't keep it off the table as a precondition that is non-negotiable.  Everyone is going to have to give up some skin in this and the right of return is likely something the Palestinians will have to give up.  At least for most of them.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your issues with me are your problem, not mine as is your childish attitude.
> 
> The election that brought Hamas to power in Gaza was not over Hamas' relationship to Israel but over domestic issues and corruption and the inability of Fatah to address those issues or reign in corruption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep -- any old excuse to support the terrorism and genocidal ambitions will do, won't it?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do YOU think the election was about and can you support your view with any facts or sources?
Click to expand...




 It was about taking the first baby steps to self determination, and they completely blew it by making demands that no one could meet. Who hold the magic wand that bestows self determination on anyone. Who gave you the self determination to get a job, get married, have children, buy a house, buy a car, have a holiday etc. Those are all part of individual self determination that only you could decide. Now were will the Palestinians get their self determination from, because Israel certainly cant influence their choice of car, job, holiday, children etc.


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your issues with me are your problem, not mine as is your childish attitude.
> 
> The election that brought Hamas to power in Gaza was not over Hamas' relationship to Israel but over domestic issues and corruption and the inability of Fatah to address those issues or reign in corruption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep -- any old excuse to support the terrorism and genocidal ambitions will do, won't it?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do YOU think the election was about and can you support your view with any facts or sources?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was about taking the first baby steps to self determination, and they completely blew it by making demands that no one could meet. *Who hold the magic wand that bestows self determination on anyone*. Who gave you the self determination to get a job, get married, have children, buy a house, buy a car, have a holiday etc. Those are all part of individual self determination that only you could decide. Now were will the Palestinians get their self determination from, because Israel certainly cant influence their choice of car, job, holiday, children etc.
Click to expand...


Exactly.  Who holds the magic wand?

Perhaps the Palestinians going to the UN directly to make their case for recognition is the best move.  It's civilized.


----------



## Lipush

Coyote said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jerusalem needs to be.  Everything needs to be on the table.  It can be removed later or negotiated out but it needs to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jerusalem is not under negotiation, because the mass majority in Israel is not interested in hearing about it, with good reason. Any leader saying "we may compromise on Jerusalem" can kiss his government goodbye, the people will chase down anyone offering to give up on our holy city.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abbas faces a similar problem on the right of return.
Click to expand...


Well, Abbas is an a**, so most of us don't really care what he has to deal with


----------



## Coyote

Lipush said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jerusalem needs to be.  Everything needs to be on the table.  It can be removed later or negotiated out but it needs to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jerusalem is not under negotiation, because the mass majority in Israel is not interested in hearing about it, with good reason. Any leader saying "we may compromise on Jerusalem" can kiss his government goodbye, the people will chase down anyone offering to give up on our holy city.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abbas faces a similar problem on the right of return.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, Abbas is an a**, so most of us don't really care what he has to deal with
Click to expand...


Of course you don't.  But he represents the other side.  I doubt they care very much for your view on Jeruselum.


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> ..... Who gave the Lebanese their Free Determination, the Iraqis, the Syrians and the Jordanians back in 1949. Or did they just up and declare it themselves to the whole world and got on with exercising their new found FREE DETERMINATION....



Always thought it was Self-determination, but whatever. In answer to your question:
Lebanon= created by the French
Iraq = created by the British
Syria = created by the French
Jordan= created by the British
Palestine= created by the British, usurped by the Zionists. 

Interesting to note that when the Syrians tried to express their self determination they were crushed by French military might; as were the Palestians  and Iraqis crushed by the British when they did the same.


----------



## aris2chat

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> One can argue that there is a certain indeterminacy to the issue, or one can argue that --- one side or the other --- has more of a "right to self-determination."  In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the indeterminate position is neutral position; a case of "equal rights."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The "right of self-determination" falls within a special category of conceptual understandings.  When I was in college, they had a very complex definition for it; but in this case, I like the "wikipedia" description the best.  It is a case that of "indeterminacy."
> 
> *Indeterminacy*
> Indeterminacy, in philosophy, can refer both to common scientific and mathematical concepts of uncertainty and their implications
> and to another kind of indeterminacy deriving from the nature of definition or meaning. It is related to deconstructionism and to
> Nietzsche's criticism of the Kantian noumenon.​
> Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminacy_(philosophy)​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The hidden beauty of an "indeterminacy" is much like the "Heisenberg uncertainty principle;" in quantum mechanics holding that increasing the accuracy of measurement of one observable quantity increases the uncertainty _[(energy and position) and (momentum within a quantum system) cannot both be accurately measured simultaneously)]_.  In the case of the "right of self-determination" the "right" of the Jewish People and the "right" of the Arab People cannot both be evaluated simultaneously without causing some injury to one or the other _(it is indeterminate)_.  Thus any argument made --- which is based --- on the "right of self-determination" for either side is inconclusive.  The "rights" cancel each other out because they cannot be applied individually without prejudice to the other.
> 
> One can argue that "...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state;" one can also say that that neither of the purposes precludes the establishment of "an ethnically distinct people with a state" as a possible outcome.  This would be especially possible since the intent, at the very outset, was to establish a National Homeland and that these national aspirations _(goals in common)_ were recognized by the Arab and Jewish Leadership at the outset _(Faisal-Weizmann Agreement of 1919)_.  Both sides understood that the "racial kindship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realising that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations, is through the closest possible, collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> "The hidden beauty of an "indeterminacy" is much like..."​
> The hidden beauty is that you can smokescreen the issues with verbosity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Is it a "smokescreen?"  Or is it a case in which the Arab-Palestinian claims more of a "right" of some sort than has been endowed upon them?  _(As it pertains to this particular argument.)_
> 
> I tried to stay away from the issue of suitability; that is, your claim that some "do not lend themselves suitable for statehood."  Clearly, the suitability _(and capability)_ of the Arab Palestinian, both then and now, is a condition subject to an entirely different discussion.
> 
> If you rule-out the indeterminate factor intertwined in the distinction between "people" 'vs' "peoples" --- then you are left with the underlying theory behind the "right of self-determination" --- that:  "the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order" is somehow recognized.  (See Post #563")  That would be the people of Israel _(one people)_ and the people of the West Bank and Gaza _(one people)_; or collectively, the "peoples" _(the collective)_.    *Note*:  For the sake of your plural distinction:  _(one people) + (one people) = (one peoples - or - the collective)_
> 
> The Leaders of the early 20th Century _(trained 19th Century thinkers)_ did not quibble over such distinctions _(people 'vs' peoples)_.  If they saw a universal right, then it applied to everyone equally - and was not a matter of distinguishing characteristics _(and they saw very few universal rights --- let alone the "contemporary notions of self-determination usually distinguish between “internal” and “external” self-determination, suggesting that "self-determination" exists on a spectrum")_.  And most certainly, as the Allied Powers were determining the establishment of a Jewish National Home _(in whatever form it would ultimately take - that being undetermined in San Remo)_, it was quite clear that they held the power to make the determinations and not the indigenous enemy population of lands surrendered to them at the outcome of the war _(there was no spectrum of self-determination - they made the determination)_.  The idea of the right to self-determination was not yet a consideration.  "In international law, the right of self-determination that became recognized in the post-WWII years were interpreted as the right of all colonial territories to become independent or to adopt any other status they freely chose;" had not yet been established.  And the Leaders of the early 20th Century _(trained 19th Century thinkers)_ did not quibble about it - these were not new colonial interests, but "Mandates."  And as such, "no right to secession has yet been recognized under international law;" no right to self-determination except what was granted to them by the powers-that-be.
> 
> One of the earliest proponents of a right to self-determination was U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. A month after his famous "Fourteen Points" speech to the U.S. Congress in January 1918 (in which the term "self-determination" does not appear), he proclaimed:
> 
> "Self-determination" is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril....​Despite Wilson's injunction, attempts to turn self-determination from a "mere phrase" into a binding norm did not occur for over 40 years, following the deaths of tens of millions in two major wars. *While the Covenant of the League of Nations did indirectly address the principle of self-determination (without using the word) in the system of mandates that it established, identification of the mandates and implementation of the system was wholly dependent on politics, not law.* In most of the territorial adjustments that followed the end of World War I, *winners and losers were determined by the political calculations and perceived needs of the Great Powers rather than on the basis of which groups had the strongest claims to self-determination.*
> _*SOURCE:*_ Legal Aspects of Self-Determination - Princeton University Encyclopedia of Self-determination​For the sake of emphasis, let me repeat something here:  "In most of the territorial adjustments that followed the end of World War I, winners and losers were *determined by* the political calculations and perceived needs of *the Great Powers* rather than on the basis of which groups had the strongest claims to self-determination."  This was the political landscape at the time the decisions were made to establish the "Jewish National Home."
> 
> Thus _(whether you like the "theory of indeterminism" or not)_, the Arab-Palestinian "right to self-determination" was NOT extended based on the strongest claim or any inherent right they perceived as being owed to them, but were determined on the basis of the wants and needs of the Allied Powers; that being the establishment of the Jewish National Home _(in whatever form it would ultimately take - that being undetermined in San Remo)_.
> 
> I know this interpretation sounds hard and harsh _(maybe even unfair)_, but that was the characteristics of the times.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Self determination is not just teen wanting to not be boss or have rules made by a parent.  The child has to be skilled enough to support itself,  understand budgeting to pay the rent and bill on time and not just go wild with a charge card.  It is being responsible enough not to get into legal trouble or get taken by criminals and fair weather friends.  It is having a plan for a future (perhaps getting married, kids, buying a home, retirement, etc).  It understanding when he is sick, getting medical care, eating right and exercising to stay healthy.
> What a child should not do is veg in front of a video came and expect everyone else to give their money support he "right of self determination to do nothing".
> 
> Palestinians are at odds internally.  They can't handle their own finances.  They can't manage their own health care, water, sewage.  Can't control it's own people from waging war on Israel.  Can't adapt it educational system to teach non-violence and cooperation instead of hate and destruction.  It can't provide enough jobs.
> Palestinians are more of less playing violent video games and expecting the world to support their violent addiction as well as their personal needs.  These games result in very real human death or maimed bodies and can even result in the player's life.  Perhaps they should begin with Sims so they can learn what is requires to function in the real world.
> 
> Palestinians are not prepared for self determination.  They have devoted the last 70+ years to the killing of Israelis and the annihilation of Israel.  They have to learn to build a nation, a united government with a potential of growth.  They need to shift their mind set from war to peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who has the right to determine whether or not a people have the "right" to self-determination?  Has any other people or group been required to some-how "prove themselves" or viewed somehow as "children" incapable of handling it?  That was the attitude of many colonial powers towards their subject colonies.
> 
> In fact - most seperatist groups end up "proving" themselves and earning their nations through warfare and conflict.  Israel itself is one of many examples of this.  Some make the successful transition from war to governance while others fail.  It's not up to any other powers to make that decision for them.
> 
> They have the right to self determination just as does Israel.  Give it to them.  Give them complete control over their borders, airspace, coast, trade, utilities, treaties.  Just like any other nation.  Hold them to the same standards as any other nation.  If they violate those standards they risk the same penalties, sanctions or military actions against.
> 
> Once people are responsible for their own fate and their own nation - THEN is the time to make the transition from fighting to governing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cant give the Palestinians the right to free determination, they have to bring it into being themselves. Giving them full control of their air space, borders, coast, trade, utilities and treaties is not giving them free determination, it is giving them the means to destroy themselves. Do you think for one second that they did not have all these things in 1966, and proved to the world that they could not handle the pressure but still wanted more land. They were held to the same high standards that Jordan and Egypt were held to and proved they were not ready. Then in 1988 the world held its breath waiting to see if the Palestinians had realised what was needed and were about to take the bull by the horns. Guess the world is still waiting  some 26 year later, and still no sign of the Palestinians showing their self determination. Who gave the Lebanese their Free Determination, the Iraqis, the Syrians and the Jordanians back in 1949. Or did they just up and declare it themselves to the whole world and got on with exercising their new found FREE DETERMINATION.
> 
> Now is the time to transition from fighting a losing battle for something that cant be given and to learn how to govern themselves with all the mistakes that FREE DETERMINATION entails
Click to expand...


Lebanon fought for their autonomy under the Ottoman empire.  They paid taxes but how Lebanon functioned from within was between the princes, lords, tribes and religious leaders.

Palestinians were given that under Oslo and used that opportunity for infighting and to attack Israel.
That is not what the authority was intended to do in creating their own state.   The authority was a stepping stone, the chance or organize their management and train their people for the hand over to statehood.
Two intafadas; several wars; constant bombing, riots and attacks.  Was this really the best preparation for living side by side with Israel?  Was any of it in the best interest of the palestinians or persuading Israel to be more generous or flexible in negotiation?


----------



## Lipush

Coyote said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jerusalem needs to be.  Everything needs to be on the table.  It can be removed later or negotiated out but it needs to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jerusalem is not under negotiation, because the mass majority in Israel is not interested in hearing about it, with good reason. Any leader saying "we may compromise on Jerusalem" can kiss his government goodbye, the people will chase down anyone offering to give up on our holy city.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abbas faces a similar problem on the right of return.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, Abbas is an a**, so most of us don't really care what he has to deal with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you don't.  But he represents the other side.  I doubt they care very much for your view on Jeruselum.
Click to expand...


No more than we care about that damn mosque, they don't.

I rather handle Hamas than Handle Abbas. At least they're honest with their agendas.


----------



## aris2chat

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... Who gave the Lebanese their Free Determination, the Iraqis, the Syrians and the Jordanians back in 1949. Or did they just up and declare it themselves to the whole world and got on with exercising their new found FREE DETERMINATION....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Always thought it was Self-determination, but whatever. In answer to your question:
> Lebanon= created by the French
> Iraq = created by the British
> Syria = created by the French
> Jordan= created by the British
> Palestine= created by the British, usurped by the Zionists.
> 
> Interesting to note that when the Syrians tried to express their self determination they were crushed by French military might; as were the Palestians  and Iraqis crushed by the British when they did the same.
Click to expand...


>>Palestine= created by the British, usurped by the Zionists. <<

Rejected by the arabs.  After 7 countries against the out numbered Israels and six major wars resulting land shift.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> One can argue that there is a certain indeterminacy to the issue, or one can argue that --- one side or the other --- has more of a "right to self-determination."  In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the indeterminate position is neutral position; a case of "equal rights."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The hidden beauty of an "indeterminacy" is much like..."​
> The hidden beauty is that you can smokescreen the issues with verbosity.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Is it a "smokescreen?"  Or is it a case in which the Arab-Palestinian claims more of a "right" of some sort than has been endowed upon them?  _(As it pertains to this particular argument.)_
> 
> I tried to stay away from the issue of suitability; that is, your claim that some "do not lend themselves suitable for statehood."  Clearly, the suitability _(and capability)_ of the Arab Palestinian, both then and now, is a condition subject to an entirely different discussion.
> 
> If you rule-out the indeterminate factor intertwined in the distinction between "people" 'vs' "peoples" --- then you are left with the underlying theory behind the "right of self-determination" --- that:  "the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order" is somehow recognized.  (See Post #563")  That would be the people of Israel _(one people)_ and the people of the West Bank and Gaza _(one people)_; or collectively, the "peoples" _(the collective)_.    *Note*:  For the sake of your plural distinction:  _(one people) + (one people) = (one peoples - or - the collective)_
> 
> The Leaders of the early 20th Century _(trained 19th Century thinkers)_ did not quibble over such distinctions _(people 'vs' peoples)_.  If they saw a universal right, then it applied to everyone equally - and was not a matter of distinguishing characteristics _(and they saw very few universal rights --- let alone the "contemporary notions of self-determination usually distinguish between “internal” and “external” self-determination, suggesting that "self-determination" exists on a spectrum")_.  And most certainly, as the Allied Powers were determining the establishment of a Jewish National Home _(in whatever form it would ultimately take - that being undetermined in San Remo)_, it was quite clear that they held the power to make the determinations and not the indigenous enemy population of lands surrendered to them at the outcome of the war _(there was no spectrum of self-determination - they made the determination)_.  The idea of the right to self-determination was not yet a consideration.  "In international law, the right of self-determination that became recognized in the post-WWII years were interpreted as the right of all colonial territories to become independent or to adopt any other status they freely chose;" had not yet been established.  And the Leaders of the early 20th Century _(trained 19th Century thinkers)_ did not quibble about it - these were not new colonial interests, but "Mandates."  And as such, "no right to secession has yet been recognized under international law;" no right to self-determination except what was granted to them by the powers-that-be.
> 
> One of the earliest proponents of a right to self-determination was U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. A month after his famous "Fourteen Points" speech to the U.S. Congress in January 1918 (in which the term "self-determination" does not appear), he proclaimed:
> 
> "Self-determination" is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril....​Despite Wilson's injunction, attempts to turn self-determination from a "mere phrase" into a binding norm did not occur for over 40 years, following the deaths of tens of millions in two major wars. *While the Covenant of the League of Nations did indirectly address the principle of self-determination (without using the word) in the system of mandates that it established, identification of the mandates and implementation of the system was wholly dependent on politics, not law.* In most of the territorial adjustments that followed the end of World War I, *winners and losers were determined by the political calculations and perceived needs of the Great Powers rather than on the basis of which groups had the strongest claims to self-determination.*
> _*SOURCE:*_ Legal Aspects of Self-Determination - Princeton University Encyclopedia of Self-determination​For the sake of emphasis, let me repeat something here:  "In most of the territorial adjustments that followed the end of World War I, winners and losers were *determined by* the political calculations and perceived needs of *the Great Powers* rather than on the basis of which groups had the strongest claims to self-determination."  This was the political landscape at the time the decisions were made to establish the "Jewish National Home."
> 
> Thus _(whether you like the "theory of indeterminism" or not)_, the Arab-Palestinian "right to self-determination" was NOT extended based on the strongest claim or any inherent right they perceived as being owed to them, but were determined on the basis of the wants and needs of the Allied Powers; that being the establishment of the Jewish National Home _(in whatever form it would ultimately take - that being undetermined in San Remo)_.
> 
> I know this interpretation sounds hard and harsh _(maybe even unfair)_, but that was the characteristics of the times.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Self determination is not just teen wanting to not be boss or have rules made by a parent.  The child has to be skilled enough to support itself,  understand budgeting to pay the rent and bill on time and not just go wild with a charge card.  It is being responsible enough not to get into legal trouble or get taken by criminals and fair weather friends.  It is having a plan for a future (perhaps getting married, kids, buying a home, retirement, etc).  It understanding when he is sick, getting medical care, eating right and exercising to stay healthy.
> What a child should not do is veg in front of a video came and expect everyone else to give their money support he "right of self determination to do nothing".
> 
> Palestinians are at odds internally.  They can't handle their own finances.  They can't manage their own health care, water, sewage.  Can't control it's own people from waging war on Israel.  Can't adapt it educational system to teach non-violence and cooperation instead of hate and destruction.  It can't provide enough jobs.
> Palestinians are more of less playing violent video games and expecting the world to support their violent addiction as well as their personal needs.  These games result in very real human death or maimed bodies and can even result in the player's life.  Perhaps they should begin with Sims so they can learn what is requires to function in the real world.
> 
> Palestinians are not prepared for self determination.  They have devoted the last 70+ years to the killing of Israelis and the annihilation of Israel.  They have to learn to build a nation, a united government with a potential of growth.  They need to shift their mind set from war to peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who has the right to determine whether or not a people have the "right" to self-determination?  Has any other people or group been required to some-how "prove themselves" or viewed somehow as "children" incapable of handling it?  That was the attitude of many colonial powers towards their subject colonies.
> 
> In fact - most seperatist groups end up "proving" themselves and earning their nations through warfare and conflict.  Israel itself is one of many examples of this.  Some make the successful transition from war to governance while others fail.  It's not up to any other powers to make that decision for them.
> 
> They have the right to self determination just as does Israel.  Give it to them.  Give them complete control over their borders, airspace, coast, trade, utilities, treaties.  Just like any other nation.  Hold them to the same standards as any other nation.  If they violate those standards they risk the same penalties, sanctions or military actions against.
> 
> Once people are responsible for their own fate and their own nation - THEN is the time to make the transition from fighting to governing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cant give the Palestinians the right to free determination, they have to bring it into being themselves. Giving them full control of their air space, borders, coast, trade, utilities and treaties is not giving them free determination, it is giving them the means to destroy themselves. Do you think for one second that they did not have all these things in 1966, and proved to the world that they could not handle the pressure but still wanted more land. They were held to the same high standards that Jordan and Egypt were held to and proved they were not ready. Then in 1988 the world held its breath waiting to see if the Palestinians had realised what was needed and were about to take the bull by the horns. Guess the world is still waiting  some 26 year later, and still no sign of the Palestinians showing their self determination. Who gave the Lebanese their Free Determination, the Iraqis, the Syrians and the Jordanians back in 1949. Or did they just up and declare it themselves to the whole world and got on with exercising their new found FREE DETERMINATION.
> 
> Now is the time to transition from fighting a losing battle for something that cant be given and to learn how to govern themselves with all the mistakes that FREE DETERMINATION entails
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Israel transition from fighting to governance BEFORE they obtained their state?"  Did they cease the use of violence prior to that?  Did Egypt?  Did Jordan?  They were territories held by paternalistic colonial powers.  Does this mean Israel is a colonial power - last remnant of a legacy?
Click to expand...




 YesIsreal did transition away from fighting to peace as they already had self determination and self governance. The fact that Isreal has sat down and negotiated a just peace and mutual borders with two of its neighbours shows they did transition from fighting towards peace. You are getting confused on just what self determination is, and how it affects different people. The rules that applied in 1948 were comp-lately different to the rules of today, so don't try and force todays rules on what happened in 1948 or 1967. Egypt is an old country around since Biblical times, Jordan is a new country formed out of the promises made during WW1 and was originally meant to be the NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS. And what you need to remember is that for 1400 years the Jews were being brutalised by the muslims, and when they were given the chance of a new homeland they were prepared to fight to the last man for it. BUT it was not the Jews that started the fighting was it, as shown by the 1929 massacres or the 1931 civil war, but the arab muslims and their nationalist views of the world.


 Every Islamic nation is a colony of Saudi Arabia, as they all look to Saudi for spiritual guidance, that is were your M.E. colonialism stems from. How can Israel be a colonial power when it has no parent state from which it is a colony ?


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jerusalem needs to be.  Everything needs to be on the table.  It can be removed later or negotiated out but it needs to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jerusalem is not under negotiation, because the mass majority in Israel is not interested in hearing about it, with good reason. Any leader saying "we may compromise on Jerusalem" can kiss his government goodbye, the people will chase down anyone offering to give up on our holy city.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The buildings on the mount belong to the waqf.  The mount belongs to Israel.
> Can't split the baby in half again.  Jews will not be denied access to the Kotel again.
> Palestinians could have had half of Jerusalem and access to the mount before the second intafada in 2000.  Arafat refused the best offer.  The intafata carried on for five year and not they threaten another.
> Israel is not going to let Jerusalem be divided again like it was with Jordan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably right - you can't split it again.  But I still think it needs to be part of any negotiations as a matter of good faith.  Same with right of return.  Everything needs to be discussed.  No preconditions for talks.  No preconditions for peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really think South Korea should let a million or more North Koreans when most of the might wage war on South Korea from within?  If they have family in the south or perhaps held land in the south and are not members of any hostile groups, some might be welcomed, but not so many that would pose a threat to the south.
> 
> Israel did many time offer to take in part of the refugees, but not all.  That offer is likely off the table after what Israel has gone through since giving up gaza in hopes for peace.  There may be some clause where after a period of so many years after a peace agreement where application to apply for something like immigration visa and green card may be possible, but no flood of refugees from all directions.  PA can take in their own people and get them out of camps through out the region.
> Among the refugees that were born or lived in what is now Israel, that are still alive, they could be among those to be given first consideration, but not the whole extended family and certainly not with out check for terrorist or criminal ties.
> When children are being recruited and brainwash at such early ages, how many do you really expect Israel to allow back?
> The offer to return by Israel was contingent on the other refugees being absorbed by the other arab nations, and no one else really wants that many palestinians either.  The presence of refugees in Lebanon tipped the balance and were responsible for a very long war.  Now with syria refugee more than a third of the population in Lebanon are refugees.  Do you really expect Lebanon to be able to take in so many at one time?
> It is nice to say "left the refugees return" but how are you going to determine which ones came from Israel and which from the WB or G?  Wage after wave have push other palestinians out.  How do you reverse the process?  After close to 70 yrs of fighting, how many of the refugees do you think even have ties to Israel anymore?
> You have to consider the logistics of housing, jobs and other resources and services require for so many "returning".  Refugees should be the responsibility of the PA not Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't support right of return - it's not going to happen and it would be demographic suicide.  What I'm saying is the Palestinians can't keep it off the table as a precondition that is non-negotiable.  Everyone is going to have to give up some skin in this and the right of return is likely something the Palestinians will have to give up.  At least for most of them.
Click to expand...





 The time limit on right of return ran out when the Palestinians stated NO JEWS.


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> The time limit on right of return ran out when the Palestinians stated NO JEWS.



Except...they never said "no Jews".

Nice bit of fiction though


----------



## rhodescholar

Coyote said:


> I already gave my sources for this.



Sorry, but wikipedia is not a legitimate source.  As said above, bring in academic, sourced evidence, otherwise, you are no more credible than any of the hacks coming from scum holes like electronicintifada.


----------



## Coyote

rhodescholar said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already gave my sources for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but wikipedia is not a legitimate source.  As said above, bring in academic, sourced evidence, otherwise, you are no more credible than any of the hacks coming from scum holes like electronicintifada.
Click to expand...



Refute the points.  Wikipedia is perfectly good source in that it lists primary sources including books which aren't available on line.  It also has discussion areas so you know who is doing what and it points out articles that are insufficiently sourced or bias.


----------



## P F Tinmore

aris2chat said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... Who gave the Lebanese their Free Determination, the Iraqis, the Syrians and the Jordanians back in 1949. Or did they just up and declare it themselves to the whole world and got on with exercising their new found FREE DETERMINATION....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Always thought it was Self-determination, but whatever. In answer to your question:
> Lebanon= created by the French
> Iraq = created by the British
> Syria = created by the French
> Jordan= created by the British
> Palestine= created by the British, usurped by the Zionists.
> 
> Interesting to note that when the Syrians tried to express their self determination they were crushed by French military might; as were the Palestians  and Iraqis crushed by the British when they did the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>Palestine= created by the British, usurped by the Zionists. <<
> 
> Rejected by the arabs.  After 7 countries against the out numbered Israels and six major wars resulting land shift.
Click to expand...

The Palestinians never rejected their state or self determination.


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> One can argue that there is a certain indeterminacy to the issue, or one can argue that --- one side or the other --- has more of a "right to self-determination."  In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the indeterminate position is neutral position; a case of "equal rights."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The hidden beauty of an "indeterminacy" is much like..."​
> The hidden beauty is that you can smokescreen the issues with verbosity.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Is it a "smokescreen?"  Or is it a case in which the Arab-Palestinian claims more of a "right" of some sort than has been endowed upon them?  _(As it pertains to this particular argument.)_
> 
> I tried to stay away from the issue of suitability; that is, your claim that some "do not lend themselves suitable for statehood."  Clearly, the suitability _(and capability)_ of the Arab Palestinian, both then and now, is a condition subject to an entirely different discussion.
> 
> If you rule-out the indeterminate factor intertwined in the distinction between "people" 'vs' "peoples" --- then you are left with the underlying theory behind the "right of self-determination" --- that:  "the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order" is somehow recognized.  (See Post #563")  That would be the people of Israel _(one people)_ and the people of the West Bank and Gaza _(one people)_; or collectively, the "peoples" _(the collective)_.    *Note*:  For the sake of your plural distinction:  _(one people) + (one people) = (one peoples - or - the collective)_
> 
> The Leaders of the early 20th Century _(trained 19th Century thinkers)_ did not quibble over such distinctions _(people 'vs' peoples)_.  If they saw a universal right, then it applied to everyone equally - and was not a matter of distinguishing characteristics _(and they saw very few universal rights --- let alone the "contemporary notions of self-determination usually distinguish between “internal” and “external” self-determination, suggesting that "self-determination" exists on a spectrum")_.  And most certainly, as the Allied Powers were determining the establishment of a Jewish National Home _(in whatever form it would ultimately take - that being undetermined in San Remo)_, it was quite clear that they held the power to make the determinations and not the indigenous enemy population of lands surrendered to them at the outcome of the war _(there was no spectrum of self-determination - they made the determination)_.  The idea of the right to self-determination was not yet a consideration.  "In international law, the right of self-determination that became recognized in the post-WWII years were interpreted as the right of all colonial territories to become independent or to adopt any other status they freely chose;" had not yet been established.  And the Leaders of the early 20th Century _(trained 19th Century thinkers)_ did not quibble about it - these were not new colonial interests, but "Mandates."  And as such, "no right to secession has yet been recognized under international law;" no right to self-determination except what was granted to them by the powers-that-be.
> 
> One of the earliest proponents of a right to self-determination was U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. A month after his famous "Fourteen Points" speech to the U.S. Congress in January 1918 (in which the term "self-determination" does not appear), he proclaimed:
> 
> "Self-determination" is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril....​Despite Wilson's injunction, attempts to turn self-determination from a "mere phrase" into a binding norm did not occur for over 40 years, following the deaths of tens of millions in two major wars. *While the Covenant of the League of Nations did indirectly address the principle of self-determination (without using the word) in the system of mandates that it established, identification of the mandates and implementation of the system was wholly dependent on politics, not law.* In most of the territorial adjustments that followed the end of World War I, *winners and losers were determined by the political calculations and perceived needs of the Great Powers rather than on the basis of which groups had the strongest claims to self-determination.*
> _*SOURCE:*_ Legal Aspects of Self-Determination - Princeton University Encyclopedia of Self-determination​For the sake of emphasis, let me repeat something here:  "In most of the territorial adjustments that followed the end of World War I, winners and losers were *determined by* the political calculations and perceived needs of *the Great Powers* rather than on the basis of which groups had the strongest claims to self-determination."  This was the political landscape at the time the decisions were made to establish the "Jewish National Home."
> 
> Thus _(whether you like the "theory of indeterminism" or not)_, the Arab-Palestinian "right to self-determination" was NOT extended based on the strongest claim or any inherent right they perceived as being owed to them, but were determined on the basis of the wants and needs of the Allied Powers; that being the establishment of the Jewish National Home _(in whatever form it would ultimately take - that being undetermined in San Remo)_.
> 
> I know this interpretation sounds hard and harsh _(maybe even unfair)_, but that was the characteristics of the times.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Self determination is not just teen wanting to not be boss or have rules made by a parent.  The child has to be skilled enough to support itself,  understand budgeting to pay the rent and bill on time and not just go wild with a charge card.  It is being responsible enough not to get into legal trouble or get taken by criminals and fair weather friends.  It is having a plan for a future (perhaps getting married, kids, buying a home, retirement, etc).  It understanding when he is sick, getting medical care, eating right and exercising to stay healthy.
> What a child should not do is veg in front of a video came and expect everyone else to give their money support he "right of self determination to do nothing".
> 
> Palestinians are at odds internally.  They can't handle their own finances.  They can't manage their own health care, water, sewage.  Can't control it's own people from waging war on Israel.  Can't adapt it educational system to teach non-violence and cooperation instead of hate and destruction.  It can't provide enough jobs.
> Palestinians are more of less playing violent video games and expecting the world to support their violent addiction as well as their personal needs.  These games result in very real human death or maimed bodies and can even result in the player's life.  Perhaps they should begin with Sims so they can learn what is requires to function in the real world.
> 
> Palestinians are not prepared for self determination.  They have devoted the last 70+ years to the killing of Israelis and the annihilation of Israel.  They have to learn to build a nation, a united government with a potential of growth.  They need to shift their mind set from war to peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who has the right to determine whether or not a people have the "right" to self-determination?  Has any other people or group been required to some-how "prove themselves" or viewed somehow as "children" incapable of handling it?  That was the attitude of many colonial powers towards their subject colonies.
> 
> In fact - most seperatist groups end up "proving" themselves and earning their nations through warfare and conflict.  Israel itself is one of many examples of this.  Some make the successful transition from war to governance while others fail.  It's not up to any other powers to make that decision for them.
> 
> They have the right to self determination just as does Israel.  Give it to them.  Give them complete control over their borders, airspace, coast, trade, utilities, treaties.  Just like any other nation.  Hold them to the same standards as any other nation.  If they violate those standards they risk the same penalties, sanctions or military actions against.
> 
> Once people are responsible for their own fate and their own nation - THEN is the time to make the transition from fighting to governing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cant give the Palestinians the right to free determination, they have to bring it into being themselves. Giving them full control of their air space, borders, coast, trade, utilities and treaties is not giving them free determination, it is giving them the means to destroy themselves. Do you think for one second that they did not have all these things in 1966, and proved to the world that they could not handle the pressure but still wanted more land. They were held to the same high standards that Jordan and Egypt were held to and proved they were not ready. Then in 1988 the world held its breath waiting to see if the Palestinians had realised what was needed and were about to take the bull by the horns. Guess the world is still waiting  some 26 year later, and still no sign of the Palestinians showing their self determination. Who gave the Lebanese their Free Determination, the Iraqis, the Syrians and the Jordanians back in 1949. Or did they just up and declare it themselves to the whole world and got on with exercising their new found FREE DETERMINATION.
> 
> Now is the time to transition from fighting a losing battle for something that cant be given and to learn how to govern themselves with all the mistakes that FREE DETERMINATION entails
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Israel transition from fighting to governance BEFORE they obtained their state?"  Did they cease the use of violence prior to that?  Did Egypt?  Did Jordan?  They were territories held by paternalistic colonial powers.  Does this mean Israel is a colonial power - last remnant of a legacy?
Click to expand...


>>Did Israel transition from fighting to governance BEFORE they obtained their state?" Did they cease the use of violence prior to that?<<

Jews were being attacked.  They had to form militias in an effort to protect themselves.  After independence they were still in state of war with four of it's neighbors and some 20 more unwilling to have any relations or to recognize Israel.  They are still being attack so when should it have given up their arms of defensive posture?  Governance was well in place before the mandate ended.  When a state was declared and Israel was attacked the militias become the army to defend the state.
When should they have ceased violence?  After each war?  After exchanging land for peace?  After oslo and the beginning of the authority?  After each ceasefire with hamas?  After attack at train stations and killing of infants in Jerusalem?  After riots and fires by palestinians on the mount?
At what point should they have laid down their weapons and their guard?


----------



## rhodescholar

Coyote said:


> You're probably right - you can't split it again.  But I still think it needs to be part of any negotiations as a matter of good faith.  Same with right of return.  Everything needs to be discussed.  No preconditions for talks.  No preconditions for peace.



As a general statement about your comments, they are the typical liberal, uninformed blather about "negotiations," "refugees," and "land/borders," which have no relation to the conflict whatsoever.  These are media/diplomatic fig leafs used to obscure the real issues which have driven this conflict from the beginning, and until directly addressed will do so for another 1,000 years:

1) the arab muslim intolerance of non-muslim sovereignty in the mideast.  There are dozens of other groups being ethnically cleansed, oppressed and slaughtered by arab muslims across the mideast; any vestige of sovereignty attained by any of these groups leads to an assault against them by arab muslims.  The only reason the Israeli conflict is in the news is twofold: 1) everyone hates the jews 2)Israel has been successful at retaining its independence and sovereignty for so long.

2) terrorist groups such as hamas, hezbollah and islamic: as long as groups like this exist, and significant enough portions of the gaza/west bank arab populations believe that violence/war/terrorism is a superior alternative to negotiations - something they have believed for 70+ years - no agreement, no peace contract, etc will make the slightest difference.

3) external dictatorial powers such as iran that use the conflict to retain their power base: as was the case 6 months after the Oslo accord was signed, iran's cancerous regime, who needs to stoke this conflict perpetually to maintain an external enemy, ordered the first suicide bombing against Israel.  Every time that an agreement is close to being achieved, iran orders terrorist attacks by it proxy armies in gaza/west bank.

Bottom line, as long as arab muslims refuse to tolerate the sovereign rights of others in the mideast, there are terrorist groups in gaza/west bank, and the external terrorist regimes like iran exist, it is utterly pointless to even suggest peace agreements.

THIS IS NOT A LAND ISSUE, IT IS NOT A "REFUGEE" ISSUE, it has nothing to do with settlers, water, land, borders, etc.  It is the total unacceptance of the existence of a jewish (non-muslim) entity in the mideast, and the history and facts affirm this.


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... Who gave the Lebanese their Free Determination, the Iraqis, the Syrians and the Jordanians back in 1949. Or did they just up and declare it themselves to the whole world and got on with exercising their new found FREE DETERMINATION....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Always thought it was Self-determination, but whatever. In answer to your question:
> Lebanon= created by the French
> Iraq = created by the British
> Syria = created by the French
> Jordan= created by the British
> Palestine= created by the British, usurped by the Zionists.
> 
> Interesting to note that when the Syrians tried to express their self determination they were crushed by French military might; as were the Palestians  and Iraqis crushed by the British when they did the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>Palestine= created by the British, usurped by the Zionists. <<
> 
> Rejected by the arabs.  After 7 countries against the out numbered Israels and six major wars resulting land shift.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians never rejected their state or self determination.
Click to expand...



* >>"It was an Arab mistake as a whole. But do they punish us for this mistake for 64 years?” says the Palestinian Authority president. *




Abbas R 311. (photo credit:REUTERS)


_*The Arabs made a mistake in 1947 when they rejected the UN partition plan*_, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said in an interview with Channel 2 on Friday.

“At the time, 1947, there was [General Assembly] Resolution 181, the partition plan for Palestine and Israel. Israel existed. Palestine diminished. Why?”Abbas said as he described the UN resolution, designated to create a Jewish and an Arab state.

Asked why the Arabs had rejected the plan while Jewish leaders accepted it, Abbas replied: _*“It was our mistake. It was an Arab mistake as a whole.*_ But do they punish us for this mistake for 64 years?” Palestinian leaders have always insisted that Resolution 181, which paved the way for Jewish statehood in parts of then-British-ruled Palestine, must be resisted by Arabs who went to war over it.

Decades of regional fighting have hinged on challenges to Israel’s existence and expansion.

By describing historical fault on the Arab side, Abbas appeared to be offering Israel an olive branch, while promoting his own bid to sidestep stalled peace talks by winning UN recognition for a sovereign Palestine.

When the interviewer suggested the reason was Jewish leaders’ acceptance of the plan and its rejection by the Arabs, Abbas said: _*“I know, I know. It was our mistake. It was our mistake. It was an Arab mistake as a whole.”*_

The Prime Minister’s Office did not comment on the interview.

Israeli officials acknowledged the significance of the statement regarding 1947, but also noted the vague language that Abbas used, which fell short of recognizing that Israel – even back then – was intended to be a Jewish state.

Palestinians have said they recognize the State of Israel, but not the Jewish nature of the state.

The question, said one Israeli official, who requested anonymity, is what mistake did Abbas reference? Does Abbas regret that the Palestinians failed to recognize Israel as a Jewish state in 1947, asked the official. Or did Abbas imply that it was a tactical mistake to go to war instead of accepting a two-state solution.

“If Abbas wants to show that he has learned from his mistakes, he should articulate what was the mistake,” the official said.

“I would like to hear Abbas say that the mistake was that Palestinians should have recognized [in 1947] that two states for two peoples is the right solution, and that the Jewish people have a right to a state of their own. But he didn’t say that,” said the official.

Abbas’s comments come as the international community is pushing to bring the Palestinians back to the negotiating table.

The Palestinians have insisted that for negotiations to resume, Israel must stop settlement construction in the West Bank and Jewish building in east Jerusalem.

Israel has said the root of the conflict is the Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and not the settlements.

Palestinians in the past year have turned away from a negotiated solution in favor of seeking statehood without negotiating with Israel. They have asked the UN Security Council to recognize them as a member state of the UN.

On Friday, Abbas told Channel 2 that UN recognition of their independence would help Palestinians pursue negotiations with Israel, which in turn could produce an “extra agreement that we put an end to the conflict.”

His language raised the hackles of his Islamist Hamas rivals, who control the Gaza Strip and with whom Abbas is trying to consolidate an Egyptian-brokered power-sharing accord.

Hamas opposes coexistence with Israel.<<


----------



## rhodescholar

Coyote said:


> What do YOU think the election was about and can you support your view with any facts or sources?



Why can't you put responsibility on the arab muslims for not creating a third option besides the corrupt Fatah and murderous terrorists of hamas?  Are arab muslims incapable of developing normal, functioning, legitimate, honest political parties with sensible responsibilities towards governing?  Why are so many so racist against arab muslims that they are unable to recognize how far they will lower the bar to apologize and excuse away behavior that would never be tolerated for non-muslims?


----------



## rhodescholar

Coyote said:


> Except...they never said "no Jews". Nice bit of fiction though



Abbas said about 2 weeks ago no israelis would be allowed to live in the west bank, do keep up with the news.


----------



## rhodescholar

Coyote said:


> Refute the points.  Wikipedia is perfectly good source in that it lists primary sources including books which aren't available on line.  It also has discussion areas so you know who is doing what and it points out articles that are insufficiently sourced or bias.



Rocco did an excellent job earlier in his statement about library texts, academic materials, etc.  Those are legitimate sources - books written by qualified academics, not some dipshit on the web pretending to have scanned a few anti-israel web sites and then posted their links.


----------



## Coyote

rhodescholar said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except...they never said "no Jews". Nice bit of fiction though
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abbas said about 2 weeks ago no israelis would be allowed to live in the west bank, do keep up with the news.
Click to expand...


You might follow your own advice.

No ISRAELIS.

No ISRAELI citizens. No ISRAELI troops.

Whoever lives there will be Palestinian citizens.

And, in case you haven't figured it out yet - not all Israeli's are Jews.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Coyote said:


> Exactly.  Who holds the magic wand?
> 
> Perhaps the Palestinians going to the UN directly to make their case for recognition is the best move.  It's civilized .



The words "civilized" and "Palestinian" are entirely different concepts.

Civilized people do not elect genocidal terrorist organizations to lead them, and all the excuses you offer by way of your support for their having done so does not change that fact one iota.


----------



## Coyote

Coyote said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except...they never said "no Jews". Nice bit of fiction though
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abbas said about 2 weeks ago no israelis would be allowed to live in the west bank, do keep up with the news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might follow your own advice.
> 
> No ISRAELIS.
Click to expand...




rhodescholar said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Refute the points.  Wikipedia is perfectly good source in that it lists primary sources including books which aren't available on line.  It also has discussion areas so you know who is doing what and it points out articles that are insufficiently sourced or bias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco did an excellent job earlier in his statement about library texts, academic materials, etc.  Those are legitimate sources - books written by qualified academics, not some dipshit on the web pretending to have scanned a few anti-israel web sites and then posted their links.
Click to expand...


Again.  Feel free to post your own sources refuting what I posted.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Coyote said:


> No ISRAELIS.




But much dishonest sophistry that takes the form of a semantic ruse.

Are you EVER honest?


----------



## rhodescholar

Coyote said:


> I'm not sure about actual numbers...I will leave any argument there for others.  What I am arguing is that Israel had a deliberate policy of forcing out the Palestinians and preventing their return.



None of your links prove anything, and many of the so-called "new historians" have been long dis-credited or recanted their earlier revisionist BS.  Many arabs themselves have admitted that the deir yassin "massacre" was a manufactured story to scare the arab populace and instill anger in them, that they were told what to tell the media.  There was no Israeli official policy to carry out a mass expulsion, nor is there any evidence that they tried to. 

A thinking person would ask themselves: "if they had planned to ethnically cleanse the region of the arabs, why haven't they done so when they repeatedly had the opportunity?


----------



## rhodescholar

Coyote said:


> You might follow your own advice. No ISRAELIS. No ISRAELI citizens. No ISRAELI troops. Whoever lives there will be Palestinian citizens. And, in case you haven't figured it out yet - not all Israeli's are Jews.



So now we are going to play the word games, like you are against "zionism," but you have no problem with "jews"?  Are you also one of those who argues ahmadinejad never said that iran was going to destroy Israel, and was "mis-quoted"?  If you want to have an intelligent discussion, don't insult the intelligence of those around you.


----------



## Coyote

rhodescholar said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> You might follow your own advice. No ISRAELIS. No ISRAELI citizens. No ISRAELI troops. Whoever lives there will be Palestinian citizens. And, in case you haven't figured it out yet - not all Israeli's are Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now we are going to play the word games, like you are against "zionism," but you have no problem with "jews"?
Click to expand...


No.



> Are you also one of those who argues ahmadinejad never said that iran was going to destroy Israel, and was "mis-quoted"?



No.



> If you want to have an intelligent discussion, don't insult the intelligence of those around you.



If you want to have an intelligent discussion, then don't make shit up.  Go with what is actually said, and if you have to, also consider the context in which it was said.  It's not rocket science it's basic reading skills.


----------



## montelatici

rhodescholar said:


> The so-called "palestinians" as the media calls them today - they were known as "arabs" before the 1960s when arafat began receiving lots of free publicity - are as artificial as margarine and rene zellweger's face.  They are a social construct, a KGB-designed ploy used to counter the world-wide sympathy for the jews after the holocaust.  Given the horrific suffering of the jews during WW2, the KGB and its lackey arafat realized they would need to really work hard to develop a group of people whose false narrative could be even remotely compared to the jews, so they created the notion of the "palestinians," an allegedly "native" or "indigenous" group of people who have endured a terrible situation, and with lots of dosings of lies, nonsense and falsehoods, could be placed before the cameras and called "victims."
> 
> The unfortunate truth for the jews in israel is that the worldwide media represents the major corporate interests, which have a great deal of influence on most of the major governments, and do not like the jews, so they were all too eager to embrace the notion of the romantic revolutionary (i.e., che guevera, castro, etc.) against the nascent jewish state.  With decades of KGB-driven propaganda funneled into the all-too-embracing media, college indoctrination through "department chairs" purchased by wealthy arab muslims through which to promulgate the propaganda about the artificial palestinians "suffering" into younger Western minds, and the funding of fabricated think tanks ("WRMEA")/fake human rights organizations ("CAIR") also spewing the same bile, it has generated a groundswell amongst the dim, uneducated and unsuccessful of Western society a level of support for the "palestinians" that is unmatched for even the most genuinely afflicted groups of peoples.
> 
> But on the other hand, even with this mountain of funding, media outlets, and orgs aligned against it, when polls are taken in modern countries with highly educated populaces Israel still retains a wide level of support that generally dwarfs that of the "palestinians," a group so undeserving of support it is hard to compare them to any other.





rhodescholar said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure about actual numbers...I will leave any argument there for others.  What I am arguing is that Israel had a deliberate policy of forcing out the Palestinians and preventing their return.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of your links prove anything, and many of the so-called "new historians" have been long dis-credited or recanted their earlier revisionist BS.  Many arabs themselves have admitted that the deir yassin "massacre" was a manufactured story to scare the arab populace and instill anger in them, that they were told what to tell the media.  There was no Israeli official policy to carry out a mass expulsion, nor is there any evidence that they tried to.
> 
> A thinking person would ask themselves: "if they had planned to ethnically cleanse the region of the arabs, why haven't they done so when they repeatedly had the opportunity?
Click to expand...


None of your bullshit and lies prove anything bozo. There has been no discrediting of the "neo historians" there has been no recanting.  The only thing that has been discredited, is the propaganda that Israel spewed and you parrot.

The IDF itself admits that mass expulsion occurred:

"...a report prepared by the intelligence services of the Israeli army, dated 30 June 1948 and entitled “The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948”. This document sets at 391,000 the number of Palestinians who had already left the territory that was by then in the hands of Israel, and evaluates the various factors that had prompted their decisions to leave. “At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations.” To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which “directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration”. A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to “fears” and “a crisis of confidence” affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases..."

The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition


----------



## Coyote

rhodescholar said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure about actual numbers...I will leave any argument there for others.  What I am arguing is that Israel had a deliberate policy of forcing out the Palestinians and preventing their return.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of your links prove anything, and *many of the so-called "new historians" have been long dis-credited or recanted their earlier revisionist BS*.  Many arabs themselves have admitted that the deir yassin "massacre" was a manufactured story to scare the arab populace and instill anger in them, that they were told what to tell the media.  There was no Israeli official policy to carry out a mass expulsion, nor is there any evidence that they tried to.
> 
> A thinking person would ask themselves: "if they had planned to ethnically cleanse the region of the arabs, why haven't they done so when they repeatedly had the opportunity?
Click to expand...


Discredited by whom?

So you say.


----------



## Coyote

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No ISRAELIS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But much dishonest sophistry that takes the form of a semantic ruse.
> 
> Are you EVER honest?
Click to expand...


Words have meanings.
"No Israeli's" means something, particularly in the context of what was discussed.  NO FOREIGN TROOPS.  NO FOREIGN ENCLAVES.  No swiss-cheese state. If he wanted to say NO JEWS don't you think he would have?


----------



## RoccoR

Dogmaphobe,  Coyote,  _et al,_

Part of this is very engaging by individual perspective; yet wrong in its application.



Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not saying Hamas is good - but it is saying that they were elected in an election that Hamas won not for reasons of it's broader international agenda but for reasons to do with the local economy and domestic issues.
> 
> 
> 
> Your championing of Hamas as the legitimate leader of the Palestinians
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Neither I, nor Dogmaphobe, Coyote, or anyone else can truly legitimize HAMAS (or any other government) --- nor can we de-legitimize a government.  Legitimacy is like a color.  It is either "blue" or "not blue;"  realizing that in the spectrum of colors - there are varying shades of "blue."  But if you see "green" (the color right next to "blue"), and I see "blue" --- there is very little chance that we will agree in the face of what we consider irrefutable evidence.  We will assume that the other is "color blind."

The cumulative belief that builds to a critical point that the summation of the all individual common beliefs is that the people of Gaza have placed their trust and confidence in HAMAS to rule, have established institutions to effectively rule, and has a recognized leader that has been given the right to govern in the name of the people of Gaza.  This is, what we generally understand as "Internal Legitimacy" --- commonly defined in political science and sociology perspective defined by those that are governed.   

The meaning of "External Legitimacy" is much more complicated and holds various competing views.  The simplest of these competing views is merely the acceptance of the common view held by the people of Gaza.  It assumes that the people of Gaza are totally competent in the selection of their leadership and support the general actions of their government.  An alternative view is one that emphasizes the view that for HAMAS to be legitimate, as a government it must contribute to the strengthening of world peace, abide by the developments of international law, and foster positive relations among other States.  And yet still, there is the view that for HAMAS to be a legitimate government, it must be one that operates under and promotes the rule of law among nations. 



Coyote said:


> Risky or not Rocco - it is the only one that is just.  Aris points out for example, how they can not even handle their own economy etc.  But the truth is - they have never been free from outside interference.


*(COMMENT)*
_Preface Note:_
The more common term is “non-intervention”, though “non-interference” also appears in the texts. The latter may suggest a wider prohibition, though in most contexts the two terms seem to be used interchangeably.  (Princeton Encyclopedia of Self-Determination)
E_xternal self-determination_ refers to full legal independence/secession for the given 'people' from the larger politico-legal state.  (Cornell Law School LLI)​
There are multitude of conflicting points to the issue of self-determination and sovereignty with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.  It is much easier to separate the points by jointly recognizing the key foundational positions which are undisputed:


Palestinians should enjoy sovereign equality with all other members of the international community; including equal rights and duties as equal members of the international community, notwithstanding differences of an economic, social, political or other nature.  Palestinian sovereign equality includes the following elements:

The State of Palestine (SoP) should be judicially equal;
SoP should enjoy the rights inherent in full sovereignty;
SoP has the duty to respect the personality of other States;
The territorial integrity and political independence of the SoP are inviolable;
The SoP has the right to freely choose and develop its political, social, economic and cultural systems;
The SoP has the duty to comply fully and in good faith with its international obligations and to live in peace with other States.

I think we generally agree that the SoP has the right to be free from intervention, directly or indirectly, in SoP internal or external affairs.  This would include armed intervention or interference against its political, economic and cultural elements, are in violation of international law.  Conversely, no State --- including the SoP --- shall organize, assist, foment, finance, incite or tolerate subversive, terrorist or armed activities directed towards the violent overthrow of the regime of another State, or interfere in civil domestic affairs in another State.  This would include the use of force to deprive peoples (that of the SoP or its neighbors) of their inalienable rights and of the principle of non-intervention.  I think we also agree that the SoP has an inalienable right to choose its political, economic, social and cultural systems, without interference in any form by another State.

Having said that, and I chose are language of agreement carefully, that there is one "key point" on which this all rests:  *The principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered:* (Declaration on Principles (DOP) of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations)



Every State shall settle its international disputes with other States by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered.



States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.

The parties to a dispute have the duty, in the event of failure to reach a solution by any one of the above peaceful means, to continue to seek a settlement of the dispute by other peaceful means agreed upon by them.

States parties to an international dispute, as well as other States shall refrain from any action which may aggravate the Situation so as to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, and shall act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

International disputes shall be settled on the basis of the Sovereign equality of States and in accordance with the Principle of free choice of means. Recourse to, or acceptance of, a settlement procedure freely agreed to by States with regard to existing or future disputes to which they are parties shall not be regarded as incompatible with sovereign equality.

Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs prejudices or derogates from the applicable provisions of the Charter, in particular those relating to the pacific settlement of international disputes.


With regard to extending the SoP any of the sovereign rights that it should have, it must also be the case that the SoP must accept the duties and responsibilities under the DOP to which all other states are held accountable.  That would include the renouncement of the HAMAS Covenant, and the Political Position published in March 2013.  It is the case that the HAMAS cannot claim the right to Jihad and the refuse the recognition of another state sovereignty and yet demand that it be recognized.  It cannot deny the same rights to Israel as it demands for itself.  It cannot claim legitimacy when it openly violated the DOP.  

We mutually agree (IMO) on many points.  What we disagree on is the is the recognition of HAMAS relative to its obligations as a Government that follows International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

montelatici said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called "palestinians" as the media calls them today - they were known as "arabs" before the 1960s when arafat began receiving lots of free publicity - are as artificial as margarine and rene zellweger's face.  They are a social construct, a KGB-designed ploy used to counter the world-wide sympathy for the jews after the holocaust.  Given the horrific suffering of the jews during WW2, the KGB and its lackey arafat realized they would need to really work hard to develop a group of people whose false narrative could be even remotely compared to the jews, so they created the notion of the "palestinians," an allegedly "native" or "indigenous" group of people who have endured a terrible situation, and with lots of dosings of lies, nonsense and falsehoods, could be placed before the cameras and called "victims."
> 
> The unfortunate truth for the jews in israel is that the worldwide media represents the major corporate interests, which have a great deal of influence on most of the major governments, and do not like the jews, so they were all too eager to embrace the notion of the romantic revolutionary (i.e., che guevera, castro, etc.) against the nascent jewish state.  With decades of KGB-driven propaganda funneled into the all-too-embracing media, college indoctrination through "department chairs" purchased by wealthy arab muslims through which to promulgate the propaganda about the artificial palestinians "suffering" into younger Western minds, and the funding of fabricated think tanks ("WRMEA")/fake human rights organizations ("CAIR") also spewing the same bile, it has generated a groundswell amongst the dim, uneducated and unsuccessful of Western society a level of support for the "palestinians" that is unmatched for even the most genuinely afflicted groups of peoples.
> 
> But on the other hand, even with this mountain of funding, media outlets, and orgs aligned against it, when polls are taken in modern countries with highly educated populaces Israel still retains a wide level of support that generally dwarfs that of the "palestinians," a group so undeserving of support it is hard to compare them to any other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure about actual numbers...I will leave any argument there for others.  What I am arguing is that Israel had a deliberate policy of forcing out the Palestinians and preventing their return.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of your links prove anything, and many of the so-called "new historians" have been long dis-credited or recanted their earlier revisionist BS.  Many arabs themselves have admitted that the deir yassin "massacre" was a manufactured story to scare the arab populace and instill anger in them, that they were told what to tell the media.  There was no Israeli official policy to carry out a mass expulsion, nor is there any evidence that they tried to.
> 
> A thinking person would ask themselves: "if they had planned to ethnically cleanse the region of the arabs, why haven't they done so when they repeatedly had the opportunity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of your bullshit and lies prove anything bozo. There has been no discrediting of the "neo historians" there has been no recanting.  The only thing that has been discredited, is the propaganda that Israel spewed and you parrot.
> 
> The IDF itself admits that mass expulsion occurred:
> 
> "...a report prepared by the intelligence services of the Israeli army, dated 30 June 1948 and entitled “The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948”. This document sets at 391,000 the number of Palestinians who had already left the territory that was by then in the hands of Israel, and evaluates the various factors that had prompted their decisions to leave. “At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations.” To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which “directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration”. A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to “fears” and “a crisis of confidence” affecting the Palestinian population. *As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases..."*
> 
> The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition
Click to expand...

Yeah, but tomorrow some numbnuts will come back with the same old lie that the Palestinians were told to leave by the Arabs.


----------



## Coyote

RoccoR said:


> Dogmaphobe,  Coyote,  _et al,_
> 
> Part of this is very engaging by individual perspective; yet wrong in its application.
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not saying Hamas is good - but it is saying that they were elected in an election that Hamas won not for reasons of it's broader international agenda but for reasons to do with the local economy and domestic issues.
> 
> 
> 
> Your championing of Hamas as the legitimate leader of the Palestinians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Neither I, nor Dogmaphobe, Coyote, or anyone else can truly legitimize HAMAS (or any other government) --- nor can we de-legitimize a government.  Legitimacy is like a color.  It is either "blue" or "not blue;"  realizing that in the spectrum of colors - there are varying shades of "blue."  But if you see "green" (the color right next to "blue"), and I see "blue" --- there is very little chance that we will agree in the face of what we consider irrefutable evidence.  We will assume that the other is "color blind."
> 
> The cumulative belief that builds to a critical point that the summation of the all individual common beliefs is that the people of Gaza have placed their trust and confidence in HAMAS to rule, have established institutions to effectively rule, and has a recognized leader that has been given the right to govern in the name of the people of Gaza.  This is, what we generally understand as "Internal Legitimacy" --- commonly defined in political science and sociology perspective defined by those that are governed.
> 
> The meaning of "External Legitimacy" is much more complicated and holds various competing views.  The simplest of these competing views is merely the acceptance of the common view held by the people of Gaza.  It assumes that the people of Gaza are totally competent in the selection of their leadership and support the general actions of their government.  An alternative view is one that emphasizes the view that for HAMAS to be legitimate, as a government it must contribute to the strengthening of world peace, abide by the developments of international law, and foster positive relations among other States.  And yet still, there is the view that for HAMAS to be a legitimate government, it must be one that operates under and promotes the rule of law among nations.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Risky or not Rocco - it is the only one that is just.  Aris points out for example, how they can not even handle their own economy etc.  But the truth is - they have never been free from outside interference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> _Preface Note:_
> The more common term is “non-intervention”, though “non-interference” also appears in the texts. The latter may suggest a wider prohibition, though in most contexts the two terms seem to be used interchangeably.  (Princeton Encyclopedia of Self-Determination)
> E_xternal self-determination_ refers to full legal independence/secession for the given 'people' from the larger politico-legal state.  (Cornell Law School LLI)​
> There are multitude of conflicting points to the issue of self-determination and sovereignty with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.  It is much easier to separate the points by jointly recognizing the key foundational positions which are undisputed:
> 
> 
> Palestinians should enjoy sovereign equality with all other members of the international community; including equal rights and duties as equal members of the international community, notwithstanding differences of an economic, social, political or other nature.  Palestinian sovereign equality includes the following elements:
> The State of Palestine (SoP) should be judicially equal;
> SoP should enjoy the rights inherent in full sovereignty;
> SoP has the duty to respect the personality of other States;
> The territorial integrity and political independence of the SoP are inviolable;
> The SoP has the right to freely choose and develop its political, social, economic and cultural systems;
> The SoP has the duty to comply fully and in good faith with its international obligations and to live in peace with other States.
> 
> I think we generally agree that the SoP has the right to be free from intervention, directly or indirectly, in SoP internal or external affairs.  This would include armed intervention or interference against its political, economic and cultural elements, are in violation of international law.  Conversely, no State --- including the SoP --- shall organize, assist, foment, finance, incite or tolerate subversive, terrorist or armed activities directed towards the violent overthrow of the regime of another State, or interfere in civil domestic affairs in another State.  This would include the use of force to deprive peoples (that of the SoP or its neighbors) of their inalienable rights and of the principle of non-intervention.  I think we also agree that the SoP has an inalienable right to choose its political, economic, social and cultural systems, without interference in any form by another State.
> 
> Having said that, and I chose are language of agreement carefully, that there is one "key point" on which this all rests:  *The principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered:* (Declaration on Principles (DOP) of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations)
> 
> 
> 
> Every State shall settle its international disputes with other States by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered.
> 
> 
> 
> States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.
> 
> The parties to a dispute have the duty, in the event of failure to reach a solution by any one of the above peaceful means, to continue to seek a settlement of the dispute by other peaceful means agreed upon by them.
> 
> States parties to an international dispute, as well as other States shall refrain from any action which may aggravate the Situation so as to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, and shall act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
> 
> International disputes shall be settled on the basis of the Sovereign equality of States and in accordance with the Principle of free choice of means. Recourse to, or acceptance of, a settlement procedure freely agreed to by States with regard to existing or future disputes to which they are parties shall not be regarded as incompatible with sovereign equality.
> 
> Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs prejudices or derogates from the applicable provisions of the Charter, in particular those relating to the pacific settlement of international disputes.
> 
> With regard to extending the SoP any of the sovereign rights that it should have, it must also be the case that the SoP must accept the duties and responsibilities under the DOP to which all other states are held accountable.  That would include the renouncement of the HAMAS Covenant, and the Political Position published in March 2013.  It is the case that the HAMAS cannot claim the right to Jihad and the refuse the recognition of another state sovereignty and yet demand that it be recognized.  It cannot deny the same rights to Israel as it demands for itself.  It cannot claim legitimacy when it openly violated the DOP.
> 
> We mutually agree (IMO) on many points.  What we disagree on is the is the recognition of HAMAS relative to its obligations as a Government that follows International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


I agree with what you lay out above - on how states should behave and the expectations for SoP.  Totally.  I also agree that HAMAS - should it be considered a "legitimate" partner for peace, for example, must renounce it's covenant and must acknowledge Israel's right to exist as a sovereign state and must be able to follow international standards of conduct.  In fact, *I totally agree with you on HAMAS.*

What I am confused about is "legitimacy".  If a government is freely and fairly elected by it's people, isn't it "legitimate" until such a time as it does something to end that legitimacy - for example, refusing to hold elections or give up power?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> The meaning of "External Legitimacy" is much more complicated and holds various competing views. The simplest of these competing views is merely the acceptance of the common view held by the people of Gaza. It assumes that the people of Gaza are totally competent in the selection of their leadership and support the general actions of their government. An alternative view is one that emphasizes the view that for HAMAS to be legitimate, as a government it must contribute to the strengthening of world peace, abide by the developments of international law, and foster positive relations among other States. And yet still, there is the view that for HAMAS to be a legitimate government, it must be one that operates under and promotes the rule of law among nations.



First off, Hamas was not elected "in Gaza." It was elected in all of Palestine. It was the majority party in the Palestinian Authority in Gaza *and the West Bank.*

Second, you have never explained the internal laws that Hamas was supposed to have violated.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

rhodescholar said:


> A thinking person would ask themselves: "if they had planned to ethnically cleanse the region of the arabs, why haven't they done so when they repeatedly had the opportunity?




 Not that many people actually think, though.

Most simply hit their favorite hate site and mimic whatever they read there. The issue is compounded by people's inability to grasp the logical fallacies inherent in the appeals to authority (the Chomsky clones) or especially the appeal to popularity.  Arabs and Muslims take advantage of their enormous numerical advantage relative to Jews by dominating the conversation, thus providing such a background of hate that it can be hard to resist for the feeble-minded.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

rhodescholar said:


> So now we are going to play the word games, like you are against "zionism," but you have no problem with "jews"?  Are you also one of those who argues ahmadinejad never said that iran was going to destroy Israel, and was "mis-quoted"?  If you want to have an intelligent discussion, don't insult the intelligence of those around you.




It always devolves into a game of dishonest semantics with Coyote and other Arab propgandists.   The intent is to support in code what one might be loathe to support openly -- at least to the Kaffirs.


----------



## RoccoR

Coyote,  _et al,_

Legitimacy:  Yes, this is even hard for most career diplomats to absorb.



Coyote said:


> I agree with what you lay out above - on how states should behave and the expectations for SoP.  Totally.  I also agree that HAMAS - should it be considered a "legitimate" partner for peace, for example, must renounce it's covenant and must acknowledge Israel's right to exist as a sovereign state and must be able to follow international standards of conduct.  In fact, *I totally agree with you on HAMAS.*
> 
> What I am confused about is "legitimacy".  If a government is freely and fairly elected by it's people, isn't it "legitimate" until such a time as it does something to end that legitimacy - for example, refusing to hold elections or give up power?


*(COMMENT)*

Two Kinds:

External Legitimacy:  This is the kind that you, I, and P F Tinmore talk about all the time.  It is how we externals view the Government of HAMAS.
Your Question:  If a government is freely and fairly elected by it's people, isn't it "legitimate?"
Answer:  This is the simplest of views.  It is a form of "strict compliance."  It is either "freely and fairly elected" or "not" (Black or White) --- that is the criteria.  No moral evaluation or thought required.  It does require us to look a Arab Palestinian competency _(understanding a specific issue, consequence of the decision, refusing policy in favor of alternatives)_ or capacity _(to make a particular decisions that fluctuate according to the political conditions as they change)_ to nation build or establish a government.



Internal Legitimacy:  What the Arab Palestinians believe to be true.  
Is HAMAS (as P F Tinmore says) the "freely and fairly elected" for all of Palestine?  
If so, then what is the Government of Palestine?  
How does the SoP exist and where does Fatah fit in?  
Who is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people? 
What is the interpretation of the United Nations role in the role of recognizing the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice; relative to the SoP?  
OR - is it Fatah which actually as able to attain successful international recognition of the SoP?

What happens to the legitimacy of the State of Palestine (SoP), if the Arab Palestinian abandons it connection with the PLO, and essentially dissolves the connection with the UN?  Do the people of Palestine even understand the potential consequences involved?​
The "simplest view" (compliance oriented) is the easiest view and the most cited because it doesn't require any thought.  It doesn't require us to think about the consequences.  But then, when the ugly consequences appear, the Arab Palestinians are the first to cry foul, and play the role of the perpetual victim.  The political consequences behind becoming a "state" was merely the latest in a long series of consequences to the refugees which they haven't yet absorbed.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Coyote

Thank you Rocco - that's best explanation I've had on this.  Food for thought.  Many thanks for taking the time to post this


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> Is HAMAS (as P F Tinmore says) the "freely and fairly elected" for all of Palestine?
> If so, then what is the Government of Palestine?


You have good questions.

You are the expert. What are the answers?


----------



## aris2chat

rhodescholar said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do YOU think the election was about and can you support your view with any facts or sources?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't you put responsibility on the arab muslims for not creating a third option besides the corrupt Fatah and murderous terrorists of hamas?  Are arab muslims incapable of developing normal, functioning, legitimate, honest political parties with sensible responsibilities towards governing?  Why are so many so racist against arab muslims that they are unable to recognize how far they will lower the bar to apologize and excuse away behavior that would never be tolerated for non-muslims?
Click to expand...


Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (_Al-Jabhah al-Dimuqratiyah Li-Tahrir Filastin_)
Fatah or Liberation Movement of Palestine (_Harakat al-Tahrâr al-Filistini_)
Hamas or Islamic Resistance Movement (_Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyah_)
Palestine Democratic Union (_al-Ittihad al-Dimuqrati al-Filastini_, FiDA)
Palestinian National Initiative (_al-Mubadara al-Wataniya al-Filistiniyya_)
Palestinian People's Party (_Hizb al-Sha'b al-Filastini_)
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (_Al-Jabhah al-sha'abiyah Li-Tahrir Filastin_)

PLO Members

Fatah – Largest faction, secular, left-wing nationalist.
The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) – Second largest, radical left militant and communist
The Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) – Third largest, communist
The Palestinian People's Party (PPP) – Ex-communist, Social Democratic, non-militant
The Palestine Liberation Front (PLF, Abu Abbas faction) – Minor left-wing faction
The Arab Liberation Front (ALF) – Minor faction, aligned to the Iraqi Ba'ath Party
As-Sa'iqa – Syrian-controlled Ba'athist faction
The Palestine Democratic Union (Fida) – Minor democratic socialist, 2 state solution, non militant faction
The Palestinian Popular Struggle Front (PPSF, Samir Ghawsha faction) – minor socialist faction
The Palestinian Arab Front (PAF) – minor pro-Fatah, former Iraqi Ba'athists faction


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except...they never said "no Jews". Nice bit of fiction though
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abbas said about 2 weeks ago no israelis would be allowed to live in the west bank, do keep up with the news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might follow your own advice.
> 
> No ISRAELIS.
> 
> No ISRAELI citizens. No ISRAELI troops.
> 
> Whoever lives there will be Palestinian citizens.
> 
> And, in case you haven't figured it out yet - not all Israeli's are Jews.
Click to expand...


Palestinians will have A and B, but unless there is some agreement on land exchange and not flooding Israel with refugees and access to the mount for all, then Israelis unlikely to let go of C anytime soon.


----------



## Coyote

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except...they never said "no Jews". Nice bit of fiction though
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abbas said about 2 weeks ago no israelis would be allowed to live in the west bank, do keep up with the news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might follow your own advice.
> 
> No ISRAELIS.
> 
> No ISRAELI citizens. No ISRAELI troops.
> 
> Whoever lives there will be Palestinian citizens.
> 
> And, in case you haven't figured it out yet - not all Israeli's are Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestinians will have A and B, but unless there is some agreement on land exchange and not flooding Israel with refugees and access to the mount for all, then Israelis unlikely to let go of C anytime soon.
Click to expand...


Which is why there will need to be negotiated landswaps so there can be some form of a contiguous state for the Palestinians while maintaining security for Israel.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

I'm an not an expert.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is HAMAS (as P F Tinmore says) the "freely and fairly elected" for all of Palestine?
> If so, then what is the Government of Palestine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have good questions.
> 
> You are the expert. What are the answers?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

This is all about the Arab Palestinian people being in the drivers seat.  They have to frame a working government that is dedicated to the DOP relative to the development of Friendly relations and Co-operation among States, INCLUDING the Jewish State of Israel.

From a realist standpoint _(the elephant on the table that no one really wants to address)_ is the fact that the West Bank and Gaza Strip have not real unified government.  The Palestinians themselves really have not come to a conclusion as to a direction they should take.  While it is clear the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah movement is clearly much more capable at international co-operation and has made enormous contributions in the last decade to and for the Palestinian community, HAMAS _(doing the exact opposite)_ has captured significant community support.  It remains to be seen how it plays out.  But the longer it takes the Palestinians to decide, the more they will suffer economically and otherwise.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except...they never said "no Jews". Nice bit of fiction though
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abbas said about 2 weeks ago no israelis would be allowed to live in the west bank, do keep up with the news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might follow your own advice.
> 
> No ISRAELIS.
> 
> No ISRAELI citizens. No ISRAELI troops.
> 
> Whoever lives there will be Palestinian citizens.
> 
> And, in case you haven't figured it out yet - not all Israeli's are Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestinians will have A and B, but unless there is some agreement on land exchange and not flooding Israel with refugees and access to the mount for all, then Israelis unlikely to let go of C anytime soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why there will need to be negotiated landswaps so there can be some form of a contiguous state for the Palestinians while maintaining security for Israel.
Click to expand...


Sadly not going to happen is palestinians keep up with the attack, if there in no unity government between the WB and G so they can speak with one voice, if there is no recognitions and if the palestinians are unwilling to sit down and negotiate with Israel instead of making unreasonable hard lines demands to even approach a table let alone sit down and listen.


----------



## Beelzebub

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except...they never said "no Jews". Nice bit of fiction though
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abbas said about 2 weeks ago no israelis would be allowed to live in the west bank, do keep up with the news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might follow your own advice.
> 
> No ISRAELIS.
> 
> No ISRAELI citizens. No ISRAELI troops.
> 
> Whoever lives there will be Palestinian citizens.
> 
> And, in case you haven't figured it out yet - not all Israeli's are Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestinians will have A and B, but unless there is some agreement on land exchange and not flooding Israel with refugees and access to the mount for all, then Israelis unlikely to let go of C anytime soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why there will need to be negotiated landswaps so there can be some form of a contiguous state for the Palestinians while maintaining security for Israel.
Click to expand...


I would recommend Manhattan is swapped for all the land that Palestinians had in 1938.
By which I mean Palestinians get their land back.

Then reparations paid by the USA to compensate Palestinians for all the deprivations, destroyed opportunities, killings and depravity of Israel.  Two or three years of GDP ought to cover it.


----------



## Coyote

rhodescholar said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Refute the points.  Wikipedia is perfectly good source in that it lists primary sources including books which aren't available on line.  It also has discussion areas so you know who is doing what and it points out articles that are insufficiently sourced or bias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco did an excellent job earlier in his statement about library texts, academic materials, etc.  Those are legitimate sources - books written by qualified academics, not some dipshit on the web pretending to have scanned a few anti-israel web sites and then posted their links.
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I'm an not an expert.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is HAMAS (as P F Tinmore says) the "freely and fairly elected" for all of Palestine?
> If so, then what is the Government of Palestine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have good questions.
> 
> You are the expert. What are the answers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is all about the Arab Palestinian people being in the drivers seat.  They have to frame a working government that is dedicated to the DOP relative to the development of Friendly relations and Co-operation among States, INCLUDING the Jewish State of Israel.
> 
> From a realist standpoint _(the elephant on the table that no one really wants to address)_ is the fact that the West Bank and Gaza Strip have not real unified government.  The Palestinians themselves really have not come to a conclusion as to a direction they should take.  While it is clear the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah movement is clearly much more capable at international co-operation and has made enormous contributions in the last decade to and for the Palestinian community, HAMAS _(doing the exact opposite)_ has captured significant community support.  It remains to be seen how it plays out.  But the longer it takes the Palestinians to decide, the more they will suffer economically and otherwise.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...



Can Gaza and West Bank be one nation/one people?  Maybe they should be negotiated with as seperate entities.


----------



## Coyote

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except...they never said "no Jews". Nice bit of fiction though
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abbas said about 2 weeks ago no israelis would be allowed to live in the west bank, do keep up with the news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might follow your own advice.
> 
> No ISRAELIS.
> 
> No ISRAELI citizens. No ISRAELI troops.
> 
> Whoever lives there will be Palestinian citizens.
> 
> And, in case you haven't figured it out yet - not all Israeli's are Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestinians will have A and B, but unless there is some agreement on land exchange and not flooding Israel with refugees and access to the mount for all, then Israelis unlikely to let go of C anytime soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why there will need to be negotiated landswaps so there can be some form of a contiguous state for the Palestinians while maintaining security for Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly not going to happen is palestinians keep up with the attack, if there in no unity government between the WB and G so they can speak with one voice, if there is no recognitions and *if the palestinians are unwilling to sit down and negotiate with Israel instead of making unreasonable hard lines demands to even approach a table let alone sit down and listen*.
Click to expand...


In that regard - both sides need to let go of pre-conditions.  There is no difference between "preconditions for talks" and "preconditions for peace" - it's the same in the end.


----------



## Coyote

rhodescholar said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Refute the points.  Wikipedia is perfectly good source in that it lists primary sources including books which aren't available on line.  It also has discussion areas so you know who is doing what and it points out articles that are insufficiently sourced or bias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco did an excellent job earlier in his statement about library texts, academic materials, etc.  Those are legitimate sources - books written by qualified academics, not some dipshit on the web pretending to have scanned a few anti-israel web sites and then posted their links.
Click to expand...


_And yet you never seem to provide sources._


----------



## RoccoR

Coyote,  _et al,_

It can and it should.



Coyote said:


> Can Gaza and West Bank be one nation/one people?  Maybe they should be negotiated with as separate entities.


*(COMMENT)*

A land bridge is not that difficult.  And the unification of the West Bank and Gaza Strip as one-people under one-government, united economically and commercially makes for a mutually beneficial and stronger nation. 

It is important that, at some point in the not too distant future, the Palestinians come to an agreement with the Israelis.  Both the West Bank and Gaza Strip have much that they can capitalize on, even if, it requires the Palestinians for relinquish some territorial advantages.  First and foremost of these is the development of the Levant Oil and Gas Basin.  With the improved revenue stream, the Palestinians can really make some progress in terms of infrastructure develops.  And, they could have an energy source that could sustain Desalinization Plants to irrigate both the West Bank and Negev for centuries to come.

Each day the Arab Palestinians continue the Jihad and Armed Struggle against the Israelis, they essentially deprive themselves of a economical and commercial potential that could make them first among the their immediate neighbors.  
Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the
Levant Basin Province, Eastern Mediterranean

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Beelzebub

RoccoR said:


> Coyote,  _et al,_
> 
> It can and it should.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can Gaza and West Bank be one nation/one people?  Maybe they should be negotiated with as separate entities.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> A land bridge is not that difficult.
> 
> R
Click to expand...


All very nice.

But its a bit like saying the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto should have made peace with the Germans, and used their unique advantages to create economic benefit for all.


----------



## rhodescholar

Coyote said:


> Discredited by whom?  So you say.



Ilan Pappe One of the World s Sloppiest Historians New Republic

JSTOR An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

The Near Lynching of Prof. Benny Morris FrontPage Magazine

"I was skeptical of Morris’ “conversion” at first, but over time it seems to me to be genuine.  I think his very first public break with the Bash-Israel Left took place in Berkeley in the late 90s, when I happened to be in town.  Invited to speak in a church, the place was packed with the usual Berkeley jihadists and Hitlerjugend expecting from Morris a blistering demonization of Israel.  Instead, Morris spent the entire talk explaining that the Middle East conflict is the fault of the Arabs, including any “refugee” problem.  You can imagine the hysterical reactions in the local Berkeley drug-infested media.  These days the Bay Area has its own specialized anti-Morris hate organizations, such as this one, devoted to demonizing Morris.  This is all so amusing.  The jihadists love citing from the _old _writings of Benny Morris about how Israel was somehow to blame for “Palestinian sufferings,” but refuse to listen when Morris himself repudiates those claims."


----------



## Coyote

rhodescholar said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Discredited by whom?  So you say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ilan Pappe One of the World s Sloppiest Historians New Republic
> 
> JSTOR An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
> 
> The Near Lynching of Prof. Benny Morris FrontPage Magazine
> 
> "I was skeptical of Morris’ “conversion” at first, but over time it seems to me to be genuine.  I think his very first public break with the Bash-Israel Left took place in Berkeley in the late 90s, when I happened to be in town.  Invited to speak in a church, the place was packed with the usual Berkeley jihadists and Hitlerjugend expecting from Morris a blistering demonization of Israel.  Instead, Morris spent the entire talk explaining that the Middle East conflict is the fault of the Arabs, including any “refugee” problem.  You can imagine the hysterical reactions in the local Berkeley drug-infested media.  These days the Bay Area has its own specialized anti-Morris hate organizations, such as this one, devoted to demonizing Morris.  This is all so amusing.  The jihadists love citing from the _old _writings of Benny Morris about how Israel was somehow to blame for “Palestinian sufferings,” but refuse to listen when Morris himself repudiates those claims."
Click to expand...



umh...so FrontPage and New Republic are your scholarly and academic sources?


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called "palestinians" as the media calls them today - they were known as "arabs" before the 1960s when arafat began receiving lots of free publicity - are as artificial as margarine and rene zellweger's face.  They are a social construct, a KGB-designed ploy used to counter the world-wide sympathy for the jews after the holocaust.  Given the horrific suffering of the jews during WW2, the KGB and its lackey arafat realized they would need to really work hard to develop a group of people whose false narrative could be even remotely compared to the jews, so they created the notion of the "palestinians," an allegedly "native" or "indigenous" group of people who have endured a terrible situation, and with lots of dosings of lies, nonsense and falsehoods, could be placed before the cameras and called "victims."
> 
> The unfortunate truth for the jews in israel is that the worldwide media represents the major corporate interests, which have a great deal of influence on most of the major governments, and do not like the jews, so they were all too eager to embrace the notion of the romantic revolutionary (i.e., che guevera, castro, etc.) against the nascent jewish state.  With decades of KGB-driven propaganda funneled into the all-too-embracing media, college indoctrination through "department chairs" purchased by wealthy arab muslims through which to promulgate the propaganda about the artificial palestinians "suffering" into younger Western minds, and the funding of fabricated think tanks ("WRMEA")/fake human rights organizations ("CAIR") also spewing the same bile, it has generated a groundswell amongst the dim, uneducated and unsuccessful of Western society a level of support for the "palestinians" that is unmatched for even the most genuinely afflicted groups of peoples.
> 
> But on the other hand, even with this mountain of funding, media outlets, and orgs aligned against it, when polls are taken in modern countries with highly educated populaces Israel still retains a wide level of support that generally dwarfs that of the "palestinians," a group so undeserving of support it is hard to compare them to any other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure about actual numbers...I will leave any argument there for others.  What I am arguing is that Israel had a deliberate policy of forcing out the Palestinians and preventing their return.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of your links prove anything, and many of the so-called "new historians" have been long dis-credited or recanted their earlier revisionist BS.  Many arabs themselves have admitted that the deir yassin "massacre" was a manufactured story to scare the arab populace and instill anger in them, that they were told what to tell the media.  There was no Israeli official policy to carry out a mass expulsion, nor is there any evidence that they tried to.
> 
> A thinking person would ask themselves: "if they had planned to ethnically cleanse the region of the arabs, why haven't they done so when they repeatedly had the opportunity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of your bullshit and lies prove anything bozo. There has been no discrediting of the "neo historians" there has been no recanting.  The only thing that has been discredited, is the propaganda that Israel spewed and you parrot.
> 
> The IDF itself admits that mass expulsion occurred:
> 
> "...a report prepared by the intelligence services of the Israeli army, dated 30 June 1948 and entitled “The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948”. This document sets at 391,000 the number of Palestinians who had already left the territory that was by then in the hands of Israel, and evaluates the various factors that had prompted their decisions to leave. “At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations.” To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which “directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration”. A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to “fears” and “a crisis of confidence” affecting the Palestinian population. *As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases..."*
> 
> The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, but tomorrow some numbnuts will come back with the same old lie that the Palestinians were told to leave by the Arabs.
Click to expand...

Consider yourself told today, Tinmore. Most Arabs were told to leave, come back during Judenrein.


----------



## rhodescholar

aris2chat said:


> Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (_Al-Jabhah al-Dimuqratiyah Li-Tahrir Filastin_)
> Fatah or Liberation Movement of Palestine (_Harakat al-Tahrâr al-Filistini_)
> Hamas or Islamic Resistance Movement (_Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyah_)
> Palestine Democratic Union (_al-Ittihad al-Dimuqrati al-Filastini_, FiDA)
> Palestinian National Initiative (_al-Mubadara al-Wataniya al-Filistiniyya_)
> Palestinian People's Party (_Hizb al-Sha'b al-Filastini_)
> Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (_Al-Jabhah al-sha'abiyah Li-Tahrir Filastin_)
> 
> PLO Members
> 
> Fatah – Largest faction, secular, left-wing nationalist.
> The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) – Second largest, radical left militant and communist
> The Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) – Third largest, communist
> The Palestinian People's Party (PPP) – Ex-communist, Social Democratic, non-militant
> The Palestine Liberation Front (PLF, Abu Abbas faction) – Minor left-wing faction
> The Arab Liberation Front (ALF) – Minor faction, aligned to the Iraqi Ba'ath Party
> As-Sa'iqa – Syrian-controlled Ba'athist faction
> The Palestine Democratic Union (Fida) – Minor democratic socialist, 2 state solution, non militant faction
> The Palestinian Popular Struggle Front (PPSF, Samir Ghawsha faction) – minor socialist faction
> The Palestinian Arab Front (PAF) – minor pro-Fatah, former Iraqi Ba'athists faction



Were any of those factions, many of which were terrorist groups as opposed to being political parties with governing intent, capable of governing the west bank/gaza arabs?   Almost all of the groups mentioned were guerrilla factions more committed to waging terror attacks against israel than functioning as a legitimate political party and performing such responsibilities as collecting the garbage, issuing building permits, and providing sewage systems and electricity.


----------



## rhodescholar

Coyote said:


> Which is why there will need to be negotiated landswaps so there can be some form of a contiguous state for the Palestinians while maintaining security for Israel.



I noticed you ignored my post here, not surprising:

Who Are The Palestinians Page 66 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

As a general statement about your comments, they are the typical liberal, uninformed blather about "negotiations," "refugees," and "land/borders," which have no relation to the conflict whatsoever. These are media/diplomatic fig leafs used to obscure the real issues which have driven this conflict from the beginning, and until directly addressed will do so for another 1,000 years:

1) the arab muslim intolerance of non-muslim sovereignty in the mideast. There are dozens of other groups being ethnically cleansed, oppressed and slaughtered by arab muslims across the mideast; any vestige of sovereignty attained by any of these groups leads to an assault against them by arab muslims. The only reason the Israeli conflict is in the news is twofold: 1) everyone hates the jews 2)Israel has been successful at retaining its independence and sovereignty for so long.

2) terrorist groups such as hamas, hezbollah and islamic: as long as groups like this exist, and significant enough portions of the gaza/west bank arab populations believe that violence/war/terrorism is a superior alternative to negotiations - something they have believed for 70+ years - no agreement, no peace contract, etc will make the slightest difference.

3) external dictatorial powers such as iran that use the conflict to retain their power base: as was the case 6 months after the Oslo accord was signed, iran's cancerous regime, who needs to stoke this conflict perpetually to maintain an external enemy, ordered the first suicide bombing against Israel. Every time that an agreement is close to being achieved, iran orders terrorist attacks by it proxy armies in gaza/west bank.

Bottom line, as long as arab muslims refuse to tolerate the sovereign rights of others in the mideast, there are terrorist groups in gaza/west bank, and the external terrorist regimes like iran exist, it is utterly pointless to even suggest peace agreements.

THIS IS NOT A LAND ISSUE, IT IS NOT A "REFUGEE" ISSUE, it has nothing to do with settlers, water, land, borders, etc. It is the total unacceptance of the existence of a jewish (non-muslim) entity in the mideast, and the history and facts affirm this.


----------



## rhodescholar

Coyote said:


> umh...so FrontPage and New Republic are your scholarly and academic sources?



From the poster who quotes wiki...

To the others, is "coyote" a new ID for the poster who used to use "PF Tinmore"?


----------



## Coyote

rhodescholar said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> umh...so FrontPage and New Republic are your scholarly and academic sources?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the poster who quotes wiki...
> 
> To the others, is "coyote" a new ID for the poster who used to use "PF Tinmore"?
Click to expand...



Wiki's take on the New Historians - both pro and con, and it includes the JSTOR source.  New Historians - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It does not include FrontPage or New Republic.


----------



## Coyote

rhodescholar said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why there will need to be negotiated landswaps so there can be some form of a contiguous state for the Palestinians while maintaining security for Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed you ignored my post here, not surprising:
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians Page 66 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> As a general statement about your comments, they are the typical liberal, uninformed blather about "negotiations," "refugees," and "land/borders," which have no relation to the conflict whatsoever. These are media/diplomatic fig leafs used to obscure the real issues which have driven this conflict from the beginning, and until directly addressed will do so for another 1,000 years:
> 
> 1) the arab muslim intolerance of non-muslim sovereignty in the mideast. There are dozens of other groups being ethnically cleansed, oppressed and slaughtered by arab muslims across the mideast; any vestige of sovereignty attained by any of these groups leads to an assault against them by arab muslims. The only reason the Israeli conflict is in the news is twofold: 1) everyone hates the jews 2)Israel has been successful at retaining its independence and sovereignty for so long.
> 
> 2) terrorist groups such as hamas, hezbollah and islamic: as long as groups like this exist, and significant enough portions of the gaza/west bank arab populations believe that violence/war/terrorism is a superior alternative to negotiations - something they have believed for 70+ years - no agreement, no peace contract, etc will make the slightest difference.
> 
> 3) external dictatorial powers such as iran that use the conflict to retain their power base: as was the case 6 months after the Oslo accord was signed, iran's cancerous regime, who needs to stoke this conflict perpetually to maintain an external enemy, ordered the first suicide bombing against Israel. Every time that an agreement is close to being achieved, iran orders terrorist attacks by it proxy armies in gaza/west bank.
> 
> Bottom line, as long as arab muslims refuse to tolerate the sovereign rights of others in the mideast, there are terrorist groups in gaza/west bank, and the external terrorist regimes like iran exist, it is utterly pointless to even suggest peace agreements.
> 
> THIS IS NOT A LAND ISSUE, IT IS NOT A "REFUGEE" ISSUE, it has nothing to do with settlers, water, land, borders, etc. It is the total unacceptance of the existence of a jewish (non-muslim) entity in the mideast, and the history and facts affirm this.
Click to expand...


No I didn't ignore it.  There a bunch of you and one of me.  I'll reply when I have time


----------



## Coyote

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called "palestinians" as the media calls them today - they were known as "arabs" before the 1960s when arafat began receiving lots of free publicity - are as artificial as margarine and rene zellweger's face.  They are a social construct, a KGB-designed ploy used to counter the world-wide sympathy for the jews after the holocaust.  Given the horrific suffering of the jews during WW2, the KGB and its lackey arafat realized they would need to really work hard to develop a group of people whose false narrative could be even remotely compared to the jews, so they created the notion of the "palestinians," an allegedly "native" or "indigenous" group of people who have endured a terrible situation, and with lots of dosings of lies, nonsense and falsehoods, could be placed before the cameras and called "victims."
> 
> The unfortunate truth for the jews in israel is that the worldwide media represents the major corporate interests, which have a great deal of influence on most of the major governments, and do not like the jews, so they were all too eager to embrace the notion of the romantic revolutionary (i.e., che guevera, castro, etc.) against the nascent jewish state.  With decades of KGB-driven propaganda funneled into the all-too-embracing media, college indoctrination through "department chairs" purchased by wealthy arab muslims through which to promulgate the propaganda about the artificial palestinians "suffering" into younger Western minds, and the funding of fabricated think tanks ("WRMEA")/fake human rights organizations ("CAIR") also spewing the same bile, it has generated a groundswell amongst the dim, uneducated and unsuccessful of Western society a level of support for the "palestinians" that is unmatched for even the most genuinely afflicted groups of peoples.
> 
> But on the other hand, even with this mountain of funding, media outlets, and orgs aligned against it, when polls are taken in modern countries with highly educated populaces Israel still retains a wide level of support that generally dwarfs that of the "palestinians," a group so undeserving of support it is hard to compare them to any other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure about actual numbers...I will leave any argument there for others.  What I am arguing is that Israel had a deliberate policy of forcing out the Palestinians and preventing their return.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of your links prove anything, and many of the so-called "new historians" have been long dis-credited or recanted their earlier revisionist BS.  Many arabs themselves have admitted that the deir yassin "massacre" was a manufactured story to scare the arab populace and instill anger in them, that they were told what to tell the media.  There was no Israeli official policy to carry out a mass expulsion, nor is there any evidence that they tried to.
> 
> A thinking person would ask themselves: "if they had planned to ethnically cleanse the region of the arabs, why haven't they done so when they repeatedly had the opportunity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of your bullshit and lies prove anything bozo. There has been no discrediting of the "neo historians" there has been no recanting.  The only thing that has been discredited, is the propaganda that Israel spewed and you parrot.
> 
> The IDF itself admits that mass expulsion occurred:
> 
> "...a report prepared by the intelligence services of the Israeli army, dated 30 June 1948 and entitled “The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948”. This document sets at 391,000 the number of Palestinians who had already left the territory that was by then in the hands of Israel, and evaluates the various factors that had prompted their decisions to leave. “At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations.” To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which “directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration”. A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to “fears” and “a crisis of confidence” affecting the Palestinian population. *As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases..."*
> 
> The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, but tomorrow some numbnuts will come back with the same old lie that the Palestinians were told to leave by the Arabs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Consider yourself told today, Tinmore. *Most Arabs were told to leave*, come back during Judenrein.
Click to expand...


Apparently that claim has been debunked.


----------



## Beelzebub

Coyote said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why there will need to be negotiated landswaps so there can be some form of a contiguous state for the Palestinians while maintaining security for Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed you ignored my post here, not surprising:
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians Page 66 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> As a general statement about your comments, they are the typical liberal, uninformed blather about "negotiations," "refugees," and "land/borders," which have no relation to the conflict whatsoever. These are media/diplomatic fig leafs used to obscure the real issues which have driven this conflict from the beginning, and until directly addressed will do so for another 1,000 years:
> 
> 1) the arab muslim intolerance of non-muslim sovereignty in the mideast. There are dozens of other groups being ethnically cleansed, oppressed and slaughtered by arab muslims across the mideast; any vestige of sovereignty attained by any of these groups leads to an assault against them by arab muslims. The only reason the Israeli conflict is in the news is twofold: 1) everyone hates the jews 2)Israel has been successful at retaining its independence and sovereignty for so long.
> 
> 2) terrorist groups such as hamas, hezbollah and islamic: as long as groups like this exist, and significant enough portions of the gaza/west bank arab populations believe that violence/war/terrorism is a superior alternative to negotiations - something they have believed for 70+ years - no agreement, no peace contract, etc will make the slightest difference.
> 
> 3) external dictatorial powers such as iran that use the conflict to retain their power base: as was the case 6 months after the Oslo accord was signed, iran's cancerous regime, who needs to stoke this conflict perpetually to maintain an external enemy, ordered the first suicide bombing against Israel. Every time that an agreement is close to being achieved, iran orders terrorist attacks by it proxy armies in gaza/west bank.
> 
> Bottom line, as long as arab muslims refuse to tolerate the sovereign rights of others in the mideast, there are terrorist groups in gaza/west bank, and the external terrorist regimes like iran exist, it is utterly pointless to even suggest peace agreements.
> 
> THIS IS NOT A LAND ISSUE, IT IS NOT A "REFUGEE" ISSUE, it has nothing to do with settlers, water, land, borders, etc. It is the total unacceptance of the existence of a jewish (non-muslim) entity in the mideast, and the history and facts affirm this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I didn't ignore it.  There a bunch of you and one of me.  I'll reply when I have time
Click to expand...



I wouldn't take the premise that their posts are worthy of reply, most of the time.
Its not as if they are paying for the service.

However some at least of them are financed by Israel to filibuster&  prevent any decent discussion and write unprincipled nonsense on why Israel should be allowed to get away with atrocities, theft and murder.

This particular site is interesting mostly as a showcase for their (poor) arguments and moreso, for the material and perspectives posted by the pro-decency anti Zionists here.

But it is interesting to watch the madness of Phoney, verses the "cynical realism" that Kondom tries to present, and the unjust legalese that Rocco uses to each justify graduated racist genocide.

But replies to them?  Yes, if you want, have the time and feel a particular line might bear fruit of some sort.  But don't expect to have any of the Israeli murderer supporters to do other than block, distract and insult.  There is no Road To Damascus for them.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I'm an not an expert.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is HAMAS (as P F Tinmore says) the "freely and fairly elected" for all of Palestine?
> If so, then what is the Government of Palestine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have good questions.
> 
> You are the expert. What are the answers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is all about the Arab Palestinian people being in the drivers seat.  They have to frame a working government that is dedicated to the DOP relative to the development of Friendly relations and Co-operation among States, INCLUDING the Jewish State of Israel.
> 
> From a realist standpoint _(the elephant on the table that no one really wants to address)_ is the fact that the West Bank and Gaza Strip have not real unified government.  The Palestinians themselves really have not come to a conclusion as to a direction they should take.  While it is clear the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah movement is clearly much more capable at international co-operation and has made enormous contributions in the last decade to and for the Palestinian community, HAMAS _(doing the exact opposite)_ has captured significant community support.  It remains to be seen how it plays out.  But the longer it takes the Palestinians to decide, the more they will suffer economically and otherwise.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

You posted all of that without answering my question?


----------



## Hossfly

Coyote said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called "palestinians" as the media calls them today - they were known as "arabs" before the 1960s when arafat began receiving lots of free publicity - are as artificial as margarine and rene zellweger's face.  They are a social construct, a KGB-designed ploy used to counter the world-wide sympathy for the jews after the holocaust.  Given the horrific suffering of the jews during WW2, the KGB and its lackey arafat realized they would need to really work hard to develop a group of people whose false narrative could be even remotely compared to the jews, so they created the notion of the "palestinians," an allegedly "native" or "indigenous" group of people who have endured a terrible situation, and with lots of dosings of lies, nonsense and falsehoods, could be placed before the cameras and called "victims."
> 
> The unfortunate truth for the jews in israel is that the worldwide media represents the major corporate interests, which have a great deal of influence on most of the major governments, and do not like the jews, so they were all too eager to embrace the notion of the romantic revolutionary (i.e., che guevera, castro, etc.) against the nascent jewish state.  With decades of KGB-driven propaganda funneled into the all-too-embracing media, college indoctrination through "department chairs" purchased by wealthy arab muslims through which to promulgate the propaganda about the artificial palestinians "suffering" into younger Western minds, and the funding of fabricated think tanks ("WRMEA")/fake human rights organizations ("CAIR") also spewing the same bile, it has generated a groundswell amongst the dim, uneducated and unsuccessful of Western society a level of support for the "palestinians" that is unmatched for even the most genuinely afflicted groups of peoples.
> 
> But on the other hand, even with this mountain of funding, media outlets, and orgs aligned against it, when polls are taken in modern countries with highly educated populaces Israel still retains a wide level of support that generally dwarfs that of the "palestinians," a group so undeserving of support it is hard to compare them to any other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure about actual numbers...I will leave any argument there for others.  What I am arguing is that Israel had a deliberate policy of forcing out the Palestinians and preventing their return.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of your links prove anything, and many of the so-called "new historians" have been long dis-credited or recanted their earlier revisionist BS.  Many arabs themselves have admitted that the deir yassin "massacre" was a manufactured story to scare the arab populace and instill anger in them, that they were told what to tell the media.  There was no Israeli official policy to carry out a mass expulsion, nor is there any evidence that they tried to.
> 
> A thinking person would ask themselves: "if they had planned to ethnically cleanse the region of the arabs, why haven't they done so when they repeatedly had the opportunity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of your bullshit and lies prove anything bozo. There has been no discrediting of the "neo historians" there has been no recanting.  The only thing that has been discredited, is the propaganda that Israel spewed and you parrot.
> 
> The IDF itself admits that mass expulsion occurred:
> 
> "...a report prepared by the intelligence services of the Israeli army, dated 30 June 1948 and entitled “The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948”. This document sets at 391,000 the number of Palestinians who had already left the territory that was by then in the hands of Israel, and evaluates the various factors that had prompted their decisions to leave. “At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations.” To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which “directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration”. A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to “fears” and “a crisis of confidence” affecting the Palestinian population. *As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases..."*
> 
> The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, but tomorrow some numbnuts will come back with the same old lie that the Palestinians were told to leave by the Arabs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Consider yourself told today, Tinmore. *Most Arabs were told to leave*, come back during Judenrein.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently that claim has been debunked.
Click to expand...

At the time, Pathe News had newsreels preceeding every movie in America and I distinctly remember watching and hearing how the majority of Arabs were told by their leaders to leave. There were those the Jews moved out or killed but no-one in the world can debunk what I heard and remember.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Well, actually I did answer your question; you just did not grasp it.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I'm an not an expert.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is HAMAS (as P F Tinmore says) the "freely and fairly elected" for all of Palestine?
> If so, then what is the Government of Palestine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have good questions.
> 
> You are the expert. What are the answers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is all about the Arab Palestinian people being in the drivers seat.  They have to frame a working government that is dedicated to the DOP relative to the development of Friendly relations and Co-operation among States, INCLUDING the Jewish State of Israel.
> 
> From a realist standpoint _(the elephant on the table that no one really wants to address)_ is the fact that the West Bank and Gaza Strip have not real unified government.  The Palestinians themselves really have not come to a conclusion as to a direction they should take.  While it is clear the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah movement is clearly much more capable at international co-operation and has made enormous contributions in the last decade to and for the Palestinian community, HAMAS _(doing the exact opposite)_ has captured significant community support.  It remains to be seen how it plays out.  But the longer it takes the Palestinians to decide, the more they will suffer economically and otherwise.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted all of that without answering my question?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The conflict cannot be resolved until the Arab Palestinian:

Forms an uncontested legitimate government.
It must adopt the DOP Friendly relations and Co-operation among States, in place of the HAMAS Covenant, the March 2013 Policies, and the PNA Charter.
It must adopt a policy of disbanding and disassociation from internationally recognized terrorist organization.
It must adopt a policy for Reducing the Illicit Trafficking of Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) to terrorist activities operating in the State of Palestine. 

It must adopt a policy to refrain from organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities and to take appropriate practical measures to ensure that our respective territories are not used for terrorist installations or training camps, or for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens.
It must adopt a policy to ensure the apprehension and prosecution or extradition of perpetrators of terrorist acts, in accordance with the relevant provisions of national and international law, in particular human rights law, refugee law and international humanitarian law. 

This is the starting point. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Well, actually I did answer your question; you just did not grasp it.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I'm an not an expert.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is HAMAS (as P F Tinmore says) the "freely and fairly elected" for all of Palestine?
> If so, then what is the Government of Palestine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have good questions.
> 
> You are the expert. What are the answers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is all about the Arab Palestinian people being in the drivers seat.  They have to frame a working government that is dedicated to the DOP relative to the development of Friendly relations and Co-operation among States, INCLUDING the Jewish State of Israel.
> 
> From a realist standpoint _(the elephant on the table that no one really wants to address)_ is the fact that the West Bank and Gaza Strip have not real unified government.  The Palestinians themselves really have not come to a conclusion as to a direction they should take.  While it is clear the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah movement is clearly much more capable at international co-operation and has made enormous contributions in the last decade to and for the Palestinian community, HAMAS _(doing the exact opposite)_ has captured significant community support.  It remains to be seen how it plays out.  But the longer it takes the Palestinians to decide, the more they will suffer economically and otherwise.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted all of that without answering my question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The conflict cannot be resolved until the Arab Palestinian:
> 
> Forms an uncontested legitimate government.
> It must adopt the DOP Friendly relations and Co-operation among States, in place of the HAMAS Covenant, the March 2013 Policies, and the PNA Charter.
> It must adopt a policy of disbanding and disassociation from internationally recognized terrorist organization.
> It must adopt a policy for Reducing the Illicit Trafficking of Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) to terrorist activities operating in the State of Palestine.
> 
> It must adopt a policy to refrain from organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities and to take appropriate practical measures to ensure that our respective territories are not used for terrorist installations or training camps, or for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens.
> It must adopt a policy to ensure the apprehension and prosecution or extradition of perpetrators of terrorist acts, in accordance with the relevant provisions of national and international law, in particular human rights law, refugee law and international humanitarian law.
> 
> This is the starting point.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


"It must adopt a policy to ensure the apprehension and prosecution or extradition of perpetrators of terrorist acts, in accordance with the relevant provisions of national and international law, in particular human rights law, refugee law and international humanitarian law."

Yes, that would be what Israel would have to do as a starting point.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Well, actually I did answer your question; you just did not grasp it.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I'm an not an expert.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is HAMAS (as P F Tinmore says) the "freely and fairly elected" for all of Palestine?
> If so, then what is the Government of Palestine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have good questions.
> 
> You are the expert. What are the answers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is all about the Arab Palestinian people being in the drivers seat.  They have to frame a working government that is dedicated to the DOP relative to the development of Friendly relations and Co-operation among States, INCLUDING the Jewish State of Israel.
> 
> From a realist standpoint _(the elephant on the table that no one really wants to address)_ is the fact that the West Bank and Gaza Strip have not real unified government.  The Palestinians themselves really have not come to a conclusion as to a direction they should take.  While it is clear the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah movement is clearly much more capable at international co-operation and has made enormous contributions in the last decade to and for the Palestinian community, HAMAS _(doing the exact opposite)_ has captured significant community support.  It remains to be seen how it plays out.  But the longer it takes the Palestinians to decide, the more they will suffer economically and otherwise.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted all of that without answering my question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The conflict cannot be resolved until the Arab Palestinian:
> 
> Forms an uncontested legitimate government.
> It must adopt the DOP Friendly relations and Co-operation among States, in place of the HAMAS Covenant, the March 2013 Policies, and the PNA Charter.
> It must adopt a policy of disbanding and disassociation from internationally recognized terrorist organization.
> It must adopt a policy for Reducing the Illicit Trafficking of Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) to terrorist activities operating in the State of Palestine.
> 
> It must adopt a policy to refrain from organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities and to take appropriate practical measures to ensure that our respective territories are not used for terrorist installations or training camps, or for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens.
> It must adopt a policy to ensure the apprehension and prosecution or extradition of perpetrators of terrorist acts, in accordance with the relevant provisions of national and international law, in particular human rights law, refugee law and international humanitarian law.
> 
> This is the starting point.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Why don't you just say that you are ducking the question?

It would take much less space.


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> umh...so FrontPage and New Republic are your scholarly and academic sources?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the poster who quotes wiki...
> 
> To the others, is "coyote" a new ID for the poster who used to use "PF Tinmore"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wiki's take on the New Historians - both pro and con, and it includes the JSTOR source.  New Historians - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> It does not include FrontPage or New Republic.
Click to expand...


You have a problem with American based conservative or unbiased publications?  Do you equate conservative with jewish?
Have you read either one except for the few articles related to the middle east or Israel?


----------



## aris2chat

Beelzebub said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote,  _et al,_
> 
> It can and it should.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can Gaza and West Bank be one nation/one people?  Maybe they should be negotiated with as separate entities.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> A land bridge is not that difficult.
> 
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All very nice.
> 
> But its a bit like saying the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto should have made peace with the Germans, and used their unique advantages to create economic benefit for all.
Click to expand...


This is not a ghetto and Israel is not germany.


----------



## Coyote

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> umh...so FrontPage and New Republic are your scholarly and academic sources?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the poster who quotes wiki...
> 
> To the others, is "coyote" a new ID for the poster who used to use "PF Tinmore"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wiki's take on the New Historians - both pro and con, and it includes the JSTOR source.  New Historians - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> It does not include FrontPage or New Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a problem with American based conservative or unbiased publications?  Do you equate conservative with jewish?
> Have you read either one except for the few articles related to the middle east or Israel?
Click to expand...


I have a problem, Aris, with someone who takes me to task for not using "scholarly" or "academic" sources and who then himself uses *very non-scholarly sources.*

Wouldn't you have an issue with that?

Secondly - why do you claim that "_FrontPage_" and "_New Republic_" are "*unbiased*"?


----------



## Coyote

Hossfly said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called "palestinians" as the media calls them today - they were known as "arabs" before the 1960s when arafat began receiving lots of free publicity - are as artificial as margarine and rene zellweger's face.  They are a social construct, a KGB-designed ploy used to counter the world-wide sympathy for the jews after the holocaust.  Given the horrific suffering of the jews during WW2, the KGB and its lackey arafat realized they would need to really work hard to develop a group of people whose false narrative could be even remotely compared to the jews, so they created the notion of the "palestinians," an allegedly "native" or "indigenous" group of people who have endured a terrible situation, and with lots of dosings of lies, nonsense and falsehoods, could be placed before the cameras and called "victims."
> 
> The unfortunate truth for the jews in israel is that the worldwide media represents the major corporate interests, which have a great deal of influence on most of the major governments, and do not like the jews, so they were all too eager to embrace the notion of the romantic revolutionary (i.e., che guevera, castro, etc.) against the nascent jewish state.  With decades of KGB-driven propaganda funneled into the all-too-embracing media, college indoctrination through "department chairs" purchased by wealthy arab muslims through which to promulgate the propaganda about the artificial palestinians "suffering" into younger Western minds, and the funding of fabricated think tanks ("WRMEA")/fake human rights organizations ("CAIR") also spewing the same bile, it has generated a groundswell amongst the dim, uneducated and unsuccessful of Western society a level of support for the "palestinians" that is unmatched for even the most genuinely afflicted groups of peoples.
> 
> But on the other hand, even with this mountain of funding, media outlets, and orgs aligned against it, when polls are taken in modern countries with highly educated populaces Israel still retains a wide level of support that generally dwarfs that of the "palestinians," a group so undeserving of support it is hard to compare them to any other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of your links prove anything, and many of the so-called "new historians" have been long dis-credited or recanted their earlier revisionist BS.  Many arabs themselves have admitted that the deir yassin "massacre" was a manufactured story to scare the arab populace and instill anger in them, that they were told what to tell the media.  There was no Israeli official policy to carry out a mass expulsion, nor is there any evidence that they tried to.
> 
> A thinking person would ask themselves: "if they had planned to ethnically cleanse the region of the arabs, why haven't they done so when they repeatedly had the opportunity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of your bullshit and lies prove anything bozo. There has been no discrediting of the "neo historians" there has been no recanting.  The only thing that has been discredited, is the propaganda that Israel spewed and you parrot.
> 
> The IDF itself admits that mass expulsion occurred:
> 
> "...a report prepared by the intelligence services of the Israeli army, dated 30 June 1948 and entitled “The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948”. This document sets at 391,000 the number of Palestinians who had already left the territory that was by then in the hands of Israel, and evaluates the various factors that had prompted their decisions to leave. “At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations.” To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which “directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration”. A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to “fears” and “a crisis of confidence” affecting the Palestinian population. *As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases..."*
> 
> The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, but tomorrow some numbnuts will come back with the same old lie that the Palestinians were told to leave by the Arabs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Consider yourself told today, Tinmore. *Most Arabs were told to leave*, come back during Judenrein.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently that claim has been debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *At the time, Pathe News had newsreels preceeding every movie in America and I distinctly remember watching and hearing how the majority of Arabs were told by their leaders to leave. *There were those the Jews moved out or killed but no-one in the world can debunk what I heard and remember.
Click to expand...


You may have heard them.  However - the winner controls the narrative.  Historians have discovered that there is little evidence to support that narrative.  Yes, some were told to leave.  However many more left for other reasons as was outlined.  Do you think those Israeli archival documents lie?


----------



## Coyote

You know...it's interesting.  I think many of us can acknowledge that the Palestinians (and Hamas in particular) have not exactly been good actors on the international stage particularly with their use of terrorism against innocent civilians.  It does tend to undermine their very legitimate grievance.  Yet - when you start chipping away at the official israeli narratives of "history" - oh my god, you are shooting sacred cows.  Rather than look at it objectively and say ya, but that was then and this is now - the reaction is deny, descredit and shut off access to the archived documents.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

Dr. Aziz Dweik


----------



## theliq

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> Dr. Aziz Dweik


Thanks Tinnie,one clear voice in a morass of cloud in this thread....one wonders why Dr Dweik would have been imprisoned????????I note during this vid., it states that Israel says,saying that the Israeli Soldiers selling Palestinian body parts is Anti-Semitic......I have not seen this claim before...what is this all about.

If this is being done....It is not Anti-Semitic....IT IS AN UNLAWFUL ACT....keep up your excellent honest posts my friend...steve


----------



## theliq

Coyote said:


> You know...it's interesting.  I think many of us can acknowledge that the Palestinians (and Hamas in particular) have not exactly been good actors on the international stage particularly with their use of terrorism against innocent civilians.  It does tend to undermine their very legitimate grievance.  Yet - when you start chipping away at the official israeli narratives of "history" - oh my god, you are shooting sacred cows.  Rather than look at it objectively and say ya, but that was then and this is now - the reaction is deny, descredit and shut off access to the archived documents.


It depends how you look at it..........


----------



## Mindful

Philistines were not Arabs (and were in fact, invaders from Crete) and there is no mention of Palestine until the first century. Palestinians are not mentioned in the Bible or Koran because they did not exist until after 1967.


----------



## MJB12741

Mindful said:


> Philistines were not Arabs (and were in fact, invaders from Crete) and there is no mention of Palestine until the first century. Palestinians are not mentioned in the Bible or Koran because they did not exist until after 1967.



The overwhelming majority of today's Muslim Palestinians are squatters on Israel's land with no deeds or titles whatsoever to the land they have occupied for several generations now.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Coyote said:


> You know...it's interesting.  I think many of us can acknowledge that the Palestinians (and Hamas in particular) have not exactly been good actors on the international stage particularly with their use of terrorism against innocent civilians.  It does tend to undermine their very legitimate grievance.  Yet - when you start chipping away at the official israeli narratives of "history" - oh my god, you are shooting sacred cows.  Rather than look at it objectively and say ya, but that was then and this is now - the reaction is deny, descredit and shut off access to the archived documents.




Yes, when you immerse yourself in Arab propaganda, and lose all sense of decency, it is quite easy to rationalize your support for those committed to the genocide of a small minority. 

Intelligent people who have not allowed their sense of decency to be chipped away consider the source, however, and do not follow the genocidal quite so blindly.


----------



## Mindful

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know...it's interesting.  I think many of us can acknowledge that the Palestinians (and Hamas in particular) have not exactly been good actors on the international stage particularly with their use of terrorism against innocent civilians.  It does tend to undermine their very legitimate grievance.  Yet - when you start chipping away at the official israeli narratives of "history" - oh my god, you are shooting sacred cows.  Rather than look at it objectively and say ya, but that was then and this is now - the reaction is deny, descredit and shut off access to the archived documents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, when you immerse yourself in Arab propaganda, and lose all sense of decency, it is quite easy to rationalize your support for those committed to the genocide of a small minority.
> 
> Intelligent people who have not allowed their sense of decency to be chipped away consider the source, however, and do not follow the genocidal quite so blindly.
Click to expand...


It's not about sympathy for, or solidarity with, the Palestinians. These people couldn't care less about them.

Their agenda is something else.


----------



## Coyote

MJB12741 said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Philistines were not Arabs (and were in fact, invaders from Crete) and there is no mention of Palestine until the first century. Palestinians are not mentioned in the Bible or Koran because they did not exist until after 1967.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The overwhelming majority of today's Muslim Palestinians are squatters on Israel's land with no deeds or titles whatsoever to the land they have occupied for several generations now.
Click to expand...


yayaya...just like the overwelming majority of Jews are European invaders...how many times are we going to hear the same spin?


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Coyote said:


> yayaya...just like the overwelming majority of Jews are European invaders...how many times are we going to hear the same spin?



21,377 and counting by the looks of it.


----------



## Coyote

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know...it's interesting.  I think many of us can acknowledge that the Palestinians (and Hamas in particular) have not exactly been good actors on the international stage particularly with their use of terrorism against innocent civilians.  It does tend to undermine their very legitimate grievance.  Yet - when you start chipping away at the official israeli narratives of "history" - oh my god, you are shooting sacred cows.  Rather than look at it objectively and say ya, but that was then and this is now - the reaction is deny, descredit and shut off access to the archived documents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, when you immerse yourself in Arab propaganda, and lose all sense of decency, it is quite easy to rationalize your support for those committed to the genocide of a small minority.
> 
> Intelligent people who have not allowed their sense of decency to be chipped away consider the source, however, and do not follow the genocidal quite so blindly.
Click to expand...


The source was archived Israeli government documents.  Now, are you going to find a way to spin that into "propaganda"?


----------



## Coyote

Mindful said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know...it's interesting.  I think many of us can acknowledge that the Palestinians (and Hamas in particular) have not exactly been good actors on the international stage particularly with their use of terrorism against innocent civilians.  It does tend to undermine their very legitimate grievance.  Yet - when you start chipping away at the official israeli narratives of "history" - oh my god, you are shooting sacred cows.  Rather than look at it objectively and say ya, but that was then and this is now - the reaction is deny, descredit and shut off access to the archived documents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, when you immerse yourself in Arab propaganda, and lose all sense of decency, it is quite easy to rationalize your support for those committed to the genocide of a small minority.
> 
> Intelligent people who have not allowed their sense of decency to be chipped away consider the source, however, and do not follow the genocidal quite so blindly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> It's not about sympathy for, or solidarity with, the Palestinians.* These people couldn't care less about them.
> 
> Their agenda is something else.
Click to expand...


Or maybe it is.

Some of us happen to feel that they deserve to have a state and a two state solution is the best way to go.  You can't keep a people in landless/stateless limbo forever while you chip away at their land and their rights.  Whether it's Palestinians or some other group.

You are not going to have peace until that situation is settled along with it's attendent issues.

What is your agenda?  Do you really think all folks only support the Palestinian cause because (I'm guessing this is what are implying) they are anti-semitic or hate Israel?

There is room for both.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Coyote said:


> Some of us happen to feel that they deserve to have a state and a two state solution is the best way to go.  You can't keep a people in landless/stateless limbo forever while you chip away at their land and their rights.  Whether it's Palestinians or some other group.
> 
> You are not going to have peace until that situation is settled along with it's attendent issues.
> 
> What is your agenda?  Do you really think all folks only support the Palestinian cause because (I'm guessing this is what are implying) they are anti-semitic or hate Israel?
> 
> There is room for both.



 Yes, I'm sure there is room for both the support of Arabs and the hatred of Jews in one disgusting ideology.

I'm surprised you admitted as much.


----------



## Beelzebub

I on the other hand feel that Zionists should only be allowed to stay in The Levant to serve out long prison sentences.  Whether they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Atheist.

Jews and Muslims can choose to stay or go, but must be treated equally under all law, with very strong reference to which families were inhabiting land and property in 1918, and with right being disqualified for those who invaded after or who descend from European invaders.

With a general amnesty for those prepared to admit to their crimes and work towards making restoration.


----------



## Mindful

Coyote said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know...it's interesting.  I think many of us can acknowledge that the Palestinians (and Hamas in particular) have not exactly been good actors on the international stage particularly with their use of terrorism against innocent civilians.  It does tend to undermine their very legitimate grievance.  Yet - when you start chipping away at the official israeli narratives of "history" - oh my god, you are shooting sacred cows.  Rather than look at it objectively and say ya, but that was then and this is now - the reaction is deny, descredit and shut off access to the archived documents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, when you immerse yourself in Arab propaganda, and lose all sense of decency, it is quite easy to rationalize your support for those committed to the genocide of a small minority.
> 
> Intelligent people who have not allowed their sense of decency to be chipped away consider the source, however, and do not follow the genocidal quite so blindly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> It's not about sympathy for, or solidarity with, the Palestinians.* These people couldn't care less about them.
> 
> Their agenda is something else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or maybe it is.
> 
> Some of us happen to feel that they deserve to have a state and a two state solution is the best way to go.  You can't keep a people in landless/stateless limbo forever while you chip away at their land and their rights.  Whether it's Palestinians or some other group.
> 
> You are not going to have peace until that situation is settled along with it's attendent issues.
> 
> What is your agenda?  Do you really think all folks only support the Palestinian cause because (I'm guessing this is what are implying) they are anti-semitic or hate Israel?
> 
> There is room for both.
Click to expand...


No comment.


----------



## Coyote

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of us happen to feel that they deserve to have a state and a two state solution is the best way to go.  You can't keep a people in landless/stateless limbo forever while you chip away at their land and their rights.  Whether it's Palestinians or some other group.
> 
> You are not going to have peace until that situation is settled along with it's attendent issues.
> 
> What is your agenda?  Do you really think all folks only support the Palestinian cause because (I'm guessing this is what are implying) they are anti-semitic or hate Israel?
> 
> There is room for both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm sure there is room for both the support of Arabs and the hatred of Jews in one disgusting ideology.
> 
> I'm surprised you admitted as much.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you need to work on your reading skills a bit.  You are a person who claims to revere logic but show an amazing lack of logic. 

Let me put it this way:
Support of the Palestinians right to self determination
does not necessarily equal
Support for the Arab states and their (varied) positions
does not necessarily equal
Hatred of Israel
does not necessarily equal
Hatred of Jews
does not necessarily equal
Support for any number of human rights violations on behalf of any of these groups

One can support both an Israeli state and a Palestinian state side by side without engaging in any logical fallacies to try and distort the other's position.

I'm not surprised at you however.  This is the childish behavior you've been consistently displaying on these boards.


----------



## rhodescholar

Coyote said:


> Perhaps you need to work on your reading skills a bit.  You are a person who claims to revere logic but show an amazing lack of logic.
> 
> Let me put it this way:
> Support of the Palestinians right to self determination
> does not necessarily equal
> Support for the Arab states and their (varied) positions
> does not necessarily equal
> Hatred of Israel
> does not necessarily equal
> Hatred of Jews
> does not necessarily equal
> Support for any number of human rights violations on behalf of any of these groups
> 
> One can support both an Israeli state and a Palestinian state side by side without engaging in any logical fallacies to try and distort the other's position.
> 
> I'm not surprised at you however.  This is the childish behavior you've been consistently displaying on these boards.



There are many whose interest in this situation is based more upon heaping their hatred of jews onto israel than it is any support or consideration/concern for the arab muslims.  They make no comments on the horrific treatment of the arabs who call themselves palestinians in other nations such as syria, lebanon, kuwait, iraq or jordan, they never condemn the mistreatment of them by hamas, nor do they have any comment on human rights situations elsewhere in the world, all of which are easy telltale signs that they are shedding crocodile tears for this subset of arab muslims.  

Further, simply because a group of arab muslims has decide that they are a distinct people, and under the notion of dar al-islam have the "right" to conquer the holy land region, does not mean that they are legitimate in doing so.  The arab muslims have no more legitimacy or right to the Levant than martians, and there is no question that most of the arab muslims living in the west bank/gaza are from other arab muslim countries.

As for support for arab muslims, given that their positions in this conflict are all maximalist, where only they will retain sovereign power and all other groups will be enslaved as dhimmis, in essence a zero sum game, than by definition support for the arab muslims is a strong determinant that one is anti-israel.

Contrast the many who support israel are not maximalist as they accept a 2-state solution with arab muslims and their apologists who will only accept a one-state solution - with arab muslims in control.  It is all code for enabling yet another ethnic cleansing and slaughter of a minority by arab muslims.


----------



## Hossfly

Beelzebub said:


> I on the other hand feel that Zionists should only be allowed to stay in The Levant to serve out long prison sentences.  Whether they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Atheist.
> 
> Jews and Muslims can choose to stay or go, but must be treated equally under all law, with very strong reference to which families were inhabiting land and property in 1918, and with right being disqualified for those who invaded after or who descend from European invaders.
> 
> With a general amnesty for those prepared to admit to their crimes and work towards making restoration.


Mild form of Shariah law? Rotsa ruck, Scoob.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Ismail Haniyeh*

**


----------



## Beelzebub

Hossfly said:


> Beelzebub said:
> 
> 
> 
> I on the other hand feel that Zionists should only be allowed to stay in The Levant to serve out long prison sentences.  Whether they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Atheist.
> 
> Jews and Muslims can choose to stay or go, but must be treated equally under all law, with very strong reference to which families were inhabiting land and property in 1918, and with right being disqualified for those who invaded after or who descend from European invaders.
> 
> With a general amnesty for those prepared to admit to their crimes and work towards making restoration.
> 
> 
> 
> Mild form of Shariah law? Rotsa ruck, Scoob.
Click to expand...


Some parts of Sharia Law can work.
I am generally not for dismemberment or death.  You may disagree on the latter point of course Hoss.



> Rotsa ruck, Scoob.


  Sorry Hoss, I don't speak your wonderful native tongue.


----------



## rhodescholar

Beelzebub said:


> I on the other hand feel



You don't have anything much to offer, so you can stop posting here.  Shhhh, the adults are talking.


----------



## Coyote

rhodescholar said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you need to work on your reading skills a bit.  You are a person who claims to revere logic but show an amazing lack of logic.
> 
> Let me put it this way:
> Support of the Palestinians right to self determination
> does not necessarily equal
> Support for the Arab states and their (varied) positions
> does not necessarily equal
> Hatred of Israel
> does not necessarily equal
> Hatred of Jews
> does not necessarily equal
> Support for any number of human rights violations on behalf of any of these groups
> 
> One can support both an Israeli state and a Palestinian state side by side without engaging in any logical fallacies to try and distort the other's position.
> 
> I'm not surprised at you however.  This is the childish behavior you've been consistently displaying on these boards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many whose interest in this situation is based more upon heaping their hatred of jews onto israel than it is any support or consideration/concern for the arab muslims.  *They make no comments on the horrific treatment of the arabs who call themselves palestinians in other nations such as syria, lebanon, kuwait, iraq or jordan*, they never condemn the mistreatment of them by hamas, nor do they have any comment on human rights situations elsewhere in the world, all of which are easy telltale signs that they are shedding crocodile tears for this subset of arab muslims.
Click to expand...


An interesting observation:  there are many here who only seem to comment on Palestinian atrocities.  They have nothing to say about what is going on in Mexico, the Congo, Liberia, China, etc.  No comments.  Only when it involves human rights violations by Palestinians or Muslims.

But you make a good point and I agree with it.  The mistreatment of Palestinian refugee camps in Syria came under scrutiny when people were fleeing the advances of ISIS and the Palestinians were stuck - they had no nationality, no citizenship, no place to go and no one would let them in.  Pretty bad.  They are a stateless people split up in a variety of countries but given neither citizenship nor rights.  An no one seems to say anything.  



> Further, simply because a group of arab muslims has decide that they are a distinct people, and under the notion of dar al-islam have the "right" to conquer the holy land region, does not mean that they are legitimate in doing so.  The arab muslims have no more legitimacy or right to the Levant than martians, and there is no question that most of the arab muslims living in the west bank/gaza are from other arab muslim countries.



Each people at some time - were not a "people".  At some point in history they became a distinct people.  Who are you to deny one groups right while endorsing another groups right?  Whoever they are - the Palestinians are people who lived in that area alongside Jews and others for centuries or millenia.  They share many of the same genetics and their right to be there goes back into the early history of the region.  Whether they were called Palestinians or something else - it really doesn't matter.  This sort of argument is nothing more than an attempt to marginalize their claims.  After all - most of the Jews are European immigrants who's only claim to the region is a scant genetic relationship and a religious claim from thousands of years ago. No other land that I'm aware of, is commandeered in that manner using that rationale.  What gives one more rights over the other?  Nothing.



> As for support for arab muslims, given that their positions in this conflict are all maximalist, where only they will retain sovereign power and all other groups will be enslaved as dhimmis, in essence a zero sum game, than by definition support for the arab muslims is a strong determinant that one is anti-israel.
> 
> *Contrast the many who support israel are not maximalist as they accept a 2-state solution with arab muslims and their apologists who will only accept a one-state solution* - with arab muslims in control.  It is all code for enabling yet another ethnic cleansing and slaughter of a minority by arab muslims.



I disagree with that.  There have been some polls and, while a majority of Israeli's say they accept a two-state solution - in general - that support goes way down when the details are brought up.

A one-state solution, regardless of what the Palestinians want - won't happen and it can not be forced on Israel.  Thus a two state solution is the only option and that means both sides need to negotiate for it.  I think that Fatah realizes this.


----------



## Beelzebub

rhodescholar said:


> Beelzebub said:
> 
> 
> 
> I on the other hand feel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have anything much to offer, so you can stop posting here.  Shhhh, the adults are talking.
Click to expand...


Your capacity to receive is the issue.  Your amoebic brain clearly cannot handle the least amount of complexity.  So I will take your request as an indication of your stress in failing to enjoy a more sophisticated outlook.

"Scholar" you say?


----------



## RoccoR

Coyote,  _et al,_

This cannot be emphasized enough!



Coyote said:


> One can support both an Israeli state and a Palestinian state side by side without engaging in any logical fallacies to try and distort the other's position.


*(COMMENT)*

“In all debates, let truth be thy aim, not victory, or an unjust interest.” 
― William Penn

v/r
R


----------



## Penelope

MJB12741 said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Philistines were not Arabs (and were in fact, invaders from Crete) and there is no mention of Palestine until the first century. Palestinians are not mentioned in the Bible or Koran because they did not exist until after 1967.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The overwhelming majority of today's Muslim Palestinians are squatters on Israel's land with no deeds or titles whatsoever to the land they have occupied for several generations now.
Click to expand...


Ha Ha too funny, so Israel should of kicked them off centuries ago. Too funny. Israelites left Palestine, with no vision of returning.


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of us happen to feel that they deserve to have a state and a two state solution is the best way to go.  You can't keep a people in landless/stateless limbo forever while you chip away at their land and their rights.  Whether it's Palestinians or some other group.
> 
> You are not going to have peace until that situation is settled along with it's attendent issues.
> 
> What is your agenda?  Do you really think all folks only support the Palestinian cause because (I'm guessing this is what are implying) they are anti-semitic or hate Israel?
> 
> There is room for both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm sure there is room for both the support of Arabs and the hatred of Jews in one disgusting ideology.
> 
> I'm surprised you admitted as much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you need to work on your reading skills a bit.  You are a person who claims to revere logic but show an amazing lack of logic.
> 
> Let me put it this way:
> Support of the Palestinians right to self determination
> does not necessarily equal
> Support for the Arab states and their (varied) positions
> does not necessarily equal
> Hatred of Israel
> does not necessarily equal
> Hatred of Jews
> does not necessarily equal
> Support for any number of human rights violations on behalf of any of these groups
> 
> One can support both an Israeli state and a Palestinian state side by side without engaging in any logical fallacies to try and distort the other's position.
> 
> I'm not surprised at you however.  This is the childish behavior you've been consistently displaying on these boards.
Click to expand...


A "palestinian state" cannot exist without the arab state backing.  Even with the potential of a marine gas field, there are not enough resources to support the population.  It cannot survive on agriculture, there is little in the way of easy transport for any major industry to get products to markets.   Any potential as a major tourism location is destroyed or inhospitable to foreigners.
Even with growth in educational institutions there is no open discourse that might clash with the prevailing beliefs of what Islam is.
Palestinians might want the idea of state of their own but they are far from prepared to making it work on their own.
For too long their major industry has been hate.  Unless they can redirect that energy into some positive productive direction, and encourage a more manageable birth rate they cannot sustain a state that can meet the needs of it's people.


----------



## Mindful

Penelope said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Philistines were not Arabs (and were in fact, invaders from Crete) and there is no mention of Palestine until the first century. Palestinians are not mentioned in the Bible or Koran because they did not exist until after 1967.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The overwhelming majority of today's Muslim Palestinians are squatters on Israel's land with no deeds or titles whatsoever to the land they have occupied for several generations now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha Ha too funny, so Israel should of kicked them off centuries ago. Too funny. Israelites left Palestine, with no vision of returning.
Click to expand...



Keep on giggling.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Suha Najjar*


----------



## Coyote

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of us happen to feel that they deserve to have a state and a two state solution is the best way to go.  You can't keep a people in landless/stateless limbo forever while you chip away at their land and their rights.  Whether it's Palestinians or some other group.
> 
> You are not going to have peace until that situation is settled along with it's attendent issues.
> 
> What is your agenda?  Do you really think all folks only support the Palestinian cause because (I'm guessing this is what are implying) they are anti-semitic or hate Israel?
> 
> There is room for both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm sure there is room for both the support of Arabs and the hatred of Jews in one disgusting ideology.
> 
> I'm surprised you admitted as much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you need to work on your reading skills a bit.  You are a person who claims to revere logic but show an amazing lack of logic.
> 
> Let me put it this way:
> Support of the Palestinians right to self determination
> does not necessarily equal
> Support for the Arab states and their (varied) positions
> does not necessarily equal
> Hatred of Israel
> does not necessarily equal
> Hatred of Jews
> does not necessarily equal
> Support for any number of human rights violations on behalf of any of these groups
> 
> One can support both an Israeli state and a Palestinian state side by side without engaging in any logical fallacies to try and distort the other's position.
> 
> I'm not surprised at you however.  This is the childish behavior you've been consistently displaying on these boards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A "palestinian state" cannot exist without the arab state backing.  Even with the potential of a marine gas field, there are not enough resources to support the population.  It cannot survive on agriculture, there is little in the way of easy transport for any major industry to get products to markets.   Any potential as a major tourism location is destroyed or inhospitable to foreigners.
Click to expand...


Wouldn't that depend on what land comprised the state?  Admittedly - I am not that familiar with the geography.  Isn't agriculture a possibility?  Or high tech industries if they were stable enough to attract business'?  Are you saying that they would need Arab state backing in the sense of investment, help building infrastructure?  If so - I would agree. 



> Even with growth in educational institutions there is no open discourse that might clash with the prevailing beliefs of what Islam is.
> Palestinians might want the idea of state of their own but they are far from prepared to making it work on their own.
> For too long their major industry has been hate.



Yes and no.  The hate is also driven by Israel's policies towards them.  It is a complex dynamic and there is a culture of hate towards the Palestinians as well.  I think with the right leadership and a viable state, they could and would make it work particularly, if, as you say that had the support of and pressure from the Arab states.



> *Unless they can redirect that energy into some positive productive direction, *and encourage a more manageable birth rate they cannot sustain a state that can meet the needs of it's people.



Agree.  Though, birthrates are a far more complex issue to deal with.


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of us happen to feel that they deserve to have a state and a two state solution is the best way to go.  You can't keep a people in landless/stateless limbo forever while you chip away at their land and their rights.  Whether it's Palestinians or some other group.
> 
> You are not going to have peace until that situation is settled along with it's attendent issues.
> 
> What is your agenda?  Do you really think all folks only support the Palestinian cause because (I'm guessing this is what are implying) they are anti-semitic or hate Israel?
> 
> There is room for both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm sure there is room for both the support of Arabs and the hatred of Jews in one disgusting ideology.
> 
> I'm surprised you admitted as much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you need to work on your reading skills a bit.  You are a person who claims to revere logic but show an amazing lack of logic.
> 
> Let me put it this way:
> Support of the Palestinians right to self determination
> does not necessarily equal
> Support for the Arab states and their (varied) positions
> does not necessarily equal
> Hatred of Israel
> does not necessarily equal
> Hatred of Jews
> does not necessarily equal
> Support for any number of human rights violations on behalf of any of these groups
> 
> One can support both an Israeli state and a Palestinian state side by side without engaging in any logical fallacies to try and distort the other's position.
> 
> I'm not surprised at you however.  This is the childish behavior you've been consistently displaying on these boards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A "palestinian state" cannot exist without the arab state backing.  Even with the potential of a marine gas field, there are not enough resources to support the population.  It cannot survive on agriculture, there is little in the way of easy transport for any major industry to get products to markets.   Any potential as a major tourism location is destroyed or inhospitable to foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wouldn't that depend on what land comprised the state?  Admittedly - I am not that familiar with the geography.  Isn't agriculture a possibility?  Or high tech industries if they were stable enough to attract business'?  Are you saying that they would need Arab state backing in the sense of investment, help building infrastructure?  If so - I would agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even with growth in educational institutions there is no open discourse that might clash with the prevailing beliefs of what Islam is.
> Palestinians might want the idea of state of their own but they are far from prepared to making it work on their own.
> For too long their major industry has been hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes and no.  The hate is also driven by Israel's policies towards them.  It is a complex dynamic and there is a culture of hate towards the Palestinians as well.  I think with the right leadership and a viable state, they could and would make it work particularly, if, as you say that had the support of and pressure from the Arab states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Unless they can redirect that energy into some positive productive direction, *and encourage a more manageable birth rate they cannot sustain a state that can meet the needs of it's people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree.  Though, birthrates are a far more complex issue to deal with.
Click to expand...


Even if they had all of Jerusalem, which they will not get, It wouldn't  generate enough tourism if access to the mount is limited to only Muslims.  Christians would not be welcome even to the churches as they are under Israel rule.  If Hamas were to gain more power over the WB or Jerusalem, tourism under strict sharia would all but end, even among some of the other sects.

Jordan would more strictly limit their crossing to prevent the more fundamentalist practices from attempting to over throw the monarchy.  Trade will not be traveling via syria for awhile and with hamas ties to Iran, Saudi is not going to be giving them any right of way in trade routes.

Water for irrigation is not going to be easy and the aquifers have been depleted or polluted by poor management under palestinians control.

Foreign companies will not be easily persuaded to invest with Hamas in power or waiting anxiously to take the lead.

It would take several generation to shift from a hostile mentality into one of business, cooperation, negotiation and peace.  Too long to help them.

The best opinion for a stable state is through Israel and a peace agreement.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Coyote said:


> Perhaps you need to work on your reading skills a bit.  You are a person who claims to revere logic but show an amazing lack of logic.
> 
> Let me put it this way:
> Support of the Palestinians right to self determination
> does not necessarily equal
> Support for the Arab states and their (varied) positions
> does not necessarily equal
> Hatred of Israel
> does not necessarily equal
> Hatred of Jews
> does not necessarily equal
> Support for any number of human rights violations on behalf of any of these groups
> 
> One can support both an Israeli state and a Palestinian state side by side without engaging in any logical fallacies to try and distort the other's position.
> 
> I'm not surprised at you however.  This is the childish behavior you've been consistently displaying on these boards.



I read what you actually wrote and not the attempted ruse, true.

As to the fantasy you are trying to foist, it is certainly true that a person can support a Palestinian state without being an antisemite,  but you don't manage to pull that one off despite all your dishonest protestations to the contrary.


----------



## Coyote

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you need to work on your reading skills a bit.  You are a person who claims to revere logic but show an amazing lack of logic.
> 
> Let me put it this way:
> Support of the Palestinians right to self determination
> does not necessarily equal
> Support for the Arab states and their (varied) positions
> does not necessarily equal
> Hatred of Israel
> does not necessarily equal
> Hatred of Jews
> does not necessarily equal
> Support for any number of human rights violations on behalf of any of these groups
> 
> One can support both an Israeli state and a Palestinian state side by side without engaging in any logical fallacies to try and distort the other's position.
> 
> I'm not surprised at you however.  This is the childish behavior you've been consistently displaying on these boards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read what you actually wrote and not the attempted ruse, true.
Click to expand...


As I said, you need to work on your reading comprehension skills rather than making shit up.



> As to the fantasy you are trying to foist, it is certainly true that a person can support a Palestinian state without being an antisemite,  but you don't manage to pull that one off despite all your dishonest protestations to the contrary.



You really are a hateful little feller aren't you?

I've been posting here for years.  Folks know where I stand - whether they hate me, like me, or don't give a rats ass.  I've always supported a two state solution and I've always supported Israel's right to exist along with the Palestinians right to a state.  I don't know why it's so hard for you to comprehend that but, that is your problem, not mine


----------



## aris2chat

*Anyone at all surprised Jordan is laying down the rules against radical islam????*

*To counter rise of Islamic State, Jordan imposes rules on Muslim clerics*


*washingtonpost.com*/world/middle_east/to-counter-rise-of-the-islamic-state-jordan-imposes-rules-on-muslim-clerics/2014/11/09/4d5fce22-5937-11e4-bd61-346aee66ba29_story.html




Hundreds of protestors gather for a demonstration to protest alleged police brutality and the death of a local in a recent house raid, in Maan, Jordan on June 25, 2014. Tens of the marches unfurled back banners in support of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria in what marked the second public showing support of the Islamic State in the kingdom in less than a week. (Taylor Luck/For The Washington Post)

By William Booth and Taylor Luck

November 9 at 8:26 PM
ZARQA, Jordan — Several hundred robed Muslim clerics recently packed themselves into an auditorium to hear the minister of Islamic affairs issue their new marching orders. The meeting was mandatory.

“You clerics are our ground forces against the extremists,” Hayel Dawood told them.

Then he made himself clear: Preach moderate Islam — or else.

“Once you cross the red line,” Dawood intoned, “you will not be let back in.”

Stunned by the rapid advance of the Islamic State in neighboring Syria and Iraq, Jordan has fortified its borders and put its air force and intelligence service to work in the U.S.-led alliance against the self-declared caliphate in Syria and Iraq. To counter the low thrum of support for extremist movements on the home front, the kingdom is not only prosecuting Islamic State recruiters and cracking down on anyone waving an Islamic State banner, but it has turned its attention to the nation’s 7,000 mosques.





Zarqa, Jordan.
Jordanian authorities have begun a campaign to coax — and, when necessary, pressure — Muslim clerics to preach messages of peaceful Islam from their pulpits. The main targets are Jordan’s more than 5,000 imams, including lay clerics and those on the government dole, who give the traditional sermon that follows Friday prayers.

Jordan’s security apparatus has always kept a close eye on known radicals and has pursued a policy in the past of allowing even prominent al-Qaeda-affiliated clerics to preach as long as they watched what they said. The idea: It was best to grant opposition figures a sliver of political space, to better monitor, co-opt and control them.

But with the sudden rise of the Islamic State, Jordan’s religious authorities are taking a more active stance. The Islamic affairs minister is touring the kingdom to announce new rules in a remarkable series of meetings for anyone who wants access to the Friday flock.

Specifically, Jordan is demanding that preachers refrain from any speech against King Abdullah II and the royal family, slander against leaders of neighboring Arab states, incitement against the United States and Europe, and sectarianism and support for jihad and extremist thought.

Dawood also suggests that clerics keep sermons brief.

“Fifteen minutes is okay,” he told the crowd in Zarqa. He reminded them that the prophet Muhammad “was short and to the point — often 10 minutes, no more.”

For those who adhere to the new guidelines, there are government salaries of about $600 a month, religious workshops, travel assistance for pilgrimages to Mecca, and weekly guidance.

The ministry is providing suggested topics for Friday sermons, available for download from the government’s Facebook page. Recent suggestions included:

• Oct. 17 — “Security and Stability: the Need for Unity in a Time of Crisis.”

• Oct. 24 — “The Hijjra New Year — Lessons Derived From the Prophet’s Flight From Mecca.”

• Oct. 31 — “The Beginning of the Rainy Season — Safety Measures in Preparation for Winter.”

For those who stray? Banishment from the pulpit for life.

The worst offenders, those who openly praise the Islamic State, might be hauled into the newly empowered State Security Court to face charges under the country’s enhanced anti-terrorism law.

Jordan’s soft-power press for moderate Islam, a personal project of Abdullah, has been applauded by U.S. officials for its proactive approach and its emphasis on Islam’s positive messages of charity, respect and tolerance.

Some clerics, though, bristle at being told what to preach. What some see as “moderate Islam,” others decry as “state Islam,” foisted on them by a pro-Western monarchy kowtowing to foreign powers.

“They’ve left no space for us in the mosques,” said Mohammed al-Shalabi, a senior leader of ultraconservative Muslims known as Jihadi Salafis in Jordan. “They’re not even allowing anyone to use the words ‘Islamic State.’ ”

Shalabi complained that the mosques were filled with informants from the Jordanian intelligence agency. “They write down everything you say,” he said.

That is probably an exaggeration. Currently, Jordan employs 60 “monitors” to listen in at the country’s 5,500 mosques that regularly host Friday sermons. Dawood told the meeting in Zarqa that he was planning for 200 monitors but thought he needed 400 to do the job right.

In an interview, Dawood said he was “limited by budgetary and logistical constraints that is making policing the mosques that much more difficult.”

‘Not a new policy’

State control of religious life is nothing new in the Middle East. Close monitoring of sermons is common in the oil-rich states in the Persian Gulf. Likewise, many of the region’s current and former despots, in Libya, Algeria and Syria, were obsessed with imprinting their message on Islam.

But message control has grown in the wake of the Arab revolutions and the rise of the Islamic State. Recently, state-sponsored clerics in Jordan — long at the forefront of promoting religious moderation — and throughout the region have been especially vocal in denouncing the Islamic State.

Arab media report the Saudi Interior Ministry may require clerics to pass a security screening before they can preach. Egyptian authorities have banned tens of thousands of unlicensed clerics, especially imams linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.

“Centralized Islam is not a new policy,” said Omar Ashour, a senior lecturer in Middle East politics at the University of Exeter. But, he added: “It has been tried before, with mixed results.”

“You have a segment of society that will seek out other messages, other voices,” he said, perhaps in underground settings with outlaw imams. In an earlier age, extremist messages on cassette tapes were passed hand to hand; now, all it takes is typing a few search terms on YouTube.

Jordan employs about 3,400 Muslim preachers — about 2,000 clerics and 1,400 caretakers — to staff the country’s 7,000 mosques. The deficit has forced the Ministry of Islamic Affairs to grant more than 2,200 permissions for sermons to “unofficial clerics” — educators, tribal sheiks and ordinary citizens.

Those wishing to ascend the pulpit are supposed to register with the ministry’s directorate. Applicants are subject to a security check and must receive approval from the intelligence service. Even so, Jordanian officials say dangerous preachers have slipped through their filters.

“We have preachers using the pulpit for political means, to launch attacks on private individuals and the state,” Dawood said. “This will not be tolerated.”

Jordan has barred 30 preachers from delivering sermons so far this year. The ministry banned six clerics in October for allegedly denouncing Jordan’s participation in the U.S.-led coalition against the Islamic State, referring four to the State Security Court for attempting to “disseminate terrorist ideology” and “gathering support for the Islamic State.”

Ahmed Abu Omar was among them. The Amman cleric, who declined to use his full name out of concern for his safety, said he delivered a Friday sermon on Oct. 3 denouncing coalition airstrikes he feared were targeting Syrian and Iraqi civilians.

“I was only speaking the truth, that Jordan should not participate in the killing of civilians, which is forbidden in Islam,” he said. “I was told later that this was ‘inciting terrorism.’ ”

According to people who attended the sermon, Abu Omar went on to call on Jordanians to “show solidarity with the Islamic State,” which was “defending Islam against the United States and the crusaders.”

Rules welcomed in Zarqa

The meeting outlining the do’s and don’ts appeared to be welcomed in Zarqa, long a bastion of al-Qaeda supporters, including an eclectic mix of salafists, sufis and jihadists who, some state-supported clerics said, have posed a challenge. (Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaeda in Iraq leader who was killed in an American airstrike in 2006, hailed from the city.)

“We have extremists come to our mosques. We know who they are, and they make their presence known,” said Mohammed Mushagbeh, 70, a cleric in the village of Hashmiyeh, outside Zarqa. “But our words can only go so far; we cannot just be in the defensive, we must go on the offensive.”

According to Mushagbeh, a ministry-employed cleric for more than a decade, extremist preachers in Zarqa have also used the pulpit to attack Jordanian authorities.

“It is up to all of us to root them out,” he said.

William Booth is The Post’s Jerusalem bureau chief. He was previously bureau chief in Mexico, Los Angeles and Miami.


----------



## aris2chat

And Abbas want to move Arafat to Jerusalem, like that is going to happen, or make Jerusalem part of the PA.
If anything the idea/threat of wanting to move Arafat to Jerusalem is going to make Israel block access to the mount to prevent Arafat's grave becoming a shrine or pilgrimage site.
They are playing with dynamite and the world going to end up the victim.


----------



## Grendelyn

*Who are the Palestinians you say?  Why, in my opinion, they're anyone who lived in the area prior to any mischief-making Ashkenazi Johnny-Come-Later German, Polish or Russian showing up who falsely claimed to be a member of a fictitious 'Lost Tribe' of biblical Hebrews.  ~ Susan  *


----------



## aris2chat

Grendelyn said:


> *Who are the Palestinians you say?  Why, in my opinion, they're anyone who lived in the area prior to any mischief-making Ashkenazi Johnny-Come-Later German, Polish or Russian showing up who falsely claimed to be a member of a fictitious 'Lost Tribe' of biblical Hebrews.  ~ Susan  *



your racism is showing


----------



## Hossfly

Grendelyn said:


> *Who are the Palestinians you say?  Why, in my opinion, they're anyone who lived in the area prior to any mischief-making Ashkenazi Johnny-Come-Later German, Polish or Russian showing up who falsely claimed to be a member of a fictitious 'Lost Tribe' of biblical Hebrews.  ~ Susan  *


Not that you are fooling many here that you really care about the Arabs, but maybe some day you will realize that others can see you for the anti-Semite that you are and are just using these Arabs.

Jews, not Arabs, indigenous people of Holy Land

http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/jews-not-arabs-indigenous-people-of-holy-land/#tg2WX7YeCYrcdEem.99


----------



## Grendelyn

Hossfly said:


> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Who are the Palestinians you say?  Why, in my opinion, they're anyone who lived in the area prior to any mischief-making Ashkenazi Johnny-Come-Later German, Polish or Russian showing up who falsely claimed to be a member of a fictitious 'Lost Tribe' of biblical Hebrews.  ~ Susan  *
> 
> 
> 
> Not that you are fooling many here that you really care about the Arabs, but maybe some day you will realize that others can see you for the anti-Semite that you are and are just using these Arabs.
> 
> Jews, not Arabs, indigenous people of Holy Land
> 
> Jews not Arabs indigenous people of Holy Land
Click to expand...


*What I care about is 'truth' and the truth of the matter is, is that the Canaanites (some of whom were descendants of Egyptians and although it can be argued differently, I consider Egyptians to be Arabs . . . as did Egypt's Gamal Nasser consider himself to be one) that came to this area long before the Hebrews ever did and certainly longer than any mischief-making Johnny-Come-Later Ashkenazim whose indigenous origins stem from such places as Germany, Poland and Russia.  ~ Susan
PS Why is it that one having a different opinion other than your own is considered by you to be an anti-Semite, you anti-Truth person, you?    *


----------



## aris2chat

Grendelyn said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Who are the Palestinians you say?  Why, in my opinion, they're anyone who lived in the area prior to any mischief-making Ashkenazi Johnny-Come-Later German, Polish or Russian showing up who falsely claimed to be a member of a fictitious 'Lost Tribe' of biblical Hebrews.  ~ Susan  *
> 
> 
> 
> Not that you are fooling many here that you really care about the Arabs, but maybe some day you will realize that others can see you for the anti-Semite that you are and are just using these Arabs.
> 
> Jews, not Arabs, indigenous people of Holy Land
> 
> Jews not Arabs indigenous people of Holy Land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What I care about is 'truth' and the truth of the matter is, is that the Canaanites (some of whom were descendants of Egyptians and although it can be argued differently, I consider Egyptians to be Arabs . . . as did Egypt's Gamal Nasser consider himself to be one) that came to this area long before the Hebrews ever did and certainly longer than any mischief-making Johnny-Come-Later Ashkenazim whose indigenous origins stem from such places as Germany, Poland and Russia.  ~ Susan
> PS Why is it that one having a different opinion other than your own is considered by you to be an anti-Semite, you anti-Truth person, you?    *
Click to expand...


The vast majority of egyptians are arabic speaking muslims, but they are not arabs.  What you consider is incorrect.  So much for the truth.  It is obvious you are not a student of archaeogenetics.


----------



## Grendelyn

aris2chat said:


> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Who are the Palestinians you say?  Why, in my opinion, they're anyone who lived in the area prior to any mischief-making Ashkenazi Johnny-Come-Later German, Polish or Russian showing up who falsely claimed to be a member of a fictitious 'Lost Tribe' of biblical Hebrews.  ~ Susan  *
> 
> 
> 
> Not that you are fooling many here that you really care about the Arabs, but maybe some day you will realize that others can see you for the anti-Semite that you are and are just using these Arabs.
> 
> Jews, not Arabs, indigenous people of Holy Land
> 
> Jews not Arabs indigenous people of Holy Land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What I care about is 'truth' and the truth of the matter is, is that the Canaanites (some of whom were descendants of Egyptians and although it can be argued differently, I consider Egyptians to be Arabs . . . as did Egypt's Gamal Nasser consider himself to be one) that came to this area long before the Hebrews ever did and certainly longer than any mischief-making Johnny-Come-Later Ashkenazim whose indigenous origins stem from such places as Germany, Poland and Russia.  ~ Susan
> PS Why is it that one having a different opinion other than your own is considered by you to be an anti-Semite, you anti-Truth person, you?    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The vast majority of egyptians are arabic speaking muslims, but they are not arabs.  What you consider is incorrect.  So much for the truth.  It is obvious you are not a student of archaeogenetics.
Click to expand...


*Please inform Wikipedia otherwise.  ~ Susan  

Arabs - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Arabs (Arabic: عرب‎, ʿarab) are a major panethnic group.[9] They primarily inhabit Western Asia, North Africa, parts of the Horn of Africa, and other areas in the Arab world. Arabic groups which inhabit or are adjacent to the Arabian plate and Arabic speaking people include the Lebanese, Syrians, Emiratis, Qataris, Saudis, Bahrainis, Kuwaitis, Iraqis, Omanis, Jordanians, Palestinians, Yemenis, Sudanis, Algerians, Moroccans, Tunisians, Libyans, Somalis and Egyptians.
*


----------



## aris2chat

Grendelyn said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Who are the Palestinians you say?  Why, in my opinion, they're anyone who lived in the area prior to any mischief-making Ashkenazi Johnny-Come-Later German, Polish or Russian showing up who falsely claimed to be a member of a fictitious 'Lost Tribe' of biblical Hebrews.  ~ Susan  *
> 
> 
> 
> Not that you are fooling many here that you really care about the Arabs, but maybe some day you will realize that others can see you for the anti-Semite that you are and are just using these Arabs.
> 
> Jews, not Arabs, indigenous people of Holy Land
> 
> Jews not Arabs indigenous people of Holy Land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What I care about is 'truth' and the truth of the matter is, is that the Canaanites (some of whom were descendants of Egyptians and although it can be argued differently, I consider Egyptians to be Arabs . . . as did Egypt's Gamal Nasser consider himself to be one) that came to this area long before the Hebrews ever did and certainly longer than any mischief-making Johnny-Come-Later Ashkenazim whose indigenous origins stem from such places as Germany, Poland and Russia.  ~ Susan
> PS Why is it that one having a different opinion other than your own is considered by you to be an anti-Semite, you anti-Truth person, you?    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The vast majority of egyptians are arabic speaking muslims, but they are not arabs.  What you consider is incorrect.  So much for the truth.  It is obvious you are not a student of archaeogenetics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Please inform Wikipedia otherwise.  ~ Susan
> 
> Arabs - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> Arabs (Arabic: عرب‎, ʿarab) are a major panethnic group.[9] They primarily inhabit Western Asia, North Africa, parts of the Horn of Africa, and other areas in the Arab world. Arabic groups which inhabit or are adjacent to the Arabian plate and Arabic speaking people include the Lebanese, Syrians, Emiratis, Qataris, Saudis, Bahrainis, Kuwaitis, Iraqis, Omanis, Jordanians, Palestinians, Yemenis, Sudanis, Algerians, Moroccans, Tunisians, Libyans, Somalis and Egyptians.*
Click to expand...


Arabic speaking is not racially arab.  Try reading the wiki article again.  Syrians and Lebanese are not racial arabs.  Don't confuse language, politics and DNA.  Sudanese, Algerians, Moroccans, Tunisians, Libyans and Somalis are not arab.  Arabic speaking does not make one of arabic origin.  South asian arabic speaking muslims are not arabs by race.  
You are making the same error as you assumption that jews that lived in Germany, Poland or Russia are racially from those countries.


----------



## Grendelyn

aris2chat said:


> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Who are the Palestinians you say?  Why, in my opinion, they're anyone who lived in the area prior to any mischief-making Ashkenazi Johnny-Come-Later German, Polish or Russian showing up who falsely claimed to be a member of a fictitious 'Lost Tribe' of biblical Hebrews.  ~ Susan  *
> 
> 
> 
> Not that you are fooling many here that you really care about the Arabs, but maybe some day you will realize that others can see you for the anti-Semite that you are and are just using these Arabs.
> 
> Jews, not Arabs, indigenous people of Holy Land
> 
> Jews not Arabs indigenous people of Holy Land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What I care about is 'truth' and the truth of the matter is, is that the Canaanites (some of whom were descendants of Egyptians and although it can be argued differently, I consider Egyptians to be Arabs . . . as did Egypt's Gamal Nasser consider himself to be one) that came to this area long before the Hebrews ever did and certainly longer than any mischief-making Johnny-Come-Later Ashkenazim whose indigenous origins stem from such places as Germany, Poland and Russia.  ~ Susan
> PS Why is it that one having a different opinion other than your own is considered by you to be an anti-Semite, you anti-Truth person, you?    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The vast majority of egyptians are arabic speaking muslims, but they are not arabs.  What you consider is incorrect.  So much for the truth.  It is obvious you are not a student of archaeogenetics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Please inform Wikipedia otherwise.  ~ Susan
> 
> Arabs - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> Arabs (Arabic: عرب‎, ʿarab) are a major panethnic group.[9] They primarily inhabit Western Asia, North Africa, parts of the Horn of Africa, and other areas in the Arab world. Arabic groups which inhabit or are adjacent to the Arabian plate and Arabic speaking people include the Lebanese, Syrians, Emiratis, Qataris, Saudis, Bahrainis, Kuwaitis, Iraqis, Omanis, Jordanians, Palestinians, Yemenis, Sudanis, Algerians, Moroccans, Tunisians, Libyans, Somalis and Egyptians.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arabic speaking is not racially arab.  Try reading the wiki article again.  Syrians and Lebanese are not racial arabs.  Don't confuse language, politics and DNA.  Sudanese, Algerians, Moroccans, Tunisians, Libyans and Somalis are not arab.  Arabic speaking does not make one of arabic origin.  South asian arabic speaking muslims are not arabs by race.
> You are making the same error as you assumption that jews that lived in Germany, Poland or Russia are racially from those countries.
Click to expand...


*No, you please read it again without the dependent clause (which confuses you) plus the other countrymen and you get, "Arabic groups and Arabic speaking people include Egyptians."  ~ Susan
PS No, I don't assume that Ashkenazi Jews lived in Germany, Poland or Russian, I KNOW that they did and for that matter, many still do!*


----------



## P F Tinmore

aris2chat said:


> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Who are the Palestinians you say?  Why, in my opinion, they're anyone who lived in the area prior to any mischief-making Ashkenazi Johnny-Come-Later German, Polish or Russian showing up who falsely claimed to be a member of a fictitious 'Lost Tribe' of biblical Hebrews.  ~ Susan  *
> 
> 
> 
> Not that you are fooling many here that you really care about the Arabs, but maybe some day you will realize that others can see you for the anti-Semite that you are and are just using these Arabs.
> 
> Jews, not Arabs, indigenous people of Holy Land
> 
> Jews not Arabs indigenous people of Holy Land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What I care about is 'truth' and the truth of the matter is, is that the Canaanites (some of whom were descendants of Egyptians and although it can be argued differently, I consider Egyptians to be Arabs . . . as did Egypt's Gamal Nasser consider himself to be one) that came to this area long before the Hebrews ever did and certainly longer than any mischief-making Johnny-Come-Later Ashkenazim whose indigenous origins stem from such places as Germany, Poland and Russia.  ~ Susan
> PS Why is it that one having a different opinion other than your own is considered by you to be an anti-Semite, you anti-Truth person, you?    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The vast majority of egyptians are arabic speaking muslims, but they are not arabs.  What you consider is incorrect.  So much for the truth.  It is obvious you are not a student of archaeogenetics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Please inform Wikipedia otherwise.  ~ Susan
> 
> Arabs - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> Arabs (Arabic: عرب‎, ʿarab) are a major panethnic group.[9] They primarily inhabit Western Asia, North Africa, parts of the Horn of Africa, and other areas in the Arab world. Arabic groups which inhabit or are adjacent to the Arabian plate and Arabic speaking people include the Lebanese, Syrians, Emiratis, Qataris, Saudis, Bahrainis, Kuwaitis, Iraqis, Omanis, Jordanians, Palestinians, Yemenis, Sudanis, Algerians, Moroccans, Tunisians, Libyans, Somalis and Egyptians.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arabic speaking is not racially arab.  Try reading the wiki article again.  Syrians and Lebanese are not racial arabs.  Don't confuse language, politics and DNA.  Sudanese, Algerians, Moroccans, Tunisians, Libyans and Somalis are not arab.  Arabic speaking does not make one of arabic origin.  South asian arabic speaking muslims are not arabs by race.
> You are making the same error as you assumption that jews that lived in Germany, Poland or Russia are racially from those countries.
Click to expand...

So, you are saying that Egyptians, Lebanese, and Syrians are not "Arabs?"

Then who were those "Arabs" who Israel's propaganda says attacked Israel in 1948?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Grendelyn said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Who are the Palestinians you say?  Why, in my opinion, they're anyone who lived in the area prior to any mischief-making Ashkenazi Johnny-Come-Later German, Polish or Russian showing up who falsely claimed to be a member of a fictitious 'Lost Tribe' of biblical Hebrews.  ~ Susan  *
> 
> 
> 
> Not that you are fooling many here that you really care about the Arabs, but maybe some day you will realize that others can see you for the anti-Semite that you are and are just using these Arabs.
> 
> Jews, not Arabs, indigenous people of Holy Land
> 
> Jews not Arabs indigenous people of Holy Land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What I care about is 'truth' and the truth of the matter is, is that the Canaanites (some of whom were descendants of Egyptians and although it can be argued differently, I consider Egyptians to be Arabs . . . as did Egypt's Gamal Nasser consider himself to be one) that came to this area long before the Hebrews ever did and certainly longer than any mischief-making Johnny-Come-Later Ashkenazim whose indigenous origins stem from such places as Germany, Poland and Russia.  ~ Susan
> PS Why is it that one having a different opinion other than your own is considered by you to be an anti-Semite, you anti-Truth person, you?    *
Click to expand...


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not that you are fooling many here that you really care about the Arabs, but maybe some day you will realize that others can see you for the anti-Semite that you are and are just using these Arabs.
> 
> Jews, not Arabs, indigenous people of Holy Land
> 
> Jews not Arabs indigenous people of Holy Land
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What I care about is 'truth' and the truth of the matter is, is that the Canaanites (some of whom were descendants of Egyptians and although it can be argued differently, I consider Egyptians to be Arabs . . . as did Egypt's Gamal Nasser consider himself to be one) that came to this area long before the Hebrews ever did and certainly longer than any mischief-making Johnny-Come-Later Ashkenazim whose indigenous origins stem from such places as Germany, Poland and Russia.  ~ Susan
> PS Why is it that one having a different opinion other than your own is considered by you to be an anti-Semite, you anti-Truth person, you?    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The vast majority of egyptians are arabic speaking muslims, but they are not arabs.  What you consider is incorrect.  So much for the truth.  It is obvious you are not a student of archaeogenetics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Please inform Wikipedia otherwise.  ~ Susan
> 
> Arabs - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> Arabs (Arabic: عرب‎, ʿarab) are a major panethnic group.[9] They primarily inhabit Western Asia, North Africa, parts of the Horn of Africa, and other areas in the Arab world. Arabic groups which inhabit or are adjacent to the Arabian plate and Arabic speaking people include the Lebanese, Syrians, Emiratis, Qataris, Saudis, Bahrainis, Kuwaitis, Iraqis, Omanis, Jordanians, Palestinians, Yemenis, Sudanis, Algerians, Moroccans, Tunisians, Libyans, Somalis and Egyptians.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arabic speaking is not racially arab.  Try reading the wiki article again.  Syrians and Lebanese are not racial arabs.  Don't confuse language, politics and DNA.  Sudanese, Algerians, Moroccans, Tunisians, Libyans and Somalis are not arab.  Arabic speaking does not make one of arabic origin.  South asian arabic speaking muslims are not arabs by race.
> You are making the same error as you assumption that jews that lived in Germany, Poland or Russia are racially from those countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you are saying that Egyptians, Lebanese, and Syrians are not "Arabs?"
> 
> Then who were those "Arabs" who Israel's propaganda says attacked Israel in 1948?
Click to expand...


Ethnic origins and modern statehood can be quite different.  Arabs race originated from susa, mesopotamia.  The modern arabic language is more closely related to ethiopia.


----------



## P F Tinmore

aris2chat said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grendelyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What I care about is 'truth' and the truth of the matter is, is that the Canaanites (some of whom were descendants of Egyptians and although it can be argued differently, I consider Egyptians to be Arabs . . . as did Egypt's Gamal Nasser consider himself to be one) that came to this area long before the Hebrews ever did and certainly longer than any mischief-making Johnny-Come-Later Ashkenazim whose indigenous origins stem from such places as Germany, Poland and Russia.  ~ Susan
> PS Why is it that one having a different opinion other than your own is considered by you to be an anti-Semite, you anti-Truth person, you?    *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority of egyptians are arabic speaking muslims, but they are not arabs.  What you consider is incorrect.  So much for the truth.  It is obvious you are not a student of archaeogenetics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Please inform Wikipedia otherwise.  ~ Susan
> 
> Arabs - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> Arabs (Arabic: عرب‎, ʿarab) are a major panethnic group.[9] They primarily inhabit Western Asia, North Africa, parts of the Horn of Africa, and other areas in the Arab world. Arabic groups which inhabit or are adjacent to the Arabian plate and Arabic speaking people include the Lebanese, Syrians, Emiratis, Qataris, Saudis, Bahrainis, Kuwaitis, Iraqis, Omanis, Jordanians, Palestinians, Yemenis, Sudanis, Algerians, Moroccans, Tunisians, Libyans, Somalis and Egyptians.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arabic speaking is not racially arab.  Try reading the wiki article again.  Syrians and Lebanese are not racial arabs.  Don't confuse language, politics and DNA.  Sudanese, Algerians, Moroccans, Tunisians, Libyans and Somalis are not arab.  Arabic speaking does not make one of arabic origin.  South asian arabic speaking muslims are not arabs by race.
> You are making the same error as you assumption that jews that lived in Germany, Poland or Russia are racially from those countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you are saying that Egyptians, Lebanese, and Syrians are not "Arabs?"
> 
> Then who were those "Arabs" who Israel's propaganda says attacked Israel in 1948?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ethnic origins and modern statehood can be quite different.  Arabs race originated from susa, mesopotamia.  The modern arabic language is more closely related to ethiopia.
Click to expand...

OK, but what is the significance of this narrative? 

What does it matter?


----------



## Mindful

Are we any the wiser yet as to who they are?


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Coyote said:


> As I said, you need to work on your reading comprehension skills rather than making shit up.
> 
> [
> 
> You really are a hateful little feller aren't you?
> 
> I've been posting here for years.  Folks know where I stand - whether they hate me, like me, or don't give a rats ass.  I've always supported a two state solution and I've always supported Israel's right to exist along with the Palestinians right to a state.  I don't know why it's so hard for you to comprehend that but, that is your problem, not mine




 Typical turnspeak.  Any person who resists the way you people use your numerical advantage to persecute a small minority are "hateful", while your antisemitism is a virtue.

 As to people knowing where you stand, I must say I have noticed the way you get lots of likes from every revolting piece of neo Nazi filth, Islamist nutjob waging Jihad and psychotic conspiracy theorist imagining Jews as the source of that which ills them.

You have so much to be proud.


----------



## MJB12741

Mindful said:


> Are we any the wiser yet as to who they are?



Apparantly not.  I am still waiting to learn when Israel's ancient land first became this "Palestinian land" that the Palestinians & their supporters claim Israel in stealing from them.


----------



## Coyote

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, you need to work on your reading comprehension skills rather than making shit up.
> 
> [
> 
> You really are a hateful little feller aren't you?
> 
> I've been posting here for years.  Folks know where I stand - whether they hate me, like me, or don't give a rats ass.  I've always supported a two state solution and I've always supported Israel's right to exist along with the Palestinians right to a state.  I don't know why it's so hard for you to comprehend that but, that is your problem, not mine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical turnspeak.  *Any person who resists the way you people use your numerical advantage to persecute a small minority are "hateful", while your antisemitism is a virtue.*
> 
> As to people knowing where you stand, I must say I have noticed the way you get lots of likes from every revolting piece of neo Nazi filth, Islamist nutjob waging Jihad and psychotic conspiracy theorist imagining Jews as the source of that which ills them.
> 
> You have so much to be proud.
Click to expand...


Seriously dude?  I think you are a sick pathetic bitter little man.  I'd ask you show me a link to anything I've said that promotes persecution or antisemitism except everyvtime I ask you for a link you fail to produce anything.

I don't believe in persecuting any group or scapegoating any group - people are individuals and deserve to be treated as such.  A pity you have yet to learn that.


----------



## Coyote

MJB12741 said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we any the wiser yet as to who they are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparantly not.  I am still waiting to learn when Israel's ancient land first became this "Palestinian land" that the Palestinians & their supporters claim Israel in stealing from them.
Click to expand...

 
Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago - and like any ancient civilization or nation that ceased to exist, it can't come back three thousand years later and lay claims to ancient territory.  That is one of the most ridiculous basis for ownership I've ever seen.


----------



## Mindful

Coyote said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we any the wiser yet as to who they are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparantly not.  I am still waiting to learn when Israel's ancient land first became this "Palestinian land" that the Palestinians & their supporters claim Israel in stealing from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago - and like any ancient civilization or nation that ceased to exist, it can't come back three thousand years later and lay claims to ancient territory.  That is one of the most ridiculous basis for ownership I've ever seen.
Click to expand...


I've not heard that before. The UN decided it. Without the UN vote, no Israel.

Amos Oz wrote about it in his auto biography. You might like to read it.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Coyote said:


> Seriously dude?  I think you are a sick pathetic bitter little man.  I'd ask you show me a link to anything I've said that promotes persecution or antisemitism except everyvtime I ask you for a link you fail to produce anything.
> 
> I don't believe in persecuting any group or scapegoating any group - people are individuals and deserve to be treated as such.  A pity you have yet to learn that.




and I think you are an unevolved piece of double-talking excrement whose very mission is to indulge in deceit and promote the mission of those who seek the death of Jews above all else.  

 Not ONCE have you been willing to discuss the genocidal ambitions of Hamas, the degree to which this is supported in the general population, or the nature of Palestinian culture. All you do is defend, defend, defend as you see that as your mission in life.


----------



## Coyote

Mindful said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we any the wiser yet as to who they are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparantly not.  I am still waiting to learn when Israel's ancient land first became this "Palestinian land" that the Palestinians & their supporters claim Israel in stealing from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago - and like any ancient civilization or nation that ceased to exist, it can't come back three thousand years later and lay claims to ancient territory.  That is one of the most ridiculous basis for ownership I've ever seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've not heard that before. The UN decided it. Without the UN vote, no Israel.
> 
> Amos Oz wrote about it in his auto biography. You might like to read it.
Click to expand...


I like Amos Oz - have read short pieces by him, but not his auto biography. Fascinating person


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Coyote said:


> Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago - and like any ancient civilization or nation that ceased to exist, it can't come back three thousand years later and lay claims to ancient territory.  That is one of the most ridiculous basis for ownership I've ever seen.




Yeah -- a culture that has existed for over three thousand years has no right to self determination.

....but, by golly, one that was made up out of whole cloth a few decades ago sure does!


----------



## Coyote

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously dude?  I think you are a sick pathetic bitter little man.  I'd ask you show me a link to anything I've said that promotes persecution or antisemitism except everyvtime I ask you for a link you fail to produce anything.
> 
> I don't believe in persecuting any group or scapegoating any group - people are individuals and deserve to be treated as such.  A pity you have yet to learn that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and I think you are an unevolved piece of double-talking excrement whose very mission is to indulge in deceit and promote the mission of those who seek the death of Jews above all else.
> 
> Not ONCE have you been willing to discuss the genocidal ambitions of Hamas, the degree to which this is supported in the general population, or the nature of Palestinian culture. All you do is defend, defend, defend as you see that as your mission in life.
Click to expand...


I've given my opinions in various threads on Hamas.  As far as Palestinian culture?  I don't agree with your view that all Palestinians (and Muslims) are subhuman monstrosities.  Save your racism for someone else to swallow.


----------



## Coyote

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago - and like any ancient civilization or nation that ceased to exist, it can't come back three thousand years later and lay claims to ancient territory.  That is one of the most ridiculous basis for ownership I've ever seen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah -- a culture that has existed for over three thousand years *has no right to self determination*.
Click to expand...


Ok...making shit up again are you?  The comment was referring to using ancient nations as a means to make modern claims on land.  Try to keep up.



> ....but, by golly, one that was made up out of whole cloth a few decades ago sure does!




That's a pretty stupid thing to say.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Coyote said:


> I've given my opinions in various threads on Hamas.  As far as Palestinian culture?  I don't agree with your view that all Palestinians (and Muslims) are subhuman monstrosities.  Save your racism for someone else to swallow.



I never said all, antisemite.    The words "the degree to which" beliefs are held indicates that not all hold them, but since a seriously high percentage DO,  one must take that fact into consideration.

The problem here isn't that I consider those who wish to commit genocide to be subhuman monsters, but that you DON'T.   You have made this quite clear.


----------



## Coyote

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've given my opinions in various threads on Hamas.  As far as Palestinian culture?  I don't agree with your view that all Palestinians (and Muslims) are subhuman monstrosities.  Save your racism for someone else to swallow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said all, antisemite.    The words "the degree to which" beliefs are held indicates that not all hold them, but since a seriously high percentage DO,  one must take that fact into consideration.
> 
> The problem here isn't that I consider those who wish to commit genocide to be subhuman monsters, but that you DON'T.   You have made this quite clear.
Click to expand...



What I have made clear is that I don't support genocide period.  Should the Palestinians as a whole attempt to conduct genocide (such as the Serbs, or Rwanda, or ISIS) then my opinion of them as a group will change.  Until then, most of their actions are an attempt to gain a nation and it's impossible to seperate that out from the other issues until they have a nation.  Give them a nation, and hold them to acceptable norms of conduct.  If they fail, they fail.  If they attempt genocide - then I'll put them right up there with the Serbs, ISIS, Rwanda etc etc.  The degree to which you concern yourself with genocide, however, seems very narrowly defined.

So....care to produce any quotes that indicate I'm an antisemite?  Or is this when you do your disappearing act again?


----------



## Penelope

The Palestinians  are a group of people encaged and oppressed by a Zionist communistic group who think the Palestinians should drift into the sea without boats or life jackets.


----------



## Mindful

Coyote said:


> Until then, most of their actions are an attempt to gain a nation.



Actions like shooting two Israeli girls at a bus stop, and stabbing  an IDF soldier in Tel Aviv?


----------



## Coyote

Mindful said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until then, most of their actions are an attempt to gain a nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actions like shooting two Israeli girls at a bus stop, and stabbing  an IDF soldier in Tel Aviv?
Click to expand...


Their actions have included terrorism and terrorism is terrorism - but it's not necessarily genocide.  And the terrorism is in an attempt to gain a nation.  That doesn't excuse the terrorism in any way.


----------



## Mindful

Coyote said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until then, most of their actions are an attempt to gain a nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actions like shooting two Israeli girls at a bus stop, and stabbing  an IDF soldier in Tel Aviv?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their actions have included terrorism and terrorism is terrorism - but it's not necessarily genocide.  And the terrorism is in an attempt to gain a nation.  That doesn't excuse the terrorism in any way.
Click to expand...


Not necessarily  genocide? Are you serious?

Then you creat some ambivalence  by justifying terrorism, and then in the next sentence,  not excusing it.


----------



## Coyote

Mindful said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until then, most of their actions are an attempt to gain a nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actions like shooting two Israeli girls at a bus stop, and stabbing  an IDF soldier in Tel Aviv?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their actions have included terrorism and terrorism is terrorism - but it's not necessarily genocide.  And the terrorism is in an attempt to gain a nation.  That doesn't excuse the terrorism in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessarily  genocide? Are you serious?
> 
> Then you creat some ambivalence  by justifying terrorism, and then in the next sentence,  not excusing it.
Click to expand...


Genocide: Genocide - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
*Genocide* is the systematic destruction of all or a significant part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group. Well-known examples of genocide include the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, and more recently the Rwandan genocide.

Are you going to tell me that all terrorism is genocide?

As far as "justifying" - it's not.in my opinon "justifiable" but many so-called resistance groups and "freedom fighters" engage in it including Israel in it's founding.  Admitting reality is not "justifying".  It is what it is and those who use it will justify it in terms of the ends justifies the means.


----------



## Mindful

Coyote said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until then, most of their actions are an attempt to gain a nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actions like shooting two Israeli girls at a bus stop, and stabbing  an IDF soldier in Tel Aviv?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their actions have included terrorism and terrorism is terrorism - but it's not necessarily genocide.  And the terrorism is in an attempt to gain a nation.  That doesn't excuse the terrorism in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessarily  genocide? Are you serious?
> 
> Then you creat some ambivalence  by justifying terrorism, and then in the next sentence,  not excusing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Genocide: Genocide - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> *Genocide* is the systematic destruction of all or a significant part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group. Well-known examples of genocide include the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, and more recently the Rwandan genocide.
> 
> Are you going to tell me that all terrorism is genocide?
> 
> As far as "justifying" - it's not.in my opinon "justifiable" but many so-called resistance groups and "freedom fighters" engage in it including Israel in it's founding.  Admitting reality is not "justifying".  It is what it is and those who use it will justify it in terms of the ends justifies the means.
Click to expand...



I just don't "get" you.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Coyote said:


> What I have made clear is that I don't support genocide period.  Should the Palestinians as a whole attempt to conduct genocide (such as the Serbs, or Rwanda, or ISIS) then my opinion of them as a group will change.  Until then, most of their actions are an attempt to gain a nation and it's impossible to seperate that out from the other issues until they have a nation.  Give them a nation, and hold them to acceptable norms of conduct.  If they fail, they fail.  If they attempt genocide - then I'll put them right up there with the Serbs, ISIS, Rwanda etc etc.  The degree to which you concern yourself with genocide, however, seems very narrowly defined.
> 
> So....care to produce any quotes that indicate I'm an antisemite?  Or is this when you do your disappearing act again?




  I find it interesting how you will go to such lengths to offer your support for a concept while attempting to deny that you do.

 Your pathetic rationalization that you support their terrorism since it is their method to gain this "state" (even though they could have had one long ago), and only at that time when they have one would you possibly object to their stated aim of genocide of Jews .... well, ...it is beyond the pale.  Especially since you are on record as supporting the overwhelming of the Jewish state with Arabs committed to genocide, I would say your antisemitism is quite well established.

Again, I realize that you have not yet evolved as a human, but really now -- it is high time you started the process.


----------



## Mindful

The Peacemakers.


Peacemakers by Ryan Bellerose Israellycool


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Mindful said:


> I just don't "get" you.




My money is on Muslim Brotherhood.  The long established pattern of deceit, and underhanded double talk just screams it. 

 My other  working theory is that she (or he) works for child protective services in Rotherham.  It's hard to tell. 

 In any case, we have here an operative with a long track record that extends to several years and across different boards.


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we any the wiser yet as to who they are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparantly not.  I am still waiting to learn when Israel's ancient land first became this "Palestinian land" that the Palestinians & their supporters claim Israel in stealing from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago - and like any ancient civilization or nation that ceased to exist, it can't come back three thousand years later and lay claims to ancient territory.  That is one of the most ridiculous basis for ownership I've ever seen.
Click to expand...


Land was renamed by conquerors, but the people/children of "Israel" continued on, even in what became the mandate.  As a race, like the native <indians> of america, even being moved and dispersed through the general population, they still exist as a people.  They do not just cease to exist.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Mindful said:


> The Peacemakers.
> 
> 
> Peacemakers by Ryan Bellerose Israellycool



 Great piece.   I especially liked this line   "It may surprise you to hear that that statement is not what made me angry, I can almost respect someone who is at least honest about their bigotry and hatred."

I tend to feel the same way in that it is all of Coyote's revolting double talk that is more offensive than if the creature would just be honest about what he or she is doing . 

 The continuous support for something coupled with copious denial that his is what one is doing a most familiar technique of those who are seriously intent on agitprop.  I might say "schooled" in agitprop, but I do not know for sure.


----------



## Coyote

Mindful said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until then, most of their actions are an attempt to gain a nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actions like shooting two Israeli girls at a bus stop, and stabbing  an IDF soldier in Tel Aviv?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their actions have included terrorism and terrorism is terrorism - but it's not necessarily genocide.  And the terrorism is in an attempt to gain a nation.  That doesn't excuse the terrorism in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessarily  genocide? Are you serious?
> 
> Then you creat some ambivalence  by justifying terrorism, and then in the next sentence,  not excusing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Genocide: Genocide - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> *Genocide* is the systematic destruction of all or a significant part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group. Well-known examples of genocide include the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, and more recently the Rwandan genocide.
> 
> Are you going to tell me that all terrorism is genocide?
> 
> As far as "justifying" - it's not.in my opinon "justifiable" but many so-called resistance groups and "freedom fighters" engage in it including Israel in it's founding.  Admitting reality is not "justifying".  It is what it is and those who use it will justify it in terms of the ends justifies the means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't "get" you.
Click to expand...


People will use terrorism for a variety of things - it's not necessarily for genocide, in fact it often isn't.  That's what I'm trying to say.  I don't understand why you consider the two the same when they're really two very different things though there can be overlap.


----------



## Coyote

Dogmaphobe said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Peacemakers.
> 
> 
> Peacemakers by Ryan Bellerose Israellycool
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great piece.   I especially liked this line   "It may surprise you to hear that that statement is not what made me angry, I can almost respect someone who is at least honest about their bigotry and hatred."
> 
> I tend to feel the same way in that it is all of Coyote's revolting double talk that is more offensive than if the creature would just be honest about what he or she is doing .
> 
> The continuous support for something coupled with copious denial that his is what one is doing a most familiar technique of those who are seriously intent on agitprop.  I might say "schooled" in agitprop, but I do not know for sure.
Click to expand...


I say exactly what I think and feel and your non-stop attempt to put words in my mouth doesn't alter that.

Have you come up with any links supporting your claims? Or are you going to lie your way out of this by inventing something?


----------



## Mindful

Coyote said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actions like shooting two Israeli girls at a bus stop, and stabbing  an IDF soldier in Tel Aviv?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their actions have included terrorism and terrorism is terrorism - but it's not necessarily genocide.  And the terrorism is in an attempt to gain a nation.  That doesn't excuse the terrorism in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessarily  genocide? Are you serious?
> 
> Then you creat some ambivalence  by justifying terrorism, and then in the next sentence,  not excusing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Genocide: Genocide - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> *Genocide* is the systematic destruction of all or a significant part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group. Well-known examples of genocide include the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, and more recently the Rwandan genocide.
> 
> Are you going to tell me that all terrorism is genocide?
> 
> As far as "justifying" - it's not.in my opinon "justifiable" but many so-called resistance groups and "freedom fighters" engage in it including Israel in it's founding.  Admitting reality is not "justifying".  It is what it is and those who use it will justify it in terms of the ends justifies the means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't "get" you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People will use terrorism for a variety of things - it's not necessarily for genocide, in fact it often isn't.  That's what I'm trying to say.  I don't understand why you consider the two the same when they're really two very different things though there can be overlap.
Click to expand...



It's not NECESSARILY genocide? 

I'll bear that in mind when ISIS turns up to chop my head off.


----------



## Coyote

Dogmaphobe said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't "get" you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My money is on Muslim Brotherhood.  The long established pattern of deceit, and underhanded double talk just screams it.
> 
> My other  working theory is that she (or he) works for child protective services in Rotherham.  It's hard to tell.
> 
> In any case, we have here an operative with a long track record that extends to several years and across different boards.
Click to expand...


You are just so flipping weird 

Ok...I admit it.  I'm a stealth member of the MB cleverly disguised as a flea bitten liberal.  I am really a male humanoid, with 6 wives and 68 children all of whom live in a tent in a desert in New Mexico hard at work designing ever new and more effective methods of dispensing propoganda.  We currently have a cell phone app that sends subliminal Islamic messages into your brain through your fitness device while you are sleeping.  We also have a new brand of drink mix - Agipop - that's like a combo of Pop Rocks meets Koolaide, that turns drinkers into Zombie Ayatollahs.  Unfortunately....we're still working on the beta here as it's addicts show a disarming tendancy to go prostrate multiple times a day with their fannies in the air yelling "Jesus Akhbar Hail the Virgin Mary Drinks are on Us".  It's a work in progress but we anticipate great results by years end.  Then, not to leave out the kiddies we have a new toy in development but already out in several select markets.  It's the Allah Bear - a cute stuffed critter with a plush turban and when you hug it it simultaneously farts and utters soothing words of religious dogma.  And I bet you thought you were just having a gassy night


----------



## Coyote

Mindful said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their actions have included terrorism and terrorism is terrorism - but it's not necessarily genocide.  And the terrorism is in an attempt to gain a nation.  That doesn't excuse the terrorism in any way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily  genocide? Are you serious?
> 
> Then you creat some ambivalence  by justifying terrorism, and then in the next sentence,  not excusing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Genocide: Genocide - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> *Genocide* is the systematic destruction of all or a significant part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group. Well-known examples of genocide include the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, and more recently the Rwandan genocide.
> 
> Are you going to tell me that all terrorism is genocide?
> 
> As far as "justifying" - it's not.in my opinon "justifiable" but many so-called resistance groups and "freedom fighters" engage in it including Israel in it's founding.  Admitting reality is not "justifying".  It is what it is and those who use it will justify it in terms of the ends justifies the means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't "get" you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People will use terrorism for a variety of things - it's not necessarily for genocide, in fact it often isn't.  That's what I'm trying to say.  I don't understand why you consider the two the same when they're really two very different things though there can be overlap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not NECESSARILY genocide?
> 
> I'll bear that in mind when ISIS turns up to chop my head off.
Click to expand...


Seriously.  Think about it.

Terrorism.

Genocide.

So the Unibomber was conducting genocide?  Timothy McVeigh?  The Taliban?

ISIS trying to slaughter the Azidi's and other minorities may very well be conducting genocide (I think there have been war crimes and genocide charges levied).  The Rwandan civil war was genocide, not terrorism.

The two can overlap but they are often two different things.  Not all terrorism is genocide.

I don't "get" you.

PS - chopping your head off isn't "genocide".  It's murder.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Coyote said:


> I say exactly what I think and feel and your non-stop attempt to put words in my mouth doesn't alter that.
> 
> Have you come up with any links supporting your claims? Or are you going to lie your way out of this by inventing something?




Yes, you say what you think and feel all the time.


and in the next breath, deny it.

In this very thread, you have indicated you are down with terrorism of Jews -- both through your very intentional blurring of the distinction between terrorism and freedom fighting as well as your supporting it as the means for Arabs to create yet another state.

This indicates you to be very lowly evolved in terms of moral awareness. Your lack of ability to understand that morality is a rational construct places you as extremely primitive in this regard. 

I would suggest others here read up on Kohlberg's stages of moral  development in order to understand exactly how primitive.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Coyote said:


> You are just so flipping weird
> 
> Ok...I admit it.  I'm a stealth member of the MB cleverly disguised as a flea bitten liberal.  I am really a male humanoid, with 6 wives and 68 children all of whom live in a tent in a desert in New Mexico hard at work designing ever new and more effective methods of dispensing propoganda.  We currently have a cell phone app that sends subliminal Islamic messages into your brain through your fitness device while you are sleeping.  We also have a new brand of drink mix - Agipop - that's like a combo of Pop Rocks meets Koolaide, that turns drinkers into Zombie Ayatollahs.  Unfortunately....we're still working on the beta here as it's addicts show a disarming tendancy to go prostrate multiple times a day with their fannies in the air yelling "Jesus Akhbar Hail the Virgin Mary Drinks are on Us".  It's a work in progress but we anticipate great results by years end.  Then, not to leave out the kiddies we have a new toy in development but already out in several select markets.  It's the Allah Bear - a cute stuffed critter with a plush turban and when you hug it it simultaneously farts and utters soothing words of religious dogma.  And I bet you thought you were just having a gassy night



 That is an awfully poor disguise, because I have yet to see you support any liberal principle.


----------



## Coyote

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I have made clear is that I don't support genocide period.  Should the Palestinians as a whole attempt to conduct genocide (such as the Serbs, or Rwanda, or ISIS) then my opinion of them as a group will change.  Until then, most of their actions are an attempt to gain a nation and it's impossible to seperate that out from the other issues until they have a nation.  Give them a nation, and hold them to acceptable norms of conduct.  If they fail, they fail.  If they attempt genocide - then I'll put them right up there with the Serbs, ISIS, Rwanda etc etc.  The degree to which you concern yourself with genocide, however, seems very narrowly defined.
> 
> So....care to produce any quotes that indicate I'm an antisemite?  Or is this when you do your disappearing act again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it interesting how you will go to such lengths to offer your support for a concept while attempting to deny that you do.
> 
> Your pathetic rationalization that you support their terrorism since it is their method to gain this "state" (even though they could have had one long ago), and only at that time when they have one would you possibly object to their stated aim of genocide of Jews .... well, ...it is beyond the pale.  Especially since you are on record as supporting the overwhelming of the Jewish state with Arabs committed to genocide, I would say your antisemitism is quite well established.
> 
> Again, I realize that you have not yet evolved as a human, but really now -- it is high time you started the process.
Click to expand...


What ever floats your boat dude.  Can't come up with any quotes can you?  As usual 

Oh...and as for my being on record as "_as supporting the overwhelming of the Jewish state with Arabs committed to genocide_" - please, do show me where because that's a new one on me.  I support a two-state solution.


----------



## Coyote

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say exactly what I think and feel and your non-stop attempt to put words in my mouth doesn't alter that.
> 
> Have you come up with any links supporting your claims? Or are you going to lie your way out of this by inventing something?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you say what you think and feel all the time.
> 
> 
> and in the next breath, deny it.
> 
> In this very thread, you have indicated you are down with terrorism of Jews -- both through your very intentional blurring of the distinction between terrorism and freedom fighting as well as your supporting it as the means for Arabs to create yet another state.
> 
> This indicates you to be very lowly evolved in terms of moral awareness. Your lack of ability to understand that morality is a rational construct places you as extremely primitive in this regard.
> 
> I would suggest others here read up on Kohlberg's stages of moral  development in order to understand exactly how primitive.
Click to expand...


Can't find any quotes to support your slop? Are you just going to keep on this road?

Terrorism vs. Freedom Fighting.  Most so-called "freedom fighters' end up using terrorism and their supporters try to justify it by the "end justifies the means".  Even you had to struggle to come up with just one example and it was a tiny US example.  The majority of what people like to call "freedom fighters" aren't - they are simply the terrorist group who won and got to white wash their atrocities in the guise of legitimacy so people like you can cheer them on and call them "civilized".


----------



## Coyote

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we any the wiser yet as to who they are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparantly not.  I am still waiting to learn when Israel's ancient land first became this "Palestinian land" that the Palestinians & their supporters claim Israel in stealing from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago - and like any ancient civilization or nation that ceased to exist, it can't come back three thousand years later and lay claims to ancient territory.  That is one of the most ridiculous basis for ownership I've ever seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Land was renamed by conquerors, but the people/children of "Israel" continued on, even in what became the mandate.  As a race, like the native <indians> of america, even being moved and dispersed through the general population, they still exist as a people.  They do not just cease to exist.
Click to expand...


I agree - but what I'm saying is you can't use a nation that existed 3000 years ago to make modern claims on land.  Otherwise Italy would have the right to claim huge swaths of land it occupied when it was Rome.  Simiilar with a lot of historic groups that exist today in a much smaller way.


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we any the wiser yet as to who they are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparantly not.  I am still waiting to learn when Israel's ancient land first became this "Palestinian land" that the Palestinians & their supporters claim Israel in stealing from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago - and like any ancient civilization or nation that ceased to exist, it can't come back three thousand years later and lay claims to ancient territory.  That is one of the most ridiculous basis for ownership I've ever seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Land was renamed by conquerors, but the people/children of "Israel" continued on, even in what became the mandate.  As a race, like the native <indians> of america, even being moved and dispersed through the general population, they still exist as a people.  They do not just cease to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree - but what I'm saying is you can't use a nation that existed 3000 years ago to make modern claims on land.  Otherwise Italy would have the right to claim huge swaths of land it occupied when it was Rome.  Simiilar with a lot of historic groups that exist today in a much smaller way.
Click to expand...


Even Abraham purchased land to bury his wife.  It depends on the region, how much was documented and preserved.
You can find land sales on clay cuneiform tables.  Even among the dead sea scrolls there are land and marriage documents, everyday official records.
It's an old moon, full moon was around 4 or 5 days ago, so why the craziness?  Did no one get their coffee or tea this morning?


----------



## Coyote

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we any the wiser yet as to who they are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparantly not.  I am still waiting to learn when Israel's ancient land first became this "Palestinian land" that the Palestinians & their supporters claim Israel in stealing from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago - and like any ancient civilization or nation that ceased to exist, it can't come back three thousand years later and lay claims to ancient territory.  That is one of the most ridiculous basis for ownership I've ever seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Land was renamed by conquerors, but the people/children of "Israel" continued on, even in what became the mandate.  As a race, like the native <indians> of america, even being moved and dispersed through the general population, they still exist as a people.  They do not just cease to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree - but what I'm saying is you can't use a nation that existed 3000 years ago to make modern claims on land.  Otherwise Italy would have the right to claim huge swaths of land it occupied when it was Rome.  Simiilar with a lot of historic groups that exist today in a much smaller way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even Abraham purchased land to bury his wife.  It depends on the region, how much was documented and preserved.
> You can find land sales on clay cuneiform tables.  Even among the dead sea scrolls there are land and marriage documents, everyday official records.
> It's an old moon, full moon was around 4 or 5 days ago, so why the craziness?  Did no one get their coffee or tea this morning?
Click to expand...


Too much Baileys in their cappaccino?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Mindful said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we any the wiser yet as to who they are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparantly not.  I am still waiting to learn when Israel's ancient land first became this "Palestinian land" that the Palestinians & their supporters claim Israel in stealing from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago - and like any ancient civilization or nation that ceased to exist, it can't come back three thousand years later and lay claims to ancient territory.  That is one of the most ridiculous basis for ownership I've ever seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've not heard that before. The UN decided it. Without the UN vote, no Israel.
> 
> Amos Oz wrote about it in his auto biography. You might like to read it.
Click to expand...

Uhhh, the UN did not create Israel.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Our friend P F Tinmore is correct.  



P F Tinmore said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we any the wiser yet as to who they are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparantly not.  I am still waiting to learn when Israel's ancient land first became this "Palestinian land" that the Palestinians & their supporters claim Israel in stealing from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago - and like any ancient civilization or nation that ceased to exist, it can't come back three thousand years later and lay claims to ancient territory.  That is one of the most ridiculous basis for ownership I've ever seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've not heard that before. The UN decided it. Without the UN vote, no Israel.
> 
> Amos Oz wrote about it in his auto biography. You might like to read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uhhh, the UN did not create Israel.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The UN recommended the apportionment of territory within the Mandate of Palestine.  However, the Jewish population, having completed the "Step Preparatory to Independence" _(in coordination with the Successor Government to the Mandate and pursuant to UN/UNSC Guidance)_, exercised their right of self-determination, fought a War of Independence, and created the State of Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Our friend P F Tinmore is correct.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we any the wiser yet as to who they are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparantly not.  I am still waiting to learn when Israel's ancient land first became this "Palestinian land" that the Palestinians & their supporters claim Israel in stealing from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago - and like any ancient civilization or nation that ceased to exist, it can't come back three thousand years later and lay claims to ancient territory.  That is one of the most ridiculous basis for ownership I've ever seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've not heard that before. The UN decided it. Without the UN vote, no Israel.
> 
> Amos Oz wrote about it in his auto biography. You might like to read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uhhh, the UN did not create Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The UN recommended the apportionment of territory within the Mandate of Palestine.  However, the Jewish population, having completed the "Step Preparatory to Independence" _(in coordination with the Successor Government to the Mandate and pursuant to UN/UNSC Guidance)_, exercised their right of self-determination, fought a War of Independence, and created the State of Israel.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Independent from whom?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Not from whom.  The question presumes that to declare independence, you must declare that independence from a higher authority.  This is a false presumption.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Our friend P F Tinmore is correct.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparantly not.  I am still waiting to learn when Israel's ancient land first became this "Palestinian land" that the Palestinians & their supporters claim Israel in stealing from them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago - and like any ancient civilization or nation that ceased to exist, it can't come back three thousand years later and lay claims to ancient territory.  That is one of the most ridiculous basis for ownership I've ever seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've not heard that before. The UN decided it. Without the UN vote, no Israel.
> 
> Amos Oz wrote about it in his auto biography. You might like to read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uhhh, the UN did not create Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The UN recommended the apportionment of territory within the Mandate of Palestine.  However, the Jewish population, having completed the "Step Preparatory to Independence" _(in coordination with the Successor Government to the Mandate and pursuant to UN/UNSC Guidance)_, exercised their right of self-determination, fought a War of Independence, and created the State of Israel.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Independent from whom?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The UN, having recognized the readiness --- released the trusteeship via Article 76b of the UN Charter _(development towards self-government or independence as may be appropriate)_, and by completing the "Step Preparatory to Independence."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we any the wiser yet as to who they are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparantly not.  I am still waiting to learn when Israel's ancient land first became this "Palestinian land" that the Palestinians & their supporters claim Israel in stealing from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago - and like any ancient civilization or nation that ceased to exist, it can't come back three thousand years later and lay claims to ancient territory.  That is one of the most ridiculous basis for ownership I've ever seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've not heard that before. The UN decided it. Without the UN vote, no Israel.
> 
> Amos Oz wrote about it in his auto biography. You might like to read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uhhh, the UN did not create Israel.
Click to expand...


Absolutely correct.  The UN did not "create Israel."  Israel has existed for thousnds of years before there was any UN.  And who said Tinmore never gets it right?


----------



## Mindful

P F Tinmore said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we any the wiser yet as to who they are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparantly not.  I am still waiting to learn when Israel's ancient land first became this "Palestinian land" that the Palestinians & their supporters claim Israel in stealing from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago - and like any ancient civilization or nation that ceased to exist, it can't come back three thousand years later and lay claims to ancient territory.  That is one of the most ridiculous basis for ownership I've ever seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've not heard that before. The UN decided it. Without the UN vote, no Israel.
> 
> Amos Oz wrote about it in his auto biography. You might like to read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uhhh, the UN did not create Israel.
Click to expand...



I didn't say "create. I said "decide"

There's a difference between those two words.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Mindful said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we any the wiser yet as to who they are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparantly not.  I am still waiting to learn when Israel's ancient land first became this "Palestinian land" that the Palestinians & their supporters claim Israel in stealing from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago - and like any ancient civilization or nation that ceased to exist, it can't come back three thousand years later and lay claims to ancient territory.  That is one of the most ridiculous basis for ownership I've ever seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've not heard that before. The UN decided it. Without the UN vote, no Israel.
> 
> Amos Oz wrote about it in his auto biography. You might like to read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uhhh, the UN did not create Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say "create. I said "decide"
> 
> There's a difference between those two words.
Click to expand...

Either way it does not make any difference. Resolution 181 (a non binding General Assembly resolution) *recommended* that the Security Council partition Palestine. The Security Council did not. Resolution 181 didn't happen.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Dr Ghada Karmi*

**


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Dr Ghada Karmi*
> 
> **



Eh, whatever happened to that wonderful "peace activist" Hannan Ashrawi?


----------



## Coyote

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we any the wiser yet as to who they are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparantly not.  I am still waiting to learn when Israel's ancient land first became this "Palestinian land" that the Palestinians & their supporters claim Israel in stealing from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago - and like any ancient civilization or nation that ceased to exist, it can't come back three thousand years later and lay claims to ancient territory.  That is one of the most ridiculous basis for ownership I've ever seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've not heard that before. The UN decided it. Without the UN vote, no Israel.
> 
> Amos Oz wrote about it in his auto biography. You might like to read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uhhh, the UN did not create Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely correct.  The UN did not "create Israel."  Israel has existed for thousnds of years before there was any UN.  And who said Tinmore never gets it right?
Click to expand...


Well no.  It hasn't "existed for thousands of years".  It totally ceased to exist thousands of years ago and was only recreated in modern times.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Coyote said:


> Well no.  It hasn't "existed for thousands of years".  It totally ceased to exist thousands of years ago and was only recreated in modern times.




You pro-terrorist antisemites can say anything you want, but that does not change the truth of the matter, namely that the Jewish nation has existed for over three millennia and Jewish presence on the land extends for that entire time. The nation-state of Israel did not always exist on the land in question, but the nation of Jewish people have a written history going back over three thousand.

It is only because you are such a filthy, double-talking hater of Jews that you pursue all this pro-terrorist crap of yours.


----------



## MJB12741

Coyote said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparantly not.  I am still waiting to learn when Israel's ancient land first became this "Palestinian land" that the Palestinians & their supporters claim Israel in stealing from them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago - and like any ancient civilization or nation that ceased to exist, it can't come back three thousand years later and lay claims to ancient territory.  That is one of the most ridiculous basis for ownership I've ever seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've not heard that before. The UN decided it. Without the UN vote, no Israel.
> 
> Amos Oz wrote about it in his auto biography. You might like to read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uhhh, the UN did not create Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely correct.  The UN did not "create Israel."  Israel has existed for thousnds of years before there was any UN.  And who said Tinmore never gets it right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well no.  It hasn't "existed for thousands of years".  It totally ceased to exist thousands of years ago and was only recreated in modern times.
Click to expand...


Link please documenting that Israel "ceased to exist thousands of years ago."


----------



## Coyote

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well no.  It hasn't "existed for thousands of years".  It totally ceased to exist thousands of years ago and was only recreated in modern times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You pro-terrorist antisemites can say anything you want, but that does not change the truth of the matter, namely that the Jewish nation has existed for over three millennia and Jewish presence on the land extends for that entire time. The nation-state of Israel did not always exist on the land in question, but the nation of Jewish people have a written history going back over three thousand.
> 
> It is only because you are such a filthy, double-talking hater of Jews that you pursue all this pro-terrorist crap of yours.
Click to expand...


Let's talk about "truth" (never mind the fact that you have yet to substantiate any of your accusations).

We are talking about Israel.  The nation.  Have you figured that part out yet?  Go back and read the pertinent posts if you are confused.  Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago.  It's an ancient Kingdom that is long gone.  In that regard - it's like a lot of ancient kingdoms that are gone but who's people remain.

This isn't rocket science dude.


----------



## Coyote

MJB12741 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago - and like any ancient civilization or nation that ceased to exist, it can't come back three thousand years later and lay claims to ancient territory.  That is one of the most ridiculous basis for ownership I've ever seen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've not heard that before. The UN decided it. Without the UN vote, no Israel.
> 
> Amos Oz wrote about it in his auto biography. You might like to read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uhhh, the UN did not create Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely correct.  The UN did not "create Israel."  Israel has existed for thousnds of years before there was any UN.  And who said Tinmore never gets it right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well no.  It hasn't "existed for thousands of years".  It totally ceased to exist thousands of years ago and was only recreated in modern times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link please documenting that Israel "ceased to exist thousands of years ago."
Click to expand...


Kingdom of Israel Samaria - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Coyote said:


> Let's talk about "truth" (never mind the fact that you have yet to substantiate any of your accusations).
> 
> We are talking about Israel.  The nation.  Have you figured that part out yet?  Go back and read the pertinent posts if you are confused.  Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago.  It's an ancient Kingdom that is long gone.  In that regard - it's like a lot of ancient kingdoms that are gone but who's people remain.
> 
> This isn't rocket science dude.




I realize your hatred of Jews blinds you to all else, but a nation of people and a nation-state are different concepts. 

Speaking of which, the terrorist group you support did not exist as one until they were invented quite intentionally just a few decades ago, and NEVER existed as the other.


----------



## MJB12741

Coyote said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've not heard that before. The UN decided it. Without the UN vote, no Israel.
> 
> Amos Oz wrote about it in his auto biography. You might like to read it.
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhh, the UN did not create Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely correct.  The UN did not "create Israel."  Israel has existed for thousnds of years before there was any UN.  And who said Tinmore never gets it right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well no.  It hasn't "existed for thousands of years".  It totally ceased to exist thousands of years ago and was only recreated in modern times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link please documenting that Israel "ceased to exist thousands of years ago."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kingdom of Israel Samaria - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Your link only shows that the ancient kingdoms of Israel were destroyed.  Not that they ceased to exist as you claim.  Gaza was just recently destroyed. Does Gaza no longer exist?


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhh, the UN did not create Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely correct.  The UN did not "create Israel."  Israel has existed for thousnds of years before there was any UN.  And who said Tinmore never gets it right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well no.  It hasn't "existed for thousands of years".  It totally ceased to exist thousands of years ago and was only recreated in modern times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link please documenting that Israel "ceased to exist thousands of years ago."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kingdom of Israel Samaria - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your link only shows that the ancient kingdoms of Israel were destroyed.  Not that they ceased to exist as you claim.  Gaza was just recently destroyed. Does Gaza no longer exist?
Click to expand...


Now, that's what I call grasping at straws. LOL


----------



## Coyote

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's talk about "truth" (never mind the fact that you have yet to substantiate any of your accusations).
> 
> We are talking about Israel.  The nation.  Have you figured that part out yet?  Go back and read the pertinent posts if you are confused.  Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago.  It's an ancient Kingdom that is long gone.  In that regard - it's like a lot of ancient kingdoms that are gone but who's people remain.
> 
> This isn't rocket science dude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize your hatred of Jews blinds you to all else, but a nation of people and a nation-state are different concepts.
> 
> Speaking of which, the terrorist group you support did not exist as one until they were invented quite intentionally just a few decades ago, and NEVER existed as the other.
Click to expand...


You can talk about a "nation" as in a species or a group of people.  You can talk about a nation as in a nation-state.  When you talk about the Jewish Nation, you are talking a people.  When you are talking about Israel you are talking about a nation-state.  Do you understand the difference and can you apply that difference to this discussion in a logical manner?

For your reference, this is the statement that we've been discussing: " Absolutely correct. The UN did not "create Israel."* Israel has existed for thousnds of years* before there was any UN. And who said Tinmore never gets it right?"

Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago.  What we call Israel today is a modern invention - not an ancient state.  There are a lot of people who had nations attached to them at various points in history and who exist now within other states as a people but not a nation-state.  Has Kurdistan existed for centuries?  How about Circassia?  The people are there. They have their identity.  But any nation long ago ceased to exist.

So, speaking of "hatred" - can you come up with anything to support your claims or should I assume this is just more empty bloviating on your part?


----------



## Coyote

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely correct.  The UN did not "create Israel."  Israel has existed for thousnds of years before there was any UN.  And who said Tinmore never gets it right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no.  It hasn't "existed for thousands of years".  It totally ceased to exist thousands of years ago and was only recreated in modern times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link please documenting that Israel "ceased to exist thousands of years ago."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kingdom of Israel Samaria - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your link only shows that the ancient kingdoms of Israel were destroyed.  Not that they ceased to exist as you claim.  Gaza was just recently destroyed. Does Gaza no longer exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, that's what I call grasping at straws. LOL
Click to expand...


Apparently.


----------



## Coyote

MJB12741 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhh, the UN did not create Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely correct.  The UN did not "create Israel."  Israel has existed for thousnds of years before there was any UN.  And who said Tinmore never gets it right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well no.  It hasn't "existed for thousands of years".  It totally ceased to exist thousands of years ago and was only recreated in modern times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link please documenting that Israel "ceased to exist thousands of years ago."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kingdom of Israel Samaria - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your link only shows that the ancient kingdoms of Israel were destroyed.  Not that they ceased to exist as you claim.  Gaza was just recently destroyed. Does Gaza no longer exist?
Click to expand...


Are you claiming that all the ancient kingdoms and states that ever were continue to exist?  If so, then so has the realm of reality.


----------



## aris2chat

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Dr Ghada Karmi*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eh, whatever happened to that wonderful "peace activist" Hannan Ashrawi?
Click to expand...


She was in DC a few weeks ago giving speeches


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## Penelope

Vigilante said:


>



I don't get it.


----------



## Humanity

Coyote said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's talk about "truth" (never mind the fact that you have yet to substantiate any of your accusations).
> 
> We are talking about Israel.  The nation.  Have you figured that part out yet?  Go back and read the pertinent posts if you are confused.  Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago.  It's an ancient Kingdom that is long gone.  In that regard - it's like a lot of ancient kingdoms that are gone but who's people remain.
> 
> This isn't rocket science dude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize your hatred of Jews blinds you to all else, but a nation of people and a nation-state are different concepts.
> 
> Speaking of which, the terrorist group you support did not exist as one until they were invented quite intentionally just a few decades ago, and NEVER existed as the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can talk about a "nation" as in a species or a group of people.  You can talk about a nation as in a nation-state.  When you talk about the Jewish Nation, you are talking a people.  When you are talking about Israel you are talking about a nation-state.  Do you understand the difference and can you apply that difference to this discussion in a logical manner?
> 
> For your reference, this is the statement that we've been discussing: " Absolutely correct. The UN did not "create Israel."* Israel has existed for thousnds of years* before there was any UN. And who said Tinmore never gets it right?"
> 
> Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago.  What we call Israel today is a modern invention - not an ancient state.  There are a lot of people who had nations attached to them at various points in history and who exist now within other states as a people but not a nation-state.  Has Kurdistan existed for centuries?  How about Circassia?  The people are there. They have their identity.  But any nation long ago ceased to exist.
> 
> So, speaking of "hatred" - can you come up with anything to support your claims or should I assume this is just more empty bloviating on your part?
Click to expand...


Israel - A modern invention....


----------



## Kondor3

Penelope said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get it.
Click to expand...

Yes.

We know.


----------



## Kondor3

Humanity said:


> ...Israel - A modern invention....


True.

A modern invention - emulating - and with a heritage stretching back to - the first 'Israel'...

Kicking the ass of Rump Palestine - the modern invention state-wannabe-that-never-was...



Not all modern inventions are winners, like the Israelis...

Some are losers, like the so-called Palestinians... clueless, incompetent savages, who need to be moved out of the way - for their own safety, and for the sake of peace and quiet.


----------



## RoccoR

Coyote,  _et al,_

Part of the problem with the Israeli-Palestinian Discussion, is that we (as a group) tend to move back and forth across the timeline as if what happened a half-century, century, millennium, or several millennia ago, has some significant relevance to todays critical issues in the region.  While interesting, often it is not a basis for any claim other than establishment of a historical connection.  This was something the Allied Powers understood at San Remo, and understand today.



Coyote said:


> You can talk about a "nation" as in a species or a group of people.  You can talk about a nation as in a nation-state.  When you talk about the Jewish Nation, you are talking a people.  When you are talking about Israel you are talking about a nation-state.  Do you understand the difference and can you apply that difference to this discussion in a logical manner?


*(COMMENT)*

There is something important to grasp here; and an important question to answer.

Did the Allied Powers (nearly a century ago) adjudicate 97% of the territory exclusively to the "Arab nations" of Syria, Lebanon, Mesopotamia (Iraq), and later, (Hashemite Kingdom) Jordan?
Was an unspecified portion of the geographic region, known as Palestine, designated by the Allied Powers, as the Jewish National Home, to be reconstituted there in consideration of the historical connection of the Jewish people to the land?



			
				RAMALLAH said:
			
		

> – Fatah movement considered San Remo Conference in 1920 the root of all Palestinian catastrophes and sufferings, in its statement for the Mobilization and Organization Commission published on Monday marking the 25th anniversary of the conference.
> 
> In San Remo conference, the principal allied powers of World War I agreed to entrust the administration of Palestine to the British Mandatory which will be responsible for putting into effect the Belford Declaration of the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.
> 
> “It’s not strange that Zionist gangs considered San Remo Conference as the ‘Magna Carta’ of the Jews; reference to the famous British charter by which most monarchy authority were omitted, which was supported by Britain, France, Italy and Japan, the statement said.
> 
> It added that the increase in number of countries recognizing the Palestinian state indicates the righteousness of our cause, and out right in self-determination.
> 
> Fatah called on US, Israel’s main ally, Britain, the international community and the world’s human rights to end Israeli aggression against Palestinians and to recognize the Palestinian state within 1967 boarders before September entitlement.
> 
> R.Q./F.R.
> 
> *SOURCE:* Palestinian News & Information Agency



The Palestinian claim here is that the "the root of all Palestinian catastrophes and sufferings" of the Palestinians today rests with the decisions made more than nine decades ago.  I oppose this positions, and claim that "the root of all Palestinian catastrophes and sufferings" is a direct result of the Arab Palestinian inability to assimilate and adopt the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.  They have consistently aborted any attempt to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel and Jordan.  They have been and continue to be a threat to regional peace.

Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it . They also assert their right to normal life in Palestine and to exercise their right to self-determination and sovereignty over it.
There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.
Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine, and the restoration of all the rights, together with, of course, all forms of political and diplomatic struggle including in the media, public and legal [spheres]; with the need to mobilize all the energies of the nation in the battle.
The day that enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In face of the Jews' usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.



Coyote said:


> For your reference, this is the statement that we've been discussing: " Absolutely correct. The UN did not "create Israel."* Israel has existed for thousnds of years* before there was any UN. And who said Tinmore never gets it right?"


*(COMMENT)*

The UN did not create any countries; this is true.  We can say the because the General Assembly is not in that business.  The Population creates a country.  The Jewish People created and successfully defended their nation state and right to self determination _(which is not an exclusive right to the Palestinians)_. 

But what was the "intent" _(a resolve to do --- or --- forbear a particular act)_ of the Powers? There is no question that in 1920, the Allied Powers had the intent to allow the "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people _(reconstituting their national home in that country)_," and to "secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home."

Similarly, the Allied Powers and General Assembly of 1947 _(PART I - Future constitution and government of Palestine --- A. TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE)_, let it be known that an "Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in part III of this plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in parts II and III below." 



Coyote said:


> Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago.  What we call Israel today is a modern invention - not an ancient state.  There are a lot of people who had nations attached to them at various points in history and who exist now within other states as a people but not a nation-state.  Has Kurdistan existed for centuries?  How about Circassia?  The people are there. They have their identity.  But any nation long ago ceased to exist.


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, today's Israel is merely a "reconstitution" of an ancient State _(so very true)_.  This has been stated many different ways, but in essence, other than the historical conncetion, it has no relevance to the Independent Jewish State of Israel that exist today.  The ancient state has been overtaken by events just as the Arab control has been over taken by events.  Neither the Arab People or the Jewish People have a valid territorial claim beyond that which has been fought over and established in contemporary times.  Great history, but not statutory. 



Coyote said:


> So, speaking of "hatred" - can you come up with anything to support your claims or should I assume this is just more empty bloviating on your part?


*(COMMENT)*

There are very few 100 Year Wars that have not instilled misgivings between the Parties.  There is animosity on both sides.  Currently, _The General Assembly Condemns_ all forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression (A/RES/2/110); just as Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibits propaganda for war and conflict as a matter of law.  Yet, either side can come up with any number of examples were each has violated this rule.  Neither side has clean hands.  Yet, it always come back to the Palestinian Claims that they have been wronged _(victim, the injured party)_ and will never give-up the struggle and Jihad.  Hatred is a natural outcome of conflicts with this duration.  And since the Arab Palestinians have a devoted program to teach conflict to its children, it will remain so.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Dr Ghada Karmi*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eh, whatever happened to that wonderful "peace activist" Hannan Ashrawi?
Click to expand...

She is still around.


Then there are Palestinians who take a different approach.

*Rafeef Ziadah*
****


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The time limit on right of return ran out when the Palestinians stated NO JEWS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except...they never said "no Jews".
> 
> Nice bit of fiction though
Click to expand...




 Read their charter and you will see it there plain as day


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The time limit on right of return ran out when the Palestinians stated NO JEWS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except...they never said "no Jews".
> 
> Nice bit of fiction though
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read their charter and you will see it there plain as day
Click to expand...



Who's charter?


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... Who gave the Lebanese their Free Determination, the Iraqis, the Syrians and the Jordanians back in 1949. Or did they just up and declare it themselves to the whole world and got on with exercising their new found FREE DETERMINATION....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Always thought it was Self-determination, but whatever. In answer to your question:
> Lebanon= created by the French
> Iraq = created by the British
> Syria = created by the French
> Jordan= created by the British
> Palestine= created by the British, usurped by the Zionists.
> 
> Interesting to note that when the Syrians tried to express their self determination they were crushed by French military might; as were the Palestians  and Iraqis crushed by the British when they did the same.
Click to expand...




 And they were not given a box of self determination when it happened were they. Nor was it handed over in an envelope round the back of a tent and told to use it. No it was something they already had and just had to exercise in sufficient amounts so that the LoN would give them full recognition at a later date. This led to the countries getting full independence in 1949. The Palestinians have shown their free determination many times, first when they allowed Jordan to take over the west bank and rule them. Then again when they decided to overthrow the King of Jordan and turn Jordan and the west bank into a sharia dictatorship. Then when Jordan showed them the error of their ways they exercised  their free determination again and tried the same in Lebanon. Were they faced the same lessons from the Lebanese and withdrew from the field. Then in 1988 the Palestinians again exercised their free determination and declared independence under the terms of UN res 181 but did not declare any borders. Every time they decide to attack Israel they are exercising free determination, every time they refuse to negotiate they are exercising free determination.

 YOU CANT BE HANDED FREE DETERMINATION ON A PLATE, IT IS THERE FOR THE TAKING AND YOU JUST NEED TO GRAB IT WHILE YOU CAN. BUT WITH FREE DETERMINATION COMES RESPONCIBILITIES AND ONE OF THOSE IS ABIDING BY THE TREATIES THAT YOU HAVE SIGNED AND THE UN CHARTER


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already gave my sources for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but wikipedia is not a legitimate source.  As said above, bring in academic, sourced evidence, otherwise, you are no more credible than any of the hacks coming from scum holes like electronicintifada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Refute the points.  Wikipedia is perfectly good source in that it lists primary sources including books which aren't available on line.  It also has discussion areas so you know who is doing what and it points out articles that are insufficiently sourced or bias.
Click to expand...




 No it doesn't, the authors of the articles use the sources that suit their POV, that is why I look for the original author and were his/her loyalties lie.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... Who gave the Lebanese their Free Determination, the Iraqis, the Syrians and the Jordanians back in 1949. Or did they just up and declare it themselves to the whole world and got on with exercising their new found FREE DETERMINATION....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Always thought it was Self-determination, but whatever. In answer to your question:
> Lebanon= created by the French
> Iraq = created by the British
> Syria = created by the French
> Jordan= created by the British
> Palestine= created by the British, usurped by the Zionists.
> 
> Interesting to note that when the Syrians tried to express their self determination they were crushed by French military might; as were the Palestians  and Iraqis crushed by the British when they did the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>Palestine= created by the British, usurped by the Zionists. <<
> 
> Rejected by the arabs.  After 7 countries against the out numbered Israels and six major wars resulting land shift.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians never rejected their state or self determination.
Click to expand...





 True the arab league were to blame when they took it away from them in 1948, and they did not exercise it fully for another 40 years.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The time limit on right of return ran out when the Palestinians stated NO JEWS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except...they never said "no Jews".
> 
> Nice bit of fiction though
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read their charter and you will see it there plain as day
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who's charter?
Click to expand...




 The Palestinians that also includes the one by hamas and the one by fatah


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already gave my sources for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but wikipedia is not a legitimate source.  As said above, bring in academic, sourced evidence, otherwise, you are no more credible than any of the hacks coming from scum holes like electronicintifada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Refute the points.  Wikipedia is perfectly good source in that it lists primary sources including books which aren't available on line.  It also has discussion areas so you know who is doing what and it points out articles that are insufficiently sourced or bias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, the authors of the articles use the sources that suit their POV, that is why I look for the original author and were his/her loyalties lie.
Click to expand...


Except for two things.  Authors represent multiple points of view and - you can assess the sources yourself and track them back by doing your own research.


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The time limit on right of return ran out when the Palestinians stated NO JEWS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except...they never said "no Jews".
> 
> Nice bit of fiction though
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read their charter and you will see it there plain as day
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who's charter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians that also includes the one by hamas and the one by fatah
Click to expand...



The Palestinians don't have a charter.  Hamas does and Fatah and the PLO do.

Charters Constitutions - FATEH Constitution

Neither Fateh nor the PLO call for a nation with no Jews. Fateh's Constitution calls for _*"Establishing an independent democratic state with complete sovereignty on all Palestinian lands, and Jerusalem is its capital city, and protecting the citizens' legal and equal rights without any racial or religious discrimination."*_.  The Constitution references fighting Zionism and Imperialism.  Unfortunately with Arafat's death, the PLO charter did not get amended.  They still call for the destruction of Israel, as a state - but not for the creation of a nation with NO JEWS.  The above in Fatah's constitution seems to support that.

I didn't read through Hamas' because I don't think much of Hamas as a legitimate governing entity.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Coyote said:


> The Palestinians don't have a charter.  Hamas does and Fatah and the PLO do.
> 
> Charters Constitutions - FATEH Constitution
> 
> Neither Fateh nor the PLO call for a nation with no Jews. Fateh's Constitution calls for _*"Establishing an independent democratic state with complete sovereignty on all Palestinian lands, and Jerusalem is its capital city, and protecting the citizens' legal and equal rights without any racial or religious discrimination."*_.  The Constitution references fighting Zionism and Imperialism.  Unfortunately with Arafat's death, the PLO charter did not get amended.  They still call for the destruction of Israel, as a state - but not for the creation of a nation with NO JEWS.  The above in Fatah's constitution seems to support that.
> 
> I didn't read through Hamas' because I don't think much of Hamas as a legitimate governing entity.



I'm starting to understanding what you mean when you say you support a "two state solution"

......One Arab,  and after the destruction of the Jewish state you hate ,l another one Arab.


----------



## Coyote

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians don't have a charter.  Hamas does and Fatah and the PLO do.
> 
> Charters Constitutions - FATEH Constitution
> 
> Neither Fateh nor the PLO call for a nation with no Jews. Fateh's Constitution calls for _*"Establishing an independent democratic state with complete sovereignty on all Palestinian lands, and Jerusalem is its capital city, and protecting the citizens' legal and equal rights without any racial or religious discrimination."*_.  The Constitution references fighting Zionism and Imperialism.  Unfortunately with Arafat's death, the PLO charter did not get amended.  They still call for the destruction of Israel, as a state - but not for the creation of a nation with NO JEWS.  The above in Fatah's constitution seems to support that.
> 
> I didn't read through Hamas' because I don't think much of Hamas as a legitimate governing entity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm starting to understanding what you mean when you say you support a "two state solution"
> 
> ......One Arab,  and after the destruction of the Jewish state you hate ,l another one Arab.
Click to expand...


Nope, as usual...you don't. Let me help you.

Two states.  Seperate.  Israel.  Palestine.  Details to be negotiated between Israel (a Jewish majority state) and Palestine.


----------



## Kondor3

Coyote said:


> ...They still call for the destruction of Israel, as a state...


Your Honor, the Prosecution rests.


----------



## Kondor3

Coyote said:


> Two states.  Seperate.  Israel.  Palestine.  Details to be negotiated between Israel (a Jewish majority state) and Palestine.


The window of opportunity for such a solution has long-since closed, The Palestinians themselves closed it, decades ago. Consequently, the Reconquista continues apace.


----------



## MJB12741

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The time limit on right of return ran out when the Palestinians stated NO JEWS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except...they never said "no Jews".
> 
> Nice bit of fiction though
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read their charter and you will see it there plain as day
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who's charter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians that also includes the one by hamas and the one by fatah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians don't have a charter.  Hamas does and Fatah and the PLO do.
> 
> Charters Constitutions - FATEH Constitution
> 
> Neither Fateh nor the PLO call for a nation with no Jews. Fateh's Constitution calls for _*"Establishing an independent democratic state with complete sovereignty on all Palestinian lands, and Jerusalem is its capital city, and protecting the citizens' legal and equal rights without any racial or religious discrimination."*_.  The Constitution references fighting Zionism and Imperialism.  Unfortunately with Arafat's death, the PLO charter did not get amended.  They still call for the destruction of Israel, as a state - but not for the creation of a nation with NO JEWS.  The above in Fatah's constitution seems to support that.
> 
> I didn't read through Hamas' because I don't think much of Hamas as a legitimate governing entity.
Click to expand...




Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The time limit on right of return ran out when the Palestinians stated NO JEWS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except...they never said "no Jews".
> 
> Nice bit of fiction though
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read their charter and you will see it there plain as day
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who's charter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians that also includes the one by hamas and the one by fatah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians don't have a charter.  Hamas does and Fatah and the PLO do.
> 
> Charters Constitutions - FATEH Constitution
> 
> Neither Fateh nor the PLO call for a nation with no Jews. Fateh's Constitution calls for _*"Establishing an independent democratic state with complete sovereignty on all Palestinian lands, and Jerusalem is its capital city, and protecting the citizens' legal and equal rights without any racial or religious discrimination."*_.  The Constitution references fighting Zionism and Imperialism.  Unfortunately with Arafat's death, the PLO charter did not get amended.  They still call for the destruction of Israel, as a state - but not for the creation of a nation with NO JEWS.  The above in Fatah's constitution seems to support that.
> 
> I didn't read through Hamas' because I don't think much of Hamas as a legitimate governing entity.
Click to expand...


Figures.  So let us get this straight.  You don't care to read the Hamas charter because you don't feel Hamas  is "a legitimate governing entity."  And yet the Palestinian people themselves elected Hamas as their legitimate governing entity.  So rather than deal with reality, you prefer to just ignore it.  Is  that  correct?


----------



## aris2chat

Kondor3 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...They still call for the destruction of Israel, as a state...
> 
> 
> 
> Your Honor, the Prosecution rests.
Click to expand...


On giant black billboards with large white writing in arabic


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Coyote,  _et al,_
> 
> Part of the problem with the Israeli-Palestinian Discussion, is that we (as a group) tend to move back and forth across the timeline as if what happened a half-century, century, millennium, or several millennia ago, has some significant relevance to todays critical issues in the region.  While interesting, often it is not a basis for any claim other than establishment of a historical connection.  This was something the Allied Powers understood at San Remo, and understand today.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can talk about a "nation" as in a species or a group of people.  You can talk about a nation as in a nation-state.  When you talk about the Jewish Nation, you are talking a people.  When you are talking about Israel you are talking about a nation-state.  Do you understand the difference and can you apply that difference to this discussion in a logical manner?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is something important to grasp here; and an important question to answer.
> 
> Did the Allied Powers (nearly a century ago) adjudicate 97% of the territory exclusively to the "Arab nations" of Syria, Lebanon, Mesopotamia (Iraq), and later, (Hashemite Kingdom) Jordan?
> Was an unspecified portion of the geographic region, known as Palestine, designated by the Allied Powers, as the Jewish National Home, to be reconstituted there in consideration of the historical connection of the Jewish people to the land?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RAMALLAH said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> – Fatah movement considered San Remo Conference in 1920 the root of all Palestinian catastrophes and sufferings, in its statement for the Mobilization and Organization Commission published on Monday marking the 25th anniversary of the conference.
> 
> In San Remo conference, the principal allied powers of World War I agreed to entrust the administration of Palestine to the British Mandatory which will be responsible for putting into effect the Belford Declaration of the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.
> 
> “It’s not strange that Zionist gangs considered San Remo Conference as the ‘Magna Carta’ of the Jews; reference to the famous British charter by which most monarchy authority were omitted, which was supported by Britain, France, Italy and Japan, the statement said.
> 
> It added that the increase in number of countries recognizing the Palestinian state indicates the righteousness of our cause, and out right in self-determination.
> 
> Fatah called on US, Israel’s main ally, Britain, the international community and the world’s human rights to end Israeli aggression against Palestinians and to recognize the Palestinian state within 1967 boarders before September entitlement.
> 
> R.Q./F.R.
> 
> *SOURCE:* Palestinian News & Information Agency
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinian claim here is that the "the root of all Palestinian catastrophes and sufferings" of the Palestinians today rests with the decisions made more than nine decades ago.  I oppose this positions, and claim that "the root of all Palestinian catastrophes and sufferings" is a direct result of the Arab Palestinian inability to assimilate and adopt the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.  They have consistently aborted any attempt to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel and Jordan.  They have been and continue to be a threat to regional peace.
> 
> Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it . They also assert their right to normal life in Palestine and to exercise their right to self-determination and sovereignty over it.
> There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.
> Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine, and the restoration of all the rights, together with, of course, all forms of political and diplomatic struggle including in the media, public and legal [spheres]; with the need to mobilize all the energies of the nation in the battle.
> The day that enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In face of the Jews' usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> For your reference, this is the statement that we've been discussing: " Absolutely correct. The UN did not "create Israel."* Israel has existed for thousnds of years* before there was any UN. And who said Tinmore never gets it right?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The UN did not create any countries; this is true.  We can say the because the General Assembly is not in that business.  The Population creates a country.  The Jewish People created and successfully defended their nation state and right to self determination _(which is not an exclusive right to the Palestinians)_.
> 
> But what was the "intent" _(a resolve to do --- or --- forbear a particular act)_ of the Powers? There is no question that in 1920, the Allied Powers had the intent to allow the "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people _(reconstituting their national home in that country)_," and to "secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home."
> 
> Similarly, the Allied Powers and General Assembly of 1947 _(PART I - Future constitution and government of Palestine --- A. TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE)_, let it be known that an "Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in part III of this plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in parts II and III below."
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago.  What we call Israel today is a modern invention - not an ancient state.  There are a lot of people who had nations attached to them at various points in history and who exist now within other states as a people but not a nation-state.  Has Kurdistan existed for centuries?  How about Circassia?  The people are there. They have their identity.  But any nation long ago ceased to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes, today's Israel is merely a "reconstitution" of an ancient State _(so very true)_.  This has been stated many different ways, but in essence, other than the historical conncetion, it has no relevance to the Independent Jewish State of Israel that exist today.  The ancient state has been overtaken by events just as the Arab control has been over taken by events.  Neither the Arab People or the Jewish People have a valid territorial claim beyond that which has been fought over and established in contemporary times.  Great history, but not statutory.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, speaking of "hatred" - can you come up with anything to support your claims or should I assume this is just more empty bloviating on your part?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are very few 100 Year Wars that have not instilled misgivings between the Parties.  There is animosity on both sides.  Currently, _The General Assembly Condemns_ all forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression (A/RES/2/110); just as Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibits propaganda for war and conflict as a matter of law.  Yet, either side can come up with any number of examples were each has violated this rule.  Neither side has clean hands.  Yet, it always come back to the Palestinian Claims that they have been wronged _(victim, the injured party)_ and will never give-up the struggle and Jihad.  Hatred is a natural outcome of conflicts with this duration.  And since the Arab Palestinians have a devoted program to teach conflict to its children, it will remain so.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


----------



## Coyote

Kondor3 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two states.  Seperate.  Israel.  Palestine.  Details to be negotiated between Israel (a Jewish majority state) and Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> The window of opportunity for such a solution has long-since closed, The Palestinians themselves closed it, decades ago. Consequently, the Reconquista continues apace.
Click to expand...



Disagree Mr. Pessimistic Conquista


----------



## Dogmaphobe

MJB12741 said:


> Figures.  So let us get this straight.  You don't care to read the Hamas charter because you don't feel Hamas  is "a legitimate governing entity."  And yet the Palestinian people themselves elected Hamas as their legitimate governing entity.  So rather than deal with reality, you prefer to just ignore it.  Is  that  correct?




*Mod Edit: Please take this stuff to the Flame Zone.*

*"Zone 2":* Political Forum / Israel and Palestine Forum / Race Relations/Racism Forum / Religion & Ethics Forum: Baiting and polarizing OP's (Opening Posts), and thread titles risk the thread either being moved or trashed. Keep it relevant, choose wisely. *Each post must contain content relevant to the thread subject, in addition to any flame. No trolling. No hit and run flames. No hijacking or derailing threads.*


----------



## Coyote

MJB12741 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except...they never said "no Jews".
> 
> Nice bit of fiction though
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read their charter and you will see it there plain as day
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who's charter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians that also includes the one by hamas and the one by fatah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians don't have a charter.  Hamas does and Fatah and the PLO do.
> 
> Charters Constitutions - FATEH Constitution
> 
> Neither Fateh nor the PLO call for a nation with no Jews. Fateh's Constitution calls for _*"Establishing an independent democratic state with complete sovereignty on all Palestinian lands, and Jerusalem is its capital city, and protecting the citizens' legal and equal rights without any racial or religious discrimination."*_.  The Constitution references fighting Zionism and Imperialism.  Unfortunately with Arafat's death, the PLO charter did not get amended.  They still call for the destruction of Israel, as a state - but not for the creation of a nation with NO JEWS.  The above in Fatah's constitution seems to support that.
> 
> I didn't read through Hamas' because I don't think much of Hamas as a legitimate governing entity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except...they never said "no Jews".
> 
> Nice bit of fiction though
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read their charter and you will see it there plain as day
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who's charter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians that also includes the one by hamas and the one by fatah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians don't have a charter.  Hamas does and Fatah and the PLO do.
> 
> Charters Constitutions - FATEH Constitution
> 
> Neither Fateh nor the PLO call for a nation with no Jews. Fateh's Constitution calls for _*"Establishing an independent democratic state with complete sovereignty on all Palestinian lands, and Jerusalem is its capital city, and protecting the citizens' legal and equal rights without any racial or religious discrimination."*_.  The Constitution references fighting Zionism and Imperialism.  Unfortunately with Arafat's death, the PLO charter did not get amended.  They still call for the destruction of Israel, as a state - but not for the creation of a nation with NO JEWS.  The above in Fatah's constitution seems to support that.
> 
> I didn't read through Hamas' because I don't think much of Hamas as a legitimate governing entity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Figures.  So let us get this straight.  You don't care to read the Hamas charter because you don't feel Hamas  is "a legitimate governing entity."  And yet the Palestinian people themselves elected Hamas as their legitimate governing entity.  So rather than deal with reality, you prefer to just ignore it.  Is  that  correct?
Click to expand...


No I do not.  Hamas has not held election in how long - 6 years?  And, Aris, I believe pointed out that Hamas DID NOT win the popular vote.  Hamas has yet to recognize Israel's right to exist and their actions have shown that they have no interest in negotiating for peace.


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read their charter and you will see it there plain as day
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's charter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians that also includes the one by hamas and the one by fatah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians don't have a charter.  Hamas does and Fatah and the PLO do.
> 
> Charters Constitutions - FATEH Constitution
> 
> Neither Fateh nor the PLO call for a nation with no Jews. Fateh's Constitution calls for _*"Establishing an independent democratic state with complete sovereignty on all Palestinian lands, and Jerusalem is its capital city, and protecting the citizens' legal and equal rights without any racial or religious discrimination."*_.  The Constitution references fighting Zionism and Imperialism.  Unfortunately with Arafat's death, the PLO charter did not get amended.  They still call for the destruction of Israel, as a state - but not for the creation of a nation with NO JEWS.  The above in Fatah's constitution seems to support that.
> 
> I didn't read through Hamas' because I don't think much of Hamas as a legitimate governing entity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read their charter and you will see it there plain as day
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who's charter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians that also includes the one by hamas and the one by fatah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians don't have a charter.  Hamas does and Fatah and the PLO do.
> 
> Charters Constitutions - FATEH Constitution
> 
> Neither Fateh nor the PLO call for a nation with no Jews. Fateh's Constitution calls for _*"Establishing an independent democratic state with complete sovereignty on all Palestinian lands, and Jerusalem is its capital city, and protecting the citizens' legal and equal rights without any racial or religious discrimination."*_.  The Constitution references fighting Zionism and Imperialism.  Unfortunately with Arafat's death, the PLO charter did not get amended.  They still call for the destruction of Israel, as a state - but not for the creation of a nation with NO JEWS.  The above in Fatah's constitution seems to support that.
> 
> I didn't read through Hamas' because I don't think much of Hamas as a legitimate governing entity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Figures.  So let us get this straight.  You don't care to read the Hamas charter because you don't feel Hamas  is "a legitimate governing entity."  And yet the Palestinian people themselves elected Hamas as their legitimate governing entity.  So rather than deal with reality, you prefer to just ignore it.  Is  that  correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I do not.  Hamas has not held election in how long - 6 years?  And, Aris, I believe pointed out that Hamas DID NOT win the popular vote.  Hamas has yet to recognize Israel's right to exist and their actions have shown that they have no interest in negotiating for peace.
Click to expand...



Actually, it has been almost 9 yrs now and with the unity collapse it will be even longer before another takes place.


----------



## MJB12741

Thank goodness Palestinians won't unite among themselves for a unity government to force Israel to have to placate their endless demands.  Not too bright are they?


----------



## aris2chat

MJB12741 said:


> Thank goodness Palestinians won't unite among themselves for a unity government to force Israel to have to placate their endless demands.  Not too bright are they?



Trying to anger Israel enough for another battle so the world sees palestinians are victims and forces them into granting statehood.......and more donations.
It still won't do much for a unity government for the palestinians but it would boost Hamas' sagging image and make Israel look like the aggressors for defending themselves.
It is not who wins the ground war but who wins the perception war.
Statehood, or recognition, will not stop the attacks by palestinians.  It will not bring peace.  Hamas and groups like IJ will go on attacking Israel and killing Israels.


----------



## Kondor3

Coyote said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two states.  Seperate.  Israel.  Palestine.  Details to be negotiated between Israel (a Jewish majority state) and Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> The window of opportunity for such a solution has long-since closed, The Palestinians themselves closed it, decades ago. Consequently, the Reconquista continues apace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree Mr. Pessimistic Conquista
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know - whether folks believe it or not, there is a part of me that wishes that this were not true - that peaceful coexistence between the Israelis and Palestinians was still possible, but - and this is pure personal opinion - I think that possibility died a quiet, lonely death, quite some time ago.

Am I positive? Of course not. Do I believe it? Yes. Do I perceive realistic and likely reasons for that belief? Yes.

And IF peaceful coexistence is no longer possible, then one side or the other is gonna have to go.

And, because extermination would be an unforgivable sin and crime against God and Man...

That doesn't leave anything other than mass relocation of one side or the other.

IF we are left with nothing better than relocation, then the weaker side will be the one to go.

That's all based upon the premise that peaceful coexistence is now virtually impossible.

If I'm right, then everything I've said beyond that point is both logical and nearly inevitable.


----------



## Coyote

Kondor3 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two states.  Seperate.  Israel.  Palestine.  Details to be negotiated between Israel (a Jewish majority state) and Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> The window of opportunity for such a solution has long-since closed, The Palestinians themselves closed it, decades ago. Consequently, the Reconquista continues apace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree Mr. Pessimistic Conquista
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I know - whether folks believe it or not, there is a part of me that wishes that this were not true - that peaceful coexistence between the Israelis and Palestinians was still possible, but - and this is pure personal opinion - I think that possibility died a quiet, lonely death, quite some time ago.
> 
> Am I positive? Of course not. Do I believe it? Yes. Do I perceive realistic and likely reasons for that belief? Yes.
> 
> And IF peaceful coexistence is no longer possible, then one side or the other is gonna have to go.
> 
> And, because extermination would be an unforgivable sin and crime against God and Man...
> 
> That doesn't leave anything other than mass relocation of one side or the other.
> 
> IF we are left with nothing better than relocation, then the weaker side will be the one to go.
> 
> That's all based upon the premise that peaceful coexistence is now virtually impossible.
> 
> If I'm right, then everything I've said beyond that point is both logical and nearly inevitable.
Click to expand...


Or a Berlin Wall...or seperation like N S Korea.  I think forced relocation of huge numbers of people is the least likely outcome


----------



## Mindful

Coyote said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well no.  It hasn't "existed for thousands of years".  It totally ceased to exist thousands of years ago and was only recreated in modern times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You pro-terrorist antisemites can say anything you want, but that does not change the truth of the matter, namely that the Jewish nation has existed for over three millennia and Jewish presence on the land extends for that entire time. The nation-state of Israel did not always exist on the land in question, but the nation of Jewish people have a written history going back over three thousand.
> 
> It is only because you are such a filthy, double-talking hater of Jews that you pursue all this pro-terrorist crap of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's talk about "truth" (never mind the fact that you have yet to substantiate any of your accusations).
> 
> We are talking about Israel.  The nation.  Have you figured that part out yet?  Go back and read the pertinent posts if you are confused.  Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago.  It's an ancient Kingdom that is long gone.  In that regard - it's like a lot of ancient kingdoms that are gone but who's people remain.
> 
> This isn't rocket science dude.
Click to expand...


You'd have nothing against the Assyrians getting their ancient Kingdom back?


----------



## Coyote

Mindful said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well no.  It hasn't "existed for thousands of years".  It totally ceased to exist thousands of years ago and was only recreated in modern times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You pro-terrorist antisemites can say anything you want, but that does not change the truth of the matter, namely that the Jewish nation has existed for over three millennia and Jewish presence on the land extends for that entire time. The nation-state of Israel did not always exist on the land in question, but the nation of Jewish people have a written history going back over three thousand.
> 
> It is only because you are such a filthy, double-talking hater of Jews that you pursue all this pro-terrorist crap of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's talk about "truth" (never mind the fact that you have yet to substantiate any of your accusations).
> 
> We are talking about Israel.  The nation.  Have you figured that part out yet?  Go back and read the pertinent posts if you are confused.  Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago.  It's an ancient Kingdom that is long gone.  In that regard - it's like a lot of ancient kingdoms that are gone but who's people remain.
> 
> This isn't rocket science dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd have nothing against the Assyrians getting their ancient Kingdom back?
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what your point is.  If they want to try and get it back - why not? Anyone has a right to try.  But ancient history and kingdoms long ago gone do not automatically entitle people to modern lands over the rights of the indiginous people currently living there.


----------



## Mindful

Kondor3 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree Mr. Pessimistic Conquista
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know - whether folks believe it or not, there is a part of me that wishes that this were not true - that peaceful coexistence between the Israelis and Palestinians was still possible, but - and this is pure personal opinion - I think that possibility died a quiet, lonely death, quite some time ago.
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't say "quiet". Arafat killed it, following his triumphant Trojan Horse triumphal entry into Ramallah. I bet the Israelis rued that day, fools that they were, following yet another impossible dream.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Mindful

Coyote said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well no.  It hasn't "existed for thousands of years".  It totally ceased to exist thousands of years ago and was only recreated in modern times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You pro-terrorist antisemites can say anything you want, but that does not change the truth of the matter, namely that the Jewish nation has existed for over three millennia and Jewish presence on the land extends for that entire time. The nation-state of Israel did not always exist on the land in question, but the nation of Jewish people have a written history going back over three thousand.
> 
> It is only because you are such a filthy, double-talking hater of Jews that you pursue all this pro-terrorist crap of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's talk about "truth" (never mind the fact that you have yet to substantiate any of your accusations).
> 
> We are talking about Israel.  The nation.  Have you figured that part out yet?  Go back and read the pertinent posts if you are confused.  Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago.  It's an ancient Kingdom that is long gone.  In that regard - it's like a lot of ancient kingdoms that are gone but who's people remain.
> 
> This isn't rocket science dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd have nothing against the Assyrians getting their ancient Kingdom back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is.  If they want to try and get it back - why not? Anyone has a right to try.  But ancient history and kingdoms long ago gone do not automatically entitle people to modern lands over the rights of the indiginous people currently living there.
Click to expand...



Who said it did? You're arguing from a false premise again.

Israel was not the first choice for the Jews when considering a place they could live, free from persecution.


----------



## Coyote

Mindful said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well no.  It hasn't "existed for thousands of years".  It totally ceased to exist thousands of years ago and was only recreated in modern times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You pro-terrorist antisemites can say anything you want, but that does not change the truth of the matter, namely that the Jewish nation has existed for over three millennia and Jewish presence on the land extends for that entire time. The nation-state of Israel did not always exist on the land in question, but the nation of Jewish people have a written history going back over three thousand.
> 
> It is only because you are such a filthy, double-talking hater of Jews that you pursue all this pro-terrorist crap of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's talk about "truth" (never mind the fact that you have yet to substantiate any of your accusations).
> 
> We are talking about Israel.  The nation.  Have you figured that part out yet?  Go back and read the pertinent posts if you are confused.  Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago.  It's an ancient Kingdom that is long gone.  In that regard - it's like a lot of ancient kingdoms that are gone but who's people remain.
> 
> This isn't rocket science dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd have nothing against the Assyrians getting their ancient Kingdom back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is.  If they want to try and get it back - why not? Anyone has a right to try.  But ancient history and kingdoms long ago gone do not automatically entitle people to modern lands over the rights of the indiginous people currently living there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who said it did? You're arguing from a false premise again.
Click to expand...


I'm arguing from a "premise" others have laid out as a means of determing who has rights to an area and who doesn't.  It's certainly a ridiculous one.



> Israel was not the first choice for the Jews when considering a place they could live, free from persecution.



And your point?


----------



## Mindful

Coyote said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> You pro-terrorist antisemites can say anything you want, but that does not change the truth of the matter, namely that the Jewish nation has existed for over three millennia and Jewish presence on the land extends for that entire time. The nation-state of Israel did not always exist on the land in question, but the nation of Jewish people have a written history going back over three thousand.
> 
> It is only because you are such a filthy, double-talking hater of Jews that you pursue all this pro-terrorist crap of yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's talk about "truth" (never mind the fact that you have yet to substantiate any of your accusations).
> 
> We are talking about Israel.  The nation.  Have you figured that part out yet?  Go back and read the pertinent posts if you are confused.  Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago.  It's an ancient Kingdom that is long gone.  In that regard - it's like a lot of ancient kingdoms that are gone but who's people remain.
> 
> This isn't rocket science dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd have nothing against the Assyrians getting their ancient Kingdom back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is.  If they want to try and get it back - why not? Anyone has a right to try.  But ancient history and kingdoms long ago gone do not automatically entitle people to modern lands over the rights of the indiginous people currently living there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who said it did? You're arguing from a false premise again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm arguing from a "premise" others have laid out as a means of determing who has rights to an area and who doesn't.  It's certainly a ridiculous one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel was not the first choice for the Jews when considering a place they could live, free from persecution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your point?
Click to expand...


I should be asking you what yours is.


----------



## Coyote

Mindful said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's talk about "truth" (never mind the fact that you have yet to substantiate any of your accusations).
> 
> We are talking about Israel.  The nation.  Have you figured that part out yet?  Go back and read the pertinent posts if you are confused.  Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago.  It's an ancient Kingdom that is long gone.  In that regard - it's like a lot of ancient kingdoms that are gone but who's people remain.
> 
> This isn't rocket science dude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd have nothing against the Assyrians getting their ancient Kingdom back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is.  If they want to try and get it back - why not? Anyone has a right to try.  But ancient history and kingdoms long ago gone do not automatically entitle people to modern lands over the rights of the indiginous people currently living there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who said it did? You're arguing from a false premise again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm arguing from a "premise" others have laid out as a means of determing who has rights to an area and who doesn't.  It's certainly a ridiculous one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel was not the first choice for the Jews when considering a place they could live, free from persecution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I should be asking you what yours is.
Click to expand...


Read the posts then.  I was responding to a point another poster made.

So what is your point?


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Coyote said:


> I'm arguing from a "premise" others have laid out as a means of determing who has rights to an area and who doesn't.  It's certainly a ridiculous one.




If you are arguing from a  ridiculous premise, then why do you pursue it with such single-minded intensity?


----------



## Mindful

Coyote said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd have nothing against the Assyrians getting their ancient Kingdom back?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is.  If they want to try and get it back - why not? Anyone has a right to try.  But ancient history and kingdoms long ago gone do not automatically entitle people to modern lands over the rights of the indiginous people currently living there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who said it did? You're arguing from a false premise again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm arguing from a "premise" others have laid out as a means of determing who has rights to an area and who doesn't.  It's certainly a ridiculous one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel was not the first choice for the Jews when considering a place they could live, free from persecution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I should be asking you what yours is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the posts then.  I was responding to a point another poster made.
> 
> So what is your point?
Click to expand...


You should read the posts then.

My point......  to negate your assumption that the Jews laid claim to an ancient kingdom as an automatic right.


----------



## Coyote

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm arguing from a "premise" others have laid out as a means of determing who has rights to an area and who doesn't.  It's certainly a ridiculous one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are arguing from a  ridiculous premise, then why do you pursue it with such single-minded intensity?
Click to expand...


I'm simply replying to someone using that premise - a long gone kingdom - as a justification for modern land claims.  Pretty ridiculous don't you think, even though you defended it vociferously .


----------



## Coyote

Mindful said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is.  If they want to try and get it back - why not? Anyone has a right to try.  But ancient history and kingdoms long ago gone do not automatically entitle people to modern lands over the rights of the indiginous people currently living there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said it did? You're arguing from a false premise again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm arguing from a "premise" others have laid out as a means of determing who has rights to an area and who doesn't.  It's certainly a ridiculous one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel was not the first choice for the Jews when considering a place they could live, free from persecution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I should be asking you what yours is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the posts then.  I was responding to a point another poster made.
> 
> So what is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should read the posts then.
> 
> My point......  to negate your assumption that the Jews laid claim to an ancient kingdom as an automatic right.
Click to expand...


Then you are arguing with the wrong assumptions.  Several posters here used those claims to justify Israel's current status.  Read the posts.  They claim that Israel has always existed.  It hasn't.

So...what is your point besides the fact that you haven't been following the conversation?  No wonder your comment about Assyrians made no sense.

Here is the original statement: _Absolutely correct. The UN did not "create Israel." Israel has existed for thousnds of years before there was any UN. And who said Tinmore never gets it right?_


----------



## Mindful

Coyote said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said it did? You're arguing from a false premise again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm arguing from a "premise" others have laid out as a means of determing who has rights to an area and who doesn't.  It's certainly a ridiculous one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel was not the first choice for the Jews when considering a place they could live, free from persecution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I should be asking you what yours is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the posts then.  I was responding to a point another poster made.
> 
> So what is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should read the posts then.
> 
> My point......  to negate your assumption that the Jews laid claim to an ancient kingdom as an automatic right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you are arguing with the wrong assumptions.  Several posters here used those claims to justify Israel's current status.  Read the posts.  They claim that Israel has always existed.  It hasn't.
> 
> So...what is your point besides the fact that you haven't been following the conversation?  No wonder your comment about Assyrians made no sense.
> 
> Here is the original statement: _Absolutely correct. The UN did not "create Israel." Israel has existed for thousnds of years before there was any UN. And who said Tinmore never gets it right?_
Click to expand...



I can't follow your logic. So just give it up.


----------



## P F Tinmore

I don't see any reason why they cannot live together. The division is caused by the governments. Get rid of the governments and let the people form one based on equal rights.

Problem solved.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> I don't see any reason why they cannot live together. The division is caused by the governments. Get rid of the governments and let the people form one based on equal rights.
> 
> Problem solved.



Dream on.  No way the Israeli's & Palestinians can live together in the same land with equal rights.  Who determines what rights are equal??? And who determines whether the land is called Israel or Palestine???  Here alone puts your ridiculous claim to rest.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

This sounds good at face value.  It makes sense in a purely philosophical way.  But it is not my experience that it could actually be achieved.

(2013)  "Forty-six years after the 1967 war, we are facing a dangerous increase in the number of “failed states” across the Arab region."
-----      -----     -----      -----    _Eyad Abu Shakra_  (AKA:  _Ayad Abou-Chakra_), The era of failed Arab states, al-Arabiya News​


P F Tinmore said:


> I don't see any reason why they cannot live together. The division is caused by the governments. Get rid of the governments and let the people form one based on equal rights.
> 
> Problem solved.


*(COMMENT)*

There are many more Arab Palestinians in the combined area _(Israel, West Bank, Gaza Strip)_ then there are Israelis _(ethnic heritage aside)_.  It would not be the case that a combined _(one-state solution)_ would result in a Jewish National Homeland that would eternally _(or even for a century)_ be free of the threat of domination and subjugation by the Arab and Islamic community _(especially if you count the millions that would claim the right of return)_. 

Such a merger would eventually, if not almost immediately, place the entire way of life the Israelis have nurtured and established under the thumb of an Arab Middle Eastern culture that is at risk.  In effect, they would be placing themselves in the hands of a culture that spawned more threat organizations than any other Arab or Islamic nation in the world _(not counting Palestinian subset groups, affiliations and subordinate associations)_.  No other single country has more designated terrorist organizations associated with it than the Palestinian Territories.

Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)
Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement)
Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)
Islamic Jihad Group
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)
PFLP-General Command (PFLP-GC)
Army of Islam (Palestinian)
DFLP-Hawatmeh Faction (DFLP)
Safety, security and protection aside, there is the case of the greater probability that such a combined (one-state solution) would just become another failed state.   One must remember that the immediate region around the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict region is virtually surrounded by states in trouble. 

(2013) There are projects, some of which are already underway, to partition and divide countries such as Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Yemen and Libya. Other countries are not immune to internal tensions resulting from a discourse of partition and fragmentation similar to the one which has disrupted the very concept of the “state” as we knew it, thus giving rise to the so-called “failed states.”
-----      -----     -----      -----    _Eyad Abu Shakra_ (AKA:  _Ayad Abou-Chakra_), The era of failed Arab states, al-Arabiya News
​The Fragile State Index for 2014 illustrates just how well the surrounding states are doing.  Normally, the index would show that Israel (independent of the West Bank) would be on par with Jordan, the number, when averaged with the West Bank, dragging it down.  The most fragile regional states are: 

South Sudan @1
Sudan #5
Yemen #8
Iraq #13
Syria #15
Egypt #31
Lebanon #46
Israel/West Bank #67
Jordan #83
Turkey #93
Saudi Arabia #96
Kuwait #127
UAE #143
Oman #153
Notice that regionally, Arab and Islamic States which are NOT Kingdoms, are not doing very well in comparison to the non-Kingdom States _(exception is Turkey - republican parliamentary democracy --- civil law system based on various European legal systems notably the Swiss civil code; universal sufferage)_.  If a one-state solution were to be assumed, there is no reasonable expectation that it would be any more successful that Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen _(the five nations that invaded Israel in 1948)(as a retired federal agent, I don't believe in 5-for-5 coincidence minus the Kingdom)_.  And, the Arab Palestinian, when the did accept Jordanian Citizenship, did not take long to organize and insurgency against the government _(past practices count for something)_.  

It would be much better, for all concerned, if there were one successful and less fragile non-Arab state, and one failed but smaller Arab State, then to have one larger and successful state fail under the weight of Arab incompetency.  

Just My Thought, Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This sounds good at face value.  It makes sense in a purely philosophical way.  But it is not my experience that it could actually be achieved.
> 
> (2013)  "Forty-six years after the 1967 war, we are facing a dangerous increase in the number of “failed states” across the Arab region."
> -----      -----     -----      -----    _Eyad Abu Shakra_  (AKA:  _Ayad Abou-Chakra_), The era of failed Arab states, al-Arabiya News​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see any reason why they cannot live together. The division is caused by the governments. Get rid of the governments and let the people form one based on equal rights.
> 
> Problem solved.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are many more Arab Palestinians in the combined area _(Israel, West Bank, Gaza Strip)_ then there are Israelis _(ethnic heritage aside)_.  It would not be the case that a combined _(one-state solution)_ would result in a Jewish National Homeland that would eternally _(or even for a century)_ be free of the threat of domination and subjugation by the Arab and Islamic community _(especially if you count the millions that would claim the right of return)_.
> 
> Such a merger would eventually, if not almost immediately, place the entire way of life the Israelis have nurtured and established under the thumb of an Arab Middle Eastern culture that is at risk.  In effect, they would be placing themselves in the hands of a culture that spawned more threat organizations than any other Arab or Islamic nation in the world _(not counting Palestinian subset groups, affiliations and subordinate associations)_.  No other single country has more designated terrorist organizations associated with it than the Palestinian Territories.
> 
> Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)
> Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement)
> Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)
> Islamic Jihad Group
> Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)
> PFLP-General Command (PFLP-GC)
> Army of Islam (Palestinian)
> DFLP-Hawatmeh Faction (DFLP)
> Safety, security and protection aside, there is the case of the greater probability that such a combined (one-state solution) would just become another failed state.   One must remember that the immediate region around the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict region is virtually surrounded by states in trouble.
> 
> (2013) There are projects, some of which are already underway, to partition and divide countries such as Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Yemen and Libya. Other countries are not immune to internal tensions resulting from a discourse of partition and fragmentation similar to the one which has disrupted the very concept of the “state” as we knew it, thus giving rise to the so-called “failed states.”
> -----      -----     -----      -----    _Eyad Abu Shakra_ (AKA:  _Ayad Abou-Chakra_), The era of failed Arab states, al-Arabiya News
> ​The Fragile State Index for 2014 illustrates just how well the surrounding states are doing.  Normally, the index would show that Israel (independent of the West Bank) would be on par with Jordan, the number, when averaged with the West Bank, dragging it down.  The most fragile regional states are:
> 
> South Sudan @1
> Sudan #5
> Yemen #8
> Iraq #13
> Syria #15
> Egypt #31
> Lebanon #46
> Israel/West Bank #67
> Jordan #83
> Turkey #93
> Saudi Arabia #96
> Kuwait #127
> UAE #143
> Oman #153
> Notice that regionally, Arab and Islamic States which are NOT Kingdoms, are not doing very well in comparison to the non-Kingdom States _(exception is Turkey - republican parliamentary democracy --- civil law system based on various European legal systems notably the Swiss civil code; universal sufferage)_.  If a one-state solution were to be assumed, there is no reasonable expectation that it would be any more successful that Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen _(the five nations that invaded Israel in 1948)(as a retired federal agent, I don't believe in 5-for-5 coincidence minus the Kingdom)_.  And, the Arab Palestinian, when the did accept Jordanian Citizenship, did not take long to organize and insurgency against the government _(past practices count for something)_.
> 
> It would be much better, for all concerned, if there were one successful and less fragile non-Arab state, and one failed but smaller Arab State, then to have one larger and successful state fail under the weight of Arab incompetency.
> 
> Just My Thought, Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

No other single country has more designated terrorist organizations associated with it than the Palestinian Territories.​
Indeed, Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

It is the general position of pro-Palestinians advocates for Jihad and Armed Struggle in violation of international Laws, the Geneva Convention and the DOP for Freindly relations, to suggest that the Hostile Arab Palestinians are clean as virgin snow --- playing the part of the victim; but, we all know this is not true.  



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> No other single country has more designated terrorist organizations associated with it than the Palestinian Territories.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

It is what it is; trying to deny the history is unbecoming.  The past history of criminal terrorist behaviors are well documented.  Here is just a sample.

Abu Nidal Organization(ANO)
o  20 countries, killing or injuring almost 900 persons. Targets include the US, the UK, France, and Israel,​
Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement)
o  designated as a terrorist organization by Australia, Canada, Egypt, theEuropean Union, Israel, Japan, theUnited Kingdom, US, and is banned in Jordan.
o  Suicide bombings, rocket attacks, IED attacks, kidnapping, murder, and shootings.​
Palestine Liberation Front(PLF)
o  hijacking of the Italian cruise ship _MS Achille Lauro_


Islamic Jihad Group
Three people killed and eighty-three injured in a suicide bombing at a shopping mall in Afula.
A bomber killed 21 people and injured more than 100 people on a bus in Jerusalem.
A bomb killed 22 and injured 60 at a Haifa restaurant.
A bomb detonated in a Hadera market was responsible for killing seven people and injuring 55, five of them severely.
A bomb in aTel Aviv eatery killed eleven and injured 70.
Both the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades and the PIJ claim responsibility for a suicide bombing at an Eilat bakery that killed three.


Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine(PFLP)
Hijacked Lufthansa flight LH181, flying from Palma de Mallorca to Frankfurt. After various stop overs the pilot was killed. The remaining passengers and crew were eventually rescued by German counter-terrorism special forces.
Bus from Tel Aviv was hijacked.  Bassam Abu Sharif in Damascus issued a statement in the name of the PFLP claiming responsibility.


PFLP-General Command(PFLP-GC)
o  Two Palestinian guerrillas infiltrated into Israel from South Lebanon using hang gliders to launch a surprise attack against the Israel.​
Army of Islam(Palestinian)
o  The group kidnapped the BBC correspondent Alan Johnston.
o  Bombing of a Coptic church in Alexandria​
DFLP-Hawatmeh Faction(DFLP)
o  Paramilitary wing called the National Resistance Brigades. Although the National Resistance Brigades have fighters based in both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.​
The list of Foreign Terrorist Groups by country can be found and counted.  It is not propaganda, but just plain doing the math.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> It is the general position of pro-Palestinians advocates for Jihad and Armed Struggle in violation of international Laws, the Geneva Convention and the DOP for Freindly relations, to suggest that the Hostile Arab Palestinians are clean as virgin snow --- playing the part of the victim; but, we all know this is not true.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> No other single country has more designated terrorist organizations associated with it than the Palestinian Territories.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is what it is; trying to deny the history is unbecoming.  The past history of criminal terrorist behaviors are well documented.  Here is just a sample.
> 
> Abu Nidal Organization(ANO)
> o  20 countries, killing or injuring almost 900 persons. Targets include the US, the UK, France, and Israel,​
> Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement)
> o  designated as a terrorist organization by Australia, Canada, Egypt, theEuropean Union, Israel, Japan, theUnited Kingdom, US, and is banned in Jordan.
> o  Suicide bombings, rocket attacks, IED attacks, kidnapping, murder, and shootings.​
> Palestine Liberation Front(PLF)
> o  hijacking of the Italian cruise ship _MS Achille Lauro_
> 
> 
> Islamic Jihad Group
> Three people killed and eighty-three injured in a suicide bombing at a shopping mall in Afula.
> A bomber killed 21 people and injured more than 100 people on a bus in Jerusalem.
> A bomb killed 22 and injured 60 at a Haifa restaurant.
> A bomb detonated in a Hadera market was responsible for killing seven people and injuring 55, five of them severely.
> A bomb in aTel Aviv eatery killed eleven and injured 70.
> Both the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades and the PIJ claim responsibility for a suicide bombing at an Eilat bakery that killed three.
> 
> 
> Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine(PFLP)
> Hijacked Lufthansa flight LH181, flying from Palma de Mallorca to Frankfurt. After various stop overs the pilot was killed. The remaining passengers and crew were eventually rescued by German counter-terrorism special forces.
> Bus from Tel Aviv was hijacked.  Bassam Abu Sharif in Damascus issued a statement in the name of the PFLP claiming responsibility.
> 
> 
> PFLP-General Command(PFLP-GC)
> o  Two Palestinian guerrillas infiltrated into Israel from South Lebanon using hang gliders to launch a surprise attack against the Israel.​
> Army of Islam(Palestinian)
> o  The group kidnapped the BBC correspondent Alan Johnston.
> o  Bombing of a Coptic church in Alexandria​
> DFLP-Hawatmeh Faction(DFLP)
> o  Paramilitary wing called the National Resistance Brigades. Although the National Resistance Brigades have fighters based in both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.​
> The list of Foreign Terrorist Groups by country can be found and counted.  It is not propaganda, but just plain doing the math.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Drop in the bucket compared to Israel's violations.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

What are these violations.  Pick one.



P F Tinmore said:


> Drop in the bucket compared to Israel's violations.


*(COMMENT)*

I don't consider the list and list and list of various attacks, and the use of rocket and mortar attacks, a drop in the bucket.  I could copy and paste page upon page of international attacks perpetrated by the various Hostile Palestinian terrorist organizations, and I think everyone understands that.  That is not the issue.  

What is the issue is that Israel has the right to protect itself, from the threats of force and violence from the Palestinians.  If that requires "occupation" then --- so be it.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> What are these violations.  Pick one.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drop in the bucket compared to Israel's violations.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't consider the list and list and list of various attacks, and the use of rocket and mortar attacks, a drop in the bucket.  I could copy and paste page upon page of international attacks perpetrated by the various Hostile Palestinian terrorist organizations, and I think everyone understands that.  That is not the issue.
> 
> What is the issue is that Israel has the right to protect itself, from the threats of force and violence from the Palestinians.  If that requires "occupation" then --- so be it.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Israel has no right to anything. It has its fat ass parked on Palestinian land at the point of a gun.

Children killed since 2000

Israeli 131
Palestinian 1656
Remember These Children


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

This is two issue --- but I can handle that.



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel has no right to anything. It has its fat ass parked on Palestinian land at the point of a gun.


*(COMMENT)*

"Palestinian Land" does not mean the same thing as "Palestinian Sovereignty."  You are attempting to imply that the immigration of Jewish People to the former Ottoman Territory somehow violated some Arab Palestinian Sovereignty.  That is absolutely false.



			
				ARTICLE 132. Treaty of Sevres 1920 said:
			
		

> Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.
> 
> *SOURCE:* Part III - Treaty of Sevres



This portion of the Treaty of Sevres (1920), as subsequently validated by the Treaty of Lausanne [Part I --- Article 3(1) Syria], relinquishes the authority over that territory to the Allied Powers; not the indigenous population _(today called the Palestinians)_.  At no time, during the last millennium, was the territory sovereign under Arab self-government of any sort until they were released by the Allied Powers from the associated Mandates.   It was the Allied Powers that decided to open immigration to the Jewish People, willing to work for the establishment of the Jewish National Home.  In 1948, the Jewish Agency, established under the authority and recognition of the Mandatory, having completed the prerequisite "Steps Preparatory to Independence," exercised self-determination and declared Independence.  The newly formed state (Israel) immediately was besieged by military elements - representing seven Arab States _(Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Yemen)_; and additional Arab irregular forces _(including the Arab Liberation Army, the Holy War Army, and volunteers from the Muslim Brotherhood, Yemen, Pakistan, and the Sudan)_.  Arab Forces were repelled and ultimately a set of Armistice Line were established.

The UN considered the Independence successfully defended and in 1949 --- decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.  Now if you want to call that: "parked on Palestinian land at the point of a gun;" then --- let it be so.  Just as long as we all understand what that phase actually means in terms of historical facts.



P F Tinmore said:


> Children killed since 2000
> 
> Israeli 131
> Palestinian 1656
> Remember These Children


*(Historical Reminder of Events Since 2000)  
List of wars involving Israel From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*

*Second Intifada* (2000–2005) - Second Palestinian uprising, a period of intensified violence, which began in late September 2000.

*2006 Lebanon War* (summer 2006) - Began as a military operation in response to the abduction of two Israeli reserve soldiers by the Hezbollah. The operation gradually strengthened, to become a wider confrontation. The principal participants were Hezbollah paramilitary forces and the Israeli military. The conflict started on 12 July 2006 and continued until a United Nations-brokered ceasefire went into effect on 14 August 2006, though it formally ended on 8 September 2006, when Israel lifted its naval blockade of Lebanon. The war resulted in the pacification of southern Lebanon and in the weakness of the Hezbollah (which suffered serious casualties but managed to survive the Israeli onslaught).

*Gaza War* (December 2008 - January 2009) - Three-week armed conflict between Israel and Hamas during the winter of 2008–2009. In an escalation of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Israel responded to ongoing rocket fire from the Gaza Strip with military force in an action titled "Operation Cast Lead". Israel opened the attack with a surprise air strike on December 27, 2008. Israel's stated aim was to stop such rocket fire from and the import of arms into Gaza. Israeli forces attacked military and civilian targets, police stations, and government buildings in the opening assault. Israel declared an end to the conflict on January 18 and completed its withdrawal on January 21, 2009.

*Operation Pillar of Defense* (November 2012) - Military offensive on the Gaza Strip.

*Operation Protective Edge* (July 2014) - Military offensive on the Gaza Strip as a response to the collapse of American-sponsored peace talks, attempts by rival Palestinian factions to form a coalition government, the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers, the subsequent kidnapping and murder of a Palestinian teenager, and increased rocket attacks on Israel by Hamas militants.​
*(COMMENT)*

HAMAS’ strategy involves forcing Gaza’s civilians to serve as human shields. The terrorist organization deliberately places Palestinians in the line of fire in order to exploit civilian casualties in the international arena.

*Rule 97. The use of human shields is prohibited.  ICRC Customary IHL*
From the beginning of 2014 until the start of Operation Protective Edge, Palestinian terrorists in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip fired 450 rockets at Israel. Millions of Israelis were living under fire.

*Rule 12. Indiscriminate attacks are those:  ICRC Customary IHL*
*(a) which are not directed at a specific military objective;
(b) which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
(c) which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law;and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.*​
HAMAS’ vast underground tunnel network in Gaza enabled the terrorist group to infiltrate Israel and ambush civilians and IDF soldiers. Eliminating this threat was a primary objective of Operation Protective Edge.

*A/RES/25/2625*  Codification of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States.
Every State likewise has the duty to *refrain from the threat or use of force to violate* international lines of demarcation, *such as armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.​
*Rule 20. Advance Warning ICRC Customary IHL*
*Each party to the conflict must give effective advance warning of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit. *

*Hamas Violations: *

 Ibrahim Khreisheh, Palestinian Authority envoy to UNHRC, admitted in a TV interview that Hamas “never warn anyone about where these missiles are about to fall, or about the operation [Hamas] carr[ies] out.”​
*Rule 22. Principle of Precautions against the Effects of Attacks*  ICRC Customary IHL
The parties to the conflict must take all feasible precautions to protect the civilian population and civilian objects under their control against the effects of attacks.

Hamas Violations:

 CNN reported that ten percent of Hamas rockets fired at Israel fall short and land in Gaza, causing damage.

 The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) said they found rockets hidden by Hamas in a vacant school, in between two other UNRWA schools used to host 1,500 displaced civilians.

 The IDF released aerial photos of rocket launch sites inside Shijaiyeh, purportedly showing that Hamas launched rockets from inside and around a mosque, a hospital, a children’s playground, and a cemetery. Another video released by the IDF showed rocket launchers, some still holding rockets ready to be fired, next to an agricultural school in Beit Hanoun.

 Upon learning that Hamas had stored rockets in an UNRWA school, the spokesman for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued a statement that “Those responsible are turning schools into potential military targets, and endangering the lives of innocent children,” UN staff, and anyone seeking shelter.

 Hamas’s Interior Ministry published an order that residents of Gaza ignore Israel’s warnings of imminent air strikes and remain in their houses. Israel’s policy of warning is intended to give civilians time to flee and seek shelter.

 On three separate occasions during Operation Protective Edge, it was discovered that Hamas rockets were stored in UNRWA schools.

 UNRWA confirmed that Hamas fired into the Beit Hanoun area in northern Gaza where, on July 24, 2014, an UNRWA school was hit. According to Gaza sources, an estimated 17 children and UN personnel were killed, and 200 others wounded.

 UNRWA schools have reportedly been used as launching pads for mortar attacks.

 A senior UN official, John Ging, confirmed that Hamas terrorists "are firing their rockets into Israel from the vicinity of UN facilities and residential areas," thereby putting UNRWA staff and students in harm's way and using Gaza’s civilians as human shields.

According to the IDF, Hamas has booby-trapped hundreds of civilian houses in Gaza. The IDF translated and published the contents of a Hamas bomb-making manual captured during Operation Protective Edge, which recommends “teaching civilians how to build and store bombs in their homes.”

_*SOURCE:*_ HAMAS’S VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW The Lawfare Project​
All of this contributes to the casualty reports.  The fact of the matter is that HAMAS, and to some degree the general population itself, demonstrate a callous disregard for Human Life and a depraved indifference for whim might become a casualty when initiating a conflict.  Wars are inherently dangerous.  And the Palestinians are mentally capable of understanding the consequences of provoking a conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> "Palestinian Land" does not mean the same thing as "Palestinian Sovereignty." You are attempting to imply that the immigration of Jewish People to the former Ottoman Territory somehow violated some Arab Palestinian Sovereignty. That is absolutely false.



No matter how much happy horseshit you shovel onto the facts do not change the facts.

A peoples rights are inherent and inalienable. The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.

The rest of your crapola is merely propaganda.


----------



## Coyote

P F Tinmore said:


> I don't see any reason why they cannot live together. The division is caused by the governments. Get rid of the governments and let the people form one based on equal rights.
> 
> Problem solved.



I think at this point there is so much ingrained distrust and hate that living together would be difficult if not dangerous.

And, from a humanitarian standpoint - the Jews would be a minority.  They are a minority that has historically been subject to pogroms, discrimination, and massacres in Europe and in the Mid East.  The Holocaust exterminated nearly 2/3 of Europe's Jewish population.  That's an incredible number just to wrap your mind around and it's not "ancient history", it's a modern event that remains still in living memory.  I don't bring it up lightly or as an excuse, but ask yourself this.  

If you were Jewish, would you ever trust your safety, security and life to the majority decisions of a group that essentially hates you?  Would you trust your children's future to this new majority?  No where else in the world are Jews a majority or even a significant minority.  Anti-semitism - while often over used as an excuse - is still very real and rears it's ugly head periodically, usually hand in hand with a rise in Nationalism and economic down-turns where people need a scapegoat.

How would you assure the Jews that they would be equal citizens in a Palestinian/Muslim majority nation?  That their lives and property would be safe?  That the hatred, empowered by a majority, wouldn't erupt into violence?  That they wouldn't be ejected from Israel like they were from Arab countries during the founding of Israel.

There's a lot to overcome and I don't think either side can readily let go of hate, anger, mistrust and myth until they've had time, seperately, to work it out and hopefully establish a pattern of cooperation over confrontation.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Palestinian Land" does not mean the same thing as "Palestinian Sovereignty." You are attempting to imply that the immigration of Jewish People to the former Ottoman Territory somehow violated some Arab Palestinian Sovereignty. That is absolutely false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how much happy horseshit you shovel onto the facts do not change the facts.
> 
> A peoples rights are inherent and inalienable. The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.
> 
> The rest of your crapola is merely propaganda.
Click to expand...


Let the truth be known to all.

The Middle East destroys itself - NY Daily News


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

You've shifted gears again ---- and timelines.

What are inherent and inalienable rights?



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Palestinian Land" does not mean the same thing as "Palestinian Sovereignty." You are attempting to imply that the immigration of Jewish People to the former Ottoman Territory somehow violated some Arab Palestinian Sovereignty. That is absolutely false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how much happy horseshit you shovel onto the facts do not change the facts.
> 
> A peoples rights are inherent and inalienable. The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.
> 
> The rest of your crapola is merely propaganda.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

If I read you correctly, you are saying that "sovereignty" is an "inherent and inalienable" right.  That is questionable, and certainly was not a fact stipulated by anyone in the first half of the 20th Century.  In the 1948 Resolution 217 A (III) --- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, nowhere does it say that.  It says:  "_Whereas_ recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of *freedom, justice and peace* in the world."  Nor does the UN Charter say that sovereignty is an "inherent and inalienable" right.  What it says is:  "The Purposes of the United Nations are:  To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace."  In fact, the 1994 Resolution 49/148. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, does not call the sovereignty or the "right of self-determination" as "inherent and inalienable."

I don't have to change the facts.  You haven't offered a fact.  In the first half of the 20th Century, "inherent and inalienable" rights were understood to be very specific.  And the Palestinians were not denied them, they forfeited their inalienable rights of *freedom, justice and peace* in the world by declaring Jihad and armed struggle.

Now I know that you are going to point to the 1974 Resolution A/RES/3236 (XXIX) wherein it says:

_Reaffirms_ the The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.
(_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;
(_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

It doesn't say that it is an inherent right.  It only says it is a rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred.  This resolution comes a quarter-century after Israel fought for and acquired independence, and seven years after the 1967 War.  It just so happens that the West Bank Palestinians had already exercised their right of self-determination _(without external interference)_ as members of the Jordanian Parliament and declared the West Bank sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom.  And the All-Palestine Government over the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip, having been annulled by Egypt, had become a Egyptian Military Governorship.  In 1988, the Palestinians, for a second time, exercised their right of self-determination _(without external interference)_ when they declared independence _(uncontested by the Israelis)_.  The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was NEVER denied to them by illegal external interference; unless that interference was Jordanian or Egyptian which exercise control over their respective carve--outs of the territory.

It should be noted that the Israelis have the exact same "inalienable rights" to:

(_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;
(_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> You've shifted gears again ---- and timelines.
> 
> What are inherent and inalienable rights?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Palestinian Land" does not mean the same thing as "Palestinian Sovereignty." You are attempting to imply that the immigration of Jewish People to the former Ottoman Territory somehow violated some Arab Palestinian Sovereignty. That is absolutely false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how much happy horseshit you shovel onto the facts do not change the facts.
> 
> A peoples rights are inherent and inalienable. The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.
> 
> The rest of your crapola is merely propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If I read you correctly, you are saying that "sovereignty" is an "inherent and inalienable" right.  That is questionable, and certainly was not a fact stipulated by anyone in the first half of the 20th Century.  In the 1948 Resolution 217 A (III) --- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, nowhere does it say that.  It says:  "_Whereas_ recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of *freedom, justice and peace* in the world."  Nor does the UN Charter say that sovereignty is an "inherent and inalienable" right.  What it says is:  "The Purposes of the United Nations are:  To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace."  In fact, the 1994 Resolution 49/148. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, does not call the sovereignty or the "right of self-determination" as "inherent and inalienable."
> 
> I don't have to change the facts.  You haven't offered a fact.  In the first half of the 20th Century, "inherent and inalienable" rights were understood to be very specific.  And the Palestinians were not denied them, they forfeited their inalienable rights of *freedom, justice and peace* in the world by declaring Jihad and armed struggle.
> 
> Now I know that you are going to point to the 1974 Resolution A/RES/3236 (XXIX) wherein it says:
> 
> _Reaffirms_ the The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.
> (_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> (_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> It doesn't say that it is an inherent right.  It only says it is a rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred.  This resolution comes a quarter-century after Israel fought for and acquired independence, and seven years after the 1967 War.  It just so happens that the West Bank Palestinians had already exercised their right of self-determination _(without external interference)_ as members of the Jordanian Parliament and declared the West Bank sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom.  And the All-Palestine Government over the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip, having been annulled by Egypt, had become a Egyptian Military Governorship.  In 1988, the Palestinians, for a second time, exercised their right of self-determination _(without external interference)_ when they declared independence _(uncontested by the Israelis)_.  The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was NEVER denied to them by illegal external interference; unless that interference was Jordanian or Egyptian which exercise control over their respective carve--outs of the territory.
> 
> It should be noted that the Israelis have the exact same "inalienable rights" to:
> 
> (_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> (_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

I think you are misinterpreting.

Got links?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> You've shifted gears again ---- and timelines.
> 
> What are inherent and inalienable rights?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Palestinian Land" does not mean the same thing as "Palestinian Sovereignty." You are attempting to imply that the immigration of Jewish People to the former Ottoman Territory somehow violated some Arab Palestinian Sovereignty. That is absolutely false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how much happy horseshit you shovel onto the facts do not change the facts.
> 
> A peoples rights are inherent and inalienable. The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.
> 
> The rest of your crapola is merely propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If I read you correctly, you are saying that "sovereignty" is an "inherent and inalienable" right.  That is questionable, and certainly was not a fact stipulated by anyone in the first half of the 20th Century.  In the 1948 Resolution 217 A (III) --- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, nowhere does it say that.  It says:  "_Whereas_ recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of *freedom, justice and peace* in the world."  Nor does the UN Charter say that sovereignty is an "inherent and inalienable" right.  What it says is:  "The Purposes of the United Nations are:  To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace."  In fact, the 1994 Resolution 49/148. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, does not call the sovereignty or the "right of self-determination" as "inherent and inalienable."
> 
> I don't have to change the facts.  You haven't offered a fact.  In the first half of the 20th Century, "inherent and inalienable" rights were understood to be very specific.  And the Palestinians were not denied them, they forfeited their inalienable rights of *freedom, justice and peace* in the world by declaring Jihad and armed struggle.
> 
> Now I know that you are going to point to the 1974 Resolution A/RES/3236 (XXIX) wherein it says:
> 
> _Reaffirms_ the The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.
> (_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> (_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> It doesn't say that it is an inherent right.  It only says it is a rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred.  This resolution comes a quarter-century after Israel fought for and acquired independence, and seven years after the 1967 War.  It just so happens that the West Bank Palestinians had already exercised their right of self-determination _(without external interference)_ as members of the Jordanian Parliament and declared the West Bank sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom.  And the All-Palestine Government over the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip, having been annulled by Egypt, had become a Egyptian Military Governorship.  In 1988, the Palestinians, for a second time, exercised their right of self-determination _(without external interference)_ when they declared independence _(uncontested by the Israelis)_.  The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was NEVER denied to them by illegal external interference; unless that interference was Jordanian or Egyptian which exercise control over their respective carve--outs of the territory.
> 
> It should be noted that the Israelis have the exact same "inalienable rights" to:
> 
> (_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> (_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are misinterpreting.
> 
> Got links?
Click to expand...


Instead of your usual 'got links' trick, why can't you just admit you are wrong, which after reading your and Rocco's last several posts, you CLEARLY are


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Palestinian Land" does not mean the same thing as "Palestinian Sovereignty." You are attempting to imply that the immigration of Jewish People to the former Ottoman Territory somehow violated some Arab Palestinian Sovereignty. That is absolutely false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how much happy horseshit you shovel onto the facts do not change the facts.
> 
> A peoples rights are inherent and inalienable. The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.
> 
> The rest of your crapola is merely propaganda.
Click to expand...


   

Coming from you, this is hilarious . Everything Rocco said is 100% correct.

"The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference"

Nope, the Palestinians and other Arabs were the ones who decided not to exercise their sovereignty by rejecting the partition plan.
There was no illegal external interference that affected their rights to sovereignty . You're making up history..again..


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> You've shifted gears again ---- and timelines.
> 
> What are inherent and inalienable rights?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Palestinian Land" does not mean the same thing as "Palestinian Sovereignty." You are attempting to imply that the immigration of Jewish People to the former Ottoman Territory somehow violated some Arab Palestinian Sovereignty. That is absolutely false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how much happy horseshit you shovel onto the facts do not change the facts.
> 
> A peoples rights are inherent and inalienable. The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.
> 
> The rest of your crapola is merely propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If I read you correctly, you are saying that "sovereignty" is an "inherent and inalienable" right.  That is questionable, and certainly was not a fact stipulated by anyone in the first half of the 20th Century.  In the 1948 Resolution 217 A (III) --- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, nowhere does it say that.  It says:  "_Whereas_ recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of *freedom, justice and peace* in the world."  Nor does the UN Charter say that sovereignty is an "inherent and inalienable" right.  What it says is:  "The Purposes of the United Nations are:  To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace."  In fact, the 1994 Resolution 49/148. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, does not call the sovereignty or the "right of self-determination" as "inherent and inalienable."
> 
> I don't have to change the facts.  You haven't offered a fact.  In the first half of the 20th Century, "inherent and inalienable" rights were understood to be very specific.  And the Palestinians were not denied them, they forfeited their inalienable rights of *freedom, justice and peace* in the world by declaring Jihad and armed struggle.
> 
> Now I know that you are going to point to the 1974 Resolution A/RES/3236 (XXIX) wherein it says:
> 
> _Reaffirms_ the The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.
> (_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> (_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> It doesn't say that it is an inherent right.  It only says it is a rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred.  This resolution comes a quarter-century after Israel fought for and acquired independence, and seven years after the 1967 War.  It just so happens that the West Bank Palestinians had already exercised their right of self-determination _(without external interference)_ as members of the Jordanian Parliament and declared the West Bank sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom.  And the All-Palestine Government over the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip, having been annulled by Egypt, had become a Egyptian Military Governorship.  In 1988, the Palestinians, for a second time, exercised their right of self-determination _(without external interference)_ when they declared independence _(uncontested by the Israelis)_.  The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was NEVER denied to them by illegal external interference; unless that interference was Jordanian or Egyptian which exercise control over their respective carve--outs of the territory.
> 
> It should be noted that the Israelis have the exact same "inalienable rights" to:
> 
> (_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> (_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are misinterpreting.
> 
> Got links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of your usual 'got links' trick, why can't you just admit you are wrong, which after reading your and Rocco's last several posts, you CLEARLY are
Click to expand...

Oh really? What part of his post refuted my post?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> You've shifted gears again ---- and timelines.
> 
> What are inherent and inalienable rights?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Palestinian Land" does not mean the same thing as "Palestinian Sovereignty." You are attempting to imply that the immigration of Jewish People to the former Ottoman Territory somehow violated some Arab Palestinian Sovereignty. That is absolutely false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how much happy horseshit you shovel onto the facts do not change the facts.
> 
> A peoples rights are inherent and inalienable. The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.
> 
> The rest of your crapola is merely propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If I read you correctly, you are saying that "sovereignty" is an "inherent and inalienable" right.  That is questionable, and certainly was not a fact stipulated by anyone in the first half of the 20th Century.  In the 1948 Resolution 217 A (III) --- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, nowhere does it say that.  It says:  "_Whereas_ recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of *freedom, justice and peace* in the world."  Nor does the UN Charter say that sovereignty is an "inherent and inalienable" right.  What it says is:  "The Purposes of the United Nations are:  To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace."  In fact, the 1994 Resolution 49/148. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, does not call the sovereignty or the "right of self-determination" as "inherent and inalienable."
> 
> I don't have to change the facts.  You haven't offered a fact.  In the first half of the 20th Century, "inherent and inalienable" rights were understood to be very specific.  And the Palestinians were not denied them, they forfeited their inalienable rights of *freedom, justice and peace* in the world by declaring Jihad and armed struggle.
> 
> Now I know that you are going to point to the 1974 Resolution A/RES/3236 (XXIX) wherein it says:
> 
> _Reaffirms_ the The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.
> (_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> (_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> It doesn't say that it is an inherent right.  It only says it is a rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred.  This resolution comes a quarter-century after Israel fought for and acquired independence, and seven years after the 1967 War.  It just so happens that the West Bank Palestinians had already exercised their right of self-determination _(without external interference)_ as members of the Jordanian Parliament and declared the West Bank sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom.  And the All-Palestine Government over the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip, having been annulled by Egypt, had become a Egyptian Military Governorship.  In 1988, the Palestinians, for a second time, exercised their right of self-determination _(without external interference)_ when they declared independence _(uncontested by the Israelis)_.  The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was NEVER denied to them by illegal external interference; unless that interference was Jordanian or Egyptian which exercise control over their respective carve--outs of the territory.
> 
> It should be noted that the Israelis have the exact same "inalienable rights" to:
> 
> (_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> (_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are misinterpreting.
> 
> Got links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of your usual 'got links' trick, why can't you just admit you are wrong, which after reading your and Rocco's last several posts, you CLEARLY are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh really? What part of his post refuted my post?
Click to expand...


If you are unable to see that yourself, than you either did not  read his post or you have SERIOUS reading comprehension issues.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

 Links to what?



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> You've shifted gears again ---- and timelines.
> 
> What are inherent and inalienable rights?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Palestinian Land" does not mean the same thing as "Palestinian Sovereignty." You are attempting to imply that the immigration of Jewish People to the former Ottoman Territory somehow violated some Arab Palestinian Sovereignty. That is absolutely false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how much happy horseshit you shovel onto the facts do not change the facts.
> 
> A peoples rights are inherent and inalienable. The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.
> 
> The rest of your crapola is merely propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If I read you correctly, you are saying that "sovereignty" is an "inherent and inalienable" right.  That is questionable, and certainly was not a fact stipulated by anyone in the first half of the 20th Century.  In the 1948 Resolution 217 A (III) --- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, nowhere does it say that.  It says:  "_Whereas_ recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of *freedom, justice and peace* in the world."  Nor does the UN Charter say that sovereignty is an "inherent and inalienable" right.  What it says is:  "The Purposes of the United Nations are:  To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace."  In fact, the 1994 Resolution 49/148. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, does not call the sovereignty or the "right of self-determination" as "inherent and inalienable."
> 
> I don't have to change the facts.  You haven't offered a fact.  In the first half of the 20th Century, "inherent and inalienable" rights were understood to be very specific.  And the Palestinians were not denied them, they forfeited their inalienable rights of *freedom, justice and peace* in the world by declaring Jihad and armed struggle.
> 
> Now I know that you are going to point to the 1974 Resolution A/RES/3236 (XXIX) wherein it says:
> 
> _Reaffirms_ the The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.
> (_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> (_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> It doesn't say that it is an inherent right.  It only says it is a rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred.  This resolution comes a quarter-century after Israel fought for and acquired independence, and seven years after the 1967 War.  It just so happens that the West Bank Palestinians had already exercised their right of self-determination _(without external interference)_ as members of the Jordanian Parliament and declared the West Bank sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom.  And the All-Palestine Government over the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip, having been annulled by Egypt, had become a Egyptian Military Governorship.  In 1988, the Palestinians, for a second time, exercised their right of self-determination _(without external interference)_ when they declared independence _(uncontested by the Israelis)_.  The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was NEVER denied to them by illegal external interference; unless that interference was Jordanian or Egyptian which exercise control over their respective carve--outs of the territory.
> 
> It should be noted that the Israelis have the exact same "inalienable rights" to:
> 
> (_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> (_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are misinterpreting.
> 
> Got links?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The links are embedded.  There are four links in "blue."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> You've shifted gears again ---- and timelines.
> 
> What are inherent and inalienable rights?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Palestinian Land" does not mean the same thing as "Palestinian Sovereignty." You are attempting to imply that the immigration of Jewish People to the former Ottoman Territory somehow violated some Arab Palestinian Sovereignty. That is absolutely false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how much happy horseshit you shovel onto the facts do not change the facts.
> 
> A peoples rights are inherent and inalienable. The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.
> 
> The rest of your crapola is merely propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If I read you correctly, you are saying that "sovereignty" is an "inherent and inalienable" right.  That is questionable, and certainly was not a fact stipulated by anyone in the first half of the 20th Century.  In the 1948 Resolution 217 A (III) --- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, nowhere does it say that.  It says:  "_Whereas_ recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of *freedom, justice and peace* in the world."  Nor does the UN Charter say that sovereignty is an "inherent and inalienable" right.  What it says is:  "The Purposes of the United Nations are:  To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace."  In fact, the 1994 Resolution 49/148. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, does not call the sovereignty or the "right of self-determination" as "inherent and inalienable."
> 
> I don't have to change the facts.  You haven't offered a fact.  In the first half of the 20th Century, "inherent and inalienable" rights were understood to be very specific.  And the Palestinians were not denied them, they forfeited their inalienable rights of *freedom, justice and peace* in the world by declaring Jihad and armed struggle.
> 
> Now I know that you are going to point to the 1974 Resolution A/RES/3236 (XXIX) wherein it says:
> 
> _Reaffirms_ the The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.
> (_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> (_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> It doesn't say that it is an inherent right.  It only says it is a rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred.  This resolution comes a quarter-century after Israel fought for and acquired independence, and seven years after the 1967 War.  It just so happens that the West Bank Palestinians had already exercised their right of self-determination _(without external interference)_ as members of the Jordanian Parliament and declared the West Bank sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom.  And the All-Palestine Government over the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip, having been annulled by Egypt, had become a Egyptian Military Governorship.  In 1988, the Palestinians, for a second time, exercised their right of self-determination _(without external interference)_ when they declared independence _(uncontested by the Israelis)_.  The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was NEVER denied to them by illegal external interference; unless that interference was Jordanian or Egyptian which exercise control over their respective carve--outs of the territory.
> 
> It should be noted that the Israelis have the exact same "inalienable rights" to:
> 
> (_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> (_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are misinterpreting.
> 
> Got links?
Click to expand...


Got links is a ridiculous reply.  Any fool can find links to support any position on any issue.  One needs to be able to think rationally to sort out what is real & or true.  But then we forgive you for your inability to do so.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Links to what?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> You've shifted gears again ---- and timelines.
> 
> What are inherent and inalienable rights?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Palestinian Land" does not mean the same thing as "Palestinian Sovereignty." You are attempting to imply that the immigration of Jewish People to the former Ottoman Territory somehow violated some Arab Palestinian Sovereignty. That is absolutely false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how much happy horseshit you shovel onto the facts do not change the facts.
> 
> A peoples rights are inherent and inalienable. The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.
> 
> The rest of your crapola is merely propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If I read you correctly, you are saying that "sovereignty" is an "inherent and inalienable" right.  That is questionable, and certainly was not a fact stipulated by anyone in the first half of the 20th Century.  In the 1948 Resolution 217 A (III) --- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, nowhere does it say that.  It says:  "_Whereas_ recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of *freedom, justice and peace* in the world."  Nor does the UN Charter say that sovereignty is an "inherent and inalienable" right.  What it says is:  "The Purposes of the United Nations are:  To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace."  In fact, the 1994 Resolution 49/148. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, does not call the sovereignty or the "right of self-determination" as "inherent and inalienable."
> 
> I don't have to change the facts.  You haven't offered a fact.  In the first half of the 20th Century, "inherent and inalienable" rights were understood to be very specific.  And the Palestinians were not denied them, they forfeited their inalienable rights of *freedom, justice and peace* in the world by declaring Jihad and armed struggle.
> 
> Now I know that you are going to point to the 1974 Resolution A/RES/3236 (XXIX) wherein it says:
> 
> _Reaffirms_ the The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.
> (_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> (_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> It doesn't say that it is an inherent right.  It only says it is a rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred.  This resolution comes a quarter-century after Israel fought for and acquired independence, and seven years after the 1967 War.  It just so happens that the West Bank Palestinians had already exercised their right of self-determination _(without external interference)_ as members of the Jordanian Parliament and declared the West Bank sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom.  And the All-Palestine Government over the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip, having been annulled by Egypt, had become a Egyptian Military Governorship.  In 1988, the Palestinians, for a second time, exercised their right of self-determination _(without external interference)_ when they declared independence _(uncontested by the Israelis)_.  The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was NEVER denied to them by illegal external interference; unless that interference was Jordanian or Egyptian which exercise control over their respective carve--outs of the territory.
> 
> It should be noted that the Israelis have the exact same "inalienable rights" to:
> 
> (_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> (_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are misinterpreting.
> 
> Got links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The links are embedded.  There are four links in "blue."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

I saw your links. What parts refute my post?


----------



## toastman

What's the point of posting links for you Tinmore. No matter how clearly the link refutes what you claimed, you will still deny it


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I explained it in the original post.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Links to what?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> You've shifted gears again ---- and timelines.
> 
> What are inherent and inalienable rights?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Palestinian Land" does not mean the same thing as "Palestinian Sovereignty." You are attempting to imply that the immigration of Jewish People to the former Ottoman Territory somehow violated some Arab Palestinian Sovereignty. That is absolutely false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how much happy horseshit you shovel onto the facts do not change the facts.
> 
> A peoples rights are inherent and inalienable. The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.
> 
> The rest of your crapola is merely propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If I read you correctly, you are saying that "sovereignty" is an "inherent and inalienable" right.  That is questionable, and certainly was not a fact stipulated by anyone in the first half of the 20th Century.  In the 1948 Resolution 217 A (III) --- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, nowhere does it say that.  It says:  "_Whereas_ recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of *freedom, justice and peace* in the world."  Nor does the UN Charter say that sovereignty is an "inherent and inalienable" right.  What it says is:  "The Purposes of the United Nations are:  To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace."  In fact, the 1994 Resolution 49/148. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, does not call the sovereignty or the "right of self-determination" as "inherent and inalienable."
> 
> I don't have to change the facts.  You haven't offered a fact.  In the first half of the 20th Century, "inherent and inalienable" rights were understood to be very specific.  And the Palestinians were not denied them, they forfeited their inalienable rights of *freedom, justice and peace* in the world by declaring Jihad and armed struggle.
> 
> Now I know that you are going to point to the 1974 Resolution A/RES/3236 (XXIX) wherein it says:
> 
> _Reaffirms_ the The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.
> (_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> (_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> It doesn't say that it is an inherent right.  It only says it is a rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred.  This resolution comes a quarter-century after Israel fought for and acquired independence, and seven years after the 1967 War.  It just so happens that the West Bank Palestinians had already exercised their right of self-determination _(without external interference)_ as members of the Jordanian Parliament and declared the West Bank sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom.  And the All-Palestine Government over the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip, having been annulled by Egypt, had become a Egyptian Military Governorship.  In 1988, the Palestinians, for a second time, exercised their right of self-determination _(without external interference)_ when they declared independence _(uncontested by the Israelis)_.  The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was NEVER denied to them by illegal external interference; unless that interference was Jordanian or Egyptian which exercise control over their respective carve--outs of the territory.
> 
> It should be noted that the Israelis have the exact same "inalienable rights" to:
> 
> (_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> (_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are misinterpreting.
> 
> Got links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The links are embedded.  There are four links in "blue."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I saw your links. What parts refute my post?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

You made the claim that "the right to self-determination without external interference" is "inherent."  Not true.  While the "right to self-determination without external interference" may be "inalienable" that only means that it cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred without approval.   

You made the claim that the "Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them."  I demonstrated that is not true, as a matter of history.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I explained it in the original post.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Links to what?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> You've shifted gears again ---- and timelines.
> 
> What are inherent and inalienable rights?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how much happy horseshit you shovel onto the facts do not change the facts.
> 
> A peoples rights are inherent and inalienable. The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.
> 
> The rest of your crapola is merely propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If I read you correctly, you are saying that "sovereignty" is an "inherent and inalienable" right.  That is questionable, and certainly was not a fact stipulated by anyone in the first half of the 20th Century.  In the 1948 Resolution 217 A (III) --- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, nowhere does it say that.  It says:  "_Whereas_ recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of *freedom, justice and peace* in the world."  Nor does the UN Charter say that sovereignty is an "inherent and inalienable" right.  What it says is:  "The Purposes of the United Nations are:  To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace."  In fact, the 1994 Resolution 49/148. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, does not call the sovereignty or the "right of self-determination" as "inherent and inalienable."
> 
> I don't have to change the facts.  You haven't offered a fact.  In the first half of the 20th Century, "inherent and inalienable" rights were understood to be very specific.  And the Palestinians were not denied them, they forfeited their inalienable rights of *freedom, justice and peace* in the world by declaring Jihad and armed struggle.
> 
> Now I know that you are going to point to the 1974 Resolution A/RES/3236 (XXIX) wherein it says:
> 
> _Reaffirms_ the The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.
> (_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> (_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> It doesn't say that it is an inherent right.  It only says it is a rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred.  This resolution comes a quarter-century after Israel fought for and acquired independence, and seven years after the 1967 War.  It just so happens that the West Bank Palestinians had already exercised their right of self-determination _(without external interference)_ as members of the Jordanian Parliament and declared the West Bank sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom.  And the All-Palestine Government over the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip, having been annulled by Egypt, had become a Egyptian Military Governorship.  In 1988, the Palestinians, for a second time, exercised their right of self-determination _(without external interference)_ when they declared independence _(uncontested by the Israelis)_.  The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was NEVER denied to them by illegal external interference; unless that interference was Jordanian or Egyptian which exercise control over their respective carve--outs of the territory.
> 
> It should be noted that the Israelis have the exact same "inalienable rights" to:
> 
> (_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> (_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are misinterpreting.
> 
> Got links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The links are embedded.  There are four links in "blue."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I saw your links. What parts refute my post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You made the claim that "the right to self-determination without external interference" is "inherent."  Not true.  While the "right to self-determination without external interference" may be "inalienable" that only means that it cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred without approval.
> 
> You made the claim that the "Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them."  I demonstrated that is not true, as a matter of history.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

If rights are not inherent, then where did they come from.

Does someone have the authority to pass out rights?


----------



## Mindful

Where did they come from? 

Who knows? 

God?


----------



## MJB12741

Oh how I wish the Palestinians could have their own Palestinian State with self determiination so they wouldn't have to suck off Israel to provide for them any longer.  The question is where to put it as no surrounding Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their indigenous homelands.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

Wow, we could write an entire encyclopedia on this one question:  "If rights are not inherent, then where did they come from?"

Basically --- you can start by distinguishing between ‘natural justice'_ (inherent rights - deemed to pre-exist actual social and political systems)_ and 'legal justice’ _(stipulated rights by social and political systems)_; wherein the natural right is that which has the same validity everywhere and does not depend upon acceptance; emanating from a moral universalism and adopted by historical conventions.  The aim of documenting a natural (inherent) human right is directly connected to the development of moral universalism and is the basis for determining the shape, content, and scope of fundamental, public moral norms.  This differs from 'legal justice’ (stipulated rights), which are man-made and not universally recognized from one cultural society to the next.  _[Sharia Law differs dramatically from Western Law in terms of Human Rights especially (but not exclusively) in gender related issues.]_

First, let me clarify, I said "the right to self-determination without external interference" is not "inherent" --- but that it may be "inalienable" (two entirely different concepts).  I also said that the "the right to self-determination without external interference" is not the same thing as "right to sovereignty."



P F Tinmore said:


> If rights are not inherent, then where did they come from.
> 
> Does someone have the authority to pass out rights?


*(OBSERVATION)
*
Human rights have been defined as basic moral guarantees that people in all countries and cultures allegedly have simply because they are people. Calling these guarantees "rights" suggests that they attach to particular individuals who can invoke them, that they are of high priority, and that compliance with them is mandatory rather than discretionary. Human rights are frequently held to be universal in the sense that all people have and should enjoy them, and to be independent in the sense that they exist and are available as standards of justification and criticism whether or not they are recognized and implemented by the legal system or officials of a country. _(James Nickel, Professor of Law and Faculty Fellow, Center for the Study of Law, Science, & Technology, _Making Sense of Human Rights, _1992:561-2)_

Relative to self-determination:  Self-determination remains a rhetorical tool utilized by groups within states seeking independence, autonomy, or simply a greater degree of control over issues that directly affect them. Many of these groups share ethnic, linguistic, or other characteristics, but the *international law of self-determination* -- as opposed to a few non-binding declarations and recommendations -- *has never accorded to such groups any special right of self-governance*. Given the widely divergent situations within states, it is unlikely that self-determination will acquire a sufficiently determinate definition to enable it to be used as a legal tool for adjudicating disputes, even if it continues to be interpreted as excluding unilateral secession. However, the political appeal of the term is unlikely to fade, and it is possible that its use will lead to an expansive interpretation of human rights norms concerning identity and effective participation and thus offer new opportunities for accommodating conflicting principles of diversity and unity.
*SOURCE:* Legal Aspects of Self-determination, The _Encyclopedia Princetoniensis, Princeton University_
*
(COMMENT)*

For a "right" (any human right) to be "inherent" --- it must be beyond criticism --- universally understood and a universally embedded foundational.  This is certainly not the case with either:

(_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;
(_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​
While these two rights are stipulated _(stipulated rights by social and political systems)_ as applying in individual cases _(as in the case of Palestine),_ they are not fundamentally and universally accepted as applying to everyone - everywhere.

As to the second question:    Does someone have the authority to pass out rights?

Such rights are documented and submitted to the social collective having legal authorities to establish man-made law.  To this end, there has been drafted and adopted various declarations and legal conventions issued (in the last half-century), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the European Convention on Human Rights (1954), and the International Covenant on Civil and Economic Rights (1966). 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I explained it in the original post.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Links to what?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> You've shifted gears again ---- and timelines.
> 
> What are inherent and inalienable rights?
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If I read you correctly, you are saying that "sovereignty" is an "inherent and inalienable" right.  That is questionable, and certainly was not a fact stipulated by anyone in the first half of the 20th Century.  In the 1948 Resolution 217 A (III) --- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, nowhere does it say that.  It says:  "_Whereas_ recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of *freedom, justice and peace* in the world."  Nor does the UN Charter say that sovereignty is an "inherent and inalienable" right.  What it says is:  "The Purposes of the United Nations are:  To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace."  In fact, the 1994 Resolution 49/148. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, does not call the sovereignty or the "right of self-determination" as "inherent and inalienable."
> 
> I don't have to change the facts.  You haven't offered a fact.  In the first half of the 20th Century, "inherent and inalienable" rights were understood to be very specific.  And the Palestinians were not denied them, they forfeited their inalienable rights of *freedom, justice and peace* in the world by declaring Jihad and armed struggle.
> 
> Now I know that you are going to point to the 1974 Resolution A/RES/3236 (XXIX) wherein it says:
> 
> _Reaffirms_ the The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them by illegal external interference.
> (_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> (_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> It doesn't say that it is an inherent right.  It only says it is a rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred.  This resolution comes a quarter-century after Israel fought for and acquired independence, and seven years after the 1967 War.  It just so happens that the West Bank Palestinians had already exercised their right of self-determination _(without external interference)_ as members of the Jordanian Parliament and declared the West Bank sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom.  And the All-Palestine Government over the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip, having been annulled by Egypt, had become a Egyptian Military Governorship.  In 1988, the Palestinians, for a second time, exercised their right of self-determination _(without external interference)_ when they declared independence _(uncontested by the Israelis)_.  The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was NEVER denied to them by illegal external interference; unless that interference was Jordanian or Egyptian which exercise control over their respective carve--outs of the territory.
> 
> It should be noted that the Israelis have the exact same "inalienable rights" to:
> 
> (_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> (_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are misinterpreting.
> 
> Got links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The links are embedded.  There are four links in "blue."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I saw your links. What parts refute my post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You made the claim that "the right to self-determination without external interference" is "inherent."  Not true.  While the "right to self-determination without external interference" may be "inalienable" that only means that it cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred without approval.
> 
> You made the claim that the "Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty was denied to them."  I demonstrated that is not true, as a matter of history.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If rights are not inherent, then where did they come from.
> 
> Does someone have the authority to pass out rights?
Click to expand...


You have the right to breath.  The right to struggle through life.  The right to  find a meaning for yourself.  The right to die.  That is all life gives you.
Organized communities or national agree to by laws and rights.  With those rights also come obligation on your part.  Nothing in life is given to you.  Civilization is where you get your rights, not anarchy, not god given.
You have to earn the rights you take for granted by positive actions towards others.  If you give nothing, you deserve little or nothing.  Rights are reciprocal.  If you infringe on the right of others you will quite probably loose some or all of your rights.
Other people give you rights by cooperation with them in a community.  Right are something you constantly work for.
Golden rule.


----------



## Coyote

The subject of rights - what they are, where they come from...who grants them...that could be a good topic in itself


----------



## MJB12741

Coyote said:


> The subject of rights - what they are, where they come from...who grants them...that could be a good topic in itself



Rights are whatever the rulers of any land say they are.  Here in the USA we must pay our taxes & obey all laws determined by our elected government.  But we have the RIGHt to protest.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Coyote said:


> The subject of rights - what they are, where they come from...who grants them...that could be a good topic in itself



The right to kill Jews. The right to kill girls for "honor". The right to torture gay people. The right to war upon any who isn't you. The right to generalized carnage, random mayhem, and continuous violence. The right to hypocrisy. The right to supremacism and totalitarianism. The right to do whatever you damn well please because your enormous propaganda apparatus has hoodwinked countless millions of useful idiots.

Am I getting close yet?


----------



## Coyote

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subject of rights - what they are, where they come from...who grants them...that could be a good topic in itself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to kill Jews. The right to kill girls for "honor". The right to torture gay people. The right to war upon any who isn't you. The right to generalized carnage, random mayhem, and continuous violence. The right to hypocrisy. The right to supremacism and totalitarianism. The right to do whatever you damn well please because your enormous propaganda apparatus has hoodwinked countless millions of useful idiots.
> 
> Am I getting close yet?
Click to expand...


Close to what?


----------



## MJB12741

Coyote said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subject of rights - what they are, where they come from...who grants them...that could be a good topic in itself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to kill Jews. The right to kill girls for "honor". The right to torture gay people. The right to war upon any who isn't you. The right to generalized carnage, random mayhem, and continuous violence. The right to hypocrisy. The right to supremacism and totalitarianism. The right to do whatever you damn well please because your enormous propaganda apparatus has hoodwinked countless millions of useful idiots.
> 
> Am I getting close yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Close to what?
Click to expand...


Close to Palestinian "rights."


----------



## MJB12741

Poor unfortunate Palestinians.  First the Arab countries massacre them over & over again by the tens of thousands & refuse to grant the refugees a right  of return back to their indigenous homelands.  And then Israel brutalizes them with peace offerings, a security fence & land concessions so they can remain in Israel.


----------



## MJB12741

Let us consider what the Arab countries think of their Palaestinian brothers.  And ask ouselves, why is that?

Palestinians The Arabs Betrayed Us - Again


----------



## aris2chat

MJB12741 said:


> Let us consider what the Arab countries think of their Palaestinian brothers.  And ask ouselves, why is that?
> 
> Palestinians The Arabs Betrayed Us - Again



There were arabs, of all faiths, going back to the mid-50's, that I knew of, that rather worked for the Israelis that accept the palestinians refugees or their "cause"
Host countries that had little choice would not let them work, with a few exceptions, or apply for citizenship.  They wanted them gone, as far away as possible.
The guess from hell was how most though of them.  If they did not actually cause trouble, their seemed to attract it none the less.  Unfortunately, as with the syrian refugees, the crime rate went up, both by them and against them.  Even with in the camps, which they governed, there was inevitably violence between families, tribes, political parties and the formation of crime gangs.
The idea of a palestinians state was far less important to just getting the palestinians out of their countries.  Jordan, Lebanon, Kuwait, Egypt, Syria and even Iraq have had their troubles with palestinians.
Arabs created the problem but were unwilling to do anything to deal with the palestinians except to keep them contained and receiving UN aid while trying to ignore their presence. 
The situation was not fair to either side, but there was little they could do after the international terrorism became an issue.  The host states would not even go into the camps and arrest the culprits as the camps were protected sanctuaries, even for other criminals and terrorist elements globally.  Within the camps they were untouchable except by the palestinians themselves.
It was anything except ideal for the host or the palestinians.  The refugees became a cancer feeding on the host that could not be eliminated.
It was/is a sad situation for everyone that festered and fed a hotbed of hate.


----------



## Mindful

Who are they?


 What is 8216 Palestine 8217 and who exactly are the 8216 Palestinians 8217


----------



## MJB12741

aris2chat said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let us consider what the Arab countries think of their Palaestinian brothers.  And ask ouselves, why is that?
> 
> Palestinians The Arabs Betrayed Us - Again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were arabs, of all faiths, going back to the mid-50's, that I knew of, that rather worked for the Israelis that accept the palestinians refugees or their "cause"
> Host countries that had little choice would not let them work, with a few exceptions, or apply for citizenship.  They wanted them gone, as far away as possible.
> The guess from hell was how most though of them.  If they did not actually cause trouble, their seemed to attract it none the less.  Unfortunately, as with the syrian refugees, the crime rate went up, both by them and against them.  Even with in the camps, which they governed, there was inevitably violence between families, tribes, political parties and the formation of crime gangs.
> The idea of a palestinians state was far less important to just getting the palestinians out of their countries.  Jordan, Lebanon, Kuwait, Egypt, Syria and even Iraq have had their troubles with palestinians.
> Arabs created the problem but were unwilling to do anything to deal with the palestinians except to keep them contained and receiving UN aid while trying to ignore their presence.
> The situation was not fair to either side, but there was little they could do after the international terrorism became an issue.  The host states would not even go into the camps and arrest the culprits as the camps were protected sanctuaries, even for other criminals and terrorist elements globally.  Within the camps they were untouchable except by the palestinians themselves.
> It was anything except ideal for the host or the palestinians.  The refugees became a cancer feeding on the host that could not be eliminated.
> It was/is a sad situation for everyone that festered and fed a hotbed of hate.
Click to expand...


It is true that every Arab country wanted the Palestinians out & no Arab country had ever supported the idea of a Palestinian state within any Arab country.


----------



## aris2chat

MJB12741 said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let us consider what the Arab countries think of their Palaestinian brothers.  And ask ouselves, why is that?
> 
> Palestinians The Arabs Betrayed Us - Again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were arabs, of all faiths, going back to the mid-50's, that I knew of, that rather worked for the Israelis that accept the palestinians refugees or their "cause"
> Host countries that had little choice would not let them work, with a few exceptions, or apply for citizenship.  They wanted them gone, as far away as possible.
> The guess from hell was how most though of them.  If they did not actually cause trouble, their seemed to attract it none the less.  Unfortunately, as with the syrian refugees, the crime rate went up, both by them and against them.  Even with in the camps, which they governed, there was inevitably violence between families, tribes, political parties and the formation of crime gangs.
> The idea of a palestinians state was far less important to just getting the palestinians out of their countries.  Jordan, Lebanon, Kuwait, Egypt, Syria and even Iraq have had their troubles with palestinians.
> Arabs created the problem but were unwilling to do anything to deal with the palestinians except to keep them contained and receiving UN aid while trying to ignore their presence.
> The situation was not fair to either side, but there was little they could do after the international terrorism became an issue.  The host states would not even go into the camps and arrest the culprits as the camps were protected sanctuaries, even for other criminals and terrorist elements globally.  Within the camps they were untouchable except by the palestinians themselves.
> It was anything except ideal for the host or the palestinians.  The refugees became a cancer feeding on the host that could not be eliminated.
> It was/is a sad situation for everyone that festered and fed a hotbed of hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is true that every Arab country wanted the Palestinians out & no Arab country had ever supported the idea of a Palestinian state within any Arab country.
Click to expand...


Jordan tried to give the palestinians in it's country an identity as Jordanians but that was unwelcome.  They preferred to attempt a coup against the king which resulted on tens of thousand dead and Arafat and his PLO fighters being kicked to the curb.
Arafat was presented to the UNGA by Lebanon to speak for his people and then he trigger a horrific civil war in that country a year later.
Kuwait took in the palestinians and they sided with Saddam in the conquest of that country.
How many embassies, military bases, assassinations, kidnapping, hijacking attacks on the US should the US or any country take by arab/muslims before you and other realize that the US was drawn into this by the arab/muslims themselves, not the other way around.


----------



## MJB12741

aris2chat said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let us consider what the Arab countries think of their Palaestinian brothers.  And ask ouselves, why is that?
> 
> Palestinians The Arabs Betrayed Us - Again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were arabs, of all faiths, going back to the mid-50's, that I knew of, that rather worked for the Israelis that accept the palestinians refugees or their "cause"
> Host countries that had little choice would not let them work, with a few exceptions, or apply for citizenship.  They wanted them gone, as far away as possible.
> The guess from hell was how most though of them.  If they did not actually cause trouble, their seemed to attract it none the less.  Unfortunately, as with the syrian refugees, the crime rate went up, both by them and against them.  Even with in the camps, which they governed, there was inevitably violence between families, tribes, political parties and the formation of crime gangs.
> The idea of a palestinians state was far less important to just getting the palestinians out of their countries.  Jordan, Lebanon, Kuwait, Egypt, Syria and even Iraq have had their troubles with palestinians.
> Arabs created the problem but were unwilling to do anything to deal with the palestinians except to keep them contained and receiving UN aid while trying to ignore their presence.
> The situation was not fair to either side, but there was little they could do after the international terrorism became an issue.  The host states would not even go into the camps and arrest the culprits as the camps were protected sanctuaries, even for other criminals and terrorist elements globally.  Within the camps they were untouchable except by the palestinians themselves.
> It was anything except ideal for the host or the palestinians.  The refugees became a cancer feeding on the host that could not be eliminated.
> It was/is a sad situation for everyone that festered and fed a hotbed of hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is true that every Arab country wanted the Palestinians out & no Arab country had ever supported the idea of a Palestinian state within any Arab country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jordan tried to give the palestinians in it's country an identity as Jordanians but that was unwelcome.  They preferred to attempt a coup against the king which resulted on tens of thousand dead and Arafat and his PLO fighters being kicked to the curb.
> Arafat was presented to the UNGA by Lebanon to speak for his people and then he trigger a horrific civil war in that country a year later.
> Kuwait took in the palestinians and they sided with Saddam in the conquest of that country.
> How many embassies, military bases, assassinations, kidnapping, hijacking attacks on the US should the US or any country take by arab/muslims before you and other realize that the US was drawn into this by the arab/muslims themselves, not the other way around.
Click to expand...


We all know that except for the Muslim Arabs & their supporters.  And how many Palestinian rocket missiles should Israel put up with before putting an end to it with whatever it takes?


----------



## MJB12741

The thread title is Who Are The Palestinians?  For those who were unsure, let this educate you.

Prayer massacre Three Americans among four rabbis killed as Palestinian militants storm Jerusalem synagogue - AOL.com


----------



## aris2chat

MJB12741 said:


> The thread title is Who Are The Palestinians?  For those who were unsure, let this educate you.
> 
> Prayer massacre Three Americans among four rabbis killed as Palestinian militants storm Jerusalem synagogue - AOL.com



Pure Evil - Inside Israel - News - Arutz Sheva


----------



## MJB12741

aris2chat said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread title is Who Are The Palestinians?  For those who were unsure, let this educate you.
> 
> Prayer massacre Three Americans among four rabbis killed as Palestinian militants storm Jerusalem synagogue - AOL.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pure Evil - Inside Israel - News - Arutz Sheva
Click to expand...



The time is long overdo for Israel to contact the leaders of Hamas & make it clear that from now on, each time the Palestinians kill an Israeli, Israel will retaliate by killing 10,000 Palestinians, & do it.  Hopefully that s all it would take, but then who  knows with Palestinians.  Let us not forget it took Jordan 20,000 dead Palestinians to communicate a lasting peace from  them.


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread title is Who Are The Palestinians?  For those who were unsure, let this educate you.
> 
> Prayer massacre Three Americans among four rabbis killed as Palestinian militants storm Jerusalem synagogue - AOL.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pure Evil - Inside Israel - News - Arutz Sheva
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The time is long overdo for Israel to contact the leaders of Hamas & make it clear that from now on, each time the Palestinians kill an Israeli, Israel will retaliate by killing 10,000 Palestinians, & do it.  Hopefully that s all it would take, but then who  knows with Palestinians.  Let us not forget it took Jordan 20,000 dead Palestinians to communicate a lasting peace from  them.
Click to expand...


Palestinians seem to never learn what's best for them.  If you don't want Israel killing your people, stop attacking Israeli's.


----------



## MJB12741

Consider this for those who still wonder---Who Are The Palestinians?

Jerusalem Synagogue Attack Leaves 3 Americans Briton Dead


----------



## aris2chat

MJB12741 said:


> Consider this for those who still wonder---Who Are The Palestinians?
> 
> Jerusalem Synagogue Attack Leaves 3 Americans Briton Dead



And an Israeli Druze that died of a shot to the head


----------



## MJB12741

aris2chat said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consider this for those who still wonder---Who Are The Palestinians?
> 
> Jerusalem Synagogue Attack Leaves 3 Americans Briton Dead
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And an Israeli Druze that died of a shot to the head
Click to expand...



Hey, Palestinians will be Palestinians.


----------



## Mindful

These are The Palestinians:


Celebrating the Murder of Jews


----------



## MJB12741

Mindful said:


> These are The Palestinians:
> 
> 
> Celebrating the Murder of Jews



Who was it that stooped so low as to kill the Israeli Olympic team in Munich?


----------



## MJB12741

Are these terrorists Zionists?

http://commentisfreewatch.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/al-aqsa_martyrs_brigade.jpg


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> Are these terrorists Zionists?
> 
> http://commentisfreewatch.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/al-aqsa_martyrs_brigade.jpg



Photos Palestinians Celebrate Hand Out Candy After Synagogue Terror Attack TheBlaze.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are The Palestinians:
> 
> 
> Celebrating the Murder of Jews
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who was it that stooped so low as to kill the Israeli Olympic team in Munich?
Click to expand...

Who was it that stooped so low as to drive hundreds of thousands of families out of their homes.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are The Palestinians:
> 
> 
> Celebrating the Murder of Jews
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who was it that stooped so low as to kill the Israeli Olympic team in Munich?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who was it that stooped so low as to drive hundreds of thousands of families out of their homes.
Click to expand...


You have this habit of answering questions with a question....


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are The Palestinians:
> 
> 
> Celebrating the Murder of Jews
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who was it that stooped so low as to kill the Israeli Olympic team in Munich?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who was it that stooped so low as to drive hundreds of thousands of families out of their homes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have this habit of answering questions with a question....
Click to expand...

Do I?


----------



## docmauser1

P F Tinmore said:


> Who was it that stooped so low as to drive hundreds of thousands of families out of their homes.


Driving jews out of their homes and taking them over didn't work out well, indeed.


----------



## montelatici

Jewish hordes from Europe went to Palestine and expelled the Christians and Jews that were living there.  That's the fact.


----------



## Mindful

montelatici said:


> Jewish hordes from Europe went to Palestine and expelled the Christians and Jews that were living there.  That's the fact.




You're a nutcase.


----------



## docmauser1

montelatici said:


> Jewish hordes from Europe went to Palestine and expelled the Christians and Jews that were living there.  That's the fact.


That's the drivel!


----------



## montelatici

Mindful said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish hordes from Europe went to Palestine and expelled the Christians and Jews that were living there.  That's the fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a nutcase.
Click to expand...


So, the Jews that went to Palestine were not from Europe?  There were not hordes of them?  Who is the nutcase?


----------



## montelatici

docmauser1 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish hordes from Europe went to Palestine and expelled the Christians and Jews that were living there.  That's the fact.
> 
> 
> 
> That's the drivel!
Click to expand...


----------



## docmauser1

montelatici said:


> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish hordes from Europe went to Palestine and expelled the Christians and Jews that were living there.  That's the fact.
> 
> 
> 
> That's the drivel!
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Toob drivel?


----------



## docmauser1

montelatici said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish hordes from Europe went to Palestine and expelled the Christians and Jews that were living there.  That's the fact.
> 
> 
> 
> You're a nutcase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, the Jews that went to Palestine were not from Europe?  There were not hordes of them?  Who is the nutcase?
Click to expand...

Arabs.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are The Palestinians:
> 
> 
> Celebrating the Murder of Jews
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who was it that stooped so low as to kill the Israeli Olympic team in Munich?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who was it that stooped so low as to drive hundreds of thousands of families out of their homes.
Click to expand...


The Arab countries had no other choice.  How relieved they are now that Israel has to deal with their Palestinians.


----------



## Mindful

montelatici said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish hordes from Europe went to Palestine and expelled the Christians and Jews that were living there.  That's the fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a nutcase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, the Jews that went to Palestine were not from Europe?  There were not hordes of them?  Who is the nutcase?
Click to expand...


You're still a nutcase.


----------



## MJB12741

Mindful said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish hordes from Europe went to Palestine and expelled the Christians and Jews that were living there.  That's the fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a nutcase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, the Jews that went to Palestine were not from Europe?  There were not hordes of them?  Who is the nutcase?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're still a nutcase.
Click to expand...


Don't mind Monte.  We love him for all the laughs he gives us.


----------



## Mindful

MJB12741 said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish hordes from Europe went to Palestine and expelled the Christians and Jews that were living there.  That's the fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a nutcase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, the Jews that went to Palestine were not from Europe?  There were not hordes of them?  Who is the nutcase?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're still a nutcase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't mind Monte.  We love him for all the laughs he gives us.
Click to expand...



Laughs? More like dismal depression.


----------



## Penelope

Mindful said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish hordes from Europe went to Palestine and expelled the Christians and Jews that were living there.  That's the fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a nutcase.
Click to expand...


I would call them Zionist atheists helped along by Zionist Christians, but hey call them what you  want.


----------



## MJB12741

Penelope said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish hordes from Europe went to Palestine and expelled the Christians and Jews that were living there.  That's the fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a nutcase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would call them Zionist atheists helped along by Zionist Christians, but hey call them what you  want.
Click to expand...


I would call them Palestinian hoards who fled into Israel from surrounding Arab countries to escape being massacred & left as refugees by their own Arab brothers.


----------



## Mindful

*Where ARE all those Palestinians, the proclaimed one million of them who lived in Israel before they were ‘displaced’? Nowhere.*

*Nowhere, because they never existed. And where are all the mosques for those “over 1 million Palestinians” who are suppose to have lived there already in the early 1800′s like “Palestinians” claim? If they had been 1 million at the turn of the Century, or even in 1920 after they began immigrating to fight the British, with their rapid population growth Palestine would consist of over 40 million people today and not 4 million. That alone proves the jihad lies. Their population is small because they are new invaders and occupiers who arrived late with an aim to commit jihad. They never lost land that was never theirs to begin with!*

*The British army permitted merely a few Ottomans to remain due to religious observations, the rest was Jewish. In reality according to eyewitness reports the barren British Mandate had a very small number of people living on it. Félix Bonfils (1831-1885) was a French photographer and writer who was active in the Middle East. Four years after his arrival he reported 15,000 prints of Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and Greece, and 9,000 stereoscopic-views. He traveled to the region several times and we hear of no mass population of Palestinians, which contradicts everything the Palestinians lie about to the world.*

*His pictures did not manage to capture any photographs of a single so-called ‘Palestinian’ who are suppose to have lost land to Jewish occupation, if we believe Arab propaganda. All he found was a few bedouines passing through and some remnants of the Ottoman Turks. Guess why? Because the “Palestinian” people as we know them today never existed.*


*9 000 Photographs from 1800 8242 s Palestine Israel 8211 with no trace of 8216 Palestinians 8217 Palestine-Israel Conflict*


----------



## Penelope

MJB12741 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish hordes from Europe went to Palestine and expelled the Christians and Jews that were living there.  That's the fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a nutcase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would call them Zionist atheists helped along by Zionist Christians, but hey call them what you  want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would call them Palestinian hoards who fled into Israel from surrounding Arab countries to escape being massacred & left as refugees by their own Arab brothers.
Click to expand...


Were talking different people.


----------



## Mindful

Penelope said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish hordes from Europe went to Palestine and expelled the Christians and Jews that were living there.  That's the fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a nutcase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would call them Zionist atheists helped along by Zionist Christians, but hey call them what you  want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would call them Palestinian hoards who fled into Israel from surrounding Arab countries to escape being massacred & left as refugees by their own Arab brothers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were talking different people.
Click to expand...


Who 's "we"?


----------



## MJB12741

Mindful said:


> *Where ARE all those Palestinians, the proclaimed one million of them who lived in Israel before they were ‘displaced’? Nowhere.*
> 
> *Nowhere, because they never existed. And where are all the mosques for those “over 1 million Palestinians” who are suppose to have lived there already in the early 1800′s like “Palestinians” claim? If they had been 1 million at the turn of the Century, or even in 1920 after they began immigrating to fight the British, with their rapid population growth Palestine would consist of over 40 million people today and not 4 million. That alone proves the jihad lies. Their population is small because they are new invaders and occupiers who arrived late with an aim to commit jihad. They never lost land that was never theirs to begin with!*
> 
> *The British army permitted merely a few Ottomans to remain due to religious observations, the rest was Jewish. In reality according to eyewitness reports the barren British Mandate had a very small number of people living on it. Félix Bonfils (1831-1885) was a French photographer and writer who was active in the Middle East. Four years after his arrival he reported 15,000 prints of Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and Greece, and 9,000 stereoscopic-views. He traveled to the region several times and we hear of no mass population of Palestinians, which contradicts everything the Palestinians lie about to the world.*
> 
> *His pictures did not manage to capture any photographs of a single so-called ‘Palestinian’ who are suppose to have lost land to Jewish occupation, if we believe Arab propaganda. All he found was a few bedouines passing through and some remnants of the Ottoman Turks. Guess why? Because the “Palestinian” people as we know them today never existed.*
> 
> 
> *9 000 Photographs from 1800 8242 s Palestine Israel 8211 with no trace of 8216 Palestinians 8217 Palestine-Israel Conflict*



So true your point that no people, including Palestinians, can ever lose land that was was never theirs.


----------



## Mindful

Brainwashing the kids.

The Abusive Brainwashing of Palestinian Children - Israel Today Israel News


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where ARE all those Palestinians, the proclaimed one million of them who lived in Israel before they were ‘displaced’? Nowhere.*
> 
> *Nowhere, because they never existed. And where are all the mosques for those “over 1 million Palestinians” who are suppose to have lived there already in the early 1800′s like “Palestinians” claim? If they had been 1 million at the turn of the Century, or even in 1920 after they began immigrating to fight the British, with their rapid population growth Palestine would consist of over 40 million people today and not 4 million. That alone proves the jihad lies. Their population is small because they are new invaders and occupiers who arrived late with an aim to commit jihad. They never lost land that was never theirs to begin with!*
> 
> *The British army permitted merely a few Ottomans to remain due to religious observations, the rest was Jewish. In reality according to eyewitness reports the barren British Mandate had a very small number of people living on it. Félix Bonfils (1831-1885) was a French photographer and writer who was active in the Middle East. Four years after his arrival he reported 15,000 prints of Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and Greece, and 9,000 stereoscopic-views. He traveled to the region several times and we hear of no mass population of Palestinians, which contradicts everything the Palestinians lie about to the world.*
> 
> *His pictures did not manage to capture any photographs of a single so-called ‘Palestinian’ who are suppose to have lost land to Jewish occupation, if we believe Arab propaganda. All he found was a few bedouines passing through and some remnants of the Ottoman Turks. Guess why? Because the “Palestinian” people as we know them today never existed.*
> 
> 
> *9 000 Photographs from 1800 8242 s Palestine Israel 8211 with no trace of 8216 Palestinians 8217 Palestine-Israel Conflict*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So true your point that no people, including Palestinians, can ever lose land that was was never theirs.
Click to expand...


Well more than 85% of the land was their's:


----------



## aris2chat

you back to the same refuted page?  all out of anything else to say or present?
One trick pony


----------



## MJB12741

Hardly any of the Palestinians had any titles or deeds to this land they stole.  And why didn't you show the source of your posted land ownership?  Oh wait I forgot, it's from Monte.


----------



## montelatici

aris2chat said:


> you back to the same refuted page?  all out of anything else to say or present?
> One trick pony



What's refuted about you sick puppy.  It is what the land records stated when the final Survey of Palestine was published by the UN.  It is fact, not the propaganda you and your ignorant friends post daily.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> you back to the same refuted page?  all out of anything else to say or present?
> One trick pony
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's refuted about you sick puppy.  It is what the land records stated when the final Survey of Palestine was published by the UN.  It is fact, not the propaganda you and your ignorant friends post daily.
Click to expand...


Says the king of propaganda!


----------



## aris2chat

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> you back to the same refuted page?  all out of anything else to say or present?
> One trick pony
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's refuted about you sick puppy.  It is what the land records stated when the final Survey of Palestine was published by the UN.  It is fact, not the propaganda you and your ignorant friends post daily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saya the king of propaganda!
Click to expand...


He does not understand that the ownership of 5% of the land paying 60+% of the tax makes no sense.  It is not like they were mining gold or pumping oil from the swamps and desert that jews were sold.
Non-jewish does not mean palestinian.  Not jewish could include arabs from other countries, state and church land as well as private land owned by christians.  Land too inhospitable for homes, farms or perhaps even grazing.  Land used by public works, the british officials, NGOs, even other countries for embassies.
Time he found some new books and other documents that are factual and researchable for accuracy and context.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where ARE all those Palestinians, the proclaimed one million of them who lived in Israel before they were ‘displaced’? Nowhere.*
> 
> *Nowhere, because they never existed. And where are all the mosques for those “over 1 million Palestinians” who are suppose to have lived there already in the early 1800′s like “Palestinians” claim? If they had been 1 million at the turn of the Century, or even in 1920 after they began immigrating to fight the British, with their rapid population growth Palestine would consist of over 40 million people today and not 4 million. That alone proves the jihad lies. Their population is small because they are new invaders and occupiers who arrived late with an aim to commit jihad. They never lost land that was never theirs to begin with!*
> 
> *The British army permitted merely a few Ottomans to remain due to religious observations, the rest was Jewish. In reality according to eyewitness reports the barren British Mandate had a very small number of people living on it. Félix Bonfils (1831-1885) was a French photographer and writer who was active in the Middle East. Four years after his arrival he reported 15,000 prints of Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and Greece, and 9,000 stereoscopic-views. He traveled to the region several times and we hear of no mass population of Palestinians, which contradicts everything the Palestinians lie about to the world.*
> 
> *His pictures did not manage to capture any photographs of a single so-called ‘Palestinian’ who are suppose to have lost land to Jewish occupation, if we believe Arab propaganda. All he found was a few bedouines passing through and some remnants of the Ottoman Turks. Guess why? Because the “Palestinian” people as we know them today never existed.*
> 
> 
> *9 000 Photographs from 1800 8242 s Palestine Israel 8211 with no trace of 8216 Palestinians 8217 Palestine-Israel Conflict*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So true your point that no people, including Palestinians, can ever lose land that was was never theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well more than 85% of the land was their's:
> 
> View attachment 34268
Click to expand...

Oh, look, another roll of toilet paper.

None of that means diddly-squat anymore.


----------



## toastman

aris2chat said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> you back to the same refuted page?  all out of anything else to say or present?
> One trick pony
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's refuted about you sick puppy.  It is what the land records stated when the final Survey of Palestine was published by the UN.  It is fact, not the propaganda you and your ignorant friends post daily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saya the king of propaganda!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He does not understand that the ownership of 5% of the land paying 60+% of the tax makes no sense.  It is not like they were mining gold or pumping oil from the swamps and desert that jews were sold.
> Non-jewish does not mean palestinian.  Not jewish could include arabs from other countries, state and church land as well as private land owned by christians.  Land too inhospitable for homes, farms or perhaps even grazing.  Land used by public works, the british officials, NGOs, even other countries for embassies.
> Time he found some new books and other documents that are factual and researchable for accuracy and context.
Click to expand...


He doesn't understand a lot of things.


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> you back to the same refuted page?  all out of anything else to say or present?
> One trick pony
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's refuted about you sick puppy.  It is what the land records stated when the final Survey of Palestine was published by the UN.  It is fact, not the propaganda you and your ignorant friends post daily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saya the king of propaganda!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He does not understand that the ownership of 5% of the land paying 60+% of the tax makes no sense.  It is not like they were mining gold or pumping oil from the swamps and desert that jews were sold.
> Non-jewish does not mean palestinian.  Not jewish could include arabs from other countries, state and church land as well as private land owned by christians.  Land too inhospitable for homes, farms or perhaps even grazing.  Land used by public works, the british officials, NGOs, even other countries for embassies.
> Time he found some new books and other documents that are factual and researchable for accuracy and context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't understand a lot of things.
Click to expand...


I have forgotten more than you ever understood asshole.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> you back to the same refuted page?  all out of anything else to say or present?
> One trick pony
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's refuted about you sick puppy.  It is what the land records stated when the final Survey of Palestine was published by the UN.  It is fact, not the propaganda you and your ignorant friends post daily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saya the king of propaganda!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He does not understand that the ownership of 5% of the land paying 60+% of the tax makes no sense.  It is not like they were mining gold or pumping oil from the swamps and desert that jews were sold.
> Non-jewish does not mean palestinian.  Not jewish could include arabs from other countries, state and church land as well as private land owned by christians.  Land too inhospitable for homes, farms or perhaps even grazing.  Land used by public works, the british officials, NGOs, even other countries for embassies.
> Time he found some new books and other documents that are factual and researchable for accuracy and context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't understand a lot of things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have forgotten more than you ever understood asshole.
Click to expand...

 
You're nothing but a propaganda machine. You can't handle the truth and whenever someone does show you the truth, you desperately try and make it look like a lie.
You of all people have no right to accuse anyone of posting propaganda, propaganda-tici


----------



## 50_RiaL

Sometimes, a vid is worth a million words:


----------



## fanger




----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Rafeef Ziadah*


----------



## toastman

fanger said:


>


The only invention in this conflict is the word 'Palestinian'


----------



## MJB12741

toastman said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only invention in this conflict is the word 'Palestinian'
Click to expand...


There were no Muslims among native Palestinians.  However there were Jews.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Rafeef Ziadah*


A made up people


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Rafeef Ziadah*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A made up people
Click to expand...

Indeed, they just fell out of the sky in 1948 like a gift from God.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Rafeef Ziadah*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A made up people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, they just fell out of the sky in 1948 like a gift from God.
Click to expand...

The last thing I would call them is a gift from G-d.  Curse from G-d maybe.  In any event, they are part of the larger Arab people and identify themselves as such in their Charter, in the very first paragraph.


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's refuted about you sick puppy.  It is what the land records stated when the final Survey of Palestine was published by the UN.  It is fact, not the propaganda you and your ignorant friends post daily.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saya the king of propaganda!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He does not understand that the ownership of 5% of the land paying 60+% of the tax makes no sense.  It is not like they were mining gold or pumping oil from the swamps and desert that jews were sold.
> Non-jewish does not mean palestinian.  Not jewish could include arabs from other countries, state and church land as well as private land owned by christians.  Land too inhospitable for homes, farms or perhaps even grazing.  Land used by public works, the british officials, NGOs, even other countries for embassies.
> Time he found some new books and other documents that are factual and researchable for accuracy and context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't understand a lot of things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have forgotten more than you ever understood asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're nothing but a propaganda machine. You can't handle the truth and whenever someone does show you the truth, you desperately try and make it look like a lie.
> You of all people have no right to accuse anyone of posting propaganda, propaganda-tici
Click to expand...


I state fact.  You just can't handle the truth.  Name one single item that I have stated that isn't absolute fact.  Just one.  It is you that exclusively post propaganda.  You can't even admit that Jews from Europe went to Palestine, a place on another continent, and drove out the local inhabitants.  This is a plain fact, yet will wiggle and squirm to deny that it happened.


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Rafeef Ziadah*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A made up people
Click to expand...


Another example of the propaganda you spew.  It is a constant with you.  Of course they are not a made up people.  They are no more "made up" than the Lebanese, the Tunisians, the Iraqis or any other country in the Middle East.  In fact, Palestinians were around before some of those people.  

Just part of a letter from the Palestinians to the British written in 1922 where they were the people of Palestine as opposed to the Zionists.


"We, therefore, hold that the proposed constitution is wholly unsatisfactory, because:—




_(a) _In the preamble to the Palestine Order in Council "the declaration of November 2nd, 1917, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People" is made a basis for this Order;* the People of Palestine *cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion.
- See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922


----------



## Kondor3

fanger said:


>


Trouble is, there is FAR less merit in the arguments for an 'inveted' Israeli identity, than there is for an 'invented' Palestinian identity.

And, even if both arguments are found to have merit, the Israelis declared first, and most successfully, and, of the two, are the only one with a functioning State to serve such an 'invented' People.

Even in such esoteric matters, the Israelis continue to outperform and outclass the so-called Palestinians, by several orders of magnitude.

Rather like pitting the Senior Varsity Football Team against a sandlot scratch pick-up scrimmage squad.


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trouble is, there is FAR less merit in the arguments for an 'inveted' Israeli identity, than there is for an 'invented' Palestinian identity.
> 
> And, even if both arguments are found to have merit, the Israelis declared first, and most successfully, and, of the two, are the only one with a functioning State to serve such an 'invented' People.
> 
> Even in such esoteric matters, the Israelis continue to outperform and outclass the so-called Palestinians, by several orders of magnitude.
> 
> Rather like pitting the Senior Varsity Football Team against a sandlot scratch pick-up scrimmage squad.
Click to expand...


Well, the Nazis outclassed the so-called Jews they ruled over by several orders of magnitude.  That doesn't really tell us anything.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trouble is, there is FAR less merit in the arguments for an 'inveted' Israeli identity, than there is for an 'invented' Palestinian identity.
> 
> And, even if both arguments are found to have merit, the Israelis declared first, and most successfully, and, of the two, are the only one with a functioning State to serve such an 'invented' People.
> 
> Even in such esoteric matters, the Israelis continue to outperform and outclass the so-called Palestinians, by several orders of magnitude.
> 
> Rather like pitting the Senior Varsity Football Team against a sandlot scratch pick-up scrimmage squad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the Nazis outclassed the so-called Jews they ruled over by several orders of magnitude.  That doesn't really tell us anything.
Click to expand...

The Jews were not engaged in a decades-long political and military struggle with the Nazis - consequently, the comparison does not hold.

The Jews of Israel actually began their national life as the uncontested Underdogs, against the Arabs, and did a remarkable job of turning that around.

To say that they 'outclassed' and 'out-maneuvered' and 'outsmarted' and out-fought the Arabs is an exercise in classic understatement.

It provides us with excellent and highly defensible Israeli-favorable insight into the quality and nature of the Jews of Old Palestine (a.k.a. Israel, today) in comparison to the Arabs of Old Palestine (a.k.a. Rump Palestine, today) and their Muslim-Arab neighbors - and their various descendants still living in the region and still eligible for consideration.


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trouble is, there is FAR less merit in the arguments for an 'inveted' Israeli identity, than there is for an 'invented' Palestinian identity.
> 
> And, even if both arguments are found to have merit, the Israelis declared first, and most successfully, and, of the two, are the only one with a functioning State to serve such an 'invented' People.
> 
> Even in such esoteric matters, the Israelis continue to outperform and outclass the so-called Palestinians, by several orders of magnitude.
> 
> Rather like pitting the Senior Varsity Football Team against a sandlot scratch pick-up scrimmage squad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the Nazis outclassed the so-called Jews they ruled over by several orders of magnitude.  That doesn't really tell us anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jews were not engaged in a decades-long political and military struggle with the Nazis - consequently, the comparison does not hold.
> 
> The Jews of Israel actually began their national life as the uncontested Underdogs, against the Arabs, and did a remarkable job of turning that around.
> 
> To say that they 'outclassed' and 'out-maneuvered' and 'outsmarted' the Arabs is an exercise in classic understatement.
> 
> It provides us with excellent and highly defensible Israeli-favorable insight into the quality and nature of the Jews of Old Palestine (a.k.a. Israel, today) in comparison to the Arabs of Old Palestine (a.k.a. Rump Palestine, today) and their Muslim-Arab neighbors - and their various descendants still living in the region and still eligible for consideration.
Click to expand...


The Jewish out numbered and was better armed than their opponents:


" the divisions in the Arab world and the inferiority of their armed forces (in terms of numbers, training and weaponry, and hence impact); the strategic advantage enjoyed by Israel as a result of its agreement with King Abdullah of Transjordan (in exchange for the West Bank, he undertook not to attack the territory allocated to Israel by the UN); British support for this compromise, together with the joint support of the United States and the Soviet Union; the sympathy of world public opinion and so forth."

The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saya the king of propaganda!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He does not understand that the ownership of 5% of the land paying 60+% of the tax makes no sense.  It is not like they were mining gold or pumping oil from the swamps and desert that jews were sold.
> Non-jewish does not mean palestinian.  Not jewish could include arabs from other countries, state and church land as well as private land owned by christians.  Land too inhospitable for homes, farms or perhaps even grazing.  Land used by public works, the british officials, NGOs, even other countries for embassies.
> Time he found some new books and other documents that are factual and researchable for accuracy and context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't understand a lot of things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have forgotten more than you ever understood asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're nothing but a propaganda machine. You can't handle the truth and whenever someone does show you the truth, you desperately try and make it look like a lie.
> You of all people have no right to accuse anyone of posting propaganda, propaganda-tici
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I state fact.  You just can't handle the truth.  Name one single item that I have stated that isn't absolute fact.  Just one.  It is you that exclusively post propaganda.  You can't even admit that Jews from Europe went to Palestine, a place on another continent, and drove out the local inhabitants.  This is a plain fact, yet will wiggle and squirm to deny that it happened.
Click to expand...


How about the lie that Jews massacred Arabs before the other way around.


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trouble is, there is FAR less merit in the arguments for an 'inveted' Israeli identity, than there is for an 'invented' Palestinian identity.
> 
> And, even if both arguments are found to have merit, the Israelis declared first, and most successfully, and, of the two, are the only one with a functioning State to serve such an 'invented' People.
> 
> Even in such esoteric matters, the Israelis continue to outperform and outclass the so-called Palestinians, by several orders of magnitude.
> 
> Rather like pitting the Senior Varsity Football Team against a sandlot scratch pick-up scrimmage squad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the Nazis outclassed the so-called Jews they ruled over by several orders of magnitude.  That doesn't really tell us anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jews were not engaged in a decades-long political and military struggle with the Nazis - consequently, the comparison does not hold.
> 
> The Jews of Israel actually began their national life as the uncontested Underdogs, against the Arabs, and did a remarkable job of turning that around.
> 
> To say that they 'outclassed' and 'out-maneuvered' and 'outsmarted' the Arabs is an exercise in classic understatement.
> 
> It provides us with excellent and highly defensible Israeli-favorable insight into the quality and nature of the Jews of Old Palestine (a.k.a. Israel, today) in comparison to the Arabs of Old Palestine (a.k.a. Rump Palestine, today) and their Muslim-Arab neighbors - and their various descendants still living in the region and still eligible for consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Jewish out numbered and was better armed than their opponents:
> 
> 
> " the divisions in the Arab world and the inferiority of their armed forces (in terms of numbers, training and weaponry, and hence impact); the strategic advantage enjoyed by Israel as a result of its agreement with King Abdullah of Transjordan (in exchange for the West Bank, he undertook not to attack the territory allocated to Israel by the UN); British support for this compromise, together with the joint support of the United States and the Soviet Union; the sympathy of world public opinion and so forth."
> 
> The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition
Click to expand...


Israel was using second hand equipment and were highly outnumbered.


----------



## montelatici

After decades of abusing the non-Jews, there was conflict:

Achad Ha'am from the 1890s:


""We tend to believe abroad that Palestine is nowadays almost completely deserted, an uncultivated wilderness, and anyone can come there and buy as much land as his heart desires. But in reality this is not the case. It is difficult to find anywhere in the country Arab land which lies fallow.....*  behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, infringe upon their boundaries, hit them shamefully without reason, and even brag about it*". The Arab did indeed respect strength, but only when the other side used it justly. When his opponent's actions were unjust and oppressive, then "he may keep his anger to himself for a time ... but in the long run he will prove to be vengeful and full of retribution"

David Goldberg The 1907 writings of one traveller to Palestine vividly describe the roots of the region s enmity Comment is free The Guardian


----------



## Kondor3

aris2chat said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trouble is, there is FAR less merit in the arguments for an 'inveted' Israeli identity, than there is for an 'invented' Palestinian identity.
> 
> And, even if both arguments are found to have merit, the Israelis declared first, and most successfully, and, of the two, are the only one with a functioning State to serve such an 'invented' People.
> 
> Even in such esoteric matters, the Israelis continue to outperform and outclass the so-called Palestinians, by several orders of magnitude.
> 
> Rather like pitting the Senior Varsity Football Team against a sandlot scratch pick-up scrimmage squad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the Nazis outclassed the so-called Jews they ruled over by several orders of magnitude.  That doesn't really tell us anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jews were not engaged in a decades-long political and military struggle with the Nazis - consequently, the comparison does not hold.
> 
> The Jews of Israel actually began their national life as the uncontested Underdogs, against the Arabs, and did a remarkable job of turning that around.
> 
> To say that they 'outclassed' and 'out-maneuvered' and 'outsmarted' the Arabs is an exercise in classic understatement.
> 
> It provides us with excellent and highly defensible Israeli-favorable insight into the quality and nature of the Jews of Old Palestine (a.k.a. Israel, today) in comparison to the Arabs of Old Palestine (a.k.a. Rump Palestine, today) and their Muslim-Arab neighbors - and their various descendants still living in the region and still eligible for consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Jewish out numbered and was better armed than their opponents:
> 
> 
> " the divisions in the Arab world and the inferiority of their armed forces (in terms of numbers, training and weaponry, and hence impact); the strategic advantage enjoyed by Israel as a result of its agreement with King Abdullah of Transjordan (in exchange for the West Bank, he undertook not to attack the territory allocated to Israel by the UN); British support for this compromise, together with the joint support of the United States and the Soviet Union; the sympathy of world public opinion and so forth."
> 
> The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel was using second hand equipment and were highly outnumbered.
Click to expand...

Yep... they out-fought, out-thought, outsmarted and out-classed the Muslim-Arabs of the region, by order(s) of magnitude... nolo contendere.


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trouble is, there is FAR less merit in the arguments for an 'inveted' Israeli identity, than there is for an 'invented' Palestinian identity.
> 
> And, even if both arguments are found to have merit, the Israelis declared first, and most successfully, and, of the two, are the only one with a functioning State to serve such an 'invented' People.
> 
> Even in such esoteric matters, the Israelis continue to outperform and outclass the so-called Palestinians, by several orders of magnitude.
> 
> Rather like pitting the Senior Varsity Football Team against a sandlot scratch pick-up scrimmage squad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Nazis outclassed the so-called Jews they ruled over by several orders of magnitude.  That doesn't really tell us anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jews were not engaged in a decades-long political and military struggle with the Nazis - consequently, the comparison does not hold.
> 
> The Jews of Israel actually began their national life as the uncontested Underdogs, against the Arabs, and did a remarkable job of turning that around.
> 
> To say that they 'outclassed' and 'out-maneuvered' and 'outsmarted' the Arabs is an exercise in classic understatement.
> 
> It provides us with excellent and highly defensible Israeli-favorable insight into the quality and nature of the Jews of Old Palestine (a.k.a. Israel, today) in comparison to the Arabs of Old Palestine (a.k.a. Rump Palestine, today) and their Muslim-Arab neighbors - and their various descendants still living in the region and still eligible for consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Jewish out numbered and was better armed than their opponents:
> 
> 
> " the divisions in the Arab world and the inferiority of their armed forces (in terms of numbers, training and weaponry, and hence impact); the strategic advantage enjoyed by Israel as a result of its agreement with King Abdullah of Transjordan (in exchange for the West Bank, he undertook not to attack the territory allocated to Israel by the UN); British support for this compromise, together with the joint support of the United States and the Soviet Union; the sympathy of world public opinion and so forth."
> 
> The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel was using second hand equipment and were highly outnumbered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep... they out-fought, out-thought, outsmarted and out-classed the Muslim-Arabs of the region, by order(s) of magnitude... nolo contendere.
Click to expand...


The Spanish, the British and all the European colonialists out-fought, out-thought and out-classed all the people they colonized.  Nothing new.  What is your point. 

The fact is, if the colonized people manage not to be eliminated, they will expel the colonizer, eventually.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> The Spanish, the British and all the European colonialists out-fought, out-thought and out-classed all the people they colonized.  Nothing new.  What is your point...


My point is that - unlike all of those superpowers (for their times) who conquered - the Jews were seriously outgunned and outnumbered and STILL managed to out-fight, out-think, out-smart and out-perform the Muslim-Arabs of the region - repeatedly - working hard to convert themselves from the underdog to a position of superior strength; the Original Come-Back Kids - much, much different than super-powers taking-on underdog populations.



> ...The fact is, if the colonized people manage not to be eliminated, they will expel the colonizer, eventually.


Unless the colonized people are kicked-out of their few remaining scraps of land, long before they could ever become a threat.

Your beloved Palestinians will not be eliminated; just broken-up and scattered to the four winds, never to be heard from again, except at Remembrance Day parades in distant lands, a generation or two after the Expulsion, if-and-when that comes.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> After decades of abusing the non-Jews, there was conflict:
> 
> Achad Ha'am from the 1890s:
> 
> 
> ""We tend to believe abroad that Palestine is nowadays almost completely deserted, an uncultivated wilderness, and anyone can come there and buy as much land as his heart desires. But in reality this is not the case. It is difficult to find anywhere in the country Arab land which lies fallow.....*  behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, infringe upon their boundaries, hit them shamefully without reason, and even brag about it*". The Arab did indeed respect strength, but only when the other side used it justly. When his opponent's actions were unjust and oppressive, then "he may keep his anger to himself for a time ... but in the long run he will prove to be vengeful and full of retribution"
> 
> David Goldberg The 1907 writings of one traveller to Palestine vividly describe the roots of the region s enmity Comment is free The Guardian



Actually, the conflicts started because Arabs kept massacring Jews, dating back to before 1900. This is one of those simple facts that you cannot accept.


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> After decades of abusing the non-Jews, there was conflict:
> 
> Achad Ha'am from the 1890s:
> 
> 
> ""We tend to believe abroad that Palestine is nowadays almost completely deserted, an uncultivated wilderness, and anyone can come there and buy as much land as his heart desires. But in reality this is not the case. It is difficult to find anywhere in the country Arab land which lies fallow.....*  behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, infringe upon their boundaries, hit them shamefully without reason, and even brag about it*". The Arab did indeed respect strength, but only when the other side used it justly. When his opponent's actions were unjust and oppressive, then "he may keep his anger to himself for a time ... but in the long run he will prove to be vengeful and full of retribution"
> 
> David Goldberg The 1907 writings of one traveller to Palestine vividly describe the roots of the region s enmity Comment is free The Guardian



your referring to Ginsberg, leader of cultural zionism.  He also spoke of vast amounts of land that the arab would not even try to cultivate or clear because they didn't like to work and had no vision of the future.
You only quoted the part about cultivated land, not the whole area.


----------



## montelatici

aris2chat said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> After decades of abusing the non-Jews, there was conflict:
> 
> Achad Ha'am from the 1890s:
> 
> 
> ""We tend to believe abroad that Palestine is nowadays almost completely deserted, an uncultivated wilderness, and anyone can come there and buy as much land as his heart desires. But in reality this is not the case. It is difficult to find anywhere in the country Arab land which lies fallow.....*  behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, infringe upon their boundaries, hit them shamefully without reason, and even brag about it*". The Arab did indeed respect strength, but only when the other side used it justly. When his opponent's actions were unjust and oppressive, then "he may keep his anger to himself for a time ... but in the long run he will prove to be vengeful and full of retribution"
> 
> David Goldberg The 1907 writings of one traveller to Palestine vividly describe the roots of the region s enmity Comment is free The Guardian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your referring to Ginsberg, leader of cultural zionism.  He also spoke of vast amounts of land that the arab would not even try to cultivate or clear because they didn't like to work and had no vision of the future.
> You only quoted the part about cultivated land, not the whole area.
Click to expand...


"""We tend to believe abroad that Palestine is nowadays almost completely deserted, an uncultivated wilderness, and anyone can come there and buy as much land as his heart desires. But in reality this is not the case. *It is difficult to find anywhere in the country Arab land which lies fallow.*..."



Right, you frigging idiot.


----------



## MJB12741

Kondor3 said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trouble is, there is FAR less merit in the arguments for an 'inveted' Israeli identity, than there is for an 'invented' Palestinian identity.
> 
> And, even if both arguments are found to have merit, the Israelis declared first, and most successfully, and, of the two, are the only one with a functioning State to serve such an 'invented' People.
> 
> Even in such esoteric matters, the Israelis continue to outperform and outclass the so-called Palestinians, by several orders of magnitude.
> 
> Rather like pitting the Senior Varsity Football Team against a sandlot scratch pick-up scrimmage squad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Nazis outclassed the so-called Jews they ruled over by several orders of magnitude.  That doesn't really tell us anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jews were not engaged in a decades-long political and military struggle with the Nazis - consequently, the comparison does not hold.
> 
> The Jews of Israel actually began their national life as the uncontested Underdogs, against the Arabs, and did a remarkable job of turning that around.
> 
> To say that they 'outclassed' and 'out-maneuvered' and 'outsmarted' the Arabs is an exercise in classic understatement.
> 
> It provides us with excellent and highly defensible Israeli-favorable insight into the quality and nature of the Jews of Old Palestine (a.k.a. Israel, today) in comparison to the Arabs of Old Palestine (a.k.a. Rump Palestine, today) and their Muslim-Arab neighbors - and their various descendants still living in the region and still eligible for consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Jewish out numbered and was better armed than their opponents:
> 
> 
> " the divisions in the Arab world and the inferiority of their armed forces (in terms of numbers, training and weaponry, and hence impact); the strategic advantage enjoyed by Israel as a result of its agreement with King Abdullah of Transjordan (in exchange for the West Bank, he undertook not to attack the territory allocated to Israel by the UN); British support for this compromise, together with the joint support of the United States and the Soviet Union; the sympathy of world public opinion and so forth."
> 
> The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel was using second hand equipment and were highly outnumbered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep... they out-fought, out-thought, outsmarted and out-classed the Muslim-Arabs of the region, by order(s) of magnitude... nolo contendere.
Click to expand...


In this world there are winners & there are losers.  And the best part is the Palestinians never stop their losing ways.


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> After decades of abusing the non-Jews, there was conflict:
> 
> Achad Ha'am from the 1890s:
> 
> 
> ""We tend to believe abroad that Palestine is nowadays almost completely deserted, an uncultivated wilderness, and anyone can come there and buy as much land as his heart desires. But in reality this is not the case. It is difficult to find anywhere in the country Arab land which lies fallow.....*  behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, infringe upon their boundaries, hit them shamefully without reason, and even brag about it*". The Arab did indeed respect strength, but only when the other side used it justly. When his opponent's actions were unjust and oppressive, then "he may keep his anger to himself for a time ... but in the long run he will prove to be vengeful and full of retribution"
> 
> David Goldberg The 1907 writings of one traveller to Palestine vividly describe the roots of the region s enmity Comment is free The Guardian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your referring to Ginsberg, leader of cultural zionism.  He also spoke of vast amounts of land that the arab would not even try to cultivate or clear because they didn't like to work and had no vision of the future.
> You only quoted the part about cultivated land, not the whole area.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> """We tend to believe abroad that Palestine is nowadays almost completely deserted, an uncultivated wilderness, and anyone can come there and buy as much land as his heart desires. But in reality this is not the case. *It is difficult to find anywhere in the country Arab land which lies fallow.*..."
> 
> 
> 
> Right, you frigging idiot.
Click to expand...


Talking about yourself?

did you actually read anything except that one partial quote?


----------



## montelatici

aris2chat said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> After decades of abusing the non-Jews, there was conflict:
> 
> Achad Ha'am from the 1890s:
> 
> 
> ""We tend to believe abroad that Palestine is nowadays almost completely deserted, an uncultivated wilderness, and anyone can come there and buy as much land as his heart desires. But in reality this is not the case. It is difficult to find anywhere in the country Arab land which lies fallow.....*  behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, infringe upon their boundaries, hit them shamefully without reason, and even brag about it*". The Arab did indeed respect strength, but only when the other side used it justly. When his opponent's actions were unjust and oppressive, then "he may keep his anger to himself for a time ... but in the long run he will prove to be vengeful and full of retribution"
> 
> David Goldberg The 1907 writings of one traveller to Palestine vividly describe the roots of the region s enmity Comment is free The Guardian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your referring to Ginsberg, leader of cultural zionism.  He also spoke of vast amounts of land that the arab would not even try to cultivate or clear because they didn't like to work and had no vision of the future.
> You only quoted the part about cultivated land, not the whole area.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> """We tend to believe abroad that Palestine is nowadays almost completely deserted, an uncultivated wilderness, and anyone can come there and buy as much land as his heart desires. But in reality this is not the case. *It is difficult to find anywhere in the country Arab land which lies fallow.*..."
> 
> 
> 
> Right, you frigging idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talking about yourself?
> 
> did you actually read anything except that one partial quote?
Click to expand...


Read it all Aris.  Europeans had no business invading Palestine and evicting the Muslims and Christians.  That's just a fact.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> After decades of abusing the non-Jews, there was conflict:
> 
> Achad Ha'am from the 1890s:
> 
> 
> ""We tend to believe abroad that Palestine is nowadays almost completely deserted, an uncultivated wilderness, and anyone can come there and buy as much land as his heart desires. But in reality this is not the case. It is difficult to find anywhere in the country Arab land which lies fallow.....*  behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, infringe upon their boundaries, hit them shamefully without reason, and even brag about it*". The Arab did indeed respect strength, but only when the other side used it justly. When his opponent's actions were unjust and oppressive, then "he may keep his anger to himself for a time ... but in the long run he will prove to be vengeful and full of retribution"
> 
> David Goldberg The 1907 writings of one traveller to Palestine vividly describe the roots of the region s enmity Comment is free The Guardian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your referring to Ginsberg, leader of cultural zionism.  He also spoke of vast amounts of land that the arab would not even try to cultivate or clear because they didn't like to work and had no vision of the future.
> You only quoted the part about cultivated land, not the whole area.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> """We tend to believe abroad that Palestine is nowadays almost completely deserted, an uncultivated wilderness, and anyone can come there and buy as much land as his heart desires. But in reality this is not the case. *It is difficult to find anywhere in the country Arab land which lies fallow.*..."
> 
> 
> 
> Right, you frigging idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talking about yourself?
> 
> did you actually read anything except that one partial quote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read it all Aris.  Europeans had no business invading Palestine and evicting the Muslims and Christians.  That's just a fact.
Click to expand...

They got evicted AFTER they were attacked. Why do you always leave out this fact?


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already gave my sources for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but wikipedia is not a legitimate source.  As said above, bring in academic, sourced evidence, otherwise, you are no more credible than any of the hacks coming from scum holes like electronicintifada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Refute the points.  Wikipedia is perfectly good source in that it lists primary sources including books which aren't available on line.  It also has discussion areas so you know who is doing what and it points out articles that are insufficiently sourced or bias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, the authors of the articles use the sources that suit their POV, that is why I look for the original author and were his/her loyalties lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except for two things.  Authors represent multiple points of view and - you can assess the sources yourself and track them back by doing your own research.
Click to expand...





 I don't know of any author that has diametrically opposite points of view on any given subject, all authors use their own POV when they write their works. I do access the sources myself right back to the original sources the author has used for their work. Invariably the links on wiki posted by team Palestine all end up back at pro Palestinian sources, and are based on propaganda, blood libels and outright lies.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trouble is, there is FAR less merit in the arguments for an 'inveted' Israeli identity, than there is for an 'invented' Palestinian identity.
> 
> And, even if both arguments are found to have merit, the Israelis declared first, and most successfully, and, of the two, are the only one with a functioning State to serve such an 'invented' People.
> 
> Even in such esoteric matters, the Israelis continue to outperform and outclass the so-called Palestinians, by several orders of magnitude.
> 
> Rather like pitting the Senior Varsity Football Team against a sandlot scratch pick-up scrimmage squad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the Nazis outclassed the so-called Jews they ruled over by several orders of magnitude.  That doesn't really tell us anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jews were not engaged in a decades-long political and military struggle with the Nazis - consequently, the comparison does not hold.
> 
> The Jews of Israel actually began their national life as the uncontested Underdogs, against the Arabs, and did a remarkable job of turning that around.
> 
> To say that they 'outclassed' and 'out-maneuvered' and 'outsmarted' and out-fought the Arabs is an exercise in classic understatement.
> 
> It provides us with excellent and highly defensible Israeli-favorable insight into the quality and nature of the Jews of Old Palestine (a.k.a. Israel, today) in comparison to the Arabs of Old Palestine (a.k.a. Rump Palestine, today) and their Muslim-Arab neighbors - and their various descendants still living in the region and still eligible for consideration.
Click to expand...

To say that they 'outclassed' and 'out-maneuvered' and 'outsmarted' and out-fought the Arabs is an exercise in classic understatement.​
Don't forget outmooched.

It was the Zionists ability to mooch that made the difference.


----------



## Humanity

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already gave my sources for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but wikipedia is not a legitimate source.  As said above, bring in academic, sourced evidence, otherwise, you are no more credible than any of the hacks coming from scum holes like electronicintifada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Refute the points.  Wikipedia is perfectly good source in that it lists primary sources including books which aren't available on line.  It also has discussion areas so you know who is doing what and it points out articles that are insufficiently sourced or bias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, the authors of the articles use the sources that suit their POV, that is why I look for the original author and were his/her loyalties lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except for two things.  Authors represent multiple points of view and - you can assess the sources yourself and track them back by doing your own research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of any author that has diametrically opposite points of view on any given subject, all authors use their own POV when they write their works. I do access the sources myself right back to the original sources the author has used for their work. Invariably the links on wiki posted by team Palestine all end up back at pro Palestinian sources, and are based on propaganda, blood libels and outright lies.
Click to expand...


Of course you do Phoney....

Thats why you NEVER post ANY link to support your often psychotic posts!


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The time limit on right of return ran out when the Palestinians stated NO JEWS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except...they never said "no Jews".
> 
> Nice bit of fiction though
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read their charter and you will see it there plain as day
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who's charter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians that also includes the one by hamas and the one by fatah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians don't have a charter.  Hamas does and Fatah and the PLO do.
> 
> Charters Constitutions - FATEH Constitution
> 
> Neither Fateh nor the PLO call for a nation with no Jews. Fateh's Constitution calls for _*"Establishing an independent democratic state with complete sovereignty on all Palestinian lands, and Jerusalem is its capital city, and protecting the citizens' legal and equal rights without any racial or religious discrimination."*_.  The Constitution references fighting Zionism and Imperialism.  Unfortunately with Arafat's death, the PLO charter did not get amended.  They still call for the destruction of Israel, as a state - but not for the creation of a nation with NO JEWS.  The above in Fatah's constitution seems to support that.
> 
> I didn't read through Hamas' because I don't think much of Hamas as a legitimate governing entity.
Click to expand...





Want to try again as this is what the Palestinian National Covenant says

Palestinian National Covenant - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
  Article 7 of the earlier document was changed from "Jews of Palestinian origin are considered Palestinians ..." to being restricted only to those "who had resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion." The final article providing that it can only be amended by a vote of a two-thirds majority of the Palestinian National Council (PNC) at a special session convened for that purpose was left unchanged.

Now we all know that the "Zionist invasion began in 1870 and I doubt that any indigenous Jews from that time are still alive. So in es


Coyote said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two states.  Seperate.  Israel.  Palestine.  Details to be negotiated between Israel (a Jewish majority state) and Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> The window of opportunity for such a solution has long-since closed, The Palestinians themselves closed it, decades ago. Consequently, the Reconquista continues apace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree Mr. Pessimistic Conquista
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I know - whether folks believe it or not, there is a part of me that wishes that this were not true - that peaceful coexistence between the Israelis and Palestinians was still possible, but - and this is pure personal opinion - I think that possibility died a quiet, lonely death, quite some time ago.
> 
> Am I positive? Of course not. Do I believe it? Yes. Do I perceive realistic and likely reasons for that belief? Yes.
> 
> And IF peaceful coexistence is no longer possible, then one side or the other is gonna have to go.
> 
> And, because extermination would be an unforgivable sin and crime against God and Man...
> 
> That doesn't leave anything other than mass relocation of one side or the other.
> 
> IF we are left with nothing better than relocation, then the weaker side will be the one to go.
> 
> That's all based upon the premise that peaceful coexistence is now virtually impossible.
> 
> If I'm right, then everything I've said beyond that point is both logical and nearly inevitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or a Berlin Wall...or seperation like N S Korea.  I think forced relocation of huge numbers of people is the least likely outcome
Click to expand...






 We already have a " Berlin Wall" of sorts and team Palestine sees it as a RACIST divide. Expect even more separation barriers to be erected and for the Israeli's to enforce even harsher controls on the land they annexe in Jerusalem. Expect to see Palestinian violence and riots as the separation barriers are extended and deep piles driven into the land to deter tunnels. Maybe drilling steel/concrete lined holes and placing explosives at the bottom would also deter Palestinian tunnels as the explosions would trap the terrorists in the tunnels.


----------



## montelatici

Now that's what I call perfecting Apartheid.  The Boers would be impressed.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well no.  It hasn't "existed for thousands of years".  It totally ceased to exist thousands of years ago and was only recreated in modern times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You pro-terrorist antisemites can say anything you want, but that does not change the truth of the matter, namely that the Jewish nation has existed for over three millennia and Jewish presence on the land extends for that entire time. The nation-state of Israel did not always exist on the land in question, but the nation of Jewish people have a written history going back over three thousand.
> 
> It is only because you are such a filthy, double-talking hater of Jews that you pursue all this pro-terrorist crap of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's talk about "truth" (never mind the fact that you have yet to substantiate any of your accusations).
> 
> We are talking about Israel.  The nation.  Have you figured that part out yet?  Go back and read the pertinent posts if you are confused.  Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago.  It's an ancient Kingdom that is long gone.  In that regard - it's like a lot of ancient kingdoms that are gone but who's people remain.
> 
> This isn't rocket science dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd have nothing against the Assyrians getting their ancient Kingdom back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is.  If they want to try and get it back - why not? Anyone has a right to try.  But ancient history and kingdoms long ago gone do not automatically entitle people to modern lands over the rights of the indiginous people currently living there.
Click to expand...





 Now come up to date to the New nation of eretz Israel, not the same thing at all as biblical Israel. This was granted existence in 1920 by the legal land owners who gave the land to the Jews of the world. An aspect of CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW  that can not now be repealed. The treaties are all there and have been produced time and time again on this very board to show that the land was given freely to the Jews of the world without prejudice. The rules were that the indigenous were to live in peace and as one nation inside the RESURECTED NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS, the arab muslims refused to accept this treaty and started to oppose it violently and illegally. They flooded the land with illegal immigrants to try and outnumber the lands new legal owners so they could forcibly take the land from them. They tried riots, massacres and pogroms all to no avail as the worlds Jews migrated on the promise of a NEW ISRAEL. The fledgling UN tried to placate the arab muslims by separating the NEW ISREAL into separate entities along demographic lines and created a monster in the process. Now I will ask again where is the evidence that the arab muslims in their entirety were an indigenous people with the right to claim land ownership they had never set foot on for 1000 years.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trouble is, there is FAR less merit in the arguments for an 'inveted' Israeli identity, than there is for an 'invented' Palestinian identity.
> 
> And, even if both arguments are found to have merit, the Israelis declared first, and most successfully, and, of the two, are the only one with a functioning State to serve such an 'invented' People.
> 
> Even in such esoteric matters, the Israelis continue to outperform and outclass the so-called Palestinians, by several orders of magnitude.
> 
> Rather like pitting the Senior Varsity Football Team against a sandlot scratch pick-up scrimmage squad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the Nazis outclassed the so-called Jews they ruled over by several orders of magnitude.  That doesn't really tell us anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jews were not engaged in a decades-long political and military struggle with the Nazis - consequently, the comparison does not hold.
> 
> The Jews of Israel actually began their national life as the uncontested Underdogs, against the Arabs, and did a remarkable job of turning that around.
> 
> To say that they 'outclassed' and 'out-maneuvered' and 'outsmarted' and out-fought the Arabs is an exercise in classic understatement.
> 
> It provides us with excellent and highly defensible Israeli-favorable insight into the quality and nature of the Jews of Old Palestine (a.k.a. Israel, today) in comparison to the Arabs of Old Palestine (a.k.a. Rump Palestine, today) and their Muslim-Arab neighbors - and their various descendants still living in the region and still eligible for consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To say that they 'outclassed' and 'out-maneuvered' and 'outsmarted' and out-fought the Arabs is an exercise in classic understatement.​
> Don't forget outmooched.
> 
> It was the Zionists ability to mooch that made the difference.
Click to expand...





 And just were is the evidence of your false claim then tinny


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well no.  It hasn't "existed for thousands of years".  It totally ceased to exist thousands of years ago and was only recreated in modern times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You pro-terrorist antisemites can say anything you want, but that does not change the truth of the matter, namely that the Jewish nation has existed for over three millennia and Jewish presence on the land extends for that entire time. The nation-state of Israel did not always exist on the land in question, but the nation of Jewish people have a written history going back over three thousand.
> 
> It is only because you are such a filthy, double-talking hater of Jews that you pursue all this pro-terrorist crap of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's talk about "truth" (never mind the fact that you have yet to substantiate any of your accusations).
> 
> We are talking about Israel.  The nation.  Have you figured that part out yet?  Go back and read the pertinent posts if you are confused.  Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago.  It's an ancient Kingdom that is long gone.  In that regard - it's like a lot of ancient kingdoms that are gone but who's people remain.
> 
> This isn't rocket science dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd have nothing against the Assyrians getting their ancient Kingdom back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is.  If they want to try and get it back - why not? Anyone has a right to try.  But ancient history and kingdoms long ago gone do not automatically entitle people to modern lands over the rights of the indiginous people currently living there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now come up to date to the New nation of eretz Israel, not the same thing at all as biblical Israel. This was granted existence in 1920 by the legal land owners who gave the land to the Jews of the world. An aspect of CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW  that can not now be repealed. The treaties are all there and have been produced time and time again on this very board to show that the land was given freely to the Jews of the world without prejudice. The rules were that the indigenous were to live in peace and as one nation inside the RESURECTED NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS, the arab muslims refused to accept this treaty and started to oppose it violently and illegally. They flooded the land with illegal immigrants to try and outnumber the lands new legal owners so they could forcibly take the land from them. They tried riots, massacres and pogroms all to no avail as the worlds Jews migrated on the promise of a NEW ISRAEL. The fledgling UN tried to placate the arab muslims by separating the NEW ISREAL into separate entities along demographic lines and created a monster in the process. Now I will ask again where is the evidence that the arab muslims in their entirety were an indigenous people with the right to claim land ownership they had never set foot on for 1000 years.
Click to expand...


The Arabs owned over 85% of the land prior to Partition:


----------



## Phoenall

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but wikipedia is not a legitimate source.  As said above, bring in academic, sourced evidence, otherwise, you are no more credible than any of the hacks coming from scum holes like electronicintifada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Refute the points.  Wikipedia is perfectly good source in that it lists primary sources including books which aren't available on line.  It also has discussion areas so you know who is doing what and it points out articles that are insufficiently sourced or bias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, the authors of the articles use the sources that suit their POV, that is why I look for the original author and were his/her loyalties lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except for two things.  Authors represent multiple points of view and - you can assess the sources yourself and track them back by doing your own research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of any author that has diametrically opposite points of view on any given subject, all authors use their own POV when they write their works. I do access the sources myself right back to the original sources the author has used for their work. Invariably the links on wiki posted by team Palestine all end up back at pro Palestinian sources, and are based on propaganda, blood libels and outright lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you do Phoney....
> 
> Thats why you NEVER post ANY link to support your often psychotic posts!
Click to expand...




 Apart from all the ones I do post that sees you running away and hiding because you have just had a new one ripped. You post the links and I show were they are based on ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA and NAZI JEW HATRED. Would you like me to stop doing this?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Now that's what I call perfecting Apartheid.  The Boers would be impressed.





 When the state of Palestine crawls on its belly to Israel and begs for inclusion into Israel then you will be crying all the way to the mosque.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> You pro-terrorist antisemites can say anything you want, but that does not change the truth of the matter, namely that the Jewish nation has existed for over three millennia and Jewish presence on the land extends for that entire time. The nation-state of Israel did not always exist on the land in question, but the nation of Jewish people have a written history going back over three thousand.
> 
> It is only because you are such a filthy, double-talking hater of Jews that you pursue all this pro-terrorist crap of yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's talk about "truth" (never mind the fact that you have yet to substantiate any of your accusations).
> 
> We are talking about Israel.  The nation.  Have you figured that part out yet?  Go back and read the pertinent posts if you are confused.  Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago.  It's an ancient Kingdom that is long gone.  In that regard - it's like a lot of ancient kingdoms that are gone but who's people remain.
> 
> This isn't rocket science dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd have nothing against the Assyrians getting their ancient Kingdom back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is.  If they want to try and get it back - why not? Anyone has a right to try.  But ancient history and kingdoms long ago gone do not automatically entitle people to modern lands over the rights of the indiginous people currently living there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now come up to date to the New nation of eretz Israel, not the same thing at all as biblical Israel. This was granted existence in 1920 by the legal land owners who gave the land to the Jews of the world. An aspect of CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW  that can not now be repealed. The treaties are all there and have been produced time and time again on this very board to show that the land was given freely to the Jews of the world without prejudice. The rules were that the indigenous were to live in peace and as one nation inside the RESURECTED NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS, the arab muslims refused to accept this treaty and started to oppose it violently and illegally. They flooded the land with illegal immigrants to try and outnumber the lands new legal owners so they could forcibly take the land from them. They tried riots, massacres and pogroms all to no avail as the worlds Jews migrated on the promise of a NEW ISRAEL. The fledgling UN tried to placate the arab muslims by separating the NEW ISREAL into separate entities along demographic lines and created a monster in the process. Now I will ask again where is the evidence that the arab muslims in their entirety were an indigenous people with the right to claim land ownership they had never set foot on for 1000 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Arabs owned over 85% of the land prior to Partition:
> 
> View attachment 34314
Click to expand...





 Where is page 1 that tells the real truth and not the land occupancy of desert areas. Even this shows that the Jews paid more in taxes because they owned the most land.


----------



## montelatici

This is the only page that identifies property ownership of Jews and Non-Jews.  

The Jews paid higher taxes becaus urban land, which the Jews owned more of paid a higher rate in taxes, and the Jewish owned land was recently acquired and was assessed at the price of the last exchange, which was a value higher than land owned for centuries by the Christians and Muslims.

The non-Jews, Muslims and Christians owned more than 85% of the land prior to partition as depicted in the table whose data came from the land records as examined by the British administration.


----------



## MJB12741

So funny how Monte shows this over & over & yet never tells us the source of these figures.  Heh Heh!


----------



## MJB12741

Let us consider the facts for & against land ownership by Israel & the Palestinians,.  Fair enough?

http://wordfromjerusalem.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/the-case-for-israel-appendix2.pdf


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> ...Don't forget outmooched. It was the Zionists ability to mooch that made the difference.


Out-mooched? Hardly.

The Israelis made good with what they had, and maxed-it-out.

For moochers, we need look no further than the welfare-mentality of the Palestinians, who let others do their fighting for them for decades and who subsisted largely on handouts from neighboring and sympathetic Muslim-Arab countries, as well as Israeli handouts to their adversaries. Websters says: " Moocher - see '_Palestinian_' "


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> So funny how Monte shows this over & over & yet never tells us the source of these figures.  Heh Heh!



Every one knows the source.  It is from the official Survey of Palestine commissioned by the UN prior to Partition and published in 1946. You see, I have the facts and you have the propaganda. That's why Phoney gets all nervous when I post the facts from the source material.  It cramps his lying style.

You can download it from the Berman Jewish Policy Archive.   

A Survey of Palestine Volume 1 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> Let us consider the facts for & against land ownership by Israel & the Palestinians,.  Fair enough?
> 
> http://wordfromjerusalem.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/the-case-for-israel-appendix2.pdf



That's propaganda.  The source document for the facts is the UN commissioned Survey of Palestine published in 1946 before the partition.  

The Survey of Palestine can be downloaded from the Berman Jewish Policy Archive:

A Survey of Palestine Volume 1 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner

The Arabs owned more than 85% of the land in Palestine in 1946, the Jews less than 15%.  Fact.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trouble is, there is FAR less merit in the arguments for an 'inveted' Israeli identity, than there is for an 'invented' Palestinian identity.
> 
> And, even if both arguments are found to have merit, the Israelis declared first, and most successfully, and, of the two, are the only one with a functioning State to serve such an 'invented' People.
> 
> Even in such esoteric matters, the Israelis continue to outperform and outclass the so-called Palestinians, by several orders of magnitude.
> 
> Rather like pitting the Senior Varsity Football Team against a sandlot scratch pick-up scrimmage squad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the Nazis outclassed the so-called Jews they ruled over by several orders of magnitude.  That doesn't really tell us anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jews were not engaged in a decades-long political and military struggle with the Nazis - consequently, the comparison does not hold.
> 
> The Jews of Israel actually began their national life as the uncontested Underdogs, against the Arabs, and did a remarkable job of turning that around.
> 
> To say that they 'outclassed' and 'out-maneuvered' and 'outsmarted' and out-fought the Arabs is an exercise in classic understatement.
> 
> It provides us with excellent and highly defensible Israeli-favorable insight into the quality and nature of the Jews of Old Palestine (a.k.a. Israel, today) in comparison to the Arabs of Old Palestine (a.k.a. Rump Palestine, today) and their Muslim-Arab neighbors - and their various descendants still living in the region and still eligible for consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To say that they 'outclassed' and 'out-maneuvered' and 'outsmarted' and out-fought the Arabs is an exercise in classic understatement.​
> Don't forget outmooched.
> 
> It was the Zionists ability to mooch that made the difference.
Click to expand...


Load of crap. Out classed, out maneuvered, outsmarted is absolutely right. 

Mooching? Palestinians are the king of moochers !


----------



## toastman

Monti is so funny. Whenever someone shows him the truth about any matter, his response is "propaganda!"


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> This is the only page that identifies property ownership of Jews and Non-Jews.
> 
> The Jews paid higher taxes becaus urban land, which the Jews owned more of paid a higher rate in taxes, and the Jewish owned land was recently acquired and was assessed at the price of the last exchange, which was a value higher than land owned for centuries by the Christians and Muslims.
> 
> The non-Jews, Muslims and Christians owned more than 85% of the land prior to partition as depicted in the table whose data came from the land records as examined by the British administration.






 LIAR you originally posted two pages and the first showed the real facts, that the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned just 0.8%. When asked to provide a link you posted a dead end that required payment to access the information. This is because you know that you have been rumbled and we know you are manipulating the real facts in your ISLAMONAZI favour. Now you are trying to flim flam the board with some crap about the Jews paying more tax because the land they owned was taxed higher.  ( apartheid and racism isn't it ) The fact remains that you are LYING and refuse to produce a credible link because you know I will pick it apart and destroy your every claim once again.


----------



## Phoenall

MJB12741 said:


> So funny how Monte shows this over & over & yet never tells us the source of these figures.  Heh Heh!





 She does and it leads to a pay per view site that is also flagged as dangerous by my Virus programme.


----------



## aris2chat

The Smoking Gun Arab Immigration into Palestine 1922-1931 Middle East Quarterly

please note the documentation and research behind the article.
Long but worth the read.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So funny how Monte shows this over & over & yet never tells us the source of these figures.  Heh Heh!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every one knows the source.  It is from the official Survey of Palestine commissioned by the UN prior to Partition and published in 1946. You see, I have the facts and you have the propaganda. That's why Phoney gets all nervous when I post the facts from the source material.  It cramps his lying style.
> 
> You can download it from the Berman Jewish Policy Archive.
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Volume 1 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner
Click to expand...






Not the original link your provided is it ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trouble is, there is FAR less merit in the arguments for an 'inveted' Israeli identity, than there is for an 'invented' Palestinian identity.
> 
> And, even if both arguments are found to have merit, the Israelis declared first, and most successfully, and, of the two, are the only one with a functioning State to serve such an 'invented' People.
> 
> Even in such esoteric matters, the Israelis continue to outperform and outclass the so-called Palestinians, by several orders of magnitude.
> 
> Rather like pitting the Senior Varsity Football Team against a sandlot scratch pick-up scrimmage squad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the Nazis outclassed the so-called Jews they ruled over by several orders of magnitude.  That doesn't really tell us anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jews were not engaged in a decades-long political and military struggle with the Nazis - consequently, the comparison does not hold.
> 
> The Jews of Israel actually began their national life as the uncontested Underdogs, against the Arabs, and did a remarkable job of turning that around.
> 
> To say that they 'outclassed' and 'out-maneuvered' and 'outsmarted' and out-fought the Arabs is an exercise in classic understatement.
> 
> It provides us with excellent and highly defensible Israeli-favorable insight into the quality and nature of the Jews of Old Palestine (a.k.a. Israel, today) in comparison to the Arabs of Old Palestine (a.k.a. Rump Palestine, today) and their Muslim-Arab neighbors - and their various descendants still living in the region and still eligible for consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To say that they 'outclassed' and 'out-maneuvered' and 'outsmarted' and out-fought the Arabs is an exercise in classic understatement.​
> Don't forget outmooched.
> 
> It was the Zionists ability to mooch that made the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Load of crap. Out classed, out maneuvered, outsmarted is absolutely right.
> 
> Mooching? Palestinians are the king of moochers !
Click to expand...


Are you kidding? Israel is the mooch capital of the world.

Israel was created on the mooch and exists on the mooch.

There isn't a bigger bunch of freeloaders in the world.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let us consider the facts for & against land ownership by Israel & the Palestinians,.  Fair enough?
> 
> http://wordfromjerusalem.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/the-case-for-israel-appendix2.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's propaganda.  The source document for the facts is the UN commissioned Survey of Palestine published in 1946 before the partition.
> 
> The Survey of Palestine can be downloaded from the Berman Jewish Policy Archive:
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Volume 1 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner
> 
> The Arabs owned more than 85% of the land in Palestine in 1946, the Jews less than 15%.  Fact.
> 
> View attachment 34327
Click to expand...





 Still no page 1 why is this Mohamed, could it be it shows the truth and not your islamonazi lies


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trouble is, there is FAR less merit in the arguments for an 'inveted' Israeli identity, than there is for an 'invented' Palestinian identity.
> 
> And, even if both arguments are found to have merit, the Israelis declared first, and most successfully, and, of the two, are the only one with a functioning State to serve such an 'invented' People.
> 
> Even in such esoteric matters, the Israelis continue to outperform and outclass the so-called Palestinians, by several orders of magnitude.
> 
> Rather like pitting the Senior Varsity Football Team against a sandlot scratch pick-up scrimmage squad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Nazis outclassed the so-called Jews they ruled over by several orders of magnitude.  That doesn't really tell us anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jews were not engaged in a decades-long political and military struggle with the Nazis - consequently, the comparison does not hold.
> 
> The Jews of Israel actually began their national life as the uncontested Underdogs, against the Arabs, and did a remarkable job of turning that around.
> 
> To say that they 'outclassed' and 'out-maneuvered' and 'outsmarted' and out-fought the Arabs is an exercise in classic understatement.
> 
> It provides us with excellent and highly defensible Israeli-favorable insight into the quality and nature of the Jews of Old Palestine (a.k.a. Israel, today) in comparison to the Arabs of Old Palestine (a.k.a. Rump Palestine, today) and their Muslim-Arab neighbors - and their various descendants still living in the region and still eligible for consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To say that they 'outclassed' and 'out-maneuvered' and 'outsmarted' and out-fought the Arabs is an exercise in classic understatement.​
> Don't forget outmooched.
> 
> It was the Zionists ability to mooch that made the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Load of crap. Out classed, out maneuvered, outsmarted is absolutely right.
> 
> Mooching? Palestinians are the king of moochers !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding? Israel is the mooch capital of the world.
> 
> Israel was created on the mooch and exists on the mooch.
> 
> There isn't a bigger bunch of freeloaders in the world.
Click to expand...


Israel was absolutely not created off mooch. That's your bullshit version of history. And your version of history of this conflict as we all know is completely flawed.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trouble is, there is FAR less merit in the arguments for an 'inveted' Israeli identity, than there is for an 'invented' Palestinian identity.
> 
> And, even if both arguments are found to have merit, the Israelis declared first, and most successfully, and, of the two, are the only one with a functioning State to serve such an 'invented' People.
> 
> Even in such esoteric matters, the Israelis continue to outperform and outclass the so-called Palestinians, by several orders of magnitude.
> 
> Rather like pitting the Senior Varsity Football Team against a sandlot scratch pick-up scrimmage squad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Nazis outclassed the so-called Jews they ruled over by several orders of magnitude.  That doesn't really tell us anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jews were not engaged in a decades-long political and military struggle with the Nazis - consequently, the comparison does not hold.
> 
> The Jews of Israel actually began their national life as the uncontested Underdogs, against the Arabs, and did a remarkable job of turning that around.
> 
> To say that they 'outclassed' and 'out-maneuvered' and 'outsmarted' and out-fought the Arabs is an exercise in classic understatement.
> 
> It provides us with excellent and highly defensible Israeli-favorable insight into the quality and nature of the Jews of Old Palestine (a.k.a. Israel, today) in comparison to the Arabs of Old Palestine (a.k.a. Rump Palestine, today) and their Muslim-Arab neighbors - and their various descendants still living in the region and still eligible for consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To say that they 'outclassed' and 'out-maneuvered' and 'outsmarted' and out-fought the Arabs is an exercise in classic understatement.​
> Don't forget outmooched.
> 
> It was the Zionists ability to mooch that made the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Load of crap. Out classed, out maneuvered, outsmarted is absolutely right.
> 
> Mooching? Palestinians are the king of moochers !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding? Israel is the mooch capital of the world.
> 
> Israel was created on the mooch and exists on the mooch.
> 
> There isn't a bigger bunch of freeloaders in the world.
Click to expand...




 The Palestinians cant even balance the books with all the aid they get from the US and UN. How many trillions of tax dollars flood into Palestine every year ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Nazis outclassed the so-called Jews they ruled over by several orders of magnitude.  That doesn't really tell us anything.
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews were not engaged in a decades-long political and military struggle with the Nazis - consequently, the comparison does not hold.
> 
> The Jews of Israel actually began their national life as the uncontested Underdogs, against the Arabs, and did a remarkable job of turning that around.
> 
> To say that they 'outclassed' and 'out-maneuvered' and 'outsmarted' and out-fought the Arabs is an exercise in classic understatement.
> 
> It provides us with excellent and highly defensible Israeli-favorable insight into the quality and nature of the Jews of Old Palestine (a.k.a. Israel, today) in comparison to the Arabs of Old Palestine (a.k.a. Rump Palestine, today) and their Muslim-Arab neighbors - and their various descendants still living in the region and still eligible for consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To say that they 'outclassed' and 'out-maneuvered' and 'outsmarted' and out-fought the Arabs is an exercise in classic understatement.​
> Don't forget outmooched.
> 
> It was the Zionists ability to mooch that made the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Load of crap. Out classed, out maneuvered, outsmarted is absolutely right.
> 
> Mooching? Palestinians are the king of moochers !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding? Israel is the mooch capital of the world.
> 
> Israel was created on the mooch and exists on the mooch.
> 
> There isn't a bigger bunch of freeloaders in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel was absolutely not created off mooch. That's your bullshit version of history. And your version of history of this conflict as we all know is completely flawed.
Click to expand...


The first thing they did is mooch the service of Britain's military to impose the Zionist agenda on Palestine at the point of a gun.

Virtually all of the money needed to create Israel came from out of country.

Israel still lives with its hand out.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Nazis outclassed the so-called Jews they ruled over by several orders of magnitude.  That doesn't really tell us anything.
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews were not engaged in a decades-long political and military struggle with the Nazis - consequently, the comparison does not hold.
> 
> The Jews of Israel actually began their national life as the uncontested Underdogs, against the Arabs, and did a remarkable job of turning that around.
> 
> To say that they 'outclassed' and 'out-maneuvered' and 'outsmarted' and out-fought the Arabs is an exercise in classic understatement.
> 
> It provides us with excellent and highly defensible Israeli-favorable insight into the quality and nature of the Jews of Old Palestine (a.k.a. Israel, today) in comparison to the Arabs of Old Palestine (a.k.a. Rump Palestine, today) and their Muslim-Arab neighbors - and their various descendants still living in the region and still eligible for consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To say that they 'outclassed' and 'out-maneuvered' and 'outsmarted' and out-fought the Arabs is an exercise in classic understatement.​
> Don't forget outmooched.
> 
> It was the Zionists ability to mooch that made the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Load of crap. Out classed, out maneuvered, outsmarted is absolutely right.
> 
> Mooching? Palestinians are the king of moochers !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding? Israel is the mooch capital of the world.
> 
> Israel was created on the mooch and exists on the mooch.
> 
> There isn't a bigger bunch of freeloaders in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians cant even balance the books with all the aid they get from the US and UN. How many trillions of tax dollars flood into Palestine every year ?
Click to expand...

How much aid did the Palestinians get before Israel stole, bombed, and bulldozed their economic infrastructure?


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So funny how Monte shows this over & over & yet never tells us the source of these figures.  Heh Heh!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She does and it leads to a pay per view site that is also flagged as dangerous by my Virus programme.
Click to expand...


No, it leads to the Berman Jewish Policy Archive a part of NYU and Wanger Universities and the Survey, all its volumes can be downloaded for free. The old Hasbara technique that attempts to keep people away from the truth by  making claims such as yours is not working bozo.  I know your kind doesn't use academic institutions as a resource because the facts are not consistent with the bullshit you've been fed.  Here is the link again.  New York University and Wagner University and a Jewish Archive, how anti Israel could they be? LOL

A Survey of Palestine Volume 1 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner

And the facts again, *Arabs owned more than 85% of Palestine in 1946,* from the UN document called A Survey of Palestine published in 1946 before partition and the end of the mandate. Available for download from the Berman Jewish Policy Archive of NYU and Wagner University. 

Read the facts and weep Israel propagandists.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let us consider the facts for & against land ownership by Israel & the Palestinians,.  Fair enough?
> 
> http://wordfromjerusalem.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/the-case-for-israel-appendix2.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's propaganda.  The source document for the facts is the UN commissioned Survey of Palestine published in 1946 before the partition.
> 
> The Survey of Palestine can be downloaded from the Berman Jewish Policy Archive:
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Volume 1 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner
> 
> The Arabs owned more than 85% of the land in Palestine in 1946, the Jews less than 15%.  Fact.
> 
> View attachment 34327
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still no page 1 why is this Mohamed, could it be it shows the truth and not your islamonazi lies
Click to expand...


This is page 566 what does page 1 have to do with anything.  This is the page that deals with who owned the land according to the land records as tallied up by the British administrators before Partition. The Arabs owned more than 85% of the land as depicted in the table below.


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except...they never said "no Jews".
> 
> Nice bit of fiction though
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read their charter and you will see it there plain as day
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who's charter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians that also includes the one by hamas and the one by fatah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians don't have a charter.  Hamas does and Fatah and the PLO do.
> 
> Charters Constitutions - FATEH Constitution
> 
> Neither Fateh nor the PLO call for a nation with no Jews. Fateh's Constitution calls for _*"Establishing an independent democratic state with complete sovereignty on all Palestinian lands, and Jerusalem is its capital city, and protecting the citizens' legal and equal rights without any racial or religious discrimination."*_.  The Constitution references fighting Zionism and Imperialism.  Unfortunately with Arafat's death, the PLO charter did not get amended.  They still call for the destruction of Israel, as a state - but not for the creation of a nation with NO JEWS.  The above in Fatah's constitution seems to support that.
> 
> I didn't read through Hamas' because I don't think much of Hamas as a legitimate governing entity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to try again as this is what the Palestinian National Covenant says
> 
> Palestinian National Covenant - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> Article 7 of the earlier document was changed from "Jews of Palestinian origin are considered Palestinians ..." to being restricted only to those "who had resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion." The final article providing that it can only be amended by a vote of a two-thirds majority of the Palestinian National Council (PNC) at a special session convened for that purpose was left unchanged.
> 
> Now we all know that the "Zionist invasion began in 1870 and I doubt that any indigenous Jews from that time are still alive. So in es
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two states.  Seperate.  Israel.  Palestine.  Details to be negotiated between Israel (a Jewish majority state) and Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The window of opportunity for such a solution has long-since closed, The Palestinians themselves closed it, decades ago. Consequently, the Reconquista continues apace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree Mr. Pessimistic Conquista
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I know - whether folks believe it or not, there is a part of me that wishes that this were not true - that peaceful coexistence between the Israelis and Palestinians was still possible, but - and this is pure personal opinion - I think that possibility died a quiet, lonely death, quite some time ago.
> 
> Am I positive? Of course not. Do I believe it? Yes. Do I perceive realistic and likely reasons for that belief? Yes.
> 
> And IF peaceful coexistence is no longer possible, then one side or the other is gonna have to go.
> 
> And, because extermination would be an unforgivable sin and crime against God and Man...
> 
> That doesn't leave anything other than mass relocation of one side or the other.
> 
> IF we are left with nothing better than relocation, then the weaker side will be the one to go.
> 
> That's all based upon the premise that peaceful coexistence is now virtually impossible.
> 
> If I'm right, then everything I've said beyond that point is both logical and nearly inevitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or a Berlin Wall...or seperation like N S Korea.  I think forced relocation of huge numbers of people is the least likely outcome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We already have a " Berlin Wall" of sorts and team Palestine sees it as a RACIST divide. Expect even more separation barriers to be erected and for the Israeli's to enforce even harsher controls on the land they annexe in Jerusalem. Expect to see Palestinian violence and riots as the separation barriers are extended and deep piles driven into the land to deter tunnels. Maybe drilling steel/concrete lined holes and placing explosives at the bottom would also deter Palestinian tunnels as the explosions would trap the terrorists in the tunnels.
Click to expand...


From your source:
The Palestinian National Charter was adopted on May 28, 1964, establishing the Palestine Liberation Organization, in (east) Jerusalem along with another document, variously known as the Basic Constitution, Basic Law or Fundamental Law of the PLO, based on an earlier Draft Constitution. The Charter is concerned mainly with the aims of the Palestine Liberation Organization, while the Fundamental Law is more concerned with the structure and procedures of the organization.​It's the PLO's charter.  Like I said - various groups have charters.  The Palestinian people as a whole do  not.


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already gave my sources for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but wikipedia is not a legitimate source.  As said above, bring in academic, sourced evidence, otherwise, you are no more credible than any of the hacks coming from scum holes like electronicintifada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Refute the points.  Wikipedia is perfectly good source in that it lists primary sources including books which aren't available on line.  It also has discussion areas so you know who is doing what and it points out articles that are insufficiently sourced or bias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, the authors of the articles use the sources that suit their POV, that is why I look for the original author and were his/her loyalties lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except for two things.  Authors represent multiple points of view and - you can assess the sources yourself and track them back by doing your own research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of any author that has diametrically opposite points of view on any given subject, all authors use their own POV when they write their works. I do access the sources myself right back to the original sources the author has used for their work. Invariably the links on wiki posted by team Palestine all end up back at pro Palestinian sources, and are based on propaganda, blood libels and outright lies.
Click to expand...


And invariably the links on wiki posted by team Israel end up back at pro-Israel sources, which are based on propaganda, bigotry and outright lies 

Actually - I find the sources represent a broad spectrum - some quite clearly biased others not so much.  The point is - it allows you to research claims and see agendas.  Other sources - particularly those from clearly biased or hate sites are far less reliable once you pick them apart and they seldom link to original sources (other than their own).


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews were not engaged in a decades-long political and military struggle with the Nazis - consequently, the comparison does not hold.
> 
> The Jews of Israel actually began their national life as the uncontested Underdogs, against the Arabs, and did a remarkable job of turning that around.
> 
> To say that they 'outclassed' and 'out-maneuvered' and 'outsmarted' and out-fought the Arabs is an exercise in classic understatement.
> 
> It provides us with excellent and highly defensible Israeli-favorable insight into the quality and nature of the Jews of Old Palestine (a.k.a. Israel, today) in comparison to the Arabs of Old Palestine (a.k.a. Rump Palestine, today) and their Muslim-Arab neighbors - and their various descendants still living in the region and still eligible for consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> To say that they 'outclassed' and 'out-maneuvered' and 'outsmarted' and out-fought the Arabs is an exercise in classic understatement.​
> Don't forget outmooched.
> 
> It was the Zionists ability to mooch that made the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Load of crap. Out classed, out maneuvered, outsmarted is absolutely right.
> 
> Mooching? Palestinians are the king of moochers !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding? Israel is the mooch capital of the world.
> 
> Israel was created on the mooch and exists on the mooch.
> 
> There isn't a bigger bunch of freeloaders in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel was absolutely not created off mooch. That's your bullshit version of history. And your version of history of this conflict as we all know is completely flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first thing they did is mooch the service of Britain's military to impose the Zionist agenda on Palestine at the point of a gun.
> 
> Virtually all of the money needed to create Israel came from out of country.
> 
> Israel still lives with its hand out.
Click to expand...




 Don't you mean the arab muslims, as they ended up with 78% of Palestine and the mooched the LoN to impose pan-arab nationalism.

That would be Palestine that moches $trillions every year.

It came from Jews who then started the migration to Israel as planned way back in 1919. Not a penny piece was mooched from anyone. Not like the Palestinians that mooch $trillions from the UN and the world, and spend it all on terrorism. And they were born with their hands out


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews were not engaged in a decades-long political and military struggle with the Nazis - consequently, the comparison does not hold.
> 
> The Jews of Israel actually began their national life as the uncontested Underdogs, against the Arabs, and did a remarkable job of turning that around.
> 
> To say that they 'outclassed' and 'out-maneuvered' and 'outsmarted' and out-fought the Arabs is an exercise in classic understatement.
> 
> It provides us with excellent and highly defensible Israeli-favorable insight into the quality and nature of the Jews of Old Palestine (a.k.a. Israel, today) in comparison to the Arabs of Old Palestine (a.k.a. Rump Palestine, today) and their Muslim-Arab neighbors - and their various descendants still living in the region and still eligible for consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> To say that they 'outclassed' and 'out-maneuvered' and 'outsmarted' and out-fought the Arabs is an exercise in classic understatement.​
> Don't forget outmooched.
> 
> It was the Zionists ability to mooch that made the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Load of crap. Out classed, out maneuvered, outsmarted is absolutely right.
> 
> Mooching? Palestinians are the king of moochers !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding? Israel is the mooch capital of the world.
> 
> Israel was created on the mooch and exists on the mooch.
> 
> There isn't a bigger bunch of freeloaders in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians cant even balance the books with all the aid they get from the US and UN. How many trillions of tax dollars flood into Palestine every year ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much aid did the Palestinians get before Israel stole, bombed, and bulldozed their economic infrastructure?
Click to expand...





 All the money they generated since 1967 has been in the form of hand outs, and they spend every penny on violence and terrorism. Why do you think the EU has stopped sending them money................... They have never had any economic infrastructure they exist on zakat and alms.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So funny how Monte shows this over & over & yet never tells us the source of these figures.  Heh Heh!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She does and it leads to a pay per view site that is also flagged as dangerous by my Virus programme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it leads to the Berman Jewish Policy Archive a part of NYU and Wanger Universities and the Survey, all its volumes can be downloaded for free. The old Hasbara technique that attempts to keep people away from the truth by  making claims such as yours is not working bozo.  I know your kind doesn't use academic institutions as a resource because the facts are not consistent with the bullshit you've been fed.  Here is the link again.  New York University and Wagner University and a Jewish Archive, how anti Israel could they be? LOL
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Volume 1 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner
> 
> And the facts again, *Arabs owned more than 85% of Palestine in 1946,* from the UN document called A Survey of Palestine published in 1946 before partition and the end of the mandate. Available for download from the Berman Jewish Policy Archive of NYU and Wagner University.
> 
> Read the facts and weep Israel propagandists.
> 
> 
> View attachment 34330
Click to expand...





 Which send you round and round in circles without showing the contents of the report.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read their charter and you will see it there plain as day
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's charter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians that also includes the one by hamas and the one by fatah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians don't have a charter.  Hamas does and Fatah and the PLO do.
> 
> Charters Constitutions - FATEH Constitution
> 
> Neither Fateh nor the PLO call for a nation with no Jews. Fateh's Constitution calls for _*"Establishing an independent democratic state with complete sovereignty on all Palestinian lands, and Jerusalem is its capital city, and protecting the citizens' legal and equal rights without any racial or religious discrimination."*_.  The Constitution references fighting Zionism and Imperialism.  Unfortunately with Arafat's death, the PLO charter did not get amended.  They still call for the destruction of Israel, as a state - but not for the creation of a nation with NO JEWS.  The above in Fatah's constitution seems to support that.
> 
> I didn't read through Hamas' because I don't think much of Hamas as a legitimate governing entity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to try again as this is what the Palestinian National Covenant says
> 
> Palestinian National Covenant - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> Article 7 of the earlier document was changed from "Jews of Palestinian origin are considered Palestinians ..." to being restricted only to those "who had resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion." The final article providing that it can only be amended by a vote of a two-thirds majority of the Palestinian National Council (PNC) at a special session convened for that purpose was left unchanged.
> 
> Now we all know that the "Zionist invasion began in 1870 and I doubt that any indigenous Jews from that time are still alive. So in es
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The window of opportunity for such a solution has long-since closed, The Palestinians themselves closed it, decades ago. Consequently, the Reconquista continues apace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree Mr. Pessimistic Conquista
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I know - whether folks believe it or not, there is a part of me that wishes that this were not true - that peaceful coexistence between the Israelis and Palestinians was still possible, but - and this is pure personal opinion - I think that possibility died a quiet, lonely death, quite some time ago.
> 
> Am I positive? Of course not. Do I believe it? Yes. Do I perceive realistic and likely reasons for that belief? Yes.
> 
> And IF peaceful coexistence is no longer possible, then one side or the other is gonna have to go.
> 
> And, because extermination would be an unforgivable sin and crime against God and Man...
> 
> That doesn't leave anything other than mass relocation of one side or the other.
> 
> IF we are left with nothing better than relocation, then the weaker side will be the one to go.
> 
> That's all based upon the premise that peaceful coexistence is now virtually impossible.
> 
> If I'm right, then everything I've said beyond that point is both logical and nearly inevitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or a Berlin Wall...or seperation like N S Korea.  I think forced relocation of huge numbers of people is the least likely outcome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We already have a " Berlin Wall" of sorts and team Palestine sees it as a RACIST divide. Expect even more separation barriers to be erected and for the Israeli's to enforce even harsher controls on the land they annexe in Jerusalem. Expect to see Palestinian violence and riots as the separation barriers are extended and deep piles driven into the land to deter tunnels. Maybe drilling steel/concrete lined holes and placing explosives at the bottom would also deter Palestinian tunnels as the explosions would trap the terrorists in the tunnels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your source:
> The Palestinian National Charter was adopted on May 28, 1964, establishing the Palestine Liberation Organization, in (east) Jerusalem along with another document, variously known as the Basic Constitution, Basic Law or Fundamental Law of the PLO, based on an earlier Draft Constitution. The Charter is concerned mainly with the aims of the Palestine Liberation Organization, while the Fundamental Law is more concerned with the structure and procedures of the organization.​It's the PLO's charter.  Like I said - various groups have charters.  The Palestinian people as a whole do  not.
Click to expand...





Which was adopted as the Palestinian National Charter when the PLO became fatah. So it is for all the Palestinian people and not just the PLO.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> To say that they 'outclassed' and 'out-maneuvered' and 'outsmarted' and out-fought the Arabs is an exercise in classic understatement.​
> Don't forget outmooched.
> 
> It was the Zionists ability to mooch that made the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Load of crap. Out classed, out maneuvered, outsmarted is absolutely right.
> 
> Mooching? Palestinians are the king of moochers !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding? Israel is the mooch capital of the world.
> 
> Israel was created on the mooch and exists on the mooch.
> 
> There isn't a bigger bunch of freeloaders in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel was absolutely not created off mooch. That's your bullshit version of history. And your version of history of this conflict as we all know is completely flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first thing they did is mooch the service of Britain's military to impose the Zionist agenda on Palestine at the point of a gun.
> 
> Virtually all of the money needed to create Israel came from out of country.
> 
> Israel still lives with its hand out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you mean the arab muslims, as they ended up with 78% of Palestine and the mooched the LoN to impose pan-arab nationalism.
> 
> *That would be Palestine that moches $trillions every year.*
> 
> It came from Jews who then started the migration to Israel as planned way back in 1919. Not a penny piece was mooched from anyone. Not like the Palestinians that mooch $trillions from the UN and the world, and spend it all on terrorism. And they were born with their hands out
Click to expand...


Links?


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> To say that they 'outclassed' and 'out-maneuvered' and 'outsmarted' and out-fought the Arabs is an exercise in classic understatement.​
> Don't forget outmooched.
> 
> It was the Zionists ability to mooch that made the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Load of crap. Out classed, out maneuvered, outsmarted is absolutely right.
> 
> Mooching? Palestinians are the king of moochers !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding? Israel is the mooch capital of the world.
> 
> Israel was created on the mooch and exists on the mooch.
> 
> There isn't a bigger bunch of freeloaders in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel was absolutely not created off mooch. That's your bullshit version of history. And your version of history of this conflict as we all know is completely flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first thing they did is mooch the service of Britain's military to impose the Zionist agenda on Palestine at the point of a gun.
> 
> Virtually all of the money needed to create Israel came from out of country.
> 
> Israel still lives with its hand out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you mean the arab muslims, as they ended up with 78% of Palestine and the mooched the LoN to impose pan-arab nationalism.
> 
> That would be Palestine that moches $trillions every year.
> 
> It came from Jews who then started the migration to Israel as planned way back in 1919. Not a penny piece was mooched from anyone. Not like the Palestinians that mooch $trillions from the UN and the world, and spend it all on terrorism. And they were born with their hands out
Click to expand...



The Christians and Muslims at Partition would have received less than half of the land they owned 85% of and had double the population.  You are truly a Phoney.

"On September 3, UNSCOP submitted its report to the U.N. General Assembly. Thereport noted that the population of Palestine at the end of 1946 was estimated to be almost 1,846,000, with 1,203,000 Arabs (65 percent) and 608,000 Jews (33 percent).* Again, the growth of the Jewish population was mainly the result of immigration, whereas the Arab growth was “almost entirely” natural increase.....*Land ownership statistics from 1945 showed that Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district in Palestine. In Jaffa, with the highest percentage of Jewish ownership of any district, 47 percent of the land was owned by Arabs versus 39 percent owned by Jews. At the opposite end of the spectrum, in Ramallah district, Arabs owned 99 percent of the land and Jews less than 1 percent.[7] *In the whole of Palestine, Arabs were in possession of 85 percent of the land, while Jews owned less than 7 percent.[8].....*.The plan would have awarded a majority of the territory to its minority Jewish population, who were in possession of a mere fraction of the land, and so was naturally rejected by the Arab majority who legally owned most of Palestine.[16]..."

The U.N. Partition Plan and Arab Catastrophe Page 3 of 3 Foreign Policy Journal


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's charter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians that also includes the one by hamas and the one by fatah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians don't have a charter.  Hamas does and Fatah and the PLO do.
> 
> Charters Constitutions - FATEH Constitution
> 
> Neither Fateh nor the PLO call for a nation with no Jews. Fateh's Constitution calls for _*"Establishing an independent democratic state with complete sovereignty on all Palestinian lands, and Jerusalem is its capital city, and protecting the citizens' legal and equal rights without any racial or religious discrimination."*_.  The Constitution references fighting Zionism and Imperialism.  Unfortunately with Arafat's death, the PLO charter did not get amended.  They still call for the destruction of Israel, as a state - but not for the creation of a nation with NO JEWS.  The above in Fatah's constitution seems to support that.
> 
> I didn't read through Hamas' because I don't think much of Hamas as a legitimate governing entity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to try again as this is what the Palestinian National Covenant says
> 
> Palestinian National Covenant - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> Article 7 of the earlier document was changed from "Jews of Palestinian origin are considered Palestinians ..." to being restricted only to those "who had resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion." The final article providing that it can only be amended by a vote of a two-thirds majority of the Palestinian National Council (PNC) at a special session convened for that purpose was left unchanged.
> 
> Now we all know that the "Zionist invasion began in 1870 and I doubt that any indigenous Jews from that time are still alive. So in es
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree Mr. Pessimistic Conquista
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I know - whether folks believe it or not, there is a part of me that wishes that this were not true - that peaceful coexistence between the Israelis and Palestinians was still possible, but - and this is pure personal opinion - I think that possibility died a quiet, lonely death, quite some time ago.
> 
> Am I positive? Of course not. Do I believe it? Yes. Do I perceive realistic and likely reasons for that belief? Yes.
> 
> And IF peaceful coexistence is no longer possible, then one side or the other is gonna have to go.
> 
> And, because extermination would be an unforgivable sin and crime against God and Man...
> 
> That doesn't leave anything other than mass relocation of one side or the other.
> 
> IF we are left with nothing better than relocation, then the weaker side will be the one to go.
> 
> That's all based upon the premise that peaceful coexistence is now virtually impossible.
> 
> If I'm right, then everything I've said beyond that point is both logical and nearly inevitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or a Berlin Wall...or seperation like N S Korea.  I think forced relocation of huge numbers of people is the least likely outcome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We already have a " Berlin Wall" of sorts and team Palestine sees it as a RACIST divide. Expect even more separation barriers to be erected and for the Israeli's to enforce even harsher controls on the land they annexe in Jerusalem. Expect to see Palestinian violence and riots as the separation barriers are extended and deep piles driven into the land to deter tunnels. Maybe drilling steel/concrete lined holes and placing explosives at the bottom would also deter Palestinian tunnels as the explosions would trap the terrorists in the tunnels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your source:
> The Palestinian National Charter was adopted on May 28, 1964, establishing the Palestine Liberation Organization, in (east) Jerusalem along with another document, variously known as the Basic Constitution, Basic Law or Fundamental Law of the PLO, based on an earlier Draft Constitution. The Charter is concerned mainly with the aims of the Palestine Liberation Organization, while the Fundamental Law is more concerned with the structure and procedures of the organization.​It's the PLO's charter.  Like I said - various groups have charters.  The Palestinian people as a whole do  not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which was adopted as the Palestinian National Charter when the PLO became fatah. So it is for all the Palestinian people and not just the PLO.
Click to expand...


No, because you also have Hamas and it's charter.  They are the charters of the political groups.  The people as a whole don't have one and won't I guess, until they have a chance to develop state and national constitution of some sort.


----------



## Humanity

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> To say that they 'outclassed' and 'out-maneuvered' and 'outsmarted' and out-fought the Arabs is an exercise in classic understatement.​
> Don't forget outmooched.
> 
> It was the Zionists ability to mooch that made the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Load of crap. Out classed, out maneuvered, outsmarted is absolutely right.
> 
> Mooching? Palestinians are the king of moochers !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding? Israel is the mooch capital of the world.
> 
> Israel was created on the mooch and exists on the mooch.
> 
> There isn't a bigger bunch of freeloaders in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians cant even balance the books with all the aid they get from the US and UN. How many trillions of tax dollars flood into Palestine every year ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much aid did the Palestinians get before Israel stole, bombed, and bulldozed their economic infrastructure?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the money they generated since 1967 has been in the form of hand outs, and they spend every penny on violence and terrorism. Why do you think the EU has stopped sending them money................... They have never had any economic infrastructure they exist on zakat and alms.
Click to expand...


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Load of crap. Out classed, out maneuvered, outsmarted is absolutely right.
> 
> Mooching? Palestinians are the king of moochers !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding? Israel is the mooch capital of the world.
> 
> Israel was created on the mooch and exists on the mooch.
> 
> There isn't a bigger bunch of freeloaders in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel was absolutely not created off mooch. That's your bullshit version of history. And your version of history of this conflict as we all know is completely flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first thing they did is mooch the service of Britain's military to impose the Zionist agenda on Palestine at the point of a gun.
> 
> Virtually all of the money needed to create Israel came from out of country.
> 
> Israel still lives with its hand out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you mean the arab muslims, as they ended up with 78% of Palestine and the mooched the LoN to impose pan-arab nationalism.
> 
> That would be Palestine that moches $trillions every year.
> 
> It came from Jews who then started the migration to Israel as planned way back in 1919. Not a penny piece was mooched from anyone. Not like the Palestinians that mooch $trillions from the UN and the world, and spend it all on terrorism. And they were born with their hands out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Christians and Muslims at Partition would have received less than half of the land they owned 85% of and had double the population.  You are truly a Phoney.
> 
> "On September 3, UNSCOP submitted its report to the U.N. General Assembly. Thereport noted that the population of Palestine at the end of 1946 was estimated to be almost 1,846,000, with 1,203,000 Arabs (65 percent) and 608,000 Jews (33 percent).* Again, the growth of the Jewish population was mainly the result of immigration, whereas the Arab growth was “almost entirely” natural increase.....*Land ownership statistics from 1945 showed that Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district in Palestine. In Jaffa, with the highest percentage of Jewish ownership of any district, 47 percent of the land was owned by Arabs versus 39 percent owned by Jews. At the opposite end of the spectrum, in Ramallah district, Arabs owned 99 percent of the land and Jews less than 1 percent.[7] *In the whole of Palestine, Arabs were in possession of 85 percent of the land, while Jews owned less than 7 percent.[8].....*.The plan would have awarded a majority of the territory to its minority Jewish population, who were in possession of a mere fraction of the land, and so was naturally rejected by the Arab majority who legally owned most of Palestine.[16]..."
> 
> The U.N. Partition Plan and Arab Catastrophe Page 3 of 3 Foreign Policy Journal
Click to expand...





 Once more caught out using untrusted sources as information.

 This from wiki regarding the author

Jeremy Hammond - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

*Jeremy Hammond* (born January 8, 1985) is a political activist and computer hacker from Chicago. He was convicted and sentenced[1] in November 2013 to 10 years in US Federal Prison for hacking the private intelligence firm Stratfor and releasing the leaks through the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks.[2][3][4] He founded the computer security training website HackThisSite[5] in 2003.[6]


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians that also includes the one by hamas and the one by fatah
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians don't have a charter.  Hamas does and Fatah and the PLO do.
> 
> Charters Constitutions - FATEH Constitution
> 
> Neither Fateh nor the PLO call for a nation with no Jews. Fateh's Constitution calls for _*"Establishing an independent democratic state with complete sovereignty on all Palestinian lands, and Jerusalem is its capital city, and protecting the citizens' legal and equal rights without any racial or religious discrimination."*_.  The Constitution references fighting Zionism and Imperialism.  Unfortunately with Arafat's death, the PLO charter did not get amended.  They still call for the destruction of Israel, as a state - but not for the creation of a nation with NO JEWS.  The above in Fatah's constitution seems to support that.
> 
> I didn't read through Hamas' because I don't think much of Hamas as a legitimate governing entity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to try again as this is what the Palestinian National Covenant says
> 
> Palestinian National Covenant - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> Article 7 of the earlier document was changed from "Jews of Palestinian origin are considered Palestinians ..." to being restricted only to those "who had resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion." The final article providing that it can only be amended by a vote of a two-thirds majority of the Palestinian National Council (PNC) at a special session convened for that purpose was left unchanged.
> 
> Now we all know that the "Zionist invasion began in 1870 and I doubt that any indigenous Jews from that time are still alive. So in es
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know - whether folks believe it or not, there is a part of me that wishes that this were not true - that peaceful coexistence between the Israelis and Palestinians was still possible, but - and this is pure personal opinion - I think that possibility died a quiet, lonely death, quite some time ago.
> 
> Am I positive? Of course not. Do I believe it? Yes. Do I perceive realistic and likely reasons for that belief? Yes.
> 
> And IF peaceful coexistence is no longer possible, then one side or the other is gonna have to go.
> 
> And, because extermination would be an unforgivable sin and crime against God and Man...
> 
> That doesn't leave anything other than mass relocation of one side or the other.
> 
> IF we are left with nothing better than relocation, then the weaker side will be the one to go.
> 
> That's all based upon the premise that peaceful coexistence is now virtually impossible.
> 
> If I'm right, then everything I've said beyond that point is both logical and nearly inevitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or a Berlin Wall...or seperation like N S Korea.  I think forced relocation of huge numbers of people is the least likely outcome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We already have a " Berlin Wall" of sorts and team Palestine sees it as a RACIST divide. Expect even more separation barriers to be erected and for the Israeli's to enforce even harsher controls on the land they annexe in Jerusalem. Expect to see Palestinian violence and riots as the separation barriers are extended and deep piles driven into the land to deter tunnels. Maybe drilling steel/concrete lined holes and placing explosives at the bottom would also deter Palestinian tunnels as the explosions would trap the terrorists in the tunnels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your source:
> The Palestinian National Charter was adopted on May 28, 1964, establishing the Palestine Liberation Organization, in (east) Jerusalem along with another document, variously known as the Basic Constitution, Basic Law or Fundamental Law of the PLO, based on an earlier Draft Constitution. The Charter is concerned mainly with the aims of the Palestine Liberation Organization, while the Fundamental Law is more concerned with the structure and procedures of the organization.​It's the PLO's charter.  Like I said - various groups have charters.  The Palestinian people as a whole do  not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which was adopted as the Palestinian National Charter when the PLO became fatah. So it is for all the Palestinian people and not just the PLO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because you also have Hamas and it's charter.  They are the charters of the political groups.  The people as a whole don't have one and won't I guess, until they have a chance to develop state and national constitution of some sort.
Click to expand...




 According to International law the PLO were granted the right to represent the Palestinians in negotiations, this they did and when the P.A. was formed and the PLO were elected under the fatah banner they implemented the Palestinianian National Charter. Much the same as the founding fathers implemented the Constitution of the USA. Are you saying the Constitution you obey is not American ?


----------



## montelatici

Why do I have to always make a fool of you?  You are too easy Phoney.

Jeremy R. Hammond the Political Scientist and journalist:








Jeremy Hammond your hacker buddy:


----------



## P F Tinmore

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians that also includes the one by hamas and the one by fatah
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians don't have a charter.  Hamas does and Fatah and the PLO do.
> 
> Charters Constitutions - FATEH Constitution
> 
> Neither Fateh nor the PLO call for a nation with no Jews. Fateh's Constitution calls for _*"Establishing an independent democratic state with complete sovereignty on all Palestinian lands, and Jerusalem is its capital city, and protecting the citizens' legal and equal rights without any racial or religious discrimination."*_.  The Constitution references fighting Zionism and Imperialism.  Unfortunately with Arafat's death, the PLO charter did not get amended.  They still call for the destruction of Israel, as a state - but not for the creation of a nation with NO JEWS.  The above in Fatah's constitution seems to support that.
> 
> I didn't read through Hamas' because I don't think much of Hamas as a legitimate governing entity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to try again as this is what the Palestinian National Covenant says
> 
> Palestinian National Covenant - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> Article 7 of the earlier document was changed from "Jews of Palestinian origin are considered Palestinians ..." to being restricted only to those "who had resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion." The final article providing that it can only be amended by a vote of a two-thirds majority of the Palestinian National Council (PNC) at a special session convened for that purpose was left unchanged.
> 
> Now we all know that the "Zionist invasion began in 1870 and I doubt that any indigenous Jews from that time are still alive. So in es
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know - whether folks believe it or not, there is a part of me that wishes that this were not true - that peaceful coexistence between the Israelis and Palestinians was still possible, but - and this is pure personal opinion - I think that possibility died a quiet, lonely death, quite some time ago.
> 
> Am I positive? Of course not. Do I believe it? Yes. Do I perceive realistic and likely reasons for that belief? Yes.
> 
> And IF peaceful coexistence is no longer possible, then one side or the other is gonna have to go.
> 
> And, because extermination would be an unforgivable sin and crime against God and Man...
> 
> That doesn't leave anything other than mass relocation of one side or the other.
> 
> IF we are left with nothing better than relocation, then the weaker side will be the one to go.
> 
> That's all based upon the premise that peaceful coexistence is now virtually impossible.
> 
> If I'm right, then everything I've said beyond that point is both logical and nearly inevitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or a Berlin Wall...or seperation like N S Korea.  I think forced relocation of huge numbers of people is the least likely outcome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We already have a " Berlin Wall" of sorts and team Palestine sees it as a RACIST divide. Expect even more separation barriers to be erected and for the Israeli's to enforce even harsher controls on the land they annexe in Jerusalem. Expect to see Palestinian violence and riots as the separation barriers are extended and deep piles driven into the land to deter tunnels. Maybe drilling steel/concrete lined holes and placing explosives at the bottom would also deter Palestinian tunnels as the explosions would trap the terrorists in the tunnels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your source:
> The Palestinian National Charter was adopted on May 28, 1964, establishing the Palestine Liberation Organization, in (east) Jerusalem along with another document, variously known as the Basic Constitution, Basic Law or Fundamental Law of the PLO, based on an earlier Draft Constitution. The Charter is concerned mainly with the aims of the Palestine Liberation Organization, while the Fundamental Law is more concerned with the structure and procedures of the organization.​It's the PLO's charter.  Like I said - various groups have charters.  The Palestinian people as a whole do  not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which was adopted as the Palestinian National Charter when the PLO became fatah. So it is for all the Palestinian people and not just the PLO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because you also have Hamas and it's charter.  They are the charters of the political groups.  The people as a whole don't have one and won't I guess, until they have a chance to develop state and national constitution of some sort.
Click to expand...

2003 Amended Basic Law The Palestinian Basic Law


----------



## Phoenall

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Load of crap. Out classed, out maneuvered, outsmarted is absolutely right.
> 
> Mooching? Palestinians are the king of moochers !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding? Israel is the mooch capital of the world.
> 
> Israel was created on the mooch and exists on the mooch.
> 
> There isn't a bigger bunch of freeloaders in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians cant even balance the books with all the aid they get from the US and UN. How many trillions of tax dollars flood into Palestine every year ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much aid did the Palestinians get before Israel stole, bombed, and bulldozed their economic infrastructure?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the money they generated since 1967 has been in the form of hand outs, and they spend every penny on violence and terrorism. Why do you think the EU has stopped sending them money................... They have never had any economic infrastructure they exist on zakat and alms.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...





http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Dana-Working Paper 12-11v6.pdf



By 1987, the
Palestinian Gross National Income was primarily made up on monies transferred as remittances
from the oil-rich Gulf and the income generated through working in Israel. Soon
after, however, dependence on income from the Gulf dropped and was replaced with the
growing economic dependence on income from Israeli jobs.

How does Palestine s economy work News The Guardian


The Palestinian economy is dependent on international aid and around 4 in 5 Gazans rely on donations for their survival. As a result, when aid falls short of expectations and stated commitments as it did in 2012 (the Palestinian Authority received 80% of the US$1 billion it was expecting in direct budget support), the results are deeply felt. The decline in international aid is cited as one of the key reasons that the West Bank's GDP shrank in early 2013, for the first time in a decade.
In 2011, the single biggest donor to Palestine was the United States followed by the EU who gave $281m and $206m respectively.


----------



## montelatici

What was the economy of the Warsaw Ghetto like, Phoney?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding? Israel is the mooch capital of the world.
> 
> Israel was created on the mooch and exists on the mooch.
> 
> There isn't a bigger bunch of freeloaders in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians cant even balance the books with all the aid they get from the US and UN. How many trillions of tax dollars flood into Palestine every year ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much aid did the Palestinians get before Israel stole, bombed, and bulldozed their economic infrastructure?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the money they generated since 1967 has been in the form of hand outs, and they spend every penny on violence and terrorism. Why do you think the EU has stopped sending them money................... They have never had any economic infrastructure they exist on zakat and alms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Dana-Working Paper 12-11v6.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> By 1987, the
> Palestinian Gross National Income was primarily made up on monies transferred as remittances
> from the oil-rich Gulf and the income generated through working in Israel. Soon
> after, however, dependence on income from the Gulf dropped and was replaced with the
> growing economic dependence on income from Israeli jobs.
> 
> How does Palestine s economy work News The Guardian
> 
> 
> The Palestinian economy is dependent on international aid and around 4 in 5 Gazans rely on donations for their survival. As a result, when aid falls short of expectations and stated commitments as it did in 2012 (the Palestinian Authority received 80% of the US$1 billion it was expecting in direct budget support), the results are deeply felt. The decline in international aid is cited as one of the key reasons that the West Bank's GDP shrank in early 2013, for the first time in a decade.
> In 2011, the single biggest donor to Palestine was the United States followed by the EU who gave $281m and $206m respectively.
Click to expand...


Nice duck.

That does not answer the question.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians don't have a charter.  Hamas does and Fatah and the PLO do.
> 
> Charters Constitutions - FATEH Constitution
> 
> Neither Fateh nor the PLO call for a nation with no Jews. Fateh's Constitution calls for _*"Establishing an independent democratic state with complete sovereignty on all Palestinian lands, and Jerusalem is its capital city, and protecting the citizens' legal and equal rights without any racial or religious discrimination."*_.  The Constitution references fighting Zionism and Imperialism.  Unfortunately with Arafat's death, the PLO charter did not get amended.  They still call for the destruction of Israel, as a state - but not for the creation of a nation with NO JEWS.  The above in Fatah's constitution seems to support that.
> 
> I didn't read through Hamas' because I don't think much of Hamas as a legitimate governing entity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to try again as this is what the Palestinian National Covenant says
> 
> Palestinian National Covenant - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> Article 7 of the earlier document was changed from "Jews of Palestinian origin are considered Palestinians ..." to being restricted only to those "who had resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion." The final article providing that it can only be amended by a vote of a two-thirds majority of the Palestinian National Council (PNC) at a special session convened for that purpose was left unchanged.
> 
> Now we all know that the "Zionist invasion began in 1870 and I doubt that any indigenous Jews from that time are still alive. So in es
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or a Berlin Wall...or seperation like N S Korea.  I think forced relocation of huge numbers of people is the least likely outcome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We already have a " Berlin Wall" of sorts and team Palestine sees it as a RACIST divide. Expect even more separation barriers to be erected and for the Israeli's to enforce even harsher controls on the land they annexe in Jerusalem. Expect to see Palestinian violence and riots as the separation barriers are extended and deep piles driven into the land to deter tunnels. Maybe drilling steel/concrete lined holes and placing explosives at the bottom would also deter Palestinian tunnels as the explosions would trap the terrorists in the tunnels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your source:
> The Palestinian National Charter was adopted on May 28, 1964, establishing the Palestine Liberation Organization, in (east) Jerusalem along with another document, variously known as the Basic Constitution, Basic Law or Fundamental Law of the PLO, based on an earlier Draft Constitution. The Charter is concerned mainly with the aims of the Palestine Liberation Organization, while the Fundamental Law is more concerned with the structure and procedures of the organization.​It's the PLO's charter.  Like I said - various groups have charters.  The Palestinian people as a whole do  not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which was adopted as the Palestinian National Charter when the PLO became fatah. So it is for all the Palestinian people and not just the PLO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because you also have Hamas and it's charter.  They are the charters of the political groups.  The people as a whole don't have one and won't I guess, until they have a chance to develop state and national constitution of some sort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 2003 Amended Basic Law The Palestinian Basic Law
Click to expand...






 have you read it, and seen how racists and anti-Semitic it is. And that it is but a proposal "A collection of various propsals and amendments to the Basic Law of Palestine "


montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Load of crap. Out classed, out maneuvered, outsmarted is absolutely right.
> 
> Mooching? Palestinians are the king of moochers !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding? Israel is the mooch capital of the world.
> 
> Israel was created on the mooch and exists on the mooch.
> 
> There isn't a bigger bunch of freeloaders in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel was absolutely not created off mooch. That's your bullshit version of history. And your version of history of this conflict as we all know is completely flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first thing they did is mooch the service of Britain's military to impose the Zionist agenda on Palestine at the point of a gun.
> 
> Virtually all of the money needed to create Israel came from out of country.
> 
> Israel still lives with its hand out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you mean the arab muslims, as they ended up with 78% of Palestine and the mooched the LoN to impose pan-arab nationalism.
> 
> That would be Palestine that moches $trillions every year.
> 
> It came from Jews who then started the migration to Israel as planned way back in 1919. Not a penny piece was mooched from anyone. Not like the Palestinians that mooch $trillions from the UN and the world, and spend it all on terrorism. And they were born with their hands out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Christians and Muslims at Partition would have received less than half of the land they owned 85% of and had double the population.  You are truly a Phoney.
> 
> "On September 3, UNSCOP submitted its report to the U.N. General Assembly. Thereport noted that the population of Palestine at the end of 1946 was estimated to be almost 1,846,000, with 1,203,000 Arabs (65 percent) and 608,000 Jews (33 percent).* Again, the growth of the Jewish population was mainly the result of immigration, whereas the Arab growth was “almost entirely” natural increase.....*Land ownership statistics from 1945 showed that Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district in Palestine. In Jaffa, with the highest percentage of Jewish ownership of any district, 47 percent of the land was owned by Arabs versus 39 percent owned by Jews. At the opposite end of the spectrum, in Ramallah district, Arabs owned 99 percent of the land and Jews less than 1 percent.[7] *In the whole of Palestine, Arabs were in possession of 85 percent of the land, while Jews owned less than 7 percent.[8].....*.The plan would have awarded a majority of the territory to its minority Jewish population, who were in possession of a mere fraction of the land, and so was naturally rejected by the Arab majority who legally owned most of Palestine.[16]..."
> 
> The U.N. Partition Plan and Arab Catastrophe Page 3 of 3 Foreign Policy Journal
Click to expand...





 From your past links we get these

50. Table 1 shows the foreign assets and liabilities as estimated
for 1945. The net balance of foreign assets as shown in this table
is divided between the communities in table la. The estimates
have been compiled from analyses of Government accounts, bank
records and commercial balance sheets.
51. Table 2, which has been compiled from the records of land
taxation, shows the area of land held by Arabs (and other non-
Jews) and by Jews. In table 2A the rural areas have been valued
at pre-war prices based on the categorization of land for fiscal
purposes carried out in 1935. These values, although based on
values actually ruling pre-war, are completely arbitrary and have
been designed to reflect the share of the two groups of the population
rather than the aggregate value of the land. The estimate
abstracts from the scarcity values which have in recent years
operated to drive up land values to figures which in earlier years
would have been considered fantastic.


 Now the missing tables that tell the true story







*


*


----------



## Humanity

montelatici said:


> Why do I have to always make a fool of you?  You are too easy Phoney.
> 
> Jeremy R. Hammond the Political Scientist and journalist:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremy Hammond your hacker buddy:



It's like shelling peas!


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> What was the economy of the Warsaw Ghetto like, Phoney?






 About the same as the ghettos imposed on the Palestinians by Egypt and Jordan I exoect


----------



## Humanity

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Want to try again as this is what the Palestinian National Covenant says
> 
> Palestinian National Covenant - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> Article 7 of the earlier document was changed from "Jews of Palestinian origin are considered Palestinians ..." to being restricted only to those "who had resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion." The final article providing that it can only be amended by a vote of a two-thirds majority of the Palestinian National Council (PNC) at a special session convened for that purpose was left unchanged.
> 
> Now we all know that the "Zionist invasion began in 1870 and I doubt that any indigenous Jews from that time are still alive. So in es
> We already have a " Berlin Wall" of sorts and team Palestine sees it as a RACIST divide. Expect even more separation barriers to be erected and for the Israeli's to enforce even harsher controls on the land they annexe in Jerusalem. Expect to see Palestinian violence and riots as the separation barriers are extended and deep piles driven into the land to deter tunnels. Maybe drilling steel/concrete lined holes and placing explosives at the bottom would also deter Palestinian tunnels as the explosions would trap the terrorists in the tunnels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your source:
> The Palestinian National Charter was adopted on May 28, 1964, establishing the Palestine Liberation Organization, in (east) Jerusalem along with another document, variously known as the Basic Constitution, Basic Law or Fundamental Law of the PLO, based on an earlier Draft Constitution. The Charter is concerned mainly with the aims of the Palestine Liberation Organization, while the Fundamental Law is more concerned with the structure and procedures of the organization.​It's the PLO's charter.  Like I said - various groups have charters.  The Palestinian people as a whole do  not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which was adopted as the Palestinian National Charter when the PLO became fatah. So it is for all the Palestinian people and not just the PLO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because you also have Hamas and it's charter.  They are the charters of the political groups.  The people as a whole don't have one and won't I guess, until they have a chance to develop state and national constitution of some sort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 2003 Amended Basic Law The Palestinian Basic Law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> have you read it, and seen how racists and anti-Semitic it is. And that it is but a proposal "A collection of various propsals and amendments to the Basic Law of Palestine "
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding? Israel is the mooch capital of the world.
> 
> Israel was created on the mooch and exists on the mooch.
> 
> There isn't a bigger bunch of freeloaders in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel was absolutely not created off mooch. That's your bullshit version of history. And your version of history of this conflict as we all know is completely flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first thing they did is mooch the service of Britain's military to impose the Zionist agenda on Palestine at the point of a gun.
> 
> Virtually all of the money needed to create Israel came from out of country.
> 
> Israel still lives with its hand out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you mean the arab muslims, as they ended up with 78% of Palestine and the mooched the LoN to impose pan-arab nationalism.
> 
> That would be Palestine that moches $trillions every year.
> 
> It came from Jews who then started the migration to Israel as planned way back in 1919. Not a penny piece was mooched from anyone. Not like the Palestinians that mooch $trillions from the UN and the world, and spend it all on terrorism. And they were born with their hands out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Christians and Muslims at Partition would have received less than half of the land they owned 85% of and had double the population.  You are truly a Phoney.
> 
> "On September 3, UNSCOP submitted its report to the U.N. General Assembly. Thereport noted that the population of Palestine at the end of 1946 was estimated to be almost 1,846,000, with 1,203,000 Arabs (65 percent) and 608,000 Jews (33 percent).* Again, the growth of the Jewish population was mainly the result of immigration, whereas the Arab growth was “almost entirely” natural increase.....*Land ownership statistics from 1945 showed that Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district in Palestine. In Jaffa, with the highest percentage of Jewish ownership of any district, 47 percent of the land was owned by Arabs versus 39 percent owned by Jews. At the opposite end of the spectrum, in Ramallah district, Arabs owned 99 percent of the land and Jews less than 1 percent.[7] *In the whole of Palestine, Arabs were in possession of 85 percent of the land, while Jews owned less than 7 percent.[8].....*.The plan would have awarded a majority of the territory to its minority Jewish population, who were in possession of a mere fraction of the land, and so was naturally rejected by the Arab majority who legally owned most of Palestine.[16]..."
> 
> The U.N. Partition Plan and Arab Catastrophe Page 3 of 3 Foreign Policy Journal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your past links we get these
> 
> 50. Table 1 shows the foreign assets and liabilities as estimated
> for 1945. The net balance of foreign assets as shown in this table
> is divided between the communities in table la. The estimates
> have been compiled from analyses of Government accounts, bank
> records and commercial balance sheets.
> 51. Table 2, which has been compiled from the records of land
> taxation, shows the area of land held by Arabs (and other non-
> Jews) and by Jews. In table 2A the rural areas have been valued
> at pre-war prices based on the categorization of land for fiscal
> purposes carried out in 1935. These values, although based on
> values actually ruling pre-war, are completely arbitrary and have
> been designed to reflect the share of the two groups of the population
> rather than the aggregate value of the land. The estimate
> abstracts from the scarcity values which have in recent years
> operated to drive up land values to figures which in earlier years
> would have been considered fantastic.
> 
> 
> Now the missing tables that tell the true story
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 34341
> 
> *
> 
> *
Click to expand...


You better get back to your Christmas shopping on Ebay Phoney...

Taxation has NOTHING to do with land ownership!


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews were not engaged in a decades-long political and military struggle with the Nazis - consequently, the comparison does not hold.
> 
> The Jews of Israel actually began their national life as the uncontested Underdogs, against the Arabs, and did a remarkable job of turning that around.
> 
> To say that they 'outclassed' and 'out-maneuvered' and 'outsmarted' and out-fought the Arabs is an exercise in classic understatement.
> 
> It provides us with excellent and highly defensible Israeli-favorable insight into the quality and nature of the Jews of Old Palestine (a.k.a. Israel, today) in comparison to the Arabs of Old Palestine (a.k.a. Rump Palestine, today) and their Muslim-Arab neighbors - and their various descendants still living in the region and still eligible for consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> To say that they 'outclassed' and 'out-maneuvered' and 'outsmarted' and out-fought the Arabs is an exercise in classic understatement.​
> Don't forget outmooched.
> 
> It was the Zionists ability to mooch that made the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Load of crap. Out classed, out maneuvered, outsmarted is absolutely right.
> 
> Mooching? Palestinians are the king of moochers !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding? Israel is the mooch capital of the world.
> 
> Israel was created on the mooch and exists on the mooch.
> 
> There isn't a bigger bunch of freeloaders in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel was absolutely not created off mooch. That's your bullshit version of history. And your version of history of this conflict as we all know is completely flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first thing they did is mooch the service of Britain's military to impose the Zionist agenda on Palestine at the point of a gun.
> 
> Virtually all of the money needed to create Israel came from out of country.
> 
> Israel still lives with its hand out.
Click to expand...

Wheres your link for the first two statements?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> To say that they 'outclassed' and 'out-maneuvered' and 'outsmarted' and out-fought the Arabs is an exercise in classic understatement.​
> Don't forget outmooched.
> 
> It was the Zionists ability to mooch that made the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Load of crap. Out classed, out maneuvered, outsmarted is absolutely right.
> 
> Mooching? Palestinians are the king of moochers !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding? Israel is the mooch capital of the world.
> 
> Israel was created on the mooch and exists on the mooch.
> 
> There isn't a bigger bunch of freeloaders in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel was absolutely not created off mooch. That's your bullshit version of history. And your version of history of this conflict as we all know is completely flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first thing they did is mooch the service of Britain's military to impose the Zionist agenda on Palestine at the point of a gun.
> 
> Virtually all of the money needed to create Israel came from out of country.
> 
> Israel still lives with its hand out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wheres your link for the first two statements?
Click to expand...


I didn't bookmark these particular sites. This is just stuff that I have seen in places throughout the years.

If you were well read on the subject you would have see them too.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> ...I didn't bookmark these particular sites. This is just stuff that I have seen in places throughout the years.
> 
> If you were well read on the subject you would have see them too.


Ahhhhh...

So, the next time *you* pull your infamous '*Link?*' stonewalling stunt...

You will accept as legitimate the response: "_I didn't bookmark these particular sites. This is just stuff that I have seen in places throughout the years_..." ???

Remember this sequence for future reference.


----------



## MJB12741

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read their charter and you will see it there plain as day
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's charter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians that also includes the one by hamas and the one by fatah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians don't have a charter.  Hamas does and Fatah and the PLO do.
> 
> Charters Constitutions - FATEH Constitution
> 
> Neither Fateh nor the PLO call for a nation with no Jews. Fateh's Constitution calls for _*"Establishing an independent democratic state with complete sovereignty on all Palestinian lands, and Jerusalem is its capital city, and protecting the citizens' legal and equal rights without any racial or religious discrimination."*_.  The Constitution references fighting Zionism and Imperialism.  Unfortunately with Arafat's death, the PLO charter did not get amended.  They still call for the destruction of Israel, as a state - but not for the creation of a nation with NO JEWS.  The above in Fatah's constitution seems to support that.
> 
> I didn't read through Hamas' because I don't think much of Hamas as a legitimate governing entity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to try again as this is what the Palestinian National Covenant says
> 
> Palestinian National Covenant - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> Article 7 of the earlier document was changed from "Jews of Palestinian origin are considered Palestinians ..." to being restricted only to those "who had resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion." The final article providing that it can only be amended by a vote of a two-thirds majority of the Palestinian National Council (PNC) at a special session convened for that purpose was left unchanged.
> 
> Now we all know that the "Zionist invasion began in 1870 and I doubt that any indigenous Jews from that time are still alive. So in es
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The window of opportunity for such a solution has long-since closed, The Palestinians themselves closed it, decades ago. Consequently, the Reconquista continues apace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree Mr. Pessimistic Conquista
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I know - whether folks believe it or not, there is a part of me that wishes that this were not true - that peaceful coexistence between the Israelis and Palestinians was still possible, but - and this is pure personal opinion - I think that possibility died a quiet, lonely death, quite some time ago.
> 
> Am I positive? Of course not. Do I believe it? Yes. Do I perceive realistic and likely reasons for that belief? Yes.
> 
> And IF peaceful coexistence is no longer possible, then one side or the other is gonna have to go.
> 
> And, because extermination would be an unforgivable sin and crime against God and Man...
> 
> That doesn't leave anything other than mass relocation of one side or the other.
> 
> IF we are left with nothing better than relocation, then the weaker side will be the one to go.
> 
> That's all based upon the premise that peaceful coexistence is now virtually impossible.
> 
> If I'm right, then everything I've said beyond that point is both logical and nearly inevitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or a Berlin Wall...or seperation like N S Korea.  I think forced relocation of huge numbers of people is the least likely outcome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We already have a " Berlin Wall" of sorts and team Palestine sees it as a RACIST divide. Expect even more separation barriers to be erected and for the Israeli's to enforce even harsher controls on the land they annexe in Jerusalem. Expect to see Palestinian violence and riots as the separation barriers are extended and deep piles driven into the land to deter tunnels. Maybe drilling steel/concrete lined holes and placing explosives at the bottom would also deter Palestinian tunnels as the explosions would trap the terrorists in the tunnels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your source:
> The Palestinian National Charter was adopted on May 28, 1964, establishing the Palestine Liberation Organization, in (east) Jerusalem along with another document, variously known as the Basic Constitution, Basic Law or Fundamental Law of the PLO, based on an earlier Draft Constitution. The Charter is concerned mainly with the aims of the Palestine Liberation Organization, while the Fundamental Law is more concerned with the structure and procedures of the organization.​It's the PLO's charter.  Like I said - various groups have charters.  The Palestinian people as a whole do  not.
Click to expand...



Well then, who were the people that elected Hamas?


----------



## MJB12741

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Want to try again as this is what the Palestinian National Covenant says
> 
> Palestinian National Covenant - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> Article 7 of the earlier document was changed from "Jews of Palestinian origin are considered Palestinians ..." to being restricted only to those "who had resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion." The final article providing that it can only be amended by a vote of a two-thirds majority of the Palestinian National Council (PNC) at a special session convened for that purpose was left unchanged.
> 
> Now we all know that the "Zionist invasion began in 1870 and I doubt that any indigenous Jews from that time are still alive. So in es
> We already have a " Berlin Wall" of sorts and team Palestine sees it as a RACIST divide. Expect even more separation barriers to be erected and for the Israeli's to enforce even harsher controls on the land they annexe in Jerusalem. Expect to see Palestinian violence and riots as the separation barriers are extended and deep piles driven into the land to deter tunnels. Maybe drilling steel/concrete lined holes and placing explosives at the bottom would also deter Palestinian tunnels as the explosions would trap the terrorists in the tunnels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your source:
> The Palestinian National Charter was adopted on May 28, 1964, establishing the Palestine Liberation Organization, in (east) Jerusalem along with another document, variously known as the Basic Constitution, Basic Law or Fundamental Law of the PLO, based on an earlier Draft Constitution. The Charter is concerned mainly with the aims of the Palestine Liberation Organization, while the Fundamental Law is more concerned with the structure and procedures of the organization.​It's the PLO's charter.  Like I said - various groups have charters.  The Palestinian people as a whole do  not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which was adopted as the Palestinian National Charter when the PLO became fatah. So it is for all the Palestinian people and not just the PLO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because you also have Hamas and it's charter.  They are the charters of the political groups.  The people as a whole don't have one and won't I guess, until they have a chance to develop state and national constitution of some sort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 2003 Amended Basic Law The Palestinian Basic Law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> have you read it, and seen how racists and anti-Semitic it is. And that it is but a proposal "A collection of various propsals and amendments to the Basic Law of Palestine "
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding? Israel is the mooch capital of the world.
> 
> Israel was created on the mooch and exists on the mooch.
> 
> There isn't a bigger bunch of freeloaders in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel was absolutely not created off mooch. That's your bullshit version of history. And your version of history of this conflict as we all know is completely flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first thing they did is mooch the service of Britain's military to impose the Zionist agenda on Palestine at the point of a gun.
> 
> Virtually all of the money needed to create Israel came from out of country.
> 
> Israel still lives with its hand out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you mean the arab muslims, as they ended up with 78% of Palestine and the mooched the LoN to impose pan-arab nationalism.
> 
> That would be Palestine that moches $trillions every year.
> 
> It came from Jews who then started the migration to Israel as planned way back in 1919. Not a penny piece was mooched from anyone. Not like the Palestinians that mooch $trillions from the UN and the world, and spend it all on terrorism. And they were born with their hands out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Christians and Muslims at Partition would have received less than half of the land they owned 85% of and had double the population.  You are truly a Phoney.
> 
> "On September 3, UNSCOP submitted its report to the U.N. General Assembly. Thereport noted that the population of Palestine at the end of 1946 was estimated to be almost 1,846,000, with 1,203,000 Arabs (65 percent) and 608,000 Jews (33 percent).* Again, the growth of the Jewish population was mainly the result of immigration, whereas the Arab growth was “almost entirely” natural increase.....*Land ownership statistics from 1945 showed that Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district in Palestine. In Jaffa, with the highest percentage of Jewish ownership of any district, 47 percent of the land was owned by Arabs versus 39 percent owned by Jews. At the opposite end of the spectrum, in Ramallah district, Arabs owned 99 percent of the land and Jews less than 1 percent.[7] *In the whole of Palestine, Arabs were in possession of 85 percent of the land, while Jews owned less than 7 percent.[8].....*.The plan would have awarded a majority of the territory to its minority Jewish population, who were in possession of a mere fraction of the land, and so was naturally rejected by the Arab majority who legally owned most of Palestine.[16]..."
> 
> The U.N. Partition Plan and Arab Catastrophe Page 3 of 3 Foreign Policy Journal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your past links we get these
> 
> 50. Table 1 shows the foreign assets and liabilities as estimated
> for 1945. The net balance of foreign assets as shown in this table
> is divided between the communities in table la. The estimates
> have been compiled from analyses of Government accounts, bank
> records and commercial balance sheets.
> 51. Table 2, which has been compiled from the records of land
> taxation, shows the area of land held by Arabs (and other non-
> Jews) and by Jews. In table 2A the rural areas have been valued
> at pre-war prices based on the categorization of land for fiscal
> purposes carried out in 1935. These values, although based on
> values actually ruling pre-war, are completely arbitrary and have
> been designed to reflect the share of the two groups of the population
> rather than the aggregate value of the land. The estimate
> abstracts from the scarcity values which have in recent years
> operated to drive up land values to figures which in earlier years
> would have been considered fantastic.
> 
> 
> Now the missing tables that tell the true story
> Oh no!  now you've done it.  You presented the facts.  Oh Monte please forgive him for exposing you for the fool that you are & don't leave us.
> 
> 
> View attachment 34341
> 
> *
> 
> *
Click to expand...


----------



## Coyote

MJB12741 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's charter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians that also includes the one by hamas and the one by fatah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians don't have a charter.  Hamas does and Fatah and the PLO do.
> 
> Charters Constitutions - FATEH Constitution
> 
> Neither Fateh nor the PLO call for a nation with no Jews. Fateh's Constitution calls for _*"Establishing an independent democratic state with complete sovereignty on all Palestinian lands, and Jerusalem is its capital city, and protecting the citizens' legal and equal rights without any racial or religious discrimination."*_.  The Constitution references fighting Zionism and Imperialism.  Unfortunately with Arafat's death, the PLO charter did not get amended.  They still call for the destruction of Israel, as a state - but not for the creation of a nation with NO JEWS.  The above in Fatah's constitution seems to support that.
> 
> I didn't read through Hamas' because I don't think much of Hamas as a legitimate governing entity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to try again as this is what the Palestinian National Covenant says
> 
> Palestinian National Covenant - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> Article 7 of the earlier document was changed from "Jews of Palestinian origin are considered Palestinians ..." to being restricted only to those "who had resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion." The final article providing that it can only be amended by a vote of a two-thirds majority of the Palestinian National Council (PNC) at a special session convened for that purpose was left unchanged.
> 
> Now we all know that the "Zionist invasion began in 1870 and I doubt that any indigenous Jews from that time are still alive. So in es
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree Mr. Pessimistic Conquista
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I know - whether folks believe it or not, there is a part of me that wishes that this were not true - that peaceful coexistence between the Israelis and Palestinians was still possible, but - and this is pure personal opinion - I think that possibility died a quiet, lonely death, quite some time ago.
> 
> Am I positive? Of course not. Do I believe it? Yes. Do I perceive realistic and likely reasons for that belief? Yes.
> 
> And IF peaceful coexistence is no longer possible, then one side or the other is gonna have to go.
> 
> And, because extermination would be an unforgivable sin and crime against God and Man...
> 
> That doesn't leave anything other than mass relocation of one side or the other.
> 
> IF we are left with nothing better than relocation, then the weaker side will be the one to go.
> 
> That's all based upon the premise that peaceful coexistence is now virtually impossible.
> 
> If I'm right, then everything I've said beyond that point is both logical and nearly inevitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or a Berlin Wall...or seperation like N S Korea.  I think forced relocation of huge numbers of people is the least likely outcome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We already have a " Berlin Wall" of sorts and team Palestine sees it as a RACIST divide. Expect even more separation barriers to be erected and for the Israeli's to enforce even harsher controls on the land they annexe in Jerusalem. Expect to see Palestinian violence and riots as the separation barriers are extended and deep piles driven into the land to deter tunnels. Maybe drilling steel/concrete lined holes and placing explosives at the bottom would also deter Palestinian tunnels as the explosions would trap the terrorists in the tunnels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your source:
> The Palestinian National Charter was adopted on May 28, 1964, establishing the Palestine Liberation Organization, in (east) Jerusalem along with another document, variously known as the Basic Constitution, Basic Law or Fundamental Law of the PLO, based on an earlier Draft Constitution. The Charter is concerned mainly with the aims of the Palestine Liberation Organization, while the Fundamental Law is more concerned with the structure and procedures of the organization.​It's the PLO's charter.  Like I said - various groups have charters.  The Palestinian people as a whole do  not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, who were the people that elected Hamas?
Click to expand...


A portion of the Palestinians.  Though, apparently, even though Hamas won they did not win the popular vote (I'll never understand their system).


----------



## MJB12741

Coyote said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians that also includes the one by hamas and the one by fatah
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians don't have a charter.  Hamas does and Fatah and the PLO do.
> 
> Charters Constitutions - FATEH Constitution
> 
> Neither Fateh nor the PLO call for a nation with no Jews. Fateh's Constitution calls for _*"Establishing an independent democratic state with complete sovereignty on all Palestinian lands, and Jerusalem is its capital city, and protecting the citizens' legal and equal rights without any racial or religious discrimination."*_.  The Constitution references fighting Zionism and Imperialism.  Unfortunately with Arafat's death, the PLO charter did not get amended.  They still call for the destruction of Israel, as a state - but not for the creation of a nation with NO JEWS.  The above in Fatah's constitution seems to support that.
> 
> I didn't read through Hamas' because I don't think much of Hamas as a legitimate governing entity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to try again as this is what the Palestinian National Covenant says
> 
> Palestinian National Covenant - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> Article 7 of the earlier document was changed from "Jews of Palestinian origin are considered Palestinians ..." to being restricted only to those "who had resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion." The final article providing that it can only be amended by a vote of a two-thirds majority of the Palestinian National Council (PNC) at a special session convened for that purpose was left unchanged.
> 
> Now we all know that the "Zionist invasion began in 1870 and I doubt that any indigenous Jews from that time are still alive. So in es
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know - whether folks believe it or not, there is a part of me that wishes that this were not true - that peaceful coexistence between the Israelis and Palestinians was still possible, but - and this is pure personal opinion - I think that possibility died a quiet, lonely death, quite some time ago.
> 
> Am I positive? Of course not. Do I believe it? Yes. Do I perceive realistic and likely reasons for that belief? Yes.
> 
> And IF peaceful coexistence is no longer possible, then one side or the other is gonna have to go.
> 
> And, because extermination would be an unforgivable sin and crime against God and Man...
> 
> That doesn't leave anything other than mass relocation of one side or the other.
> 
> IF we are left with nothing better than relocation, then the weaker side will be the one to go.
> 
> That's all based upon the premise that peaceful coexistence is now virtually impossible.
> 
> If I'm right, then everything I've said beyond that point is both logical and nearly inevitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or a Berlin Wall...or seperation like N S Korea.  I think forced relocation of huge numbers of people is the least likely outcome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We already have a " Berlin Wall" of sorts and team Palestine sees it as a RACIST divide. Expect even more separation barriers to be erected and for the Israeli's to enforce even harsher controls on the land they annexe in Jerusalem. Expect to see Palestinian violence and riots as the separation barriers are extended and deep piles driven into the land to deter tunnels. Maybe drilling steel/concrete lined holes and placing explosives at the bottom would also deter Palestinian tunnels as the explosions would trap the terrorists in the tunnels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your source:
> The Palestinian National Charter was adopted on May 28, 1964, establishing the Palestine Liberation Organization, in (east) Jerusalem along with another document, variously known as the Basic Constitution, Basic Law or Fundamental Law of the PLO, based on an earlier Draft Constitution. The Charter is concerned mainly with the aims of the Palestine Liberation Organization, while the Fundamental Law is more concerned with the structure and procedures of the organization.​It's the PLO's charter.  Like I said - various groups have charters.  The Palestinian people as a whole do  not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, who were the people that elected Hamas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A portion of the Palestinians.  Though, apparently, even though Hamas won they did not win the popular vote (I'll never understand their system).
Click to expand...


Don't feel bad about that.  The Palestinians don't understand their system either.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Load of crap. Out classed, out maneuvered, outsmarted is absolutely right.
> 
> Mooching? Palestinians are the king of moochers !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding? Israel is the mooch capital of the world.
> 
> Israel was created on the mooch and exists on the mooch.
> 
> There isn't a bigger bunch of freeloaders in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel was absolutely not created off mooch. That's your bullshit version of history. And your version of history of this conflict as we all know is completely flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first thing they did is mooch the service of Britain's military to impose the Zionist agenda on Palestine at the point of a gun.
> 
> Virtually all of the money needed to create Israel came from out of country.
> 
> Israel still lives with its hand out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wheres your link for the first two statements?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't bookmark these particular sites. This is just stuff that I have seen in places throughout the years.
> 
> If you were well read on the subject you would have see them too.
Click to expand...


Translation: You are making up anti Israel stuff as usual.

"If you were well read on the subject you would have see them too"

Coming from the guy who is always wrong about everything , that's hilarious


----------



## toastman

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I didn't bookmark these particular sites. This is just stuff that I have seen in places throughout the years.
> 
> If you were well read on the subject you would have see them too.
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhhh...
> 
> So, the next time *you* pull your infamous '*Link?*' stonewalling stunt...
> 
> You will accept as legitimate the response: "_I didn't bookmark these particular sites. This is just stuff that I have seen in places throughout the years_..." ???
> 
> Remember this sequence for future reference.
Click to expand...


 

Great idea, I'll make sure to use it !


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I didn't bookmark these particular sites. This is just stuff that I have seen in places throughout the years.
> 
> If you were well read on the subject you would have see them too.
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhhh...
> 
> So, the next time *you* pull your infamous '*Link?*' stonewalling stunt...
> 
> You will accept as legitimate the response: "_I didn't bookmark these particular sites. This is just stuff that I have seen in places throughout the years_..." ???
> 
> Remember this sequence for future reference.
Click to expand...

You can't always get history from sound bites and talking points.

Example:

Zionism and Technocracy The Engineering of Jewish Settlement in Palestine ... - Derek Jonathan Penslar - Google Books


----------



## Phoenall

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your source:
> The Palestinian National Charter was adopted on May 28, 1964, establishing the Palestine Liberation Organization, in (east) Jerusalem along with another document, variously known as the Basic Constitution, Basic Law or Fundamental Law of the PLO, based on an earlier Draft Constitution. The Charter is concerned mainly with the aims of the Palestine Liberation Organization, while the Fundamental Law is more concerned with the structure and procedures of the organization.​It's the PLO's charter.  Like I said - various groups have charters.  The Palestinian people as a whole do  not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which was adopted as the Palestinian National Charter when the PLO became fatah. So it is for all the Palestinian people and not just the PLO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because you also have Hamas and it's charter.  They are the charters of the political groups.  The people as a whole don't have one and won't I guess, until they have a chance to develop state and national constitution of some sort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 2003 Amended Basic Law The Palestinian Basic Law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> have you read it, and seen how racists and anti-Semitic it is. And that it is but a proposal "A collection of various propsals and amendments to the Basic Law of Palestine "
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel was absolutely not created off mooch. That's your bullshit version of history. And your version of history of this conflict as we all know is completely flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first thing they did is mooch the service of Britain's military to impose the Zionist agenda on Palestine at the point of a gun.
> 
> Virtually all of the money needed to create Israel came from out of country.
> 
> Israel still lives with its hand out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you mean the arab muslims, as they ended up with 78% of Palestine and the mooched the LoN to impose pan-arab nationalism.
> 
> That would be Palestine that moches $trillions every year.
> 
> It came from Jews who then started the migration to Israel as planned way back in 1919. Not a penny piece was mooched from anyone. Not like the Palestinians that mooch $trillions from the UN and the world, and spend it all on terrorism. And they were born with their hands out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Christians and Muslims at Partition would have received less than half of the land they owned 85% of and had double the population.  You are truly a Phoney.
> 
> "On September 3, UNSCOP submitted its report to the U.N. General Assembly. Thereport noted that the population of Palestine at the end of 1946 was estimated to be almost 1,846,000, with 1,203,000 Arabs (65 percent) and 608,000 Jews (33 percent).* Again, the growth of the Jewish population was mainly the result of immigration, whereas the Arab growth was “almost entirely” natural increase.....*Land ownership statistics from 1945 showed that Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district in Palestine. In Jaffa, with the highest percentage of Jewish ownership of any district, 47 percent of the land was owned by Arabs versus 39 percent owned by Jews. At the opposite end of the spectrum, in Ramallah district, Arabs owned 99 percent of the land and Jews less than 1 percent.[7] *In the whole of Palestine, Arabs were in possession of 85 percent of the land, while Jews owned less than 7 percent.[8].....*.The plan would have awarded a majority of the territory to its minority Jewish population, who were in possession of a mere fraction of the land, and so was naturally rejected by the Arab majority who legally owned most of Palestine.[16]..."
> 
> The U.N. Partition Plan and Arab Catastrophe Page 3 of 3 Foreign Policy Journal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your past links we get these
> 
> 50. Table 1 shows the foreign assets and liabilities as estimated
> for 1945. The net balance of foreign assets as shown in this table
> is divided between the communities in table la. The estimates
> have been compiled from analyses of Government accounts, bank
> records and commercial balance sheets.
> 51. Table 2, which has been compiled from the records of land
> taxation, shows the area of land held by Arabs (and other non-
> Jews) and by Jews. In table 2A the rural areas have been valued
> at pre-war prices based on the categorization of land for fiscal
> purposes carried out in 1935. These values, although based on
> values actually ruling pre-war, are completely arbitrary and have
> been designed to reflect the share of the two groups of the population
> rather than the aggregate value of the land. The estimate
> abstracts from the scarcity values which have in recent years
> operated to drive up land values to figures which in earlier years
> would have been considered fantastic.
> 
> 
> Now the missing tables that tell the true story
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 34341
> 
> *
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You better get back to your Christmas shopping on Ebay Phoney...
> 
> Taxation has NOTHING to do with land ownership!
Click to expand...





 It does in certain parts of the world, mostly those run by Britain. You own property and you are liable to a tax on that property payable every year. The tax is now split into 7 bands and you pay according to the value of the property. Because Palestine was under British rule the same laws applies and so land and property was taxed on value, call it a tithe, so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid. This destroys the false claims by monti that the arab muslims owned the majority of Palestine as the tax records show the Jews paid the most in land taxes.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians that also includes the one by hamas and the one by fatah
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians don't have a charter.  Hamas does and Fatah and the PLO do.
> 
> Charters Constitutions - FATEH Constitution
> 
> Neither Fateh nor the PLO call for a nation with no Jews. Fateh's Constitution calls for _*"Establishing an independent democratic state with complete sovereignty on all Palestinian lands, and Jerusalem is its capital city, and protecting the citizens' legal and equal rights without any racial or religious discrimination."*_.  The Constitution references fighting Zionism and Imperialism.  Unfortunately with Arafat's death, the PLO charter did not get amended.  They still call for the destruction of Israel, as a state - but not for the creation of a nation with NO JEWS.  The above in Fatah's constitution seems to support that.
> 
> I didn't read through Hamas' because I don't think much of Hamas as a legitimate governing entity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to try again as this is what the Palestinian National Covenant says
> 
> Palestinian National Covenant - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> Article 7 of the earlier document was changed from "Jews of Palestinian origin are considered Palestinians ..." to being restricted only to those "who had resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion." The final article providing that it can only be amended by a vote of a two-thirds majority of the Palestinian National Council (PNC) at a special session convened for that purpose was left unchanged.
> 
> Now we all know that the "Zionist invasion began in 1870 and I doubt that any indigenous Jews from that time are still alive. So in es
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know - whether folks believe it or not, there is a part of me that wishes that this were not true - that peaceful coexistence between the Israelis and Palestinians was still possible, but - and this is pure personal opinion - I think that possibility died a quiet, lonely death, quite some time ago.
> 
> Am I positive? Of course not. Do I believe it? Yes. Do I perceive realistic and likely reasons for that belief? Yes.
> 
> And IF peaceful coexistence is no longer possible, then one side or the other is gonna have to go.
> 
> And, because extermination would be an unforgivable sin and crime against God and Man...
> 
> That doesn't leave anything other than mass relocation of one side or the other.
> 
> IF we are left with nothing better than relocation, then the weaker side will be the one to go.
> 
> That's all based upon the premise that peaceful coexistence is now virtually impossible.
> 
> If I'm right, then everything I've said beyond that point is both logical and nearly inevitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or a Berlin Wall...or seperation like N S Korea.  I think forced relocation of huge numbers of people is the least likely outcome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We already have a " Berlin Wall" of sorts and team Palestine sees it as a RACIST divide. Expect even more separation barriers to be erected and for the Israeli's to enforce even harsher controls on the land they annexe in Jerusalem. Expect to see Palestinian violence and riots as the separation barriers are extended and deep piles driven into the land to deter tunnels. Maybe drilling steel/concrete lined holes and placing explosives at the bottom would also deter Palestinian tunnels as the explosions would trap the terrorists in the tunnels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your source:
> The Palestinian National Charter was adopted on May 28, 1964, establishing the Palestine Liberation Organization, in (east) Jerusalem along with another document, variously known as the Basic Constitution, Basic Law or Fundamental Law of the PLO, based on an earlier Draft Constitution. The Charter is concerned mainly with the aims of the Palestine Liberation Organization, while the Fundamental Law is more concerned with the structure and procedures of the organization.​It's the PLO's charter.  Like I said - various groups have charters.  The Palestinian people as a whole do  not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, who were the people that elected Hamas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A portion of the Palestinians.  Though, apparently, even though Hamas won they did not win the popular vote (I'll never understand their system).
Click to expand...




 They were elected by the Palestinian people even though they knew they were Islamic fundementalists and dictatorial. The palestinian people knew what hamas were like and still elected them and their charter.


----------



## Humanity

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which was adopted as the Palestinian National Charter when the PLO became fatah. So it is for all the Palestinian people and not just the PLO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, because you also have Hamas and it's charter.  They are the charters of the political groups.  The people as a whole don't have one and won't I guess, until they have a chance to develop state and national constitution of some sort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 2003 Amended Basic Law The Palestinian Basic Law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> have you read it, and seen how racists and anti-Semitic it is. And that it is but a proposal "A collection of various propsals and amendments to the Basic Law of Palestine "
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first thing they did is mooch the service of Britain's military to impose the Zionist agenda on Palestine at the point of a gun.
> 
> Virtually all of the money needed to create Israel came from out of country.
> 
> Israel still lives with its hand out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you mean the arab muslims, as they ended up with 78% of Palestine and the mooched the LoN to impose pan-arab nationalism.
> 
> That would be Palestine that moches $trillions every year.
> 
> It came from Jews who then started the migration to Israel as planned way back in 1919. Not a penny piece was mooched from anyone. Not like the Palestinians that mooch $trillions from the UN and the world, and spend it all on terrorism. And they were born with their hands out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Christians and Muslims at Partition would have received less than half of the land they owned 85% of and had double the population.  You are truly a Phoney.
> 
> "On September 3, UNSCOP submitted its report to the U.N. General Assembly. Thereport noted that the population of Palestine at the end of 1946 was estimated to be almost 1,846,000, with 1,203,000 Arabs (65 percent) and 608,000 Jews (33 percent).* Again, the growth of the Jewish population was mainly the result of immigration, whereas the Arab growth was “almost entirely” natural increase.....*Land ownership statistics from 1945 showed that Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district in Palestine. In Jaffa, with the highest percentage of Jewish ownership of any district, 47 percent of the land was owned by Arabs versus 39 percent owned by Jews. At the opposite end of the spectrum, in Ramallah district, Arabs owned 99 percent of the land and Jews less than 1 percent.[7] *In the whole of Palestine, Arabs were in possession of 85 percent of the land, while Jews owned less than 7 percent.[8].....*.The plan would have awarded a majority of the territory to its minority Jewish population, who were in possession of a mere fraction of the land, and so was naturally rejected by the Arab majority who legally owned most of Palestine.[16]..."
> 
> The U.N. Partition Plan and Arab Catastrophe Page 3 of 3 Foreign Policy Journal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your past links we get these
> 
> 50. Table 1 shows the foreign assets and liabilities as estimated
> for 1945. The net balance of foreign assets as shown in this table
> is divided between the communities in table la. The estimates
> have been compiled from analyses of Government accounts, bank
> records and commercial balance sheets.
> 51. Table 2, which has been compiled from the records of land
> taxation, shows the area of land held by Arabs (and other non-
> Jews) and by Jews. In table 2A the rural areas have been valued
> at pre-war prices based on the categorization of land for fiscal
> purposes carried out in 1935. These values, although based on
> values actually ruling pre-war, are completely arbitrary and have
> been designed to reflect the share of the two groups of the population
> rather than the aggregate value of the land. The estimate
> abstracts from the scarcity values which have in recent years
> operated to drive up land values to figures which in earlier years
> would have been considered fantastic.
> 
> 
> Now the missing tables that tell the true story
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 34341
> 
> *
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You better get back to your Christmas shopping on Ebay Phoney...
> 
> Taxation has NOTHING to do with land ownership!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does in certain parts of the world, mostly those run by Britain. You own property and you are liable to a tax on that property payable every year. The tax is now split into 7 bands and you pay according to the value of the property. Because Palestine was under British rule the same laws applies and so land and property was taxed on value, call it a tithe, so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid. This destroys the false claims by monti that the arab muslims owned the majority of Palestine as the tax records show the Jews paid the most in land taxes.
Click to expand...


Oh Phoney, why do you do it to yourself all the time...

"so land and property was taxed on *value*"

Does not equate to...

"so the more land you *owned* the higher the tax you paid"

Can you see the difference?

Property is taxed on *LAND VALUE* not *LAND OWNED*!


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I didn't bookmark these particular sites. This is just stuff that I have seen in places throughout the years.
> 
> If you were well read on the subject you would have see them too.
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhhh...
> 
> So, the next time *you* pull your infamous '*Link?*' stonewalling stunt...
> 
> You will accept as legitimate the response: "_I didn't bookmark these particular sites. This is just stuff that I have seen in places throughout the years_..." ???
> 
> Remember this sequence for future reference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't always get history from sound bites and talking points.
> 
> Example:
> 
> Zionism and Technocracy The Engineering of Jewish Settlement in Palestine ... - Derek Jonathan Penslar - Google Books
Click to expand...

Translation: "_OK, OK, OK... ya got me on that one._"


----------



## Kondor3

Phoenall said:


> They were elected by the Palestinian people even though they knew they were Islamic fundementalists and dictatorial. The palestinian people knew what hamas were like and still elected them and their charter.


Agreed.

There is no escaping the conclusion that a sufficient number of Palestinians chose Hamas to lead them, in order to install them in power, in at least a portion of Rump Palestine.

Gaza, in this case.

By choosing them, they chose their Charter and Philosophy.

This is not merely Guilt by Association.

This is Conscious, Informed Choice.

All protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, and set aside as inoperative.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were elected by the Palestinian people even though they knew they were Islamic fundementalists and dictatorial. The palestinian people knew what hamas were like and still elected them and their charter.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> There is no escaping the conclusion that a sufficient number of Palestinians chose Hamas to lead them, in order to install them in power, in at least a portion of Rump Palestine.
> 
> Gaza, in this case.
> 
> By choosing them, they chose their Charter and Philosophy.
> 
> This is not merely Guilt by Association.
> 
> This is Conscious, Informed Choice.
> 
> All protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, and set aside as inoperative.
Click to expand...

Hamas won the elections in the West Bank* and *Gaza. When it is said that Hamas had a coup against the PA it is a lie. Hamas was the majority, and therefore the ruling party, in the PA.

Fatah did get more votes but because they had multiple candidates for the same seat they split the vote leaving Hamas to win the seat.

The Hamas Charter was not an issue in the elections or in Palestine in general.. It was not mentioned. The government runs on the Basic Law (constitution) not on the charter of any political party.

People voted for Hamas because Fatah is corrupt and criminal. Fatah violates their constitution on a regular basis. They waste decades on fake peace talks while the Palestinians go backwards in their rights. They have a huge budget for their 50,000 man security force who is *always* absent when Palestinians are being attacked.


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which was adopted as the Palestinian National Charter when the PLO became fatah. So it is for all the Palestinian people and not just the PLO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, because you also have Hamas and it's charter.  They are the charters of the political groups.  The people as a whole don't have one and won't I guess, until they have a chance to develop state and national constitution of some sort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 2003 Amended Basic Law The Palestinian Basic Law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> have you read it, and seen how racists and anti-Semitic it is. And that it is but a proposal "A collection of various propsals and amendments to the Basic Law of Palestine "
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first thing they did is mooch the service of Britain's military to impose the Zionist agenda on Palestine at the point of a gun.
> 
> Virtually all of the money needed to create Israel came from out of country.
> 
> Israel still lives with its hand out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you mean the arab muslims, as they ended up with 78% of Palestine and the mooched the LoN to impose pan-arab nationalism.
> 
> That would be Palestine that moches $trillions every year.
> 
> It came from Jews who then started the migration to Israel as planned way back in 1919. Not a penny piece was mooched from anyone. Not like the Palestinians that mooch $trillions from the UN and the world, and spend it all on terrorism. And they were born with their hands out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Christians and Muslims at Partition would have received less than half of the land they owned 85% of and had double the population.  You are truly a Phoney.
> 
> "On September 3, UNSCOP submitted its report to the U.N. General Assembly. Thereport noted that the population of Palestine at the end of 1946 was estimated to be almost 1,846,000, with 1,203,000 Arabs (65 percent) and 608,000 Jews (33 percent).* Again, the growth of the Jewish population was mainly the result of immigration, whereas the Arab growth was “almost entirely” natural increase.....*Land ownership statistics from 1945 showed that Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district in Palestine. In Jaffa, with the highest percentage of Jewish ownership of any district, 47 percent of the land was owned by Arabs versus 39 percent owned by Jews. At the opposite end of the spectrum, in Ramallah district, Arabs owned 99 percent of the land and Jews less than 1 percent.[7] *In the whole of Palestine, Arabs were in possession of 85 percent of the land, while Jews owned less than 7 percent.[8].....*.The plan would have awarded a majority of the territory to its minority Jewish population, who were in possession of a mere fraction of the land, and so was naturally rejected by the Arab majority who legally owned most of Palestine.[16]..."
> 
> The U.N. Partition Plan and Arab Catastrophe Page 3 of 3 Foreign Policy Journal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your past links we get these
> 
> 50. Table 1 shows the foreign assets and liabilities as estimated
> for 1945. The net balance of foreign assets as shown in this table
> is divided between the communities in table la. The estimates
> have been compiled from analyses of Government accounts, bank
> records and commercial balance sheets.
> 51. Table 2, which has been compiled from the records of land
> taxation, shows the area of land held by Arabs (and other non-
> Jews) and by Jews. In table 2A the rural areas have been valued
> at pre-war prices based on the categorization of land for fiscal
> purposes carried out in 1935. These values, although based on
> values actually ruling pre-war, are completely arbitrary and have
> been designed to reflect the share of the two groups of the population
> rather than the aggregate value of the land. The estimate
> abstracts from the scarcity values which have in recent years
> operated to drive up land values to figures which in earlier years
> would have been considered fantastic.
> 
> 
> Now the missing tables that tell the true story
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 34341
> 
> *
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You better get back to your Christmas shopping on Ebay Phoney...
> 
> Taxation has NOTHING to do with land ownership!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does in certain parts of the world, mostly those run by Britain. You own property and you are liable to a tax on that property payable every year. The tax is now split into 7 bands and you pay according to the value of the property. Because Palestine was under British rule the same laws applies and so land and property was taxed on value, call it a tithe, so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid. This destroys the false claims by monti that the arab muslims owned the majority of Palestine as the tax records show the Jews paid the most in land taxes.
Click to expand...


The table shows exactly how much land each group owned in 1946.  Arabs owned more than 85% of the land Jews less than 7%. The table is clear on the exact amount acreage each group owned.  So, none of your bullshit can change the facts.

Tax rates were based on land value and location.  The land value was set by the last sale of the land, not by assessment.  Since the Jews were recent buyers at far higher prices their land was higher priced when exchanged.  Additionally, urban land was taxed at a higher rate than rural land another factor for the higher tax payments, as Jews owned more urban land.

Again, available from the Berman Jewish Policy Archive of NYU and Wagner, are all the volumes of the Survey of Palestine issued by the UN in 1946 before partition. The volumes can be downloaded in pdf from here:

A Survey of Palestine Volume 1 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner

The Survey (page 566) definitively sets the record straight on who owned the land.  In 1946, the Arabs owned more than 85% of the land and the Jews less than 7%.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were elected by the Palestinian people even though they knew they were Islamic fundementalists and dictatorial. The palestinian people knew what hamas were like and still elected them and their charter.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> There is no escaping the conclusion that a sufficient number of Palestinians chose Hamas to lead them, in order to install them in power, in at least a portion of Rump Palestine.
> 
> Gaza, in this case.
> 
> By choosing them, they chose their Charter and Philosophy.
> 
> This is not merely Guilt by Association.
> 
> This is Conscious, Informed Choice.
> 
> All protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, and set aside as inoperative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hamas won the elections in the West Bank* and *Gaza. When it is said that Hamas had a coup against the PA it is a lie. Hamas was the majority, and therefore the ruling party, in the PA.
> 
> Fatah did get more votes but because they had multiple candidates for the same seat they split the vote leaving Hamas to win the seat.
> 
> The Hamas Charter was not an issue in the elections or in Palestine in general.. It was not mentioned. The government runs on the Basic Law (constitution) not on the charter of any political party.
> 
> People voted for Hamas because Fatah is corrupt and criminal. Fatah violates their constitution on a regular basis. They waste decades on fake peace talks while the Palestinians go backwards in their rights. They have a huge budget for their 50,000 man security force who is *always* absent when Palestinians are being attacked.
Click to expand...

The Hamas Charter did not *need* to be an issue in the elections, in order to taint the Palestinians.

The very *EXISTENCE* of the Hamas Charter, and broad public knowledge of its contents - and them nevertheless electing Hamas - is sufficient for our purposes here.

Rather like voting the Nazi Party (NSDAP) into power in Germany for the first time in 1932, even though their Party Platform included Jew-hatred.

Elect such a party, and immediately (and rightfully) acquire the taint of the Party Platform.

There is no escaping this, and there is no excuse-making or juicy rationalization that can be effectively employed to detach People from Chosen Party Platform.

Sorry.

Lie down with dogs (_as the Palestinian people did, in electing Hamas_) and you're gonna get fleas.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> ...The table shows exactly how much land each group owned in 1946...


Are you 'spamming' this graphic? It seems to be showing-up a lot lately, with pretty much the same commentary, each time. Just sayin'.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were elected by the Palestinian people even though they knew they were Islamic fundementalists and dictatorial. The palestinian people knew what hamas were like and still elected them and their charter.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> There is no escaping the conclusion that a sufficient number of Palestinians chose Hamas to lead them, in order to install them in power, in at least a portion of Rump Palestine.
> 
> Gaza, in this case.
> 
> By choosing them, they chose their Charter and Philosophy.
> 
> This is not merely Guilt by Association.
> 
> This is Conscious, Informed Choice.
> 
> All protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, and set aside as inoperative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hamas won the elections in the West Bank* and *Gaza. When it is said that Hamas had a coup against the PA it is a lie. Hamas was the majority, and therefore the ruling party, in the PA.
> 
> Fatah did get more votes but because they had multiple candidates for the same seat they split the vote leaving Hamas to win the seat.
> 
> The Hamas Charter was not an issue in the elections or in Palestine in general.. It was not mentioned. The government runs on the Basic Law (constitution) not on the charter of any political party.
> 
> People voted for Hamas because Fatah is corrupt and criminal. Fatah violates their constitution on a regular basis. They waste decades on fake peace talks while the Palestinians go backwards in their rights. They have a huge budget for their 50,000 man security force who is *always* absent when Palestinians are being attacked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Hamas Charter did not *need* to be an issue in the elections, in order to taint the Palestinians.
> 
> The very *EXISTENCE* of the Hamas Charter, and broad public knowledge of its contents - and them nevertheless electing Hamas - is sufficient for our purposes here.
> 
> Rather like voting the Nazi Party (NSDAP) into power in Germany for the first time in 1932, even though their Party Platform included Jew-hatred.
> 
> Elect such a party, and immediately (and rightfully) acquire the taint of the Party Platform.
> 
> There is no escaping this, and there is no excuse-making or juicy rationalization that can be effectively employed to detach People from Chosen Party Platform.
> 
> Sorry.
> 
> Lie down with dogs (_as the Palestinian people did, in electing Hamas_) and you're gonna get fleas.
Click to expand...

They should change the name to the Israel Charter.

They are the only ones using it.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> ...They are the only ones using it.


Deflection and distraction... anything to avoid admitting the truth... that by electing Hamas, Palestinians adopted the Hamas Charter, both de facto and de jure.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...They are the only ones using it.
> 
> 
> 
> Deflection and distraction... anything to avoid admitting the truth... that by electing Hamas, Palestinians adopted the Hamas Charter, both de facto and de jure.
Click to expand...

Whatevah, dude.


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The table shows exactly how much land each group owned in 1946...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you 'spamming' this graphic? It seems to be showing-up a lot lately, with pretty much the same commentary, each time. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...


As long as Phoney keeps denying what it states in plain language I will continue presenting it to him.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...They are the only ones using it.
> 
> 
> 
> Deflection and distraction... anything to avoid admitting the truth... that by electing Hamas, Palestinians adopted the Hamas Charter, both de facto and de jure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatevah, dude.
Click to expand...

Your cookie-cutter response, once your position becomes untenable...


----------



## Phoenall

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, because you also have Hamas and it's charter.  They are the charters of the political groups.  The people as a whole don't have one and won't I guess, until they have a chance to develop state and national constitution of some sort.
> 
> 
> 
> 2003 Amended Basic Law The Palestinian Basic Law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> have you read it, and seen how racists and anti-Semitic it is. And that it is but a proposal "A collection of various propsals and amendments to the Basic Law of Palestine "
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you mean the arab muslims, as they ended up with 78% of Palestine and the mooched the LoN to impose pan-arab nationalism.
> 
> That would be Palestine that moches $trillions every year.
> 
> It came from Jews who then started the migration to Israel as planned way back in 1919. Not a penny piece was mooched from anyone. Not like the Palestinians that mooch $trillions from the UN and the world, and spend it all on terrorism. And they were born with their hands out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Christians and Muslims at Partition would have received less than half of the land they owned 85% of and had double the population.  You are truly a Phoney.
> 
> "On September 3, UNSCOP submitted its report to the U.N. General Assembly. Thereport noted that the population of Palestine at the end of 1946 was estimated to be almost 1,846,000, with 1,203,000 Arabs (65 percent) and 608,000 Jews (33 percent).* Again, the growth of the Jewish population was mainly the result of immigration, whereas the Arab growth was “almost entirely” natural increase.....*Land ownership statistics from 1945 showed that Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district in Palestine. In Jaffa, with the highest percentage of Jewish ownership of any district, 47 percent of the land was owned by Arabs versus 39 percent owned by Jews. At the opposite end of the spectrum, in Ramallah district, Arabs owned 99 percent of the land and Jews less than 1 percent.[7] *In the whole of Palestine, Arabs were in possession of 85 percent of the land, while Jews owned less than 7 percent.[8].....*.The plan would have awarded a majority of the territory to its minority Jewish population, who were in possession of a mere fraction of the land, and so was naturally rejected by the Arab majority who legally owned most of Palestine.[16]..."
> 
> The U.N. Partition Plan and Arab Catastrophe Page 3 of 3 Foreign Policy Journal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your past links we get these
> 
> 50. Table 1 shows the foreign assets and liabilities as estimated
> for 1945. The net balance of foreign assets as shown in this table
> is divided between the communities in table la. The estimates
> have been compiled from analyses of Government accounts, bank
> records and commercial balance sheets.
> 51. Table 2, which has been compiled from the records of land
> taxation, shows the area of land held by Arabs (and other non-
> Jews) and by Jews. In table 2A the rural areas have been valued
> at pre-war prices based on the categorization of land for fiscal
> purposes carried out in 1935. These values, although based on
> values actually ruling pre-war, are completely arbitrary and have
> been designed to reflect the share of the two groups of the population
> rather than the aggregate value of the land. The estimate
> abstracts from the scarcity values which have in recent years
> operated to drive up land values to figures which in earlier years
> would have been considered fantastic.
> 
> 
> Now the missing tables that tell the true story
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 34341
> 
> *
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You better get back to your Christmas shopping on Ebay Phoney...
> 
> Taxation has NOTHING to do with land ownership!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does in certain parts of the world, mostly those run by Britain. You own property and you are liable to a tax on that property payable every year. The tax is now split into 7 bands and you pay according to the value of the property. Because Palestine was under British rule the same laws applies and so land and property was taxed on value, call it a tithe, so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid. This destroys the false claims by monti that the arab muslims owned the majority of Palestine as the tax records show the Jews paid the most in land taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Phoney, why do you do it to yourself all the time...
> 
> "so land and property was taxed on *value*"
> 
> Does not equate to...
> 
> "so the more land you *owned* the higher the tax you paid"
> 
> Can you see the difference?
> 
> Property is taxed on *LAND VALUE* not *LAND OWNED*!
Click to expand...





So if I owned 100 acres and ali owned 10 acres I would pay the same tax as he would, or would I pay ten times more tax than him. Of course 100 acres is valued higher than 10 acres.

 Do you understand this now, if the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land then the Jews would pay more tax. Which is what table 2 shows and is explained in the sectioned I posted that monti left out because it destroys his stance. Just as removing table 1 destroys his claims because it gives the true land ownership.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The table shows exactly how much land each group owned in 1946...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you 'spamming' this graphic? It seems to be showing-up a lot lately, with pretty much the same commentary, each time. Just sayin'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as Phoney keeps denying what it states in plain language I will continue presenting it to him.
Click to expand...




 And as long as you refuse to post the details in full I will keep pointing out your LIES and PROPAGANDA with the truth from your own links. Now according to the explanation in your link what does table one show, and then what does table 2 show.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2003 Amended Basic Law The Palestinian Basic Law
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> have you read it, and seen how racists and anti-Semitic it is. And that it is but a proposal "A collection of various propsals and amendments to the Basic Law of Palestine "
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Christians and Muslims at Partition would have received less than half of the land they owned 85% of and had double the population.  You are truly a Phoney.
> 
> "On September 3, UNSCOP submitted its report to the U.N. General Assembly. Thereport noted that the population of Palestine at the end of 1946 was estimated to be almost 1,846,000, with 1,203,000 Arabs (65 percent) and 608,000 Jews (33 percent).* Again, the growth of the Jewish population was mainly the result of immigration, whereas the Arab growth was “almost entirely” natural increase.....*Land ownership statistics from 1945 showed that Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district in Palestine. In Jaffa, with the highest percentage of Jewish ownership of any district, 47 percent of the land was owned by Arabs versus 39 percent owned by Jews. At the opposite end of the spectrum, in Ramallah district, Arabs owned 99 percent of the land and Jews less than 1 percent.[7] *In the whole of Palestine, Arabs were in possession of 85 percent of the land, while Jews owned less than 7 percent.[8].....*.The plan would have awarded a majority of the territory to its minority Jewish population, who were in possession of a mere fraction of the land, and so was naturally rejected by the Arab majority who legally owned most of Palestine.[16]..."
> 
> The U.N. Partition Plan and Arab Catastrophe Page 3 of 3 Foreign Policy Journal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your past links we get these
> 
> 50. Table 1 shows the foreign assets and liabilities as estimated
> for 1945. The net balance of foreign assets as shown in this table
> is divided between the communities in table la. The estimates
> have been compiled from analyses of Government accounts, bank
> records and commercial balance sheets.
> 51. Table 2, which has been compiled from the records of land
> taxation, shows the area of land held by Arabs (and other non-
> Jews) and by Jews. In table 2A the rural areas have been valued
> at pre-war prices based on the categorization of land for fiscal
> purposes carried out in 1935. These values, although based on
> values actually ruling pre-war, are completely arbitrary and have
> been designed to reflect the share of the two groups of the population
> rather than the aggregate value of the land. The estimate
> abstracts from the scarcity values which have in recent years
> operated to drive up land values to figures which in earlier years
> would have been considered fantastic.
> 
> 
> Now the missing tables that tell the true story
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 34341
> 
> *
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You better get back to your Christmas shopping on Ebay Phoney...
> 
> Taxation has NOTHING to do with land ownership!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does in certain parts of the world, mostly those run by Britain. You own property and you are liable to a tax on that property payable every year. The tax is now split into 7 bands and you pay according to the value of the property. Because Palestine was under British rule the same laws applies and so land and property was taxed on value, call it a tithe, so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid. This destroys the false claims by monti that the arab muslims owned the majority of Palestine as the tax records show the Jews paid the most in land taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Phoney, why do you do it to yourself all the time...
> 
> "so land and property was taxed on *value*"
> 
> Does not equate to...
> 
> "so the more land you *owned* the higher the tax you paid"
> 
> Can you see the difference?
> 
> Property is taxed on *LAND VALUE* not *LAND OWNED*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if I owned 100 acres and ali owned 10 acres I would pay the same tax as he would, or would I pay ten times more tax than him. Of course 100 acres is valued higher than 10 acres.
> 
> Do you understand this now, if the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land then the Jews would pay more tax. Which is what table 2 shows and is explained in the sectioned I posted that monti left out because it destroys his stance. Just as removing table 1 destroys his claims because it gives the true land ownership.
Click to expand...



You are such an idiot it states plainly how much land each group owned.  A dunum is about 1,000 square meters

26,670,455 Dunums Arabs
 1,514,247  Dunums Jews

That is the true land ownership you cretin.

*Arabs owned more than 85% of the land in 1946, and Jews owned less than 7% of the land in 1946. * Get it through your thick skull.

The the other table has nothing to do with land ownership.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The table shows exactly how much land each group owned in 1946...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you 'spamming' this graphic? It seems to be showing-up a lot lately, with pretty much the same commentary, each time. Just sayin'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as Phoney keeps denying what it states in plain language I will continue presenting it to him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as long as you refuse to post the details in full I will keep pointing out your LIES and PROPAGANDA with the truth from your own links. Now according to the explanation in your link what does table one show, and then what does table 2 show.
Click to expand...


I have no idea what other table you are talking about, there are tables depicting foreign investment, financial assets held,  population and other many things.   

There is only one table that depicts land ownership. It is the one below:


----------



## montelatici

How can a fact from a survey be propaganda.  Just because you can't take the truth it doesn't mean that it is propaganda.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The table shows exactly how much land each group owned in 1946...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you 'spamming' this graphic? It seems to be showing-up a lot lately, with pretty much the same commentary, each time. Just sayin'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as Phoney keeps denying what it states in plain language I will continue presenting it to him.
Click to expand...



YAHOO!  Keep the laughs coming.


----------



## montelatici

You mean.  The facts keep coming.  Something you seem to have a problem with.  And yes, you provide us with good comedy.


----------



## Humanity

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2003 Amended Basic Law The Palestinian Basic Law
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> have you read it, and seen how racists and anti-Semitic it is. And that it is but a proposal "A collection of various propsals and amendments to the Basic Law of Palestine "
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Christians and Muslims at Partition would have received less than half of the land they owned 85% of and had double the population.  You are truly a Phoney.
> 
> "On September 3, UNSCOP submitted its report to the U.N. General Assembly. Thereport noted that the population of Palestine at the end of 1946 was estimated to be almost 1,846,000, with 1,203,000 Arabs (65 percent) and 608,000 Jews (33 percent).* Again, the growth of the Jewish population was mainly the result of immigration, whereas the Arab growth was “almost entirely” natural increase.....*Land ownership statistics from 1945 showed that Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district in Palestine. In Jaffa, with the highest percentage of Jewish ownership of any district, 47 percent of the land was owned by Arabs versus 39 percent owned by Jews. At the opposite end of the spectrum, in Ramallah district, Arabs owned 99 percent of the land and Jews less than 1 percent.[7] *In the whole of Palestine, Arabs were in possession of 85 percent of the land, while Jews owned less than 7 percent.[8].....*.The plan would have awarded a majority of the territory to its minority Jewish population, who were in possession of a mere fraction of the land, and so was naturally rejected by the Arab majority who legally owned most of Palestine.[16]..."
> 
> The U.N. Partition Plan and Arab Catastrophe Page 3 of 3 Foreign Policy Journal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your past links we get these
> 
> 50. Table 1 shows the foreign assets and liabilities as estimated
> for 1945. The net balance of foreign assets as shown in this table
> is divided between the communities in table la. The estimates
> have been compiled from analyses of Government accounts, bank
> records and commercial balance sheets.
> 51. Table 2, which has been compiled from the records of land
> taxation, shows the area of land held by Arabs (and other non-
> Jews) and by Jews. In table 2A the rural areas have been valued
> at pre-war prices based on the categorization of land for fiscal
> purposes carried out in 1935. These values, although based on
> values actually ruling pre-war, are completely arbitrary and have
> been designed to reflect the share of the two groups of the population
> rather than the aggregate value of the land. The estimate
> abstracts from the scarcity values which have in recent years
> operated to drive up land values to figures which in earlier years
> would have been considered fantastic.
> 
> 
> Now the missing tables that tell the true story
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 34341
> 
> *
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You better get back to your Christmas shopping on Ebay Phoney...
> 
> Taxation has NOTHING to do with land ownership!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does in certain parts of the world, mostly those run by Britain. You own property and you are liable to a tax on that property payable every year. The tax is now split into 7 bands and you pay according to the value of the property. Because Palestine was under British rule the same laws applies and so land and property was taxed on value, call it a tithe, so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid. This destroys the false claims by monti that the arab muslims owned the majority of Palestine as the tax records show the Jews paid the most in land taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Phoney, why do you do it to yourself all the time...
> 
> "so land and property was taxed on *value*"
> 
> Does not equate to...
> 
> "so the more land you *owned* the higher the tax you paid"
> 
> Can you see the difference?
> 
> Property is taxed on *LAND VALUE* not *LAND OWNED*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if I owned 100 acres and ali owned 10 acres I would pay the same tax as he would, or would I pay ten times more tax than him. Of course 100 acres is valued higher than 10 acres.
> 
> Do you understand this now, if the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land then the Jews would pay more tax. Which is what table 2 shows and is explained in the sectioned I posted that monti left out because it destroys his stance. Just as removing table 1 destroys his claims because it gives the true land ownership.
Click to expand...


Oh Phoney....

Are you really so dumb? 

It is quite possible that 10 acres would attract more tax than 100 acres, isn't it!

10 acres in New York, I believe, will be higher valued and attract higher tax than 100 acres in Wyoming...


----------



## aris2chat

Kondor3 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were elected by the Palestinian people even though they knew they were Islamic fundementalists and dictatorial. The palestinian people knew what hamas were like and still elected them and their charter.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> There is no escaping the conclusion that a sufficient number of Palestinians chose Hamas to lead them, in order to install them in power, in at least a portion of Rump Palestine.
> 
> Gaza, in this case.
> 
> By choosing them, they chose their Charter and Philosophy.
> 
> This is not merely Guilt by Association.
> 
> This is Conscious, Informed Choice.
> 
> All protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, and set aside as inoperative.
Click to expand...


77% of Israeli arabs prefer Israeli rule.  If Abbas dissolves the PA and returns the land to Israel, how many palestinians would prefer Israeli rule?


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The table shows exactly how much land each group owned in 1946...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you 'spamming' this graphic? It seems to be showing-up a lot lately, with pretty much the same commentary, each time. Just sayin'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as Phoney keeps denying what it states in plain language I will continue presenting it to him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as long as you refuse to post the details in full I will keep pointing out your LIES and PROPAGANDA with the truth from your own links. Now according to the explanation in your link what does table one show, and then what does table 2 show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea what other table you are talking about, there are tables depicting foreign investment, financial assets held,  population and other many things.
> 
> There is only one table that depicts land ownership. It is the one below:
> 
> View attachment 34378
Click to expand...

So, this survey shows that, in 1943, the majority of the land was in Arab hands.

So what?

A survey of that same land today will tell a different story - much of it is no longer in Arab hands.

And not likely to *BE* in Arab hands, at any point, in the foreseeable future.

Next slide, please.


----------



## Humanity

Kondor3 said:


> A survey of that same land today will tell a different story - much of it is no longer in Arab hands.



No shit Sherlock!


----------



## Kondor3

Humanity said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A survey of that same land today will tell a different story - much of it is no longer in Arab hands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No shit Sherlock!
Click to expand...

Yep.

No shit.

Now what?


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2003 Amended Basic Law The Palestinian Basic Law
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> have you read it, and seen how racists and anti-Semitic it is. And that it is but a proposal "A collection of various propsals and amendments to the Basic Law of Palestine "
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Christians and Muslims at Partition would have received less than half of the land they owned 85% of and had double the population.  You are truly a Phoney.
> 
> "On September 3, UNSCOP submitted its report to the U.N. General Assembly. Thereport noted that the population of Palestine at the end of 1946 was estimated to be almost 1,846,000, with 1,203,000 Arabs (65 percent) and 608,000 Jews (33 percent).* Again, the growth of the Jewish population was mainly the result of immigration, whereas the Arab growth was “almost entirely” natural increase.....*Land ownership statistics from 1945 showed that Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district in Palestine. In Jaffa, with the highest percentage of Jewish ownership of any district, 47 percent of the land was owned by Arabs versus 39 percent owned by Jews. At the opposite end of the spectrum, in Ramallah district, Arabs owned 99 percent of the land and Jews less than 1 percent.[7] *In the whole of Palestine, Arabs were in possession of 85 percent of the land, while Jews owned less than 7 percent.[8].....*.The plan would have awarded a majority of the territory to its minority Jewish population, who were in possession of a mere fraction of the land, and so was naturally rejected by the Arab majority who legally owned most of Palestine.[16]..."
> 
> The U.N. Partition Plan and Arab Catastrophe Page 3 of 3 Foreign Policy Journal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your past links we get these
> 
> 50. Table 1 shows the foreign assets and liabilities as estimated
> for 1945. The net balance of foreign assets as shown in this table
> is divided between the communities in table la. The estimates
> have been compiled from analyses of Government accounts, bank
> records and commercial balance sheets.
> 51. Table 2, which has been compiled from the records of land
> taxation, shows the area of land held by Arabs (and other non-
> Jews) and by Jews. In table 2A the rural areas have been valued
> at pre-war prices based on the categorization of land for fiscal
> purposes carried out in 1935. These values, although based on
> values actually ruling pre-war, are completely arbitrary and have
> been designed to reflect the share of the two groups of the population
> rather than the aggregate value of the land. The estimate
> abstracts from the scarcity values which have in recent years
> operated to drive up land values to figures which in earlier years
> would have been considered fantastic.
> 
> 
> Now the missing tables that tell the true story
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 34341
> 
> *
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You better get back to your Christmas shopping on Ebay Phoney...
> 
> Taxation has NOTHING to do with land ownership!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does in certain parts of the world, mostly those run by Britain. You own property and you are liable to a tax on that property payable every year. The tax is now split into 7 bands and you pay according to the value of the property. Because Palestine was under British rule the same laws applies and so land and property was taxed on value, call it a tithe, so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid. This destroys the false claims by monti that the arab muslims owned the majority of Palestine as the tax records show the Jews paid the most in land taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Phoney, why do you do it to yourself all the time...
> 
> "so land and property was taxed on *value*"
> 
> Does not equate to...
> 
> "so the more land you *owned* the higher the tax you paid"
> 
> Can you see the difference?
> 
> Property is taxed on *LAND VALUE* not *LAND OWNED*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So if I owned 100 acres and ali owned 10 acres I would pay the same tax as he would, or would I pay ten times more tax than him. Of course 100 acres is valued higher than 10 acres.*
> 
> Do you understand this now, if the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land then the Jews would pay more tax. Which is what table 2 shows and is explained in the sectioned I posted that monti left out because it destroys his stance. Just as removing table 1 destroys his claims because it gives the true land ownership.
Click to expand...



Doesn't work that way.

For example - my house and 2.5 acres in WV is taxed at $300 yearly.  My friend's (smaller) house and 3/4 acre is taxed at over $3000 in Vermont.  Taxes alone can't determine the extent of land ownership.


----------



## MJB12741

Who Are The Palestinians?  Well lets see now.  Are these Palesrinians?

Photos Palestinians Celebrate Hand Out Candy After Synagogue Terror Attack TheBlaze.com


----------



## Hossfly

MJB12741 said:


> Who Are The Palestinians?  Well lets see now.  Are these Palesrinians?
> 
> Photos Palestinians Celebrate Hand Out Candy After Synagogue Terror Attack TheBlaze.com


They surely be Palestinians, by George!


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> have you read it, and seen how racists and anti-Semitic it is. And that it is but a proposal "A collection of various propsals and amendments to the Basic Law of Palestine "
> From your past links we get these
> 
> 50. Table 1 shows the foreign assets and liabilities as estimated
> for 1945. The net balance of foreign assets as shown in this table
> is divided between the communities in table la. The estimates
> have been compiled from analyses of Government accounts, bank
> records and commercial balance sheets.
> 51. Table 2, which has been compiled from the records of land
> taxation, shows the area of land held by Arabs (and other non-
> Jews) and by Jews. In table 2A the rural areas have been valued
> at pre-war prices based on the categorization of land for fiscal
> purposes carried out in 1935. These values, although based on
> values actually ruling pre-war, are completely arbitrary and have
> been designed to reflect the share of the two groups of the population
> rather than the aggregate value of the land. The estimate
> abstracts from the scarcity values which have in recent years
> operated to drive up land values to figures which in earlier years
> would have been considered fantastic.
> 
> 
> Now the missing tables that tell the true story
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 34341
> 
> *
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You better get back to your Christmas shopping on Ebay Phoney...
> 
> Taxation has NOTHING to do with land ownership!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does in certain parts of the world, mostly those run by Britain. You own property and you are liable to a tax on that property payable every year. The tax is now split into 7 bands and you pay according to the value of the property. Because Palestine was under British rule the same laws applies and so land and property was taxed on value, call it a tithe, so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid. This destroys the false claims by monti that the arab muslims owned the majority of Palestine as the tax records show the Jews paid the most in land taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Phoney, why do you do it to yourself all the time...
> 
> "so land and property was taxed on *value*"
> 
> Does not equate to...
> 
> "so the more land you *owned* the higher the tax you paid"
> 
> Can you see the difference?
> 
> Property is taxed on *LAND VALUE* not *LAND OWNED*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So if I owned 100 acres and ali owned 10 acres I would pay the same tax as he would, or would I pay ten times more tax than him. Of course 100 acres is valued higher than 10 acres.*
> 
> Do you understand this now, if the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land then the Jews would pay more tax. Which is what table 2 shows and is explained in the sectioned I posted that monti left out because it destroys his stance. Just as removing table 1 destroys his claims because it gives the true land ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't work that way.
> 
> For example - my house and 2.5 acres in WV is taxed at $300 yearly.  My friend's (smaller) house and 3/4 acre is taxed at over $3000 in Vermont.  Taxes alone can't determine the extent of land ownership.
Click to expand...


the mandate was not 50 separate states with tens of counties each setting their own taxes because they each ran their own governments.  Mandate was under one government controlled by the British and at best the urban taxes might have been a bit higher but not disproportionate enough by those figures to account for that much difference in tax.


----------



## montelatici

The fact is, that Arabs owned more than 85% of the land and Jews less than 7%.  Why can't you idiots just accept the facts? Just read the amount of acreage each owned ffs.  Taxes have nothing to do with it.  Sorry to burst your propaganda bubble that told you Jews bought all the land.  It is propaganda, the facts are depicted below.


----------



## Coyote

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> You better get back to your Christmas shopping on Ebay Phoney...
> 
> Taxation has NOTHING to do with land ownership!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does in certain parts of the world, mostly those run by Britain. You own property and you are liable to a tax on that property payable every year. The tax is now split into 7 bands and you pay according to the value of the property. Because Palestine was under British rule the same laws applies and so land and property was taxed on value, call it a tithe, so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid. This destroys the false claims by monti that the arab muslims owned the majority of Palestine as the tax records show the Jews paid the most in land taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Phoney, why do you do it to yourself all the time...
> 
> "so land and property was taxed on *value*"
> 
> Does not equate to...
> 
> "so the more land you *owned* the higher the tax you paid"
> 
> Can you see the difference?
> 
> Property is taxed on *LAND VALUE* not *LAND OWNED*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So if I owned 100 acres and ali owned 10 acres I would pay the same tax as he would, or would I pay ten times more tax than him. Of course 100 acres is valued higher than 10 acres.*
> 
> Do you understand this now, if the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land then the Jews would pay more tax. Which is what table 2 shows and is explained in the sectioned I posted that monti left out because it destroys his stance. Just as removing table 1 destroys his claims because it gives the true land ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't work that way.
> 
> For example - my house and 2.5 acres in WV is taxed at $300 yearly.  My friend's (smaller) house and 3/4 acre is taxed at over $3000 in Vermont.  Taxes alone can't determine the extent of land ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the mandate was not 50 separate states with tens of counties each setting their own taxes because they each ran their own governments.  Mandate was under one government controlled by the British and at best the urban taxes might have been a bit higher but not disproportionate enough by those figures to account for that much difference in tax.
Click to expand...


I would think that taxes would vary according to the desirability of the area - that's the way it is in many areas not just mine.


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does in certain parts of the world, mostly those run by Britain. You own property and you are liable to a tax on that property payable every year. The tax is now split into 7 bands and you pay according to the value of the property. Because Palestine was under British rule the same laws applies and so land and property was taxed on value, call it a tithe, so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid. This destroys the false claims by monti that the arab muslims owned the majority of Palestine as the tax records show the Jews paid the most in land taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Phoney, why do you do it to yourself all the time...
> 
> "so land and property was taxed on *value*"
> 
> Does not equate to...
> 
> "so the more land you *owned* the higher the tax you paid"
> 
> Can you see the difference?
> 
> Property is taxed on *LAND VALUE* not *LAND OWNED*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So if I owned 100 acres and ali owned 10 acres I would pay the same tax as he would, or would I pay ten times more tax than him. Of course 100 acres is valued higher than 10 acres.*
> 
> Do you understand this now, if the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land then the Jews would pay more tax. Which is what table 2 shows and is explained in the sectioned I posted that monti left out because it destroys his stance. Just as removing table 1 destroys his claims because it gives the true land ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't work that way.
> 
> For example - my house and 2.5 acres in WV is taxed at $300 yearly.  My friend's (smaller) house and 3/4 acre is taxed at over $3000 in Vermont.  Taxes alone can't determine the extent of land ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the mandate was not 50 separate states with tens of counties each setting their own taxes because they each ran their own governments.  Mandate was under one government controlled by the British and at best the urban taxes might have been a bit higher but not disproportionate enough by those figures to account for that much difference in tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would think that taxes would vary according to the desirability of the area - that's the way it is in many areas not just mine.
Click to expand...


Taxes might vary on type of land and what it produces but not to such a variation when the amount of land per each category is compared.  The mandate was not so big that it could manage a complex tax code when so many had only a minimal education.
There is nothing in the figures of page 566 that makes such a difference plausible.
Even cultivating what is listed as uncultivatable land would not explain the disparity


----------



## aris2chat

*Palestine before the Palestinians!*
Posted by Olivier Melnick on November 26, 2014



Way before Yasser Arafat, the PLO, Hamas, Fatah, Mahmoud Abbas and the likes, there was a Palestine. There was a Palestine that was recognized by the entire world and that was just fine. I am actually in favor of what Palestine used to be prior to the 1960s. Unfortunately, the word “Palestine” has since suffered from some kind of etymological virus for which there seems to be no cure. But why would the world look for a cure when nobody feels that there is even a virus? Yet it is pandemic!

*• The original meaning of the word “Palestine”:* While the exact origin of the word “Palestine” is still debated, there are aspects of the word’s meaning that we can know for sure. It is indeed very possible that it is a word that once described a people group known as the Philistines. But that people group was in no way connected to the modern Palestinians. Not ethnically, not linguistically and not culturally. In 132 CE, a Jewish revolt took place against the Romans. It was known as the _Bar Kochba_ revolt (Bar Kochba was a false messiah in Israel at the time). In a nutshell, things didn’t end well for the Jewish people and in addition to a blood bath of gigantic proportions, Israel was renamed _Palaestina _by the Romans in an effort to undermine Jewish history and humiliate the Jewish people further. Additionally at the time, Jerusalem was also renamed _Aelia Capitolina_ by emperor Hadrian. The name stuck and continued to be used after that time.

As a matter of fact, when the British were in control from 1922 to 1948, the area was governed under what was known as the “British Palestine Mandate”. In the original text of the Mandate itself dated from 1922, we can read: “_Whereas *recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine* and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country”._ Sounds very Jewish to me!

If we take a look at article 4 of the Mandate, we also find two words in the same passage that any modern day Palestinian would be hard pressed to associate in a positive light: Palestine and Zionist. Yet, in the context of the original Mandate, it was to the current leaders of the Zionist movement that the administration and government of Palestine were entrusted to, as we can read: *An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognized*_ as a public body for the purpose of advising and cooperating with the Administration of *Palestine* in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the *Jewish population in Palestine*, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country. *The Zionist organization*, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, *shall be recognized as such agency.* It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty’s Government to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home._

As a matter of fact, until the early 60s, Palestine was always synonymous with Israel and/or Holy Land. Arabs in neighboring countries never called themselves Palestinians but rather Syrians, Lebanese, Jordanian, Egyptians, etc. Most Arabs in the early 1900s would have argued that Palestinian Arabs were simply Syrians.

Recently, an interesting new piece of evidence in favor of Jewish Palestine was found in the most unlikely of places. Some will argue that it is just anecdotal and that it certainly doesn’t prove anything, but I would beg to differ.

The evidence comes from the pages of a French dictionary known as the _“Larousse Dictionary”. _Larousse Publishing House was started in France in 1852. They published their first dictionary in 1856. In France, _Larousse_ has become synonymous with “dictionary”.

It is within a 1939 edition of the _Larousse Dictionary _that the flag of Palestine was found amidst the flags of the world. On the right page, third from the top and third from the left, we can see a flag made of two equal squares, a light blue on the left and a white on the right. Superimposed in the center of the 2 squares is a yellow magen David (Star of David), which as we all know is the Jewish symbol _par excellence. _Dated from 1939, which was the start of World War Two, the dictionary wouldn’t include Israel (not re-born as a modern nation until 1948). Note also that on the first line of flags on the left page, you can see the German flag harboring the now infamous swastika of the Nazi regime. There is thus no question as to the time frame of the publishing of this volume. *So what happened that changed it all?*

*• Alternate meaning of the word “Palestine”: *It is not uncommon for the etymology of certain words to evolve with the times, culture and history. It is neither good nor bad but simply a result a change in the meaning of a word over time. So why is it that in the case of the word “Palestine” we should look at its new meaning carefully and I would go as far as saying that we should even reject it?

For those of us who are concerned with historical accuracy, the meaning of “_Palestine”_ is pretty straight forward, it simply describes the ancient name given to Eretz Yisrael and thus to a piece of land biblically known as the “Land of Canaan” (Genesis 17:7-8) given to the children of Israel by the God of Israel, period!

But today, Palestine doesn’t have any more Jewish connotation whatsoever. Palestine is allegedly the historical homeland of the Palestinian people, who because of their unalienable right to self-determination have the god-given right to fight for their return. But do they? I strongly disagree with that assumption!

This re-definition is the result of a geo-political move by Yasser Arafat after the six-day war of 1967. The Palestinian people were created and forced to remain in refugee camps created at the time as well. After almost half a century of propaganda and indoctrination, history has been reversed and rewritten and the Palestinian flag certainly doesn’t bear the Star of David any more. On their site on Palestinian Facts, the explanation of the new flag includes a statement about its adoption by the “Palestinian people” (who didn’t exist then or now) as early as 1917, yet in 1939 it was the flag with the Jewish Star.

I agree that it takes more than a flag to validate a people’s right to exist and right to the land, but historians and Bible scholars alike have documented Jewish existence in the current land of Israel for over 3,500 years, uninterrupted since the days of Joshua.

So next time you hear about Israel the “occupier” of Palestine from Muslim leaders, Pro-Palestinian liberals, Christian anti-Semites and even self-defeating Jews such as those from the organization known as JStreet, consider the facts. You might not be able to change the minds of brainwashed anti-Jewish people, but you certainly deserve the truth about Israel and the Jewish people.

Palestine existed long before the “Palestinians” were implanted there. It was, is and always will remain the Jewish homeland; historically, geographically and last but not least, biblically. Don’t let the name fool you!


----------



## Coyote

The "Palestinian" people have been there as long as the Jewish people and in fact, include Jews..  Saying that isn't being "anti-Jewish".  Admitting that other people besides Jews also have an ancient claim to those lands is not being anti-Semitic.  Nor is it being "brain washed".

They have a right to self determination.  They have a right to a state.  NO people should be kept in a perpetual state of non-citizenship or statelessness in the hopes they'll conveniently disappear or be moved some place else.

The Palestinians were not "implanted" there.  Any more than the Jews were.  Those that insist that one but not the other has any right there are themselves "brainwashed".


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> The "Palestinian" people have been there as long as the Jewish people and in fact, include Jews..  Saying that isn't being "anti-Jewish".  Admitting that other people besides Jews also have an ancient claim to those lands is not being anti-Semitic.  Nor is it being "brain washed".
> 
> They have a right to self determination.  They have a right to a state.  NO people should be kept in a perpetual state of non-citizenship or statelessness in the hopes they'll conveniently disappear or be moved some place else.
> 
> The Palestinians were not "implanted" there.  Any more than the Jews were.  Those that insist that one but not the other has any right there are themselves "brainwashed".




The Smoking Gun Arab Immigration into Palestine 1922-1931 Middle East Quarterly

It really is a worthwhile read if you can get past the fact it was written by an economics professor.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> have you read it, and seen how racists and anti-Semitic it is. And that it is but a proposal "A collection of various propsals and amendments to the Basic Law of Palestine "
> From your past links we get these
> 
> 50. Table 1 shows the foreign assets and liabilities as estimated
> for 1945. The net balance of foreign assets as shown in this table
> is divided between the communities in table la. The estimates
> have been compiled from analyses of Government accounts, bank
> records and commercial balance sheets.
> 51. Table 2, which has been compiled from the records of land
> taxation, shows the area of land held by Arabs (and other non-
> Jews) and by Jews. In table 2A the rural areas have been valued
> at pre-war prices based on the categorization of land for fiscal
> purposes carried out in 1935. These values, although based on
> values actually ruling pre-war, are completely arbitrary and have
> been designed to reflect the share of the two groups of the population
> rather than the aggregate value of the land. The estimate
> abstracts from the scarcity values which have in recent years
> operated to drive up land values to figures which in earlier years
> would have been considered fantastic.
> 
> 
> Now the missing tables that tell the true story
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 34341
> 
> *
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You better get back to your Christmas shopping on Ebay Phoney...
> 
> Taxation has NOTHING to do with land ownership!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does in certain parts of the world, mostly those run by Britain. You own property and you are liable to a tax on that property payable every year. The tax is now split into 7 bands and you pay according to the value of the property. Because Palestine was under British rule the same laws applies and so land and property was taxed on value, call it a tithe, so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid. This destroys the false claims by monti that the arab muslims owned the majority of Palestine as the tax records show the Jews paid the most in land taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Phoney, why do you do it to yourself all the time...
> 
> "so land and property was taxed on *value*"
> 
> Does not equate to...
> 
> "so the more land you *owned* the higher the tax you paid"
> 
> Can you see the difference?
> 
> Property is taxed on *LAND VALUE* not *LAND OWNED*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if I owned 100 acres and ali owned 10 acres I would pay the same tax as he would, or would I pay ten times more tax than him. Of course 100 acres is valued higher than 10 acres.
> 
> Do you understand this now, if the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land then the Jews would pay more tax. Which is what table 2 shows and is explained in the sectioned I posted that monti left out because it destroys his stance. Just as removing table 1 destroys his claims because it gives the true land ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are such an idiot it states plainly how much land each group owned.  A dunum is about 1,000 square meters
> 
> 26,670,455 Dunums Arabs
> 1,514,247  Dunums Jews
> 
> That is the true land ownership you cretin.
> 
> *Arabs owned more than 85% of the land in 1946, and Jews owned less than 7% of the land in 1946. * Get it through your thick skull.
> 
> The the other table has nothing to do with land ownership.
Click to expand...





 You are the dumbass as it clearly states arabs and other non-jews. Which means the absentee Turkish landlords who owned the land are counted. So table 1 is correct in its report 4.8% owned by Jews 0.8% owned by arabs.

 Told you once I got the link I WOULD DESTROY YOUR CHERRY PICKING OF FACTS AND PRODUCE THE TRUTH


----------



## Phoenall

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> have you read it, and seen how racists and anti-Semitic it is. And that it is but a proposal "A collection of various propsals and amendments to the Basic Law of Palestine "
> From your past links we get these
> 
> 50. Table 1 shows the foreign assets and liabilities as estimated
> for 1945. The net balance of foreign assets as shown in this table
> is divided between the communities in table la. The estimates
> have been compiled from analyses of Government accounts, bank
> records and commercial balance sheets.
> 51. Table 2, which has been compiled from the records of land
> taxation, shows the area of land held by Arabs (and other non-
> Jews) and by Jews. In table 2A the rural areas have been valued
> at pre-war prices based on the categorization of land for fiscal
> purposes carried out in 1935. These values, although based on
> values actually ruling pre-war, are completely arbitrary and have
> been designed to reflect the share of the two groups of the population
> rather than the aggregate value of the land. The estimate
> abstracts from the scarcity values which have in recent years
> operated to drive up land values to figures which in earlier years
> would have been considered fantastic.
> 
> 
> Now the missing tables that tell the true story
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 34341
> 
> *
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You better get back to your Christmas shopping on Ebay Phoney...
> 
> Taxation has NOTHING to do with land ownership!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does in certain parts of the world, mostly those run by Britain. You own property and you are liable to a tax on that property payable every year. The tax is now split into 7 bands and you pay according to the value of the property. Because Palestine was under British rule the same laws applies and so land and property was taxed on value, call it a tithe, so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid. This destroys the false claims by monti that the arab muslims owned the majority of Palestine as the tax records show the Jews paid the most in land taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Phoney, why do you do it to yourself all the time...
> 
> "so land and property was taxed on *value*"
> 
> Does not equate to...
> 
> "so the more land you *owned* the higher the tax you paid"
> 
> Can you see the difference?
> 
> Property is taxed on *LAND VALUE* not *LAND OWNED*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if I owned 100 acres and ali owned 10 acres I would pay the same tax as he would, or would I pay ten times more tax than him. Of course 100 acres is valued higher than 10 acres.
> 
> Do you understand this now, if the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land then the Jews would pay more tax. Which is what table 2 shows and is explained in the sectioned I posted that monti left out because it destroys his stance. Just as removing table 1 destroys his claims because it gives the true land ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Phoney....
> 
> Are you really so dumb?
> 
> It is quite possible that 10 acres would attract more tax than 100 acres, isn't it!
> 
> 10 acres in New York, I believe, will be higher valued and attract higher tax than 100 acres in Wyoming...
Click to expand...





 Then you are not comparing like for like are you. 10 acres in New York would attract less tax that 100 acres in New York. When it sinks in you will see just how much of a fool you make yourself look


----------



## Phoenall

Kondor3 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The table shows exactly how much land each group owned in 1946...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you 'spamming' this graphic? It seems to be showing-up a lot lately, with pretty much the same commentary, each time. Just sayin'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as Phoney keeps denying what it states in plain language I will continue presenting it to him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as long as you refuse to post the details in full I will keep pointing out your LIES and PROPAGANDA with the truth from your own links. Now according to the explanation in your link what does table one show, and then what does table 2 show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea what other table you are talking about, there are tables depicting foreign investment, financial assets held,  population and other many things.
> 
> There is only one table that depicts land ownership. It is the one below:
> 
> View attachment 34378
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, this survey shows that, in 1943, the majority of the land was in Arab hands.
> 
> So what?
> 
> A survey of that same land today will tell a different story - much of it is no longer in Arab hands.
> 
> And not likely to *BE* in Arab hands, at any point, in the foreseeable future.
> 
> Next slide, please.
Click to expand...





 But it doesn't that is just monti manipulating the report, in actual fact it shows that 85% was owned by Ottomans 0.8% by arab muslims and 4.8% by Jews. From 1948 that was moot anyway as the land ownership went to the Jews in the case of Israel and any arab muslim lost the land ownership they had. The Palestinians failing to make their move also lost all land ownership they had in gaza and the west bank, and now have to fight to get anything back.


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> You better get back to your Christmas shopping on Ebay Phoney...
> 
> Taxation has NOTHING to do with land ownership!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does in certain parts of the world, mostly those run by Britain. You own property and you are liable to a tax on that property payable every year. The tax is now split into 7 bands and you pay according to the value of the property. Because Palestine was under British rule the same laws applies and so land and property was taxed on value, call it a tithe, so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid. This destroys the false claims by monti that the arab muslims owned the majority of Palestine as the tax records show the Jews paid the most in land taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Phoney, why do you do it to yourself all the time...
> 
> "so land and property was taxed on *value*"
> 
> Does not equate to...
> 
> "so the more land you *owned* the higher the tax you paid"
> 
> Can you see the difference?
> 
> Property is taxed on *LAND VALUE* not *LAND OWNED*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if I owned 100 acres and ali owned 10 acres I would pay the same tax as he would, or would I pay ten times more tax than him. Of course 100 acres is valued higher than 10 acres.
> 
> Do you understand this now, if the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land then the Jews would pay more tax. Which is what table 2 shows and is explained in the sectioned I posted that monti left out because it destroys his stance. Just as removing table 1 destroys his claims because it gives the true land ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are such an idiot it states plainly how much land each group owned.  A dunum is about 1,000 square meters
> 
> 26,670,455 Dunums Arabs
> 1,514,247  Dunums Jews
> 
> That is the true land ownership you cretin.
> 
> *Arabs owned more than 85% of the land in 1946, and Jews owned less than 7% of the land in 1946. * Get it through your thick skull.
> 
> The the other table has nothing to do with land ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the dumbass as it clearly states arabs and other non-jews. Which means the absentee Turkish landlords who owned the land are counted. So table 1 is correct in its report 4.8% owned by Jews 0.8% owned by arabs.
> 
> Told you once I got the link I WOULD DESTROY YOUR CHERRY PICKING OF FACTS AND PRODUCE THE TRUTH
Click to expand...

You are wrong YET AGAIN...............Goodness reading your posts..... are #@&%^$#*&!($) = Shit


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you 'spamming' this graphic? It seems to be showing-up a lot lately, with pretty much the same commentary, each time. Just sayin'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as Phoney keeps denying what it states in plain language I will continue presenting it to him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as long as you refuse to post the details in full I will keep pointing out your LIES and PROPAGANDA with the truth from your own links. Now according to the explanation in your link what does table one show, and then what does table 2 show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea what other table you are talking about, there are tables depicting foreign investment, financial assets held,  population and other many things.
> 
> There is only one table that depicts land ownership. It is the one below:
> 
> View attachment 34378
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, this survey shows that, in 1943, the majority of the land was in Arab hands.
> 
> So what?
> 
> A survey of that same land today will tell a different story - much of it is no longer in Arab hands.
> 
> And not likely to *BE* in Arab hands, at any point, in the foreseeable future.
> 
> Next slide, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it doesn't that is just monti manipulating the report, in actual fact it shows that 85% was owned by Ottomans 0.8% by arab muslims and 4.8% by Jews. From 1948 that was moot anyway as the land ownership went to the Jews in the case of Israel and any arab muslim lost the land ownership they had. The Palestinians failing to make their move also lost all land ownership they had in gaza and the west bank, and now have to fight to get anything back.
Click to expand...

This is just utter Garbage,Jewish Garbage at its best though


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> The "Palestinian" people have been there as long as the Jewish people and in fact, include Jews..  Saying that isn't being "anti-Jewish".  Admitting that other people besides Jews also have an ancient claim to those lands is not being anti-Semitic.  Nor is it being "brain washed".
> 
> They have a right to self determination.  They have a right to a state.  NO people should be kept in a perpetual state of non-citizenship or statelessness in the hopes they'll conveniently disappear or be moved some place else.
> 
> The Palestinians were not "implanted" there.  Any more than the Jews were.  Those that insist that one but not the other has any right there are themselves "brainwashed".






 They already have all that so what more can we give them. They have self determination, they have a state, they just don't have the intelligence to act accordingly. When they do they will find life is very tough and that violence will not answer any of their needs. Then when they find the world is set against them they will make demands for more self determination to be given to them.    AND YOU WILL BACK THEM


----------



## MJB12741

Coyote said:


> The "Palestinian" people have been there as long as the Jewish people and in fact, include Jews..  Saying that isn't being "anti-Jewish".  Admitting that other people besides Jews also have an ancient claim to those lands is not being anti-Semitic.  Nor is it being "brain washed".
> 
> They have a right to self determination.  They have a right to a state.  NO people should be kept in a perpetual state of non-citizenship or statelessness in the hopes they'll conveniently disappear or be moved some place else.
> 
> The Palestinians were not "implanted" there.  Any more than the Jews were.  Those that insist that one but not the other has any right there are themselves "brainwashed".



I agree with you that the Palestinians have a right to self determination & a state of their own.  Oh how I wish that so Palestinians won't have Israel to suck off of anymore to provide for them & blame Israel for all their failures.  The problem is where to put it considering the historical circumstances of this conflict.


----------



## aris2chat

MJB12741 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "Palestinian" people have been there as long as the Jewish people and in fact, include Jews..  Saying that isn't being "anti-Jewish".  Admitting that other people besides Jews also have an ancient claim to those lands is not being anti-Semitic.  Nor is it being "brain washed".
> 
> They have a right to self determination.  They have a right to a state.  NO people should be kept in a perpetual state of non-citizenship or statelessness in the hopes they'll conveniently disappear or be moved some place else.
> 
> The Palestinians were not "implanted" there.  Any more than the Jews were.  Those that insist that one but not the other has any right there are themselves "brainwashed".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you that the Palestinians have a right to self determination & a state of their own.  Oh how I wish that so Palestinians won't have Israel to suck off of anymore to provide for them & blame Israel for all their failures.  The problem is where to put it considering the historical circumstances of this conflict.
Click to expand...


and if Abbas dissolves the PA and hand the land back to Israel, will they have the "self determination" to accept Israeli citizenship and live peaceful as Israelis or an exit visa to find citizenship some place where they can be happy?


----------



## MJB12741

aris2chat said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "Palestinian" people have been there as long as the Jewish people and in fact, include Jews..  Saying that isn't being "anti-Jewish".  Admitting that other people besides Jews also have an ancient claim to those lands is not being anti-Semitic.  Nor is it being "brain washed".
> 
> They have a right to self determination.  They have a right to a state.  NO people should be kept in a perpetual state of non-citizenship or statelessness in the hopes they'll conveniently disappear or be moved some place else.
> 
> The Palestinians were not "implanted" there.  Any more than the Jews were.  Those that insist that one but not the other has any right there are themselves "brainwashed".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you that the Palestinians have a right to self determination & a state of their own.  Oh how I wish that so Palestinians won't have Israel to suck off of anymore to provide for them & blame Israel for all their failures.  The problem is where to put it considering the historical circumstances of this conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and if Abbas dissolves the PA and hand the land back to Israel, will they have the "self determination" to accept Israeli citizenship and live peaceful as Israelis or an exit visa to find citizenship some place where they can be happy?
Click to expand...


Palestinians living Israel as Israeli citizens have never had it so good.  Just consider how many of them have opted to leave & go live in some Arab country.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> You better get back to your Christmas shopping on Ebay Phoney...
> 
> Taxation has NOTHING to do with land ownership!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does in certain parts of the world, mostly those run by Britain. You own property and you are liable to a tax on that property payable every year. The tax is now split into 7 bands and you pay according to the value of the property. Because Palestine was under British rule the same laws applies and so land and property was taxed on value, call it a tithe, so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid. This destroys the false claims by monti that the arab muslims owned the majority of Palestine as the tax records show the Jews paid the most in land taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Phoney, why do you do it to yourself all the time...
> 
> "so land and property was taxed on *value*"
> 
> Does not equate to...
> 
> "so the more land you *owned* the higher the tax you paid"
> 
> Can you see the difference?
> 
> Property is taxed on *LAND VALUE* not *LAND OWNED*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if I owned 100 acres and ali owned 10 acres I would pay the same tax as he would, or would I pay ten times more tax than him. Of course 100 acres is valued higher than 10 acres.
> 
> Do you understand this now, if the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land then the Jews would pay more tax. Which is what table 2 shows and is explained in the sectioned I posted that monti left out because it destroys his stance. Just as removing table 1 destroys his claims because it gives the true land ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are such an idiot it states plainly how much land each group owned.  A dunum is about 1,000 square meters
> 
> 26,670,455 Dunums Arabs
> 1,514,247  Dunums Jews
> 
> That is the true land ownership you cretin.
> 
> *Arabs owned more than 85% of the land in 1946, and Jews owned less than 7% of the land in 1946. * Get it through your thick skull.
> 
> The the other table has nothing to do with land ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the dumbass as it clearly states arabs and other non-jews. Which means the absentee Turkish landlords who owned the land are counted. So table 1 is correct in its report 4.8% owned by Jews 0.8% owned by arabs.
> 
> Told you once I got the link I WOULD DESTROY YOUR CHERRY PICKING OF FACTS AND PRODUCE THE TRUTH
Click to expand...


Table 1, says nothing about land ownership.  Other non-Jews are the Samaritans, Greeks and Latins that are included in the population surveys, including Christian Church owned lands.  

Nice try, moron.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Noor Daoud*


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Noor Daoud*



She had the benefit of being born in Texas and making the Olympic swim team.  Driving since she was 11.
Far from your typical palestinian and not one to get involved in the hate and violence against Israel.  She loves life and racing too much.
Do you think she could practice her love under Hamas?
.............though most drivers in the middle east seem to disregard speed, lanes and traffic laws.  Driving can really be a free for all.  Once saw a man loose his arm sticking it out a car window.
Driving like she does is gutsy in any country.  At lease she does it on a track with safety gear.


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "Palestinian" people have been there as long as the Jewish people and in fact, include Jews..  Saying that isn't being "anti-Jewish".  Admitting that other people besides Jews also have an ancient claim to those lands is not being anti-Semitic.  Nor is it being "brain washed".
> 
> They have a right to self determination.  They have a right to a state.  NO people should be kept in a perpetual state of non-citizenship or statelessness in the hopes they'll conveniently disappear or be moved some place else.
> 
> The Palestinians were not "implanted" there.  Any more than the Jews were.  Those that insist that one but not the other has any right there are themselves "brainwashed".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They already have all that so what more can we give them. They have self determination, they have a state, they just don't have the intelligence to act accordingly. When they do they will find life is very tough and that violence will not answer any of their needs. Then when they find the world is set against them they will make demands for more self determination to be given to them.    AND YOU WILL BACK THEM
Click to expand...


They do not have a state.  They do not have self-determination.

Definition of state (Merriam-Webster)
*2*.
a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.

Wikipedia: State polity - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
The most commonly used definition is Max Weber's,[7][8][9][10][11] which describes the state as a compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a certain territory.[12][13] General categories of state institutions include administrative bureaucracies, legal systems, and military or religious organizations.[14]
According to the _Oxford English Dictionary_, a state is "*a* an organized political community under one government; a commonwealth; a nation. *b* such a community forming part of a federal republic, esp the United States of America".​If they don't have a state they could still have self-determination I would think but they don't.  They are under occupation and under Israeli military law.


----------



## MJB12741

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "Palestinian" people have been there as long as the Jewish people and in fact, include Jews..  Saying that isn't being "anti-Jewish".  Admitting that other people besides Jews also have an ancient claim to those lands is not being anti-Semitic.  Nor is it being "brain washed".
> 
> They have a right to self determination.  They have a right to a state.  NO people should be kept in a perpetual state of non-citizenship or statelessness in the hopes they'll conveniently disappear or be moved some place else.
> 
> The Palestinians were not "implanted" there.  Any more than the Jews were.  Those that insist that one but not the other has any right there are themselves "brainwashed".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They already have all that so what more can we give them. They have self determination, they have a state, they just don't have the intelligence to act accordingly. When they do they will find life is very tough and that violence will not answer any of their needs. Then when they find the world is set against them they will make demands for more self determination to be given to them.    AND YOU WILL BACK THEM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do not have a state.  They do not have self-determination.
> 
> Definition of state (Merriam-Webster)
> *2*.
> a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.
> 
> Wikipedia: State polity - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> The most commonly used definition is Max Weber's,[7][8][9][10][11] which describes the state as a compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a certain territory.[12][13] General categories of state institutions include administrative bureaucracies, legal systems, and military or religious organizations.[14]
> According to the _Oxford English Dictionary_, a state is "*a* an organized political community under one government; a commonwealth; a nation. *b* such a community forming part of a federal republic, esp the United States of America".​If they don't have a state they could still have self-determination I would think but they don't.  They are under occupation and under Israeli military law.
Click to expand...


Israel is the land of Jewish forefathers Abraham, Issac & Jacob.  The land where Moses led his people over 3000 years ago.  The land of Solomon's Temple.  The land where Jews have lived continuously for thousands of years surviving the fall of the Assyrian, Babylonian, Greek & Roman empires.  That's who the Jews are & their rightful claim to the land.  So once again, Who Are The Palestinians?  And what are their claims to the land of Israel?


----------



## montelatici

Europeans have no right to the land.  The Palestinians are predominately descendants the people who have lived in Palestine since the time of the Caanites and before, well before the Jews arrived,  People who have adopted  various religions over time as was the most convenient or the required religion to avoid persecution.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Europeans have no right to the land.  The Palestinians are predominately descendants the people who have lived in Palestine since the time of the Caanites and before, well before the Jews arrived,  People who have adopted  various religions over time as was the most convenient or the required religion to avoid persecution.



So Abraham, Issac, Jacob & Moses were EUROPEANS?  I didn't know that.  Amazing what we can learn from the Palestinian supporters.

Israel is the land of Jewish forefathers Abraham, Issac & Jacob. The land where Moses led his people over 3000 years ago. The land of Solomon's Temple. The land where Jews have lived continuously for thousands of years surviving the fall of the Assyrian, Babylonian, Greek & Roman empires. That's who the Jews are & their rightful claim to the land. So once again, Who Are The Palestinians? And what are their claims to the land of Israel?


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Europeans have no right to the land.  The Palestinians are predominately descendants the people who have lived in Palestine since the time of the Caanites and before, well before the Jews arrived,  People who have adopted  various religions over time as was the most convenient or the required religion to avoid persecution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Abraham, Issac, Jacob & Moses were EUROPEANS?  I didn't know that.  Amazing what we can learn from the Palestinian supporters.
> 
> Israel is the land of Jewish forefathers Abraham, Issac & Jacob. The land where Moses led his people over 3000 years ago. The land of Solomon's Temple. The land where Jews have lived continuously for thousands of years surviving the fall of the Assyrian, Babylonian, Greek & Roman empires. That's who the Jews are & their rightful claim to the land. So once again, Who Are The Palestinians? And what are their claims to the land of Israel?
Click to expand...


Who said that those Fairy tale characters were European?  The Europeans that invaded Palestine were, by definition, Europeans. But if you need more evidence:

*Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European*

"The team found that four founders were responsible
	
 for 40 percent of Ashkenazi mitochondrial DNA, and that all of these founders originated in Europe. The majority of the remaining people could be traced toother European lineages.

All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."

Surprise Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Europeans have no right to the land.  The Palestinians are predominately descendants the people who have lived in Palestine since the time of the Caanites and before, well before the Jews arrived,  People who have adopted  various religions over time as was the most convenient or the required religion to avoid persecution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Abraham, Issac, Jacob & Moses were EUROPEANS?  I didn't know that.  Amazing what we can learn from the Palestinian supporters.
> 
> Israel is the land of Jewish forefathers Abraham, Issac & Jacob. The land where Moses led his people over 3000 years ago. The land of Solomon's Temple. The land where Jews have lived continuously for thousands of years surviving the fall of the Assyrian, Babylonian, Greek & Roman empires. That's who the Jews are & their rightful claim to the land. So once again, Who Are The Palestinians? And what are their claims to the land of Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said that those Fairy tale characters were European?  The Europeans that invaded Palestine were, by definition, Europeans. But if you need more evidence:
> 
> *Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European*
> 
> "The team found that four founders were responsible
> 
> for 40 percent of Ashkenazi mitochondrial DNA, and that all of these founders originated in Europe. The majority of the remaining people could be traced toother European lineages.
> 
> All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."
> 
> Surprise Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European
Click to expand...



Oh yes, I forgot.  Those "fairy tale characters" are from the Bible, the book of faity tales.  But how do we dispel the myth of the ancient Egyptian Merneptah Stele mentioning the land of Israel & its people.?   Were they Europeans?


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Europeans have no right to the land.  The Palestinians are predominately descendants the people who have lived in Palestine since the time of the Caanites and before, well before the Jews arrived,  People who have adopted  various religions over time as was the most convenient or the required religion to avoid persecution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Abraham, Issac, Jacob & Moses were EUROPEANS?  I didn't know that.  Amazing what we can learn from the Palestinian supporters.
> 
> Israel is the land of Jewish forefathers Abraham, Issac & Jacob. The land where Moses led his people over 3000 years ago. The land of Solomon's Temple. The land where Jews have lived continuously for thousands of years surviving the fall of the Assyrian, Babylonian, Greek & Roman empires. That's who the Jews are & their rightful claim to the land. So once again, Who Are The Palestinians? And what are their claims to the land of Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said that those Fairy tale characters were European?  The Europeans that invaded Palestine were, by definition, Europeans. But if you need more evidence:
> 
> *Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European*
> 
> "The team found that four founders were responsible
> 
> for 40 percent of Ashkenazi mitochondrial DNA, and that all of these founders originated in Europe. The majority of the remaining people could be traced toother European lineages.
> 
> All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."
> 
> Surprise Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes, I forgot.  Those "fairy tale characters" are from the Bible, the book of faity tales.  But how do we dispel the myth of the ancient Egyptian Merneptah Stele mentioning the land of Israel & its people.?   Were they Europeans?
Click to expand...


The Old Testament is a fairy tale to all but the Jews. We Christians have a different Bible.

Hebrews 8:6
But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Europeans have no right to the land.  The Palestinians are predominately descendants the people who have lived in Palestine since the time of the Caanites and before, well before the Jews arrived,  People who have adopted  various religions over time as was the most convenient or the required religion to avoid persecution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Abraham, Issac, Jacob & Moses were EUROPEANS?  I didn't know that.  Amazing what we can learn from the Palestinian supporters.
> 
> Israel is the land of Jewish forefathers Abraham, Issac & Jacob. The land where Moses led his people over 3000 years ago. The land of Solomon's Temple. The land where Jews have lived continuously for thousands of years surviving the fall of the Assyrian, Babylonian, Greek & Roman empires. That's who the Jews are & their rightful claim to the land. So once again, Who Are The Palestinians? And what are their claims to the land of Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said that those Fairy tale characters were European?  The Europeans that invaded Palestine were, by definition, Europeans. But if you need more evidence:
> 
> *Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European*
> 
> "The team found that four founders were responsible
> 
> for 40 percent of Ashkenazi mitochondrial DNA, and that all of these founders originated in Europe. The majority of the remaining people could be traced toother European lineages.
> 
> All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."
> 
> Surprise Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes, I forgot.  Those "fairy tale characters" are from the Bible, the book of faity tales.  But how do we dispel the myth of the ancient Egyptian Merneptah Stele mentioning the land of Israel & its people.?   Were they Europeans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Old Testament is a fairy tale to all but the Jews. We Christians have a different Bible.
> 
> Hebrews 8:6
> But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.
Click to expand...


LOL!  Oh now I get it.  Christians don't believe in the Old Testament.  Amazing what we can learn from Monte.  Please excuse me while I go tell my neighbors.


----------



## MrDVS1

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Europeans have no right to the land.  The Palestinians are predominately descendants the people who have lived in Palestine since the time of the Caanites and before, well before the Jews arrived,  People who have adopted  various religions over time as was the most convenient or the required religion to avoid persecution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Abraham, Issac, Jacob & Moses were EUROPEANS?  I didn't know that.  Amazing what we can learn from the Palestinian supporters.
> 
> Israel is the land of Jewish forefathers Abraham, Issac & Jacob. The land where Moses led his people over 3000 years ago. The land of Solomon's Temple. The land where Jews have lived continuously for thousands of years surviving the fall of the Assyrian, Babylonian, Greek & Roman empires. That's who the Jews are & their rightful claim to the land. So once again, Who Are The Palestinians? And what are their claims to the land of Israel?
Click to expand...

 You mean their rightful land that they murdered and stole to get, that rightful land?


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Europeans have no right to the land.  The Palestinians are predominately descendants the people who have lived in Palestine since the time of the Caanites and before, well before the Jews arrived,  People who have adopted  various religions over time as was the most convenient or the required religion to avoid persecution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Abraham, Issac, Jacob & Moses were EUROPEANS?  I didn't know that.  Amazing what we can learn from the Palestinian supporters.
> 
> Israel is the land of Jewish forefathers Abraham, Issac & Jacob. The land where Moses led his people over 3000 years ago. The land of Solomon's Temple. The land where Jews have lived continuously for thousands of years surviving the fall of the Assyrian, Babylonian, Greek & Roman empires. That's who the Jews are & their rightful claim to the land. So once again, Who Are The Palestinians? And what are their claims to the land of Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said that those Fairy tale characters were European?  The Europeans that invaded Palestine were, by definition, Europeans. But if you need more evidence:
> 
> *Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European*
> 
> "The team found that four founders were responsible
> 
> for 40 percent of Ashkenazi mitochondrial DNA, and that all of these founders originated in Europe. The majority of the remaining people could be traced toother European lineages.
> 
> All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."
> 
> Surprise Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European
Click to expand...


>>Ashkenazi genome comes from the Middle East, the researchers reported. This founding group “fused” with the European founding group to create a population of 250 to 420 individuals. These people lived 25 to 32 generations ago, and their descendants grew at a rate of 16% to 53% per generation, the researchers calculated.<<


----------



## montelatici

aris2chat said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Europeans have no right to the land.  The Palestinians are predominately descendants the people who have lived in Palestine since the time of the Caanites and before, well before the Jews arrived,  People who have adopted  various religions over time as was the most convenient or the required religion to avoid persecution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Abraham, Issac, Jacob & Moses were EUROPEANS?  I didn't know that.  Amazing what we can learn from the Palestinian supporters.
> 
> Israel is the land of Jewish forefathers Abraham, Issac & Jacob. The land where Moses led his people over 3000 years ago. The land of Solomon's Temple. The land where Jews have lived continuously for thousands of years surviving the fall of the Assyrian, Babylonian, Greek & Roman empires. That's who the Jews are & their rightful claim to the land. So once again, Who Are The Palestinians? And what are their claims to the land of Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said that those Fairy tale characters were European?  The Europeans that invaded Palestine were, by definition, Europeans. But if you need more evidence:
> 
> *Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European*
> 
> "The team found that four founders were responsible
> 
> for 40 percent of Ashkenazi mitochondrial DNA, and that all of these founders originated in Europe. The majority of the remaining people could be traced toother European lineages.
> 
> All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."
> 
> Surprise Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>Ashkenazi genome comes from the Middle East, the researchers reported. This founding group “fused” with the European founding group to create a population of 250 to 420 individuals. These people lived 25 to 32 generations ago, and their descendants grew at a rate of 16% to 53% per generation, the researchers calculated.<<
Click to expand...


"* Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European" 

*


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Europeans have no right to the land.  The Palestinians are predominately descendants the people who have lived in Palestine since the time of the Caanites and before, well before the Jews arrived,  People who have adopted  various religions over time as was the most convenient or the required religion to avoid persecution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Abraham, Issac, Jacob & Moses were EUROPEANS?  I didn't know that.  Amazing what we can learn from the Palestinian supporters.
> 
> Israel is the land of Jewish forefathers Abraham, Issac & Jacob. The land where Moses led his people over 3000 years ago. The land of Solomon's Temple. The land where Jews have lived continuously for thousands of years surviving the fall of the Assyrian, Babylonian, Greek & Roman empires. That's who the Jews are & their rightful claim to the land. So once again, Who Are The Palestinians? And what are their claims to the land of Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said that those Fairy tale characters were European?  The Europeans that invaded Palestine were, by definition, Europeans. But if you need more evidence:
> 
> *Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European*
> 
> "The team found that four founders were responsible
> 
> for 40 percent of Ashkenazi mitochondrial DNA, and that all of these founders originated in Europe. The majority of the remaining people could be traced toother European lineages.
> 
> All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."
> 
> Surprise Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>Ashkenazi genome comes from the Middle East, the researchers reported. This founding group “fused” with the European founding group to create a population of 250 to 420 individuals. These people lived 25 to 32 generations ago, and their descendants grew at a rate of 16% to 53% per generation, the researchers calculated.<<
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "* Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European"
> *
Click to expand...


You can keep telling yourself that.  They have some European blood but they majority of their genomes are middle eastern.
You cannot remove them from the rest of the jews or deny their jewish origins.  They are jews and saying they are european is not going to remove the "jews" from their blood.

Why do you try so hard to be so hateful of jews?  Did a jewish child step on you toes in the sand box?


----------



## montelatici

Stating fact is hateful?  There is nothing shameful about being European.  

The majority of Ashkenazi Jews are descended from prehistoric European women, according to study published today (October 8) in _Nature Communications_. .....The new findings contradict previous assertions that Ashkenazi mitochondrial lineages originated in the Near East, or from mass conversions to Judaism in the Khazar kingdom, an empire in the north Caucasus region between Europe and Asia lasting from the 7th century to the 11th century whose leaders adopted Judaism. “We found that most of the maternal lineages don’t trace to the north Caucasus, which would be a proxy for the Khazarians, or to the Near East, but most of them emanate from Europe,” 

http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...21/title/Genetic-Roots-of-the-Ashkenazi-Jews/


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> Stating fact is hateful?  There is nothing shameful about being European.
> 
> The majority of Ashkenazi Jews are descended from prehistoric European women, according to study published today (October 8) in _Nature Communications_. .....The new findings contradict previous assertions that Ashkenazi mitochondrial lineages originated in the Near East, or from mass conversions to Judaism in the Khazar kingdom, an empire in the north Caucasus region between Europe and Asia lasting from the 7th century to the 11th century whose leaders adopted Judaism. “We found that most of the maternal lineages don’t trace to the north Caucasus, which would be a proxy for the Khazarians, or to the Near East, but most of them emanate from Europe,”
> 
> http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...21/title/Genetic-Roots-of-the-Ashkenazi-Jews/



Try the September 2014 issue.


----------



## montelatici

Try accepting facts.  Most people in Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal have more Semitic DNA than the European Jews.


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> Try accepting facts.  Most people in Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal have more Semitic DNA than the European Jews.



since you are accepting facts from that source, you also should accept news evidence and facts from the same source.  A lot can change in a year in science.  You were looking only at part of the facts.  Seems you want to reject newer information from the same source.
..........and you want me to accept facts?  Or only the fact that you pick and choose to believe.


----------



## montelatici

The trouble is, the only facts you accept are those promulgated by Jews, which, of course, are politically motivated when it comes to DNA.  I look at results that are from neutral sources.


----------



## montelatici

"The result was very clear-cut, the authors say: As reported online today in _Nature Communications_, more than 80% of Ashkenazi mtDNAs had their origins thousands of years ago in Western Europe, during or before Biblical times—and in some cases even before farming came to that part of the continent some 7500 years ago. The closest matches were with mtDNAs from people who today live in and around Italy. The results imply that the Jews can trace their heritage to women who had lived in Europe at that time.* Very few Ashkenazi mtDNAs could be traced to the Middle East."

Did Modern Jews Originate in Italy Science AAAS News*


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> "The result was very clear-cut, the authors say: As reported online today in _Nature Communications_, more than 80% of Ashkenazi mtDNAs had their origins thousands of years ago in Western Europe, during or before Biblical times—and in some cases even before farming came to that part of the continent some 7500 years ago. The closest matches were with mtDNAs from people who today live in and around Italy. The results imply that the Jews can trace their heritage to women who had lived in Europe at that time.* Very few Ashkenazi mtDNAs could be traced to the Middle East."
> 
> Did Modern Jews Originate in Italy Science AAAS News*




2000 yrs ago was from the diaspora period moving iraq up and around the black and caspian seas area.  You are aware that Abraham came from Mittani as did his father.
Jews from the diaspora period got pushed by the Islamic empires as far as India and China.  Why are you surpised they would have been pushed to eastern Turkey and what would become southern Russia?
You can't take the jewish blood out of the jews so easily.
Silly Monty up to his old tricks again.


----------



## montelatici

Just posted a neutral survey where one of the researchers was Israeli.  You just can't accept the truth.


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> Just posted a neutral survey where one of the researchers was Israeli.  You just can't accept the truth.



It is from the same same 2013 science magazine you posted as a source before.  Mine reference from was just a few months ago.  Which is likely more relevant, an article the magazine published more than a year ago or within the last quarter?  Only that issue is right and this one wrong?  Not making the magazine a very authoritative source.  Even the Khazars as a source of the mix are a Turkic people who lived in the Caucasus.  Even Aryan DNA was indo-persian.  You can't take the middle east out of the jewish people, where ever they were pushed to.
How much polluted blood do you think are in the arabs and palestinians?  How many foreign infidels were sold at body slaves in the Islamic empires?  Probably as much or more foreign that pure arab.  Back in 1925, palestinians called themselves southern syrians, they did not identify as a separate race or nation.  Later they called themselves Jordanian.  Sometimes they choose to claim that descend from the philistines, but they were aegean people not semitic and came as invaders to Israel and Egypt.
Sorry you can't make the palestinians more native than the jews.  Be it history, three major religions or science you can't separate the jews from the land.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Just posted a neutral survey where one of the researchers was Israeli.  You just can't accept the truth.



Aw bless you Monte for wanting to deal with facts.  So here we go:

Delivered to UN Genral Assembly on November 24, 2014 by Ambassador Ron Prosor.


The State of Israel is the land of our forefathers – Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  It is the land where Moses led the Jewish people, where David built his palace, where Solomon built the Jewish Temple, and where Isaiah saw a vision of eternal peace. 

For thousands of years, Jews have lived continuously in the land of Israel.  We endured through the rise and fall of the Assyrian, Babylonian, Greek and Roman Empires.  And we endured through thousands of years of persecution, expulsions and crusades.  The bond between the Jewish people and the Jewish land is unbreakable.

Nothing can change one simple truth - Israel is our home and Jerusalem is our eternal capital. 
At the same time, we recognize that Jerusalem has special meaning for other faiths.  Under Israeli sovereignty, all people – and I will repeat that, all people - regardless of religion and nationality can visit the city’s holy sites.  And we intend to keep it this way.  The only ones trying to change the status quo on the Temple Mount are Palestinian leaders. 

President Abbas is telling his people that Jews are contaminating the Temple Mount.  He has called for days of rage and urged Palestinians to prevent Jews from visiting the Temple Mount using (quote) “all means” necessary.  These words are as irresponsible as they are unacceptable.


----------



## montelatici

So, why post a load of bullshit from a guy whose most distant ancestors originated in Italy?  As the DNA record shows.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> So, why post a load of bullshit from a guy whose most distant ancestors originated in Italy?  As the DNA record shows.




Great reply.  Just brilliant.  Yep, goes to prove Jews everywhere since ancient times are bonded together by DNA.


----------



## montelatici

No they are bonded to other Italians, who happen to be Roman Catholics for the most part.


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> No they are bonded to other Italians, who happen to be Roman Catholics for the most part.



Catholics have their own DNA??
Too funny


----------



## montelatici

Italians, who happen to be Catholics, have DNA similarities among themselves.  Too funny to debate a cretin.


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> Italians, who happen to be Catholics, have DNA similarities among themselves.  Too funny to debate a cretin.



Why specify them as catholics?


----------



## montelatici

Because they are mostly Catholic.  Although there are Italians of all religions, Jewish religion included.  But, if you meet an Italian Jew as I have, there is no way to tell he/she isn't an Italian Catholic unless they care to tell you.  That's why only small percentage (5%) of Italian Jews were deported and murdered by the Germans.


----------



## P F Tinmore

aris2chat said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Noor Daoud*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *She had the benefit of being born in Texas* and making the Olympic swim team.  Driving since she was 11.
> Far from your typical palestinian and not one to get involved in the hate and violence against Israel.  She loves life and racing too much.
> Do you think she could practice her love under Hamas?
> .............though most drivers in the middle east seem to disregard speed, lanes and traffic laws.  Driving can really be a free for all.  Once saw a man loose his arm sticking it out a car window.
> Driving like she does is gutsy in any country.  At lease she does it on a track with safety gear.
Click to expand...

So, you are saying that it is nurture not nature that molds Palestinians?

That taken out of the negative influence of occupation they can be quite normal or even exceptional people.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Noor Daoud*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *She had the benefit of being born in Texas* and making the Olympic swim team.  Driving since she was 11.
> Far from your typical palestinian and not one to get involved in the hate and violence against Israel.  She loves life and racing too much.
> Do you think she could practice her love under Hamas?
> .............though most drivers in the middle east seem to disregard speed, lanes and traffic laws.  Driving can really be a free for all.  Once saw a man loose his arm sticking it out a car window.
> Driving like she does is gutsy in any country.  At lease she does it on a track with safety gear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you are saying that it is nurture not nature that molds Palestinians?
> 
> That taken out of the negative influence of occupation they can be quite normal or even exceptional people.
Click to expand...

The negative influence is Hamas operative encouraging young Palestinians to join the Jihad and that becoming a martyr is the path they should choose in life.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Noor Daoud*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *She had the benefit of being born in Texas* and making the Olympic swim team.  Driving since she was 11.
> Far from your typical palestinian and not one to get involved in the hate and violence against Israel.  She loves life and racing too much.
> Do you think she could practice her love under Hamas?
> .............though most drivers in the middle east seem to disregard speed, lanes and traffic laws.  Driving can really be a free for all.  Once saw a man loose his arm sticking it out a car window.
> Driving like she does is gutsy in any country.  At lease she does it on a track with safety gear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you are saying that it is nurture not nature that molds Palestinians?
> 
> That taken out of the negative influence of occupation they can be quite normal or even exceptional people.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The negative influence is Hamas operative encouraging young Palestinians to join the Jihad and that becoming a martyr is the path they should choose in life.
Click to expand...

Who was Israel's boogyman before there was Hamas?


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Noor Daoud*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *She had the benefit of being born in Texas* and making the Olympic swim team.  Driving since she was 11.
> Far from your typical palestinian and not one to get involved in the hate and violence against Israel.  She loves life and racing too much.
> Do you think she could practice her love under Hamas?
> .............though most drivers in the middle east seem to disregard speed, lanes and traffic laws.  Driving can really be a free for all.  Once saw a man loose his arm sticking it out a car window.
> Driving like she does is gutsy in any country.  At lease she does it on a track with safety gear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you are saying that it is nurture not nature that molds Palestinians?
> 
> That taken out of the negative influence of occupation they can be quite normal or even exceptional people.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The negative influence is Hamas operative encouraging young Palestinians to join the Jihad and that becoming a martyr is the path they should choose in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who was Israel's boogyman before there was Hamas?
Click to expand...


I miss Arafat.  What a great leader he was.  Took his Palestinians from the toilet to the sewer, got them massacred over & over again by their own Arab brothers, embezzled their money & died of AIDS leaving the Palestinians living in ignorance & poverty with no hope for a Palestinian State.  Let us join together in wishing Hamas the greatest of success in filling Arafat's shoes.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Noor Daoud*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *She had the benefit of being born in Texas* and making the Olympic swim team.  Driving since she was 11.
> Far from your typical palestinian and not one to get involved in the hate and violence against Israel.  She loves life and racing too much.
> Do you think she could practice her love under Hamas?
> .............though most drivers in the middle east seem to disregard speed, lanes and traffic laws.  Driving can really be a free for all.  Once saw a man loose his arm sticking it out a car window.
> Driving like she does is gutsy in any country.  At lease she does it on a track with safety gear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you are saying that it is nurture not nature that molds Palestinians?
> 
> That taken out of the negative influence of occupation they can be quite normal or even exceptional people.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The negative influence is Hamas operative encouraging young Palestinians to join the Jihad and that becoming a martyr is the path they should choose in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who was Israel's boogyman before there was Hamas?
Click to expand...

Why do you insist on posting such incredibly stupid garbage ?


----------



## MJB12741

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Noor Daoud*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *She had the benefit of being born in Texas* and making the Olympic swim team.  Driving since she was 11.
> Far from your typical palestinian and not one to get involved in the hate and violence against Israel.  She loves life and racing too much.
> Do you think she could practice her love under Hamas?
> .............though most drivers in the middle east seem to disregard speed, lanes and traffic laws.  Driving can really be a free for all.  Once saw a man loose his arm sticking it out a car window.
> Driving like she does is gutsy in any country.  At lease she does it on a track with safety gear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you are saying that it is nurture not nature that molds Palestinians?
> 
> That taken out of the negative influence of occupation they can be quite normal or even exceptional people.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The negative influence is Hamas operative encouraging young Palestinians to join the Jihad and that becoming a martyr is the path they should choose in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who was Israel's boogyman before there was Hamas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you insist on posting such incredibly stupid garbage ?
Click to expand...


Just wishful thinking.  Gosh I wonder who these people are?  Maybe Tinmore can tell us.

http://www.theway.co.uk/images/features/palistine.jpg


----------



## P F Tinmore

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> have you read it, and seen how racists and anti-Semitic it is. And that it is but a proposal "A collection of various propsals and amendments to the Basic Law of Palestine "
> From your past links we get these
> 
> 50. Table 1 shows the foreign assets and liabilities as estimated
> for 1945. The net balance of foreign assets as shown in this table
> is divided between the communities in table la. The estimates
> have been compiled from analyses of Government accounts, bank
> records and commercial balance sheets.
> 51. Table 2, which has been compiled from the records of land
> taxation, shows the area of land held by Arabs (and other non-
> Jews) and by Jews. In table 2A the rural areas have been valued
> at pre-war prices based on the categorization of land for fiscal
> purposes carried out in 1935. These values, although based on
> values actually ruling pre-war, are completely arbitrary and have
> been designed to reflect the share of the two groups of the population
> rather than the aggregate value of the land. The estimate
> abstracts from the scarcity values which have in recent years
> operated to drive up land values to figures which in earlier years
> would have been considered fantastic.
> 
> 
> Now the missing tables that tell the true story
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 34341
> 
> *
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You better get back to your Christmas shopping on Ebay Phoney...
> 
> Taxation has NOTHING to do with land ownership!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does in certain parts of the world, mostly those run by Britain. You own property and you are liable to a tax on that property payable every year. The tax is now split into 7 bands and you pay according to the value of the property. Because Palestine was under British rule the same laws applies and so land and property was taxed on value, call it a tithe, so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid. This destroys the false claims by monti that the arab muslims owned the majority of Palestine as the tax records show the Jews paid the most in land taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Phoney, why do you do it to yourself all the time...
> 
> "so land and property was taxed on *value*"
> 
> Does not equate to...
> 
> "so the more land you *owned* the higher the tax you paid"
> 
> Can you see the difference?
> 
> Property is taxed on *LAND VALUE* not *LAND OWNED*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if I owned 100 acres and ali owned 10 acres I would pay the same tax as he would, or would I pay ten times more tax than him. Of course 100 acres is valued higher than 10 acres.
> 
> Do you understand this now, if the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land then the Jews would pay more tax. Which is what table 2 shows and is explained in the sectioned I posted that monti left out because it destroys his stance. Just as removing table 1 destroys his claims because it gives the true land ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are such an idiot it states plainly how much land each group owned.  A dunum is about 1,000 square meters
> 
> 26,670,455 Dunums Arabs
> 1,514,247  Dunums Jews
> 
> That is the true land ownership you cretin.
> 
> *Arabs owned more than 85% of the land in 1946, and Jews owned less than 7% of the land in 1946. * Get it through your thick skull.
> 
> The the other table has nothing to do with land ownership.
Click to expand...

Of course this discussion is meaningless. Sovereignty belongs to the citizens without regard to private property ownership. Somebody who rents a house in New Jersey has the same rights as a farm owner in Kentucky.

Jews owned land in Palestine but it was still Palestinian land. Jews own land in the US but it is still US land. It does not belong to any other country.

It is the people who have sovereignty. The citizens in a defined territory are the ones with the right to sovereignty. Governments or states only have sovereignty by extension of the will of the people.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does in certain parts of the world, mostly those run by Britain. You own property and you are liable to a tax on that property payable every year. The tax is now split into 7 bands and you pay according to the value of the property. Because Palestine was under British rule the same laws applies and so land and property was taxed on value, call it a tithe, so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid. This destroys the false claims by monti that the arab muslims owned the majority of Palestine as the tax records show the Jews paid the most in land taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Phoney, why do you do it to yourself all the time...
> 
> "so land and property was taxed on *value*"
> 
> Does not equate to...
> 
> "so the more land you *owned* the higher the tax you paid"
> 
> Can you see the difference?
> 
> Property is taxed on *LAND VALUE* not *LAND OWNED*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if I owned 100 acres and ali owned 10 acres I would pay the same tax as he would, or would I pay ten times more tax than him. Of course 100 acres is valued higher than 10 acres.
> 
> Do you understand this now, if the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land then the Jews would pay more tax. Which is what table 2 shows and is explained in the sectioned I posted that monti left out because it destroys his stance. Just as removing table 1 destroys his claims because it gives the true land ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are such an idiot it states plainly how much land each group owned.  A dunum is about 1,000 square meters
> 
> 26,670,455 Dunums Arabs
> 1,514,247  Dunums Jews
> 
> That is the true land ownership you cretin.
> 
> *Arabs owned more than 85% of the land in 1946, and Jews owned less than 7% of the land in 1946. * Get it through your thick skull.
> 
> The the other table has nothing to do with land ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the dumbass as it clearly states arabs and other non-jews. Which means the absentee Turkish landlords who owned the land are counted. So table 1 is correct in its report 4.8% owned by Jews 0.8% owned by arabs.
> 
> Told you once I got the link I WOULD DESTROY YOUR CHERRY PICKING OF FACTS AND PRODUCE THE TRUTH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Table 1, says nothing about land ownership.  Other non-Jews are the Samaritans, Greeks and Latins that are included in the population surveys, including Christian Church owned lands.
> 
> Nice try, moron.
Click to expand...





 From your link that shows who is the real moron


51. Table 2, which has been compiled from the records of land
taxation, *shows the area of land held by Arabs (and other non-

Jews)* and by Jews. In table 2A the rural areas have been valued
at pre-war prices based on the categorization of land for fiscal
purposes carried out in 1935. These values, although based on
values actually ruling pre-war, are completely arbitrary and have
been designed to reflect the share of the two groups of the population
rather than the aggregate value of the land. The estimate
abstracts from the scarcity values which have in recent years
operated to drive up land values to figures which in earlier years
would have been considered fantastic.


 NOT OWNED just held as in leased or rented from Ottoman landlords. And the results are based on the taxes raised on the land.


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does in certain parts of the world, mostly those run by Britain. You own property and you are liable to a tax on that property payable every year. The tax is now split into 7 bands and you pay according to the value of the property. Because Palestine was under British rule the same laws applies and so land and property was taxed on value, call it a tithe, so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid. This destroys the false claims by monti that the arab muslims owned the majority of Palestine as the tax records show the Jews paid the most in land taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Phoney, why do you do it to yourself all the time...
> 
> "so land and property was taxed on *value*"
> 
> Does not equate to...
> 
> "so the more land you *owned* the higher the tax you paid"
> 
> Can you see the difference?
> 
> Property is taxed on *LAND VALUE* not *LAND OWNED*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if I owned 100 acres and ali owned 10 acres I would pay the same tax as he would, or would I pay ten times more tax than him. Of course 100 acres is valued higher than 10 acres.
> 
> Do you understand this now, if the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land then the Jews would pay more tax. Which is what table 2 shows and is explained in the sectioned I posted that monti left out because it destroys his stance. Just as removing table 1 destroys his claims because it gives the true land ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are such an idiot it states plainly how much land each group owned.  A dunum is about 1,000 square meters
> 
> 26,670,455 Dunums Arabs
> 1,514,247  Dunums Jews
> 
> That is the true land ownership you cretin.
> 
> *Arabs owned more than 85% of the land in 1946, and Jews owned less than 7% of the land in 1946. * Get it through your thick skull.
> 
> The the other table has nothing to do with land ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the dumbass as it clearly states arabs and other non-jews. Which means the absentee Turkish landlords who owned the land are counted. So table 1 is correct in its report 4.8% owned by Jews 0.8% owned by arabs.
> 
> Told you once I got the link I WOULD DESTROY YOUR CHERRY PICKING OF FACTS AND PRODUCE THE TRUTH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are wrong YET AGAIN...............Goodness reading your posts..... are #@&%^$#*&!($) = Shit
Click to expand...




 Whats wrong don't like seeing your world fall down around your ears when your own links are used against you. The preamble tells the full story how the Ottomans are the biggest land owners until the mandate ceases to exist and the title is then transferred


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> You better get back to your Christmas shopping on Ebay Phoney...
> 
> Taxation has NOTHING to do with land ownership!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does in certain parts of the world, mostly those run by Britain. You own property and you are liable to a tax on that property payable every year. The tax is now split into 7 bands and you pay according to the value of the property. Because Palestine was under British rule the same laws applies and so land and property was taxed on value, call it a tithe, so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid. This destroys the false claims by monti that the arab muslims owned the majority of Palestine as the tax records show the Jews paid the most in land taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Phoney, why do you do it to yourself all the time...
> 
> "so land and property was taxed on *value*"
> 
> Does not equate to...
> 
> "so the more land you *owned* the higher the tax you paid"
> 
> Can you see the difference?
> 
> Property is taxed on *LAND VALUE* not *LAND OWNED*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if I owned 100 acres and ali owned 10 acres I would pay the same tax as he would, or would I pay ten times more tax than him. Of course 100 acres is valued higher than 10 acres.
> 
> Do you understand this now, if the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land then the Jews would pay more tax. Which is what table 2 shows and is explained in the sectioned I posted that monti left out because it destroys his stance. Just as removing table 1 destroys his claims because it gives the true land ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are such an idiot it states plainly how much land each group owned.  A dunum is about 1,000 square meters
> 
> 26,670,455 Dunums Arabs
> 1,514,247  Dunums Jews
> 
> That is the true land ownership you cretin.
> 
> *Arabs owned more than 85% of the land in 1946, and Jews owned less than 7% of the land in 1946. * Get it through your thick skull.
> 
> The the other table has nothing to do with land ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course this discussion is meaningless. Sovereignty belongs to the citizens without regard to private property ownership. Somebody who rents a house in New Jersey has the same rights as a farm owner in Kentucky.
> 
> Jews owned land in Palestine but it was still Palestinian land. Jews own land in the US but it is still US land. It does not belong to any other country.
> 
> It is the people who have sovereignty. The citizens in a defined territory are the ones with the right to sovereignty. Governments or states only have sovereignty by extension of the will of the people.
Click to expand...




 So the LoN treaty that gave the land to the Jews means the arab muslims have no rights there, nice of you to explain that.


----------



## RoccoR

_et al,_

Land ownership had nothing to do with national sovereignty; it is merely one of many considerations.

The League of Nations did not give the land to the Jewish Agency.  Israel was created under the self-determination; pursuant to the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" outlined by the UN.

v/r
R


----------



## MJB12741

The reestablishment of Israel was done both legally & morally by a vote of the member nations of the UN at that time whereas all Muslim lands are stolen lands conquered by force over the native populations.


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> You better get back to your Christmas shopping on Ebay Phoney...
> 
> Taxation has NOTHING to do with land ownership!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does in certain parts of the world, mostly those run by Britain. You own property and you are liable to a tax on that property payable every year. The tax is now split into 7 bands and you pay according to the value of the property. Because Palestine was under British rule the same laws applies and so land and property was taxed on value, call it a tithe, so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid. This destroys the false claims by monti that the arab muslims owned the majority of Palestine as the tax records show the Jews paid the most in land taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Phoney, why do you do it to yourself all the time...
> 
> "so land and property was taxed on *value*"
> 
> Does not equate to...
> 
> "so the more land you *owned* the higher the tax you paid"
> 
> Can you see the difference?
> 
> Property is taxed on *LAND VALUE* not *LAND OWNED*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if I owned 100 acres and ali owned 10 acres I would pay the same tax as he would, or would I pay ten times more tax than him. Of course 100 acres is valued higher than 10 acres.
> 
> Do you understand this now, if the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land then the Jews would pay more tax. Which is what table 2 shows and is explained in the sectioned I posted that monti left out because it destroys his stance. Just as removing table 1 destroys his claims because it gives the true land ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are such an idiot it states plainly how much land each group owned.  A dunum is about 1,000 square meters
> 
> 26,670,455 Dunums Arabs
> 1,514,247  Dunums Jews
> 
> That is the true land ownership you cretin.
> 
> *Arabs owned more than 85% of the land in 1946, and Jews owned less than 7% of the land in 1946. * Get it through your thick skull.
> 
> The the other table has nothing to do with land ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course this discussion is meaningless. Sovereignty belongs to the citizens without regard to private property ownership. Somebody who rents a house in New Jersey has the same rights as a farm owner in Kentucky.
> 
> Jews owned land in Palestine but it was still Palestinian land. Jews own land in the US but it is still US land. It does not belong to any other country.
> 
> It is the people who have sovereignty. The citizens in a defined territory are the ones with the right to sovereignty. Governments or states only have sovereignty by extension of the will of the people.
Click to expand...


"Palestine" is just a name of the mandate region.  When the mandate ended the government of Eretz Israel choose to name their state Israel.  There was no state of palestine so why should they have kept the name.  They wanted their jewish state to reflect their history and ties to the land.
They had the right to call it what they wanted.
It was a distinction from the state offered and refused by the UN partition plan.  At the time most palestinian arabs/muslims identified themselves as southern syrians, jordanian or just as arab.  They were a mix of tribes and people and at the time the mandate ended close to half were immigrants that came seeking well paying work what had no real ties to the land or country.
If Israel had kept the name of palestine, what should the rest of the other land have called itself?  Palestine II?
With the creation of Israel, the "land" was no longer palestine but now Israel.
Sovereignty and rights come from statehood which the palestinians never had or left because they did not want to accept either Israel or partition.
Israel could have called itself Mecca or Rome or Jewland or XYZland but it choose Israel.  Palestinian refugees, gaza, WB , wherever don't have the right to tell Israel what it should be called.  They don't want to be Israeli?  They leave.  Most stayed and are content as Israelis.  They don't want to leave or change names.
Israel was identified by the mandate as a jewish homeland and Israel identifies as a jewish state.  Israel was a logical choice for a name and the land is Israeli land and the people are Israeli.
Time you accept that.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> You better get back to your Christmas shopping on Ebay Phoney...
> 
> Taxation has NOTHING to do with land ownership!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does in certain parts of the world, mostly those run by Britain. You own property and you are liable to a tax on that property payable every year. The tax is now split into 7 bands and you pay according to the value of the property. Because Palestine was under British rule the same laws applies and so land and property was taxed on value, call it a tithe, so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid. This destroys the false claims by monti that the arab muslims owned the majority of Palestine as the tax records show the Jews paid the most in land taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Phoney, why do you do it to yourself all the time...
> 
> "so land and property was taxed on *value*"
> 
> Does not equate to...
> 
> "so the more land you *owned* the higher the tax you paid"
> 
> Can you see the difference?
> 
> Property is taxed on *LAND VALUE* not *LAND OWNED*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if I owned 100 acres and ali owned 10 acres I would pay the same tax as he would, or would I pay ten times more tax than him. Of course 100 acres is valued higher than 10 acres.
> 
> Do you understand this now, if the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land then the Jews would pay more tax. Which is what table 2 shows and is explained in the sectioned I posted that monti left out because it destroys his stance. Just as removing table 1 destroys his claims because it gives the true land ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are such an idiot it states plainly how much land each group owned.  A dunum is about 1,000 square meters
> 
> 26,670,455 Dunums Arabs
> 1,514,247  Dunums Jews
> 
> That is the true land ownership you cretin.
> 
> *Arabs owned more than 85% of the land in 1946, and Jews owned less than 7% of the land in 1946. * Get it through your thick skull.
> 
> The the other table has nothing to do with land ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course this discussion is meaningless. Sovereignty belongs to the citizens without regard to private property ownership. Somebody who rents a house in New Jersey has the same rights as a farm owner in Kentucky.
> 
> Jews owned land in Palestine but it was still Palestinian land. Jews own land in the US but it is still US land. It does not belong to any other country.
> 
> It is the people who have sovereignty. The citizens in a defined territory are the ones with the right to sovereignty. Governments or states only have sovereignty by extension of the will of the people.
Click to expand...


And the Palestinians never had sovereignty over the land now called Israel


----------



## Mindful

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As long as Phoney keeps denying what it states in plain language I will continue presenting it to him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as long as you refuse to post the details in full I will keep pointing out your LIES and PROPAGANDA with the truth from your own links. Now according to the explanation in your link what does table one show, and then what does table 2 show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea what other table you are talking about, there are tables depicting foreign investment, financial assets held,  population and other many things.
> 
> There is only one table that depicts land ownership. It is the one below:
> 
> View attachment 34378
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, this survey shows that, in 1943, the majority of the land was in Arab hands.
> 
> So what?
> 
> A survey of that same land today will tell a different story - much of it is no longer in Arab hands.
> 
> And not likely to *BE* in Arab hands, at any point, in the foreseeable future.
> 
> Next slide, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it doesn't that is just monti manipulating the report, in actual fact it shows that 85% was owned by Ottomans 0.8% by arab muslims and 4.8% by Jews. From 1948 that was moot anyway as the land ownership went to the Jews in the case of Israel and any arab muslim lost the land ownership they had. The Palestinians failing to make their move also lost all land ownership they had in gaza and the west bank, and now have to fight to get anything back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is just utter Garbage,Jewish Garbage at its best though
Click to expand...


What's the difference between Jewish garbage and anyone else's garbage?


----------



## Mindful

aris2chat said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does in certain parts of the world, mostly those run by Britain. You own property and you are liable to a tax on that property payable every year. The tax is now split into 7 bands and you pay according to the value of the property. Because Palestine was under British rule the same laws applies and so land and property was taxed on value, call it a tithe, so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid. This destroys the false claims by monti that the arab muslims owned the majority of Palestine as the tax records show the Jews paid the most in land taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Phoney, why do you do it to yourself all the time...
> 
> "so land and property was taxed on *value*"
> 
> Does not equate to...
> 
> "so the more land you *owned* the higher the tax you paid"
> 
> Can you see the difference?
> 
> Property is taxed on *LAND VALUE* not *LAND OWNED*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if I owned 100 acres and ali owned 10 acres I would pay the same tax as he would, or would I pay ten times more tax than him. Of course 100 acres is valued higher than 10 acres.
> 
> Do you understand this now, if the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land then the Jews would pay more tax. Which is what table 2 shows and is explained in the sectioned I posted that monti left out because it destroys his stance. Just as removing table 1 destroys his claims because it gives the true land ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are such an idiot it states plainly how much land each group owned.  A dunum is about 1,000 square meters
> 
> 26,670,455 Dunums Arabs
> 1,514,247  Dunums Jews
> 
> That is the true land ownership you cretin.
> 
> *Arabs owned more than 85% of the land in 1946, and Jews owned less than 7% of the land in 1946. * Get it through your thick skull.
> 
> The the other table has nothing to do with land ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course this discussion is meaningless. Sovereignty belongs to the citizens without regard to private property ownership. Somebody who rents a house in New Jersey has the same rights as a farm owner in Kentucky.
> 
> Jews owned land in Palestine but it was still Palestinian land. Jews own land in the US but it is still US land. It does not belong to any other country.
> 
> It is the people who have sovereignty. The citizens in a defined territory are the ones with the right to sovereignty. Governments or states only have sovereignty by extension of the will of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Palestine" is just a name of the mandate region.  When the mandate ended the government of Eretz Israel choose to name their state Israel.  There was no state of palestine so why should they have kept the name.  They wanted their jewish state to reflect their history and ties to the land.
> They had the right to call it what they wanted.
> It was a distinction from the state offered and refused by the UN partition plan.  At the time most palestinian arabs/muslims identified themselves as southern syrians, jordanian or just as arab.  They were a mix of tribes and people and at the time the mandate ended close to half were immigrants that came seeking well paying work what had no real ties to the land or country.
> If Israel had kept the name of palestine, what should the rest of the other land have called itself?  Palestine II?
> With the creation of Israel, the "land" was no longer palestine but now Israel.
> Sovereignty and rights come from statehood which the palestinians never had or left because they did not want to accept either Israel or partition.
> Israel could have called itself Mecca or Rome or Jewland or XYZland but it choose Israel.  Palestinian refugees, gaza, WB , wherever don't have the right to tell Israel what it should be called.  They don't want to be Israeli?  They leave.  Most stayed and are content as Israelis.  They don't want to leave or change names.
> Israel was identified by the mandate as a jewish homeland and Israel identifies as a jewish state.  Israel was a logical choice for a name and the land is Israeli land and the people are Israeli.
> Time you accept that.
Click to expand...



You are correct. Palestine was merely a geo-political term to depict a particular region.


----------



## Mindful

Just who the modern Palestinians are is a matter of conjecture. Palestinian Arabs claim various lines of descentsome of which seem more legend than fact. The Nusseibeh family claim to have descened from the Arab invaders under Omar (about 640). The Dajani claim descent from an Arabian knight, The Husseini family seem to be associated wuth with Ottoman invaders (1510s). The Nashashibi family are apparently descended from Bowmen of Salah Eddin. Izzedin Al Qassam, the Palestinian national hero, was born in Syria.


Histclo.com


----------



## MJB12741

Mindful said:


> Just who the modern Palestinians are is a matter of conjecture. Palestinian Arabs claim various lines of descentsome of which seem more legend than fact. The Nusseibeh family claim to have descened from the Arab invaders under Omar (about 640). The Dajani claim descent from an Arabian knight, The Husseini family seem to be associated wuth with Ottoman invaders (1510s). The Nashashibi family are apparently descended from Bowmen of Salah Eddin. Izzedin Al Qassam, the Palestinian national hero, was born in Syria.
> 
> 
> Histclo.com



Palestinians never stop trying to find some root of their being.  First they were the descendents of the Assyrians.  Then the Akkadians. Then the Philistines. Then the Canaanites & who knows whats next?  Sure glad they never had the good sense to claim they are the descendents of the Lost Tribes of Israel to doom Israel.


----------



## montelatici

aris2chat said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does in certain parts of the world, mostly those run by Britain. You own property and you are liable to a tax on that property payable every year. The tax is now split into 7 bands and you pay according to the value of the property. Because Palestine was under British rule the same laws applies and so land and property was taxed on value, call it a tithe, so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid. This destroys the false claims by monti that the arab muslims owned the majority of Palestine as the tax records show the Jews paid the most in land taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Phoney, why do you do it to yourself all the time...
> 
> "so land and property was taxed on *value*"
> 
> Does not equate to...
> 
> "so the more land you *owned* the higher the tax you paid"
> 
> Can you see the difference?
> 
> Property is taxed on *LAND VALUE* not *LAND OWNED*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if I owned 100 acres and ali owned 10 acres I would pay the same tax as he would, or would I pay ten times more tax than him. Of course 100 acres is valued higher than 10 acres.
> 
> Do you understand this now, if the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land then the Jews would pay more tax. Which is what table 2 shows and is explained in the sectioned I posted that monti left out because it destroys his stance. Just as removing table 1 destroys his claims because it gives the true land ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are such an idiot it states plainly how much land each group owned.  A dunum is about 1,000 square meters
> 
> 26,670,455 Dunums Arabs
> 1,514,247  Dunums Jews
> 
> That is the true land ownership you cretin.
> 
> *Arabs owned more than 85% of the land in 1946, and Jews owned less than 7% of the land in 1946. * Get it through your thick skull.
> 
> The the other table has nothing to do with land ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course this discussion is meaningless. Sovereignty belongs to the citizens without regard to private property ownership. Somebody who rents a house in New Jersey has the same rights as a farm owner in Kentucky.
> 
> Jews owned land in Palestine but it was still Palestinian land. Jews own land in the US but it is still US land. It does not belong to any other country.
> 
> It is the people who have sovereignty. The citizens in a defined territory are the ones with the right to sovereignty. Governments or states only have sovereignty by extension of the will of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Palestine" is just a name of the mandate region.  When the mandate ended the government of Eretz Israel choose to name their state Israel.  There was no state of palestine so why should they have kept the name.  They wanted their jewish state to reflect their history and ties to the land.
> They had the right to call it what they wanted.
> It was a distinction from the state offered and refused by the UN partition plan.  At the time most palestinian arabs/muslims identified themselves as southern syrians, jordanian or just as arab.  They were a mix of tribes and people and at the time the mandate ended close to half were immigrants that came seeking well paying work what had no real ties to the land or country.
> If Israel had kept the name of palestine, what should the rest of the other land have called itself?  Palestine II?
> With the creation of Israel, the "land" was no longer palestine but now Israel.
> Sovereignty and rights come from statehood which the palestinians never had or left because they did not want to accept either Israel or partition.
> Israel could have called itself Mecca or Rome or Jewland or XYZland but it choose Israel.  Palestinian refugees, gaza, WB , wherever don't have the right to tell Israel what it should be called.  They don't want to be Israeli?  They leave.  Most stayed and are content as Israelis.  They don't want to leave or change names.
> Israel was identified by the mandate as a jewish homeland and Israel identifies as a jewish state.  Israel was a logical choice for a name and the land is Israeli land and the people are Israeli.
> Time you accept that.
Click to expand...


Here are just a few of the lies from Aris.

The Palestinians already considered themselves Palestinians when the Mandate was established.  The Christians and Muslims sent a Palestinian delegation to London at the outset of the Mandate (1922)  to defend their rights.  In letters to the British they called themselves the People of Palestine as per below:
_
"If to-day *the People of Palestine *assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration. - See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922 _

The Christians and Muslims rejected being forced to be ruled by Jews in their own home from the outset of the Mandate.

At the end of the Mandate, almost all the immigrants in Palestine were Jews. 

From the 1946 UN Survey of Palestine available for download from Berman Jewish Policy Archive of NYU and Wagner University. Home Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner

To be precise, of the 414,456 immigrants that entered Palestine between 1920 and 1946, 376,415 were Jews and only 38,041 were non-Jews.  As reported in the UN's final survey of Palestine below.




 



Most of the Muslims and Christians that were living in what is now Israel were expelled.  Of the approximately 750,00  Christians and Muslims that were in Israel's present day borders, only 150,000 were not expelled.  As per UN Report A/1905 of 28 September 1951.

_"14. About 150 000 of the Arab population of Palestine stayed in Israel and of these some were "refugees" in that their homes were destroyed and their means of livelihood gone. They were thus temporarily as much dependent on relief as those who had left the country, and when the United Nations took over the relief of refugees it was agreed with the Israel Government that a certain number of both Jews and Arabs in this position should be given assistance."

A 1905 of 28 September 1951_


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Phoney, why do you do it to yourself all the time...
> 
> "so land and property was taxed on *value*"
> 
> Does not equate to...
> 
> "so the more land you *owned* the higher the tax you paid"
> 
> Can you see the difference?
> 
> Property is taxed on *LAND VALUE* not *LAND OWNED*!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if I owned 100 acres and ali owned 10 acres I would pay the same tax as he would, or would I pay ten times more tax than him. Of course 100 acres is valued higher than 10 acres.
> 
> Do you understand this now, if the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land then the Jews would pay more tax. Which is what table 2 shows and is explained in the sectioned I posted that monti left out because it destroys his stance. Just as removing table 1 destroys his claims because it gives the true land ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are such an idiot it states plainly how much land each group owned.  A dunum is about 1,000 square meters
> 
> 26,670,455 Dunums Arabs
> 1,514,247  Dunums Jews
> 
> That is the true land ownership you cretin.
> 
> *Arabs owned more than 85% of the land in 1946, and Jews owned less than 7% of the land in 1946. * Get it through your thick skull.
> 
> The the other table has nothing to do with land ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the dumbass as it clearly states arabs and other non-jews. Which means the absentee Turkish landlords who owned the land are counted. So table 1 is correct in its report 4.8% owned by Jews 0.8% owned by arabs.
> 
> Told you once I got the link I WOULD DESTROY YOUR CHERRY PICKING OF FACTS AND PRODUCE THE TRUTH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Table 1, says nothing about land ownership.  Other non-Jews are the Samaritans, Greeks and Latins that are included in the population surveys, including Christian Church owned lands.
> 
> Nice try, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your link that shows who is the real moron
> 
> 
> 51. Table 2, which has been compiled from the records of land
> taxation, *shows the area of land held by Arabs (and other non-
> 
> Jews)* and by Jews. In table 2A the rural areas have been valued
> at pre-war prices based on the categorization of land for fiscal
> purposes carried out in 1935. These values, although based on
> values actually ruling pre-war, are completely arbitrary and have
> been designed to reflect the share of the two groups of the population
> rather than the aggregate value of the land. The estimate
> abstracts from the scarcity values which have in recent years
> operated to drive up land values to figures which in earlier years
> would have been considered fantastic.
> 
> 
> NOT OWNED just held as in leased or rented from Ottoman landlords. And the results are based on the taxes raised on the land.
Click to expand...


No, it states clearly how many dunams were owned by the Jews and how many dunams were owned by the Arabs, the Christian churches, Samaritans, Greeks and Levantines (those of European descent)  Jews owned less than 7%, the Arabs and other non-Jews more than 85%.

The data is included in the UN's Survey of Palestine published in 1946 and downloadable from the Berman Jewish Policy Archive of NYU and Wagner Universities.  Home Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner

 The population table is in Volume 2. page 566.


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> _et al,_
> 
> Land ownership had nothing to do with national sovereignty; it is merely one of many considerations.
> 
> The League of Nations did not give the land to the Jewish Agency.  Israel was created under the self-determination; pursuant to the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" outlined by the UN.
> 
> v/r
> R



No, but clearly demonstrates that the Jews acquired land from the Christians and Muslims who owned 85% of it by a war of conquest.


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> _et al,_
> 
> Land ownership had nothing to do with national sovereignty; it is merely one of many considerations.
> 
> The League of Nations did not give the land to the Jewish Agency.  Israel was created under the self-determination; pursuant to the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" outlined by the UN.
> 
> v/r
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but clearly demonstrates that the Jews acquired land from the Christians and Muslims who owned 85% of it by a war of conquest.
Click to expand...


The Ottoman land classification and ownership, which the mandate worked from has been explained several times already and well documented studies on legal and illegal immigration during the mandate have been posted.
You still cling to your page 566 like it was the holy grail, but it is far from it.
You need to find a new song.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

You are attempting to mix apples with oranges.



montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> _et al,_
> 
> Land ownership had nothing to do with national sovereignty; it is merely one of many considerations.
> 
> The League of Nations did not give the land to the Jewish Agency.  Israel was created under the self-determination; pursuant to the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" outlined by the UN.
> 
> v/r
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but clearly demonstrates that the Jews acquired land from the Christians and Muslims who owned 85% of it by a war of conquest.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Land acquisition is a civil law real-estate term.  it has noting to do with the "right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order;" or the establishment of a self-governing institution under the guidance of the international body of common law. _[(1) territory; (2) population; (3) government.] _

The act of Aggression was the unsuccessful use of armed force by a local regional Arab States against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State _(the newly created State of Israel)_; which was demonstrated in 1948 when the combined armies of the local regional Arab States attempted to undermine the Jewish implementation of UN guided Israeli Independence effort --- by military force _(a coordinated attack by the local regional Arab States on the newly created State of Israel)_.  Remembering of course that the Arab States had no authority _(legally, morally or otherwise)_ to attempt such a military effort.  And remembering that it is the duty of local regional Arab States not to use armed force to deprive people _(the UN recognized Jewish Agency)_ of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence, or to disrupt territorial integrity, sanctioned by the greater body of common law makers _(the UN General Assembly)_.  

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is a re-eruption of the Civil War for Independence that started in 1947 when the General Assembly Resolution 181(II) was passed and included the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" for the creation of both an Arab and Jewish State.  That is NOT the same thing as the acquisition of territory through the use of military force or by military conquest.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

aris2chat said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> _et al,_
> 
> Land ownership had nothing to do with national sovereignty; it is merely one of many considerations.
> 
> The League of Nations did not give the land to the Jewish Agency.  Israel was created under the self-determination; pursuant to the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" outlined by the UN.
> 
> v/r
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but clearly demonstrates that the Jews acquired land from the Christians and Muslims who owned 85% of it by a war of conquest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Ottoman land classification and ownership, which the mandate worked from has been explained several times already and well documented studies on legal and illegal immigration during the mandate have been posted.
> You still cling to your page 566 like it was the holy grail, but it is far from it.
> You need to find a new song.
Click to expand...


No page 566 shows the facts regarding land ownership.  Page 563 indicates who the "others"  are,  the Christians: Christian Churches and what were called Levantines, those of European descent mainly descendants  Italians, French, Greeks who were not Arabs.  Having ties to Europe, they got the hell out.

From page 563, Vol 2 Survey of Palestine:

"The estimates presented below must therefore be regarded only as 
rough approximations. They are presented in the form of a series 
of tables in which the main categories of capital are enumerated and 
the shares of Jews, Arabs and Others are indicated. In many 
cases it has been possible to distinguish the share of Jews only 
while Arabs and all other classes of owners are lumped together. 
In the main, owners who are neither Arab nor Jewish consist of 
non-Arab Christians....."

Immigration is also depicted, and it includes illegal immigration.


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> You are attempting to mix apples with oranges.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> _et al,_
> 
> Land ownership had nothing to do with national sovereignty; it is merely one of many considerations.
> 
> The League of Nations did not give the land to the Jewish Agency.  Israel was created under the self-determination; pursuant to the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" outlined by the UN.
> 
> v/r
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but clearly demonstrates that the Jews acquired land from the Christians and Muslims who owned 85% of it by a war of conquest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Land acquisition is a civil law real-estate term.  it has noting to do with the "right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order;" or the establishment of a self-governing institution under the guidance of the international body of common law. _[(1) territory; (2) population; (3) government.] _
> 
> The act of Aggression was the unsuccessful use of armed force by a local regional Arab States against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State _(the newly created State of Israel)_; which was demonstrated in 1948 when the combined armies of the local regional Arab States attempted to undermine the Jewish implementation of UN guided Israeli Independence effort --- by military force _(a coordinated attack by the local regional Arab States on the newly created State of Israel)_.  Remembering of course that the Arab States had no authority _(legally, morally or otherwise)_ to attempt such a military effort.  And remembering that it is the duty of local regional Arab States not to use armed force to deprive people _(the UN recognized Jewish Agency)_ of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence, or to disrupt territorial integrity, sanctioned by the greater body of common law makers _(the UN General Assembly)_.
> 
> The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is a re-eruption of the Civil War for Independence that started in 1947 when the General Assembly Resolution 181(II) was passed and included the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" for the creation of both an Arab and Jewish State.  That is NOT the same thing as the acquisition of territory through the use of military force or by military conquest.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


The act of aggression was the implementation of Plan Dalet by the Jew invader designed to expel the Christians and Muslims that remained in the area illegally assigned to the Europeans.  The Jews had no right to deprive the Christians and Muslims living in the Jew area of the partition of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence.  The Arab states had every right to attempt to stop the killing and ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims and to prevent the Europeans from acquiring territory through conquest.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> You are attempting to mix apples with oranges.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> _et al,_
> 
> Land ownership had nothing to do with national sovereignty; it is merely one of many considerations.
> 
> The League of Nations did not give the land to the Jewish Agency.  Israel was created under the self-determination; pursuant to the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" outlined by the UN.
> 
> v/r
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but clearly demonstrates that the Jews acquired land from the Christians and Muslims who owned 85% of it by a war of conquest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Land acquisition is a civil law real-estate term.  it has noting to do with the "right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order;" or the establishment of a self-governing institution under the guidance of the international body of common law. _[(1) territory; (2) population; (3) government.] _
> 
> The act of Aggression was the unsuccessful use of armed force by a local regional Arab States against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State _(the newly created State of Israel)_; which was demonstrated in 1948 when the combined armies of the local regional Arab States attempted to undermine the Jewish implementation of UN guided Israeli Independence effort --- by military force _(a coordinated attack by the local regional Arab States on the newly created State of Israel)_.  Remembering of course that the Arab States had no authority _(legally, morally or otherwise)_ to attempt such a military effort.  And remembering that it is the duty of local regional Arab States not to use armed force to deprive people _(the UN recognized Jewish Agency)_ of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence, or to disrupt territorial integrity, sanctioned by the greater body of common law makers _(the UN General Assembly)_.
> 
> The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is a re-eruption of the Civil War for Independence that started in 1947 when the General Assembly Resolution 181(II) was passed and included the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" for the creation of both an Arab and Jewish State.  That is NOT the same thing as the acquisition of territory through the use of military force or by military conquest.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The act of aggression was the implementation of Plan Dalet by the Jew invader designed to expel the Christians and Muslims that remained in the area illegally assigned to the Europeans.  The Jews had no right to deprive the Christians and Muslims living in the Jew area of the partition of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence.  The Arab states had every right to attempt to stop the killing and ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims and to prevent the Europeans from acquiring territory through conquest.
Click to expand...


How do ya like that?  The Arabs had every right to stop the killing & ethnic cleasing of Christians by Israel.  And here I actually believed Israel is the only country in the entire Middle East that  has citizens of virtually all living faiths with their houses of worship protected by the Israeli government.  Amazing what we can learn here from the Pali supporters..


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  _et al,_

This is a false interpretation taken outside the timeline of real events.  It is written in the language of the pro-Palestinian opposed to the establishment of the Jewish National Home.



montelatici said:


> The act of aggression was the implementation of Plan Dalet by the Jew invader designed to expel the Christians and Muslims that remained in the area illegally assigned to the Europeans.


*(COMMENT)*

Plan "D", however you interpret the objectives to be, was a plan to be implemented as a support mechanism for the War of Independence; defensive in nature for rear-area protection --- NOT offensive.

The quotation implies that there was an invasion.  There was not.  There was always an intent by the Allied Powers that immigration was to support marshaling Jewish resources willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home.  That was a decision in the hands of the Allied Powers and not the enemy population indigenous to the territroy surrendered.

The quotation implies that there was an "ethnic cleansing component," a propaganda position to illicit sympathy and support for a hostile Arab Population; suggesting it was some sort of blueprint for the Jewish – to terrorize and "force at gun point" _(a very common propaganda theme repeated over and over again)_ the xenophobic natives to evacuate their villages and towns.  It is the counter argument to the protection against clusters and launches for infiltration into the territory of the new Jewish State.

The phrase --- "area illegally assigned to the Europeans" --- is to emphasize the xenophobic attitude that runs tandem to the political opposition for the Partition Plan.



montelatici said:


> The Jews had no right to deprive the Christians and Muslims living in the Jew area of the partition of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence.  The Arab states had every right to attempt to stop the killing and ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims and to prevent the Europeans from acquiring territory through conquest.


*(COMMENT)*

It again runs towards drumming up sympathy to counter the idea that a century ago, the political-military dynamics and politics prohibited the Allied Powers from establishing a policy to protect the cultural heritage and integrity of the Jewish People against the dominance of the overwhelming hostile majority of the Arab and Islamic threat by establishing a Jewish National Home.  It is a modern attempt to apply contemporary human rights theory of the new century against decisions of the past --- to promote hatred and contempt against the efforts in preserving and protecting the civil, political and religious rights of a people in need of a safe haven and national home.  It further suggests the salacious, fictitious and  imaginary idea that the Jewish People harbor some animosity or bitterness towards those of the Christians and Muslims faiths in order to rally radical religious opposition towards the Jewish community.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Phoney, why do you do it to yourself all the time...
> 
> "so land and property was taxed on *value*"
> 
> Does not equate to...
> 
> "so the more land you *owned* the higher the tax you paid"
> 
> Can you see the difference?
> 
> Property is taxed on *LAND VALUE* not *LAND OWNED*!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if I owned 100 acres and ali owned 10 acres I would pay the same tax as he would, or would I pay ten times more tax than him. Of course 100 acres is valued higher than 10 acres.
> 
> Do you understand this now, if the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land then the Jews would pay more tax. Which is what table 2 shows and is explained in the sectioned I posted that monti left out because it destroys his stance. Just as removing table 1 destroys his claims because it gives the true land ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are such an idiot it states plainly how much land each group owned.  A dunum is about 1,000 square meters
> 
> 26,670,455 Dunums Arabs
> 1,514,247  Dunums Jews
> 
> That is the true land ownership you cretin.
> 
> *Arabs owned more than 85% of the land in 1946, and Jews owned less than 7% of the land in 1946. * Get it through your thick skull.
> 
> The the other table has nothing to do with land ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course this discussion is meaningless. Sovereignty belongs to the citizens without regard to private property ownership. Somebody who rents a house in New Jersey has the same rights as a farm owner in Kentucky.
> 
> Jews owned land in Palestine but it was still Palestinian land. Jews own land in the US but it is still US land. It does not belong to any other country.
> 
> It is the people who have sovereignty. The citizens in a defined territory are the ones with the right to sovereignty. Governments or states only have sovereignty by extension of the will of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Palestine" is just a name of the mandate region.  When the mandate ended the government of Eretz Israel choose to name their state Israel.  There was no state of palestine so why should they have kept the name.  They wanted their jewish state to reflect their history and ties to the land.
> They had the right to call it what they wanted.
> It was a distinction from the state offered and refused by the UN partition plan.  At the time most palestinian arabs/muslims identified themselves as southern syrians, jordanian or just as arab.  They were a mix of tribes and people and at the time the mandate ended close to half were immigrants that came seeking well paying work what had no real ties to the land or country.
> If Israel had kept the name of palestine, what should the rest of the other land have called itself?  Palestine II?
> With the creation of Israel, the "land" was no longer palestine but now Israel.
> Sovereignty and rights come from statehood which the palestinians never had or left because they did not want to accept either Israel or partition.
> Israel could have called itself Mecca or Rome or Jewland or XYZland but it choose Israel.  Palestinian refugees, gaza, WB , wherever don't have the right to tell Israel what it should be called.  They don't want to be Israeli?  They leave.  Most stayed and are content as Israelis.  They don't want to leave or change names.
> Israel was identified by the mandate as a jewish homeland and Israel identifies as a jewish state.  Israel was a logical choice for a name and the land is Israeli land and the people are Israeli.
> Time you accept that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here are just a few of the lies from Aris.
> 
> The Palestinians already considered themselves Palestinians when the Mandate was established.  The Christians and Muslims sent a Palestinian delegation to London at the outset of the Mandate (1922)  to defend their rights.  In letters to the British they called themselves the People of Palestine as per below:
> _
> "If to-day *the People of Palestine *assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration. - See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922 _
> 
> The Christians and Muslims rejected being forced to be ruled by Jews in their own home from the outset of the Mandate.
> 
> At the end of the Mandate, almost all the immigrants in Palestine were Jews.
> 
> From the 1946 UN Survey of Palestine available for download from Berman Jewish Policy Archive of NYU and Wagner University. Home Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner
> 
> To be precise, of the 414,456 immigrants that entered Palestine between 1920 and 1946, 376,415 were Jews and only 38,041 were non-Jews.  As reported in the UN's final survey of Palestine below.
> 
> View attachment 34599
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the Muslims and Christians that were living in what is now Israel were expelled.  Of the approximately 750,00  Christians and Muslims that were in Israel's present day borders, only 150,000 were not expelled.  As per UN Report A/1905 of 28 September 1951.
> 
> _"14. About 150 000 of the Arab population of Palestine stayed in Israel and of these some were "refugees" in that their homes were destroyed and their means of livelihood gone. They were thus temporarily as much dependent on relief as those who had left the country, and when the United Nations took over the relief of refugees it was agreed with the Israel Government that a certain number of both Jews and Arabs in this position should be given assistance."
> 
> A 1905 of 28 September 1951_
Click to expand...




The census records at the time shows that fewer than 200,000 arab muslims and Christians lived in what was to become Israel. Of these 100,000 elected to stay and become Israeli citizens, with the rest being evicted as enemy hostiles or leaving of their own free will. Want to check your Anglo-American report again Abdul as it is spelt out in there. Just as is the level of illegal arab muslim immigration that you skirted over. Your favourite term demographics proves that the arab muslims could never have increased by natural means in the manner they did. The best practise of the day in Palestine resulted in less than 100 live births per 1,000 pregnancies, and a survival rate of less than 10% so giving 10 births resulting in adulthood out of every 1000 conceptions. Then there was the mortality rate of 30% of the population, that clearly shows the arab muslims would struggle to keep an even number from 1919 till 1948. Your much loved report spells it out as the crops failed in Syria, Egypt, Saudi etc. the arab muslim farm workers migrated to Palestine to work on the farms there. The farm owners paid higher wages that the surrounding areas so many arab muslims stayed to work the farms. They were not indigenous to the area and migrated illegally during the period 1920 to 1948.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> This is a false interpretation taken outside the timeline of real events.  It is written in the language of the pro-Palestinian opposed to the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The act of aggression was the implementation of Plan Dalet by the Jew invader designed to expel the Christians and Muslims that remained in the area illegally assigned to the Europeans.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Plan "D", however you interpret the objectives to be, was a plan to be implemented as a support mechanism for the War of Independence; defensive in nature for rear-area protection --- NOT offensive.
> 
> The quotation implies that there was an invasion.  There was not.  There was always an intent by the Allied Powers that immigration was to support marshaling Jewish resources willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home.  That was a decision in the hands of the Allied Powers and not the enemy population indigenous to the territroy surrendered.
> 
> The quotation implies that there was an "ethnic cleansing component," a propaganda position to illicit sympathy and support for a hostile Arab Population; suggesting it was some sort of blueprint for the Jewish – to terrorize and "force at gun point" _(a very common propaganda theme repeated over and over again)_ the xenophobic natives to evacuate their villages and towns.  It is the counter argument to the protection against clusters and launches for infiltration into the territory of the new Jewish State.
> 
> The phrase --- "area illegally assigned to the Europeans" --- is to emphasize the xenophobic attitude that runs tandem to the political opposition for the Partition Plan.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews had no right to deprive the Christians and Muslims living in the Jew area of the partition of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence.  The Arab states had every right to attempt to stop the killing and ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims and to prevent the Europeans from acquiring territory through conquest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It again runs towards drumming up sympathy to counter the idea that a century ago, the political-military dynamics and politics prohibited the Allied Powers from establishing a policy to protect the cultural heritage and integrity of the Jewish People against the dominance of the overwhelming hostile majority of the Arab and Islamic threat by establishing a Jewish National Home.  It is a modern attempt to apply contemporary human rights theory of the new century against decisions of the past --- to promote hatred and contempt against the efforts in preserving and protecting the civil, political and religious rights of a people in need of a safe haven and national home.  It further suggests the salacious, fictitious and  imaginary idea that the Jewish People harbor some animosity or bitterness towards those of the Christians and Muslims faiths in order to rally radical religious opposition towards the Jewish community.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

*George Galloway explaining to a Jew that they have no right in Palestine*

**


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> This is a false interpretation taken outside the timeline of real events.  It is written in the language of the pro-Palestinian opposed to the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The act of aggression was the implementation of Plan Dalet by the Jew invader designed to expel the Christians and Muslims that remained in the area illegally assigned to the Europeans.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Plan "D", however you interpret the objectives to be, was a plan to be implemented as a support mechanism for the War of Independence; defensive in nature for rear-area protection --- NOT offensive.
> 
> The quotation implies that there was an invasion.  There was not.  There was always an intent by the Allied Powers that immigration was to support marshaling Jewish resources willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home.  That was a decision in the hands of the Allied Powers and not the enemy population indigenous to the territroy surrendered.
> 
> The quotation implies that there was an "ethnic cleansing component," a propaganda position to illicit sympathy and support for a hostile Arab Population; suggesting it was some sort of blueprint for the Jewish – to terrorize and "force at gun point" _(a very common propaganda theme repeated over and over again)_ the xenophobic natives to evacuate their villages and towns.  It is the counter argument to the protection against clusters and launches for infiltration into the territory of the new Jewish State.
> 
> The phrase --- "area illegally assigned to the Europeans" --- is to emphasize the xenophobic attitude that runs tandem to the political opposition for the Partition Plan.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews had no right to deprive the Christians and Muslims living in the Jew area of the partition of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence.  The Arab states had every right to attempt to stop the killing and ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims and to prevent the Europeans from acquiring territory through conquest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It again runs towards drumming up sympathy to counter the idea that a century ago, the political-military dynamics and politics prohibited the Allied Powers from establishing a policy to protect the cultural heritage and integrity of the Jewish People against the dominance of the overwhelming hostile majority of the Arab and Islamic threat by establishing a Jewish National Home.  It is a modern attempt to apply contemporary human rights theory of the new century against decisions of the past --- to promote hatred and contempt against the efforts in preserving and protecting the civil, political and religious rights of a people in need of a safe haven and national home.  It further suggests the salacious, fictitious and  imaginary idea that the Jewish People harbor some animosity or bitterness towards those of the Christians and Muslims faiths in order to rally radical religious opposition towards the Jewish community.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *George Galloway explaining to a Jew that they have no right in Palestine*
> 
> **
Click to expand...


OMG!  "George Galloway explaining to a Jew they have no right in Palestine.""  That does it --- Israel is doomed!  Heh Heh.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> This is a false interpretation taken outside the timeline of real events.  It is written in the language of the pro-Palestinian opposed to the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The act of aggression was the implementation of Plan Dalet by the Jew invader designed to expel the Christians and Muslims that remained in the area illegally assigned to the Europeans.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Plan "D", however you interpret the objectives to be, was a plan to be implemented as a support mechanism for the War of Independence; defensive in nature for rear-area protection --- NOT offensive.
> 
> The quotation implies that there was an invasion.  There was not.  There was always an intent by the Allied Powers that immigration was to support marshaling Jewish resources willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home.  That was a decision in the hands of the Allied Powers and not the enemy population indigenous to the territroy surrendered.
> 
> The quotation implies that there was an "ethnic cleansing component," a propaganda position to illicit sympathy and support for a hostile Arab Population; suggesting it was some sort of blueprint for the Jewish – to terrorize and "force at gun point" _(a very common propaganda theme repeated over and over again)_ the xenophobic natives to evacuate their villages and towns.  It is the counter argument to the protection against clusters and launches for infiltration into the territory of the new Jewish State.
> 
> The phrase --- "area illegally assigned to the Europeans" --- is to emphasize the xenophobic attitude that runs tandem to the political opposition for the Partition Plan.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews had no right to deprive the Christians and Muslims living in the Jew area of the partition of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence.  The Arab states had every right to attempt to stop the killing and ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims and to prevent the Europeans from acquiring territory through conquest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It again runs towards drumming up sympathy to counter the idea that a century ago, the political-military dynamics and politics prohibited the Allied Powers from establishing a policy to protect the cultural heritage and integrity of the Jewish People against the dominance of the overwhelming hostile majority of the Arab and Islamic threat by establishing a Jewish National Home.  It is a modern attempt to apply contemporary human rights theory of the new century against decisions of the past --- to promote hatred and contempt against the efforts in preserving and protecting the civil, political and religious rights of a people in need of a safe haven and national home.  It further suggests the salacious, fictitious and  imaginary idea that the Jewish People harbor some animosity or bitterness towards those of the Christians and Muslims faiths in order to rally radical religious opposition towards the Jewish community.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *George Galloway explaining to a Jew that they have no right in Palestine*
> 
> **
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG!  "George Galloway explaining to a Jew they have no right in Palestine.""  That does it --- Israel is doomed!  Heh Heh.
Click to expand...

Indeed, Galloway kicks butt.

That is why he is so hated by the criminal class.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> This is a false interpretation taken outside the timeline of real events.  It is written in the language of the pro-Palestinian opposed to the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The act of aggression was the implementation of Plan Dalet by the Jew invader designed to expel the Christians and Muslims that remained in the area illegally assigned to the Europeans.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Plan "D", however you interpret the objectives to be, was a plan to be implemented as a support mechanism for the War of Independence; defensive in nature for rear-area protection --- NOT offensive.
> 
> The quotation implies that there was an invasion.  There was not.  There was always an intent by the Allied Powers that immigration was to support marshaling Jewish resources willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home.  That was a decision in the hands of the Allied Powers and not the enemy population indigenous to the territroy surrendered.
> 
> The quotation implies that there was an "ethnic cleansing component," a propaganda position to illicit sympathy and support for a hostile Arab Population; suggesting it was some sort of blueprint for the Jewish – to terrorize and "force at gun point" _(a very common propaganda theme repeated over and over again)_ the xenophobic natives to evacuate their villages and towns.  It is the counter argument to the protection against clusters and launches for infiltration into the territory of the new Jewish State.
> 
> The phrase --- "area illegally assigned to the Europeans" --- is to emphasize the xenophobic attitude that runs tandem to the political opposition for the Partition Plan.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews had no right to deprive the Christians and Muslims living in the Jew area of the partition of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence.  The Arab states had every right to attempt to stop the killing and ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims and to prevent the Europeans from acquiring territory through conquest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It again runs towards drumming up sympathy to counter the idea that a century ago, the political-military dynamics and politics prohibited the Allied Powers from establishing a policy to protect the cultural heritage and integrity of the Jewish People against the dominance of the overwhelming hostile majority of the Arab and Islamic threat by establishing a Jewish National Home.  It is a modern attempt to apply contemporary human rights theory of the new century against decisions of the past --- to promote hatred and contempt against the efforts in preserving and protecting the civil, political and religious rights of a people in need of a safe haven and national home.  It further suggests the salacious, fictitious and  imaginary idea that the Jewish People harbor some animosity or bitterness towards those of the Christians and Muslims faiths in order to rally radical religious opposition towards the Jewish community.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *George Galloway explaining to a Jew that they have no right in Palestine*
> 
> **
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG!  "George Galloway explaining to a Jew they have no right in Palestine.""  That does it --- Israel is doomed!  Heh Heh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, Galloway kicks butt.
> 
> That is why he is so hated by the criminal class.
Click to expand...


Well, I dunno about the criminal class but I love the guy for all the laughs he gives us.


----------



## P F Tinmore

aris2chat said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does in certain parts of the world, mostly those run by Britain. You own property and you are liable to a tax on that property payable every year. The tax is now split into 7 bands and you pay according to the value of the property. Because Palestine was under British rule the same laws applies and so land and property was taxed on value, call it a tithe, so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid. This destroys the false claims by monti that the arab muslims owned the majority of Palestine as the tax records show the Jews paid the most in land taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Phoney, why do you do it to yourself all the time...
> 
> "so land and property was taxed on *value*"
> 
> Does not equate to...
> 
> "so the more land you *owned* the higher the tax you paid"
> 
> Can you see the difference?
> 
> Property is taxed on *LAND VALUE* not *LAND OWNED*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if I owned 100 acres and ali owned 10 acres I would pay the same tax as he would, or would I pay ten times more tax than him. Of course 100 acres is valued higher than 10 acres.
> 
> Do you understand this now, if the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land then the Jews would pay more tax. Which is what table 2 shows and is explained in the sectioned I posted that monti left out because it destroys his stance. Just as removing table 1 destroys his claims because it gives the true land ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are such an idiot it states plainly how much land each group owned.  A dunum is about 1,000 square meters
> 
> 26,670,455 Dunums Arabs
> 1,514,247  Dunums Jews
> 
> That is the true land ownership you cretin.
> 
> *Arabs owned more than 85% of the land in 1946, and Jews owned less than 7% of the land in 1946. * Get it through your thick skull.
> 
> The the other table has nothing to do with land ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course this discussion is meaningless. Sovereignty belongs to the citizens without regard to private property ownership. Somebody who rents a house in New Jersey has the same rights as a farm owner in Kentucky.
> 
> Jews owned land in Palestine but it was still Palestinian land. Jews own land in the US but it is still US land. It does not belong to any other country.
> 
> It is the people who have sovereignty. The citizens in a defined territory are the ones with the right to sovereignty. Governments or states only have sovereignty by extension of the will of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Palestine" is just a name of the mandate region.  When the mandate ended the government of Eretz Israel choose to name their state Israel.  There was no state of palestine so why should they have kept the name.  They wanted their jewish state to reflect their history and ties to the land.
> They had the right to call it what they wanted.
> It was a distinction from the state offered and refused by the UN partition plan.  At the time most palestinian arabs/muslims identified themselves as southern syrians, jordanian or just as arab.  They were a mix of tribes and people and at the time the mandate ended close to half were immigrants that came seeking well paying work what had no real ties to the land or country.
> If Israel had kept the name of palestine, what should the rest of the other land have called itself?  Palestine II?
> With the creation of Israel, the "land" was no longer palestine but now Israel.
> Sovereignty and rights come from statehood which the palestinians never had or left because they did not want to accept either Israel or partition.
> Israel could have called itself Mecca or Rome or Jewland or XYZland but it choose Israel.  Palestinian refugees, gaza, WB , wherever don't have the right to tell Israel what it should be called.  They don't want to be Israeli?  They leave.  Most stayed and are content as Israelis.  They don't want to leave or change names.
> Israel was identified by the mandate as a jewish homeland and Israel identifies as a jewish state.  Israel was a logical choice for a name and the land is Israeli land and the people are Israeli.
> Time you accept that.
Click to expand...

You start with this statement.

"Palestine" is just a name of the mandate region.​That is not true. Palestine was a country (Palestine was called a country ten times in the mandate charter) that was defined by international borders. It had citizens as per international law, the Treaty of Lausanna, and the Palestine citizenship order of 1925.

The rest of your post follows false premise.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if I owned 100 acres and ali owned 10 acres I would pay the same tax as he would, or would I pay ten times more tax than him. Of course 100 acres is valued higher than 10 acres.
> 
> Do you understand this now, if the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land then the Jews would pay more tax. Which is what table 2 shows and is explained in the sectioned I posted that monti left out because it destroys his stance. Just as removing table 1 destroys his claims because it gives the true land ownership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are such an idiot it states plainly how much land each group owned.  A dunum is about 1,000 square meters
> 
> 26,670,455 Dunums Arabs
> 1,514,247  Dunums Jews
> 
> That is the true land ownership you cretin.
> 
> *Arabs owned more than 85% of the land in 1946, and Jews owned less than 7% of the land in 1946. * Get it through your thick skull.
> 
> The the other table has nothing to do with land ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the dumbass as it clearly states arabs and other non-jews. Which means the absentee Turkish landlords who owned the land are counted. So table 1 is correct in its report 4.8% owned by Jews 0.8% owned by arabs.
> 
> Told you once I got the link I WOULD DESTROY YOUR CHERRY PICKING OF FACTS AND PRODUCE THE TRUTH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Table 1, says nothing about land ownership.  Other non-Jews are the Samaritans, Greeks and Latins that are included in the population surveys, including Christian Church owned lands.
> 
> Nice try, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your link that shows who is the real moron
> 
> 
> 51. Table 2, which has been compiled from the records of land
> taxation, *shows the area of land held by Arabs (and other non-
> 
> Jews)* and by Jews. In table 2A the rural areas have been valued
> at pre-war prices based on the categorization of land for fiscal
> purposes carried out in 1935. These values, although based on
> values actually ruling pre-war, are completely arbitrary and have
> been designed to reflect the share of the two groups of the population
> rather than the aggregate value of the land. The estimate
> abstracts from the scarcity values which have in recent years
> operated to drive up land values to figures which in earlier years
> would have been considered fantastic.
> 
> 
> NOT OWNED just held as in leased or rented from Ottoman landlords. And the results are based on the taxes raised on the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it states clearly how many dunams were owned by the Jews and how many dunams were owned by the Arabs, the Christian churches, Samaritans, Greeks and Levantines (those of European descent)  Jews owned less than 7%, the Arabs and other non-Jews more than 85%.
> 
> The data is included in the UN's Survey of Palestine published in 1946 and downloadable from the Berman Jewish Policy Archive of NYU and Wagner Universities.  Home Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner
> 
> The population table is in Volume 2. page 566.
> 
> View attachment 34600
Click to expand...





 AND THE ABSENTEE OTTOMAN LANDLORDS that owned most of the land. The arab muslims were cowards and greedy so did not register their land holdings because it meant paying taxes and being conscripted.


 From your source showing that you are either a cretin who cant read or a liar.


51. Table 2, which has been compiled from the records of land
taxation,* shows the area of land held by Arabs (and other non-

Jews) and by Jews*. In table 2A the rural areas have been valued
at pre-war prices based on the categorization of land for fiscal
purposes carried out in 1935. These values, although based on
values actually ruling pre-war, are completely arbitrary and have
been designed to reflect the share of the two groups of the population
rather than the aggregate value of the land. The estimate
abstracts from the scarcity values which have in recent years
operated to drive up land values to figures which in earlier years
would have been considered fantastic.

 Note the term held and not owned as Abdul claims






*

*

*


*


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> You are attempting to mix apples with oranges.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> _et al,_
> 
> Land ownership had nothing to do with national sovereignty; it is merely one of many considerations.
> 
> The League of Nations did not give the land to the Jewish Agency.  Israel was created under the self-determination; pursuant to the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" outlined by the UN.
> 
> v/r
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but clearly demonstrates that the Jews acquired land from the Christians and Muslims who owned 85% of it by a war of conquest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Land acquisition is a civil law real-estate term.  it has noting to do with the "right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order;" or the establishment of a self-governing institution under the guidance of the international body of common law. _[(1) territory; (2) population; (3) government.] _
> 
> The act of Aggression was the unsuccessful use of armed force by a local regional Arab States against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State _(the newly created State of Israel)_; which was demonstrated in 1948 when the combined armies of the local regional Arab States attempted to undermine the Jewish implementation of UN guided Israeli Independence effort --- by military force _(a coordinated attack by the local regional Arab States on the newly created State of Israel)_.  Remembering of course that the Arab States had no authority _(legally, morally or otherwise)_ to attempt such a military effort.  And remembering that it is the duty of local regional Arab States not to use armed force to deprive people _(the UN recognized Jewish Agency)_ of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence, or to disrupt territorial integrity, sanctioned by the greater body of common law makers _(the UN General Assembly)_.
> 
> The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is a re-eruption of the Civil War for Independence that started in 1947 when the General Assembly Resolution 181(II) was passed and included the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" for the creation of both an Arab and Jewish State.  That is NOT the same thing as the acquisition of territory through the use of military force or by military conquest.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The act of aggression was the implementation of Plan Dalet by the Jew invader designed to expel the Christians and Muslims that remained in the area illegally assigned to the Europeans.  The Jews had no right to deprive the Christians and Muslims living in the Jew area of the partition of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence.  The Arab states had every right to attempt to stop the killing and ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims and to prevent the Europeans from acquiring territory through conquest.
Click to expand...




 Nothing to do with the attacks on the Jews by the arab muslims then. Like the Hebron massacre or the arab nationalists incitement of civil war.

 Now how about a LINK detailing that the area was illegally assigned to the Europeans.

 This should be good as CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW  completely blows his claims out of the water.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> This is a false interpretation taken outside the timeline of real events.  It is written in the language of the pro-Palestinian opposed to the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The act of aggression was the implementation of Plan Dalet by the Jew invader designed to expel the Christians and Muslims that remained in the area illegally assigned to the Europeans.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Plan "D", however you interpret the objectives to be, was a plan to be implemented as a support mechanism for the War of Independence; defensive in nature for rear-area protection --- NOT offensive.
> 
> The quotation implies that there was an invasion.  There was not.  There was always an intent by the Allied Powers that immigration was to support marshaling Jewish resources willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home.  That was a decision in the hands of the Allied Powers and not the enemy population indigenous to the territroy surrendered.
> 
> The quotation implies that there was an "ethnic cleansing component," a propaganda position to illicit sympathy and support for a hostile Arab Population; suggesting it was some sort of blueprint for the Jewish – to terrorize and "force at gun point" _(a very common propaganda theme repeated over and over again)_ the xenophobic natives to evacuate their villages and towns.  It is the counter argument to the protection against clusters and launches for infiltration into the territory of the new Jewish State.
> 
> The phrase --- "area illegally assigned to the Europeans" --- is to emphasize the xenophobic attitude that runs tandem to the political opposition for the Partition Plan.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews had no right to deprive the Christians and Muslims living in the Jew area of the partition of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence.  The Arab states had every right to attempt to stop the killing and ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims and to prevent the Europeans from acquiring territory through conquest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It again runs towards drumming up sympathy to counter the idea that a century ago, the political-military dynamics and politics prohibited the Allied Powers from establishing a policy to protect the cultural heritage and integrity of the Jewish People against the dominance of the overwhelming hostile majority of the Arab and Islamic threat by establishing a Jewish National Home.  It is a modern attempt to apply contemporary human rights theory of the new century against decisions of the past --- to promote hatred and contempt against the efforts in preserving and protecting the civil, political and religious rights of a people in need of a safe haven and national home.  It further suggests the salacious, fictitious and  imaginary idea that the Jewish People harbor some animosity or bitterness towards those of the Christians and Muslims faiths in order to rally radical religious opposition towards the Jewish community.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *George Galloway explaining to a Jew that they have no right in Palestine*
> 
> **
Click to expand...





 The islamonazi that even the other islamonazi's hate. He LIES all the time and will find himself facing a lengthy prison sentence in due course


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Phoney, why do you do it to yourself all the time...
> 
> "so land and property was taxed on *value*"
> 
> Does not equate to...
> 
> "so the more land you *owned* the higher the tax you paid"
> 
> Can you see the difference?
> 
> Property is taxed on *LAND VALUE* not *LAND OWNED*!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if I owned 100 acres and ali owned 10 acres I would pay the same tax as he would, or would I pay ten times more tax than him. Of course 100 acres is valued higher than 10 acres.
> 
> Do you understand this now, if the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land then the Jews would pay more tax. Which is what table 2 shows and is explained in the sectioned I posted that monti left out because it destroys his stance. Just as removing table 1 destroys his claims because it gives the true land ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are such an idiot it states plainly how much land each group owned.  A dunum is about 1,000 square meters
> 
> 26,670,455 Dunums Arabs
> 1,514,247  Dunums Jews
> 
> That is the true land ownership you cretin.
> 
> *Arabs owned more than 85% of the land in 1946, and Jews owned less than 7% of the land in 1946. * Get it through your thick skull.
> 
> The the other table has nothing to do with land ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course this discussion is meaningless. Sovereignty belongs to the citizens without regard to private property ownership. Somebody who rents a house in New Jersey has the same rights as a farm owner in Kentucky.
> 
> Jews owned land in Palestine but it was still Palestinian land. Jews own land in the US but it is still US land. It does not belong to any other country.
> 
> It is the people who have sovereignty. The citizens in a defined territory are the ones with the right to sovereignty. Governments or states only have sovereignty by extension of the will of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Palestine" is just a name of the mandate region.  When the mandate ended the government of Eretz Israel choose to name their state Israel.  There was no state of palestine so why should they have kept the name.  They wanted their jewish state to reflect their history and ties to the land.
> They had the right to call it what they wanted.
> It was a distinction from the state offered and refused by the UN partition plan.  At the time most palestinian arabs/muslims identified themselves as southern syrians, jordanian or just as arab.  They were a mix of tribes and people and at the time the mandate ended close to half were immigrants that came seeking well paying work what had no real ties to the land or country.
> If Israel had kept the name of palestine, what should the rest of the other land have called itself?  Palestine II?
> With the creation of Israel, the "land" was no longer palestine but now Israel.
> Sovereignty and rights come from statehood which the palestinians never had or left because they did not want to accept either Israel or partition.
> Israel could have called itself Mecca or Rome or Jewland or XYZland but it choose Israel.  Palestinian refugees, gaza, WB , wherever don't have the right to tell Israel what it should be called.  They don't want to be Israeli?  They leave.  Most stayed and are content as Israelis.  They don't want to leave or change names.
> Israel was identified by the mandate as a jewish homeland and Israel identifies as a jewish state.  Israel was a logical choice for a name and the land is Israeli land and the people are Israeli.
> Time you accept that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You start with this statement.
> 
> "Palestine" is just a name of the mandate region.​That is not true. Palestine was a country (Palestine was called a country ten times in the mandate charter) that was defined by international borders. It had citizens as per international law, the Treaty of Lausanna, and the Palestine citizenship order of 1925.
> 
> The rest of your post follows false premise.
Click to expand...





 Nope as the treaties state the mandate of Palestine and never the nation of Palestine, take another close look tinny ?

 And the treaty of Lausanne does not even mention Palestine, while the Palestine citizenship order endows palestinians with British palestinian citizenship


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if I owned 100 acres and ali owned 10 acres I would pay the same tax as he would, or would I pay ten times more tax than him. Of course 100 acres is valued higher than 10 acres.
> 
> Do you understand this now, if the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land then the Jews would pay more tax. Which is what table 2 shows and is explained in the sectioned I posted that monti left out because it destroys his stance. Just as removing table 1 destroys his claims because it gives the true land ownership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are such an idiot it states plainly how much land each group owned.  A dunum is about 1,000 square meters
> 
> 26,670,455 Dunums Arabs
> 1,514,247  Dunums Jews
> 
> That is the true land ownership you cretin.
> 
> *Arabs owned more than 85% of the land in 1946, and Jews owned less than 7% of the land in 1946. * Get it through your thick skull.
> 
> The the other table has nothing to do with land ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course this discussion is meaningless. Sovereignty belongs to the citizens without regard to private property ownership. Somebody who rents a house in New Jersey has the same rights as a farm owner in Kentucky.
> 
> Jews owned land in Palestine but it was still Palestinian land. Jews own land in the US but it is still US land. It does not belong to any other country.
> 
> It is the people who have sovereignty. The citizens in a defined territory are the ones with the right to sovereignty. Governments or states only have sovereignty by extension of the will of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Palestine" is just a name of the mandate region.  When the mandate ended the government of Eretz Israel choose to name their state Israel.  There was no state of palestine so why should they have kept the name.  They wanted their jewish state to reflect their history and ties to the land.
> They had the right to call it what they wanted.
> It was a distinction from the state offered and refused by the UN partition plan.  At the time most palestinian arabs/muslims identified themselves as southern syrians, jordanian or just as arab.  They were a mix of tribes and people and at the time the mandate ended close to half were immigrants that came seeking well paying work what had no real ties to the land or country.
> If Israel had kept the name of palestine, what should the rest of the other land have called itself?  Palestine II?
> With the creation of Israel, the "land" was no longer palestine but now Israel.
> Sovereignty and rights come from statehood which the palestinians never had or left because they did not want to accept either Israel or partition.
> Israel could have called itself Mecca or Rome or Jewland or XYZland but it choose Israel.  Palestinian refugees, gaza, WB , wherever don't have the right to tell Israel what it should be called.  They don't want to be Israeli?  They leave.  Most stayed and are content as Israelis.  They don't want to leave or change names.
> Israel was identified by the mandate as a jewish homeland and Israel identifies as a jewish state.  Israel was a logical choice for a name and the land is Israeli land and the people are Israeli.
> Time you accept that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You start with this statement.
> 
> "Palestine" is just a name of the mandate region.​That is not true. Palestine was a country (Palestine was called a country ten times in the mandate charter) that was defined by international borders. It had citizens as per international law, the Treaty of Lausanna, and the Palestine citizenship order of 1925.
> 
> The rest of your post follows false premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope as the treaties state the mandate of Palestine and never the nation of Palestine, take another close look tinny ?
> 
> And the treaty of Lausanne does not even mention Palestine, while the Palestine citizenship order endows palestinians with British palestinian citizenship
Click to expand...

Where does it say that?


----------



## aris2chat

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if I owned 100 acres and ali owned 10 acres I would pay the same tax as he would, or would I pay ten times more tax than him. Of course 100 acres is valued higher than 10 acres.
> 
> Do you understand this now, if the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land then the Jews would pay more tax. Which is what table 2 shows and is explained in the sectioned I posted that monti left out because it destroys his stance. Just as removing table 1 destroys his claims because it gives the true land ownership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are such an idiot it states plainly how much land each group owned.  A dunum is about 1,000 square meters
> 
> 26,670,455 Dunums Arabs
> 1,514,247  Dunums Jews
> 
> That is the true land ownership you cretin.
> 
> *Arabs owned more than 85% of the land in 1946, and Jews owned less than 7% of the land in 1946. * Get it through your thick skull.
> 
> The the other table has nothing to do with land ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course this discussion is meaningless. Sovereignty belongs to the citizens without regard to private property ownership. Somebody who rents a house in New Jersey has the same rights as a farm owner in Kentucky.
> 
> Jews owned land in Palestine but it was still Palestinian land. Jews own land in the US but it is still US land. It does not belong to any other country.
> 
> It is the people who have sovereignty. The citizens in a defined territory are the ones with the right to sovereignty. Governments or states only have sovereignty by extension of the will of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Palestine" is just a name of the mandate region.  When the mandate ended the government of Eretz Israel choose to name their state Israel.  There was no state of palestine so why should they have kept the name.  They wanted their jewish state to reflect their history and ties to the land.
> They had the right to call it what they wanted.
> It was a distinction from the state offered and refused by the UN partition plan.  At the time most palestinian arabs/muslims identified themselves as southern syrians, jordanian or just as arab.  They were a mix of tribes and people and at the time the mandate ended close to half were immigrants that came seeking well paying work what had no real ties to the land or country.
> If Israel had kept the name of palestine, what should the rest of the other land have called itself?  Palestine II?
> With the creation of Israel, the "land" was no longer palestine but now Israel.
> Sovereignty and rights come from statehood which the palestinians never had or left because they did not want to accept either Israel or partition.
> Israel could have called itself Mecca or Rome or Jewland or XYZland but it choose Israel.  Palestinian refugees, gaza, WB , wherever don't have the right to tell Israel what it should be called.  They don't want to be Israeli?  They leave.  Most stayed and are content as Israelis.  They don't want to leave or change names.
> Israel was identified by the mandate as a jewish homeland and Israel identifies as a jewish state.  Israel was a logical choice for a name and the land is Israeli land and the people are Israeli.
> Time you accept that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here are just a few of the lies from Aris.
> 
> The Palestinians already considered themselves Palestinians when the Mandate was established.  The Christians and Muslims sent a Palestinian delegation to London at the outset of the Mandate (1922)  to defend their rights.  In letters to the British they called themselves the People of Palestine as per below:
> _
> "If to-day *the People of Palestine *assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration. - See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922 _
> 
> The Christians and Muslims rejected being forced to be ruled by Jews in their own home from the outset of the Mandate.
> 
> At the end of the Mandate, almost all the immigrants in Palestine were Jews.
> 
> From the 1946 UN Survey of Palestine available for download from Berman Jewish Policy Archive of NYU and Wagner University. Home Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner
> 
> To be precise, of the 414,456 immigrants that entered Palestine between 1920 and 1946, 376,415 were Jews and only 38,041 were non-Jews.  As reported in the UN's final survey of Palestine below.
> 
> View attachment 34599
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the Muslims and Christians that were living in what is now Israel were expelled.  Of the approximately 750,00  Christians and Muslims that were in Israel's present day borders, only 150,000 were not expelled.  As per UN Report A/1905 of 28 September 1951.
> 
> _"14. About 150 000 of the Arab population of Palestine stayed in Israel and of these some were "refugees" in that their homes were destroyed and their means of livelihood gone. They were thus temporarily as much dependent on relief as those who had left the country, and when the United Nations took over the relief of refugees it was agreed with the Israel Government that a certain number of both Jews and Arabs in this position should be given assistance."
> 
> A 1905 of 28 September 1951_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The census records at the time shows that fewer than 200,000 arab muslims and Christians lived in what was to become Israel. Of these 100,000 elected to stay and become Israeli citizens, with the rest being evicted as enemy hostiles or leaving of their own free will. Want to check your Anglo-American report again Abdul as it is spelt out in there. Just as is the level of illegal arab muslim immigration that you skirted over. Your favourite term demographics proves that the arab muslims could never have increased by natural means in the manner they did. The best practise of the day in Palestine resulted in less than 100 live births per 1,000 pregnancies, and a survival rate of less than 10% so giving 10 births resulting in adulthood out of every 1000 conceptions. Then there was the mortality rate of 30% of the population, that clearly shows the arab muslims would struggle to keep an even number from 1919 till 1948. Your much loved report spells it out as the crops failed in Syria, Egypt, Saudi etc. the arab muslim farm workers migrated to Palestine to work on the farms there. The farm owners paid higher wages that the surrounding areas so many arab muslims stayed to work the farms. They were not indigenous to the area and migrated illegally during the period 1920 to 1948.
Click to expand...


Some of the poster seem to be confused.  In a land that during the Roman occupation supported millions with more primitive methods was under populated.  The beginning of the mandate there was around 500,000 people, of all types.  They had not been generating enough tax money to fund the services for the region.  Many that could have registered land did not want to so they could avoid taxes and military service.  The region need an influx of population that was willing to develop the economy.  Both Ottoman and arabs invited the jews to return to their historic homeland with the intent of building a jewish homeland.  The LoN and Mandate also understood that the goal was to eventually create a jewish homeland.
First the arabs in the mandate were given Jordan as an arab/palestinian state.  Around 75% of the population are palestinian today.  When that did not satisfy those being incited by the mufti and blood libels there was a UN offer of partition creating a state for the palestinians, but that was refused and upon declaration of an Israeli state that country was attacked from all sides by overwhelming numbers.
I posted an article about the legal and illegal immigration into the mandate, but it must have gone over the heads of some posters, or they did not even bother to use the link to the site and read the article.
There was room for both nations but everytime the palestinians get close to an agreement they walk away or blow the deal with violence.  There are several censuses other than Monti's #566 that go in to more detail and explain the reasons, but they are all imprecise.  It is hard to do an accurate count of people that do not want to be counted or registered for what ever legal reasons or because of fluid movement within the region.
If you take all the information into account and come up with average population, immigration, land ownership, sale, production and taxation you get a more accurate view of the region.  Research from just one source or from propaganda sites should be take with a large spoon of salt.  Instead it should be injunction with all the evidence from a range of sources.
Monti's page #566 is not the definitive source of information, but he keeps repeating using it like it is absolute fact.  If examined land for land type between the various groups it makes no sense that jews owning so little of the land should be paying 60% or more of the taxes.  Nor do they coincide with other estimates before during and after that time.  If there was an honest attempt n producing the figures then there is a good chance there was a typo in the figures.
Anyway you look at it, Monti's #566 should only be considered a one of many attempts at a land ownership, population, taxation, etc. view of what the region really looked like at the time.  Personally I reject his miss use and representation of the factuality of his grail documents.  In balance they are not supported nor is the methodology of the information included.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are such an idiot it states plainly how much land each group owned.  A dunum is about 1,000 square meters
> 
> 26,670,455 Dunums Arabs
> 1,514,247  Dunums Jews
> 
> That is the true land ownership you cretin.
> 
> *Arabs owned more than 85% of the land in 1946, and Jews owned less than 7% of the land in 1946. * Get it through your thick skull.
> 
> The the other table has nothing to do with land ownership.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course this discussion is meaningless. Sovereignty belongs to the citizens without regard to private property ownership. Somebody who rents a house in New Jersey has the same rights as a farm owner in Kentucky.
> 
> Jews owned land in Palestine but it was still Palestinian land. Jews own land in the US but it is still US land. It does not belong to any other country.
> 
> It is the people who have sovereignty. The citizens in a defined territory are the ones with the right to sovereignty. Governments or states only have sovereignty by extension of the will of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Palestine" is just a name of the mandate region.  When the mandate ended the government of Eretz Israel choose to name their state Israel.  There was no state of palestine so why should they have kept the name.  They wanted their jewish state to reflect their history and ties to the land.
> They had the right to call it what they wanted.
> It was a distinction from the state offered and refused by the UN partition plan.  At the time most palestinian arabs/muslims identified themselves as southern syrians, jordanian or just as arab.  They were a mix of tribes and people and at the time the mandate ended close to half were immigrants that came seeking well paying work what had no real ties to the land or country.
> If Israel had kept the name of palestine, what should the rest of the other land have called itself?  Palestine II?
> With the creation of Israel, the "land" was no longer palestine but now Israel.
> Sovereignty and rights come from statehood which the palestinians never had or left because they did not want to accept either Israel or partition.
> Israel could have called itself Mecca or Rome or Jewland or XYZland but it choose Israel.  Palestinian refugees, gaza, WB , wherever don't have the right to tell Israel what it should be called.  They don't want to be Israeli?  They leave.  Most stayed and are content as Israelis.  They don't want to leave or change names.
> Israel was identified by the mandate as a jewish homeland and Israel identifies as a jewish state.  Israel was a logical choice for a name and the land is Israeli land and the people are Israeli.
> Time you accept that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You start with this statement.
> 
> "Palestine" is just a name of the mandate region.​That is not true. Palestine was a country (Palestine was called a country ten times in the mandate charter) that was defined by international borders. It had citizens as per international law, the Treaty of Lausanna, and the Palestine citizenship order of 1925.
> 
> The rest of your post follows false premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope as the treaties state the mandate of Palestine and never the nation of Palestine, take another close look tinny ?
> 
> And the treaty of Lausanne does not even mention Palestine, while the Palestine citizenship order endows palestinians with British palestinian citizenship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say that?
Click to expand...




 On the passports issued and in the order itself


 A second important clause of the draft, later to be intensely debated, stated that the foreign relations of the Palestine government were to be undertaken by Great Britain, and the citizens of Palestine were entitled to British protection when outside of Palestine

The creation of Palestinian citizenship under an international mandate 1918-1925 openDemocracy


 And the arab muslims rejected the Palestine citizenship order out of hand.

 The Palestinian Arab Executive leadership unanimously rejected the citizenship legislation on the basis that it denied citizenship to native-born Palestinians while privileging Jewish immigrants, and that it neglected provisions for natural civil and political rights.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course this discussion is meaningless. Sovereignty belongs to the citizens without regard to private property ownership. Somebody who rents a house in New Jersey has the same rights as a farm owner in Kentucky.
> 
> Jews owned land in Palestine but it was still Palestinian land. Jews own land in the US but it is still US land. It does not belong to any other country.
> 
> It is the people who have sovereignty. The citizens in a defined territory are the ones with the right to sovereignty. Governments or states only have sovereignty by extension of the will of the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Palestine" is just a name of the mandate region.  When the mandate ended the government of Eretz Israel choose to name their state Israel.  There was no state of palestine so why should they have kept the name.  They wanted their jewish state to reflect their history and ties to the land.
> They had the right to call it what they wanted.
> It was a distinction from the state offered and refused by the UN partition plan.  At the time most palestinian arabs/muslims identified themselves as southern syrians, jordanian or just as arab.  They were a mix of tribes and people and at the time the mandate ended close to half were immigrants that came seeking well paying work what had no real ties to the land or country.
> If Israel had kept the name of palestine, what should the rest of the other land have called itself?  Palestine II?
> With the creation of Israel, the "land" was no longer palestine but now Israel.
> Sovereignty and rights come from statehood which the palestinians never had or left because they did not want to accept either Israel or partition.
> Israel could have called itself Mecca or Rome or Jewland or XYZland but it choose Israel.  Palestinian refugees, gaza, WB , wherever don't have the right to tell Israel what it should be called.  They don't want to be Israeli?  They leave.  Most stayed and are content as Israelis.  They don't want to leave or change names.
> Israel was identified by the mandate as a jewish homeland and Israel identifies as a jewish state.  Israel was a logical choice for a name and the land is Israeli land and the people are Israeli.
> Time you accept that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You start with this statement.
> 
> "Palestine" is just a name of the mandate region.​That is not true. Palestine was a country (Palestine was called a country ten times in the mandate charter) that was defined by international borders. It had citizens as per international law, the Treaty of Lausanna, and the Palestine citizenship order of 1925.
> 
> The rest of your post follows false premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope as the treaties state the mandate of Palestine and never the nation of Palestine, take another close look tinny ?
> 
> And the treaty of Lausanne does not even mention Palestine, while the Palestine citizenship order endows palestinians with British palestinian citizenship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the passports issued and in the order itself
> 
> 
> A second important clause of the draft, later to be intensely debated, stated that the foreign relations of the Palestine government were to be undertaken by Great Britain, and the citizens of Palestine were entitled to British protection when outside of Palestine
> 
> The creation of Palestinian citizenship under an international mandate 1918-1925 openDemocracy
> 
> 
> And the arab muslims rejected the Palestine citizenship order out of hand.
> 
> The Palestinian Arab Executive leadership unanimously rejected the citizenship legislation on the basis that it denied citizenship to native-born Palestinians while privileging Jewish immigrants, and that it neglected provisions for natural civil and political rights.
Click to expand...

As the trustee for Palestine Britain had the obligation to facilitate travel and protection for the Palestinians. Palestine, however, never became a part of Britain and the Palestinians never became British.
--------------------
With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923_.
_
_“(1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power...._
(2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them…”92
-----------------​It is true that the Treaty of Lausanna did not mention Palestine. It did not mention any of the new states.
-------------------
Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​----------------
This was reiterated in the citizenship order.
-----------------
The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​----------------
The Palestinians did reject the order because there was some junk that was placed in there without their consent.


----------



## aris2chat

*Something to think about.....*

*"Palestine" is a Fake*
*By Kanan Abramson*




The President of the Arab "Palestinian" Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, a member of the Fatah terror movement which launched endless terror attacks against Israel in over six decades, spoke at the General Assembly of the United Nations in New York City, demanding a recognition of an independent "Palestinian" statehood. One of the most outstanding responses to him was a statement delivered by Rabbis Marvin Hier, Founder and Dean of The Simon Wiesenthal Center in California, and Abraham Cooper, Associate Dean of the leading Jewish Human Rights NGO. Their statement was as followed:

"On the day he submitted demands for Palestinian Statehood, Abbas' words have driven hope for peace right off the Mideast roadmap. his speech provides all the evidence as to why there is no peace. His distorted view of history of the Holy Land, speaks of ‘the ascension of the Prophet Mohammad and the birthplace of Jesus Christ’, but has no room for Jewish prophets like Isaiah or Jeremiah or King David or King Solomon", charged Rabbis Marvin Hier and Abraham Cooper, Founder and dean and associate dean of the leading Jewish Human Rights NGO. And when Abbas uses the podium of the UN to charge that Arabs have been under occupation for 63 years, he lays bare before the entire world that the core issue for the Palestinians isn't Israeli settlements established as a result of the 1967 Six Day War, but the very legitimacy of Israel from the day of its founding in 1948. Simply put, his view of reality has no room for a Jewish state. Unless and until Arab leaders finally tell their people that they recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish State as neighbor to the 23 Arab countries there will be no peace", Rabbis Hier and Cooper concluded.

This is only one aspect of the conflict. It is very crucial to add many other aspects to the Israeli-Arab conflict. So to begin with, there’s the basic question: Who are the "Palestinians"?

It is a must to declare up-front that historically, the "Palestinians" are not - and never were - a people. They are a mixture of Arabs from all Israel’s neighboring Arab countries, who were brought at the end of the 19th century as hard labor by the Turks, who ruled then the Middle East, in order to trim the woods of Palestine, the Jewish homeland, for the purpose of using the trees as coal for the Turkish war trains in their war against the Brits which, eventually, they’ve lost. The British government, who eyed the Arab oil, initiated in 1918 an Arab Palestinian entity in order to jeopardize Zionism and to gain Arab sympathy. By this step they challenge the 1917‘s Balfour (then Britain’s Foreign Minister) Declaration which recognized Palestine as the Jewish homeland. It's all documented by the British Foreign Office.

The Arab countries, via the Arab League, who consider themselves as one big nation - "Umat el Arbiyeh" in Arabic - have all of a sudden created a new satellite nation to their big alliance in the shape of a newly born people out of nowhere - the "Palestinians".

Following the UN resolution of November 29th, 1947 to divide Western Palestine (west of the Jordan river) between Arabs and Jews, which the local Arabs have rejected and immediately after opened a violent war against the Jews of Palestine, which is titled as Israel’s Independence War, in which over 10,000 Jews have been killed and tens of thousands were injured.

In the midst of the violent attacks on the Jews, Israel, under Prime Minister David Ben Gurion, managed to reorganize and establish the Israel Defense Forces, today’s one of the strongest armies in the world. The next step was the establishment of The State of Israel on Friday, May 14th, 1948. The next day, Saturday, May 15th, huge and well equipped Arab armies - Egyptian, Syrian, Jordanian and Iraqi - invaded Israel with heavy armors and artilleries and attacked the Jewsih newly born state from all sides. The neighboring Arab governments called - over the radio and through flyers spread by airplanes - all the Arabs of Palestine to leave their homes for a couple of days until the Jews are thrown into the Mediterranean, then they would return and take over all the to be vacant Jewish properties. Hundreds of thousands of Arabs obeyed the calls and, in spite of Israel’s call to them to stay and live with the Jews in dignity, left for Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Gaza strip, where they were denied citizenship and became the eternal "refugees" myth, even though they left willingly.

During the war, the huge Arab armies failed to throw the Jews into the Mediterranean. All the Arab states in the Middle East gathered and initiated a bitter moral campaign against Israel, using the Arabs who left their homes as so called "refugees", trying to turn the world against Israel for a human cause. The Jews, who for 1900 years were victims to all kinds of persecution, shook up and turned overnight into the best fighters in the world, leaving the Arabs losers and failures. In mid 1949, with the involvement of two UN mediators, Israel and its neighboring armies signed cease-fire agreements, setting the later known as the 1967 cease-fire lines between Israel and its neighboring Arab countries, set to mark where the armies stopped fighting for that cease-fire. Those lines have never been any kind of borders!

The agreements left Jordan occupying the then West Bank. No other agreement has been signed with Israel concerning the West Bank territory before the war of June of 1967. Both states have never changed the status of those cease-fire lines into permanent borders, nor did Jordan show any good will toward the Arabs living in that territory and hand over to them an independent state.

Now about Jerusalem which those Arabs calling themselves "Palestinians" claim as their holy capital. Jerusalem was never mentioned in the Kuran, nor was it ever any capital of the non-existing Arab-Palestinian state.

The moment Jordan joined Egypt and Syria in their threats to attack Israel in 1967, and after Israel launched a pre-attack and won the Six Day War, Jordan lost its control over the West Bank to Israel. The Arabs who live west of the Jordan river were never the owners of the Jewish homeland, yet were welcomed by Israel as guests and given tremendous rights and assistance, in spite of ongoing terror attacks on Jews which left thousands of innocent victims. Their claims for a statehood and ownership of this area are based on ongoing lies and false propaganda and their claims that Jerusalem is their holy capital is an outrageous lie. Each and every stone in the areas of Jerusalem and the West Bank have the fingerprints and footsteps of the Jews who have lived there for thousands of years until the Romans have expelled and spread them throughout the world.

Looking back at civilization history, no country was forced to hand back to aggressors and to its attackers its liberated homeland. Thus, Israel has the full historic and legal right to reoccupy its ancient homeland and no aggressor has the right to claim it. By the way, the historic name of the land is "Eretz Israel" - "The Land of Israel". The name Palestine was given to the land by the Romans after they've destroyed Jerusalem and the Holy Temple, in order to wipe out the names Israel and Judea from world awareness and history, so it would become forgotten with the time being. It was named after a tribe called Philistines, who lived thousands of years ago in ancient Ashquelon, north of Gaza. The Philistines had nothing to do with - and never were - today’s Arabs.

While the Arabs were unable to overcome the strength of Israel on the battle fields, in order to achieve their destructive anti-Israel goals, they turned their anti-Israel campaign into intensive, false propaganda and outrageous tons of lies.

The only solution to the Arabs who live west of the Jordan river and want an independent state is as follows: (background) When the British fought the Turks in the beginning of the 20th century, a Beduin tribe - the Hashemites, headed by Sheriff Hussein, the great-great-grandfather of today's King Abdullah - lost a war in the Arab Peninsula against the Saudi dynasty and fled north, to Palestine. They joined the British army in its war against the Turks who then ruled the Middle East. The Turks were defeated. As a result, the Brits have split the historic Palestine into two pieces - the area west of the Jordan river, now Israel, and the area east to the Jordan river, then named Trans-Jordan.

The Brits handed the eastern portion, meaning about 65% of Palestine, which became later a state by the name Jordan, to the Hashemite tribe from the Arab Peninsula. The smaller portion, between the Mediterranean and the Jordan river, was left for both Jews and Arabs who lived there. This 35% portion of Palestine is now under the threat of being cut once again into two pieces, in order to establish a third state within the historic Palestine. For the Arabs, creating that third state within Palestine will mean achieving the take-over of another major piece of historic Palestine toward their dream of taking over the entire Jewish homeland.

During the 20th century, many people were removed between countries worldwide due to agreements of peace which included Exchange of Populations. After Israel’s War of Independence, Israel absorbed nearly two million Jews, part of them holocaust survivors and others who were deported from all Arab countries in the Middle East. Before they were deported, those Jews were striped of all their assets which were confiscated by the local Arab governments. Israel, with the assistance of Jewish communities in the western world, managed to absorb all of those Jewish refugees and create for them new, dignified lives.

The fairest solution to all is to return first of all the confiscated assets to the Jewish refugees from Arab countries who were striped of them. The next step must be declaring Jordan as the Palestinian-Arab state, as about 85% of its current residents are Arabs from the area west of the Jordan river. Unfortunately for the current Hashemite king, Abdullah, he doesn't belong to Palestine and his artificial "kingdom" should be given to the "Palestinians" to become their state with the help of their Umat-el-Arbiyeh (The Big Arab Nation) who initiated the wars against Israel and lost them, thus solving the "Palestinian" problem.

Next must be stripping the local Arab terror organizations, like the Hamas, the Hisbullah, the Jihad and others of their massive weapons, sealing the channels through which arms are smuggled into Arab areas and "refugee camps". Otherwise, Israel will continue hammering those terror organizations and impose blockades, closures and sanctions against the "Palestinian" and their economy.

The Palestinian problem cannot be forced on Israel for solution. Israel cannot be liable for those problems which were created for over a century solely by the Arabs. It should not be forced to surrender its homeland just because others desire it for themselves as the first step toward throwing the Jews into the Mediterranean and turn the Middle East into Jewish-free.


----------



## aris2chat

Palestinian Myths

More on origin of modern palestinians


----------



## MJB12741

aris2chat said:


> *Something to think about.....*
> 
> *"Palestine" is a Fake*
> *By Kanan Abramson*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The President of the Arab "Palestinian" Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, a member of the Fatah terror movement which launched endless terror attacks against Israel in over six decades, spoke at the General Assembly of the United Nations in New York City, demanding a recognition of an independent "Palestinian" statehood. One of the most outstanding responses to him was a statement delivered by Rabbis Marvin Hier, Founder and Dean of The Simon Wiesenthal Center in California, and Abraham Cooper, Associate Dean of the leading Jewish Human Rights NGO. Their statement was as followed:
> 
> "On the day he submitted demands for Palestinian Statehood, Abbas' words have driven hope for peace right off the Mideast roadmap. his speech provides all the evidence as to why there is no peace. His distorted view of history of the Holy Land, speaks of ‘the ascension of the Prophet Mohammad and the birthplace of Jesus Christ’, but has no room for Jewish prophets like Isaiah or Jeremiah or King David or King Solomon", charged Rabbis Marvin Hier and Abraham Cooper, Founder and dean and associate dean of the leading Jewish Human Rights NGO. And when Abbas uses the podium of the UN to charge that Arabs have been under occupation for 63 years, he lays bare before the entire world that the core issue for the Palestinians isn't Israeli settlements established as a result of the 1967 Six Day War, but the very legitimacy of Israel from the day of its founding in 1948. Simply put, his view of reality has no room for a Jewish state. Unless and until Arab leaders finally tell their people that they recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish State as neighbor to the 23 Arab countries there will be no peace", Rabbis Hier and Cooper concluded.
> 
> This is only one aspect of the conflict. It is very crucial to add many other aspects to the Israeli-Arab conflict. So to begin with, there’s the basic question: Who are the "Palestinians"?
> 
> It is a must to declare up-front that historically, the "Palestinians" are not - and never were - a people. They are a mixture of Arabs from all Israel’s neighboring Arab countries, who were brought at the end of the 19th century as hard labor by the Turks, who ruled then the Middle East, in order to trim the woods of Palestine, the Jewish homeland, for the purpose of using the trees as coal for the Turkish war trains in their war against the Brits which, eventually, they’ve lost. The British government, who eyed the Arab oil, initiated in 1918 an Arab Palestinian entity in order to jeopardize Zionism and to gain Arab sympathy. By this step they challenge the 1917‘s Balfour (then Britain’s Foreign Minister) Declaration which recognized Palestine as the Jewish homeland. It's all documented by the British Foreign Office.
> 
> The Arab countries, via the Arab League, who consider themselves as one big nation - "Umat el Arbiyeh" in Arabic - have all of a sudden created a new satellite nation to their big alliance in the shape of a newly born people out of nowhere - the "Palestinians".
> 
> Following the UN resolution of November 29th, 1947 to divide Western Palestine (west of the Jordan river) between Arabs and Jews, which the local Arabs have rejected and immediately after opened a violent war against the Jews of Palestine, which is titled as Israel’s Independence War, in which over 10,000 Jews have been killed and tens of thousands were injured.
> 
> In the midst of the violent attacks on the Jews, Israel, under Prime Minister David Ben Gurion, managed to reorganize and establish the Israel Defense Forces, today’s one of the strongest armies in the world. The next step was the establishment of The State of Israel on Friday, May 14th, 1948. The next day, Saturday, May 15th, huge and well equipped Arab armies - Egyptian, Syrian, Jordanian and Iraqi - invaded Israel with heavy armors and artilleries and attacked the Jewsih newly born state from all sides. The neighboring Arab governments called - over the radio and through flyers spread by airplanes - all the Arabs of Palestine to leave their homes for a couple of days until the Jews are thrown into the Mediterranean, then they would return and take over all the to be vacant Jewish properties. Hundreds of thousands of Arabs obeyed the calls and, in spite of Israel’s call to them to stay and live with the Jews in dignity, left for Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Gaza strip, where they were denied citizenship and became the eternal "refugees" myth, even though they left willingly.
> 
> During the war, the huge Arab armies failed to throw the Jews into the Mediterranean. All the Arab states in the Middle East gathered and initiated a bitter moral campaign against Israel, using the Arabs who left their homes as so called "refugees", trying to turn the world against Israel for a human cause. The Jews, who for 1900 years were victims to all kinds of persecution, shook up and turned overnight into the best fighters in the world, leaving the Arabs losers and failures. In mid 1949, with the involvement of two UN mediators, Israel and its neighboring armies signed cease-fire agreements, setting the later known as the 1967 cease-fire lines between Israel and its neighboring Arab countries, set to mark where the armies stopped fighting for that cease-fire. Those lines have never been any kind of borders!
> 
> The agreements left Jordan occupying the then West Bank. No other agreement has been signed with Israel concerning the West Bank territory before the war of June of 1967. Both states have never changed the status of those cease-fire lines into permanent borders, nor did Jordan show any good will toward the Arabs living in that territory and hand over to them an independent state.
> 
> Now about Jerusalem which those Arabs calling themselves "Palestinians" claim as their holy capital. Jerusalem was never mentioned in the Kuran, nor was it ever any capital of the non-existing Arab-Palestinian state.
> 
> The moment Jordan joined Egypt and Syria in their threats to attack Israel in 1967, and after Israel launched a pre-attack and won the Six Day War, Jordan lost its control over the West Bank to Israel. The Arabs who live west of the Jordan river were never the owners of the Jewish homeland, yet were welcomed by Israel as guests and given tremendous rights and assistance, in spite of ongoing terror attacks on Jews which left thousands of innocent victims. Their claims for a statehood and ownership of this area are based on ongoing lies and false propaganda and their claims that Jerusalem is their holy capital is an outrageous lie. Each and every stone in the areas of Jerusalem and the West Bank have the fingerprints and footsteps of the Jews who have lived there for thousands of years until the Romans have expelled and spread them throughout the world.
> 
> Looking back at civilization history, no country was forced to hand back to aggressors and to its attackers its liberated homeland. Thus, Israel has the full historic and legal right to reoccupy its ancient homeland and no aggressor has the right to claim it. By the way, the historic name of the land is "Eretz Israel" - "The Land of Israel". The name Palestine was given to the land by the Romans after they've destroyed Jerusalem and the Holy Temple, in order to wipe out the names Israel and Judea from world awareness and history, so it would become forgotten with the time being. It was named after a tribe called Philistines, who lived thousands of years ago in ancient Ashquelon, north of Gaza. The Philistines had nothing to do with - and never were - today’s Arabs.
> 
> While the Arabs were unable to overcome the strength of Israel on the battle fields, in order to achieve their destructive anti-Israel goals, they turned their anti-Israel campaign into intensive, false propaganda and outrageous tons of lies.
> 
> The only solution to the Arabs who live west of the Jordan river and want an independent state is as follows: (background) When the British fought the Turks in the beginning of the 20th century, a Beduin tribe - the Hashemites, headed by Sheriff Hussein, the great-great-grandfather of today's King Abdullah - lost a war in the Arab Peninsula against the Saudi dynasty and fled north, to Palestine. They joined the British army in its war against the Turks who then ruled the Middle East. The Turks were defeated. As a result, the Brits have split the historic Palestine into two pieces - the area west of the Jordan river, now Israel, and the area east to the Jordan river, then named Trans-Jordan.
> 
> The Brits handed the eastern portion, meaning about 65% of Palestine, which became later a state by the name Jordan, to the Hashemite tribe from the Arab Peninsula. The smaller portion, between the Mediterranean and the Jordan river, was left for both Jews and Arabs who lived there. This 35% portion of Palestine is now under the threat of being cut once again into two pieces, in order to establish a third state within the historic Palestine. For the Arabs, creating that third state within Palestine will mean achieving the take-over of another major piece of historic Palestine toward their dream of taking over the entire Jewish homeland.
> 
> During the 20th century, many people were removed between countries worldwide due to agreements of peace which included Exchange of Populations. After Israel’s War of Independence, Israel absorbed nearly two million Jews, part of them holocaust survivors and others who were deported from all Arab countries in the Middle East. Before they were deported, those Jews were striped of all their assets which were confiscated by the local Arab governments. Israel, with the assistance of Jewish communities in the western world, managed to absorb all of those Jewish refugees and create for them new, dignified lives.
> 
> The fairest solution to all is to return first of all the confiscated assets to the Jewish refugees from Arab countries who were striped of them. The next step must be declaring Jordan as the Palestinian-Arab state, as about 85% of its current residents are Arabs from the area west of the Jordan river. Unfortunately for the current Hashemite king, Abdullah, he doesn't belong to Palestine and his artificial "kingdom" should be given to the "Palestinians" to become their state with the help of their Umat-el-Arbiyeh (The Big Arab Nation) who initiated the wars against Israel and lost them, thus solving the "Palestinian" problem.
> 
> Next must be stripping the local Arab terror organizations, like the Hamas, the Hisbullah, the Jihad and others of their massive weapons, sealing the channels through which arms are smuggled into Arab areas and "refugee camps". Otherwise, Israel will continue hammering those terror organizations and impose blockades, closures and sanctions against the "Palestinian" and their economy.
> 
> The Palestinian problem cannot be forced on Israel for solution. Israel cannot be liable for those problems which were created for over a century solely by the Arabs. It should not be forced to surrender its homeland just because others desire it for themselves as the first step toward throwing the Jews into the Mediterranean and turn the Middle East into Jewish-free.



Excellent.  However there is a danger in presenting articles like this.  If we educate the Pali supporters, they may leave us.  Then where do we go for fun & laughs?


----------



## MJB12741

aris2chat said:


> Palestinian Myths
> 
> More on origin of modern palestinians




Jordan did to the Palestinians what Jordan had to do to establish a lasting peace from them.  When will those Zionists in Israel ever learn from Jordan.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!


----------



## fanger

*SUDDENLY THERE IS A PALESTINE AND PALESTINIANS*

*Did you ever notice that one of the hardest words for a zionist to utter or put into print is Palestinian? The word itself confirms that there is a Palestine. *

*News reports in the zionist media refer to Palestinians as Arabs, or at best, Israeli Arabs.*

*BUT, if any of the above are involved in a suspected terrorist attack there suddenly is a Palestine and Palestinians, except in the extreme right media as seen below.










SUDDENLY THERE IS A PALESTINE AND PALESTINIANS Desertpeace
*


----------



## aris2chat

*A Different Kind of Refugee*
_Written by Linda Gradstein
Published Monday, December 01, 2014_






_Jews From Arab Countries Want Recognition of Refugee Status_


It may have been 47 years ago but Yossef Carasso remembers every detail of the night that he was taken to an Egyptian police station from his home in the city of Tanta, near Cairo. It was the first night of the 1967 war.

“We were the only Jewish family still left in Tanta and at 10 p.m. there was a knock on the door,” Carasso told The Media Line. “The policeman told my father, “We’re looking for your son and son-in-law. They took us to a police station and left us there all night.”

Carasso, who was not accused of any crime, was among 400 Jews who were imprisoned in Egypt at the start of the war when Egypt, along with Syria and Jordan attacked Israel. For six months, he says, his parents didn’t know if he was still alive. Finally he was allowed to write to them.

Two years later he was released, and the next day he and his family left Egypt, originally for France and then for Israel. According to Justice for Jews from Arab Countries (JJAC), almost 120,000 Jews left Egypt in the 1950’s and 60’s. There are only a few dozen Jews left in Egypt today.

This week, he attended a ceremony at Israeli President Reuven Rivlin’s residence, designating November 30 as the national day of commemoration of the plight of Jewish refugees from Arab lands and Iran. According to the United Nations, about 850,000 Jews left their homes in Arab countries, more than the 750,000 Palestinians who became refugees with the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. The largest number of Arab Jews came from Morocco, Algeria and Iraq. Today half of all Israelis have roots in Arab countries, and are known as Mizrahi (Eastern) Jews as opposed to Ashkenazi Jews from eastern Europe.

The national day hopes to raise awareness in both Israel and abroad about the culture of the Jews from Arab countries, as well as to begin a discussion of the issue of compensation for all of the property the Jews left behind.

“We have a whole history that even my children don’t know,” Sylvain Abitboul, the co-president of JJAC told The Media Line. “Everybody is always talking about the Palestinian refugees, but we want the world to know there is another set of refugees.”

Abitboul, who was born in Morocco, immigrated to Canada at age 18, and became an active member of the Jewish community in Montreal, including a stint as the past president of the Montreal Jewish Federation.

Many of the Jews from Arab countries left extensive property in their home countries before they emigrated. Abitboul says the estimate is that the total is $300 billion in today’s dollars. In 2000, then President Clinton suggested establishing a fund that would compensate both Palestinian and Jewish refugees.

At the ceremony, President Rivlin, whose own roots in Israel date back to the early 1800’s and who is a quintessential Ashkenazi Jew, said Israel needed to do more to integrate Mizrahi history and culture. For many years, the Ashkenazim were seen as the elite, and dominated educational and cultural institutions.

“We have come together today to make amends for a historical injustice, against a million Jews, immigrants from Arab countries and Iran, who stories were pushed to the margins of the Zionist narrative,” Rivlin told the crowd at his residence. “Indeed this comes too late, on too small a scale and no longer has an impact on public consciousness. Yet, still it is important to seek the correction, which should not be underestimated.”

Many of the attendees said that when they first came to Israel, they were embarrassed by their Arabic accents. Their parents were shunted off to peripheral areas in the country and low-paying jobs.

But recently there has been a renewed interest in Mizrachi culture, including music and food.

“It’s quite astonishing to see the revival of the culture in Israel,” Lyn Julius, the founder of Harif, the UK-based Association of Jews from the Middle East and North Africa told The Media Line. “The grandchildren of Jews from Arab and Muslim countries are becoming interested in their roots. It’s now harder to find a bagel than it is to find kubbeh (a Moroccan dish of fried dough stuffed with meat) in Israel.”


fanger said:


> *SUDDENLY THERE IS A PALESTINE AND PALESTINIANS*
> 
> *Did you ever notice that one of the hardest words for a zionist to utter or put into print is Palestinian? The word itself confirms that there is a Palestine. *
> 
> *News reports in the zionist media refer to Palestinians as Arabs, or at best, Israeli Arabs.*
> 
> *BUT, if any of the above are involved in a suspected terrorist attack there suddenly is a Palestine and Palestinians, except in the extreme right media as seen below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUDDENLY THERE IS A PALESTINE AND PALESTINIANS Desertpeace*



Mandate was not a state, nor did it belong to only "palestinians".  It was always to be use for the (re)foundation of a jewish state.


----------



## MJB12741

fanger said:


> *SUDDENLY THERE IS A PALESTINE AND PALESTINIANS*
> 
> *Did you ever notice that one of the hardest words for a zionist to utter or put into print is Palestinian? The word itself confirms that there is a Palestine. *
> 
> *News reports in the zionist media refer to Palestinians as Arabs, or at best, Israeli Arabs.*
> 
> *BUT, if any of the above are involved in a suspected terrorist attack there suddenly is a Palestine and Palestinians, except in the extreme right media as seen below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUDDENLY THERE IS A PALESTINE AND PALESTINIANS Desertpeace*



HUH???  Why of course there is a PALESTINE.  Among the natives were JEWS & not a single Muslim anywhere to be found.  When did the Muslim Palestinians start invading Israel's land?


----------



## Humanity

aris2chat said:


> Palestinian Myths
> 
> More on origin of modern palestinians



That has to be one of the funniest articles I have read on this forum!

That 'neutral' source was excellent... I must find 'neutral' sources like that to support Palestinians

Thanks for the laugh...


----------



## docmauser1

Humanity said:


> That has to be one of the funniest articles I have read on this forum! That 'neutral' source was excellent... I must find 'neutral' sources like that to support Palestinians. Thanks for the laugh...


"So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population." Winnie Churchill
Happy laughin'.


----------



## fanger

Ask Daniyel, he's a Morrocan  Arab


----------



## Humanity

docmauser1 said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be one of the funniest articles I have read on this forum! That 'neutral' source was excellent... I must find 'neutral' sources like that to support Palestinians. Thanks for the laugh...
> 
> 
> 
> "So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population." Winnie Churchill
> Happy laughin'.
Click to expand...


And your point being?


----------



## docmauser1

Humanity said:


> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be one of the funniest articles I have read on this forum! That 'neutral' source was excellent... I must find 'neutral' sources like that to support Palestinians. Thanks for the laugh...
> 
> 
> 
> "So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population." Winnie Churchill
> Happy laughin'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point being?
Click to expand...

Palistanians should embrace their settling-squatting origins, that, in turn, hopefully should cure their mass psychological and psychiatric disorders and issues, and enlighten them enough to get a life and a job, of course. Hopefully so.


----------



## RoccoR

Humanity,  _et al,_

I read it as well.  There is a technical mistake in the commentary; within the first question.

_“Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?”
“We did not particularly mind Jordanian rule. The teaching of the destruction of Israel was a definite part of the curriculum, but we considered ourselves Jordanian until the Jews returned to Jerusalem. Then all of the sudden we were Palestinians - they removed the star from the Jordanian flag and all at once we had a Palestinian flag”.
“When I finally realized the lies and myths I was taught, it is my duty as a righteous person to speak out”._​
Any Arab-Palestinian would have caught this error.



Humanity said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian Myths
> More on origin of modern palestinians
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be one of the funniest articles I have read on this forum!
> That 'neutral' source was excellent... I must find 'neutral' sources like that to support Palestinians
> Thanks for the laugh...
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The inhabitants of the West Bank were Jordanian Citizens as of April 1950.

"On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion."  _*Source:*_ Jordanian History Website @ http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/his_palestine.html#Unification of the Two Banks​
They maintained Jordanian Citizenship through July 1988.

"Finally, on July 31 King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only. This disengagement decision marks the turning point that launched the current democratic process, and began a new stage in Jordan’s relationship with West Bank Palestinians."  _*Source:*_ Jordanian History Website @ http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/his_periods9.html​
This idea that the Palestinian conversion happened overnight is a misinterpretation of the facts to the events as they occurred.  The West Bank inhabitants established citizenship with the State of Palestine in November 1988.

1. _Acknowledges _the proclamation of the State of Palestine LINK> 

 by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988;

2. _Affirms _the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;

3. _Decides _that, effective as of 15 December 1988, the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system, without prejudice to the observer status and functions of the Palestine Liberation Organization within the United Nations system, in conformity with relevant United Nations resolutions and practice;

4. _Requests _the Secretary-General to take the necessary action to implement the present resolution.

_*Source:*_ UN Resolution A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988​
This is a very common mistake made by agenda driven people engaging in some sort of propaganda effort.  I've seen this over and over again; copied and repeated.  The significants eludes the writers.  Yet it is all important.  This should be required reading for every Palestinian --- everyone who claims to be a citizen of Palestine.  It is important to note what it means to say one is a "Palestinian."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

docmauser1 said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be one of the funniest articles I have read on this forum! That 'neutral' source was excellent... I must find 'neutral' sources like that to support Palestinians. Thanks for the laugh...
> 
> 
> 
> "So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population." Winnie Churchill
> Happy laughin'.
Click to expand...


Now the facts on immigration, not political hyperbole from Churchill in parliament.  From the Survey of Palestine Vol. 1 page 17.  *From 1920-1946 of the 414,456 legal and illegal immigrants 376,415 were Jews and only 38,041 were non-Jews some of which were probably not even Arab.*  The Survey for Palestine is available for download from the Berman Jewish Policy Archive of NYU and Wagner Universities.  Home Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner


----------



## MJB12741

docmauser1 said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be one of the funniest articles I have read on this forum! That 'neutral' source was excellent... I must find 'neutral' sources like that to support Palestinians. Thanks for the laugh...
> 
> 
> 
> "So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population." Winnie Churchill
> Happy laughin'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palistanians should embrace their settling-squatting origins, that, in turn, hopefully should cure their mass psychological and psychiatric disorders and issues, and enlighten them enough to get a life and a job, of course. Hopefully so.
Click to expand...


As soon as Israel turned the wasteland into a thriving metropoplis, here came the hoards of Palestinians to claim it's their land.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be one of the funniest articles I have read on this forum! That 'neutral' source was excellent... I must find 'neutral' sources like that to support Palestinians. Thanks for the laugh...
> 
> 
> 
> "So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population." Winnie Churchill
> Happy laughin'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palistanians should embrace their settling-squatting origins, that, in turn, hopefully should cure their mass psychological and psychiatric disorders and issues, and enlighten them enough to get a life and a job, of course. Hopefully so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As soon as Israel turned the wasteland into a thriving metropoplis, here came the hoards of Palestinians to claim it's their land.
Click to expand...


As the record shows, it is patently untrue as it was the Jewish hordes from Europe that outstripped the non-Jewish immigrants about 10 to 1.

"*From 1920-1946 of the 414,456 legal and illegal immigrants 376,415 were Jews and only 38,041 were non-Jews some of which were probably not even Arab.* The Survey for Palestine is available for download from the Berman Jewish Policy Archive of NYU and Wagner Universities. Home Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner


----------



## docmauser1

RoccoR said:


> It is important to note what it means to say one is a "Palestinian.


It means "Any angry arab", of course.


----------



## docmauser1

montelatici said:


> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be one of the funniest articles I have read on this forum! That 'neutral' source was excellent... I must find 'neutral' sources like that to support Palestinians. Thanks for the laugh...
> 
> 
> 
> "So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population." Winnie Churchill
> Happy laughin'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the facts on immigration, not political hyperbole from Churchill in parliament.  From the Survey of Palestine Vol. 1 page 17.  *From 1920-1946 of the 414,456 legal and illegal immigrants 376,415 were Jews and only 38,041 were non-Jews some of which were probably not even Arab.*  The Survey for Palestine is available for download from the Berman Jewish Policy Archive of NYU and Wagner Universities.  Home Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU WagnerView attachment 34688
Click to expand...

Do they explain how those arab settlers and squatters got to be all saudi sheiks round to own 90%(!) of the mandate palestine too?


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be one of the funniest articles I have read on this forum! That 'neutral' source was excellent... I must find 'neutral' sources like that to support Palestinians. Thanks for the laugh...
> 
> 
> 
> "So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population." Winnie Churchill
> Happy laughin'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palistanians should embrace their settling-squatting origins, that, in turn, hopefully should cure their mass psychological and psychiatric disorders and issues, and enlighten them enough to get a life and a job, of course. Hopefully so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As soon as Israel turned the wasteland into a thriving metropoplis, here came the hoards of Palestinians to claim it's their land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As the record shows, it is patently untrue as it was the Jewish hordes from Europe that outstripped the non-Jewish immigrants about 10 to 1.
> 
> "*From 1920-1946 of the 414,456 legal and illegal immigrants 376,415 were Jews and only 38,041 were non-Jews some of which were probably not even Arab.* The Survey for Palestine is available for download from the Berman Jewish Policy Archive of NYU and Wagner Universities. Home Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner
> 
> View attachment 34711
Click to expand...



Bottom line is both Israeli's & Palestinian are there.  So how can peace be established between them?  Well lets see now.  Israel makes peace offerings & receives jihads for a reward.  Israel builds a security fence so the Paletinians can remain where they are instead of massacring them like their Arab brothers did in surrounding Arab countries & the Palestinians call it an apartheid wall.  Israel grants the Palestinian request for their own Jew free land in Gaza & Israel is thanked with rocket missiles.  

Hey I have an idea.  Wouldn't the Palestinians just love the Israeli's if Israel gives them all of the West Bank as well including all of Jerusalem?  Face it, there is NOTHING more Israel can give to the Palestinians for peace.  History has proven that no matter what, Palestinians will be Palestinians & their demands are endless.  Only the annihilation of Israel will satisfy them & then the Palestinians will be doomed by their own self determination without Israel to provide for them any longer.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Diana Buttu*


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Diana Buttu*




What ever happened to that wonderful, honest, non biased Palestinian for peace Hanan Ashrawi?


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Diana Buttu*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What ever happened to that wonderful, honest, non biased Palestinian for peace Hanan Ashrawi?
Click to expand...

Thank you for asking.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Palestine" is just a name of the mandate region.  When the mandate ended the government of Eretz Israel choose to name their state Israel.  There was no state of palestine so why should they have kept the name.  They wanted their jewish state to reflect their history and ties to the land.
> They had the right to call it what they wanted.
> It was a distinction from the state offered and refused by the UN partition plan.  At the time most palestinian arabs/muslims identified themselves as southern syrians, jordanian or just as arab.  They were a mix of tribes and people and at the time the mandate ended close to half were immigrants that came seeking well paying work what had no real ties to the land or country.
> If Israel had kept the name of palestine, what should the rest of the other land have called itself?  Palestine II?
> With the creation of Israel, the "land" was no longer palestine but now Israel.
> Sovereignty and rights come from statehood which the palestinians never had or left because they did not want to accept either Israel or partition.
> Israel could have called itself Mecca or Rome or Jewland or XYZland but it choose Israel.  Palestinian refugees, gaza, WB , wherever don't have the right to tell Israel what it should be called.  They don't want to be Israeli?  They leave.  Most stayed and are content as Israelis.  They don't want to leave or change names.
> Israel was identified by the mandate as a jewish homeland and Israel identifies as a jewish state.  Israel was a logical choice for a name and the land is Israeli land and the people are Israeli.
> Time you accept that.
> 
> 
> 
> You start with this statement.
> 
> "Palestine" is just a name of the mandate region.​That is not true. Palestine was a country (Palestine was called a country ten times in the mandate charter) that was defined by international borders. It had citizens as per international law, the Treaty of Lausanna, and the Palestine citizenship order of 1925.
> 
> The rest of your post follows false premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope as the treaties state the mandate of Palestine and never the nation of Palestine, take another close look tinny ?
> 
> And the treaty of Lausanne does not even mention Palestine, while the Palestine citizenship order endows palestinians with British palestinian citizenship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the passports issued and in the order itself
> 
> 
> A second important clause of the draft, later to be intensely debated, stated that the foreign relations of the Palestine government were to be undertaken by Great Britain, and the citizens of Palestine were entitled to British protection when outside of Palestine
> 
> The creation of Palestinian citizenship under an international mandate 1918-1925 openDemocracy
> 
> 
> And the arab muslims rejected the Palestine citizenship order out of hand.
> 
> The Palestinian Arab Executive leadership unanimously rejected the citizenship legislation on the basis that it denied citizenship to native-born Palestinians while privileging Jewish immigrants, and that it neglected provisions for natural civil and political rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As the trustee for Palestine Britain had the obligation to facilitate travel and protection for the Palestinians. Palestine, however, never became a part of Britain and the Palestinians never became British.
> --------------------
> With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923_.
> _
> _“(1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power...._
> (2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them…”92
> -----------------​It is true that the Treaty of Lausanna did not mention Palestine. It did not mention any of the new states.
> -------------------
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​----------------
> This was reiterated in the citizenship order.
> -----------------
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​----------------
> The Palestinians did reject the order because there was some junk that was placed in there without their consent.
Click to expand...





 And the passports/ID cards issued all had the legend BRITISH on them, making the holders of these passports subject to British protection because there was no actual nation at that time. If there was then why didn't they issue their own passports and ID cards as Jordan, Syria and Iraq had done ?


----------



## Phoenall

fanger said:


> *SUDDENLY THERE IS A PALESTINE AND PALESTINIANS*
> 
> *Did you ever notice that one of the hardest words for a zionist to utter or put into print is Palestinian? The word itself confirms that there is a Palestine. *
> 
> *News reports in the zionist media refer to Palestinians as Arabs, or at best, Israeli Arabs.*
> 
> *BUT, if any of the above are involved in a suspected terrorist attack there suddenly is a Palestine and Palestinians, except in the extreme right media as seen below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUDDENLY THERE IS A PALESTINE AND PALESTINIANS Desertpeace*





 Care to show the other side of the coin, that will state Great Britain. And can you see the Hebrew writing on the left hand side of the coin.

 And by the way since 1919 it has been the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE, and Palestine the area has existed since roman times with the Jews as the palestinians


 It gets easier to destroy team palestines posts every day


----------



## Phoenall

Humanity said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian Myths
> 
> More on origin of modern palestinians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be one of the funniest articles I have read on this forum!
> 
> That 'neutral' source was excellent... I must find 'neutral' sources like that to support Palestinians
> 
> Thanks for the laugh...
Click to expand...





 Such a pity that it is completely factual in what it says, and destroys the arab muslims claims


----------



## fanger

Phoenall said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> *SUDDENLY THERE IS A PALESTINE AND PALESTINIANS*
> 
> *Did you ever notice that one of the hardest words for a zionist to utter or put into print is Palestinian? The word itself confirms that there is a Palestine. *
> 
> *News reports in the zionist media refer to Palestinians as Arabs, or at best, Israeli Arabs.*
> 
> *BUT, if any of the above are involved in a suspected terrorist attack there suddenly is a Palestine and Palestinians, except in the extreme right media as seen below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUDDENLY THERE IS A PALESTINE AND PALESTINIANS Desertpeace*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to show the other side of the coin, that will state Great Britain. And can you see the Hebrew writing on the left hand side of the coin.
> 
> And by the way since 1919 it has been the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE, and Palestine the area has existed since roman times with the Jews as the palestinians
> 
> 
> It gets easier to destroy team palestines posts every day
Click to expand...







 Here ya go fatty


> Care to show the other side of the coin, that will state Great Britain.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian Myths
> 
> More on origin of modern palestinians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be one of the funniest articles I have read on this forum!
> 
> That 'neutral' source was excellent... I must find 'neutral' sources like that to support Palestinians
> 
> Thanks for the laugh...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such a pity that it is completely factual in what it says, and destroys the arab muslims claims
Click to expand...


It is as factual as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

fanger said:


> Here ya go fatty
> 
> 
> 
> Care to show the other side of the coin, that will state Great Britain.
Click to expand...


 It's almost as if you are out to prove how stupid you are.

Showing a pic of a coin minted by the British for use of the residents of the Palestinian Mandate (which included Arabs, Jews and Druze) hardly proves that there was a people called "Palestinian" as we define them today  or that these people had their own country. 

It just shows that you are profoundly ignorant in addition to your incredible degree of stupidity.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Phoenall said:


> It gets easier to destroy team palestines posts every day




usmessageboard's  special needs posters to be sure.


----------



## fanger

It proves there was an area, not part of Britain, called Palestine not





> 'Care to show the other side of the coin, that will state Great Britain'


 as suggested by fatty


----------



## fanger

Dogmaphobe said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It gets easier to destroy team palestines posts every day
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usmessageboard's  special needs posters to be sure.
Click to expand...

Dont be so hard on Phonyall, even if it's true


----------



## aris2chat

Dogmaphobe said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here ya go fatty
> 
> 
> 
> Care to show the other side of the coin, that will state Great Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's almost as if you are out to prove how stupid you are.
> 
> Showing a pic of a coin minted by the British for use of the residents of the Palestinian Mandate (which included Arabs, Jews and Druze) hardly proves that there was a people called "Palestinian" as we define them today  or that these people had their own country.
> 
> It just shows that you are profoundly ignorant in addition to your incredible degree of stupidity.
Click to expand...


There was a place called USSR, but now it has been divided into separate states.


----------



## fanger

There was a place called Palestine, it is for now occupied by the zionist_* entity*_


----------



## docmauser1

fanger said:


> There was a place called Palestine, it is for now occupied by the zionist_* entity*_


Arabist occupation© can produce strange things, indeed.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian Myths
> 
> More on origin of modern palestinians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be one of the funniest articles I have read on this forum!
> 
> That 'neutral' source was excellent... I must find 'neutral' sources like that to support Palestinians
> 
> Thanks for the laugh...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such a pity that it is completely factual in what it says, and destroys the arab muslims claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is as factual as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Click to expand...




 Is it when the Protocols have been debunked as an Islamic fiction based on a Russian novel. Unlike this link which is from a non partisan source and is based on collected evidence from other non partisan source's


----------



## Phoenall

fanger said:


> There was a place called Palestine, it is for now occupied by the zionist_* entity*_





 BUT IT WAS NEVER A NATION UNTIL 1988


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian Myths
> 
> More on origin of modern palestinians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be one of the funniest articles I have read on this forum!
> 
> That 'neutral' source was excellent... I must find 'neutral' sources like that to support Palestinians
> 
> Thanks for the laugh...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such a pity that it is completely factual in what it says, and destroys the arab muslims claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is as factual as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it when the Protocols have been debunked as an Islamic fiction based on a Russian novel. Unlike this link which is from a non partisan source and is based on collected evidence from other non partisan source's
Click to expand...


The links provided are as reliable as the Protocols. And, they are partisan.


----------



## RoccoR

_et al,_

Whatever you choose to believe, concerning the origins for the designation "People of Palestine" --- in the end --- it is of no consequence.  The past is the past.

The cause today is the establishment of regional peace and security for both the peoples of the State of Israel and the State of Palestine.

Currently, there is a move underway to support a UN Security Council Resolution that would give the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) uncontested statehood in the Israeli occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip; with East Jerusalem as their capital – essentially the territory captured by Israel in a 1967 War. 

The Arab Peace Initiative Committee (APIC) _[Kuwait, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Sudan, Yemen, UAE and Oman; and including Palestine]_ has been meeting over the last several weeks to discuss the proposal.  In the mean time, several of the weaker EU nations _(Examples are the UK, Spain, France and Belgium)_ have fallen to the pressures of domestic Islamic coercion and have openly supported Palestine statehood.   While the details of the proposed resolution have not been made public, there is no talk of a Peace Treaty being part of it or a final settlement.

The UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said:  “We, as the international community, must assume responsibility for what is a collective failure to advance a political solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”   Israel has accepted the generalized idea of a “two-state solution” with a Palestinian state alongside Israel; but does not accepted the 1967 borders as the basis, citing security and other concerns _[noting that most of the APIC members have sent offensive forces into the area at one time or another --- usually several members at a time --- and one member (Lebanon) is technically still at war with Israel]_. 

There are members of the Arab League _(Example Bahrain)_ that absolutely and categorically refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish State; as President Mahmoud Abbas stated "Palestinians will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state" _(emergency session of the Arab League)_.  And elements of the Palestinian Government, even now, refuse to recognize the State of Israel.

What is the solution?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

fanger,  _et al,_

This is total nonsense and over simplified; a thumbnail soundbite to a complex issue.



fanger said:


> There was a place called Palestine, it is for now occupied by the zionist_* entity*_


*(COMMENT)*

You know as well as I do, that in 1967, when the Israelis moved into the West Bank, it was then sovereign Jordanian Territory.  And when the Israelis moved into Gaza, it was an occupied Egyptian Governorship (_with the All Palestine Government having been dissolved)_.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Dogmaphobe said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here ya go fatty
> 
> 
> 
> Care to show the other side of the coin, that will state Great Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's almost as if you are out to prove how stupid you are.
> 
> Showing a pic of a coin minted by the British for use of the residents of the Palestinian Mandate (which included Arabs, Jews and Druze) hardly proves that there was a people called "Palestinian" as we define them today  or that these people had their own country.
> 
> It just shows that you are profoundly ignorant in addition to your incredible degree of stupidity.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> fanger,  _et al,_
> 
> This is total nonsense and over simplified; a thumbnail soundbite to a complex issue.
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was a place called Palestine, it is for now occupied by the zionist_* entity*_
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You know as well as I do, that in 1967, when the Israelis moved into the West Bank, it was then sovereign Jordanian Territory.  And when the Israelis moved into Gaza, it was an occupied Egyptian Governorship (_with the All Palestine Government having been dissolved)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

How does that refute fanger's post?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> fanger,  _et al,_
> 
> This is total nonsense and over simplified; a thumbnail soundbite to a complex issue.
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was a place called Palestine, it is for now occupied by the zionist_* entity*_
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You know as well as I do, that in 1967, when the Israelis moved into the West Bank, it was then sovereign Jordanian Territory.  And when the Israelis moved into Gaza, it was an occupied Egyptian Governorship (_with the All Palestine Government having been dissolved)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does that refute fanger's post?
Click to expand...


Serious question, are you brain dead?


----------



## toastman

fanger said:


> There was a place called Palestine, it is for now occupied by the zionist_* entity*_



The West Bank is the only occupied place. Israel is Israel, no matter how much you whine about it Muslim shill.


----------



## montelatici

Desperation. LOL


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Remembering of course, that the designation of "Palestine" in 1925, was the official short title for the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies (Palestine Order in Council).



P F Tinmore said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here ya go fatty
> 
> 
> 
> Care to show the other side of the coin, that will state Great Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's almost as if you are out to prove how stupid you are.
> 
> Showing a pic of a coin minted by the British for use of the residents of the Palestinian Mandate (which included Arabs, Jews and Druze) hardly proves that there was a people called "Palestinian" as we define them today  or that these people had their own country.
> 
> It just shows that you are profoundly ignorant in addition to your incredible degree of stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Don't mislead people into believing that there was some other entity called Palestine, or that there was an independent nation called Palestine.  That would be an intentional falsehood.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Remembering of course, that the designation of "Palestine" in 1925, was the official short title for the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies (Palestine Order in Council).
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here ya go fatty
> 
> 
> 
> Care to show the other side of the coin, that will state Great Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's almost as if you are out to prove how stupid you are.
> 
> Showing a pic of a coin minted by the British for use of the residents of the Palestinian Mandate (which included Arabs, Jews and Druze) hardly proves that there was a people called "Palestinian" as we define them today  or that these people had their own country.
> 
> It just shows that you are profoundly ignorant in addition to your incredible degree of stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Don't mislead people into believing that there was some other entity called Palestine, or that there was an independent nation called Palestine.  That would be an intentional falsehood.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The mandate was not Palestine. The mandate was a temporary trustee of Palestine. Palestine existed with or without the mandate.

I never claimed Palestine to be independent. Palestine was born under occupation and that continues today. But, as UN resolutions state, Palestinians have the right to self determination, independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity.

Violating their rights do not negate those rights.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian Myths
> 
> More on origin of modern palestinians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be one of the funniest articles I have read on this forum!
> 
> That 'neutral' source was excellent... I must find 'neutral' sources like that to support Palestinians
> 
> Thanks for the laugh...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such a pity that it is completely factual in what it says, and destroys the arab muslims claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is as factual as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it when the Protocols have been debunked as an Islamic fiction based on a Russian novel. Unlike this link which is from a non partisan source and is based on collected evidence from other non partisan source's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The links provided are as reliable as the Protocols. And, they are partisan.
Click to expand...




Do bring forward your evidence to show how the Protocols are real and Palestinian myths is not ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Remembering of course, that the designation of "Palestine" in 1925, was the official short title for the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies (Palestine Order in Council).
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here ya go fatty
> 
> 
> 
> Care to show the other side of the coin, that will state Great Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's almost as if you are out to prove how stupid you are.
> 
> Showing a pic of a coin minted by the British for use of the residents of the Palestinian Mandate (which included Arabs, Jews and Druze) hardly proves that there was a people called "Palestinian" as we define them today  or that these people had their own country.
> 
> It just shows that you are profoundly ignorant in addition to your incredible degree of stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Don't mislead people into believing that there was some other entity called Palestine, or that there was an independent nation called Palestine.  That would be an intentional falsehood.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mandate was not Palestine. The mandate was a temporary trustee of Palestine. Palestine existed with or without the mandate.
> 
> I never claimed Palestine to be independent. Palestine was born under occupation and that continues today. But, as UN resolutions state, Palestinians have the right to self determination, independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity.
> 
> Violating their rights do not negate those rights.
Click to expand...





The mandate was Palestine as the name says, without the mandate Palestine did not exist. Even the muslims called it Syria and not Palestine. The Palestinians already have self determination, independence, sovereignty and just need to negotiate territorial integrity. They will never be handed what you demand on a plate as they will just destroy everything in their ever increasing demands which will never be met. Until the Palestinians sit up and take control of their own lives they will be 3rd world moochers living on handouts.


----------



## MJB12741

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Remembering of course, that the designation of "Palestine" in 1925, was the official short title for the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies (Palestine Order in Council).
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here ya go fatty
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's almost as if you are out to prove how stupid you are.
> 
> Showing a pic of a coin minted by the British for use of the residents of the Palestinian Mandate (which included Arabs, Jews and Druze) hardly proves that there was a people called "Palestinian" as we define them today  or that these people had their own country.
> 
> It just shows that you are profoundly ignorant in addition to your incredible degree of stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Don't mislead people into believing that there was some other entity called Palestine, or that there was an independent nation called Palestine.  That would be an intentional falsehood.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mandate was not Palestine. The mandate was a temporary trustee of Palestine. Palestine existed with or without the mandate.
> 
> I never claimed Palestine to be independent. Palestine was born under occupation and that continues today. But, as UN resolutions state, Palestinians have the right to self determination, independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity.
> 
> Violating their rights do not negate those rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate was Palestine as the name says, without the mandate Palestine did not exist. Even the muslims called it Syria and not Palestine. The Palestinians already have self determination, independence, sovereignty and just need to negotiate territorial integrity. They will never be handed what you demand on a plate as they will just destroy everything in their ever increasing demands which will never be met. Until the Palestinians sit up and take control of their own lives they will be 3rd world moochers living on handouts.
Click to expand...


What the Palestinians need is their own Palestinian State with self determination away from Israel.  Problem is no surrounding Arab country, who know the Palestinians best, will grant them a right of return.  So where can this Palestinian State be where the Palestinians can no longer suck off of Israel to provide for them any longer & no longer blame Israel for their misery & failures?


----------



## aris2chat

MJB12741 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Remembering of course, that the designation of "Palestine" in 1925, was the official short title for the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies (Palestine Order in Council).
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's almost as if you are out to prove how stupid you are.
> 
> Showing a pic of a coin minted by the British for use of the residents of the Palestinian Mandate (which included Arabs, Jews and Druze) hardly proves that there was a people called "Palestinian" as we define them today  or that these people had their own country.
> 
> It just shows that you are profoundly ignorant in addition to your incredible degree of stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Don't mislead people into believing that there was some other entity called Palestine, or that there was an independent nation called Palestine.  That would be an intentional falsehood.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mandate was not Palestine. The mandate was a temporary trustee of Palestine. Palestine existed with or without the mandate.
> 
> I never claimed Palestine to be independent. Palestine was born under occupation and that continues today. But, as UN resolutions state, Palestinians have the right to self determination, independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity.
> 
> Violating their rights do not negate those rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate was Palestine as the name says, without the mandate Palestine did not exist. Even the muslims called it Syria and not Palestine. The Palestinians already have self determination, independence, sovereignty and just need to negotiate territorial integrity. They will never be handed what you demand on a plate as they will just destroy everything in their ever increasing demands which will never be met. Until the Palestinians sit up and take control of their own lives they will be 3rd world moochers living on handouts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the Palestinians need is their own Palestinian State with self determination away from Israel.  Problem is no surrounding Arab country, who know the Palestinians best, will grant them a right of return.  So where can this Palestinian State be where the Palestinians can no longer suck off of Israel to provide for them any longer & no longer blame Israel for their misery & failures?
Click to expand...


Egypt offered them land in the Sinai but it was refused.


----------



## Coyote

aris2chat said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Remembering of course, that the designation of "Palestine" in 1925, was the official short title for the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies (Palestine Order in Council).
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Don't mislead people into believing that there was some other entity called Palestine, or that there was an independent nation called Palestine.  That would be an intentional falsehood.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mandate was not Palestine. The mandate was a temporary trustee of Palestine. Palestine existed with or without the mandate.
> 
> I never claimed Palestine to be independent. Palestine was born under occupation and that continues today. But, as UN resolutions state, Palestinians have the right to self determination, independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity.
> 
> Violating their rights do not negate those rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate was Palestine as the name says, without the mandate Palestine did not exist. Even the muslims called it Syria and not Palestine. The Palestinians already have self determination, independence, sovereignty and just need to negotiate territorial integrity. They will never be handed what you demand on a plate as they will just destroy everything in their ever increasing demands which will never be met. Until the Palestinians sit up and take control of their own lives they will be 3rd world moochers living on handouts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the Palestinians need is their own Palestinian State with self determination away from Israel.  Problem is no surrounding Arab country, who know the Palestinians best, will grant them a right of return.  So where can this Palestinian State be where the Palestinians can no longer suck off of Israel to provide for them any longer & no longer blame Israel for their misery & failures?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Egypt offered them land in the Sinai but it was refused.
Click to expand...


Was that a real offer?  I heard it then I heard it wasn't real.


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Remembering of course, that the designation of "Palestine" in 1925, was the official short title for the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies (Palestine Order in Council).
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Don't mislead people into believing that there was some other entity called Palestine, or that there was an independent nation called Palestine.  That would be an intentional falsehood.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate was not Palestine. The mandate was a temporary trustee of Palestine. Palestine existed with or without the mandate.
> 
> I never claimed Palestine to be independent. Palestine was born under occupation and that continues today. But, as UN resolutions state, Palestinians have the right to self determination, independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity.
> 
> Violating their rights do not negate those rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate was Palestine as the name says, without the mandate Palestine did not exist. Even the muslims called it Syria and not Palestine. The Palestinians already have self determination, independence, sovereignty and just need to negotiate territorial integrity. They will never be handed what you demand on a plate as they will just destroy everything in their ever increasing demands which will never be met. Until the Palestinians sit up and take control of their own lives they will be 3rd world moochers living on handouts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the Palestinians need is their own Palestinian State with self determination away from Israel.  Problem is no surrounding Arab country, who know the Palestinians best, will grant them a right of return.  So where can this Palestinian State be where the Palestinians can no longer suck off of Israel to provide for them any longer & no longer blame Israel for their misery & failures?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Egypt offered them land in the Sinai but it was refused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was that a real offer?  I heard it then I heard it wasn't real.
Click to expand...


Real offer but after refusal I doubt it will be offered again.  It would have tripled the size of gaza, at least, as part of a peace offer but Hamas wanted no part of the deal.  Hamas did not want to make peace with Israel.
With the attacks against Egypt in the Sinai, Egypt has destroyed more tunnels and begun clearing a security zone along the border.  They have infrequently opened the crossing for a short time before closing it again.  Egypt is fed up with hamas to say the least.


----------



## fanger

Why should they give up their land and move to Egypt, they are Palestinians


----------



## docmauser1

fanger said:


> Why should they give up their land and move to Egypt, they are Palestinians


Don't they have to have some land in the first place to give it up, or something? And Egypt is as good a place for them as any - different country, same crap.


----------



## Coyote

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate was not Palestine. The mandate was a temporary trustee of Palestine. Palestine existed with or without the mandate.
> 
> I never claimed Palestine to be independent. Palestine was born under occupation and that continues today. But, as UN resolutions state, Palestinians have the right to self determination, independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity.
> 
> Violating their rights do not negate those rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate was Palestine as the name says, without the mandate Palestine did not exist. Even the muslims called it Syria and not Palestine. The Palestinians already have self determination, independence, sovereignty and just need to negotiate territorial integrity. They will never be handed what you demand on a plate as they will just destroy everything in their ever increasing demands which will never be met. Until the Palestinians sit up and take control of their own lives they will be 3rd world moochers living on handouts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the Palestinians need is their own Palestinian State with self determination away from Israel.  Problem is no surrounding Arab country, who know the Palestinians best, will grant them a right of return.  So where can this Palestinian State be where the Palestinians can no longer suck off of Israel to provide for them any longer & no longer blame Israel for their misery & failures?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Egypt offered them land in the Sinai but it was refused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was that a real offer?  I heard it then I heard it wasn't real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Real offer but after refusal I doubt it will be offered again.  It would have tripled the size of gaza, at least, as part of a peace offer but Hamas wanted no part of the deal.  Hamas did not want to make peace with Israel.
> With the attacks against Egypt in the Sinai, Egypt has destroyed more tunnels and begun clearing a security zone along the border.  They have infrequently opened the crossing for a short time before closing it again.  Egypt is fed up with hamas to say the least.
Click to expand...


This article says the report of that offer was not true and both Egypt and the PA deny it - there seems to be no confirmation beyond speculation, that is why I'm confused about it. Egypt PA deny report that Sisi offered Abbas land in Sinai for Palestinian state


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate was Palestine as the name says, without the mandate Palestine did not exist. Even the muslims called it Syria and not Palestine. The Palestinians already have self determination, independence, sovereignty and just need to negotiate territorial integrity. They will never be handed what you demand on a plate as they will just destroy everything in their ever increasing demands which will never be met. Until the Palestinians sit up and take control of their own lives they will be 3rd world moochers living on handouts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the Palestinians need is their own Palestinian State with self determination away from Israel.  Problem is no surrounding Arab country, who know the Palestinians best, will grant them a right of return.  So where can this Palestinian State be where the Palestinians can no longer suck off of Israel to provide for them any longer & no longer blame Israel for their misery & failures?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Egypt offered them land in the Sinai but it was refused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was that a real offer?  I heard it then I heard it wasn't real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Real offer but after refusal I doubt it will be offered again.  It would have tripled the size of gaza, at least, as part of a peace offer but Hamas wanted no part of the deal.  Hamas did not want to make peace with Israel.
> With the attacks against Egypt in the Sinai, Egypt has destroyed more tunnels and begun clearing a security zone along the border.  They have infrequently opened the crossing for a short time before closing it again.  Egypt is fed up with hamas to say the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This article says the report of that offer was not true and both Egypt and the PA deny it - there seems to be no confirmation beyond speculation, that is why I'm confused about it. Egypt PA deny report that Sisi offered Abbas land in Sinai for Palestinian state
Click to expand...


The circumstances on the ground changed and the offer was pulled two weeks later.  It was an offer but no one wanted to take it seriously.  Palestinians did not want to even talk about it.
Egypt was so upset they didn't want the offer to be formally considered or suggested again.
Negotiators air ideas and see if anyone will think about it.  This was one idea/offer that was discarded before it was ever formalized.  Between Hamas and brotherhood there was no further talks.


----------



## Hossfly

fanger said:


> Why should they give up their land and move to Egypt, they are Palestinians


fanger , what do you think Palestinians are besides Egyptians?


----------



## montelatici

Hossfly said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should they give up their land and move to Egypt, they are Palestinians
> 
> 
> 
> fanger , what do you think Palestinians are besides Egyptians?
Click to expand...


Palestinians are Palestinians, Egyptians are Egyptians.  What do you think Germans are besides Austrians?  What do think Americans are besides Canadians?


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should they give up their land and move to Egypt, they are Palestinians
> 
> 
> 
> fanger , what do you think Palestinians are besides Egyptians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestinians are Palestinians, Egyptians are Egyptians.  What do you think Germans are besides Austrians?  What do think Americans are besides Canadians?
Click to expand...

Ever had a history class?


----------



## montelatici

More years of history than all of your education put together, obviously.


----------



## teddyearp

I think that just who the Palestinians are well shown for who they really are in this thread:

A question about hamas to the pro pal lovers US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## MJB12741

Is there anything Palestinians have ever done to benefit humanity?


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> More years of history than all of your education put together, obviously.


University of Karachi?


----------



## Phoenall

MJB12741 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Remembering of course, that the designation of "Palestine" in 1925, was the official short title for the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies (Palestine Order in Council).
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's almost as if you are out to prove how stupid you are.
> 
> Showing a pic of a coin minted by the British for use of the residents of the Palestinian Mandate (which included Arabs, Jews and Druze) hardly proves that there was a people called "Palestinian" as we define them today  or that these people had their own country.
> 
> It just shows that you are profoundly ignorant in addition to your incredible degree of stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Don't mislead people into believing that there was some other entity called Palestine, or that there was an independent nation called Palestine.  That would be an intentional falsehood.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mandate was not Palestine. The mandate was a temporary trustee of Palestine. Palestine existed with or without the mandate.
> 
> I never claimed Palestine to be independent. Palestine was born under occupation and that continues today. But, as UN resolutions state, Palestinians have the right to self determination, independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity.
> 
> Violating their rights do not negate those rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate was Palestine as the name says, without the mandate Palestine did not exist. Even the muslims called it Syria and not Palestine. The Palestinians already have self determination, independence, sovereignty and just need to negotiate territorial integrity. They will never be handed what you demand on a plate as they will just destroy everything in their ever increasing demands which will never be met. Until the Palestinians sit up and take control of their own lives they will be 3rd world moochers living on handouts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the Palestinians need is their own Palestinian State with self determination away from Israel.  Problem is no surrounding Arab country, who know the Palestinians best, will grant them a right of return.  So where can this Palestinian State be where the Palestinians can no longer suck off of Israel to provide for them any longer & no longer blame Israel for their misery & failures?
Click to expand...





 We could try the Sea of Storms that should suit them, I am sure we could afford the price of a one way ticket for them all. If they want to return then they have to pay the full amount of the two journeys


----------



## Phoenall

fanger said:


> Why should they give up their land and move to Egypt, they are Palestinians




 NO  they are arab muslims and called themselves Syrians before 1948, then they became Jordanians until Jordan kicked them out and then they stole the name Palestinians from the Jews. Is there anything they don't steal ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should they give up their land and move to Egypt, they are Palestinians
> 
> 
> 
> fanger , what do you think Palestinians are besides Egyptians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestinians are Palestinians, Egyptians are Egyptians.  What do you think Germans are besides Austrians?  What do think Americans are besides Canadians?
Click to expand...




 Strange how they have only been Palestinians since 1960 then isn't it, before that they were Syrians, Egyptians, Iranians, Saudis and Yemeni's


----------



## MJB12741

Phoenall said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should they give up their land and move to Egypt, they are Palestinians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO  they are arab muslims and called themselves Syrians before 1948, then they became Jordanians until Jordan kicked them out and then they stole the name Palestinians from the Jews. Is there anything they don't steal ?
Click to expand...



So true.  Jews were indigenous Palestinians.  Not a single Muslim Palestinian among the natives of the land.  How much longer will Israel allow this Palestinian land theft to continue?


----------



## fanger

Delude yourself    Muslim history in Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## MJB12741

fanger said:


> Delude yourself    Muslim history in Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



Eh Fanger, with all due respect the rest of us are having a discussion here that involves some intellect.  You see, Jews have resided in the land since antiquity.  And believe it or not, there were no Muslims at all until the 7th century AD.  Get it yet?


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Delude yourself    Muslim history in Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eh Fanger, with all due respect the rest of us are having a discussion here that involves some intellect.  You see, Jews have resided in the land since antiquity.  And believe it or not, there were no Muslims at all until the 7th century AD.  Get it yet?
Click to expand...


Just as the Christians in the area of Palestine are/were predominately Jews that converted to Christianity, the Muslims in Palestine are predominately Christians that converted to Islam.  There were hardly any Jews in Palestine before the European Jews began migrating to Palestine in the late 1800s.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Delude yourself    Muslim history in Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eh Fanger, with all due respect the rest of us are having a discussion here that involves some intellect.  You see, Jews have resided in the land since antiquity.  And believe it or not, there were no Muslims at all until the 7th century AD.  Get it yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as the Christians in the area of Palestine are/were predominately Jews that converted to Christianity, the Muslims in Palestine are predominately Christians that converted to Islam.  There were hardly any Jews in Palestine before the European Jews began migrating to Palestine in the late 1800s.
Click to expand...


Even if that were true were Jews living on the land even before Christianity?  Boy that's a tough question, huh Monti?


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Delude yourself    Muslim history in Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eh Fanger, with all due respect the rest of us are having a discussion here that involves some intellect.  You see, Jews have resided in the land since antiquity.  And believe it or not, there were no Muslims at all until the 7th century AD.  Get it yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as the Christians in the area of Palestine are/were predominately Jews that converted to Christianity, the Muslims in Palestine are predominately Christians that converted to Islam.  There were hardly any Jews in Palestine before the European Jews began migrating to Palestine in the late 1800s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if that were true were Jews living on the land even before Christianity?  Boy that's a tough question, huh Monti?
Click to expand...


People that were of the Jewish (and many other) religions were living in the area before most of them converted to Christianity.  Judaism is a religion just as Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and many others.


----------



## Phoenall

fanger said:


> Delude yourself    Muslim history in Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia






 Correct and as your link shows no arab muslims in evidence from 1099 until 1917 when the Ottomans lost Palestine as spoils of war.

So were is the evidence that arab muslims lived in Palestine between 1099 and 1917


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Delude yourself    Muslim history in Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eh Fanger, with all due respect the rest of us are having a discussion here that involves some intellect.  You see, Jews have resided in the land since antiquity.  And believe it or not, there were no Muslims at all until the 7th century AD.  Get it yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as the Christians in the area of Palestine are/were predominately Jews that converted to Christianity, the Muslims in Palestine are predominately Christians that converted to Islam.  There were hardly any Jews in Palestine before the European Jews began migrating to Palestine in the late 1800s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if that were true were Jews living on the land even before Christianity?  Boy that's a tough question, huh Monti?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People that were of the Jewish (and many other) religions were living in the area before most of them converted to Christianity.  Judaism is a religion just as Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and many others.
Click to expand...





 LINK to prove your claim from a non partisan source, the conversion rate was minimal as the Jews were mostly taken into slavery by the Romans


----------



## Mindful

*King Abdullah’s Flawed Ploy*

*During his recent visit to Washington to meet with President Obama, King Abdullah II of Jordan was interviewed on “CBS This Morning.” Displaying his keen sense of the terrible neighborhood in which his kingdom is embedded, he identified the war against ISIS jihadi terrorists as “clearly a fight between good and evil.”*

*The King chose not to mention that Palestinians have rejected every two-state solution since 1937, when the British Peel Commission proposed the second partition of Palestine. The first came fifteen years earlier, when British Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill lopped off three-quarters of Mandatory Palestine as a gift to Abdullah’s great-grandfather for his wartime loyalty to the Allied cause. But unwilling to tolerate a Jewish state of any size in their midst, Arab leaders rejected the Peel proposal, the UN partition plan that followed a decade later, and even the dangerously generous two-state offers, involving huge Israeli land concessions, offered by Prime Ministers Barak and Olmert.*

*King Abdullah also chose (understandably) to ignore the demographic reality in Jordan, which poses a significant threat to the stability of his own regime. For obvious reasons, his kingdom provides no official census data about its Palestinian inhabitants. Best estimates (including by the U.S. State Department) indicate that they comprise more than half, and perhaps as high as two-thirds, of the Jordanian population.*

*In sum: the Hashemite king rules over a majority Palestinian population in two-thirds of Palestine. In translation: the Palestinians already have a state named Jordan, located in Palestine, and comprise a majority of its population. That is as it should be: the fulfillment of international assurances to Jews, and British promises to the Hashemites, that date back nearly a century.*


*King Abdullah s Flawed Ploy Jewish Israel News Algemeiner.com*


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Delude yourself    Muslim history in Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eh Fanger, with all due respect the rest of us are having a discussion here that involves some intellect.  You see, Jews have resided in the land since antiquity.  And believe it or not, there were no Muslims at all until the 7th century AD.  Get it yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as the Christians in the area of Palestine are/were predominately Jews that converted to Christianity, the Muslims in Palestine are predominately Christians that converted to Islam.  There were hardly any Jews in Palestine before the European Jews began migrating to Palestine in the late 1800s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if that were true were Jews living on the land even before Christianity?  Boy that's a tough question, huh Monti?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People that were of the Jewish (and many other) religions were living in the area before most of them converted to Christianity.  Judaism is a religion just as Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and many others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LINK to prove your claim from a non partisan source, the conversion rate was minimal as the Jews were mostly taken into slavery by the Romans
Click to expand...


Well, I don't think I am going to do research for you.  Just one tiny little fact, Jesus and nearly all of his followers were Jews.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eh Fanger, with all due respect the rest of us are having a discussion here that involves some intellect.  You see, Jews have resided in the land since antiquity.  And believe it or not, there were no Muslims at all until the 7th century AD.  Get it yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as the Christians in the area of Palestine are/were predominately Jews that converted to Christianity, the Muslims in Palestine are predominately Christians that converted to Islam.  There were hardly any Jews in Palestine before the European Jews began migrating to Palestine in the late 1800s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if that were true were Jews living on the land even before Christianity?  Boy that's a tough question, huh Monti?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People that were of the Jewish (and many other) religions were living in the area before most of them converted to Christianity.  Judaism is a religion just as Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and many others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LINK to prove your claim from a non partisan source, the conversion rate was minimal as the Jews were mostly taken into slavery by the Romans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I don't think I am going to do research for you.  Just one tiny little fact, Jesus and nearly all of his followers were Jews.
Click to expand...





 And they died Jews as well didn't they, not one of them converted to any other religion. What you call Christianity did not exist until 200 years after his death.

 But I see you cant find a credible source for your claims that is not ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA.    Time to stop while you are so far behind


----------



## Mindful

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as the Christians in the area of Palestine are/were predominately Jews that converted to Christianity, the Muslims in Palestine are predominately Christians that converted to Islam.  There were hardly any Jews in Palestine before the European Jews began migrating to Palestine in the late 1800s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if that were true were Jews living on the land even before Christianity?  Boy that's a tough question, huh Monti?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People that were of the Jewish (and many other) religions were living in the area before most of them converted to Christianity.  Judaism is a religion just as Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and many others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LINK to prove your claim from a non partisan source, the conversion rate was minimal as the Jews were mostly taken into slavery by the Romans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I don't think I am going to do research for you.  Just one tiny little fact, Jesus and nearly all of his followers were Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they died Jews as well didn't they, not one of them converted to any other religion. What you call Christianity did not exist until 200 years after his death.
> 
> But I see you cant find a credible source for your claims that is not ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA.    Time to stop while you are so far behind
Click to expand...


What I don't get,  is his zeal in trying to convince us of his nonsense.


----------



## MJB12741

Mindful said:


> *King Abdullah’s Flawed Ploy*
> 
> *During his recent visit to Washington to meet with President Obama, King Abdullah II of Jordan was interviewed on “CBS This Morning.” Displaying his keen sense of the terrible neighborhood in which his kingdom is embedded, he identified the war against ISIS jihadi terrorists as “clearly a fight between good and evil.”*
> 
> *The King chose not to mention that Palestinians have rejected every two-state solution since 1937, when the British Peel Commission proposed the second partition of Palestine. The first came fifteen years earlier, when British Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill lopped off three-quarters of Mandatory Palestine as a gift to Abdullah’s great-grandfather for his wartime loyalty to the Allied cause. But unwilling to tolerate a Jewish state of any size in their midst, Arab leaders rejected the Peel proposal, the UN partition plan that followed a decade later, and even the dangerously generous two-state offers, involving huge Israeli land concessions, offered by Prime Ministers Barak and Olmert.*
> 
> *King Abdullah also chose (understandably) to ignore the demographic reality in Jordan, which poses a significant threat to the stability of his own regime. For obvious reasons, his kingdom provides no official census data about its Palestinian inhabitants. Best estimates (including by the U.S. State Department) indicate that they comprise more than half, and perhaps as high as two-thirds, of the Jordanian population.*
> 
> *In sum: the Hashemite king rules over a majority Palestinian population in two-thirds of Palestine. In translation: the Palestinians already have a state named Jordan, located in Palestine, and comprise a majority of its population. That is as it should be: the fulfillment of international assurances to Jews, and British promises to the Hashemites, that date back nearly a century.*
> 
> 
> *King Abdullah s Flawed Ploy Jewish Israel News Algemeiner.com*



Jordan is the smartest player in the Middle East.  First king Hussein refuses Israel's offer to return the West Bank after the 67 war so Jordan could sacrifice this piece of land to dump their Palestinian on israel to deal with.  In 1970 he gives the remaining Palestinians Black September to establish the one & only lasting peace with his Palestinians.  And then king Abdullah marries the most gorgeous Palestinian woman, refuses to grant any right of return for the rest of the Palestinians & has open borders with Israel so tourists to Israel can cross over into Jordan to purchase Jordanian products & services to boost their economy.


----------



## Mindful

MJB12741 said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> *King Abdullah’s Flawed Ploy*
> 
> *During his recent visit to Washington to meet with President Obama, King Abdullah II of Jordan was interviewed on “CBS This Morning.” Displaying his keen sense of the terrible neighborhood in which his kingdom is embedded, he identified the war against ISIS jihadi terrorists as “clearly a fight between good and evil.”*
> 
> *The King chose not to mention that Palestinians have rejected every two-state solution since 1937, when the British Peel Commission proposed the second partition of Palestine. The first came fifteen years earlier, when British Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill lopped off three-quarters of Mandatory Palestine as a gift to Abdullah’s great-grandfather for his wartime loyalty to the Allied cause. But unwilling to tolerate a Jewish state of any size in their midst, Arab leaders rejected the Peel proposal, the UN partition plan that followed a decade later, and even the dangerously generous two-state offers, involving huge Israeli land concessions, offered by Prime Ministers Barak and Olmert.*
> 
> *King Abdullah also chose (understandably) to ignore the demographic reality in Jordan, which poses a significant threat to the stability of his own regime. For obvious reasons, his kingdom provides no official census data about its Palestinian inhabitants. Best estimates (including by the U.S. State Department) indicate that they comprise more than half, and perhaps as high as two-thirds, of the Jordanian population.*
> 
> *In sum: the Hashemite king rules over a majority Palestinian population in two-thirds of Palestine. In translation: the Palestinians already have a state named Jordan, located in Palestine, and comprise a majority of its population. That is as it should be: the fulfillment of international assurances to Jews, and British promises to the Hashemites, that date back nearly a century.*
> 
> 
> *King Abdullah s Flawed Ploy Jewish Israel News Algemeiner.com*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan is the smartest player in the Middle East.  First king Hussein refuses Israel's offer to return the West Bank after the 67 war so Jordan could sacrifice this piece of land to dump their Palestinian on israel to deal with.  In 1970 he gives the remaining Palestinians Black September to establish the one & only lasting peace with his Palestinians.  And then king Abdullah marries the most gorgeous Palestinian woman, refuses to grant any right of return for the rest of the Palestinians & has open borders with Israel so tourists to Israel can cross over into Jordan to purchase Jordanian products & services to boost their economy.
Click to expand...


Didn't they sign a peace treaty in 1994?


----------



## MJB12741

Mindful said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> *King Abdullah’s Flawed Ploy*
> 
> *During his recent visit to Washington to meet with President Obama, King Abdullah II of Jordan was interviewed on “CBS This Morning.” Displaying his keen sense of the terrible neighborhood in which his kingdom is embedded, he identified the war against ISIS jihadi terrorists as “clearly a fight between good and evil.”*
> 
> *The King chose not to mention that Palestinians have rejected every two-state solution since 1937, when the British Peel Commission proposed the second partition of Palestine. The first came fifteen years earlier, when British Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill lopped off three-quarters of Mandatory Palestine as a gift to Abdullah’s great-grandfather for his wartime loyalty to the Allied cause. But unwilling to tolerate a Jewish state of any size in their midst, Arab leaders rejected the Peel proposal, the UN partition plan that followed a decade later, and even the dangerously generous two-state offers, involving huge Israeli land concessions, offered by Prime Ministers Barak and Olmert.*
> 
> *King Abdullah also chose (understandably) to ignore the demographic reality in Jordan, which poses a significant threat to the stability of his own regime. For obvious reasons, his kingdom provides no official census data about its Palestinian inhabitants. Best estimates (including by the U.S. State Department) indicate that they comprise more than half, and perhaps as high as two-thirds, of the Jordanian population.*
> 
> *In sum: the Hashemite king rules over a majority Palestinian population in two-thirds of Palestine. In translation: the Palestinians already have a state named Jordan, located in Palestine, and comprise a majority of its population. That is as it should be: the fulfillment of international assurances to Jews, and British promises to the Hashemites, that date back nearly a century.*
> 
> 
> *King Abdullah s Flawed Ploy Jewish Israel News Algemeiner.com*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan is the smartest player in the Middle East.  First king Hussein refuses Israel's offer to return the West Bank after the 67 war so Jordan could sacrifice this piece of land to dump their Palestinian on israel to deal with.  In 1970 he gives the remaining Palestinians Black September to establish the one & only lasting peace with his Palestinians.  And then king Abdullah marries the most gorgeous Palestinian woman, refuses to grant any right of return for the rest of the Palestinians & has open borders with Israel so tourists to Israel can cross over into Jordan to purchase Jordanian products & services to boost their economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't they sign a peace treaty in 1994?
Click to expand...


Yes indeed.  And to this day it has never been violated by either party.  

The Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> *King Abdullah’s Flawed Ploy*
> 
> *During his recent visit to Washington to meet with President Obama, King Abdullah II of Jordan was interviewed on “CBS This Morning.” Displaying his keen sense of the terrible neighborhood in which his kingdom is embedded, he identified the war against ISIS jihadi terrorists as “clearly a fight between good and evil.”*
> 
> *The King chose not to mention that Palestinians have rejected every two-state solution since 1937, when the British Peel Commission proposed the second partition of Palestine. The first came fifteen years earlier, when British Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill lopped off three-quarters of Mandatory Palestine as a gift to Abdullah’s great-grandfather for his wartime loyalty to the Allied cause. But unwilling to tolerate a Jewish state of any size in their midst, Arab leaders rejected the Peel proposal, the UN partition plan that followed a decade later, and even the dangerously generous two-state offers, involving huge Israeli land concessions, offered by Prime Ministers Barak and Olmert.*
> 
> *King Abdullah also chose (understandably) to ignore the demographic reality in Jordan, which poses a significant threat to the stability of his own regime. For obvious reasons, his kingdom provides no official census data about its Palestinian inhabitants. Best estimates (including by the U.S. State Department) indicate that they comprise more than half, and perhaps as high as two-thirds, of the Jordanian population.*
> 
> *In sum: the Hashemite king rules over a majority Palestinian population in two-thirds of Palestine. In translation: the Palestinians already have a state named Jordan, located in Palestine, and comprise a majority of its population. That is as it should be: the fulfillment of international assurances to Jews, and British promises to the Hashemites, that date back nearly a century.*
> 
> 
> *King Abdullah s Flawed Ploy Jewish Israel News Algemeiner.com*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan is the smartest player in the Middle East.  First king Hussein refuses Israel's offer to return the West Bank after the 67 war so Jordan could sacrifice this piece of land to dump their Palestinian on israel to deal with.  In 1970 he gives the remaining Palestinians Black September to establish the one & only lasting peace with his Palestinians.  And then king Abdullah marries the most gorgeous Palestinian woman, refuses to grant any right of return for the rest of the Palestinians & has open borders with Israel so tourists to Israel can cross over into Jordan to purchase Jordanian products & services to boost their economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't they sign a peace treaty in 1994?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes indeed.  And to this day it has never been violated by either party.
> 
> The Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty
Click to expand...


Jordan also made peace with Palestinians although not exactly by a signed treaty.  Heck all it took was for king Hussein to massacre around 20,000 Palestinians in one swoop to communicate peace to the Palestinians in the only language they understand.  When will Israel ever learn from Jordan how to communicate peace with the Palestinians?


----------



## montelatici

Sounds familiar.

*President Thomas Jefferson*, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, December 29, 1813

“This unfortunate race, whom we had been taking so much pains to save and to civilize, have by their unexpected desertion and ferocious barbarities justified extermination and now await our decision on their fate.”


Read more athttp://indiancountrytodaymedianetwo...cking-quotes-indians-us-leaders-part-1-150362


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Sounds familiar.
> 
> *President Thomas Jefferson*, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, December 29, 1813
> 
> “This unfortunate race, whom we had been taking so much pains to save and to civilize, have by their unexpected desertion and ferocious barbarities justified extermination and now await our decision on their fate.”
> 
> 
> Read more atNice Day for a Genocide Shocking Quotes on Indians By U.S. Leaders Pt 1 - ICTMN.com



For whatever reason I cannot get your link to download.  Suffice it to say our native Americans came to their senses to avoid such a necessary congressional action.  Do you think maybe the time has come for Paletinians to do the same with the Israeli government?


----------



## montelatici

What?  "Our Native Americans came to their senses"?  You mean after murdering most of them via disease and in brave attacks like at Wounded Knee where the brave U.S. Cavalry killed hundreds of women and children.. Oh wait, the Israelis just did that this summer.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> Sounds familiar.
> 
> *President Thomas Jefferson*, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, December 29, 1813
> 
> “This unfortunate race, whom we had been taking so much pains to save and to civilize, have by their unexpected desertion and ferocious barbarities justified extermination and now await our decision on their fate.”
> 
> 
> Read more atNice Day for a Genocide Shocking Quotes on Indians By U.S. Leaders Pt 1 - ICTMN.com


It certainly does sound familiar.  It sounds like they are talking about your Muslim brethren and what they have done and are still doing to other people.  I see one of the comments was from someone who wanted to know about the Diné tribe of the Navajo Nation.  There was once a Diné poster who lived in Sedona, Arizona and who was all for Israel and certainly was quite aware about what your brethren were doing.  Now can you tell us, Mr. S., why are your brethren always so busy murdering others even to this day?  The Native Americans of all the different Nations are certainly not acting like your own brethren.


----------



## montelatici

Hossfly said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds familiar.
> 
> *President Thomas Jefferson*, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, December 29, 1813
> 
> “This unfortunate race, whom we had been taking so much pains to save and to civilize, have by their unexpected desertion and ferocious barbarities justified extermination and now await our decision on their fate.”
> 
> 
> Read more atNice Day for a Genocide Shocking Quotes on Indians By U.S. Leaders Pt 1 - ICTMN.com
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly does sound familiar.  It sounds like they are talking about your Muslim brethren and what they have done and are still doing to other people.  I see one of the comments was from someone who wanted to know about the Diné tribe of the Navajo Nation.  There was once a Diné poster who lived in Sedona, Arizona and who was all for Israel and certainly was quite aware about what your brethren were doing.  Now can you tell us, Mr. S., why are your brethren always so busy murdering others even to this day?  The Native Americans of all the different Nations are certainly not acting like your own brethren.
Click to expand...


The Native Americans took scalps until they were subjects of European genocide and ethnic cleansing.  What are you talking about.  They didn't give up until they were decimated.  By the way, my brethren are Americans I am not a traitorous  Israel Firster as you are. I am an America Firster.

The problem for the Jews is that they are unlikely to be able to do the same to the Palestinians or Muslims in general.


----------



## MJB12741

Hossfly said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds familiar.
> 
> *President Thomas Jefferson*, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, December 29, 1813
> 
> “This unfortunate race, whom we had been taking so much pains to save and to civilize, have by their unexpected desertion and ferocious barbarities justified extermination and now await our decision on their fate.”
> 
> 
> Read more atNice Day for a Genocide Shocking Quotes on Indians By U.S. Leaders Pt 1 - ICTMN.com
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly does sound familiar.  It sounds like they are talking about your Muslim brethren and what they have done and are still doing to other people.  I see one of the comments was from someone who wanted to know about the Diné tribe of the Navajo Nation.  There was once a Diné poster who lived in Sedona, Arizona and who was all for Israel and certainly was quite aware about what your brethren were doing.  Now can you tell us, Mr. S., why are your brethren always so busy murdering others even to this day?  The Native Americans of all the different Nations are certainly not acting like your own brethren.
Click to expand...


I remember him.  He was known as Golden Eagle.  He told us how Jews helped his people by going to the reservations when they were in need of food or doctors.  He also taught everyone about who is stealing who's land in Israel.  And who better to educate us to the truth on land theft than a native American.  Is it any wonder he was so hated by the Pali supporters?


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  _et al,_

Excuse me!  I fail to see how a person _(like yourself)_ that places the hostile ambitions, and policies ---- bending to the will of the radical right-wing Islamic Palestinian armed resistance group over that of own country's foreign policy, makes you an "American Firster."  In fact, there is an argument to be make that persons _(like yourself)_ which promote the goals and aspirations of any group that operates outside the law through the use of suicide bombings, rocket launches, improvised explosive device (IED) attacks, shootings, kidnapping and murder, --- in order to intimidate and coerce America, Israel, and the international community at large, to achieve political and territorial objectives, can be anything other than someone providing material and political support to terrorism.  _(Certainly not an "American Firster;" as you call it.)_


Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues.

A war of aggression constitutes a crime against the peace, for which there is responsibility under international law.

In accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, States have the duty to refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression.



montelatici said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds familiar.
> 
> *President Thomas Jefferson*, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, December 29, 1813
> 
> “This unfortunate race, whom we had been taking so much pains to save and to civilize, have by their unexpected desertion and ferocious barbarities justified extermination and now await our decision on their fate.”
> 
> 
> Read more atNice Day for a Genocide Shocking Quotes on Indians By U.S. Leaders Pt 1 - ICTMN.com
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly does sound familiar.  It sounds like they are talking about your Muslim brethren and what they have done and are still doing to other people.  I see one of the comments was from someone who wanted to know about the Diné tribe of the Navajo Nation.  There was once a Diné poster who lived in Sedona, Arizona and who was all for Israel and certainly was quite aware about what your brethren were doing.  Now can you tell us, Mr. S., why are your brethren always so busy murdering others even to this day?  The Native Americans of all the different Nations are certainly not acting like your own brethren.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Native Americans took scalps until they were subjects of European genocide and ethnic cleansing.  What are you talking about.  They didn't give up until they were decimated.  By the way, my brethren are Americans I am not a traitorous  Israel Firster as you are. I am an America Firster.
> 
> The problem for the Jews is that they are unlikely to be able to do the same to the Palestinians or Muslims in general.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

I submit that you are not an "American Firster" --- but a "Palestinian Firster."  And while it is your absolute right to champion the cause of those that have a political position that --- "[t]here is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."  --- and that --- "Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine," --- it is not a a policy embraced by America.  Americans do not considered armed coercion and intimidation by forces as anything other than criminal.  In fact, even if there was no other reason than "Jihad" --- that would be well enough for most Americans to actively support the defense of Israel's right to exist and to help the cause of their defense.  America knows what it is like to be the target of self-righteous Islamic terrorism.

You have the right to champion your cause --- that of the designated terrorists and self-proclaimed Jihadist, but remember:

*Article 20  ---  *
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
*Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966
entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49*​
1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.

2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds familiar.
> 
> *President Thomas Jefferson*, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, December 29, 1813
> 
> “This unfortunate race, whom we had been taking so much pains to save and to civilize, have by their unexpected desertion and ferocious barbarities justified extermination and now await our decision on their fate.”
> 
> 
> Read more atNice Day for a Genocide Shocking Quotes on Indians By U.S. Leaders Pt 1 - ICTMN.com
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly does sound familiar.  It sounds like they are talking about your Muslim brethren and what they have done and are still doing to other people.  I see one of the comments was from someone who wanted to know about the Diné tribe of the Navajo Nation.  There was once a Diné poster who lived in Sedona, Arizona and who was all for Israel and certainly was quite aware about what your brethren were doing.  Now can you tell us, Mr. S., why are your brethren always so busy murdering others even to this day?  The Native Americans of all the different Nations are certainly not acting like your own brethren.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Native Americans took scalps until they were subjects of European genocide and ethnic cleansing.  What are you talking about.  They didn't give up until they were decimated.  By the way, my brethren are Americans I am not a traitorous  Israel Firster as you are. I am an America Firster.
> 
> The problem for the Jews is that they are unlikely to be able to do the same to the Palestinians or Muslims in general.
Click to expand...

Call me a traitor just one more time and I will tell you a little story about a poster who made similar charges about me and two other members of this forum and the events that unfolded and what happened to him. It ain't pretty.


----------



## fanger

Well, that is how you are percieved


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> Excuse me!  I fail to see how a person _(like yourself)_ that places the hostile ambitions, and policies ---- bending to the will of the radical right-wing Islamic Palestinian armed resistance group over that of own country's foreign policy, makes you an "American Firster."  In fact, there is an argument to be make that persons _(like yourself)_ which promote the goals and aspirations of any group that operates outside the law through the use of suicide bombings, rocket launches, improvised explosive device (IED) attacks, shootings, kidnapping and murder, --- in order to intimidate and coerce America, Israel, and the international community at large, to achieve political and territorial objectives, can be anything other than someone providing material and political support to terrorism.  _(Certainly not an "American Firster;" as you call it.)_
> 
> 
> Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues.
> 
> A war of aggression constitutes a crime against the peace, for which there is responsibility under international law.
> 
> In accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, States have the duty to refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds familiar.
> 
> *President Thomas Jefferson*, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, December 29, 1813
> 
> “This unfortunate race, whom we had been taking so much pains to save and to civilize, have by their unexpected desertion and ferocious barbarities justified extermination and now await our decision on their fate.”
> 
> 
> Read more atNice Day for a Genocide Shocking Quotes on Indians By U.S. Leaders Pt 1 - ICTMN.com
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly does sound familiar.  It sounds like they are talking about your Muslim brethren and what they have done and are still doing to other people.  I see one of the comments was from someone who wanted to know about the Diné tribe of the Navajo Nation.  There was once a Diné poster who lived in Sedona, Arizona and who was all for Israel and certainly was quite aware about what your brethren were doing.  Now can you tell us, Mr. S., why are your brethren always so busy murdering others even to this day?  The Native Americans of all the different Nations are certainly not acting like your own brethren.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Native Americans took scalps until they were subjects of European genocide and ethnic cleansing.  What are you talking about.  They didn't give up until they were decimated.  By the way, my brethren are Americans I am not a traitorous  Israel Firster as you are. I am an America Firster.
> 
> The problem for the Jews is that they are unlikely to be able to do the same to the Palestinians or Muslims in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I submit that you are not an "American Firster" --- but a "Palestinian Firster."  And while it is your absolute right to champion the cause of those that have a political position that --- "[t]here is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."  --- and that --- "Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine," --- it is not a a policy embraced by America.  Americans do not considered armed coercion and intimidation by forces as anything other than criminal.  In fact, even if there was no other reason than "Jihad" --- that would be well enough for most Americans to actively support the defense of Israel's right to exist and to help the cause of their defense.  America knows what it is like to be the target of self-righteous Islamic terrorism.
> 
> You have the right to champion your cause --- that of the designated terrorists and self-proclaimed Jihadist, but remember:
> 
> *Article 20  ---  *
> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
> *Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966
> entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49*​
> 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
> 
> 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...



America Firsters realize that America's one-sided support for Israel, is debilitating to our power and influence in the world.  America Firsters realize that forcing Israel to the table and pressuring Israel to negotiate equitable terms with the Palestinians would enhance America's standing in the world. America Firsters realize that coming down hard on Israel for building more and more settlements a long time ago would have made a two-state solution possible and consequently, peace, possible.  

As far as propaganda for war, what does this sound like? As far as hate what does this sound like?

"Ayelet Shaked quoted MP "[The Palestinians] are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads... This also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons."


----------



## montelatici

Hossfly said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds familiar.
> 
> *President Thomas Jefferson*, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, December 29, 1813
> 
> “This unfortunate race, whom we had been taking so much pains to save and to civilize, have by their unexpected desertion and ferocious barbarities justified extermination and now await our decision on their fate.”
> 
> 
> Read more atNice Day for a Genocide Shocking Quotes on Indians By U.S. Leaders Pt 1 - ICTMN.com
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly does sound familiar.  It sounds like they are talking about your Muslim brethren and what they have done and are still doing to other people.  I see one of the comments was from someone who wanted to know about the Diné tribe of the Navajo Nation.  There was once a Diné poster who lived in Sedona, Arizona and who was all for Israel and certainly was quite aware about what your brethren were doing.  Now can you tell us, Mr. S., why are your brethren always so busy murdering others even to this day?  The Native Americans of all the different Nations are certainly not acting like your own brethren.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Native Americans took scalps until they were subjects of European genocide and ethnic cleansing.  What are you talking about.  They didn't give up until they were decimated.  By the way, my brethren are Americans I am not a traitorous  Israel Firster as you are. I am an America Firster.
> 
> The problem for the Jews is that they are unlikely to be able to do the same to the Palestinians or Muslims in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Call me a traitor just one more time and I will tell you a little story about a poster who made similar charges about me and two other members of this forum and the events that unfolded and what happened to him. It ain't pretty.
Click to expand...


Make one more comment about my background and I will do the same.  Got it punk.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> What?  "Our Native Americans came to their senses"?  You mean after murdering most of them via disease and in brave attacks like at Wounded Knee where the brave U.S. Cavalry killed hundreds of women and children.. Oh wait, the Israelis just did that this summer.






 More of your ISLAMONAZI LIES


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?  "Our Native Americans came to their senses"?  You mean after murdering most of them via disease and in brave attacks like at Wounded Knee where the brave U.S. Cavalry killed hundreds of women and children.. Oh wait, the Israelis just did that this summer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More of your ISLAMONAZI LIES
Click to expand...


Name any lie contained in my post above.  Come on, one lie.


----------



## Humanity

Hossfly said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds familiar.
> 
> *President Thomas Jefferson*, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, December 29, 1813
> 
> “This unfortunate race, whom we had been taking so much pains to save and to civilize, have by their unexpected desertion and ferocious barbarities justified extermination and now await our decision on their fate.”
> 
> 
> Read more atNice Day for a Genocide Shocking Quotes on Indians By U.S. Leaders Pt 1 - ICTMN.com
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly does sound familiar.  It sounds like they are talking about your Muslim brethren and what they have done and are still doing to other people.  I see one of the comments was from someone who wanted to know about the Diné tribe of the Navajo Nation.  There was once a Diné poster who lived in Sedona, Arizona and who was all for Israel and certainly was quite aware about what your brethren were doing.  Now can you tell us, Mr. S., why are your brethren always so busy murdering others even to this day?  The Native Americans of all the different Nations are certainly not acting like your own brethren.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Native Americans took scalps until they were subjects of European genocide and ethnic cleansing.  What are you talking about.  They didn't give up until they were decimated.  By the way, my brethren are Americans I am not a traitorous  Israel Firster as you are. I am an America Firster.
> 
> The problem for the Jews is that they are unlikely to be able to do the same to the Palestinians or Muslims in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Call me a traitor just one more time and I will tell you a little story about a poster who made similar charges about me and two other members of this forum and the events that unfolded and what happened to him. It ain't pretty.
Click to expand...


Oh do tell Tex... I like bedtime stories!


----------



## Humanity

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?  "Our Native Americans came to their senses"?  You mean after murdering most of them via disease and in brave attacks like at Wounded Knee where the brave U.S. Cavalry killed hundreds of women and children.. Oh wait, the Israelis just did that this summer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More of your ISLAMONAZI LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name any lie contained in my post above.  Come on, one lie.
Click to expand...


Oh be gentle on Phoney...

He's like the 'village idiot' of the forum and is best just accepted as such, give a little pat on the head and let him move along...


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds familiar.
> 
> *President Thomas Jefferson*, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, December 29, 1813
> 
> “This unfortunate race, whom we had been taking so much pains to save and to civilize, have by their unexpected desertion and ferocious barbarities justified extermination and now await our decision on their fate.”
> 
> 
> Read more atNice Day for a Genocide Shocking Quotes on Indians By U.S. Leaders Pt 1 - ICTMN.com
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly does sound familiar.  It sounds like they are talking about your Muslim brethren and what they have done and are still doing to other people.  I see one of the comments was from someone who wanted to know about the Diné tribe of the Navajo Nation.  There was once a Diné poster who lived in Sedona, Arizona and who was all for Israel and certainly was quite aware about what your brethren were doing.  Now can you tell us, Mr. S., why are your brethren always so busy murdering others even to this day?  The Native Americans of all the different Nations are certainly not acting like your own brethren.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Native Americans took scalps until they were subjects of European genocide and ethnic cleansing.  What are you talking about.  They didn't give up until they were decimated.  By the way, my brethren are Americans I am not a traitorous  Israel Firster as you are. I am an America Firster.
> 
> The problem for the Jews is that they are unlikely to be able to do the same to the Palestinians or Muslims in general.
Click to expand...





So you are first Nation are you, and can trace your ancestors back before the founding fathers came to America


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> Excuse me!  I fail to see how a person _(like yourself)_ that places the hostile ambitions, and policies ---- bending to the will of the radical right-wing Islamic Palestinian armed resistance group over that of own country's foreign policy, makes you an "American Firster."  In fact, there is an argument to be make that persons _(like yourself)_ which promote the goals and aspirations of any group that operates outside the law through the use of suicide bombings, rocket launches, improvised explosive device (IED) attacks, shootings, kidnapping and murder, --- in order to intimidate and coerce America, Israel, and the international community at large, to achieve political and territorial objectives, can be anything other than someone providing material and political support to terrorism.  _(Certainly not an "American Firster;" as you call it.)_
> 
> 
> Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues.
> 
> A war of aggression constitutes a crime against the peace, for which there is responsibility under international law.
> 
> In accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, States have the duty to refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds familiar.
> 
> *President Thomas Jefferson*, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, December 29, 1813
> 
> “This unfortunate race, whom we had been taking so much pains to save and to civilize, have by their unexpected desertion and ferocious barbarities justified extermination and now await our decision on their fate.”
> 
> 
> Read more atNice Day for a Genocide Shocking Quotes on Indians By U.S. Leaders Pt 1 - ICTMN.com
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly does sound familiar.  It sounds like they are talking about your Muslim brethren and what they have done and are still doing to other people.  I see one of the comments was from someone who wanted to know about the Diné tribe of the Navajo Nation.  There was once a Diné poster who lived in Sedona, Arizona and who was all for Israel and certainly was quite aware about what your brethren were doing.  Now can you tell us, Mr. S., why are your brethren always so busy murdering others even to this day?  The Native Americans of all the different Nations are certainly not acting like your own brethren.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Native Americans took scalps until they were subjects of European genocide and ethnic cleansing.  What are you talking about.  They didn't give up until they were decimated.  By the way, my brethren are Americans I am not a traitorous  Israel Firster as you are. I am an America Firster.
> 
> The problem for the Jews is that they are unlikely to be able to do the same to the Palestinians or Muslims in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I submit that you are not an "American Firster" --- but a "Palestinian Firster."  And while it is your absolute right to champion the cause of those that have a political position that --- "[t]here is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."  --- and that --- "Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine," --- it is not a a policy embraced by America.  Americans do not considered armed coercion and intimidation by forces as anything other than criminal.  In fact, even if there was no other reason than "Jihad" --- that would be well enough for most Americans to actively support the defense of Israel's right to exist and to help the cause of their defense.  America knows what it is like to be the target of self-righteous Islamic terrorism.
> 
> You have the right to champion your cause --- that of the designated terrorists and self-proclaimed Jihadist, but remember:
> 
> *Article 20  ---  *
> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
> *Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966
> entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49*​
> 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
> 
> 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> America Firsters realize that America's one-sided support for Israel, is debilitating to our power and influence in the world.  America Firsters realize that forcing Israel to the table and pressuring Israel to negotiate equitable terms with the Palestinians would enhance America's standing in the world. America Firsters realize that coming down hard on Israel for building more and more settlements a long time ago would have made a two-state solution possible and consequently, peace, possible.
> 
> As far as propaganda for war, what does this sound like? As far as hate what does this sound like?
> 
> "Ayelet Shaked quoted MP "[The Palestinians] are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads... This also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons."
Click to expand...




 Who is it again that has ethnically cleansed the Christians from Palestine by forced conversions, rape, beatings and genocides until their number were slashed by 90%.  I will give you a clue you defend and support their actions in every post you make.


----------



## Phoenall

Humanity said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?  "Our Native Americans came to their senses"?  You mean after murdering most of them via disease and in brave attacks like at Wounded Knee where the brave U.S. Cavalry killed hundreds of women and children.. Oh wait, the Israelis just did that this summer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More of your ISLAMONAZI LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name any lie contained in my post above.  Come on, one lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh be gentle on Phoney...
> 
> He's like the 'village idiot' of the forum and is best just accepted as such, give a little pat on the head and let him move along...
Click to expand...




 Once again ISLAMONAZI book of disinformation is invoked because the poster does not have an answer to the points raised.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds familiar.
> 
> *President Thomas Jefferson*, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, December 29, 1813
> 
> “This unfortunate race, whom we had been taking so much pains to save and to civilize, have by their unexpected desertion and ferocious barbarities justified extermination and now await our decision on their fate.”
> 
> 
> Read more atNice Day for a Genocide Shocking Quotes on Indians By U.S. Leaders Pt 1 - ICTMN.com
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly does sound familiar.  It sounds like they are talking about your Muslim brethren and what they have done and are still doing to other people.  I see one of the comments was from someone who wanted to know about the Diné tribe of the Navajo Nation.  There was once a Diné poster who lived in Sedona, Arizona and who was all for Israel and certainly was quite aware about what your brethren were doing.  Now can you tell us, Mr. S., why are your brethren always so busy murdering others even to this day?  The Native Americans of all the different Nations are certainly not acting like your own brethren.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Native Americans took scalps until they were subjects of European genocide and ethnic cleansing.  What are you talking about.  They didn't give up until they were decimated.  By the way, my brethren are Americans I am not a traitorous  Israel Firster as you are. I am an America Firster.
> 
> The problem for the Jews is that they are unlikely to be able to do the same to the Palestinians or Muslims in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are first Nation are you, and can trace your ancestors back before the founding fathers came to America
Click to expand...


What does that have to do with anything?  Again you claimed that the post below was an "Islamonazi" lie.  I challenged you to point out where I lied.  And, you come up with asking me if I have Native American ancestry.  Again, point out the lie in the text below for which you accused me of lying, 

"What? "Our Native Americans came to their senses"? You mean after murdering most of them via disease and in brave attacks like at Wounded Knee where the brave U.S. Cavalry killed hundreds of women and children.. Oh wait, the Israelis just did that this summer."


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> Excuse me!  I fail to see how a person _(like yourself)_ that places the hostile ambitions, and policies ---- bending to the will of the radical right-wing Islamic Palestinian armed resistance group over that of own country's foreign policy, makes you an "American Firster."  In fact, there is an argument to be make that persons _(like yourself)_ which promote the goals and aspirations of any group that operates outside the law through the use of suicide bombings, rocket launches, improvised explosive device (IED) attacks, shootings, kidnapping and murder, --- in order to intimidate and coerce America, Israel, and the international community at large, to achieve political and territorial objectives, can be anything other than someone providing material and political support to terrorism.  _(Certainly not an "American Firster;" as you call it.)_
> 
> 
> Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues.
> 
> A war of aggression constitutes a crime against the peace, for which there is responsibility under international law.
> 
> In accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, States have the duty to refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds familiar.
> 
> *President Thomas Jefferson*, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, December 29, 1813
> 
> “This unfortunate race, whom we had been taking so much pains to save and to civilize, have by their unexpected desertion and ferocious barbarities justified extermination and now await our decision on their fate.”
> 
> 
> Read more atNice Day for a Genocide Shocking Quotes on Indians By U.S. Leaders Pt 1 - ICTMN.com
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly does sound familiar.  It sounds like they are talking about your Muslim brethren and what they have done and are still doing to other people.  I see one of the comments was from someone who wanted to know about the Diné tribe of the Navajo Nation.  There was once a Diné poster who lived in Sedona, Arizona and who was all for Israel and certainly was quite aware about what your brethren were doing.  Now can you tell us, Mr. S., why are your brethren always so busy murdering others even to this day?  The Native Americans of all the different Nations are certainly not acting like your own brethren.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Native Americans took scalps until they were subjects of European genocide and ethnic cleansing.  What are you talking about.  They didn't give up until they were decimated.  By the way, my brethren are Americans I am not a traitorous  Israel Firster as you are. I am an America Firster.
> 
> The problem for the Jews is that they are unlikely to be able to do the same to the Palestinians or Muslims in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I submit that you are not an "American Firster" --- but a "Palestinian Firster."  And while it is your absolute right to champion the cause of those that have a political position that --- "[t]here is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."  --- and that --- "Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine," --- it is not a a policy embraced by America.  Americans do not considered armed coercion and intimidation by forces as anything other than criminal.  In fact, even if there was no other reason than "Jihad" --- that would be well enough for most Americans to actively support the defense of Israel's right to exist and to help the cause of their defense.  America knows what it is like to be the target of self-righteous Islamic terrorism.
> 
> You have the right to champion your cause --- that of the designated terrorists and self-proclaimed Jihadist, but remember:
> 
> *Article 20  ---  *
> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
> *Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966
> entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49*​
> 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
> 
> 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> America Firsters realize that America's one-sided support for Israel, is debilitating to our power and influence in the world.  America Firsters realize that forcing Israel to the table and pressuring Israel to negotiate equitable terms with the Palestinians would enhance America's standing in the world. America Firsters realize that coming down hard on Israel for building more and more settlements a long time ago would have made a two-state solution possible and consequently, peace, possible.
> 
> As far as propaganda for war, what does this sound like? As far as hate what does this sound like?
> 
> "Ayelet Shaked quoted MP "[The Palestinians] are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads... This also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is it again that has ethnically cleansed the Christians from Palestine by forced conversions, rape, beatings and genocides until their number were slashed by 90%.  I will give you a clue you defend and support their actions in every post you make.
Click to expand...



Who has ethnically cleansed the Christians from Palestine this century?  The European Jews, who else.

"The Palestinian Christian is an endangered species.

When the modern state of Israel was established there were about 400,000 of us. Two years ago the number was down to 80,000. Now it’s down to 60,000. At that rate, in a few years there will be none of us left. When this happens non-Christian groups will move into our churches and claim them forever.

Palestinian Christians within Israel fare little better. On the face of it, their number has grown by 20,000 since 1991. But this is misleading, for the census classification "Christian" includes some 20,000 recent non-Arab migrants from the former Soviet Union.....Prior to the 1967 war, the Christian youth at the Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist and other churches in Bethlehem used to pray and rejoice and have a good chat with hundreds of American Christian pilgrims. In particular Texas and California were two places from where many came to visit the Holy Land. Today only fading memories prevail. Bethlehem has been vacated by Christian families. The remaining Christians are paying the price by experiencing curfews which last for weeks. They remain sandwiched between Muslims and Jews without drawing the slightest concern from the many so-called Western Christians.

So why do American Christians stand by while their leaders advocate the expulsion of fellow Christians? Could it be that they do not know that the Holy Land has been a home to Christians since, well … since Christ?"

The Palestinian Christian Betrayed Persecuted Sacrificed



We have lost hope, that’s why. We are treated as non-people. Few outside the Middle East even know we exist, and those who do, conveniently forget.


----------



## Humanity

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?  "Our Native Americans came to their senses"?  You mean after murdering most of them via disease and in brave attacks like at Wounded Knee where the brave U.S. Cavalry killed hundreds of women and children.. Oh wait, the Israelis just did that this summer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More of your ISLAMONAZI LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name any lie contained in my post above.  Come on, one lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh be gentle on Phoney...
> 
> He's like the 'village idiot' of the forum and is best just accepted as such, give a little pat on the head and let him move along...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again ISLAMONAZI book of disinformation is invoked because the poster does not have an answer to the points raised.
Click to expand...


Ah poor Phoney...

I think the onus was on YOU to prove the lies you alleged!

Looks like ANOTHER 'Phoney Phail'


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici, _et al,_

The essay cited _[ The Palestinian Christian: Betrayed, Persecuted, Sacrificed (An Essay by Abe W. Ata)] _was written a decade ago (circa 2006) and while a bit true, it doesn't actually give a comparative relationship to the population growth in Israel.  In fact, as a standalone source, one might walk away thinking that there is a huge gap between the growth rate of the Jewish population and that of Christians due in part to some sort of "ethnic cleansing."  One could ask, is this true?



montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> Excuse me!  I fail to see how a person _(like yourself)_ that places the hostile ambitions, and policies ---- bending to the will of the radical right-wing Islamic Palestinian armed resistance group over that of own country's foreign policy, makes you an "American Firster."  In fact, there is an argument to be make that persons _(like yourself)_ which promote the goals and aspirations of any group that operates outside the law through the use of suicide bombings, rocket launches, improvised explosive device (IED) attacks, shootings, kidnapping and murder, --- in order to intimidate and coerce America, Israel, and the international community at large, to achieve political and territorial objectives, can be anything other than someone providing material and political support to terrorism.  _(Certainly not an "American Firster;" as you call it.)_
> 
> 
> Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues.
> 
> A war of aggression constitutes a crime against the peace, for which there is responsibility under international law.
> 
> In accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, States have the duty to refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly does sound familiar.  It sounds like they are talking about your Muslim brethren and what they have done and are still doing to other people.  I see one of the comments was from someone who wanted to know about the Diné tribe of the Navajo Nation.  There was once a Diné poster who lived in Sedona, Arizona and who was all for Israel and certainly was quite aware about what your brethren were doing.  Now can you tell us, Mr. S., why are your brethren always so busy murdering others even to this day?  The Native Americans of all the different Nations are certainly not acting like your own brethren.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Native Americans took scalps until they were subjects of European genocide and ethnic cleansing.  What are you talking about.  They didn't give up until they were decimated.  By the way, my brethren are Americans I am not a traitorous  Israel Firster as you are. I am an America Firster.
> 
> The problem for the Jews is that they are unlikely to be able to do the same to the Palestinians or Muslims in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I submit that you are not an "American Firster" --- but a "Palestinian Firster."  And while it is your absolute right to champion the cause of those that have a political position that --- "[t]here is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."  --- and that --- "Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine," --- it is not a a policy embraced by America.  Americans do not considered armed coercion and intimidation by forces as anything other than criminal.  In fact, even if there was no other reason than "Jihad" --- that would be well enough for most Americans to actively support the defense of Israel's right to exist and to help the cause of their defense.  America knows what it is like to be the target of self-righteous Islamic terrorism.
> 
> You have the right to champion your cause --- that of the designated terrorists and self-proclaimed Jihadist, but remember:
> 
> *Article 20  ---  *
> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
> *Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966
> entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49*​
> 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
> 
> 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> America Firsters realize that America's one-sided support for Israel, is debilitating to our power and influence in the world.  America Firsters realize that forcing Israel to the table and pressuring Israel to negotiate equitable terms with the Palestinians would enhance America's standing in the world. America Firsters realize that coming down hard on Israel for building more and more settlements a long time ago would have made a two-state solution possible and consequently, peace, possible.
> 
> As far as propaganda for war, what does this sound like? As far as hate what does this sound like?
> 
> "Ayelet Shaked quoted MP "[The Palestinians] are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads... This also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is it again that has ethnically cleansed the Christians from Palestine by forced conversions, rape, beatings and genocides until their number were slashed by 90%.  I will give you a clue you defend and support their actions in every post you make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who has ethnically cleansed the Christians from Palestine this century?  The European Jews, who else.
> 
> "The Palestinian Christian is an endangered species.
> 
> When the modern state of Israel was established there were about 400,000 of us. Two years ago the number was down to 80,000. Now it’s down to 60,000. At that rate, in a few years there will be none of us left. When this happens non-Christian groups will move into our churches and claim them forever.
> 
> Palestinian Christians within Israel fare little better. On the face of it, their number has grown by 20,000 since 1991. But this is misleading, for the census classification "Christian" includes some 20,000 recent non-Arab migrants from the former Soviet Union.....Prior to the 1967 war, the Christian youth at the Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist and other churches in Bethlehem used to pray and rejoice and have a good chat with hundreds of American Christian pilgrims. In particular Texas and California were two places from where many came to visit the Holy Land. Today only fading memories prevail. Bethlehem has been vacated by Christian families. The remaining Christians are paying the price by experiencing curfews which last for weeks. They remain sandwiched between Muslims and Jews without drawing the slightest concern from the many so-called Western Christians.
> 
> So why do American Christians stand by while their leaders advocate the expulsion of fellow Christians? Could it be that they do not know that the Holy Land has been a home to Christians since, well … since Christ?"
> 
> The Palestinian Christian Betrayed Persecuted Sacrificed
> 
> We have lost hope, that’s why. We are treated as non-people. Few outside the Middle East even know we exist, and those who do, conveniently forget.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

If you thought that, you would be wrong.

*CBS report: Christian population in Israel growing --- *CBS statistical breakdown: 158,000 live in country, 80% are Arab; sector boasts highest rate of high school graduates. (By JEREMY SHARON, REUTERS \12/25/2012)  

The Christian population is also growing, albeit at a slower rate than all other sectors.

Christian population growth stands at 1.3%, 
Jewish Population growth rate 1.8%,
Muslim Population growth rate 2.5%.
The level of Christian education is notable, with 64% of Christian high school students earning a high school diploma, compared to 59% for Jewish Israelis and 48% for Muslims.

The report noted that 10.2% of Arab Christians study for degrees in medical fields, compared to 4.6% of the general student population, while Arab Christians also had a higher rate of students studying for a medical degree than the rest of the population.

In terms of age, 30.1% of all Christians in Israel are 19 and under – similar to the 33.5% of Jews, but significantly lower than the 48.7% for Muslims.​
The different in growth is due to the average number number of children per family unit in the cultures.

The average number of children for a Christian woman is 2.2,
The average number of children for a Jewish woman is 3.0,
The average number of children for a Muslim woman is 3.5, 
The growth rate has nothing to do at all with "ethnic cleansing."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> Excuse me!  I fail to see how a person _(like yourself)_ that places the hostile ambitions, and policies ---- bending to the will of the radical right-wing Islamic Palestinian armed resistance group over that of own country's foreign policy, makes you an "American Firster."  In fact, there is an argument to be make that persons _(like yourself)_ which promote the goals and aspirations of any group that operates outside the law through the use of suicide bombings, rocket launches, improvised explosive device (IED) attacks, shootings, kidnapping and murder, --- in order to intimidate and coerce America, Israel, and the international community at large, to achieve political and territorial objectives, can be anything other than someone providing material and political support to terrorism.  _(Certainly not an "American Firster;" as you call it.)_
> 
> 
> Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues.
> 
> A war of aggression constitutes a crime against the peace, for which there is responsibility under international law.
> 
> In accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, States have the duty to refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly does sound familiar.  It sounds like they are talking about your Muslim brethren and what they have done and are still doing to other people.  I see one of the comments was from someone who wanted to know about the Diné tribe of the Navajo Nation.  There was once a Diné poster who lived in Sedona, Arizona and who was all for Israel and certainly was quite aware about what your brethren were doing.  Now can you tell us, Mr. S., why are your brethren always so busy murdering others even to this day?  The Native Americans of all the different Nations are certainly not acting like your own brethren.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Native Americans took scalps until they were subjects of European genocide and ethnic cleansing.  What are you talking about.  They didn't give up until they were decimated.  By the way, my brethren are Americans I am not a traitorous  Israel Firster as you are. I am an America Firster.
> 
> The problem for the Jews is that they are unlikely to be able to do the same to the Palestinians or Muslims in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I submit that you are not an "American Firster" --- but a "Palestinian Firster."  And while it is your absolute right to champion the cause of those that have a political position that --- "[t]here is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."  --- and that --- "Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine," --- it is not a a policy embraced by America.  Americans do not considered armed coercion and intimidation by forces as anything other than criminal.  In fact, even if there was no other reason than "Jihad" --- that would be well enough for most Americans to actively support the defense of Israel's right to exist and to help the cause of their defense.  America knows what it is like to be the target of self-righteous Islamic terrorism.
> 
> You have the right to champion your cause --- that of the designated terrorists and self-proclaimed Jihadist, but remember:
> 
> *Article 20  ---  *
> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
> *Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966
> entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49*​
> 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
> 
> 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> America Firsters realize that America's one-sided support for Israel, is debilitating to our power and influence in the world.  America Firsters realize that forcing Israel to the table and pressuring Israel to negotiate equitable terms with the Palestinians would enhance America's standing in the world. America Firsters realize that coming down hard on Israel for building more and more settlements a long time ago would have made a two-state solution possible and consequently, peace, possible.
> 
> As far as propaganda for war, what does this sound like? As far as hate what does this sound like?
> 
> "Ayelet Shaked quoted MP "[The Palestinians] are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads... This also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is it again that has ethnically cleansed the Christians from Palestine by forced conversions, rape, beatings and genocides until their number were slashed by 90%.  I will give you a clue you defend and support their actions in every post you make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who has ethnically cleansed the Christians from Palestine this century?  The European Jews, who else.
> 
> "The Palestinian Christian is an endangered species.
> 
> When the modern state of Israel was established there were about 400,000 of us. Two years ago the number was down to 80,000. Now it’s down to 60,000. At that rate, in a few years there will be none of us left. When this happens non-Christian groups will move into our churches and claim them forever.
> 
> Palestinian Christians within Israel fare little better. On the face of it, their number has grown by 20,000 since 1991. But this is misleading, for the census classification "Christian" includes some 20,000 recent non-Arab migrants from the former Soviet Union.....Prior to the 1967 war, the Christian youth at the Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist and other churches in Bethlehem used to pray and rejoice and have a good chat with hundreds of American Christian pilgrims. In particular Texas and California were two places from where many came to visit the Holy Land. Today only fading memories prevail. Bethlehem has been vacated by Christian families. The remaining Christians are paying the price by experiencing curfews which last for weeks. They remain sandwiched between Muslims and Jews without drawing the slightest concern from the many so-called Western Christians.
> 
> So why do American Christians stand by while their leaders advocate the expulsion of fellow Christians? Could it be that they do not know that the Holy Land has been a home to Christians since, well … since Christ?"
> 
> The Palestinian Christian Betrayed Persecuted Sacrificed
> 
> 
> 
> We have lost hope, that’s why. We are treated as non-people. Few outside the Middle East even know we exist, and those who do, conveniently forget.
Click to expand...


LMAO!  So now tell us, are you speaking as a Christian???  If so, why is it that the overwhelming number of Christians who "have lost hope & are treated as a non people" by Israel still strongly support Israel?


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> Excuse me!  I fail to see how a person _(like yourself)_ that places the hostile ambitions, and policies ---- bending to the will of the radical right-wing Islamic Palestinian armed resistance group over that of own country's foreign policy, makes you an "American Firster."  In fact, there is an argument to be make that persons _(like yourself)_ which promote the goals and aspirations of any group that operates outside the law through the use of suicide bombings, rocket launches, improvised explosive device (IED) attacks, shootings, kidnapping and murder, --- in order to intimidate and coerce America, Israel, and the international community at large, to achieve political and territorial objectives, can be anything other than someone providing material and political support to terrorism.  _(Certainly not an "American Firster;" as you call it.)_
> 
> 
> Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues.
> 
> A war of aggression constitutes a crime against the peace, for which there is responsibility under international law.
> 
> In accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, States have the duty to refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly does sound familiar.  It sounds like they are talking about your Muslim brethren and what they have done and are still doing to other people.  I see one of the comments was from someone who wanted to know about the Diné tribe of the Navajo Nation.  There was once a Diné poster who lived in Sedona, Arizona and who was all for Israel and certainly was quite aware about what your brethren were doing.  Now can you tell us, Mr. S., why are your brethren always so busy murdering others even to this day?  The Native Americans of all the different Nations are certainly not acting like your own brethren.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Native Americans took scalps until they were subjects of European genocide and ethnic cleansing.  What are you talking about.  They didn't give up until they were decimated.  By the way, my brethren are Americans I am not a traitorous  Israel Firster as you are. I am an America Firster.
> 
> The problem for the Jews is that they are unlikely to be able to do the same to the Palestinians or Muslims in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I submit that you are not an "American Firster" --- but a "Palestinian Firster."  And while it is your absolute right to champion the cause of those that have a political position that --- "[t]here is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."  --- and that --- "Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine," --- it is not a a policy embraced by America.  Americans do not considered armed coercion and intimidation by forces as anything other than criminal.  In fact, even if there was no other reason than "Jihad" --- that would be well enough for most Americans to actively support the defense of Israel's right to exist and to help the cause of their defense.  America knows what it is like to be the target of self-righteous Islamic terrorism.
> 
> You have the right to champion your cause --- that of the designated terrorists and self-proclaimed Jihadist, but remember:
> 
> *Article 20  ---  *
> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
> *Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966
> entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49*​
> 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
> 
> 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> America Firsters realize that America's one-sided support for Israel, is debilitating to our power and influence in the world.  America Firsters realize that forcing Israel to the table and pressuring Israel to negotiate equitable terms with the Palestinians would enhance America's standing in the world. America Firsters realize that coming down hard on Israel for building more and more settlements a long time ago would have made a two-state solution possible and consequently, peace, possible.
> 
> As far as propaganda for war, what does this sound like? As far as hate what does this sound like?
> 
> "Ayelet Shaked quoted MP "[The Palestinians] are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads... This also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is it again that has ethnically cleansed the Christians from Palestine by forced conversions, rape, beatings and genocides until their number were slashed by 90%.  I will give you a clue you defend and support their actions in every post you make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who has ethnically cleansed the Christians from Palestine this century?  The European Jews, who else.
> 
> "The Palestinian Christian is an endangered species.
> 
> When the modern state of Israel was established there were about 400,000 of us. Two years ago the number was down to 80,000. Now it’s down to 60,000. At that rate, in a few years there will be none of us left. When this happens non-Christian groups will move into our churches and claim them forever.
> 
> Palestinian Christians within Israel fare little better. On the face of it, their number has grown by 20,000 since 1991. But this is misleading, for the census classification "Christian" includes some 20,000 recent non-Arab migrants from the former Soviet Union.....Prior to the 1967 war, the Christian youth at the Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist and other churches in Bethlehem used to pray and rejoice and have a good chat with hundreds of American Christian pilgrims. In particular Texas and California were two places from where many came to visit the Holy Land. Today only fading memories prevail. Bethlehem has been vacated by Christian families. The remaining Christians are paying the price by experiencing curfews which last for weeks. They remain sandwiched between Muslims and Jews without drawing the slightest concern from the many so-called Western Christians.
> 
> So why do American Christians stand by while their leaders advocate the expulsion of fellow Christians? Could it be that they do not know that the Holy Land has been a home to Christians since, well … since Christ?"
> 
> The Palestinian Christian Betrayed Persecuted Sacrificed
> 
> 
> 
> We have lost hope, that’s why. We are treated as non-people. Few outside the Middle East even know we exist, and those who do, conveniently forget.
Click to expand...

Of course we know about the Christians in the Middle East.  They are slowly being wiped out by the Muslims.  Evidently Mr. S. doesn't read any of the reports coming from the Christian organizations who are keeping track of what the Muslims are doing to the Christians.  I would suggest that if the readers want to keep up with what the Muslims are doing to Christians in the Middle East, they research some of Raymond Ibrahim's articles.


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> Excuse me!  I fail to see how a person _(like yourself)_ that places the hostile ambitions, and policies ---- bending to the will of the radical right-wing Islamic Palestinian armed resistance group over that of own country's foreign policy, makes you an "American Firster."  In fact, there is an argument to be make that persons _(like yourself)_ which promote the goals and aspirations of any group that operates outside the law through the use of suicide bombings, rocket launches, improvised explosive device (IED) attacks, shootings, kidnapping and murder, --- in order to intimidate and coerce America, Israel, and the international community at large, to achieve political and territorial objectives, can be anything other than someone providing material and political support to terrorism.  _(Certainly not an "American Firster;" as you call it.)_
> 
> 
> Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues.
> 
> A war of aggression constitutes a crime against the peace, for which there is responsibility under international law.
> 
> In accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, States have the duty to refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Native Americans took scalps until they were subjects of European genocide and ethnic cleansing.  What are you talking about.  They didn't give up until they were decimated.  By the way, my brethren are Americans I am not a traitorous  Israel Firster as you are. I am an America Firster.
> 
> The problem for the Jews is that they are unlikely to be able to do the same to the Palestinians or Muslims in general.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I submit that you are not an "American Firster" --- but a "Palestinian Firster."  And while it is your absolute right to champion the cause of those that have a political position that --- "[t]here is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."  --- and that --- "Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine," --- it is not a a policy embraced by America.  Americans do not considered armed coercion and intimidation by forces as anything other than criminal.  In fact, even if there was no other reason than "Jihad" --- that would be well enough for most Americans to actively support the defense of Israel's right to exist and to help the cause of their defense.  America knows what it is like to be the target of self-righteous Islamic terrorism.
> 
> You have the right to champion your cause --- that of the designated terrorists and self-proclaimed Jihadist, but remember:
> 
> *Article 20  ---  *
> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
> *Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966
> entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49*​
> 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
> 
> 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> America Firsters realize that America's one-sided support for Israel, is debilitating to our power and influence in the world.  America Firsters realize that forcing Israel to the table and pressuring Israel to negotiate equitable terms with the Palestinians would enhance America's standing in the world. America Firsters realize that coming down hard on Israel for building more and more settlements a long time ago would have made a two-state solution possible and consequently, peace, possible.
> 
> As far as propaganda for war, what does this sound like? As far as hate what does this sound like?
> 
> "Ayelet Shaked quoted MP "[The Palestinians] are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads... This also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is it again that has ethnically cleansed the Christians from Palestine by forced conversions, rape, beatings and genocides until their number were slashed by 90%.  I will give you a clue you defend and support their actions in every post you make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who has ethnically cleansed the Christians from Palestine this century?  The European Jews, who else.
> 
> "The Palestinian Christian is an endangered species.
> 
> When the modern state of Israel was established there were about 400,000 of us. Two years ago the number was down to 80,000. Now it’s down to 60,000. At that rate, in a few years there will be none of us left. When this happens non-Christian groups will move into our churches and claim them forever.
> 
> Palestinian Christians within Israel fare little better. On the face of it, their number has grown by 20,000 since 1991. But this is misleading, for the census classification "Christian" includes some 20,000 recent non-Arab migrants from the former Soviet Union.....Prior to the 1967 war, the Christian youth at the Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist and other churches in Bethlehem used to pray and rejoice and have a good chat with hundreds of American Christian pilgrims. In particular Texas and California were two places from where many came to visit the Holy Land. Today only fading memories prevail. Bethlehem has been vacated by Christian families. The remaining Christians are paying the price by experiencing curfews which last for weeks. They remain sandwiched between Muslims and Jews without drawing the slightest concern from the many so-called Western Christians.
> 
> So why do American Christians stand by while their leaders advocate the expulsion of fellow Christians? Could it be that they do not know that the Holy Land has been a home to Christians since, well … since Christ?"
> 
> The Palestinian Christian Betrayed Persecuted Sacrificed
> 
> 
> 
> We have lost hope, that’s why. We are treated as non-people. Few outside the Middle East even know we exist, and those who do, conveniently forget.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course we know about the Christians in the Middle East.  They are slowly being wiped out by the Muslims.  Evidently Mr. S. doesn't read any of the reports coming from the Christian organizations who are keeping track of what the Muslims are doing to the Christians.  I would suggest that if the readers want to keep up with what the Muslims are doing to Christians in the Middle East, they research some of Raymond Ibrahim's articles.
Click to expand...

I'll let your comment go through to the keeper Hoss

On to a more interesting subject......THE ARAB JEW,..............there are a few around the Jaffa area today but prior to 1948 there were 100,000's living in Arab countries including Palestine....Yes this may be a bit of a Shock to the Rancid Zionists on here but they do exist...despite the Filthy Zionists attempt to remove them,(like other things)from the history books.

A recent book called "THE ARAB JEW" was recently released by author Meneichem sic Kliene.......and extremely interesting it is,the Arab Jew lived in places from Iran(not actually Arab as such,but Muslims to Syria,Egypt,Lebanon,Palestine,todays Jordan,Tunisia,Algeria,Morrocco,Iraq etc.,

They did not believe in a concept of an Israel at all(Israel today is a late 19th Century invention by a few British Zionist Jews)No their belief was that the land where they lived was also their and the Arabs land as both the been on this land for generations,their lives were intertwined with Arabs,as friends and neighbours ......and they lived their lives peacefully............during this period.......Arabs did not murder Jews the communicated and got on well...the peoples who did came later..and slaughtered the Jews were .Christians mainly......Russians,Ukranians,GERMANS,Italians,Croatians in the main.   So much for the  RoccoR's Inane comments.

Only in Palestine in the late 30's were there skirmishes when the Pali's realized the Illegal Jews were flooding in and abusing the Palestinians trust,but the Jews run by various Zionist Terrorist Groups who then upped the anti and started slaughtering Palestinian men,women,chidren and babies....in their despicable attempt to rid Palestinians of their ,the Palestinian land.This continued until Jewish statehood.....sorry it CONTINUES TODAY,with over 100,000 Jewish inspired killings and murders of Palestinians since 1948
;


I remember talking to and elderly Jewish couple from Haifa,who sadly told me,""how awful things were now,  in Israel since 1948....we had many Palestinian friends ,now New Jews,who are NO Good come in and are given everything """

But I digress this is a very good book Hoss......to the Cret/Jews or their Bum Buddies on here.....I will get the Usual Shit-Spew.....of Idiocy

I have much to talk about with you Hoss on this subject.....I have to fly (as it were) as our manufacturing waits for no one...steve.take care.....see you soon


----------



## RoccoR

theliq,  _et al,_

Yes...



theliq said:


> ​So much for the Tosser RoccoR's Inane comments.


*(QUESTION)*

What does that mean?

How does it relate to the commentary I made?

v/r
R


----------



## theliq

RoccoR said:


> theliq,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes...
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​So much for the Tosser RoccoR's Inane comments.
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> What does that mean?
> 
> How does it relate to the commentary I made?
> 
> v/r
> R
Click to expand...

Apologies Rocco thanks for keeping me on the straight and narrow,steve.........nice to see you read my comments but I'm sure somewhere you have accused Arabs as wanting to slaughter Jews........but the opposite is true in the main..............as once a peaceful people the Jews changed all that prior to 1948 and beyond and we have the figures to prove it......but if I am attesting to you,that the comments are not yours I apologise.....the reason I could have erred is that I generally treat all you Pali-Bashers as one and the same......which is a fair comment.steve with respect


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes...
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​So much for the Tosser RoccoR's Inane comments.
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> What does that mean?
> 
> How does it relate to the commentary I made?
> 
> v/r
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apologies Rocco thanks for keeping me on the straight and narrow,steve.........nice to see you read my comments but I'm sure somewhere you have accused Arabs as wanting to slaughter Jews........but the opposite is true in the main..............as once a peaceful people the Jews changed all that prior to 1948 and beyond and we have the figures to prove it......but if I am attesting to you comments that are not yours I apologise.....the reason I could have erred is that I generally treat all you Pali-Bashers as one and the same......which is a fair comment.steve with respect
Click to expand...

Lighten up on the Jim Beam, Stevie.


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes...
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​So much for the Tosser RoccoR's Inane comments.
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> What does that mean?
> 
> How does it relate to the commentary I made?
> 
> v/r
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apologies Rocco thanks for keeping me on the straight and narrow,steve.........nice to see you read my comments but I'm sure somewhere you have accused Arabs as wanting to slaughter Jews........but the opposite is true in the main..............as once a peaceful people the Jews changed all that prior to 1948 and beyond and we have the figures to prove it......but if I am attesting to you comments that are not yours I apologise.....the reason I could have erred is that I generally treat all you Pali-Bashers as one and the same......which is a fair comment.steve with respect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lighten up on the Jim Beam, Stevie.
Click to expand...

Jim Beam!!!!Hoss.....try Jamaican Appleton Estate Rum............Hoss,now that is a cool drop,steve


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds familiar.
> 
> *President Thomas Jefferson*, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, December 29, 1813
> 
> “This unfortunate race, whom we had been taking so much pains to save and to civilize, have by their unexpected desertion and ferocious barbarities justified extermination and now await our decision on their fate.”
> 
> 
> Read more atNice Day for a Genocide Shocking Quotes on Indians By U.S. Leaders Pt 1 - ICTMN.com
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly does sound familiar.  It sounds like they are talking about your Muslim brethren and what they have done and are still doing to other people.  I see one of the comments was from someone who wanted to know about the Diné tribe of the Navajo Nation.  There was once a Diné poster who lived in Sedona, Arizona and who was all for Israel and certainly was quite aware about what your brethren were doing.  Now can you tell us, Mr. S., why are your brethren always so busy murdering others even to this day?  The Native Americans of all the different Nations are certainly not acting like your own brethren.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Native Americans took scalps until they were subjects of European genocide and ethnic cleansing.  What are you talking about.  They didn't give up until they were decimated.  By the way, my brethren are Americans I am not a traitorous  Israel Firster as you are. I am an America Firster.
> 
> The problem for the Jews is that they are unlikely to be able to do the same to the Palestinians or Muslims in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are first Nation are you, and can trace your ancestors back before the founding fathers came to America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with anything?  Again you claimed that the post below was an "Islamonazi" lie.  I challenged you to point out where I lied.  And, you come up with asking me if I have Native American ancestry.  Again, point out the lie in the text below for which you accused me of lying,
> 
> "What? "Our Native Americans came to their senses"? You mean after murdering most of them via disease and in brave attacks like at Wounded Knee where the brave U.S. Cavalry killed hundreds of women and children.. Oh wait, the Israelis just did that this summer."
Click to expand...




 Your claim is that you are an American and so are your brethren, must mean that you are First Nation.

 As for the LIE it is obvious as the hooked nose on your face, the Israelis did not kill hundreds of women and children this summer that was hamas. You have been given the reasons why under INTERNATIONAL LAW the Israelis were not to blame and still you ignore reality and post your ISLAMONAZI LIBELS.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> Excuse me!  I fail to see how a person _(like yourself)_ that places the hostile ambitions, and policies ---- bending to the will of the radical right-wing Islamic Palestinian armed resistance group over that of own country's foreign policy, makes you an "American Firster."  In fact, there is an argument to be make that persons _(like yourself)_ which promote the goals and aspirations of any group that operates outside the law through the use of suicide bombings, rocket launches, improvised explosive device (IED) attacks, shootings, kidnapping and murder, --- in order to intimidate and coerce America, Israel, and the international community at large, to achieve political and territorial objectives, can be anything other than someone providing material and political support to terrorism.  _(Certainly not an "American Firster;" as you call it.)_
> 
> 
> Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues.
> 
> A war of aggression constitutes a crime against the peace, for which there is responsibility under international law.
> 
> In accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, States have the duty to refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly does sound familiar.  It sounds like they are talking about your Muslim brethren and what they have done and are still doing to other people.  I see one of the comments was from someone who wanted to know about the Diné tribe of the Navajo Nation.  There was once a Diné poster who lived in Sedona, Arizona and who was all for Israel and certainly was quite aware about what your brethren were doing.  Now can you tell us, Mr. S., why are your brethren always so busy murdering others even to this day?  The Native Americans of all the different Nations are certainly not acting like your own brethren.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Native Americans took scalps until they were subjects of European genocide and ethnic cleansing.  What are you talking about.  They didn't give up until they were decimated.  By the way, my brethren are Americans I am not a traitorous  Israel Firster as you are. I am an America Firster.
> 
> The problem for the Jews is that they are unlikely to be able to do the same to the Palestinians or Muslims in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I submit that you are not an "American Firster" --- but a "Palestinian Firster."  And while it is your absolute right to champion the cause of those that have a political position that --- "[t]here is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."  --- and that --- "Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine," --- it is not a a policy embraced by America.  Americans do not considered armed coercion and intimidation by forces as anything other than criminal.  In fact, even if there was no other reason than "Jihad" --- that would be well enough for most Americans to actively support the defense of Israel's right to exist and to help the cause of their defense.  America knows what it is like to be the target of self-righteous Islamic terrorism.
> 
> You have the right to champion your cause --- that of the designated terrorists and self-proclaimed Jihadist, but remember:
> 
> *Article 20  ---  *
> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
> *Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966
> entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49*​
> 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
> 
> 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> America Firsters realize that America's one-sided support for Israel, is debilitating to our power and influence in the world.  America Firsters realize that forcing Israel to the table and pressuring Israel to negotiate equitable terms with the Palestinians would enhance America's standing in the world. America Firsters realize that coming down hard on Israel for building more and more settlements a long time ago would have made a two-state solution possible and consequently, peace, possible.
> 
> As far as propaganda for war, what does this sound like? As far as hate what does this sound like?
> 
> "Ayelet Shaked quoted MP "[The Palestinians] are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads... This also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is it again that has ethnically cleansed the Christians from Palestine by forced conversions, rape, beatings and genocides until their number were slashed by 90%.  I will give you a clue you defend and support their actions in every post you make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who has ethnically cleansed the Christians from Palestine this century?  The European Jews, who else.
> 
> "The Palestinian Christian is an endangered species.
> 
> When the modern state of Israel was established there were about 400,000 of us. Two years ago the number was down to 80,000. Now it’s down to 60,000. At that rate, in a few years there will be none of us left. When this happens non-Christian groups will move into our churches and claim them forever.
> 
> Palestinian Christians within Israel fare little better. On the face of it, their number has grown by 20,000 since 1991. But this is misleading, for the census classification "Christian" includes some 20,000 recent non-Arab migrants from the former Soviet Union.....Prior to the 1967 war, the Christian youth at the Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist and other churches in Bethlehem used to pray and rejoice and have a good chat with hundreds of American Christian pilgrims. In particular Texas and California were two places from where many came to visit the Holy Land. Today only fading memories prevail. Bethlehem has been vacated by Christian families. The remaining Christians are paying the price by experiencing curfews which last for weeks. They remain sandwiched between Muslims and Jews without drawing the slightest concern from the many so-called Western Christians.
> 
> So why do American Christians stand by while their leaders advocate the expulsion of fellow Christians? Could it be that they do not know that the Holy Land has been a home to Christians since, well … since Christ?"
> 
> The Palestinian Christian Betrayed Persecuted Sacrificed
> 
> 
> 
> We have lost hope, that’s why. We are treated as non-people. Few outside the Middle East even know we exist, and those who do, conveniently forget.
Click to expand...





 Hardly an unbiased source as the author is a Palestinian, so much for your alleged non partisan source documents. Now the real Christians say this

How are Christians treated in Palestine 

In the West Bank, thousands of Palestinian Christians were ethnically cleansed from Beit Jala and other neighborhoods during the Infitada...mainly so that PLO/Fatah members could use their homes as bases to shoot into the windows of neighboring Jewish homes. The total number of Palestinian Christians in the West Bank have decline ridiculously since 1997--a drop of nearly 30%, with the decline in Christians of Gaza to about 20%. Christian Churches have been firebombed, stormed, and their bibles burned by Muslim extremists


Christians Being Ethnically Cleansed by Muslims. Where is Obama - Israel Video Network




Embedded media from this media site is no longer available


----------



## Phoenall

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?  "Our Native Americans came to their senses"?  You mean after murdering most of them via disease and in brave attacks like at Wounded Knee where the brave U.S. Cavalry killed hundreds of women and children.. Oh wait, the Israelis just did that this summer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More of your ISLAMONAZI LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name any lie contained in my post above.  Come on, one lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh be gentle on Phoney...
> 
> He's like the 'village idiot' of the forum and is best just accepted as such, give a little pat on the head and let him move along...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again ISLAMONAZI book of disinformation is invoked because the poster does not have an answer to the points raised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah poor Phoney...
> 
> I think the onus was on YOU to prove the lies you alleged!
> 
> Looks like ANOTHER 'Phoney Phail'
Click to expand...






 Another of your ISLAMONAZI book of disinformation rules because the last two failed.

 The LIES are self evident as INTERNATIONAL LAW places the blame on hamas for the deaths and not Israel as you terrorist supporting stooges claim.


----------



## Humanity

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> More of your ISLAMONAZI LIES
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name any lie contained in my post above.  Come on, one lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh be gentle on Phoney...
> 
> He's like the 'village idiot' of the forum and is best just accepted as such, give a little pat on the head and let him move along...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again ISLAMONAZI book of disinformation is invoked because the poster does not have an answer to the points raised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah poor Phoney...
> 
> I think the onus was on YOU to prove the lies you alleged!
> 
> Looks like ANOTHER 'Phoney Phail'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another of your ISLAMONAZI book of disinformation rules because the last two failed.
> 
> The LIES are self evident as INTERNATIONAL LAW places the blame on hamas for the deaths and not Israel as you terrorist supporting stooges claim.
Click to expand...


Phoney, look, forums are pretty simple things, like you, and should not be that hard to follow...

Cutting all the BS, if you call someone out then back it up with an unbiased link that supports your statement...

If you can't do that then , well you end up looking like a Phoney... Oh wait.... THATS YOU!


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds familiar.
> 
> *President Thomas Jefferson*, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, December 29, 1813
> 
> “This unfortunate race, whom we had been taking so much pains to save and to civilize, have by their unexpected desertion and ferocious barbarities justified extermination and now await our decision on their fate.”
> 
> 
> Read more atNice Day for a Genocide Shocking Quotes on Indians By U.S. Leaders Pt 1 - ICTMN.com
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly does sound familiar.  It sounds like they are talking about your Muslim brethren and what they have done and are still doing to other people.  I see one of the comments was from someone who wanted to know about the Diné tribe of the Navajo Nation.  There was once a Diné poster who lived in Sedona, Arizona and who was all for Israel and certainly was quite aware about what your brethren were doing.  Now can you tell us, Mr. S., why are your brethren always so busy murdering others even to this day?  The Native Americans of all the different Nations are certainly not acting like your own brethren.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Native Americans took scalps until they were subjects of European genocide and ethnic cleansing.  What are you talking about.  They didn't give up until they were decimated.  By the way, my brethren are Americans I am not a traitorous  Israel Firster as you are. I am an America Firster.
> 
> The problem for the Jews is that they are unlikely to be able to do the same to the Palestinians or Muslims in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are first Nation are you, and can trace your ancestors back before the founding fathers came to America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with anything?  Again you claimed that the post below was an "Islamonazi" lie.  I challenged you to point out where I lied.  And, you come up with asking me if I have Native American ancestry.  Again, point out the lie in the text below for which you accused me of lying,
> 
> "What? "Our Native Americans came to their senses"? You mean after murdering most of them via disease and in brave attacks like at Wounded Knee where the brave U.S. Cavalry killed hundreds of women and children.. Oh wait, the Israelis just did that this summer."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your claim is that you are an American and so are your brethren, must mean that you are First Nation.
> 
> As for the LIE it is obvious as the hooked nose on your face, the Israelis did not kill hundreds of women and children this summer that was hamas. You have been given the reasons why under INTERNATIONAL LAW the Israelis were not to blame and still you ignore reality and post your ISLAMONAZI LIBELS.
Click to expand...


I see, Hamas did the bombing of Gaza.  And, you claim that under this mythical International Law, which you rewrite as you please, condones the murder of women and children by the Israelis.  Is this International Law of yours written especially for Jews and gives them the right to murder as long as the victims are non-Jews?

By the way, can you mention one, just one instance of a libel against Israel.  I just deal in facts.  Of the over 2,000 Palestinians (Christians and Muslims) killed by the Israelis in Gaza this summer, over 1,500 were civilians and over a thousand were women and children.  Fact.


----------



## MJB12741

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes...
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​So much for the Tosser RoccoR's Inane comments.
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> What does that mean?
> 
> How does it relate to the commentary I made?
> 
> v/r
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apologies Rocco thanks for keeping me on the straight and narrow,steve.........nice to see you read my comments but I'm sure somewhere you have accused Arabs as wanting to slaughter Jews........but the opposite is true in the main..............as once a peaceful people the Jews changed all that prior to 1948 and beyond and we have the figures to prove it......but if I am attesting to you comments that are not yours I apologise.....the reason I could have erred is that I generally treat all you Pali-Bashers as one and the same......which is a fair comment.steve with respect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lighten up on the Jim Beam, Stevie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Beam!!!!Hoss.....try Jamaican Appleton Estate Rum............Hoss,now that is a cool drop,steve
Click to expand...



Jamaican Appelton Estate Run?  Shame on you!  Try this one & get back to me.  Lord have mercy!

http://media.nicks.com.au/media/imported-cms/image_2009101143033161.jpg


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  _et al,_

Customary and Statutory International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is never written with one nation in mind --- or _(for or against)_ any single nation in particular.  It is written for all nations everywhere; applicable all the time, in every dispute _(international and non-international)_ that threaten peace and security.  In this particular commentary, you've asked a complex question involving both an allegation and an accusatory statement:

"[Y]ou claim that under this mythical International Law, ---- condones the murder of women and children by the Israelis."
"Is this International Law of yours written especially for Jews and gives them the right to murder as long as the victims are non-Jews?"
In this case, all that follows is applicable equally to both the Israelis and the Palestinians; as the principle parties to the conflict.



montelatici said:


> I see, Hamas did the bombing of Gaza.  And, you claim that under this mythical International Law, which you rewrite as you please, condones the murder of women and children by the Israelis.  Is this International Law of yours written especially for Jews and gives them the right to murder as long as the victims are non-Jews?
> 
> By the way, can you mention one, just one instance of a libel against Israel.  I just deal in facts.  Of the over 2,000 Palestinians (Christians and Muslims) killed by the Israelis in Gaza this summer, over 1,500 were civilians and over a thousand were women and children.  Fact.



*(OBSERATATIONS & REFERENCES)
*
Rule 1. The Principle of Distinction between Civilians and Combatants   Customary and Statutory International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
The parties to the conflict must at all times distinguish between civilians and combatants. Attacks may only be directed against combatants. Attacks must not be directed against civilians.​Rule 5. Definition of Civilians  Customary and Statutory International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
Civilians are persons who are not members of the armed forces. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.​
Ibrahim Kreisheh, the Palestinian delegate to the UN Human Rights Council, stated: “The missiles that are now being launched against Israel, each and every missile constitutes a crime against humanity, whether it hits or missed, because it is directed at civilian targets… Therefore, targeting civilians, be it one civilian or a thousand, is considered a crime against humanity.”  PUBLISHED July 13th 2014​Rule 7. The Principle of Distinction between Civilian Objects and Military Objectives   Customary and Statutory International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
The parties to the conflict must at all times distinguish between civilian objects and military objectives. Attacks may only be directed against military objectives. Attacks must not be directed against civilian objects.​
Article 50  --- Definition of civilians and civilian population Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions 


1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.

2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.
Article 51  --- Protection of the civilian population  Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions

1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.

2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are: [ Rule 11. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Rule 12. Indiscriminate attacks are those: ]

(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;

(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or

(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction​5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

This definition of indiscriminate attacks represents an implementation of the principle of distinction and of international humanitarian law in general. Rule 12(a) is an application of the prohibition on directing attacks against civilians (see Rule 1) and the prohibition on directing attacks against civilian objects (see Rule 7), which are applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts. Rule 12(b) is also an application of the prohibition on directing attacks against civilians or against civilian objects (see Rules 1 and 7). The prohibition of weapons which are by nature indiscriminate (see Rule 71), which is applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts, is based on the definition of indiscriminate attacks contained in Rule 12(b).

State practice establishes this rule as a norm of customary international law applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts. Weapons that are by nature indiscriminate are those that cannot be directed at a military objective or whose effects cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law. The prohibition of such weapons is also supported by the general prohibition of indiscriminate attacks (see Rules 11–12).​Lastly, Rule 12(c) is based on the logical argument that means or methods of warfare whose effects cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law should be prohibited. But this reasoning begs the question as to what those limitations are. Practice in this respect points to weapons whose effects are uncontrollable in time and space and are likely to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.​
Rule 97. The use of human shields is prohibited.  Customary and Statutory International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
In the context of international armed conflicts, this rule is set forth in the Third Geneva Convention (with respect to prisoners of war), the Fourth Geneva Convention (with respect to protected civilians) and Additional Protocol I (with respect to civilians in general).  Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.

*Is Hamas using human shields in Gaza? The answer is complicated*
By *Michael Martinez*, CNN
updated 8:23 AM EDT, Wed July 23, 2014

*Conclusive Proof Hamas Uses Palestinians as Human Shields...*
Conclusive Proof Hamas Uses Palestinians as Human Shields Jewish Israel News Algemeiner.com
Aug 07, 2014 · For the past four weeks, as the war has raged in Gaza, Israel has repeatedly pointed to the Hamas strategy of using civilians as human shields.

*Hamas Spokesperson Encourages Use of Human Shield -YouTube*
Hamas Spokesperson Encourages Use of Human Shield - YouTube
Jul 09, 2014 · The spokesperson for Hamas in Gaza, Sami Abu Zuhri, spoke on Al Aqsa TV about the use of civilians as a human shield. He refers to the night of June 8 …
Article 7 - Crimes Against Humanity, Rome Statutes, International Criminal Court (ICC)
"Attack directed against any civilian population" means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;​*
(COMMENT)*

There is no law, international or otherwise, that condones or permits the murder _(as your question is framed)_ of civilians.  The prevailing thought is that violations of IHL are not due to the inadequacy of its rules. Rather, the civilian casualties stem from several conditions that occur in hostile conflict.

An unwillingness to respect the rules,
An insufficient means to enforce them,
An uncertainty as to their application in some circumstances,
A lack of awareness and understanding of the rules,
The purposeful use of civilians to shield potential military targets and to initiate a propaganda effort. Rule: #97.
The IHL Treaty law is extensive and covers a wide range of warfare conditions, including those that affording protection to civilians during wartime.  These laws limit the permissible means and methods of warfare.

Unlike the Palestinian, the State of Israel has no political policy, war strategy, hidden agenda, covenant, charter, project or plan, to further any objective that would constitute Article 6 Genocide goals or to otherwise inflict the maximum number of casualties upon Palestinian Civilians as defined under Rule #5 or Article 50.  The Israeli objective has been and continues to be the exercise of the inherent right to self-defence against the armed attack by the Palestinians against the sovereign State of Israel; a Member of the United Nations and pursuant to Chapter VII, Article 51.

The State of Israel neither promotes or glorifies the human cost in lives and the collateral damage inflicted in the same way the the Palestinians announce the "Heroic Actions" of their state sponsored terrorist components.  The State of Israel goes to extraordinary lengths to give Rule 20 Advanced Warning, prior to a strike, and no attack is launched in violation of Rule 14 Proportionality --- in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects … which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.”   Each Israeli attack has a clear and concise military objectives selected that which may be expected to cause the least danger to civilian lives and to civilian objects is set forth in Article 57(3) of Additional Protocol I, to which no relevant reservations have been made.  Nearly every attack by the Israelis has some outcome to a specific military advantage:

Compelling Palestinian to undertake certain actions or denying Palestinian the ability to coerce or attack Israel.
Achieving strategic paralysis in Palestinian by targeting political leadership, command and control, strategic weapons, and critical economic nodes.
A strategy of wearing down the Palestinian to the point of collapse through continuous loss of personnel and material.
I hope in some small way, this gives you some idea of the intent of the Israeli, and the cost involved in the Palestinian Resistance and attacks on Israel.  Unfortunately, every war has a cost in human life.  And the price to the Palestinian for their Jihad is to face a military doctrine using overwhelming power to try and achieve rapid dominance over the attacking Hostile Arab Palestinian; the objectives of which is to silence Hostile Palestinian attacks.  

The Israelis know that for them, the unnecessary infliction of civilian casualties is NOT to their advantage.  But it is to the advantage of the Hostile Arab Palestinian leadership to sacrifice as many of their citizens as they can in order to gain what international sympathy that strategy may garner.

If there is murder involved in a planned political scale, it is on the part of the Hostile Arab Palestinian and a violation of Rule #97.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Rula Jebreal*

**


----------



## montelatici

The Zionists don't want the truth to be told to Americans on U.S. media.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> The Zionists don't want the truth to be told to Americans on U.S. media.


What truth don't Zionists want Americans told? I've lost track of the subject.


----------



## aris2chat

Hossfly said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Zionists don't want the truth to be told to Americans on U.S. media.
> 
> 
> 
> What truth don't Zionists want Americans told? I've lost track of the subject.
Click to expand...


1200 posts, 127 pages.....
I wonder why


----------



## montelatici

Hossfly said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Zionists don't want the truth to be told to Americans on U.S. media.
> 
> 
> 
> What truth don't Zionists want Americans told? I've lost track of the subject.
Click to expand...


The basic one.  That people from Europe went to Palestine to expel the local inhabitants and make a country for themselves.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, _et al,_

Let's be clear, of all the people that said they witnessed the event, none actually witnessed any of the Israeli Naval vessels firing.

See the actual interview by the NBC's Reporter Ayman Mohyeldin:  News Article and Video:
*Why Did NBC Yank a Gaza Reporter Who Saw Children Killed on the Beach?*




P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Rula Jebreal*
> 
> **


*(COMMENT)*

The NBC's Reporter Ayman Mohyeldin DID NOT SEE any firing from the Israeli Navy, he says that the shelling was consistent with naval gun fire.  Everyone assumes it came from one of several naval vessels.  The eye witnesses said it was coming from "the direction of the Israel Navy," but none of the news camera crews caught any firing from the Israeli Navy.



montelatici said:


> The Zionists don't want the truth to be told to Americans on U.S. media.


*(COMMENT) *

This event actually happened in early July.  And in all the replay and talk about this one event, the "truth" has yet to come-out.  There was not in-depth media exposé or report done on this event.  It was all played out to be --- as if there was an eye witness that actually saw the Israelis shoot and the children fall.  This is not the case at all.

It is a case of the Palestinians, with the aid of an Egyptian-American journalist based in Los Angeles for NBC News --- who previously worked for Al Jazeera, sensationalizing a tragic event.  Not an uncommon occurrence for the culture of perpetual victims.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

The old Zionist denial routine, much like Holocaust denial routine.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

Well, the questions is:

Was there a witness? --- or not?
Was there forensic evidence?  ---  or not?



montelatici said:


> The old Zionist denial routine, much like Holocaust denial routine.


*(COMMENT)*

First, I deny nothing.  I stated the facts as reported.  You can watch the video yourself.  

Second --- there No similarity to the between the Holocaust Denial --- where there are still living actual eye witnesses to the event and forensic evidence.

I did notice that ---- they noticed that ---- the only one that were going to investigate the event were the Israelis.  Maybe it is true, that some (even the Palestinians) don't want the real truth to be told.  Listen to the story as it is told.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

Well, the questions is (are) sic:

Was there a witness? --- or not?
YES

*"Witness to a shelling: first-hand account of deadly strike on Gaza port"*
"It was there that the second shell hit the beach, those firing apparently adjusting their fire to target the fleeing survivors. As it exploded, journalists standing by the terrace wall shouted: "They are only children."

*"Horror on Gaza Beach: New York Times Photographer Witnesses Israeli Killing of 4 Palestinian Boys"*

Horror on Gaza Beach New York Times Photographer Witnesses Israeli Killing of 4 Palestinian Boys Democracy Now 

Was there forensic evidence? --- or not?
Probably, or else the IDF would not admitted they did it.

"A top Israeli spokesman conceded the Israeli military should have been able to tell that four Palestinian boys killed on a Gaza beach while playing soccer were not terrorists."

Read more: Israel Spokesman Admits Army Should Have Spared Boys Playing Soccer on Gaza Beach Forward.com


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> The old Zionist denial routine, much like Holocaust denial routine.



What a ridiculous comparison from the propaganda machine


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The old Zionist denial routine, much like Holocaust denial routine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a ridiculous comparison from the propaganda machine
Click to expand...



What is the difference? Mr. Propaganda.


----------



## Phoenall

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name any lie contained in my post above.  Come on, one lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh be gentle on Phoney...
> 
> He's like the 'village idiot' of the forum and is best just accepted as such, give a little pat on the head and let him move along...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again ISLAMONAZI book of disinformation is invoked because the poster does not have an answer to the points raised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah poor Phoney...
> 
> I think the onus was on YOU to prove the lies you alleged!
> 
> Looks like ANOTHER 'Phoney Phail'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another of your ISLAMONAZI book of disinformation rules because the last two failed.
> 
> The LIES are self evident as INTERNATIONAL LAW places the blame on hamas for the deaths and not Israel as you terrorist supporting stooges claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Phoney, look, forums are pretty simple things, like you, and should not be that hard to follow...
> 
> Cutting all the BS, if you call someone out then back it up with an unbiased link that supports your statement...
> 
> If you can't do that then , well you end up looking like a Phoney... Oh wait.... THATS YOU!
Click to expand...




 I have produced a link that shows that hamas is fully responsible for all the deaths and should be charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. Now were is your evidence to show that hamas can not be held to blame when CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW and HUMANITARIAN LAW says they are.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly does sound familiar.  It sounds like they are talking about your Muslim brethren and what they have done and are still doing to other people.  I see one of the comments was from someone who wanted to know about the Diné tribe of the Navajo Nation.  There was once a Diné poster who lived in Sedona, Arizona and who was all for Israel and certainly was quite aware about what your brethren were doing.  Now can you tell us, Mr. S., why are your brethren always so busy murdering others even to this day?  The Native Americans of all the different Nations are certainly not acting like your own brethren.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Native Americans took scalps until they were subjects of European genocide and ethnic cleansing.  What are you talking about.  They didn't give up until they were decimated.  By the way, my brethren are Americans I am not a traitorous  Israel Firster as you are. I am an America Firster.
> 
> The problem for the Jews is that they are unlikely to be able to do the same to the Palestinians or Muslims in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are first Nation are you, and can trace your ancestors back before the founding fathers came to America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with anything?  Again you claimed that the post below was an "Islamonazi" lie.  I challenged you to point out where I lied.  And, you come up with asking me if I have Native American ancestry.  Again, point out the lie in the text below for which you accused me of lying,
> 
> "What? "Our Native Americans came to their senses"? You mean after murdering most of them via disease and in brave attacks like at Wounded Knee where the brave U.S. Cavalry killed hundreds of women and children.. Oh wait, the Israelis just did that this summer."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your claim is that you are an American and so are your brethren, must mean that you are First Nation.
> 
> As for the LIE it is obvious as the hooked nose on your face, the Israelis did not kill hundreds of women and children this summer that was hamas. You have been given the reasons why under INTERNATIONAL LAW the Israelis were not to blame and still you ignore reality and post your ISLAMONAZI LIBELS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, Hamas did the bombing of Gaza.  And, you claim that under this mythical International Law, which you rewrite as you please, condones the murder of women and children by the Israelis.  Is this International Law of yours written especially for Jews and gives them the right to murder as long as the victims are non-Jews?
> 
> By the way, can you mention one, just one instance of a libel against Israel.  I just deal in facts.  Of the over 2,000 Palestinians (Christians and Muslims) killed by the Israelis in Gaza this summer, over 1,500 were civilians and over a thousand were women and children.  Fact.
Click to expand...




 Not Mythical but recently signed up to by the P.A. and entitled the Geneva conventions. They clearly state that any use of civilian areas to engage in hostilities is illegal and a war crime, also any deaths resulting from the use of civilian areas or the use of civilians as human shields is the fault of the side using the civilian areas and civilian human shields. So why don't you read these conventions and all their amendments to see who is actually to blame for the murders of 2000 Palestinians in gaza.

 You want a Libel try your last paragraph which is a BLOOD LIBEL as you have no concrete evidence of any of your claims.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

Wrong.



montelatici said:


> Well, the questions is (are) sic:
> 
> Was there a witness? --- or not?
> YES
> 
> Read more: Israel Spokesman Admits Army Should Have Spared Boys Playing Soccer on Gaza Beach Forward.com


*(COMMENT)*

The Israeli's did investigate.  And they admitted to the strike.  But it did not come from the bay or the Israeli Navy _(as so many claimed)_, but was indirect fire from Army Artillery. 

_NOTE:  If any of you have been in a rocket or mortar attack, you know the echoes of buildings will confuse the sense of direction.  But if you look at the video of the balcony strike, you can tell that the fire did not hit the building from the east (bay side and penetrating into the building) but was a glancing strike from the north._​
The problem here is that the witnesses were not true witnesses of the event.  They were the witnesses to the immediate aftermath and just assumed the strike came from Naval Gun Fire _(it accounts for the media not actually seeing naval gun fire from the bay)_.   The witnesses were making up any story just to assign blame to the Israelis.  And while it was ultimately --- an Israeli Strike, the truth did no come from eye witness accounts, but from the honesty of the Israeli Defense Force.

My point is, you cannot trust the Honesty and Integrity of the Palestinian.   

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The old Zionist denial routine, much like Holocaust denial routine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a ridiculous comparison from the propaganda machine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What is the difference? Mr. Propaganda.
Click to expand...


What is the difference between denying one of the most documented events of the 20th century in which millions of people were killed vs. denying one isolated event?

How is it possible that you can be so incredibly stupid propagandatici?


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the questions is (are) sic:
> 
> Was there a witness? --- or not?
> YES
> 
> Read more: Israel Spokesman Admits Army Should Have Spared Boys Playing Soccer on Gaza Beach Forward.com
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Israeli's did investigate.  And they admitted to the strike.  But it did not come from the bay or the Israeli Navy _(as so many claimed)_, but was indirect fire from Army Artillery.
> 
> _NOTE:  If any of you have been in a rocket or mortar attack, you know the echoes of buildings will confuse the sense of direction.  But if you look at the video of the balcony strike, you can tell that the fire did not hit the building from the east (bay side and penetrating into the building) but was a glancing strike from the north._​
> The problem here is that the witnesses were not true witnesses of the event.  They were the witnesses to the immediate aftermath and just assumed the strike came from Naval Gun Fire _(it accounts for the media not actually seeing naval gun fire from the bay)_.   The witnesses were making up any story just to assign blame to the Israelis.  And while it was ultimately --- an Israeli Strike, the truth did no come from eye witness accounts, but from the honesty of the Israeli Defense Force.
> 
> My point is, you cannot trust the Honesty and Integrity of the Palestinian.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


I don't trust the Honesty and Integrity of the Israeli. The old Zionist denial trick, eh.  Why you bozos believe that this denial technique will be more effective than the Holocaust denial trick I don't know.

But you are wrong as usual:

Photographer was a witness, obviously:

Israeli Strike Kills Four Boys Playing on Gaza Beach - ABC News



The following makes clear that foreign reporters were witnesses:

"“The first strike hit at around 1300 GMT (4 p.m. local time), prompting terrified children and adults on the beach to scatter. A second and third struck as they ran, setting fire to huts on the beach,” Agence France-Presse’s Sara Hussein wrote. “The strikes appeared to be the result of shelling by the Israeli navy against an area with small shacks used by fishermen.”

Hussein, along with _The Washington Post_‘s William Booth and _The_ _Guardian_‘s Peter Beaumont, saw the attack and the aftermath...“There is a deafening explosion as it hits a structure on the pier, a place we have seen hit before, where fishermen usually store their nets. Behind the smoke, I see four figures running, silhouettes whose legs are pumping raggedly. They clear the smoke. From their size it is clear they are a man and three young boys,” Beaumont wrote in his account of the attack seen from
Beaumont wrote the survivors fleeing the attack were targeted by a second shell, injuring them as they fled to safety.

“As it explodes, my colleagues, now standing by the terrace wall, shout at unseen Israeli gunners who can’t hear them: ‘They are only children,'” he wrote.

Journalists witness Gaza beach attack that killed at least 4 children - National Globalnews.ca


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the questions is (are) sic:
> 
> Was there a witness? --- or not?
> YES
> 
> Read more: Israel Spokesman Admits Army Should Have Spared Boys Playing Soccer on Gaza Beach Forward.com
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Israeli's did investigate.  And they admitted to the strike.  But it did not come from the bay or the Israeli Navy _(as so many claimed)_, but was indirect fire from Army Artillery.
> 
> _NOTE:  If any of you have been in a rocket or mortar attack, you know the echoes of buildings will confuse the sense of direction.  But if you look at the video of the balcony strike, you can tell that the fire did not hit the building from the east (bay side and penetrating into the building) but was a glancing strike from the north._​
> The problem here is that the witnesses were not true witnesses of the event.  They were the witnesses to the immediate aftermath and just assumed the strike came from Naval Gun Fire _(it accounts for the media not actually seeing naval gun fire from the bay)_.   The witnesses were making up any story just to assign blame to the Israelis.  And while it was ultimately --- an Israeli Strike, the truth did no come from eye witness accounts, but from the honesty of the Israeli Defense Force.
> 
> My point is, you cannot trust the Honesty and Integrity of the Palestinian.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't trust the Honesty and Integrity of the Israeli. The old Zionist denial trick, eh.  Why you bozos believe that this denial technique will be more effective than the Holocaust denial trick I don't know.
> 
> But you are wrong as usual:
> 
> Photographer was a witness, obviously:
> 
> Israeli Strike Kills Four Boys Playing on Gaza Beach - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> The following makes clear that foreign reporters were witnesses:
> 
> "“The first strike hit at around 1300 GMT (4 p.m. local time), prompting terrified children and adults on the beach to scatter. A second and third struck as they ran, setting fire to huts on the beach,” Agence France-Presse’s Sara Hussein wrote. “The strikes appeared to be the result of shelling by the Israeli navy against an area with small shacks used by fishermen.”
> 
> Hussein, along with _The Washington Post_‘s William Booth and _The_ _Guardian_‘s Peter Beaumont, saw the attack and the aftermath...“There is a deafening explosion as it hits a structure on the pier, a place we have seen hit before, where fishermen usually store their nets. Behind the smoke, I see four figures running, silhouettes whose legs are pumping raggedly. They clear the smoke. From their size it is clear they are a man and three young boys,” Beaumont wrote in his account of the attack seen from
> Beaumont wrote the survivors fleeing the attack were targeted by a second shell, injuring them as they fled to safety.
> 
> “As it explodes, my colleagues, now standing by the terrace wall, shout at unseen Israeli gunners who can’t hear them: ‘They are only children,'” he wrote.
> 
> Journalists witness Gaza beach attack that killed at least 4 children - National Globalnews.ca
Click to expand...


Monti telling someone else that they are always wrong HAHAHA      

Talk about hypocrisy !


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The old Zionist denial routine, much like Holocaust denial routine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a ridiculous comparison from the propaganda machine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What is the difference? Mr. Propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the difference between denying one of the most documented events of the 20th century in which millions of people were killed vs. denying one isolated event?
> 
> How is it possible that you can be so incredibly stupid propagandatici?
Click to expand...


Mr. Propaganda,

The only people that are denying something that dozens of journalists witnessed are nutcases like you and your buddies.  Much like the Holocaust deniers.  That's why it is a similar technique and ploy.


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the questions is (are) sic:
> 
> Was there a witness? --- or not?
> YES
> 
> Read more: Israel Spokesman Admits Army Should Have Spared Boys Playing Soccer on Gaza Beach Forward.com
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Israeli's did investigate.  And they admitted to the strike.  But it did not come from the bay or the Israeli Navy _(as so many claimed)_, but was indirect fire from Army Artillery.
> 
> _NOTE:  If any of you have been in a rocket or mortar attack, you know the echoes of buildings will confuse the sense of direction.  But if you look at the video of the balcony strike, you can tell that the fire did not hit the building from the east (bay side and penetrating into the building) but was a glancing strike from the north._​
> The problem here is that the witnesses were not true witnesses of the event.  They were the witnesses to the immediate aftermath and just assumed the strike came from Naval Gun Fire _(it accounts for the media not actually seeing naval gun fire from the bay)_.   The witnesses were making up any story just to assign blame to the Israelis.  And while it was ultimately --- an Israeli Strike, the truth did no come from eye witness accounts, but from the honesty of the Israeli Defense Force.
> 
> My point is, you cannot trust the Honesty and Integrity of the Palestinian.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't trust the Honesty and Integrity of the Israeli. The old Zionist denial trick, eh.  Why you bozos believe that this denial technique will be more effective than the Holocaust denial trick I don't know.
> 
> But you are wrong as usual:
> 
> Photographer was a witness, obviously:
> 
> Israeli Strike Kills Four Boys Playing on Gaza Beach - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> The following makes clear that foreign reporters were witnesses:
> 
> "“The first strike hit at around 1300 GMT (4 p.m. local time), prompting terrified children and adults on the beach to scatter. A second and third struck as they ran, setting fire to huts on the beach,” Agence France-Presse’s Sara Hussein wrote. “The strikes appeared to be the result of shelling by the Israeli navy against an area with small shacks used by fishermen.”
> 
> Hussein, along with _The Washington Post_‘s William Booth and _The_ _Guardian_‘s Peter Beaumont, saw the attack and the aftermath...“There is a deafening explosion as it hits a structure on the pier, a place we have seen hit before, where fishermen usually store their nets. Behind the smoke, I see four figures running, silhouettes whose legs are pumping raggedly. They clear the smoke. From their size it is clear they are a man and three young boys,” Beaumont wrote in his account of the attack seen from
> Beaumont wrote the survivors fleeing the attack were targeted by a second shell, injuring them as they fled to safety.
> 
> “As it explodes, my colleagues, now standing by the terrace wall, shout at unseen Israeli gunners who can’t hear them: ‘They are only children,'” he wrote.
> 
> Journalists witness Gaza beach attack that killed at least 4 children - National Globalnews.ca
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Monti telling someone else that they are always wrong HAHAHA
> 
> Talk about hypocrisy !
Click to expand...


Mr. Propaganda,

I am never wrong, as you well know. That's what irks you so much that you have become the peanut gallery. LOL 
How can I be wrong when I just post facts that are always backed up and usually with source documentation, not news or opinion (or wiki).


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the questions is (are) sic:
> 
> Was there a witness? --- or not?
> YES
> 
> Read more: Israel Spokesman Admits Army Should Have Spared Boys Playing Soccer on Gaza Beach Forward.com
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Israeli's did investigate.  And they admitted to the strike.  But it did not come from the bay or the Israeli Navy _(as so many claimed)_, but was indirect fire from Army Artillery.
> 
> _NOTE:  If any of you have been in a rocket or mortar attack, you know the echoes of buildings will confuse the sense of direction.  But if you look at the video of the balcony strike, you can tell that the fire did not hit the building from the east (bay side and penetrating into the building) but was a glancing strike from the north._​
> The problem here is that the witnesses were not true witnesses of the event.  They were the witnesses to the immediate aftermath and just assumed the strike came from Naval Gun Fire _(it accounts for the media not actually seeing naval gun fire from the bay)_.   The witnesses were making up any story just to assign blame to the Israelis.  And while it was ultimately --- an Israeli Strike, the truth did no come from eye witness accounts, but from the honesty of the Israeli Defense Force.
> 
> My point is, you cannot trust the Honesty and Integrity of the Palestinian.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't trust the Honesty and Integrity of the Israeli. The old Zionist denial trick, eh.  Why you bozos believe that this denial technique will be more effective than the Holocaust denial trick I don't know.
> 
> But you are wrong as usual:
> 
> Photographer was a witness, obviously:
> 
> Israeli Strike Kills Four Boys Playing on Gaza Beach - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> The following makes clear that foreign reporters were witnesses:
> 
> "“The first strike hit at around 1300 GMT (4 p.m. local time), prompting terrified children and adults on the beach to scatter. A second and third struck as they ran, setting fire to huts on the beach,” Agence France-Presse’s Sara Hussein wrote. “The strikes appeared to be the result of shelling by the Israeli navy against an area with small shacks used by fishermen.”
> 
> Hussein, along with _The Washington Post_‘s William Booth and _The_ _Guardian_‘s Peter Beaumont, saw the attack and the aftermath...“There is a deafening explosion as it hits a structure on the pier, a place we have seen hit before, where fishermen usually store their nets. Behind the smoke, I see four figures running, silhouettes whose legs are pumping raggedly. They clear the smoke. From their size it is clear they are a man and three young boys,” Beaumont wrote in his account of the attack seen from
> Beaumont wrote the survivors fleeing the attack were targeted by a second shell, injuring them as they fled to safety.
> 
> “As it explodes, my colleagues, now standing by the terrace wall, shout at unseen Israeli gunners who can’t hear them: ‘They are only children,'” he wrote.
> 
> Journalists witness Gaza beach attack that killed at least 4 children - National Globalnews.ca
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Monti telling someone else that they are always wrong HAHAHA
> 
> Talk about hypocrisy !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr. Propaganda,
> 
> I am never wrong, as you well know. That's what irks you so much that you have become the peanut gallery. LOL
> How can I be wrong when I just post facts that are always backed up and usually with source documentation, not news or opinion (or wiki).
Click to expand...


Because most of your claims are not backed up by anything. The problem with you is that the truth hurts you so much that you refuse to admit it.
I've lost of how many of your lies i refuted because there's just so many. That's why you refused to take our debate to another part of the forum so unbiased posters can tell us who is right. Because you KNOW you're wrong. Pathetic lying propagandist coward. Thats what you are


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the questions is (are) sic:
> 
> Was there a witness? --- or not?
> YES
> 
> Read more: Israel Spokesman Admits Army Should Have Spared Boys Playing Soccer on Gaza Beach Forward.com
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Israeli's did investigate.  And they admitted to the strike.  But it did not come from the bay or the Israeli Navy _(as so many claimed)_, but was indirect fire from Army Artillery.
> 
> _NOTE:  If any of you have been in a rocket or mortar attack, you know the echoes of buildings will confuse the sense of direction.  But if you look at the video of the balcony strike, you can tell that the fire did not hit the building from the east (bay side and penetrating into the building) but was a glancing strike from the north._​
> The problem here is that the witnesses were not true witnesses of the event.  They were the witnesses to the immediate aftermath and just assumed the strike came from Naval Gun Fire _(it accounts for the media not actually seeing naval gun fire from the bay)_.   The witnesses were making up any story just to assign blame to the Israelis.  And while it was ultimately --- an Israeli Strike, the truth did no come from eye witness accounts, but from the honesty of the Israeli Defense Force.
> 
> My point is, you cannot trust the Honesty and Integrity of the Palestinian.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't trust the Honesty and Integrity of the Israeli. The old Zionist denial trick, eh.  Why you bozos believe that this denial technique will be more effective than the Holocaust denial trick I don't know.
> 
> But you are wrong as usual:
> 
> Photographer was a witness, obviously:
> 
> Israeli Strike Kills Four Boys Playing on Gaza Beach - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> The following makes clear that foreign reporters were witnesses:
> 
> "“The first strike hit at around 1300 GMT (4 p.m. local time), prompting terrified children and adults on the beach to scatter. A second and third struck as they ran, setting fire to huts on the beach,” Agence France-Presse’s Sara Hussein wrote. “The strikes appeared to be the result of shelling by the Israeli navy against an area with small shacks used by fishermen.”
> 
> Hussein, along with _The Washington Post_‘s William Booth and _The_ _Guardian_‘s Peter Beaumont, saw the attack and the aftermath...“There is a deafening explosion as it hits a structure on the pier, a place we have seen hit before, where fishermen usually store their nets. Behind the smoke, I see four figures running, silhouettes whose legs are pumping raggedly. They clear the smoke. From their size it is clear they are a man and three young boys,” Beaumont wrote in his account of the attack seen from
> Beaumont wrote the survivors fleeing the attack were targeted by a second shell, injuring them as they fled to safety.
> 
> “As it explodes, my colleagues, now standing by the terrace wall, shout at unseen Israeli gunners who can’t hear them: ‘They are only children,'” he wrote.
> 
> Journalists witness Gaza beach attack that killed at least 4 children - National Globalnews.ca
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Monti telling someone else that they are always wrong HAHAHA
> 
> Talk about hypocrisy !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr. Propaganda,
> 
> I am never wrong, as you well know. That's what irks you so much that you have become the peanut gallery. LOL
> How can I be wrong when I just post facts that are always backed up and usually with source documentation, not news or opinion (or wiki).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because most of your claims are not backed up by anything. The problem with you is that the truth hurts you so much that you refuse to admit it.
> I've lost of how many of your lies i refuted because there's just so many. That's why you refused to take our debate to another part of the forum so unbiased posters can tell us who is right. Because you KNOW you're wrong. Pathetic lying propagandist coward. Thats what you are
Click to expand...


Now, now Mr. Propaganda, you know very well that there is not one thing that I have stated that is not backed up by documentation, usually source documentation.  

On the other hand you have never, ever backed up any of your claims with anything but Zionist/Jewish propaganda sources or Wiki (at a given point in time which usually changes before anyone can get to it)

You can repeat a lie to yourself over and over again, but it doesn't make it true. Everyone here recognizes that I am stickler for providing only neutral or pro-Zionist sources for backup, in the rare cases where I don't have source documentation.  You also recognize it, you just can't admit it.  You haven't the skill or patience to use university archives for source documentation, for example.  So you use Zionist/Jewish propaganda that created the myths of Israel.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Israeli's did investigate.  And they admitted to the strike.  But it did not come from the bay or the Israeli Navy _(as so many claimed)_, but was indirect fire from Army Artillery.
> 
> _NOTE:  If any of you have been in a rocket or mortar attack, you know the echoes of buildings will confuse the sense of direction.  But if you look at the video of the balcony strike, you can tell that the fire did not hit the building from the east (bay side and penetrating into the building) but was a glancing strike from the north._​
> The problem here is that the witnesses were not true witnesses of the event.  They were the witnesses to the immediate aftermath and just assumed the strike came from Naval Gun Fire _(it accounts for the media not actually seeing naval gun fire from the bay)_.   The witnesses were making up any story just to assign blame to the Israelis.  And while it was ultimately --- an Israeli Strike, the truth did no come from eye witness accounts, but from the honesty of the Israeli Defense Force.
> 
> My point is, you cannot trust the Honesty and Integrity of the Palestinian.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't trust the Honesty and Integrity of the Israeli. The old Zionist denial trick, eh.  Why you bozos believe that this denial technique will be more effective than the Holocaust denial trick I don't know.
> 
> But you are wrong as usual:
> 
> Photographer was a witness, obviously:
> 
> Israeli Strike Kills Four Boys Playing on Gaza Beach - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> The following makes clear that foreign reporters were witnesses:
> 
> "“The first strike hit at around 1300 GMT (4 p.m. local time), prompting terrified children and adults on the beach to scatter. A second and third struck as they ran, setting fire to huts on the beach,” Agence France-Presse’s Sara Hussein wrote. “The strikes appeared to be the result of shelling by the Israeli navy against an area with small shacks used by fishermen.”
> 
> Hussein, along with _The Washington Post_‘s William Booth and _The_ _Guardian_‘s Peter Beaumont, saw the attack and the aftermath...“There is a deafening explosion as it hits a structure on the pier, a place we have seen hit before, where fishermen usually store their nets. Behind the smoke, I see four figures running, silhouettes whose legs are pumping raggedly. They clear the smoke. From their size it is clear they are a man and three young boys,” Beaumont wrote in his account of the attack seen from
> Beaumont wrote the survivors fleeing the attack were targeted by a second shell, injuring them as they fled to safety.
> 
> “As it explodes, my colleagues, now standing by the terrace wall, shout at unseen Israeli gunners who can’t hear them: ‘They are only children,'” he wrote.
> 
> Journalists witness Gaza beach attack that killed at least 4 children - National Globalnews.ca
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Monti telling someone else that they are always wrong HAHAHA
> 
> Talk about hypocrisy !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr. Propaganda,
> 
> I am never wrong, as you well know. That's what irks you so much that you have become the peanut gallery. LOL
> How can I be wrong when I just post facts that are always backed up and usually with source documentation, not news or opinion (or wiki).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because most of your claims are not backed up by anything. The problem with you is that the truth hurts you so much that you refuse to admit it.
> I've lost of how many of your lies i refuted because there's just so many. That's why you refused to take our debate to another part of the forum so unbiased posters can tell us who is right. Because you KNOW you're wrong. Pathetic lying propagandist coward. Thats what you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, now Mr. Propaganda, you know very well that there is not one thing that I have stated that is not backed up by documentation, usually source documentation.
> 
> On the other hand you have never, ever backed up any of your claims with anything but Zionist/Jewish propaganda sources or Wiki (at a given point in time which usually changes before anyone can get to it)
> 
> You can repeat a lie to yourself over and over again, but it doesn't make it true. Everyone here recognizes that I am stickler for providing only neutral or pro-Zionist sources for backup, in the rare cases where I don't have source documentation.  You also recognize it, you just can't admit it.  You haven't the skill or patience to use university archives for source documentation, for example.  So you use Zionist/Jewish propaganda that created the myths of Israel.
Click to expand...



"Everyone here recognizes that I am stickler for providing only neutral or pro-Zionist sources for backup"

     

Wow, you're more delirious than I thought. Just a reminder you propaganda, repeating the same thing over and over and over like you just did, will NOT change the actual facts. 
Fact #1: You are a propaganda machine
Fact#2: You are a liar
Fact#3: I have refuted many of your bullshit lies many times. The evidence I presented was indisputable, yet you are too much of a coward to admit it. 
Fact#4: Did I mention you are a propaganda machine?
Fact#5: I have yet to come across another poster who spews more propaganda than you do.

No matter how hard you try, no matter how many times you deny it, the above facts still remain. 

BTW, my offer still stands to take our debate to another section here where there are unbiased posters to judge weather or weather not I refuted your claims. 
I wouldn't be surprised if you rejected the offer, again, since you know that you're completely wrong, despite your usual "I only post facts!" rant.


----------



## toastman

BTW, you keep saying I use Zionist sources all the time. Care to tell me which ones you're talking about?


----------



## montelatici

It would be too tedious Mr. Propaganda.  Better to ask me to point out a link to a neutral source when and if you ever do provide one.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Haya, a Hebron college student, has stopped telling friends about peace and started boycotting Israeli products. But she meets twice a month with Israelis and says one day she might be Palestinian president.*

*Amid a sea of demure Palestinian young women in high heels, she wears jeans and Converse sneakers. In a city where many people support Hamas’s brand of armed resistance against Israel, she secretly meets with Israelis to talk about peace.

“I think it’s better than doing nothing,” says Haya, a university student with fluent English. “And I might be president one day, and I will change everything. Because our president is not doing anything.”

Haya was born in 1993, the year the Oslo Accords were signed. They laid out a framework for establishing a sovereign Palestinian state by the time she would be five years old.

“Maybe if Palestinians and Israelis live together, it would be safer for both,” she says. “We don’t need walls … we should demolish [the border] and dance over it.”

In tense West Bank city she secretly meets Israelis to talk peace - Yahoo News
*


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, _et al_,

Probably the best sign of advancement I've seen in a long while.



P F Tinmore said:


> Haya, a Hebron college student, has stopped telling friends about peace and started boycotting Israeli products. But she meets twice a month with Israelis and says one day she might be Palestinian president.
> 
> Amid a sea of demure Palestinian young women in high heels, she wears jeans and Converse sneakers. In a city where many people support Hamas’s brand of armed resistance against Israel, she secretly meets with Israelis to talk about peace.
> 
> “I think it’s better than doing nothing,” says Haya, a university student with fluent English. “And I might be president one day, and I will change everything. Because our president is not doing anything.”
> 
> Haya was born in 1993, the year the Oslo Accords were signed. They laid out a framework for establishing a sovereign Palestinian state by the time she would be five years old.
> 
> “Maybe if Palestinians and Israelis live together, it would be safer for both,” she says. “We don’t need walls … we should demolish [the border] and dance over it.”
> 
> *In tense West Bank city she secretly meets Israelis to talk peace - Yahoo News*


*(COMMENT)*

Once in a great while, humanity is graced with the right kind of personality --- with the right attitude --- at the right time --- and in the right place.  They don't come around very often, but when they do --- it gives us all a bit of optimism that we might not otherwise have.  Maybe she is the spearhead the breakout peace.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

She has the right attitude, and should the Israelis ever agree with her proposal "*“We don’t need walls … we should demolish [the border] and dance over it.” *I am sure 90% of the Palestinians would agree.  But the Israelis would never agree.


----------



## P F Tinmore

montelatici said:


> She has the right attitude, and should the Israelis ever agree with her proposal "*“We don’t need walls … we should demolish [the border] and dance over it.” *I am sure 90% of the Palestinians would agree.  But the Israelis would never agree.


The two state solution is just a regurgitation of the old partition plan. They have been trying to get that pig to fly since 1937.

What was that definition of insanity again?


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> It would be too tedious Mr. Propaganda.  Better to ask me to point out a link to a neutral source when and if you ever do provide one.



That's what I thought propaganda king. You can't come up with a Zionist source that I use because you lied about that.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, _et al_,
> 
> Probably the best sign of advancement I've seen in a long while.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haya, a Hebron college student, has stopped telling friends about peace and started boycotting Israeli products. But she meets twice a month with Israelis and says one day she might be Palestinian president.
> 
> Amid a sea of demure Palestinian young women in high heels, she wears jeans and Converse sneakers. In a city where many people support Hamas’s brand of armed resistance against Israel, she secretly meets with Israelis to talk about peace.
> 
> “I think it’s better than doing nothing,” says Haya, a university student with fluent English. “And I might be president one day, and I will change everything. Because our president is not doing anything.”
> 
> Haya was born in 1993, the year the Oslo Accords were signed. They laid out a framework for establishing a sovereign Palestinian state by the time she would be five years old.
> 
> “Maybe if Palestinians and Israelis live together, it would be safer for both,” she says. “We don’t need walls … we should demolish [the border] and dance over it.”
> 
> *In tense West Bank city she secretly meets Israelis to talk peace - Yahoo News*
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Once in a great while, humanity is graced with the right kind of personality --- with the right attitude --- at the right time --- and in the right place.  They don't come around very often, but when they do --- it gives us all a bit of optimism that we might not otherwise have.  Maybe she is the spearhead the breakout peace.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

If we wait for the leaders, peace won't happen.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,




montelatici said:


> She has the right attitude, and should the Israelis ever agree with her proposal "*“We don’t need walls … we should demolish [the border] and dance over it.” *I am sure 90% of the Palestinians would agree.  But the Israelis would never agree.


*(NOTE)*

It was Lao Tzu, who said, “The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.”

v/r
R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al_,
> 
> Probably the best sign of advancement I've seen in a long while.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haya, a Hebron college student, has stopped telling friends about peace and started boycotting Israeli products. But she meets twice a month with Israelis and says one day she might be Palestinian president.
> 
> Amid a sea of demure Palestinian young women in high heels, she wears jeans and Converse sneakers. In a city where many people support Hamas’s brand of armed resistance against Israel, she secretly meets with Israelis to talk about peace.
> 
> “I think it’s better than doing nothing,” says Haya, a university student with fluent English. “And I might be president one day, and I will change everything. Because our president is not doing anything.”
> 
> Haya was born in 1993, the year the Oslo Accords were signed. They laid out a framework for establishing a sovereign Palestinian state by the time she would be five years old.
> 
> “Maybe if Palestinians and Israelis live together, it would be safer for both,” she says. “We don’t need walls … we should demolish [the border] and dance over it.”
> 
> *In tense West Bank city she secretly meets Israelis to talk peace - Yahoo News*
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Once in a great while, humanity is graced with the right kind of personality --- with the right attitude --- at the right time --- and in the right place.  They don't come around very often, but when they do --- it gives us all a bit of optimism that we might not otherwise have.  Maybe she is the spearhead the breakout peace.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we wait for the leaders, peace won't happen.
Click to expand...


I feel like people on both sides have that "my involvement alone won't make a difference' mentality. Kind of like "my vote alone won't make a difference" mentality. 

There is simply not enough cooperation between both sides (non government) for them to a noticeable impact. Hopefully that will change in the near future.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al_,
> 
> Probably the best sign of advancement I've seen in a long while.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haya, a Hebron college student, has stopped telling friends about peace and started boycotting Israeli products. But she meets twice a month with Israelis and says one day she might be Palestinian president.
> 
> Amid a sea of demure Palestinian young women in high heels, she wears jeans and Converse sneakers. In a city where many people support Hamas’s brand of armed resistance against Israel, she secretly meets with Israelis to talk about peace.
> 
> “I think it’s better than doing nothing,” says Haya, a university student with fluent English. “And I might be president one day, and I will change everything. Because our president is not doing anything.”
> 
> Haya was born in 1993, the year the Oslo Accords were signed. They laid out a framework for establishing a sovereign Palestinian state by the time she would be five years old.
> 
> “Maybe if Palestinians and Israelis live together, it would be safer for both,” she says. “We don’t need walls … we should demolish [the border] and dance over it.”
> 
> *In tense West Bank city she secretly meets Israelis to talk peace - Yahoo News*
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Once in a great while, humanity is graced with the right kind of personality --- with the right attitude --- at the right time --- and in the right place.  They don't come around very often, but when they do --- it gives us all a bit of optimism that we might not otherwise have.  Maybe she is the spearhead the breakout peace.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we wait for the leaders, peace won't happen.
Click to expand...


Peace won't happen as long as Palestinains hate Israel more than they love their own children & teach their own children to continue hating Israel more than they love their own children.  An endless cycle.  It's called Palestinian mentality.


----------



## montelatici

Palestinians will hate Israel for some time.  Just as you wouldn't ask Jews to stop hating the Nazis you can't ask the Palestinians yo stop hating the Israelis. However, after some time of living without borders and peace, as the girl says, maybe the hate can be mitigated over time.

As far as Golda Mabovitch's the old propaganda line, give it up, we all know it's propaganda meant to dehumanize the Palestinians, the Nazis used similar tactics for the Jews.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Palestinians will hate Israel for some time.  Just as you wouldn't ask Jews to stop hating the Nazis you can't ask the Palestinians yo stop hating the Israelis. However, after some time of living without borders and peace, as the girl says, maybe the hate can be mitigated over time.
> 
> As far as Golda Mabovitch's the old propaganda line, give it up, we all know it's propaganda meant to dehumanize the Palestinians, the Nazis used similar tactics for the Jews.




No one agrees more than I that Israel should declare borders.  Borders from Syria to Egypt to the Jordan River.  Anything else Israel can do to please you?


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians will hate Israel for some time.  Just as you wouldn't ask Jews to stop hating the Nazis you can't ask the Palestinians yo stop hating the Israelis. However, after some time of living without borders and peace, as the girl says, maybe the hate can be mitigated over time.
> 
> As far as Golda Mabovitch's the old propaganda line, give it up, we all know it's propaganda meant to dehumanize the Palestinians, the Nazis used similar tactics for the Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one agrees more than I that Israel should declare borders.  Borders from Syria to Egypt to the Jordan River.  Anything else Israel can do to please you?
Click to expand...


Then we agree.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians will hate Israel for some time.  Just as you wouldn't ask Jews to stop hating the Nazis you can't ask the Palestinians yo stop hating the Israelis. However, after some time of living without borders and peace, as the girl says, maybe the hate can be mitigated over time.
> 
> As far as Golda Mabovitch's the old propaganda line, give it up, we all know it's propaganda meant to dehumanize the Palestinians, the Nazis used similar tactics for the Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one agrees more than I that Israel should declare borders.  Borders from Syria to Egypt to the Jordan River.  Anything else Israel can do to please you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we agree.
Click to expand...


Most definately.  So now that we agreee on Israel's borders from Syria to Egypt to the Jordan River, where is this "Palestine" that you speak of?


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians will hate Israel for some time.  Just as you wouldn't ask Jews to stop hating the Nazis you can't ask the Palestinians yo stop hating the Israelis. However, after some time of living without borders and peace, as the girl says, maybe the hate can be mitigated over time.
> 
> As far as Golda Mabovitch's the old propaganda line, give it up, we all know it's propaganda meant to dehumanize the Palestinians, the Nazis used similar tactics for the Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one agrees more than I that Israel should declare borders.  Borders from Syria to Egypt to the Jordan River.  Anything else Israel can do to please you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most definately.  So now that we agreee on Israel's borders from Syria to Egypt to the Jordan River, where is this "Palestine" that you speak of?
Click to expand...


There cannot be a sovereign  Palestine anymore, too many settlements.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians will hate Israel for some time.  Just as you wouldn't ask Jews to stop hating the Nazis you can't ask the Palestinians yo stop hating the Israelis. However, after some time of living without borders and peace, as the girl says, maybe the hate can be mitigated over time.
> 
> As far as Golda Mabovitch's the old propaganda line, give it up, we all know it's propaganda meant to dehumanize the Palestinians, the Nazis used similar tactics for the Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one agrees more than I that Israel should declare borders.  Borders from Syria to Egypt to the Jordan River.  Anything else Israel can do to please you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most definately.  So now that we agreee on Israel's borders from Syria to Egypt to the Jordan River, where is this "Palestine" that you speak of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There cannot be a sovereign  Palestine anymore, too many settlements.
Click to expand...


Isn't it just awful that not a single surrounding Arab country to Israel will grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands?


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians will hate Israel for some time.  Just as you wouldn't ask Jews to stop hating the Nazis you can't ask the Palestinians yo stop hating the Israelis. However, after some time of living without borders and peace, as the girl says, maybe the hate can be mitigated over time.
> 
> As far as Golda Mabovitch's the old propaganda line, give it up, we all know it's propaganda meant to dehumanize the Palestinians, the Nazis used similar tactics for the Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one agrees more than I that Israel should declare borders.  Borders from Syria to Egypt to the Jordan River.  Anything else Israel can do to please you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most definately.  So now that we agreee on Israel's borders from Syria to Egypt to the Jordan River, where is this "Palestine" that you speak of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There cannot be a sovereign  Palestine anymore, too many settlements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it just awful that not a single surrounding Arab country to Israel will grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands?
Click to expand...


No country in the region can support the influx of 5-6 million people.  Europe, where the Jews came from, is wealthier and could accept the return of the Jews to their native homelands, Russia included.  Most of them just got to Israel, so they probably wouldn't skip a beat going home.


----------



## Phoenall

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the questions is (are) sic:
> 
> Was there a witness? --- or not?
> YES
> 
> Read more: Israel Spokesman Admits Army Should Have Spared Boys Playing Soccer on Gaza Beach Forward.com
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Israeli's did investigate.  And they admitted to the strike.  But it did not come from the bay or the Israeli Navy _(as so many claimed)_, but was indirect fire from Army Artillery.
> 
> _NOTE:  If any of you have been in a rocket or mortar attack, you know the echoes of buildings will confuse the sense of direction.  But if you look at the video of the balcony strike, you can tell that the fire did not hit the building from the east (bay side and penetrating into the building) but was a glancing strike from the north._​
> The problem here is that the witnesses were not true witnesses of the event.  They were the witnesses to the immediate aftermath and just assumed the strike came from Naval Gun Fire _(it accounts for the media not actually seeing naval gun fire from the bay)_.   The witnesses were making up any story just to assign blame to the Israelis.  And while it was ultimately --- an Israeli Strike, the truth did no come from eye witness accounts, but from the honesty of the Israeli Defense Force.
> 
> My point is, you cannot trust the Honesty and Integrity of the Palestinian.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




 You certainly cant trust a Palestinian at all


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the questions is (are) sic:
> 
> Was there a witness? --- or not?
> YES
> 
> Read more: Israel Spokesman Admits Army Should Have Spared Boys Playing Soccer on Gaza Beach Forward.com
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Israeli's did investigate.  And they admitted to the strike.  But it did not come from the bay or the Israeli Navy _(as so many claimed)_, but was indirect fire from Army Artillery.
> 
> _NOTE:  If any of you have been in a rocket or mortar attack, you know the echoes of buildings will confuse the sense of direction.  But if you look at the video of the balcony strike, you can tell that the fire did not hit the building from the east (bay side and penetrating into the building) but was a glancing strike from the north._​
> The problem here is that the witnesses were not true witnesses of the event.  They were the witnesses to the immediate aftermath and just assumed the strike came from Naval Gun Fire _(it accounts for the media not actually seeing naval gun fire from the bay)_.   The witnesses were making up any story just to assign blame to the Israelis.  And while it was ultimately --- an Israeli Strike, the truth did no come from eye witness accounts, but from the honesty of the Israeli Defense Force.
> 
> My point is, you cannot trust the Honesty and Integrity of the Palestinian.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't trust the Honesty and Integrity of the Israeli. The old Zionist denial trick, eh.  Why you bozos believe that this denial technique will be more effective than the Holocaust denial trick I don't know.
> 
> But you are wrong as usual:
> 
> Photographer was a witness, obviously:
> 
> Israeli Strike Kills Four Boys Playing on Gaza Beach - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> The following makes clear that foreign reporters were witnesses:
> 
> "“The first strike hit at around 1300 GMT (4 p.m. local time), prompting terrified children and adults on the beach to scatter. A second and third struck as they ran, setting fire to huts on the beach,” Agence France-Presse’s Sara Hussein wrote. “The strikes appeared to be the result of shelling by the Israeli navy against an area with small shacks used by fishermen.”
> 
> Hussein, along with _The Washington Post_‘s William Booth and _The_ _Guardian_‘s Peter Beaumont, saw the attack and the aftermath...“There is a deafening explosion as it hits a structure on the pier, a place we have seen hit before, where fishermen usually store their nets. Behind the smoke, I see four figures running, silhouettes whose legs are pumping raggedly. They clear the smoke. From their size it is clear they are a man and three young boys,” Beaumont wrote in his account of the attack seen from
> Beaumont wrote the survivors fleeing the attack were targeted by a second shell, injuring them as they fled to safety.
> 
> “As it explodes, my colleagues, now standing by the terrace wall, shout at unseen Israeli gunners who can’t hear them: ‘They are only children,'” he wrote.
> 
> Journalists witness Gaza beach attack that killed at least 4 children - National Globalnews.ca
Click to expand...





Hardly conclusive evidence as the pictures show people running and then smoke. Were is the proof that it came from an Israeli source without the IDF saying it was a misfire from artillery 90 degrees away from the naval vessels. An accident that happens when you engage in war, and the Palestinians need to realise this when they make attacks on Israel.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The old Zionist denial routine, much like Holocaust denial routine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a ridiculous comparison from the propaganda machine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What is the difference? Mr. Propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the difference between denying one of the most documented events of the 20th century in which millions of people were killed vs. denying one isolated event?
> 
> How is it possible that you can be so incredibly stupid propagandatici?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr. Propaganda,
> 
> The only people that are denying something that dozens of journalists witnessed are nutcases like you and your buddies.  Much like the Holocaust deniers.  That's why it is a similar technique and ploy.
Click to expand...





 LINK to these dozens of reporters please, and not some partisan hack saying that dozens were there try op-eds underf their names ?


----------



## docmauser1

montelatici said:


> There cannot be a sovereign  Palestine anymore, too many settlements.


Really!? Palisimians should curtail their settlement activity then.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one agrees more than I that Israel should declare borders.  Borders from Syria to Egypt to the Jordan River.  Anything else Israel can do to please you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most definately.  So now that we agreee on Israel's borders from Syria to Egypt to the Jordan River, where is this "Palestine" that you speak of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There cannot be a sovereign  Palestine anymore, too many settlements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it just awful that not a single surrounding Arab country to Israel will grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No country in the region can support the influx of 5-6 million people.  Europe, where the Jews came from, is wealthier and could accept the return of the Jews to their native homelands, Russia included.  Most of them just got to Israel, so they probably wouldn't skip a beat going home.
Click to expand...




 The Jews came from Europe at the invite of the lands LEGAL OWNERS UNDER CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW TO SETTLE AND RESURECT THE NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS. They did not invade as you claim nor did they evict people from their land and property. They invited them to stay as full citizens of Israel and they refused and became enemy agents, under the laws at that time they could have been executed but the Jews just cast them out to live in Palestine that they had refused to take.


----------



## montelatici

If you go to a place on another continent, settle the place, expel the local people against their will and create your own country, it is an invasion, per at least two of the three primary definitions of the word:

"an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain."

"an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity."


----------



## docmauser1

montelatici said:


> If you go to a place on another continent, settle the place, expel the local people against their will and create your own country, it is an invasion, per at least two of the three primary definitions of the word:
> "an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain." "an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity."


Arabs/muslims are mandated to spread islam, indeed.


----------



## montelatici

Just as we Christians are mandated to spread Christianity. We've done a good job, don't you think?


----------



## docmauser1

montelatici said:


> Just as we Christians are mandated to spread Christianity. We've done a good job, don't you think?


Where's a cathedral in Mecca?


----------



## montelatici

Well, you really got me there, but think of the distance from Rome to the Philippines, and yet most are Roman Catholics there.  We out converted the Muslims it seems.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Just as we Christians are mandated to spread Christianity. We've done a good job, don't you think?



Sure do.  Just ask any native American.  But at least our native Americans strapped on tool boxes to build casinos to get back at you for their discontent whereas Palestinians strap on bombs to express theirs.  It's called Palestinian mentality.


----------



## montelatici

The Native Americans began fighting the Europeans in 1622 and the wars did not end until 1924.  That's three centuries of resistance.  


Some time in 1924 both the Renegade Period and the Apache Wars ended which had begun decades earlier and brought the American Indian Wars to a close 302 years after the Jamestown Massacre of 1622.[_citation needed_]


----------



## MJB12741

The Palestinian claim that Israel is stealing THEIR land is even more ridiculous than the claim Columbus discovered America.  When Columbus allegedly discovered America, the Native Americans were already here long ago.  And when Islam began, the Jews already lived in the land for thosands of years before any Muslim Palestinian began to occupy it & steal it.


----------



## RoccoR

docmauser1  et al,





*WARNING:* Non-Muslims are *strictly prohibited* from entering the city of Mecca. *The penalty is deportation from the country.* Documentation *will* be checked upon entry and anyone not showing proof of being Muslim will be denied entry. As a solitary exception, the Mecca bus terminal (outside city limits) _is_ open to all.



docmauser1 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as we Christians are mandated to spread Christianity. We've done a good job, don't you think?
> 
> 
> 
> Where's a cathedral in Mecca?
Click to expand...

(COMMENT)

There are NO Cathedrals in Mecca!

v/r
R


----------



## montelatici

So what?


----------



## MJB12741

RoccoR said:


> docmauser1  et al,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *WARNING:* Non-Muslims are *strictly prohibited* from entering the city of Mecca. *The penalty is deportation from the country.* Documentation *will* be checked upon entry and anyone not showing proof of being Muslim will be denied entry. As a solitary exception, the Mecca bus terminal (outside city limits) _is_ open to all.
> 
> 
> 
> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as we Christians are mandated to spread Christianity. We've done a good job, don't you think?
> 
> 
> 
> Where's a cathedral in Mecca?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (COMMENT)
> 
> There are NO Cathedrals in Mecca!
> 
> v/r
> R
Click to expand...


Holyt mackeral!  Talk about APARTHEID.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> The Palestinian claim that Israel is stealing THEIR land is even more ridiculous than the claim Columbus discovered America.  When Columbus allegedly discovered America, the Native Americans were already here long ago.  And when Islam began, the Jews already lived in the land for thosands of years before any Muslim Palestinian began to occupy it & steal it.



The one little detail you forget is that the majority of the Muslim and Christians in Palestine were converts to those religions from Roman religions, Judaism and others.  The European Jews that settled there, if they had some remote Jewish ancestor, hadn't lived there at all.  Furthermore, Palestine including Jerusalem was populated by Christians until the Byzantines were defeated at the Battle of Yarmouk. So the Arabian led armies took the land from Christians not Jews.


----------



## docmauser1

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian claim that Israel is stealing THEIR land is even more ridiculous than the claim Columbus discovered America.  When Columbus allegedly discovered America, the Native Americans were already here long ago.  And when Islam began, the Jews already lived in the land for thosands of years before any Muslim Palestinian began to occupy it & steal it.
> 
> 
> 
> The one little detail you forget is that the majority of the Muslim and Christians in Palestine were converts to those religions from Roman religions, Judaism and others.  The European Jews that settled there, if they had some remote Jewish ancestor, hadn't lived there at all.  Furthermore, Palestine including Jerusalem was populated by Christians until the Byzantines were defeated at the Battle of Yarmouk. So the Arabian led armies took the land from Christians not Jews.
Click to expand...

Yeah-yeah, and all major illegal arab settlers/squatters from the hood were all saudi sheiks too, we know, we know.


----------



## MJB12741

docmauser1 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian claim that Israel is stealing THEIR land is even more ridiculous than the claim Columbus discovered America.  When Columbus allegedly discovered America, the Native Americans were already here long ago.  And when Islam began, the Jews already lived in the land for thosands of years before any Muslim Palestinian began to occupy it & steal it.
> 
> 
> 
> The one little detail you forget is that the majority of the Muslim and Christians in Palestine were converts to those religions from Roman religions, Judaism and others.  The European Jews that settled there, if they had some remote Jewish ancestor, hadn't lived there at all.  Furthermore, Palestine including Jerusalem was populated by Christians until the Byzantines were defeated at the Battle of Yarmouk. So the Arabian led armies took the land from Christians not Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah-yeah, and all major illegal arab settlers/squatters from the hood were all saudi sheiks too, we know, we know.
Click to expand...


Monte is so funny.  What a relief he is from the real world of radical Islamic terrorists killing us infidels all over the world that we have to deal with.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> If you go to a place on another continent, settle the place, expel the local people against their will and create your own country, it is an invasion, per at least two of the three primary definitions of the word:
> 
> "an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain."
> 
> "an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity."





 Which is just what the muslims are doing in Europe, they have not been invited to come here have they. They are generally illegal immigrants coming in from across the Med or from Turkey looking to steal the land from the indigenous and turn the nations into Islamic hell holes.

 The Jews were invited to come to Palestine and settle the land freely so no invasion at all just a valid migration under CUSTOMAY INTERNATIONAL LAW.

 So Abdul how about a link to prove your claim of it being an invasion and not a migration at the request of the lands legal owners ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Just as we Christians are mandated to spread Christianity. We've done a good job, don't you think?





 By force, violence, rape and forced conversions like islam does.

 And you are no more a Christian than I am an Islamic warlord.


----------



## Phoenall

docmauser1 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as we Christians are mandated to spread Christianity. We've done a good job, don't you think?
> 
> 
> 
> Where's a cathedral in Mecca?
Click to expand...





 Under that pile of rubble the arab muslims use as a toilet


----------



## MJB12741

Thank God the Palestinians never claimed to be decendents of the lost tribes of Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Khaled Al Sabawi *

**


----------



## RoccoR

Mindful,  et al,

I apologize for not getting back to this sooner, but I wanted first to hear what other contributors had to say.



Mindful said:


> King Abdullah’s Flawed Ploy
> 
> During his recent visit to Washington to meet with President Obama, King Abdullah II of Jordan was interviewed on “CBS This Morning.” Displaying his keen sense of the terrible neighborhood in which his kingdom is embedded, he identified the war against ISIS jihadi terrorists as “clearly a fight between good and evil.”
> 
> The King chose not to mention that Palestinians have rejected every two-state solution since 1937, when the British Peel Commission proposed the second partition of Palestine. The first came fifteen years earlier, when British Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill lopped off three-quarters of Mandatory Palestine as a gift to Abdullah’s great-grandfather for his wartime loyalty to the Allied cause. But unwilling to tolerate a Jewish state of any size in their midst, Arab leaders rejected the Peel proposal, the UN partition plan that followed a decade later, and even the dangerously generous two-state offers, involving huge Israeli land concessions, offered by Prime Ministers Barak and Olmert.
> 
> King Abdullah also chose (understandably) to ignore the demographic reality in Jordan, which poses a significant threat to the stability of his own regime. For obvious reasons, his kingdom provides no official census data about its Palestinian inhabitants. Best estimates (including by the U.S. State Department) indicate that they comprise more than half, and perhaps as high as two-thirds, of the Jordanian population.
> 
> In sum: the Hashemite king rules over a majority Palestinian population in two-thirds of Palestine. In translation: the Palestinians already have a state named Jordan, located in Palestine, and comprise a majority of its population. That is as it should be: the fulfillment of international assurances to Jews, and British promises to the Hashemites, that date back nearly a century.
> 
> King Abdullah s Flawed Ploy Jewish Israel News Algemeiner.com


*(COMMENT)*

I think His Majesty _(King Abdullah II, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan)_ is one of the most eloquent speakers on the issues of the day in the Middle East.  And I think that we need to listen to his words in more that just "sound-bite" fashion.

Yes, clearly --- His Majesty does not just say that it is "a fight between good and evil," but that it is a "generational fight."   He makes it plain that it is a Muslim problem --- and that the Muslim countries and leadership must take ownership problem --- draw a line in the sand --- "and that those that believe in right must stand on this side --- and those that don't have to make a decision to stand on the other."   That the concepts and foundation of the IS _[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) - Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)] _is not "reflection of our religion" --- and that "we must stand up and say what is right and what is wrong."  It is not just IS that is the problem and "evil", but that IS is part of a wider  global "Jihadist Movement;"  and that a "strategic holistic approach" _(Pan-Regional Approach)_ is required.  That while there are many different elements that make-up the global "Jihadist Movement" _(HM mentions the Sinai, Libya, Somalia, Mali, Nigeria, and Yemen)_, which have Jihadist of different names --- but very similar, if not the same, beliefs.  _(MY INSERT:  Remembering that HAMAS is a Jihadist Organization and in close association with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza.)_  This is connected directly to the problem of "foreign fighters" flocking to IS _(Syria and Iraq Region)_ from all over the world. 

His Majesty indicated that the door is not closed on the Israeli-Palestinian Issue, and that the talks have not failed "YET!"...  But that there is a necessity to move the Israeli-Palestinian issues forward since there is the bigger issue to be addressed of the --- global Jihadist movement that needs attention.  The "one-arm tied behind their back" was made in the context that the world doesn't want to be addressing both the "Israeli-Palestinian Issue" with one hand --- while struggling with the "global Jihadist movement" with the other.  It was not a comment that attempted to assign blame for the lack of a solution.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Mindful,  et al,
> 
> I apologize for not getting back to this sooner, but I wanted first to hear what other contributors had to say.
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> King Abdullah’s Flawed Ploy
> 
> During his recent visit to Washington to meet with President Obama, King Abdullah II of Jordan was interviewed on “CBS This Morning.” Displaying his keen sense of the terrible neighborhood in which his kingdom is embedded, he identified the war against ISIS jihadi terrorists as “clearly a fight between good and evil.”
> 
> The King chose not to mention that Palestinians have rejected every two-state solution since 1937, when the British Peel Commission proposed the second partition of Palestine. The first came fifteen years earlier, when British Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill lopped off three-quarters of Mandatory Palestine as a gift to Abdullah’s great-grandfather for his wartime loyalty to the Allied cause. But unwilling to tolerate a Jewish state of any size in their midst, Arab leaders rejected the Peel proposal, the UN partition plan that followed a decade later, and even the dangerously generous two-state offers, involving huge Israeli land concessions, offered by Prime Ministers Barak and Olmert.
> 
> King Abdullah also chose (understandably) to ignore the demographic reality in Jordan, which poses a significant threat to the stability of his own regime. For obvious reasons, his kingdom provides no official census data about its Palestinian inhabitants. Best estimates (including by the U.S. State Department) indicate that they comprise more than half, and perhaps as high as two-thirds, of the Jordanian population.
> 
> In sum: the Hashemite king rules over a majority Palestinian population in two-thirds of Palestine. In translation: the Palestinians already have a state named Jordan, located in Palestine, and comprise a majority of its population. That is as it should be: the fulfillment of international assurances to Jews, and British promises to the Hashemites, that date back nearly a century.
> 
> King Abdullah s Flawed Ploy Jewish Israel News Algemeiner.com
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I think His Majesty _(King Abdullah II, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan)_ is one of the most eloquent speakers on the issues of the day in the Middle East.  And I think that we need to listen to his words in more that just "sound-bite" fashion.
> 
> Yes, clearly --- His Majesty does not just say that it is "a fight between good and evil," but that it is a "generational fight."   He makes it plain that it is a Muslim problem --- and that the Muslim countries and leadership must take ownership problem --- draw a line in the sand --- "and that those that believe in right must stand on this side --- and those that don't have to make a decision to stand on the other."   That the concepts and foundation of the IS _[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) - Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)] _is not "reflection of our religion" --- and that "we must stand up and say what is right and what is wrong."  It is not just IS that is the problem and "evil", but that IS is part of a wider  global "Jihadist Movement;"  and that a "strategic holistic approach" _(Pan-Regional Approach)_ is required.  That while there are many different elements that make-up the global "Jihadist Movement" _(HM mentions the Sinai, Libya, Somalia, Mali, Nigeria, and Yemen)_, which have Jihadist of different names --- but very similar, if not the same, beliefs.  _(MY INSERT:  Remembering that HAMAS is a Jihadist Organization and in close association with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza.)_  This is connected directly to the problem of "foreign fighters" flocking to IS _(Syria and Iraq Region)_ from all over the world.
> 
> His Majesty indicated that the door is not closed on the Israeli-Palestinian Issue, and that the talks have not failed "YET!"...  But that there is a necessity to move the Israeli-Palestinian issues forward since there is the bigger issue to be addressed of the --- global Jihadist movement that needs attention.  The "one-arm tied behind their back" was made in the context that the world doesn't want to be addressing both the "Israeli-Palestinian Issue" with one hand --- while struggling with the "global Jihadist movement" with the other.  It was not a comment that attempted to assign blame for the lack of a solution.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

And then there is Queen Rania.

*Queen Rania at The Kennedy School of Government - Harvard University *

**
*BTW, Queen Rania is Palestinian.*


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Hossfly said:


> Nope, I don't understand heathen talk.



 This creature says it's a Roman Catholic while making its mission in life the complete support  of those who persecute Christians in the Middle East.

  Shouldn't the good taqiyya be at least marginally believable?


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful,  et al,
> 
> I apologize for not getting back to this sooner, but I wanted first to hear what other contributors had to say.
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> King Abdullah’s Flawed Ploy
> 
> During his recent visit to Washington to meet with President Obama, King Abdullah II of Jordan was interviewed on “CBS This Morning.” Displaying his keen sense of the terrible neighborhood in which his kingdom is embedded, he identified the war against ISIS jihadi terrorists as “clearly a fight between good and evil.”
> 
> The King chose not to mention that Palestinians have rejected every two-state solution since 1937, when the British Peel Commission proposed the second partition of Palestine. The first came fifteen years earlier, when British Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill lopped off three-quarters of Mandatory Palestine as a gift to Abdullah’s great-grandfather for his wartime loyalty to the Allied cause. But unwilling to tolerate a Jewish state of any size in their midst, Arab leaders rejected the Peel proposal, the UN partition plan that followed a decade later, and even the dangerously generous two-state offers, involving huge Israeli land concessions, offered by Prime Ministers Barak and Olmert.
> 
> King Abdullah also chose (understandably) to ignore the demographic reality in Jordan, which poses a significant threat to the stability of his own regime. For obvious reasons, his kingdom provides no official census data about its Palestinian inhabitants. Best estimates (including by the U.S. State Department) indicate that they comprise more than half, and perhaps as high as two-thirds, of the Jordanian population.
> 
> In sum: the Hashemite king rules over a majority Palestinian population in two-thirds of Palestine. In translation: the Palestinians already have a state named Jordan, located in Palestine, and comprise a majority of its population. That is as it should be: the fulfillment of international assurances to Jews, and British promises to the Hashemites, that date back nearly a century.
> 
> King Abdullah s Flawed Ploy Jewish Israel News Algemeiner.com
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I think His Majesty _(King Abdullah II, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan)_ is one of the most eloquent speakers on the issues of the day in the Middle East.  And I think that we need to listen to his words in more that just "sound-bite" fashion.
> 
> Yes, clearly --- His Majesty does not just say that it is "a fight between good and evil," but that it is a "generational fight."   He makes it plain that it is a Muslim problem --- and that the Muslim countries and leadership must take ownership problem --- draw a line in the sand --- "and that those that believe in right must stand on this side --- and those that don't have to make a decision to stand on the other."   That the concepts and foundation of the IS _[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) - Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)] _is not "reflection of our religion" --- and that "we must stand up and say what is right and what is wrong."  It is not just IS that is the problem and "evil", but that IS is part of a wider  global "Jihadist Movement;"  and that a "strategic holistic approach" _(Pan-Regional Approach)_ is required.  That while there are many different elements that make-up the global "Jihadist Movement" _(HM mentions the Sinai, Libya, Somalia, Mali, Nigeria, and Yemen)_, which have Jihadist of different names --- but very similar, if not the same, beliefs.  _(MY INSERT:  Remembering that HAMAS is a Jihadist Organization and in close association with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza.)_  This is connected directly to the problem of "foreign fighters" flocking to IS _(Syria and Iraq Region)_ from all over the world.
> 
> His Majesty indicated that the door is not closed on the Israeli-Palestinian Issue, and that the talks have not failed "YET!"...  But that there is a necessity to move the Israeli-Palestinian issues forward since there is the bigger issue to be addressed of the --- global Jihadist movement that needs attention.  The "one-arm tied behind their back" was made in the context that the world doesn't want to be addressing both the "Israeli-Palestinian Issue" with one hand --- while struggling with the "global Jihadist movement" with the other.  It was not a comment that attempted to assign blame for the lack of a solution.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And then there is Queen Rania.
> 
> *Queen Rania at The Kennedy School of Government - Harvard University *
> 
> **
> *BTW, Queen Rania is Palestinian.*
Click to expand...


Ever wonder why king Abullah is a happy man.  He marries the most gorgeous Palestinian woman & refuses to grant any right of return to all the rest of the Palestinians.  And he even opened borders with Israel so tourists to Israel can cross over into Jordan to purchase Jordanian goods & services to boost their economy as well.  Truly king Abdullah is the smartest player in the Middle East.


----------



## Mindful

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful,  et al,
> 
> I apologize for not getting back to this sooner, but I wanted first to hear what other contributors had to say.
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> King Abdullah’s Flawed Ploy
> 
> During his recent visit to Washington to meet with President Obama, King Abdullah II of Jordan was interviewed on “CBS This Morning.” Displaying his keen sense of the terrible neighborhood in which his kingdom is embedded, he identified the war against ISIS jihadi terrorists as “clearly a fight between good and evil.”
> 
> The King chose not to mention that Palestinians have rejected every two-state solution since 1937, when the British Peel Commission proposed the second partition of Palestine. The first came fifteen years earlier, when British Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill lopped off three-quarters of Mandatory Palestine as a gift to Abdullah’s great-grandfather for his wartime loyalty to the Allied cause. But unwilling to tolerate a Jewish state of any size in their midst, Arab leaders rejected the Peel proposal, the UN partition plan that followed a decade later, and even the dangerously generous two-state offers, involving huge Israeli land concessions, offered by Prime Ministers Barak and Olmert.
> 
> King Abdullah also chose (understandably) to ignore the demographic reality in Jordan, which poses a significant threat to the stability of his own regime. For obvious reasons, his kingdom provides no official census data about its Palestinian inhabitants. Best estimates (including by the U.S. State Department) indicate that they comprise more than half, and perhaps as high as two-thirds, of the Jordanian population.
> 
> In sum: the Hashemite king rules over a majority Palestinian population in two-thirds of Palestine. In translation: the Palestinians already have a state named Jordan, located in Palestine, and comprise a majority of its population. That is as it should be: the fulfillment of international assurances to Jews, and British promises to the Hashemites, that date back nearly a century.
> 
> King Abdullah s Flawed Ploy Jewish Israel News Algemeiner.com
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I think His Majesty _(King Abdullah II, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan)_ is one of the most eloquent speakers on the issues of the day in the Middle East.  And I think that we need to listen to his words in more that just "sound-bite" fashion.
> 
> Yes, clearly --- His Majesty does not just say that it is "a fight between good and evil," but that it is a "generational fight."   He makes it plain that it is a Muslim problem --- and that the Muslim countries and leadership must take ownership problem --- draw a line in the sand --- "and that those that believe in right must stand on this side --- and those that don't have to make a decision to stand on the other."   That the concepts and foundation of the IS _[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) - Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)] _is not "reflection of our religion" --- and that "we must stand up and say what is right and what is wrong."  It is not just IS that is the problem and "evil", but that IS is part of a wider  global "Jihadist Movement;"  and that a "strategic holistic approach" _(Pan-Regional Approach)_ is required.  That while there are many different elements that make-up the global "Jihadist Movement" _(HM mentions the Sinai, Libya, Somalia, Mali, Nigeria, and Yemen)_, which have Jihadist of different names --- but very similar, if not the same, beliefs.  _(MY INSERT:  Remembering that HAMAS is a Jihadist Organization and in close association with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza.)_  This is connected directly to the problem of "foreign fighters" flocking to IS _(Syria and Iraq Region)_ from all over the world.
> 
> His Majesty indicated that the door is not closed on the Israeli-Palestinian Issue, and that the talks have not failed "YET!"...  But that there is a necessity to move the Israeli-Palestinian issues forward since there is the bigger issue to be addressed of the --- global Jihadist movement that needs attention.  The "one-arm tied behind their back" was made in the context that the world doesn't want to be addressing both the "Israeli-Palestinian Issue" with one hand --- while struggling with the "global Jihadist movement" with the other.  It was not a comment that attempted to assign blame for the lack of a solution.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And then there is Queen Rania.
> 
> *Queen Rania at The Kennedy School of Government - Harvard University *
> 
> **
> *BTW, Queen Rania is Palestinian.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why king Abullah is a happy man.  He marries the most gorgeous Palestinian woman & refuses to grant any right of return to all the rest of the Palestinians.  And he even opened borders with Israel so tourists to Israel can cross over into Jordan to purchase Jordanian goods & services to boost their economy as well.  Truly king Abdullah is the smartest player in the Middle East.
Click to expand...



He's a Brit, that's why. Nice and pragmatic.


----------



## MJB12741

Mindful said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful,  et al,
> 
> I apologize for not getting back to this sooner, but I wanted first to hear what other contributors had to say.
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> King Abdullah’s Flawed Ploy
> 
> During his recent visit to Washington to meet with President Obama, King Abdullah II of Jordan was interviewed on “CBS This Morning.” Displaying his keen sense of the terrible neighborhood in which his kingdom is embedded, he identified the war against ISIS jihadi terrorists as “clearly a fight between good and evil.”
> 
> The King chose not to mention that Palestinians have rejected every two-state solution since 1937, when the British Peel Commission proposed the second partition of Palestine. The first came fifteen years earlier, when British Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill lopped off three-quarters of Mandatory Palestine as a gift to Abdullah’s great-grandfather for his wartime loyalty to the Allied cause. But unwilling to tolerate a Jewish state of any size in their midst, Arab leaders rejected the Peel proposal, the UN partition plan that followed a decade later, and even the dangerously generous two-state offers, involving huge Israeli land concessions, offered by Prime Ministers Barak and Olmert.
> 
> King Abdullah also chose (understandably) to ignore the demographic reality in Jordan, which poses a significant threat to the stability of his own regime. For obvious reasons, his kingdom provides no official census data about its Palestinian inhabitants. Best estimates (including by the U.S. State Department) indicate that they comprise more than half, and perhaps as high as two-thirds, of the Jordanian population.
> 
> In sum: the Hashemite king rules over a majority Palestinian population in two-thirds of Palestine. In translation: the Palestinians already have a state named Jordan, located in Palestine, and comprise a majority of its population. That is as it should be: the fulfillment of international assurances to Jews, and British promises to the Hashemites, that date back nearly a century.
> 
> King Abdullah s Flawed Ploy Jewish Israel News Algemeiner.com
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I think His Majesty _(King Abdullah II, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan)_ is one of the most eloquent speakers on the issues of the day in the Middle East.  And I think that we need to listen to his words in more that just "sound-bite" fashion.
> 
> Yes, clearly --- His Majesty does not just say that it is "a fight between good and evil," but that it is a "generational fight."   He makes it plain that it is a Muslim problem --- and that the Muslim countries and leadership must take ownership problem --- draw a line in the sand --- "and that those that believe in right must stand on this side --- and those that don't have to make a decision to stand on the other."   That the concepts and foundation of the IS _[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) - Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)] _is not "reflection of our religion" --- and that "we must stand up and say what is right and what is wrong."  It is not just IS that is the problem and "evil", but that IS is part of a wider  global "Jihadist Movement;"  and that a "strategic holistic approach" _(Pan-Regional Approach)_ is required.  That while there are many different elements that make-up the global "Jihadist Movement" _(HM mentions the Sinai, Libya, Somalia, Mali, Nigeria, and Yemen)_, which have Jihadist of different names --- but very similar, if not the same, beliefs.  _(MY INSERT:  Remembering that HAMAS is a Jihadist Organization and in close association with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza.)_  This is connected directly to the problem of "foreign fighters" flocking to IS _(Syria and Iraq Region)_ from all over the world.
> 
> His Majesty indicated that the door is not closed on the Israeli-Palestinian Issue, and that the talks have not failed "YET!"...  But that there is a necessity to move the Israeli-Palestinian issues forward since there is the bigger issue to be addressed of the --- global Jihadist movement that needs attention.  The "one-arm tied behind their back" was made in the context that the world doesn't want to be addressing both the "Israeli-Palestinian Issue" with one hand --- while struggling with the "global Jihadist movement" with the other.  It was not a comment that attempted to assign blame for the lack of a solution.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And then there is Queen Rania.
> 
> *Queen Rania at The Kennedy School of Government - Harvard University *
> 
> **
> *BTW, Queen Rania is Palestinian.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why king Abullah is a happy man.  He marries the most gorgeous Palestinian woman & refuses to grant any right of return to all the rest of the Palestinians.  And he even opened borders with Israel so tourists to Israel can cross over into Jordan to purchase Jordanian goods & services to boost their economy as well.  Truly king Abdullah is the smartest player in the Middle East.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He's a Brit, that's why. Nice and pragmatic.
Click to expand...



He sure showed the world how to establish a lasting peace from Palestinians during Black September.  It's all just a matter of  communicating with Palestinians in the only language they understand & respect.  When will those Zionists in Israel ever learn?  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Ashira Ramadan*

**


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Ashira Ramadan*
> 
> **




OMG!  I was not aware of all the horrible brutal abuse Israel puts the noble innocent peace loving, life loving Palestinians through.  Wouldn't it be wonderful if Israel would be so humane as to free the Palestinians from Israeli rule by finding some incentive to offer the surrounding Arab countries to grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands?


----------



## montelatici

The Palestinian's  homeland is Palestine, the Jew's homeland is Europe, where they came from.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> The Palestinian's  homeland is Palestine, the Jew's homeland is Europe, where they came from.



Oh now I get it.  Muslim Palestinians occupied the land before the Jews.  Please excuse me while I go tell my neighbors.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian's  homeland is Palestine, the Jew's homeland is Europe, where they came from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh now I get it.  Muslim Palestinians occupied the land before the Jews.  Please excuse me while I go tell my neighbors.
Click to expand...

Who mentioned Muslims?


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian's  homeland is Palestine, the Jew's homeland is Europe, where they came from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh now I get it.  Muslim Palestinians occupied the land before the Jews.  Please excuse me while I go tell my neighbors.
Click to expand...


Prior to the defeat of the Romans (Byzantium) they were Christians, converts from various religions, including Judaism. Christianity being the state religion.


----------



## 50_RiaL

Nonsense.  Let's look at some prominent Arab "Palestinian" families to see if your assertion is based on sound historical facts or just quotidian Arab propaganda.
1 - The Husayni (Husseini) clan claim descent from Husayn ibn Ali, the grandson of prophet Mohammad; Husayn hailed from Medina, which is in the Arabian Peninsula. (al-Husayni - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia)
2 - The Nashashibis clan are of Kurdish, Turkoman or Arab origin.
(Nashashibi - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia)
3 - The Barghoutis are a sub-clan of the Bani Zeid tribe that hails from the Hejaz, a region in western, present-day Saudi Arabia.
(Bani Zeid - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia)
4 - The al Khalids hail from Mecca.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Khalil_(family) )
5 - The Nusseibehs hail from Medina.
(Nusaybah clan - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia)
. . . Arab Propaganda.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian's  homeland is Palestine, the Jew's homeland is Europe, where they came from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh now I get it.  Muslim Palestinians occupied the land before the Jews.  Please excuse me while I go tell my neighbors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who mentioned Muslims?
Click to expand...


Thank you.  Good point.  There were no Muslims among the indigenous Palestinians.  But there were indeed Jews.  So who is stealing who's land?


----------



## Humanity

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian's  homeland is Palestine, the Jew's homeland is Europe, where they came from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh now I get it.  Muslim Palestinians occupied the land before the Jews.  Please excuse me while I go tell my neighbors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who mentioned Muslims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you.  Good point.  There were no Muslims among the indigenous Palestinians.  But there were indeed Jews.  So who is stealing who's land?
Click to expand...


----------



## MJB12741

Humanity said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian's  homeland is Palestine, the Jew's homeland is Europe, where they came from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh now I get it.  Muslim Palestinians occupied the land before the Jews.  Please excuse me while I go tell my neighbors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who mentioned Muslims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you.  Good point.  There were no Muslims among the indigenous Palestinians.  But there were indeed Jews.  So who is stealing who's land?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



OK!  Please let me know if you want more links.

Israel My Beloved 8211 Are the Palestinians native to the land where Israel now exists


----------



## Humanity

MJB12741 said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian's  homeland is Palestine, the Jew's homeland is Europe, where they came from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh now I get it.  Muslim Palestinians occupied the land before the Jews.  Please excuse me while I go tell my neighbors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who mentioned Muslims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you.  Good point.  There were no Muslims among the indigenous Palestinians.  But there were indeed Jews.  So who is stealing who's land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OK!  Please let me know if you want more links.
> 
> Israel My Beloved 8211 Are the Palestinians native to the land where Israel now exists
Click to expand...


Yeah, I'm not sure what that links proves really...

The fact that there were Palestinian Muslims and Palestinian Jews is known.


----------



## MJB12741

Humanity said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh now I get it.  Muslim Palestinians occupied the land before the Jews.  Please excuse me while I go tell my neighbors.
> 
> 
> 
> Who mentioned Muslims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you.  Good point.  There were no Muslims among the indigenous Palestinians.  But there were indeed Jews.  So who is stealing who's land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OK!  Please let me know if you want more links.
> 
> Israel My Beloved 8211 Are the Palestinians native to the land where Israel now exists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm not sure what that links proves really...
> 
> The fact that there were Palestinian Muslims and Palestinian Jews is known.
Click to expand...


Well then, why do you ask for links?  And which came first, Palestinian Muslims or Palestinian Jews?  Therefore again I ask, who is stealing who's land?  Get it yet?


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian's  homeland is Palestine, the Jew's homeland is Europe, where they came from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh now I get it.  Muslim Palestinians occupied the land before the Jews.  Please excuse me while I go tell my neighbors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who mentioned Muslims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you.  Good point.  There were no Muslims among the indigenous Palestinians.  But there were indeed Jews.  So who is stealing who's land?
Click to expand...

No Christians and no Jews either.

Do you have a point?


----------



## Humanity

MJB12741 said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who mentioned Muslims?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.  Good point.  There were no Muslims among the indigenous Palestinians.  But there were indeed Jews.  So who is stealing who's land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OK!  Please let me know if you want more links.
> 
> Israel My Beloved 8211 Are the Palestinians native to the land where Israel now exists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm not sure what that links proves really...
> 
> The fact that there were Palestinian Muslims and Palestinian Jews is known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then, why do you ask for links?  And which came first, Palestinian Muslims or Palestinian Jews?  Therefore again I ask, who is stealing who's land?  Get it yet?
Click to expand...


I had hoped that you may be able to provide a link of substance... I was wrong!

And, who came first?

Archaeological findings clearly show that Palestine was inhabited by non-Jewish Semites a long time before Jews even claimed that it is their “promised land”...

Perhaps that answers your question...


----------



## Lipush

"Palestine" is originally a Hebrew words, so that argument is amusing in itself.

Ah, whatever. Happy Holidays, everyone.


----------



## MJB12741

Lipush said:


> "Palestine" is originally a Hebrew words, so that argument is amusing in itself.
> 
> Ah, whatever. Happy Holidays, everyone.



Shhh!  If we educate them to the truth they may leave us.  Then where will we go for laughs?


----------



## Lipush

Ooops.

Ok, then.


----------



## Humanity

Lipush said:


> "Palestine" is originally a Hebrew words, so that argument is amusing in itself.
> 
> Ah, whatever. Happy Holidays, everyone.



And there was me thinking that the first use of the word "Palestine" to describe the region came from Greek!?!?

And indeed, whatever, Merry Christmas everyone.


----------



## Lipush

Greek? LOL. It's a Hebrew word.

Here, you learned something new.


----------



## Humanity

Lipush said:


> Greek? LOL. It's a Hebrew word.
> 
> Here, you learned something new.



My bad then Lipush...

I guess I was taking the work from the Greco-Roman "Palastina" and not the Hebrew word, which bears little resemblance.

And the historical fact that the first use of the word relating to the region comes from Ancient Greece...

Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
The History of the Words Palestine And Palestinians


----------



## Lipush

Meh, not really important, I guess.


----------



## aris2chat

Humanity said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Palestine" is originally a Hebrew words, so that argument is amusing in itself.
> 
> Ah, whatever. Happy Holidays, everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there was me thinking that the first use of the word "Palestine" to describe the region came from Greek!?!?
> 
> And indeed, whatever, Merry Christmas everyone.
Click to expand...


the sea people, Peleset,  that came as invaders were Aegeans.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Ali Abunimah*


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

The flaming needs to stop


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Ali Abunimah*



Are these asshole terrorists Zionists?

http://www.theway.co.uk/images/features/palistine.jpg


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Ali Abunimah*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are these asshole terrorists Zionists?
> 
> http://www.theway.co.uk/images/features/palistine.jpg
Click to expand...


And who are these peace loving, life loving people?

http://commentisfreewatch.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/al-aqsa_martyrs_brigade.jpg


----------



## MJB12741

From an award winning American Palestinian.

Yalla Peace Palestinians Worst Enemies Are Themselves by Ray Hanania on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent


----------



## aris2chat

MJB12741 said:


> From an award winning American Palestinian.
> 
> Yalla Peace Palestinians Worst Enemies Are Themselves by Ray Hanania on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent



he is right


----------



## teddyearp

MJB12741 said:


> <snip> & has open borders with Israel so tourists to Israel can cross over into Jordan to purchase Jordanian products & services to boost their economy.



And this is so very true.  Jordan is the only country in the ME that will allow anyone with an Israeli VISA stamp in their passport into their country.  If you want to visit Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq during the same trip as Israel, you had better visit them first and Israel last.  But that is fixed in a way as it is so bad that now Israel stamps a separate piece of paper for your tourist VISA now.


----------



## teddyearp

montelatici said:


> I am never wrong, as you well know. <snip>



That's right folks never forget this.  Monti or Mr S is so much more educated than anyone else in the whole wide world that he is never wrong at all.  In fact he knows more than G-d.  How many years of higher education do you have Mr S?  I only know that it is so much more than anyone that we should always just lay down and lick your boots and acquiesce to your awesome knowledge in every single post you make here. Because I know how much higher education counts first hand.  Once one goes to the Seat, G-d will ask you how much higher education you have before he listens to anything you have to say.  Why do we even bother to argue with your superior intelligence and knowledge? Can we be like you when we grow up?

I just wish I had your humility.


----------



## MJB12741

teddyearp said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am never wrong, as you well know. <snip>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right folks never forget this.  Monti or Mr S is so much more educated than anyone else in the whole wide world that he is never wrong at all.  In fact he knows more than G-d.  How many years of higher education do you have Mr S?  I only know that it is so much more than anyone that we should always just lay down and lick your boots and acquiesce to your awesome knowledge in every single post you make here. Because I know how much higher education counts first hand.  Once one goes to the Seat, G-d will ask you how much higher education you have before he listens to anything you have to say.  Why do we even bother to argue with your superior intelligence and knowledge? Can we be like you when we grow up?
> 
> I just wish I had your humility.
Click to expand...


Monte is so funny I just wish I had his great sense of humor to make people laugh.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> From an award winning American Palestinian.
> 
> Yalla Peace Palestinians Worst Enemies Are Themselves by Ray Hanania on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent


Is this guy paid to lie or is he just clueless?


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> From an award winning American Palestinian.
> 
> Yalla Peace Palestinians Worst Enemies Are Themselves by Ray Hanania on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent
> 
> 
> 
> Is this guy paid to lie or is he just clueless?
Click to expand...


Oh he's paid to lie.  It's another one of those Zionist plots to degrade the noble peace loving, life loving Palestinians.  You see Ray Hanania is actually an Israeli who claims to be Palestinian but somehow he just hasn't been caught yet.  Go tell your neighbors.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Ali Abunimah*






 Just more ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA and LIES


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> From an award winning American Palestinian.
> 
> Yalla Peace Palestinians Worst Enemies Are Themselves by Ray Hanania on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent
> 
> 
> 
> Is this guy paid to lie or is he just clueless?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh he's paid to lie.  It's another one of those Zionist plots to degrade the noble peace loving, life loving Palestinians.  You see Ray Hanania is actually an Israeli who claims to be Palestinian but somehow he just hasn't been caught yet.  Go tell your neighbors.
Click to expand...

Seriously, he bases his tirade on false information.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> From an award winning American Palestinian.
> 
> Yalla Peace Palestinians Worst Enemies Are Themselves by Ray Hanania on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent
> 
> 
> 
> Is this guy paid to lie or is he just clueless?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh he's paid to lie.  It's another one of those Zionist plots to degrade the noble peace loving, life loving Palestinians.  You see Ray Hanania is actually an Israeli who claims to be Palestinian but somehow he just hasn't been caught yet.  Go tell your neighbors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously, he bases his tirade on false information.
Click to expand...


Like I said, that's because he is an Israeli posing as a Palestinian.  And did you know that Snoopy shot down the Red Baron?


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> From an award winning American Palestinian.
> 
> Yalla Peace Palestinians Worst Enemies Are Themselves by Ray Hanania on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent
> 
> 
> 
> Is this guy paid to lie or is he just clueless?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh he's paid to lie.  It's another one of those Zionist plots to degrade the noble peace loving, life loving Palestinians.  You see Ray Hanania is actually an Israeli who claims to be Palestinian but somehow he just hasn't been caught yet.  Go tell your neighbors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously, he bases his tirade on false information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, that's because he is an Israeli posing as a Palestinian.  And did you know that Snoopy shot down the Red Baron?
Click to expand...

So false information is an Israeli thing?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> From an award winning American Palestinian.
> 
> Yalla Peace Palestinians Worst Enemies Are Themselves by Ray Hanania on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent
> 
> 
> 
> Is this guy paid to lie or is he just clueless?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh he's paid to lie.  It's another one of those Zionist plots to degrade the noble peace loving, life loving Palestinians.  You see Ray Hanania is actually an Israeli who claims to be Palestinian but somehow he just hasn't been caught yet.  Go tell your neighbors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously, he bases his tirade on false information.
Click to expand...


  

Tinmore accusing someone of posting false information, now THAT'S funny !


----------



## montelatici

Toast accusing anyone of posting false information is hilarious.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> Toast accusing anyone of posting false information is hilarious.


What have I posted that is false?


----------



## montelatici

The better question is what have you posted that is fact?  All you post are facets of the Israeli/Zionist propaganda myth.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> The better question is what have you posted that is fact?  All you post are facets of the Israeli/Zionist propaganda myth.


Monti, you know very well you are talking about yourself.
But that's what I thought, you can't back up your claim...AGAIN !


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> From an award winning American Palestinian.
> 
> Yalla Peace Palestinians Worst Enemies Are Themselves by Ray Hanania on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent
> 
> 
> 
> Is this guy paid to lie or is he just clueless?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh he's paid to lie.  It's another one of those Zionist plots to degrade the noble peace loving, life loving Palestinians.  You see Ray Hanania is actually an Israeli who claims to be Palestinian but somehow he just hasn't been caught yet.  Go tell your neighbors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously, he bases his tirade on false information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, that's because he is an Israeli posing as a Palestinian.  And did you know that Snoopy shot down the Red Baron?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So false information is an Israeli thing?
Click to expand...


Yes of couirse, you see Ray Hanania is an Israeli, right Tinmore?


----------



## aris2chat

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this guy paid to lie or is he just clueless?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh he's paid to lie.  It's another one of those Zionist plots to degrade the noble peace loving, life loving Palestinians.  You see Ray Hanania is actually an Israeli who claims to be Palestinian but somehow he just hasn't been caught yet.  Go tell your neighbors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously, he bases his tirade on false information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, that's because he is an Israeli posing as a Palestinian.  And did you know that Snoopy shot down the Red Baron?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So false information is an Israeli thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes of couirse, you see Ray Hanania is an Israeli, right Tinmore?
Click to expand...


He is not "palestinian" enough?  Not all arabs or even all palestinians hold the well versed propaganda.  Unless you actually meet and live around them and hear what they say in private you can't understand.


----------



## MJB12741

aris2chat said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh he's paid to lie.  It's another one of those Zionist plots to degrade the noble peace loving, life loving Palestinians.  You see Ray Hanania is actually an Israeli who claims to be Palestinian but somehow he just hasn't been caught yet.  Go tell your neighbors.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, he bases his tirade on false information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, that's because he is an Israeli posing as a Palestinian.  And did you know that Snoopy shot down the Red Baron?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So false information is an Israeli thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes of couirse, you see Ray Hanania is an Israeli, right Tinmore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is not "palestinian" enough?  Not all arabs or even all palestinians hold the well versed propaganda.  Unless you actually meet and live around them and hear what they say in private you can't understand.
Click to expand...



He is a disgrace to Palestinians.  Educated, honest, industrious & successful.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, he bases his tirade on false information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, that's because he is an Israeli posing as a Palestinian.  And did you know that Snoopy shot down the Red Baron?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So false information is an Israeli thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes of couirse, you see Ray Hanania is an Israeli, right Tinmore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is not "palestinian" enough?  Not all arabs or even all palestinians hold the well versed propaganda.  Unless you actually meet and live around them and hear what they say in private you can't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He is a disgrace to Palestinians.  Educated, honest, industrious & successful.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but he was misinformed in this article.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, that's because he is an Israeli posing as a Palestinian.  And did you know that Snoopy shot down the Red Baron?
> 
> 
> 
> So false information is an Israeli thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes of couirse, you see Ray Hanania is an Israeli, right Tinmore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is not "palestinian" enough?  Not all arabs or even all palestinians hold the well versed propaganda.  Unless you actually meet and live around them and hear what they say in private you can't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He is a disgrace to Palestinians.  Educated, honest, industrious & successful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, but he was misinformed in this article.
Click to expand...


Thank you for admitting he is an extraordinay Palestinian so unlike the overwhelming majority of Palestinians.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> From an award winning American Palestinian.
> 
> Yalla Peace Palestinians Worst Enemies Are Themselves by Ray Hanania on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent
> 
> 
> 
> Is this guy paid to lie or is he just clueless?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh he's paid to lie.  It's another one of those Zionist plots to degrade the noble peace loving, life loving Palestinians.  You see Ray Hanania is actually an Israeli who claims to be Palestinian but somehow he just hasn't been caught yet.  Go tell your neighbors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously, he bases his tirade on false information.
Click to expand...





 You mean the truth that you don't like so claim it is false, what does he say that is false and can you prove using non partisan links that it is false


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Toast accusing anyone of posting false information is hilarious.





 You trying to pass of manipulated articles as source documents is a whole comedy show


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> From an award winning American Palestinian.
> 
> Yalla Peace Palestinians Worst Enemies Are Themselves by Ray Hanania on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent
> 
> 
> 
> Is this guy paid to lie or is he just clueless?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh he's paid to lie.  It's another one of those Zionist plots to degrade the noble peace loving, life loving Palestinians.  You see Ray Hanania is actually an Israeli who claims to be Palestinian but somehow he just hasn't been caught yet.  Go tell your neighbors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously, he bases his tirade on false information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the truth that you don't like so claim it is false, what does he say that is false and can you prove using non partisan links that it is false
Click to expand...

What is false is false. What I like has nothing to do with it.

What he says:

Yes, the tragedy of the Palestinians isn't that they are victims of injustice at the hands of the Israelis. It is their own tendency to destroy themselves from within.​
He claims an internal division that does not exist.

It's true. The Palestinian leadership is a failure, and the activists who lead the hatred against Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (who is a moderate Palestinian like myself) and against anyone who dares to challenge their fanaticism are the primary causes of this failure.​
He should know that Abbas left the government in June of 2007. Abbas is the division. The rest of the Palestinians are pretty much on the same page.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> From an award winning American Palestinian.
> 
> Yalla Peace Palestinians Worst Enemies Are Themselves by Ray Hanania on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent
> 
> 
> 
> Is this guy paid to lie or is he just clueless?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh he's paid to lie.  It's another one of those Zionist plots to degrade the noble peace loving, life loving Palestinians.  You see Ray Hanania is actually an Israeli who claims to be Palestinian but somehow he just hasn't been caught yet.  Go tell your neighbors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously, he bases his tirade on false information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the truth that you don't like so claim it is false, what does he say that is false and can you prove using non partisan links that it is false
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is false is false. What I like has nothing to do with it.
> 
> What he says:
> 
> Yes, the tragedy of the Palestinians isn't that they are victims of injustice at the hands of the Israelis. It is their own tendency to destroy themselves from within.​
> He claims an internal division that does not exist.
> 
> It's true. The Palestinian leadership is a failure, and the activists who lead the hatred against Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (who is a moderate Palestinian like myself) and against anyone who dares to challenge their fanaticism are the primary causes of this failure.​
> He should know that Abbas left the government in June of 2007. Abbas is the division. The rest of the Palestinians are pretty much on the same page.
Click to expand...



Abbas is the thorn in Israel's side.  If not for the Palestinians electing Hamas, Israel would have given in to all of his Palestinian demands.  That guy has to go.


----------



## MJB12741

Hamas does far more harm than good for the Palestinians that elected Hamas.  Long live Hamas!

Hamas war crimes threaten far more than Palestinians Las Vegas Review-Journal


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> From an award winning American Palestinian.
> 
> Yalla Peace Palestinians Worst Enemies Are Themselves by Ray Hanania on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent
> 
> 
> 
> Is this guy paid to lie or is he just clueless?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh he's paid to lie.  It's another one of those Zionist plots to degrade the noble peace loving, life loving Palestinians.  You see Ray Hanania is actually an Israeli who claims to be Palestinian but somehow he just hasn't been caught yet.  Go tell your neighbors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously, he bases his tirade on false information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the truth that you don't like so claim it is false, what does he say that is false and can you prove using non partisan links that it is false
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is false is false. What I like has nothing to do with it.
> 
> What he says:
> 
> Yes, the tragedy of the Palestinians isn't that they are victims of injustice at the hands of the Israelis. It is their own tendency to destroy themselves from within.​
> He claims an internal division that does not exist.
> 
> It's true. The Palestinian leadership is a failure, and the activists who lead the hatred against Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (who is a moderate Palestinian like myself) and against anyone who dares to challenge their fanaticism are the primary causes of this failure.​
> He should know that Abbas left the government in June of 2007. Abbas is the division. The rest of the Palestinians are pretty much on the same page.
Click to expand...





 So no evidence defend your claims now why don't we find that strange


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this guy paid to lie or is he just clueless?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh he's paid to lie.  It's another one of those Zionist plots to degrade the noble peace loving, life loving Palestinians.  You see Ray Hanania is actually an Israeli who claims to be Palestinian but somehow he just hasn't been caught yet.  Go tell your neighbors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously, he bases his tirade on false information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the truth that you don't like so claim it is false, what does he say that is false and can you prove using non partisan links that it is false
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is false is false. What I like has nothing to do with it.
> 
> What he says:
> 
> Yes, the tragedy of the Palestinians isn't that they are victims of injustice at the hands of the Israelis. It is their own tendency to destroy themselves from within.​
> He claims an internal division that does not exist.
> 
> It's true. The Palestinian leadership is a failure, and the activists who lead the hatred against Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (who is a moderate Palestinian like myself) and against anyone who dares to challenge their fanaticism are the primary causes of this failure.​
> He should know that Abbas left the government in June of 2007. Abbas is the division. The rest of the Palestinians are pretty much on the same page.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So no evidence defend your claims now why don't we find that strange
Click to expand...

Sure, I guess the chronically uninformed/misinformed would not know, so here.


Abbas had the authority to change the government by appointing a new PM and cabinet but he did not follow constitutional procedures. Instead, he left the government, and with the help of the US and Israel he set up an illegal government in the West Bank.

This appointment has been challenged as illegal, because while the Palestinian Basic Law permits the president to dismiss a sitting prime minister, the appointment of a replacement requires the approval of the Legislative Council. The law provides that after removal of the prime minister (in this case, Ismail Haniyeh), the outgoing prime minister heads a caretaker government. *The current Legislative Council, in which Hamas holds a majority of seats, has not approved the appointments of Fayyad or the balance of his new government.* Fayyad's appointment was never placed before, or approved by it.[12] Haniyeh continues to operate as prime minister in Gaza, and is recognized by a large number of Palestinians as the legitimate acting prime minister. *Anis al-Qasem, a constitutional lawyer who drafted the Basic Law, is among those who publicly declared the appointment of Fayyad to be illegal.*[13]

Salam Fayyad - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​
This is what was reported in the Canadian news cast.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh he's paid to lie.  It's another one of those Zionist plots to degrade the noble peace loving, life loving Palestinians.  You see Ray Hanania is actually an Israeli who claims to be Palestinian but somehow he just hasn't been caught yet.  Go tell your neighbors.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, he bases his tirade on false information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the truth that you don't like so claim it is false, what does he say that is false and can you prove using non partisan links that it is false
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is false is false. What I like has nothing to do with it.
> 
> What he says:
> 
> Yes, the tragedy of the Palestinians isn't that they are victims of injustice at the hands of the Israelis. It is their own tendency to destroy themselves from within.​
> He claims an internal division that does not exist.
> 
> It's true. The Palestinian leadership is a failure, and the activists who lead the hatred against Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (who is a moderate Palestinian like myself) and against anyone who dares to challenge their fanaticism are the primary causes of this failure.​
> He should know that Abbas left the government in June of 2007. Abbas is the division. The rest of the Palestinians are pretty much on the same page.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So no evidence defend your claims now why don't we find that strange
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, I guess the chronically uninformed/misinformed would not know, so here.
> 
> 
> Abbas had the authority to change the government by appointing a new PM and cabinet but he did not follow constitutional procedures. Instead, he left the government, and with the help of the US and Israel he set up an illegal government in the West Bank.
> 
> This appointment has been challenged as illegal, because while the Palestinian Basic Law permits the president to dismiss a sitting prime minister, the appointment of a replacement requires the approval of the Legislative Council. The law provides that after removal of the prime minister (in this case, Ismail Haniyeh), the outgoing prime minister heads a caretaker government. *The current Legislative Council, in which Hamas holds a majority of seats, has not approved the appointments of Fayyad or the balance of his new government.* Fayyad's appointment was never placed before, or approved by it.[12] Haniyeh continues to operate as prime minister in Gaza, and is recognized by a large number of Palestinians as the legitimate acting prime minister. *Anis al-Qasem, a constitutional lawyer who drafted the Basic Law, is among those who publicly declared the appointment of Fayyad to be illegal.*[13]
> 
> Salam Fayyad - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​
> This is what was reported in the Canadian news cast
> 
> .[/QUOTE:
> 
> Most important is that the Palestinians get rid of Abbas.  With him as their leader the Palestinians can prosper living in peace & prosperity with Israel.  A threat to the security of Israel.  Whereas with Hamas, the Palestinians will continue living in ignorance & poverty.  Better for Israel & who can rightfully feel sorry for the Palestinians who they themselves elected Hamas to govern them?
> 
> Most importnt
Click to expand...


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, he bases his tirade on false information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the truth that you don't like so claim it is false, what does he say that is false and can you prove using non partisan links that it is false
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is false is false. What I like has nothing to do with it.
> 
> What he says:
> 
> Yes, the tragedy of the Palestinians isn't that they are victims of injustice at the hands of the Israelis. It is their own tendency to destroy themselves from within.​
> He claims an internal division that does not exist.
> 
> It's true. The Palestinian leadership is a failure, and the activists who lead the hatred against Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (who is a moderate Palestinian like myself) and against anyone who dares to challenge their fanaticism are the primary causes of this failure.​
> He should know that Abbas left the government in June of 2007. Abbas is the division. The rest of the Palestinians are pretty much on the same page.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So no evidence defend your claims now why don't we find that strange
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, I guess the chronically uninformed/misinformed would not know, so here.
> 
> 
> Abbas had the authority to change the government by appointing a new PM and cabinet but he did not follow constitutional procedures. Instead, he left the government, and with the help of the US and Israel he set up an illegal government in the West Bank.
> 
> This appointment has been challenged as illegal, because while the Palestinian Basic Law permits the president to dismiss a sitting prime minister, the appointment of a replacement requires the approval of the Legislative Council. The law provides that after removal of the prime minister (in this case, Ismail Haniyeh), the outgoing prime minister heads a caretaker government. *The current Legislative Council, in which Hamas holds a majority of seats, has not approved the appointments of Fayyad or the balance of his new government.* Fayyad's appointment was never placed before, or approved by it.[12] Haniyeh continues to operate as prime minister in Gaza, and is recognized by a large number of Palestinians as the legitimate acting prime minister. *Anis al-Qasem, a constitutional lawyer who drafted the Basic Law, is among those who publicly declared the appointment of Fayyad to be illegal.*[13]
> 
> Salam Fayyad - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​
> This is what was reported in the Canadian news cast
> 
> .[/QUOTE:
> 
> Most important is that the Palestinians get rid of Abbas.  With him as their leader the Palestinians can prosper living in peace & prosperity with Israel.  A threat to the security of Israel.  Whereas with Hamas, the Palestinians will continue living in ignorance & poverty.  Better for Israel & who can rightfully feel sorry for the Palestinians who they themselves elected Hamas to govern them?
> 
> Most importnt
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Horsecrap!

Abbas is going onto his tenth year of a four year term and they are farther away from peace than they were back then. What has he done besides watch Israel eat up the West Bank?


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the truth that you don't like so claim it is false, what does he say that is false and can you prove using non partisan links that it is false
> 
> 
> 
> What is false is false. What I like has nothing to do with it.
> 
> What he says:
> 
> Yes, the tragedy of the Palestinians isn't that they are victims of injustice at the hands of the Israelis. It is their own tendency to destroy themselves from within.​
> He claims an internal division that does not exist.
> 
> It's true. The Palestinian leadership is a failure, and the activists who lead the hatred against Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (who is a moderate Palestinian like myself) and against anyone who dares to challenge their fanaticism are the primary causes of this failure.​
> He should know that Abbas left the government in June of 2007. Abbas is the division. The rest of the Palestinians are pretty much on the same page.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So no evidence defend your claims now why don't we find that strange
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, I guess the chronically uninformed/misinformed would not know, so here.
> 
> 
> Abbas had the authority to change the government by appointing a new PM and cabinet but he did not follow constitutional procedures. Instead, he left the government, and with the help of the US and Israel he set up an illegal government in the West Bank.
> 
> This appointment has been challenged as illegal, because while the Palestinian Basic Law permits the president to dismiss a sitting prime minister, the appointment of a replacement requires the approval of the Legislative Council. The law provides that after removal of the prime minister (in this case, Ismail Haniyeh), the outgoing prime minister heads a caretaker government. *The current Legislative Council, in which Hamas holds a majority of seats, has not approved the appointments of Fayyad or the balance of his new government.* Fayyad's appointment was never placed before, or approved by it.[12] Haniyeh continues to operate as prime minister in Gaza, and is recognized by a large number of Palestinians as the legitimate acting prime minister. *Anis al-Qasem, a constitutional lawyer who drafted the Basic Law, is among those who publicly declared the appointment of Fayyad to be illegal.*[13]
> 
> Salam Fayyad - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​
> This is what was reported in the Canadian news cast
> 
> .[/QUOTE:
> 
> Most important is that the Palestinians get rid of Abbas.  With him as their leader the Palestinians can prosper living in peace & prosperity with Israel.  A threat to the security of Israel.  Whereas with Hamas, the Palestinians will continue living in ignorance & poverty.  Better for Israel & who can rightfully feel sorry for the Palestinians who they themselves elected Hamas to govern them?
> 
> Most importnt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Horsecrap!
> 
> Abbas is going onto his tenth year of a four year term and they are farther away from peace than they were back then. What has he done besides watch Israel eat up the West Bank?
Click to expand...

Why he's building up a monsterous bank account and a villa in Sharm el-Sheikh. Didn't you know?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is false is false. What I like has nothing to do with it.
> 
> What he says:
> 
> Yes, the tragedy of the Palestinians isn't that they are victims of injustice at the hands of the Israelis. It is their own tendency to destroy themselves from within.​
> He claims an internal division that does not exist.
> 
> It's true. The Palestinian leadership is a failure, and the activists who lead the hatred against Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (who is a moderate Palestinian like myself) and against anyone who dares to challenge their fanaticism are the primary causes of this failure.​
> He should know that Abbas left the government in June of 2007. Abbas is the division. The rest of the Palestinians are pretty much on the same page.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So no evidence defend your claims now why don't we find that strange
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, I guess the chronically uninformed/misinformed would not know, so here.
> 
> 
> Abbas had the authority to change the government by appointing a new PM and cabinet but he did not follow constitutional procedures. Instead, he left the government, and with the help of the US and Israel he set up an illegal government in the West Bank.
> 
> This appointment has been challenged as illegal, because while the Palestinian Basic Law permits the president to dismiss a sitting prime minister, the appointment of a replacement requires the approval of the Legislative Council. The law provides that after removal of the prime minister (in this case, Ismail Haniyeh), the outgoing prime minister heads a caretaker government. *The current Legislative Council, in which Hamas holds a majority of seats, has not approved the appointments of Fayyad or the balance of his new government.* Fayyad's appointment was never placed before, or approved by it.[12] Haniyeh continues to operate as prime minister in Gaza, and is recognized by a large number of Palestinians as the legitimate acting prime minister. *Anis al-Qasem, a constitutional lawyer who drafted the Basic Law, is among those who publicly declared the appointment of Fayyad to be illegal.*[13]
> 
> Salam Fayyad - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​
> This is what was reported in the Canadian news cast
> 
> .[/QUOTE:
> 
> Most important is that the Palestinians get rid of Abbas.  With him as their leader the Palestinians can prosper living in peace & prosperity with Israel.  A threat to the security of Israel.  Whereas with Hamas, the Palestinians will continue living in ignorance & poverty.  Better for Israel & who can rightfully feel sorry for the Palestinians who they themselves elected Hamas to govern them?
> 
> Most importnt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Horsecrap!
> 
> Abbas is going onto his tenth year of a four year term and they are farther away from peace than they were back then. What has he done besides watch Israel eat up the West Bank?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why he's building up a monsterous bank account and a villa in Sharm el-Sheikh. Didn't you know?
Click to expand...

Indeed, he is an oligarch.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So no evidence defend your claims now why don't we find that strange
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, I guess the chronically uninformed/misinformed would not know, so here.
> 
> 
> Abbas had the authority to change the government by appointing a new PM and cabinet but he did not follow constitutional procedures. Instead, he left the government, and with the help of the US and Israel he set up an illegal government in the West Bank.
> 
> This appointment has been challenged as illegal, because while the Palestinian Basic Law permits the president to dismiss a sitting prime minister, the appointment of a replacement requires the approval of the Legislative Council. The law provides that after removal of the prime minister (in this case, Ismail Haniyeh), the outgoing prime minister heads a caretaker government. *The current Legislative Council, in which Hamas holds a majority of seats, has not approved the appointments of Fayyad or the balance of his new government.* Fayyad's appointment was never placed before, or approved by it.[12] Haniyeh continues to operate as prime minister in Gaza, and is recognized by a large number of Palestinians as the legitimate acting prime minister. *Anis al-Qasem, a constitutional lawyer who drafted the Basic Law, is among those who publicly declared the appointment of Fayyad to be illegal.*[13]
> 
> Salam Fayyad - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​
> This is what was reported in the Canadian news cast
> 
> .[/QUOTE:
> 
> Most important is that the Palestinians get rid of Abbas.  With him as their leader the Palestinians can prosper living in peace & prosperity with Israel.  A threat to the security of Israel.  Whereas with Hamas, the Palestinians will continue living in ignorance & poverty.  Better for Israel & who can rightfully feel sorry for the Palestinians who they themselves elected Hamas to govern them?
> 
> Most importnt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Horsecrap!
> 
> Abbas is going onto his tenth year of a four year term and they are farther away from peace than they were back then. What has he done besides watch Israel eat up the West Bank?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why he's building up a monsterous bank account and a villa in Sharm el-Sheikh. Didn't you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, he is an oligarch.
Click to expand...


Hey, don't get so upset.  We agree .  We both want Hamas to fill Arafat's shoes in leading the Palestinians.  Arafat took the Palestinians from the toilet to the sewer, got them massacred over & over again by their own Arab brothers, embezzled their money & left them living in ignorance & poverty with no hope for a Palestinian State.  Lets face it, Abbas could never fill Arafat's shoes.  Long live Hamas.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, I guess the chronically uninformed/misinformed would not know, so here.
> 
> 
> Abbas had the authority to change the government by appointing a new PM and cabinet but he did not follow constitutional procedures. Instead, he left the government, and with the help of the US and Israel he set up an illegal government in the West Bank.
> 
> This appointment has been challenged as illegal, because while the Palestinian Basic Law permits the president to dismiss a sitting prime minister, the appointment of a replacement requires the approval of the Legislative Council. The law provides that after removal of the prime minister (in this case, Ismail Haniyeh), the outgoing prime minister heads a caretaker government. *The current Legislative Council, in which Hamas holds a majority of seats, has not approved the appointments of Fayyad or the balance of his new government.* Fayyad's appointment was never placed before, or approved by it.[12] Haniyeh continues to operate as prime minister in Gaza, and is recognized by a large number of Palestinians as the legitimate acting prime minister. *Anis al-Qasem, a constitutional lawyer who drafted the Basic Law, is among those who publicly declared the appointment of Fayyad to be illegal.*[13]
> 
> Salam Fayyad - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​
> This is what was reported in the Canadian news cast
> 
> .[/QUOTE:
> 
> Most important is that the Palestinians get rid of Abbas.  With him as their leader the Palestinians can prosper living in peace & prosperity with Israel.  A threat to the security of Israel.  Whereas with Hamas, the Palestinians will continue living in ignorance & poverty.  Better for Israel & who can rightfully feel sorry for the Palestinians who they themselves elected Hamas to govern them?
> 
> Most importnt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Horsecrap!
> 
> Abbas is going onto his tenth year of a four year term and they are farther away from peace than they were back then. What has he done besides watch Israel eat up the West Bank?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why he's building up a monsterous bank account and a villa in Sharm el-Sheikh. Didn't you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, he is an oligarch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, don't get so upset.  We agree .  We both want Hamas to fill Arafat's shoes in leading the Palestinians.  Arafat took the Palestinians from the toilet to the sewer, got them massacred over & over again by their own Arab brothers, embezzled their money & left them living in ignorance & poverty with no hope for a Palestinian State.  Lets face it, Abbas could never fill Arafat's shoes.  Long live Hamas.
Click to expand...

Arafat was an oligarch too.

The first thing Hamas did after they were elected was to call for a truce.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horsecrap!
> 
> Abbas is going onto his tenth year of a four year term and they are farther away from peace than they were back then. What has he done besides watch Israel eat up the West Bank?
> 
> 
> 
> Why he's building up a monsterous bank account and a villa in Sharm el-Sheikh. Didn't you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, he is an oligarch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, don't get so upset.  We agree .  We both want Hamas to fill Arafat's shoes in leading the Palestinians.  Arafat took the Palestinians from the toilet to the sewer, got them massacred over & over again by their own Arab brothers, embezzled their money & left them living in ignorance & poverty with no hope for a Palestinian State.  Lets face it, Abbas could never fill Arafat's shoes.  Long live Hamas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Arafat was an oligarch too.
> 
> The first thing Hamas did after they were elected was to call for a truce.
Click to expand...


  

Ya, Hamas are such peaceful people


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horsecrap!
> 
> Abbas is going onto his tenth year of a four year term and they are farther away from peace than they were back then. What has he done besides watch Israel eat up the West Bank?
> 
> 
> 
> Why he's building up a monsterous bank account and a villa in Sharm el-Sheikh. Didn't you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, he is an oligarch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, don't get so upset.  We agree .  We both want Hamas to fill Arafat's shoes in leading the Palestinians.  Arafat took the Palestinians from the toilet to the sewer, got them massacred over & over again by their own Arab brothers, embezzled their money & left them living in ignorance & poverty with no hope for a Palestinian State.  Lets face it, Abbas could never fill Arafat's shoes.  Long live Hamas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Arafat was an oligarch too.
> 
> The first thing Hamas did after they were elected was to call for a truce.
Click to expand...



But of course you fool.  They wanted time to organize their attacks & build up weapons for them.


----------



## MJB12741

So far Hamas has done a terrific job for the Palestinians.  Already Gaza is becomming a slum.  Where does all of the financial go that Hamas receives to improve Gaza & better the lives of the Palestinians?


----------



## aris2chat

MJB12741 said:


> So far Hamas has done a terrific job for the Palestinians.  Already Gaza is becomming a slum.  Where does all of the financial go that Hamas receives to improve Gaza & better the lives of the Palestinians?



PA does not want to pay the back wages of hamas members.  Hamas does not want to pay tax to the PA on fuel.  The global promise of aid money has not come through.  No one wants to give cash to hamas that might be used for waging war.  PA has not been allowed to take over operations of government in Gaza, only a few candidates have been allowed but there is no vote unless there is a unity government.
Hamas, hamas, hamas, hamas........


----------



## MJB12741

aris2chat said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far Hamas has done a terrific job for the Palestinians.  Already Gaza is becomming a slum.  Where does all of the financial go that Hamas receives to improve Gaza & better the lives of the Palestinians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PA does not want to pay the back wages of hamas members.  Hamas does not want to pay tax to the PA on fuel.  The global promise of aid money has not come through.  No one wants to give cash to hamas that might be used for waging war.  PA has not been allowed to take over operations of government in Gaza, only a few candidates have been allowed but there is no vote unless there is a unity government.
> Hamas, hamas, hamas, hamas........
Click to expand...


Oh well, at least with Hamas Israel won't make any more concessions to placate endless Palestinain demands.


----------



## Mindful

Unfortunately it’s a sad truth that the only language the Arabs understand is violence. And I say Arabs not Palestinians because there’s no such thing as Palestinians. There hasn’t been since the end of the British mandate.

http://hurryupharry.org/2014/12/25/portrait-of-a-rightist/


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh he's paid to lie.  It's another one of those Zionist plots to degrade the noble peace loving, life loving Palestinians.  You see Ray Hanania is actually an Israeli who claims to be Palestinian but somehow he just hasn't been caught yet.  Go tell your neighbors.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, he bases his tirade on false information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the truth that you don't like so claim it is false, what does he say that is false and can you prove using non partisan links that it is false
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is false is false. What I like has nothing to do with it.
> 
> What he says:
> 
> Yes, the tragedy of the Palestinians isn't that they are victims of injustice at the hands of the Israelis. It is their own tendency to destroy themselves from within.​
> He claims an internal division that does not exist.
> 
> It's true. The Palestinian leadership is a failure, and the activists who lead the hatred against Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (who is a moderate Palestinian like myself) and against anyone who dares to challenge their fanaticism are the primary causes of this failure.​
> He should know that Abbas left the government in June of 2007. Abbas is the division. The rest of the Palestinians are pretty much on the same page.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So no evidence defend your claims now why don't we find that strange
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, I guess the chronically uninformed/misinformed would not know, so here.
> 
> 
> Abbas had the authority to change the government by appointing a new PM and cabinet but he did not follow constitutional procedures. Instead, he left the government, and with the help of the US and Israel he set up an illegal government in the West Bank.
> 
> This appointment has been challenged as illegal, because while the Palestinian Basic Law permits the president to dismiss a sitting prime minister, the appointment of a replacement requires the approval of the Legislative Council. The law provides that after removal of the prime minister (in this case, Ismail Haniyeh), the outgoing prime minister heads a caretaker government. *The current Legislative Council, in which Hamas holds a majority of seats, has not approved the appointments of Fayyad or the balance of his new government.* Fayyad's appointment was never placed before, or approved by it.[12] Haniyeh continues to operate as prime minister in Gaza, and is recognized by a large number of Palestinians as the legitimate acting prime minister. *Anis al-Qasem, a constitutional lawyer who drafted the Basic Law, is among those who publicly declared the appointment of Fayyad to be illegal.*[13]
> 
> Salam Fayyad - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​
> This is what was reported in the Canadian news cast.
Click to expand...







P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the truth that you don't like so claim it is false, what does he say that is false and can you prove using non partisan links that it is false
> 
> 
> 
> What is false is false. What I like has nothing to do with it.
> 
> What he says:
> 
> Yes, the tragedy of the Palestinians isn't that they are victims of injustice at the hands of the Israelis. It is their own tendency to destroy themselves from within.​
> He claims an internal division that does not exist.
> 
> It's true. The Palestinian leadership is a failure, and the activists who lead the hatred against Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (who is a moderate Palestinian like myself) and against anyone who dares to challenge their fanaticism are the primary causes of this failure.​
> He should know that Abbas left the government in June of 2007. Abbas is the division. The rest of the Palestinians are pretty much on the same page.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So no evidence defend your claims now why don't we find that strange
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, I guess the chronically uninformed/misinformed would not know, so here.
> 
> 
> Abbas had the authority to change the government by appointing a new PM and cabinet but he did not follow constitutional procedures. Instead, he left the government, and with the help of the US and Israel he set up an illegal government in the West Bank.
> 
> This appointment has been challenged as illegal, because while the Palestinian Basic Law permits the president to dismiss a sitting prime minister, the appointment of a replacement requires the approval of the Legislative Council. The law provides that after removal of the prime minister (in this case, Ismail Haniyeh), the outgoing prime minister heads a caretaker government. *The current Legislative Council, in which Hamas holds a majority of seats, has not approved the appointments of Fayyad or the balance of his new government.* Fayyad's appointment was never placed before, or approved by it.[12] Haniyeh continues to operate as prime minister in Gaza, and is recognized by a large number of Palestinians as the legitimate acting prime minister. *Anis al-Qasem, a constitutional lawyer who drafted the Basic Law, is among those who publicly declared the appointment of Fayyad to be illegal.*[13]
> 
> Salam Fayyad - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​
> This is what was reported in the Canadian news cast
> 
> .[/QUOTE:
> 
> Most important is that the Palestinians get rid of Abbas.  With him as their leader the Palestinians can prosper living in peace & prosperity with Israel.  A threat to the security of Israel.  Whereas with Hamas, the Palestinians will continue living in ignorance & poverty.  Better for Israel & who can rightfully feel sorry for the Palestinians who they themselves elected Hamas to govern them?
> 
> Most importnt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Horsecrap!
> 
> Abbas is going onto his tenth year of a four year term and they are farther away from peace than they were back then. What has he done besides watch Israel eat up the West Bank?
Click to expand...


 Then why hasn't hamas called for a new election as the ruling majority, it is after all that simple a matter. The fact that most live outside Palestine and could easily call an EGM to put forward the date of the new election and if they have over 51% of the sitting members they don't need fatah to approve of the outcome.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the truth that you don't like so claim it is false, what does he say that is false and can you prove using non partisan links that it is false
> 
> 
> 
> What is false is false. What I like has nothing to do with it.
> 
> What he says:
> 
> Yes, the tragedy of the Palestinians isn't that they are victims of injustice at the hands of the Israelis. It is their own tendency to destroy themselves from within.​
> He claims an internal division that does not exist.
> 
> It's true. The Palestinian leadership is a failure, and the activists who lead the hatred against Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (who is a moderate Palestinian like myself) and against anyone who dares to challenge their fanaticism are the primary causes of this failure.​
> He should know that Abbas left the government in June of 2007. Abbas is the division. The rest of the Palestinians are pretty much on the same page.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So no evidence defend your claims now why don't we find that strange
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, I guess the chronically uninformed/misinformed would not know, so here.
> 
> 
> Abbas had the authority to change the government by appointing a new PM and cabinet but he did not follow constitutional procedures. Instead, he left the government, and with the help of the US and Israel he set up an illegal government in the West Bank.
> 
> This appointment has been challenged as illegal, because while the Palestinian Basic Law permits the president to dismiss a sitting prime minister, the appointment of a replacement requires the approval of the Legislative Council. The law provides that after removal of the prime minister (in this case, Ismail Haniyeh), the outgoing prime minister heads a caretaker government. *The current Legislative Council, in which Hamas holds a majority of seats, has not approved the appointments of Fayyad or the balance of his new government.* Fayyad's appointment was never placed before, or approved by it.[12] Haniyeh continues to operate as prime minister in Gaza, and is recognized by a large number of Palestinians as the legitimate acting prime minister. *Anis al-Qasem, a constitutional lawyer who drafted the Basic Law, is among those who publicly declared the appointment of Fayyad to be illegal.*[13]
> 
> Salam Fayyad - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​
> This is what was reported in the Canadian news cast
> 
> .[/QUOTE:
> 
> Most important is that the Palestinians get rid of Abbas.  With him as their leader the Palestinians can prosper living in peace & prosperity with Israel.  A threat to the security of Israel.  Whereas with Hamas, the Palestinians will continue living in ignorance & poverty.  Better for Israel & who can rightfully feel sorry for the Palestinians who they themselves elected Hamas to govern them?
> 
> Most importnt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Horsecrap!
> 
> Abbas is going onto his tenth year of a four year term and they are farther away from peace than they were back then. What has he done besides watch Israel eat up the West Bank?
Click to expand...





 What has hamas done beside incite repercussions against gaza and the deaths of thousands because of their 7c charter


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horsecrap!
> 
> Abbas is going onto his tenth year of a four year term and they are farther away from peace than they were back then. What has he done besides watch Israel eat up the West Bank?
> 
> 
> 
> Why he's building up a monsterous bank account and a villa in Sharm el-Sheikh. Didn't you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, he is an oligarch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, don't get so upset.  We agree .  We both want Hamas to fill Arafat's shoes in leading the Palestinians.  Arafat took the Palestinians from the toilet to the sewer, got them massacred over & over again by their own Arab brothers, embezzled their money & left them living in ignorance & poverty with no hope for a Palestinian State.  Lets face it, Abbas could never fill Arafat's shoes.  Long live Hamas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Arafat was an oligarch too.
> 
> The first thing Hamas did after they were elected was to call for a truce.
Click to expand...




 Did they or did they call for truce well before the elections

Hamas - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 In the January 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections, Hamas won a decisive majority in the Palestinian Parliament,[42] defeating the PLO-affiliated Fatah party. Following the elections, the Quartet (the United States, Russia, United Nations and European Union) made future foreign assistance to the PA conditional upon the future government's commitment to non-violence, recognition of the state of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements. Hamas rejected those changes, which led to the Quartet suspending its foreign assistance program and Israel imposing economic sanctions on the Hamas-led administration.[43][44] In March 2007, a national unity government headed by Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas was briefly formed, but this failed to restart international financial assistance.[45] Tensions over control of Palestinian security forces soon erupted in the 2007 Battle of Gaza,[45] after which Hamas took control of Gaza, while its officials were ousted from government positions in the West Bank.[45] Israel and Egypt then imposed an economic blockade of the Gaza Strip, on the grounds that Fatah forces were no longer providing security there.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horsecrap!
> 
> Abbas is going onto his tenth year of a four year term and they are farther away from peace than they were back then. What has he done besides watch Israel eat up the West Bank?
> 
> 
> 
> Why he's building up a monsterous bank account and a villa in Sharm el-Sheikh. Didn't you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, he is an oligarch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, don't get so upset.  We agree .  We both want Hamas to fill Arafat's shoes in leading the Palestinians.  Arafat took the Palestinians from the toilet to the sewer, got them massacred over & over again by their own Arab brothers, embezzled their money & left them living in ignorance & poverty with no hope for a Palestinian State.  Lets face it, Abbas could never fill Arafat's shoes.  Long live Hamas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Arafat was an oligarch too.
> 
> The first thing Hamas did after they were elected was to call for a truce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did they or did they call for truce well before the elections
> 
> Hamas - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> In the January 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections, Hamas won a decisive majority in the Palestinian Parliament,[42] defeating the PLO-affiliated Fatah party. Following the elections, the Quartet (the United States, Russia, United Nations and European Union) made future foreign assistance to the PA conditional upon the future government's commitment to non-violence, recognition of the state of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements. Hamas rejected those changes, which led to the Quartet suspending its foreign assistance program and Israel imposing economic sanctions on the Hamas-led administration.[43][44] In March 2007, a national unity government headed by Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas was briefly formed, but this failed to restart international financial assistance.[45] Tensions over control of Palestinian security forces soon erupted in the 2007 Battle of Gaza,[45] after which Hamas took control of Gaza, while its officials were ousted from government positions in the West Bank.[45] *Israel and Egypt then imposed an economic blockade of the Gaza Strip, on the grounds that Fatah forces were no longer providing security there.*
Click to expand...


Key point. Fatah lost the elections and were no longer the majority party in the Palestinian Authority.

It is the Palestinian Authority that is responsible for security not the losers of the elections.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horsecrap!
> 
> Abbas is going onto his tenth year of a four year term and they are farther away from peace than they were back then. What has he done besides watch Israel eat up the West Bank?
> 
> 
> 
> Why he's building up a monsterous bank account and a villa in Sharm el-Sheikh. Didn't you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, he is an oligarch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, don't get so upset.  We agree .  We both want Hamas to fill Arafat's shoes in leading the Palestinians.  Arafat took the Palestinians from the toilet to the sewer, got them massacred over & over again by their own Arab brothers, embezzled their money & left them living in ignorance & poverty with no hope for a Palestinian State.  Lets face it, Abbas could never fill Arafat's shoes.  Long live Hamas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Arafat was an oligarch too.
> 
> The first thing Hamas did after they were elected was to call for a truce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did they or did they call for truce well before the elections
> 
> Hamas - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> In the January 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections, Hamas won a decisive majority in the Palestinian Parliament,[42] defeating the PLO-affiliated Fatah party. Following the elections, the Quartet (the United States, Russia, United Nations and European Union) made future foreign assistance to the PA conditional upon the future government's commitment to non-violence, recognition of the state of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements. Hamas rejected those changes, which led to the Quartet suspending its foreign assistance program and Israel imposing economic sanctions on the Hamas-led administration.[43][44] In March 2007, a national unity government headed by Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas was briefly formed, but this failed to restart international financial assistance.[45] Tensions over control of Palestinian security forces soon erupted in the 2007 Battle of Gaza,[45] after which Hamas took control of Gaza, while its officials were ousted from government positions in the West Bank.[45] Israel and Egypt then imposed an economic blockade of the Gaza Strip, on the grounds that Fatah forces were no longer providing security there.
Click to expand...

From your link:

In March 2006, Hamas released its official legislative program. The document clearly signaled that Hamas could refer the issue of recognizing Israel to a national referendum. Under the heading "Recognition of Israel," it stated simply (AFP, 3/11/06): "The question of recognizing Israel is not the jurisdiction of one faction, nor the government, but a decision for the Palestinian people." This was a major shift away from their 1988 charter.[74] A few months later, via University of Maryland's Jerome Segal, the group sent a letter to U.S. President George W. Bush stating they "don't mind having a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders", and asked for direct negotiations: "Segal emphasized that a state within the 1967 borders and a truce for many years could be considered Hamas' _de facto_ recognition of Israel."[75]​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, he bases his tirade on false information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the truth that you don't like so claim it is false, what does he say that is false and can you prove using non partisan links that it is false
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is false is false. What I like has nothing to do with it.
> 
> What he says:
> 
> Yes, the tragedy of the Palestinians isn't that they are victims of injustice at the hands of the Israelis. It is their own tendency to destroy themselves from within.​
> He claims an internal division that does not exist.
> 
> It's true. The Palestinian leadership is a failure, and the activists who lead the hatred against Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (who is a moderate Palestinian like myself) and against anyone who dares to challenge their fanaticism are the primary causes of this failure.​
> He should know that Abbas left the government in June of 2007. Abbas is the division. The rest of the Palestinians are pretty much on the same page.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So no evidence defend your claims now why don't we find that strange
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, I guess the chronically uninformed/misinformed would not know, so here.
> 
> 
> Abbas had the authority to change the government by appointing a new PM and cabinet but he did not follow constitutional procedures. Instead, he left the government, and with the help of the US and Israel he set up an illegal government in the West Bank.
> 
> This appointment has been challenged as illegal, because while the Palestinian Basic Law permits the president to dismiss a sitting prime minister, the appointment of a replacement requires the approval of the Legislative Council. The law provides that after removal of the prime minister (in this case, Ismail Haniyeh), the outgoing prime minister heads a caretaker government. *The current Legislative Council, in which Hamas holds a majority of seats, has not approved the appointments of Fayyad or the balance of his new government.* Fayyad's appointment was never placed before, or approved by it.[12] Haniyeh continues to operate as prime minister in Gaza, and is recognized by a large number of Palestinians as the legitimate acting prime minister. *Anis al-Qasem, a constitutional lawyer who drafted the Basic Law, is among those who publicly declared the appointment of Fayyad to be illegal.*[13]
> 
> Salam Fayyad - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​
> This is what was reported in the Canadian news cast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is false is false. What I like has nothing to do with it.
> 
> What he says:
> 
> Yes, the tragedy of the Palestinians isn't that they are victims of injustice at the hands of the Israelis. It is their own tendency to destroy themselves from within.​
> He claims an internal division that does not exist.
> 
> It's true. The Palestinian leadership is a failure, and the activists who lead the hatred against Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (who is a moderate Palestinian like myself) and against anyone who dares to challenge their fanaticism are the primary causes of this failure.​
> He should know that Abbas left the government in June of 2007. Abbas is the division. The rest of the Palestinians are pretty much on the same page.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So no evidence defend your claims now why don't we find that strange
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, I guess the chronically uninformed/misinformed would not know, so here.
> 
> 
> Abbas had the authority to change the government by appointing a new PM and cabinet but he did not follow constitutional procedures. Instead, he left the government, and with the help of the US and Israel he set up an illegal government in the West Bank.
> 
> This appointment has been challenged as illegal, because while the Palestinian Basic Law permits the president to dismiss a sitting prime minister, the appointment of a replacement requires the approval of the Legislative Council. The law provides that after removal of the prime minister (in this case, Ismail Haniyeh), the outgoing prime minister heads a caretaker government. *The current Legislative Council, in which Hamas holds a majority of seats, has not approved the appointments of Fayyad or the balance of his new government.* Fayyad's appointment was never placed before, or approved by it.[12] Haniyeh continues to operate as prime minister in Gaza, and is recognized by a large number of Palestinians as the legitimate acting prime minister. *Anis al-Qasem, a constitutional lawyer who drafted the Basic Law, is among those who publicly declared the appointment of Fayyad to be illegal.*[13]
> 
> Salam Fayyad - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​
> This is what was reported in the Canadian news cast
> 
> .[/QUOTE:
> 
> Most important is that the Palestinians get rid of Abbas.  With him as their leader the Palestinians can prosper living in peace & prosperity with Israel.  A threat to the security of Israel.  Whereas with Hamas, the Palestinians will continue living in ignorance & poverty.  Better for Israel & who can rightfully feel sorry for the Palestinians who they themselves elected Hamas to govern them?
> 
> Most importnt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Horsecrap!
> 
> Abbas is going onto his tenth year of a four year term and they are farther away from peace than they were back then. What has he done besides watch Israel eat up the West Bank?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why hasn't hamas called for a new election as the ruling majority, it is after all that simple a matter. The fact that most live outside Palestine and could easily call an EGM to put forward the date of the new election and if they have over 51% of the sitting members they don't need fatah to approve of the outcome.
Click to expand...

Good question. It is the president who calls for elections. Abbas left the government in 2007. The constitutional procedure is for the speaker of parliament to temporarily assume the office of the president and call for elections within 60 days.

Abbas, with the help of the US and Israel, has not allowed that procedure to move forward.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Dr Mustafa Barghouti*

**


----------



## docmauser1

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians? Dr Mustafa Barghouti


Palistanians are a collection of mideastern arabs, who left their respective homelands dreaming of getting their "fair share" of the jewish development, of course.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why he's building up a monsterous bank account and a villa in Sharm el-Sheikh. Didn't you know?
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, he is an oligarch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, don't get so upset.  We agree .  We both want Hamas to fill Arafat's shoes in leading the Palestinians.  Arafat took the Palestinians from the toilet to the sewer, got them massacred over & over again by their own Arab brothers, embezzled their money & left them living in ignorance & poverty with no hope for a Palestinian State.  Lets face it, Abbas could never fill Arafat's shoes.  Long live Hamas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Arafat was an oligarch too.
> 
> The first thing Hamas did after they were elected was to call for a truce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did they or did they call for truce well before the elections
> 
> Hamas - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> In the January 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections, Hamas won a decisive majority in the Palestinian Parliament,[42] defeating the PLO-affiliated Fatah party. Following the elections, the Quartet (the United States, Russia, United Nations and European Union) made future foreign assistance to the PA conditional upon the future government's commitment to non-violence, recognition of the state of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements. Hamas rejected those changes, which led to the Quartet suspending its foreign assistance program and Israel imposing economic sanctions on the Hamas-led administration.[43][44] In March 2007, a national unity government headed by Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas was briefly formed, but this failed to restart international financial assistance.[45] Tensions over control of Palestinian security forces soon erupted in the 2007 Battle of Gaza,[45] after which Hamas took control of Gaza, while its officials were ousted from government positions in the West Bank.[45] *Israel and Egypt then imposed an economic blockade of the Gaza Strip, on the grounds that Fatah forces were no longer providing security there.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Key point. Fatah lost the elections and were no longer the majority party in the Palestinian Authority.
> 
> It is the Palestinian Authority that is responsible for security not the losers of the elections.
Click to expand...




 Which makesd it hamas's responsabilty seeing as they are the majority group in the P.A., but hamas refused toi take up that mantle so fatah had to do it instead. In fact hamas has done nothing that a true leadership should do plunging the palestinians into greater deprivation and poverty.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Dr Mustafa Barghouti*
> 
> **






 Just more ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA, denying the facts and blaming Israel. Can you show were the ceasefire says that Israel can not fly its planes along the border ?


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why he's building up a monsterous bank account and a villa in Sharm el-Sheikh. Didn't you know?
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, he is an oligarch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, don't get so upset.  We agree .  We both want Hamas to fill Arafat's shoes in leading the Palestinians.  Arafat took the Palestinians from the toilet to the sewer, got them massacred over & over again by their own Arab brothers, embezzled their money & left them living in ignorance & poverty with no hope for a Palestinian State.  Lets face it, Abbas could never fill Arafat's shoes.  Long live Hamas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Arafat was an oligarch too.
> 
> The first thing Hamas did after they were elected was to call for a truce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did they or did they call for truce well before the elections
> 
> Hamas - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> In the January 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections, Hamas won a decisive majority in the Palestinian Parliament,[42] defeating the PLO-affiliated Fatah party. Following the elections, the Quartet (the United States, Russia, United Nations and European Union) made future foreign assistance to the PA conditional upon the future government's commitment to non-violence, recognition of the state of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements. Hamas rejected those changes, which led to the Quartet suspending its foreign assistance program and Israel imposing economic sanctions on the Hamas-led administration.[43][44] In March 2007, a national unity government headed by Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas was briefly formed, but this failed to restart international financial assistance.[45] Tensions over control of Palestinian security forces soon erupted in the 2007 Battle of Gaza,[45] after which Hamas took control of Gaza, while its officials were ousted from government positions in the West Bank.[45] *Israel and Egypt then imposed an economic blockade of the Gaza Strip, on the grounds that Fatah forces were no longer providing security there.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Key point. Fatah lost the elections and were no longer the majority party in the Palestinian Authority.
> 
> It is the Palestinian Authority that is responsible for security not the losers of the elections.
Click to expand...



What right does Abbas & his damn Fatah party have to even interfere?  We need Hamas in full control to insure ignorance & poverty & death for the Palestinians with no hope for a Palestinian State.


----------



## aris2chat

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, he is an oligarch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, don't get so upset.  We agree .  We both want Hamas to fill Arafat's shoes in leading the Palestinians.  Arafat took the Palestinians from the toilet to the sewer, got them massacred over & over again by their own Arab brothers, embezzled their money & left them living in ignorance & poverty with no hope for a Palestinian State.  Lets face it, Abbas could never fill Arafat's shoes.  Long live Hamas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Arafat was an oligarch too.
> 
> The first thing Hamas did after they were elected was to call for a truce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did they or did they call for truce well before the elections
> 
> Hamas - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> In the January 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections, Hamas won a decisive majority in the Palestinian Parliament,[42] defeating the PLO-affiliated Fatah party. Following the elections, the Quartet (the United States, Russia, United Nations and European Union) made future foreign assistance to the PA conditional upon the future government's commitment to non-violence, recognition of the state of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements. Hamas rejected those changes, which led to the Quartet suspending its foreign assistance program and Israel imposing economic sanctions on the Hamas-led administration.[43][44] In March 2007, a national unity government headed by Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas was briefly formed, but this failed to restart international financial assistance.[45] Tensions over control of Palestinian security forces soon erupted in the 2007 Battle of Gaza,[45] after which Hamas took control of Gaza, while its officials were ousted from government positions in the West Bank.[45] *Israel and Egypt then imposed an economic blockade of the Gaza Strip, on the grounds that Fatah forces were no longer providing security there.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Key point. Fatah lost the elections and were no longer the majority party in the Palestinian Authority.
> 
> It is the Palestinian Authority that is responsible for security not the losers of the elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What right does Abbas & his damn Fatah party have to even interfere?  We need Hamas in full control to insure ignorance & poverty & death for the Palestinians with no hope for a Palestinian State.
Click to expand...


If abbas goes to the UN and there is support, Israel will annex parts of the WB.  The so called palestinian state that abbas wants will be what they control now, not the whole area of the WB.  Hamas is not part of the PA as far as they are concerned, they try to discuss a unity government but then it falls apart.  They cannot agree.  There are moves by hamas to have abbas impeached from office if he does try to go to the UN on his own.  Hamas does not want a UN vote.  In the end the more angry and suffering the palestinians the greater the chance they will turn to hamas and away from the PLO.


----------



## MJB12741

aris2chat said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, don't get so upset.  We agree .  We both want Hamas to fill Arafat's shoes in leading the Palestinians.  Arafat took the Palestinians from the toilet to the sewer, got them massacred over & over again by their own Arab brothers, embezzled their money & left them living in ignorance & poverty with no hope for a Palestinian State.  Lets face it, Abbas could never fill Arafat's shoes.  Long live Hamas.
> 
> 
> 
> Arafat was an oligarch too.
> 
> The first thing Hamas did after they were elected was to call for a truce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did they or did they call for truce well before the elections
> 
> Hamas - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> In the January 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections, Hamas won a decisive majority in the Palestinian Parliament,[42] defeating the PLO-affiliated Fatah party. Following the elections, the Quartet (the United States, Russia, United Nations and European Union) made future foreign assistance to the PA conditional upon the future government's commitment to non-violence, recognition of the state of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements. Hamas rejected those changes, which led to the Quartet suspending its foreign assistance program and Israel imposing economic sanctions on the Hamas-led administration.[43][44] In March 2007, a national unity government headed by Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas was briefly formed, but this failed to restart international financial assistance.[45] Tensions over control of Palestinian security forces soon erupted in the 2007 Battle of Gaza,[45] after which Hamas took control of Gaza, while its officials were ousted from government positions in the West Bank.[45] *Israel and Egypt then imposed an economic blockade of the Gaza Strip, on the grounds that Fatah forces were no longer providing security there.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Key point. Fatah lost the elections and were no longer the majority party in the Palestinian Authority.
> 
> It is the Palestinian Authority that is responsible for security not the losers of the elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What right does Abbas & his damn Fatah party have to even interfere?  We need Hamas in full control to insure ignorance & poverty & death for the Palestinians with no hope for a Palestinian State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If abbas goes to the UN and there is support, Israel will annex parts of the WB.  The so called palestinian state that abbas wants will be what they control now, not the whole area of the WB.  Hamas is not part of the PA as far as they are concerned, they try to discuss a unity government but then it falls apart.  They cannot agree.  There are moves by hamas to have abbas impeached from office if he does try to go to the UN on his own.  Hamas does not want a UN vote.  In the end the more angry and suffering the palestinians the greater the chance they will turn to hamas and away from the PLO.
Click to expand...


Abbas & his Fatah party is a thorn on Israel to meet endless Palestinian demands.  With Hamas in sole goverment of the Palis, all that is over.  Bye bye Abbas.  LONG LIVE HAMAS!


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Nadia Hijab*

**


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Nadia Hijab*
> 
> **






 The name says it all


----------



## MJB12741

Who Are The Palestinians?  Latest from Hamas:  Are they Palestinians???

Hamas bars Gaza children from Israel trip - Yahoo News


----------



## MJB12741

Are these Palestinians?

http://commentisfreewatch.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/al-aqsa_martyrs_brigade.jpg


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

Laila El-Haddad, Dr. Rafeef Ziadeh, Mohamed Zeyara


----------



## MJB12741

Once again history has proven that Palestinians will be Palestinians.

Photos Palestinians Celebrate Hand Out Candy After Synagogue Terror Attack TheBlaze.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Shireen Said of the PFLP*






But the recent 42nd anniversary rally of the PFLP in Gaza that attracted some 70,000 people raised the profile of the Palestinian revolutionary left and also of the role of women when one young woman called Shireen Said of the PFLP stood on stage giving a salute in military fatigues and was co-chair of the rally alongside her male comrade and co-chair of the PFLP rally. In an interview with the writer Said explained a little about her background, stating that she was born in 1985 Jabalya refugee camp, from which the ‘children of the stones’ started the first Intifada, “my childhood memories are mostly of the first Intifada” she explains. In her early teens she became involved in one of the student movements associated with the PFLP.

Said explains further about herself, “I studied my Bachelor in Sport at Al-Aqsa University. I worked at Progressive Student Labour Front with lots of comrades until I got the position of secretary at the students union. I was the first young woman in Gaza to get this position via democratic elections at the university. After my graduation I worked in the committees of the Union of Palestinian Women which is part of a progressive feminist struggle for women’s liberation and to bring them together and on an equal footing with men in all fields of national and democratic reform. Along with my professional work in many non-governmental organizations as an activist in youth issues, I am now a board member of the Palestinian Progressive Youth Union and I study my Masters in Education at Al-Azhar University.”

Palestinian Revolutionaries on International Women s Day


----------



## MJB12741

Who are the Palestinians?  

On This Day Palestinian Terrorists Kill Israeli Athletes in Munich Massacre


----------



## Mindful

The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus.


The birth and life of Jesus has been hijacked by the Palestinian movement, which seeks to portray Jesus as a Palestinian, writes this Noahide Christian. This effort is often referred to as Christian Palestinianism.

The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus - Op-Eds - Arutz Sheva


----------



## Mindful

*We’re like Nazis huh: Israel sends 778 trucks packed with goods into Gaza despite continued rocket fire, the Tazpit News Agency reported.*


* We 8217 re like Nazis huh Israel sends 778 trucks packed with goods into Gaza despite continued rocket fire*


----------



## P F Tinmore

Mindful said:


> The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus.
> 
> 
> The birth and life of Jesus has been hijacked by the Palestinian movement, which seeks to portray Jesus as a Palestinian, writes this Noahide Christian. This effort is often referred to as Christian Palestinianism.
> 
> The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus - Op-Eds - Arutz Sheva


The maps in the back of my Bible call the place Palestine. Preachers call the place Palestine in their sermons.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus.
> 
> 
> The birth and life of Jesus has been hijacked by the Palestinian movement, which seeks to portray Jesus as a Palestinian, writes this Noahide Christian. This effort is often referred to as Christian Palestinianism.
> 
> The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus - Op-Eds - Arutz Sheva
> 
> 
> 
> The maps in the back of my Bible call the place Palestine. Preachers call the place Palestine in their sermons.
Click to expand...



Yes but not the nation of Palestine.

  Maps call the Gobi the Gobi but it does not make it a nation


----------



## Mindful

P F Tinmore said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus.
> 
> 
> The birth and life of Jesus has been hijacked by the Palestinian movement, which seeks to portray Jesus as a Palestinian, writes this Noahide Christian. This effort is often referred to as Christian Palestinianism.
> 
> The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus - Op-Eds - Arutz Sheva
> 
> 
> 
> The maps in the back of my Bible call the place Palestine. Preachers call the place Palestine in their sermons.
Click to expand...


I don't know how many times we've explained how that name came about.


----------



## RoccoR

Mindful, P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

It is merely a territorial reference name; ---- its meaning buried in the context of the historical association.



Mindful said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus.
> 
> 
> The birth and life of Jesus has been hijacked by the Palestinian movement, which seeks to portray Jesus as a Palestinian, writes this Noahide Christian. This effort is often referred to as Christian Palestinianism.
> 
> The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus - Op-Eds - Arutz Sheva
> 
> 
> 
> The maps in the back of my Bible call the place Palestine. Preachers call the place Palestine in their sermons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know how many times we've explained how that name came about.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The entire basis of the discussion is about the historical connection established.  The question of --- "Who are the Palestinians" --- is an argument that has little or no bearing on the issues of the day.  Who they are today, is defined by what they manage to control today _(which is a deeper question - that may have an answer that they are not proud of)_.  In the 20th century, we've seen two dozen Empires and Dynasties change; one of which was the Ottoman Empire ---  the origins of which can be traced back to the late 11th century and the Turkic Emirates of Anatolian Beyliks.  At the turn of the 19th-to-20th Century, much of what we call "Palestine" today was under the administration of the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem --- a S_anjak_ within the Syria Vilayet [_(Damsacus) of the Ottoman Empire]_.   There was no political subdivision known as "Palestine" with the Ottoman Empire --- not for 500 years.  "Palestine" was a "regional" name denoting the administrative divisions covered by the Sanjak of Nablus, Sanjak of Acre, and the Mutasarrfate of Jerusalem _(Special Ottoman District)_.  _(Note: This is historically why today, both the State of Israel (circa 1967) and the State of Palestine (circa 1988) each claim Jerusalem as their respective capitals.)_

Administrative divisions of the Mutasarrifate (1872-1909):

*Beersheba Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا بءرالسبع*; Turkish: _Birüsseb' kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء بئر السبع*‎), which included two sub-districts and a municipality:
a-Hafir (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه حفير*; Turkish: _Hafır nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية عوجة الحفير*‎), created in 1908 as a middle point between Beersheba and Aqaba, close to the newly agreed border with Sinai[15]
al-Mulayha, created in 1908 as a midway point between Hafir and Aqaba
Beersheba (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية بءرالسبع*; Turkish: _Birüsseb' belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية بئر السبع*‎), created in 1901


*Gaza Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا غزّه*; Turkish: _Gazze kazası_ ; Arabic: *قضاء غزة*‎), which included three sub-districts and a municipality:
Al-Faluja (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه فلوجه*; Turkish: _Felluce nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية الفالوجة*‎), created in 1903
Khan Yunis (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه خان يونس*; Turkish: _Hanyunus nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية خان يونس*‎), created in 1903 and became a municipality in 1917
al-Majdal (Ottoman Turkish: *... ناحيه*; Turkish: _Mücdel nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية المجدل*‎), created in 1880
Gaza (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية غزّه*; Turkish: _Gazze belediyesı_ ; Arabic: *بلدية غزة*‎), created in 1893


*Hebron Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا خليل الرحمن*; Turkish: _Halilü'r Rahman kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء الخليل*‎), which included two sub-districts and a municipality:
Bayt 'Itab (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه بيت اعطاب*; Turkish: _Beyt-i a'tâb nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية بيت عطاب*‎), created in 1903
Bayt Jibrin (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه بيت جبرين*; Turkish: _Beyt-i Cireyn nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية بيت جبرين*‎), created in 1903
Hebron (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية خليل الرحمن*; Turkish: _Halilü'r Rahman belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية الخليل*‎), created in 1886


*Jaffa Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا يافه*; Turkish: _Yafa kazası_ ; Arabic: *قضاء يَافَا*‎), which included two sub-districts and a municipality:
Ni'lin (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه نعلين*; Turkish: _Na’leyn nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية نعلين*‎),created in 1903
Ramla (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه رمله*; Turkish: _Remle nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية الرملة*‎), created in 1880, became municipality before 1888 and re-established as sub-district in 1889
Lydda (Ottoman Turkish: *... بلدية*; Turkish: _Lod belediyesı_ ; Arabic: *... بلدية*‎)


*Jerusalem Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا قدس*; Turkish: _Kudüs-i Şerif kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء القدس الشريف*‎), which included four sub-districts and two municipalities:
Abwein (Ottoman Turkish: *... ناحيه*; Turkish: _Abaveyn nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية عبوين*‎), created in 1903;
Bethlehem (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه بيت اللحم*; Turkish: _Beytü'l lahim nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية بيت لحم*‎), created in 1883 and became a municipality in 1894;
Ramallah (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه رام الله*; Turkish: _Ramallah nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية رام الله*‎), created in 1903 and became a municipality in 1911,
Saffa (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه صفا*; Turkish: _Safa nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية صفّا*‎),
Jerusalem (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية قدس*; Turkish: _Kudüs-i Şerif belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية القدس الشريف*‎), created in 1867 and
Beit Jala (Ottoman Turkish: *... بلدية*; Turkish: _... belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية بيت جالا*‎),created in 1912.


*Nazareth Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا الْنَاصِرَة*; Turkish: _Nasra kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء الْنَاصِرَة*‎), established 1906.

Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem

The Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem (Ottoman Turkish: Kudüs-i Şerif Mutasarrıflığı; Arabic: متصرفية القدس الشريف‎), also known as the Sanjak of Jerusalem was an Ottoman district with special administrative status established in 1872. The district encompassed Jerusalem as well as the other major cities of Gaza, Jaffa, Hebron, Bethlehem and Beersheba. During the late Ottoman period, the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, together with the Sanjak of Nablus and Sanjak of Acre, formed the region that was commonly referred to as "Southern Syria" or "Palestine".​ 
The pro-Jihadists that wish to turn the question into an argument over the sovereign rights to the territory are merely attempting to grasp at straws to suggest there is a moral and historical obligation to recognize the Palestinians as a people and a nation.  It has nothing to do with the evolution over time of the territorial control over the land parcel.  Historically, there are very - very - few territories in the world that have not undergone an evolutionary change in sovereignty and the complexion of governmental control.  The area, formerly known as the territory under the Mandate for Palestine, is a land parcel that has changed sovereign control many - many times.  

Today, we are discussing the consequences to the evolution of territorial control in the last half century (since 1948).  While I find it interesting at how some might re-interpret the historical connections, it has nothing to do with the evolution as viewed today in terms of recognition of sovereignty and control.  No matter how the contemporary Palestinian might view history, or whether they recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel --- it exists.  

The issue of the day is not whether there is a historical connection --- it is not a matter of recognition --- it is not a matter of legitimacy...  It is a matter of reestablishing regional peace and the neutralization of radical Islamic influences and Jihadist activity.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Mindful, P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> It is merely a territorial reference name; ---- its meaning buried in the context of the historical association.
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus.
> 
> 
> The birth and life of Jesus has been hijacked by the Palestinian movement, which seeks to portray Jesus as a Palestinian, writes this Noahide Christian. This effort is often referred to as Christian Palestinianism.
> 
> The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus - Op-Eds - Arutz Sheva
> 
> 
> 
> The maps in the back of my Bible call the place Palestine. Preachers call the place Palestine in their sermons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know how many times we've explained how that name came about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The entire basis of the discussion is about the historical connection established.  The question of --- "Who are the Palestinians" --- is an argument that has little or no bearing on the issues of the day.  Who they are today, is defined by what they manage to control today _(which is a deeper question - that may have an answer that they are not proud of)_.  In the 20th century, we've seen two dozen Empires and Dynasties change; one of which was the Ottoman Empire ---  the origins of which can be traced back to the late 11th century and the Turkic Emirates of Anatolian Beyliks.  At the turn of the 19th-to-20th Century, much of what we call "Palestine" today was under the administration of the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem --- a S_anjak_ within the Syria Vilayet [_(Damsacus) of the Ottoman Empire]_.   There was no political subdivision known as "Palestine" with the Ottoman Empire --- not for 500 years.  "Palestine" was a "regional" name denoting the administrative divisions covered by the Sanjak of Nablus, Sanjak of Acre, and the Mutasarrfate of Jerusalem _(Special Ottoman District)_.  _(Note: This is historically why today, both the State of Israel (circa 1967) and the State of Palestine (circa 1988) each claim Jerusalem as their respective capitals.)_
> 
> Administrative divisions of the Mutasarrifate (1872-1909):
> 
> *Beersheba Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا بءرالسبع*; Turkish: _Birüsseb' kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء بئر السبع*‎), which included two sub-districts and a municipality:
> a-Hafir (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه حفير*; Turkish: _Hafır nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية عوجة الحفير*‎), created in 1908 as a middle point between Beersheba and Aqaba, close to the newly agreed border with Sinai[15]
> al-Mulayha, created in 1908 as a midway point between Hafir and Aqaba
> Beersheba (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية بءرالسبع*; Turkish: _Birüsseb' belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية بئر السبع*‎), created in 1901
> 
> 
> *Gaza Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا غزّه*; Turkish: _Gazze kazası_ ; Arabic: *قضاء غزة*‎), which included three sub-districts and a municipality:
> Al-Faluja (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه فلوجه*; Turkish: _Felluce nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية الفالوجة*‎), created in 1903
> Khan Yunis (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه خان يونس*; Turkish: _Hanyunus nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية خان يونس*‎), created in 1903 and became a municipality in 1917
> al-Majdal (Ottoman Turkish: *... ناحيه*; Turkish: _Mücdel nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية المجدل*‎), created in 1880
> Gaza (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية غزّه*; Turkish: _Gazze belediyesı_ ; Arabic: *بلدية غزة*‎), created in 1893
> 
> 
> *Hebron Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا خليل الرحمن*; Turkish: _Halilü'r Rahman kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء الخليل*‎), which included two sub-districts and a municipality:
> Bayt 'Itab (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه بيت اعطاب*; Turkish: _Beyt-i a'tâb nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية بيت عطاب*‎), created in 1903
> Bayt Jibrin (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه بيت جبرين*; Turkish: _Beyt-i Cireyn nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية بيت جبرين*‎), created in 1903
> Hebron (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية خليل الرحمن*; Turkish: _Halilü'r Rahman belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية الخليل*‎), created in 1886
> 
> 
> *Jaffa Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا يافه*; Turkish: _Yafa kazası_ ; Arabic: *قضاء يَافَا*‎), which included two sub-districts and a municipality:
> Ni'lin (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه نعلين*; Turkish: _Na’leyn nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية نعلين*‎),created in 1903
> Ramla (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه رمله*; Turkish: _Remle nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية الرملة*‎), created in 1880, became municipality before 1888 and re-established as sub-district in 1889
> Lydda (Ottoman Turkish: *... بلدية*; Turkish: _Lod belediyesı_ ; Arabic: *... بلدية*‎)
> 
> 
> *Jerusalem Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا قدس*; Turkish: _Kudüs-i Şerif kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء القدس الشريف*‎), which included four sub-districts and two municipalities:
> Abwein (Ottoman Turkish: *... ناحيه*; Turkish: _Abaveyn nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية عبوين*‎), created in 1903;
> Bethlehem (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه بيت اللحم*; Turkish: _Beytü'l lahim nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية بيت لحم*‎), created in 1883 and became a municipality in 1894;
> Ramallah (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه رام الله*; Turkish: _Ramallah nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية رام الله*‎), created in 1903 and became a municipality in 1911,
> Saffa (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه صفا*; Turkish: _Safa nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية صفّا*‎),
> Jerusalem (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية قدس*; Turkish: _Kudüs-i Şerif belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية القدس الشريف*‎), created in 1867 and
> Beit Jala (Ottoman Turkish: *... بلدية*; Turkish: _... belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية بيت جالا*‎),created in 1912.
> 
> 
> *Nazareth Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا الْنَاصِرَة*; Turkish: _Nasra kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء الْنَاصِرَة*‎), established 1906.
> Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem
> 
> The Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem (Ottoman Turkish: Kudüs-i Şerif Mutasarrıflığı; Arabic: متصرفية القدس الشريف‎), also known as the Sanjak of Jerusalem was an Ottoman district with special administrative status established in 1872. The district encompassed Jerusalem as well as the other major cities of Gaza, Jaffa, Hebron, Bethlehem and Beersheba. During the late Ottoman period, the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, together with the Sanjak of Nablus and Sanjak of Acre, formed the region that was commonly referred to as "Southern Syria" or "Palestine".​
> The pro-Jihadists that wish to turn the question into an argument over the sovereign rights to the territory are merely attempting to grasp at straws to suggest there is a moral and historical obligation to recognize the Palestinians as a people and a nation.  It has nothing to do with the evolution over time of the territorial control over the land parcel.  Historically, there are very - very - few territories in the world that have not undergone an evolutionary change in sovereignty and the complexion of governmental control.  The area, formerly known as the territory under the Mandate for Palestine, is a land parcel that has changed sovereign control many - many times.
> 
> Today, we are discussing the consequences to the evolution of territorial control in the last half century (since 1948).  While I find it interesting at how some might re-interpret the historical connections, it has nothing to do with the evolution as viewed today in terms of recognition of sovereignty and control.  No matter how the contemporary Palestinian might view history, or whether they recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel --- it exists.
> 
> The issue of the day is not whether there is a historical connection --- it is not a matter of recognition --- it is not a matter of legitimacy...  It is a matter of reestablishing regional peace and the neutralization of radical Islamic influences and Jihadist activity.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Palestine is Palestine by law. Its international borders were defined by post war treaties.

Palestinians are Palestinians by law.
-----------------
Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful, P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> It is merely a territorial reference name; ---- its meaning buried in the context of the historical association.
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus.
> 
> 
> The birth and life of Jesus has been hijacked by the Palestinian movement, which seeks to portray Jesus as a Palestinian, writes this Noahide Christian. This effort is often referred to as Christian Palestinianism.
> 
> The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus - Op-Eds - Arutz Sheva
> 
> 
> 
> The maps in the back of my Bible call the place Palestine. Preachers call the place Palestine in their sermons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know how many times we've explained how that name came about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The entire basis of the discussion is about the historical connection established.  The question of --- "Who are the Palestinians" --- is an argument that has little or no bearing on the issues of the day.  Who they are today, is defined by what they manage to control today _(which is a deeper question - that may have an answer that they are not proud of)_.  In the 20th century, we've seen two dozen Empires and Dynasties change; one of which was the Ottoman Empire ---  the origins of which can be traced back to the late 11th century and the Turkic Emirates of Anatolian Beyliks.  At the turn of the 19th-to-20th Century, much of what we call "Palestine" today was under the administration of the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem --- a S_anjak_ within the Syria Vilayet [_(Damsacus) of the Ottoman Empire]_.   There was no political subdivision known as "Palestine" with the Ottoman Empire --- not for 500 years.  "Palestine" was a "regional" name denoting the administrative divisions covered by the Sanjak of Nablus, Sanjak of Acre, and the Mutasarrfate of Jerusalem _(Special Ottoman District)_.  _(Note: This is historically why today, both the State of Israel (circa 1967) and the State of Palestine (circa 1988) each claim Jerusalem as their respective capitals.)_
> 
> Administrative divisions of the Mutasarrifate (1872-1909):
> 
> *Beersheba Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا بءرالسبع*; Turkish: _Birüsseb' kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء بئر السبع*‎), which included two sub-districts and a municipality:
> a-Hafir (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه حفير*; Turkish: _Hafır nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية عوجة الحفير*‎), created in 1908 as a middle point between Beersheba and Aqaba, close to the newly agreed border with Sinai[15]
> al-Mulayha, created in 1908 as a midway point between Hafir and Aqaba
> Beersheba (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية بءرالسبع*; Turkish: _Birüsseb' belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية بئر السبع*‎), created in 1901
> 
> 
> *Gaza Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا غزّه*; Turkish: _Gazze kazası_ ; Arabic: *قضاء غزة*‎), which included three sub-districts and a municipality:
> Al-Faluja (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه فلوجه*; Turkish: _Felluce nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية الفالوجة*‎), created in 1903
> Khan Yunis (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه خان يونس*; Turkish: _Hanyunus nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية خان يونس*‎), created in 1903 and became a municipality in 1917
> al-Majdal (Ottoman Turkish: *... ناحيه*; Turkish: _Mücdel nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية المجدل*‎), created in 1880
> Gaza (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية غزّه*; Turkish: _Gazze belediyesı_ ; Arabic: *بلدية غزة*‎), created in 1893
> 
> 
> *Hebron Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا خليل الرحمن*; Turkish: _Halilü'r Rahman kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء الخليل*‎), which included two sub-districts and a municipality:
> Bayt 'Itab (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه بيت اعطاب*; Turkish: _Beyt-i a'tâb nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية بيت عطاب*‎), created in 1903
> Bayt Jibrin (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه بيت جبرين*; Turkish: _Beyt-i Cireyn nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية بيت جبرين*‎), created in 1903
> Hebron (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية خليل الرحمن*; Turkish: _Halilü'r Rahman belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية الخليل*‎), created in 1886
> 
> 
> *Jaffa Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا يافه*; Turkish: _Yafa kazası_ ; Arabic: *قضاء يَافَا*‎), which included two sub-districts and a municipality:
> Ni'lin (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه نعلين*; Turkish: _Na’leyn nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية نعلين*‎),created in 1903
> Ramla (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه رمله*; Turkish: _Remle nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية الرملة*‎), created in 1880, became municipality before 1888 and re-established as sub-district in 1889
> Lydda (Ottoman Turkish: *... بلدية*; Turkish: _Lod belediyesı_ ; Arabic: *... بلدية*‎)
> 
> 
> *Jerusalem Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا قدس*; Turkish: _Kudüs-i Şerif kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء القدس الشريف*‎), which included four sub-districts and two municipalities:
> Abwein (Ottoman Turkish: *... ناحيه*; Turkish: _Abaveyn nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية عبوين*‎), created in 1903;
> Bethlehem (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه بيت اللحم*; Turkish: _Beytü'l lahim nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية بيت لحم*‎), created in 1883 and became a municipality in 1894;
> Ramallah (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه رام الله*; Turkish: _Ramallah nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية رام الله*‎), created in 1903 and became a municipality in 1911,
> Saffa (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه صفا*; Turkish: _Safa nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية صفّا*‎),
> Jerusalem (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية قدس*; Turkish: _Kudüs-i Şerif belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية القدس الشريف*‎), created in 1867 and
> Beit Jala (Ottoman Turkish: *... بلدية*; Turkish: _... belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية بيت جالا*‎),created in 1912.
> 
> 
> *Nazareth Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا الْنَاصِرَة*; Turkish: _Nasra kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء الْنَاصِرَة*‎), established 1906.
> Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem
> 
> The Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem (Ottoman Turkish: Kudüs-i Şerif Mutasarrıflığı; Arabic: متصرفية القدس الشريف‎), also known as the Sanjak of Jerusalem was an Ottoman district with special administrative status established in 1872. The district encompassed Jerusalem as well as the other major cities of Gaza, Jaffa, Hebron, Bethlehem and Beersheba. During the late Ottoman period, the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, together with the Sanjak of Nablus and Sanjak of Acre, formed the region that was commonly referred to as "Southern Syria" or "Palestine".​
> The pro-Jihadists that wish to turn the question into an argument over the sovereign rights to the territory are merely attempting to grasp at straws to suggest there is a moral and historical obligation to recognize the Palestinians as a people and a nation.  It has nothing to do with the evolution over time of the territorial control over the land parcel.  Historically, there are very - very - few territories in the world that have not undergone an evolutionary change in sovereignty and the complexion of governmental control.  The area, formerly known as the territory under the Mandate for Palestine, is a land parcel that has changed sovereign control many - many times.
> 
> Today, we are discussing the consequences to the evolution of territorial control in the last half century (since 1948).  While I find it interesting at how some might re-interpret the historical connections, it has nothing to do with the evolution as viewed today in terms of recognition of sovereignty and control.  No matter how the contemporary Palestinian might view history, or whether they recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel --- it exists.
> 
> The issue of the day is not whether there is a historical connection --- it is not a matter of recognition --- it is not a matter of legitimacy...  It is a matter of reestablishing regional peace and the neutralization of radical Islamic influences and Jihadist activity.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine is Palestine by law. Its international borders were defined by post war treaties.
> 
> Palestinians are Palestinians by law.
> -----------------
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
Click to expand...


No it wasn't you liar. Like I already proved, the treaty of Lausanne says that the issue of Palestine was to be taken care of by those involved. 

Please show me where it says anywhere that Palestines borders were defined by post war treaties?


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus.
> 
> 
> The birth and life of Jesus has been hijacked by the Palestinian movement, which seeks to portray Jesus as a Palestinian, writes this Noahide Christian. This effort is often referred to as Christian Palestinianism.
> 
> The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus - Op-Eds - Arutz Sheva
> 
> 
> 
> The maps in the back of my Bible call the place Palestine. Preachers call the place Palestine in their sermons.[/QUOTE
> 
> Now THAT'S funny! .  Noel Noel Noel Noel, born is the king of PALESTINE.   Ya gotta love Tinmore for all the laughs he gives us.  Heh Heh!
Click to expand...


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful, P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> It is merely a territorial reference name; ---- its meaning buried in the context of the historical association.
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus.
> 
> 
> The birth and life of Jesus has been hijacked by the Palestinian movement, which seeks to portray Jesus as a Palestinian, writes this Noahide Christian. This effort is often referred to as Christian Palestinianism.
> 
> The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus - Op-Eds - Arutz Sheva
> 
> 
> 
> The maps in the back of my Bible call the place Palestine. Preachers call the place Palestine in their sermons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know how many times we've explained how that name came about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The entire basis of the discussion is about the historical connection established.  The question of --- "Who are the Palestinians" --- is an argument that has little or no bearing on the issues of the day.  Who they are today, is defined by what they manage to control today _(which is a deeper question - that may have an answer that they are not proud of)_.  In the 20th century, we've seen two dozen Empires and Dynasties change; one of which was the Ottoman Empire ---  the origins of which can be traced back to the late 11th century and the Turkic Emirates of Anatolian Beyliks.  At the turn of the 19th-to-20th Century, much of what we call "Palestine" today was under the administration of the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem --- a S_anjak_ within the Syria Vilayet [_(Damsacus) of the Ottoman Empire]_.   There was no political subdivision known as "Palestine" with the Ottoman Empire --- not for 500 years.  "Palestine" was a "regional" name denoting the administrative divisions covered by the Sanjak of Nablus, Sanjak of Acre, and the Mutasarrfate of Jerusalem _(Special Ottoman District)_.  _(Note: This is historically why today, both the State of Israel (circa 1967) and the State of Palestine (circa 1988) each claim Jerusalem as their respective capitals.)_
> 
> Administrative divisions of the Mutasarrifate (1872-1909):
> 
> *Beersheba Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا بءرالسبع*; Turkish: _Birüsseb' kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء بئر السبع*‎), which included two sub-districts and a municipality:
> a-Hafir (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه حفير*; Turkish: _Hafır nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية عوجة الحفير*‎), created in 1908 as a middle point between Beersheba and Aqaba, close to the newly agreed border with Sinai[15]
> al-Mulayha, created in 1908 as a midway point between Hafir and Aqaba
> Beersheba (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية بءرالسبع*; Turkish: _Birüsseb' belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية بئر السبع*‎), created in 1901
> 
> 
> *Gaza Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا غزّه*; Turkish: _Gazze kazası_ ; Arabic: *قضاء غزة*‎), which included three sub-districts and a municipality:
> Al-Faluja (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه فلوجه*; Turkish: _Felluce nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية الفالوجة*‎), created in 1903
> Khan Yunis (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه خان يونس*; Turkish: _Hanyunus nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية خان يونس*‎), created in 1903 and became a municipality in 1917
> al-Majdal (Ottoman Turkish: *... ناحيه*; Turkish: _Mücdel nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية المجدل*‎), created in 1880
> Gaza (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية غزّه*; Turkish: _Gazze belediyesı_ ; Arabic: *بلدية غزة*‎), created in 1893
> 
> 
> *Hebron Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا خليل الرحمن*; Turkish: _Halilü'r Rahman kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء الخليل*‎), which included two sub-districts and a municipality:
> Bayt 'Itab (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه بيت اعطاب*; Turkish: _Beyt-i a'tâb nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية بيت عطاب*‎), created in 1903
> Bayt Jibrin (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه بيت جبرين*; Turkish: _Beyt-i Cireyn nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية بيت جبرين*‎), created in 1903
> Hebron (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية خليل الرحمن*; Turkish: _Halilü'r Rahman belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية الخليل*‎), created in 1886
> 
> 
> *Jaffa Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا يافه*; Turkish: _Yafa kazası_ ; Arabic: *قضاء يَافَا*‎), which included two sub-districts and a municipality:
> Ni'lin (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه نعلين*; Turkish: _Na’leyn nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية نعلين*‎),created in 1903
> Ramla (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه رمله*; Turkish: _Remle nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية الرملة*‎), created in 1880, became municipality before 1888 and re-established as sub-district in 1889
> Lydda (Ottoman Turkish: *... بلدية*; Turkish: _Lod belediyesı_ ; Arabic: *... بلدية*‎)
> 
> 
> *Jerusalem Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا قدس*; Turkish: _Kudüs-i Şerif kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء القدس الشريف*‎), which included four sub-districts and two municipalities:
> Abwein (Ottoman Turkish: *... ناحيه*; Turkish: _Abaveyn nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية عبوين*‎), created in 1903;
> Bethlehem (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه بيت اللحم*; Turkish: _Beytü'l lahim nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية بيت لحم*‎), created in 1883 and became a municipality in 1894;
> Ramallah (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه رام الله*; Turkish: _Ramallah nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية رام الله*‎), created in 1903 and became a municipality in 1911,
> Saffa (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه صفا*; Turkish: _Safa nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية صفّا*‎),
> Jerusalem (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية قدس*; Turkish: _Kudüs-i Şerif belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية القدس الشريف*‎), created in 1867 and
> Beit Jala (Ottoman Turkish: *... بلدية*; Turkish: _... belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية بيت جالا*‎),created in 1912.
> 
> 
> *Nazareth Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا الْنَاصِرَة*; Turkish: _Nasra kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء الْنَاصِرَة*‎), established 1906.
> Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem
> 
> The Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem (Ottoman Turkish: Kudüs-i Şerif Mutasarrıflığı; Arabic: متصرفية القدس الشريف‎), also known as the Sanjak of Jerusalem was an Ottoman district with special administrative status established in 1872. The district encompassed Jerusalem as well as the other major cities of Gaza, Jaffa, Hebron, Bethlehem and Beersheba. During the late Ottoman period, the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, together with the Sanjak of Nablus and Sanjak of Acre, formed the region that was commonly referred to as "Southern Syria" or "Palestine".​
> The pro-Jihadists that wish to turn the question into an argument over the sovereign rights to the territory are merely attempting to grasp at straws to suggest there is a moral and historical obligation to recognize the Palestinians as a people and a nation.  It has nothing to do with the evolution over time of the territorial control over the land parcel.  Historically, there are very - very - few territories in the world that have not undergone an evolutionary change in sovereignty and the complexion of governmental control.  The area, formerly known as the territory under the Mandate for Palestine, is a land parcel that has changed sovereign control many - many times.
> 
> Today, we are discussing the consequences to the evolution of territorial control in the last half century (since 1948).  While I find it interesting at how some might re-interpret the historical connections, it has nothing to do with the evolution as viewed today in terms of recognition of sovereignty and control.  No matter how the contemporary Palestinian might view history, or whether they recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel --- it exists.
> 
> The issue of the day is not whether there is a historical connection --- it is not a matter of recognition --- it is not a matter of legitimacy...  It is a matter of reestablishing regional peace and the neutralization of radical Islamic influences and Jihadist activity.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine is Palestine by law. Its international borders were defined by post war treaties.
> 
> Palestinians are Palestinians by law.
> -----------------
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
Click to expand...





 The only borders are those of the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE, not the nation of Palestine. This falls at the first hurdle of any court if used to claim Palestine as a nation existed before 1988.

WRONG again as they became BRITISH Palestinian citizens, an interim measure to allow them to travel freely on valid passports and have valid I.D. papers.

As your first paragraph states  " nationals of the state to which territory is transferred" this was Britain as no state of Palestine existed until 1988.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

I believe you are incorrectly interpreting it again.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful, P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> It is merely a territorial reference name; ---- its meaning buried in the context of the historical association.
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus.
> 
> The birth and life of Jesus has been hijacked by the Palestinian movement, which seeks to portray Jesus as a Palestinian, writes this Noahide Christian. This effort is often referred to as Christian Palestinianism.
> 
> The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus - Op-Eds - Arutz Sheva
> 
> 
> 
> The maps in the back of my Bible call the place Palestine. Preachers call the place Palestine in their sermons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know how many times we've explained how that name came about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The entire basis of the discussion is about the historical connection established.  The question of --- "Who are the Palestinians" --- is an argument that has little or no bearing on the issues of the day.  Who they are today, is defined by what they manage to control today _(which is a deeper question - that may have an answer that they are not proud of)_.  In the 20th century, we've seen two dozen Empires and Dynasties change; one of which was the Ottoman Empire ---  the origins of which can be traced back to the late 11th century and the Turkic Emirates of Anatolian Beyliks.  At the turn of the 19th-to-20th Century, much of what we call "Palestine" today was under the administration of the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem --- a S_anjak_ within the Syria Vilayet [_(Damsacus) of the Ottoman Empire]_.   There was no political subdivision known as "Palestine" with the Ottoman Empire --- not for 500 years.  "Palestine" was a "regional" name denoting the administrative divisions covered by the Sanjak of Nablus, Sanjak of Acre, and the Mutasarrfate of Jerusalem _(Special Ottoman District)_.  _(Note: This is historically why today, both the State of Israel (circa 1967) and the State of Palestine (circa 1988) each claim Jerusalem as their respective capitals.)_
> 
> Administrative divisions of the Mutasarrifate (1872-1909):
> 
> *Beersheba Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا بءرالسبع*; Turkish: _Birüsseb' kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء بئر السبع*‎), which included two sub-districts and a municipality:
> a-Hafir (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه حفير*; Turkish: _Hafır nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية عوجة الحفير*‎), created in 1908 as a middle point between Beersheba and Aqaba, close to the newly agreed border with Sinai[15]
> al-Mulayha, created in 1908 as a midway point between Hafir and Aqaba
> Beersheba (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية بءرالسبع*; Turkish: _Birüsseb' belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية بئر السبع*‎), created in 1901
> 
> 
> *Gaza Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا غزّه*; Turkish: _Gazze kazası_ ; Arabic: *قضاء غزة*‎), which included three sub-districts and a municipality:
> Al-Faluja (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه فلوجه*; Turkish: _Felluce nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية الفالوجة*‎), created in 1903
> Khan Yunis (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه خان يونس*; Turkish: _Hanyunus nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية خان يونس*‎), created in 1903 and became a municipality in 1917
> al-Majdal (Ottoman Turkish: *... ناحيه*; Turkish: _Mücdel nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية المجدل*‎), created in 1880
> Gaza (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية غزّه*; Turkish: _Gazze belediyesı_ ; Arabic: *بلدية غزة*‎), created in 1893
> 
> 
> *Hebron Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا خليل الرحمن*; Turkish: _Halilü'r Rahman kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء الخليل*‎), which included two sub-districts and a municipality:
> Bayt 'Itab (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه بيت اعطاب*; Turkish: _Beyt-i a'tâb nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية بيت عطاب*‎), created in 1903
> Bayt Jibrin (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه بيت جبرين*; Turkish: _Beyt-i Cireyn nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية بيت جبرين*‎), created in 1903
> Hebron (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية خليل الرحمن*; Turkish: _Halilü'r Rahman belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية الخليل*‎), created in 1886
> 
> 
> *Jaffa Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا يافه*; Turkish: _Yafa kazası_ ; Arabic: *قضاء يَافَا*‎), which included two sub-districts and a municipality:
> Ni'lin (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه نعلين*; Turkish: _Na’leyn nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية نعلين*‎),created in 1903
> Ramla (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه رمله*; Turkish: _Remle nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية الرملة*‎), created in 1880, became municipality before 1888 and re-established as sub-district in 1889
> Lydda (Ottoman Turkish: *... بلدية*; Turkish: _Lod belediyesı_ ; Arabic: *... بلدية*‎)
> 
> 
> *Jerusalem Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا قدس*; Turkish: _Kudüs-i Şerif kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء القدس الشريف*‎), which included four sub-districts and two municipalities:
> Abwein (Ottoman Turkish: *... ناحيه*; Turkish: _Abaveyn nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية عبوين*‎), created in 1903;
> Bethlehem (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه بيت اللحم*; Turkish: _Beytü'l lahim nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية بيت لحم*‎), created in 1883 and became a municipality in 1894;
> Ramallah (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه رام الله*; Turkish: _Ramallah nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية رام الله*‎), created in 1903 and became a municipality in 1911,
> Saffa (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه صفا*; Turkish: _Safa nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية صفّا*‎),
> Jerusalem (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية قدس*; Turkish: _Kudüs-i Şerif belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية القدس الشريف*‎), created in 1867 and
> Beit Jala (Ottoman Turkish: *... بلدية*; Turkish: _... belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية بيت جالا*‎),created in 1912.
> 
> 
> *Nazareth Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا الْنَاصِرَة*; Turkish: _Nasra kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء الْنَاصِرَة*‎), established 1906.
> Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem
> 
> The Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem (Ottoman Turkish: Kudüs-i Şerif Mutasarrıflığı; Arabic: متصرفية القدس الشريف‎), also known as the Sanjak of Jerusalem was an Ottoman district with special administrative status established in 1872. The district encompassed Jerusalem as well as the other major cities of Gaza, Jaffa, Hebron, Bethlehem and Beersheba. During the late Ottoman period, the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, together with the Sanjak of Nablus and Sanjak of Acre, formed the region that was commonly referred to as "Southern Syria" or "Palestine".​
> The pro-Jihadists that wish to turn the question into an argument over the sovereign rights to the territory are merely attempting to grasp at straws to suggest there is a moral and historical obligation to recognize the Palestinians as a people and a nation.  It has nothing to do with the evolution over time of the territorial control over the land parcel.  Historically, there are very - very - few territories in the world that have not undergone an evolutionary change in sovereignty and the complexion of governmental control.  The area, formerly known as the territory under the Mandate for Palestine, is a land parcel that has changed sovereign control many - many times.
> 
> Today, we are discussing the consequences to the evolution of territorial control in the last half century (since 1948).  While I find it interesting at how some might re-interpret the historical connections, it has nothing to do with the evolution as viewed today in terms of recognition of sovereignty and control.  No matter how the contemporary Palestinian might view history, or whether they recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel --- it exists.
> 
> The issue of the day is not whether there is a historical connection --- it is not a matter of recognition --- it is not a matter of legitimacy...  It is a matter of reestablishing regional peace and the neutralization of radical Islamic influences and Jihadist activity.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine is Palestine by law. Its international borders were defined by post war treaties.
> 
> Palestinians are Palestinians by law.
> -----------------
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The Palestinians had no Law Making capabilities (Legislative Powers); not under the Ottoman Empire and not under the Mandate.

The Article 30 Passage did not refer to to Palestine specifically, be generally to all the territories under the concept that no person should be "stateless."  It did not establish a nation or new nationality.

The second passage was authored and introduced by the Mandatory (the UK).  The UK wrote the Citizenship Order, and the meaning of "Palestine" was defined by the Palestine Order in Council" (written by the UK) and referred to the territories under the Mandate.  Thus, Palestine Citizens meant something different then you are trying to imply here.  At the end of the Mandate, you will not that the UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT (PAL/138 27 February 1948) reiterated the status of Palestine:

"Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs."​
It was not a "sovereign nation."  

You are twisting the intent --- trying to assert something that was never stated.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I believe you are incorrectly interpreting it again.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful, P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> It is merely a territorial reference name; ---- its meaning buried in the context of the historical association.
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus.
> 
> The birth and life of Jesus has been hijacked by the Palestinian movement, which seeks to portray Jesus as a Palestinian, writes this Noahide Christian. This effort is often referred to as Christian Palestinianism.
> 
> The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus - Op-Eds - Arutz Sheva
> 
> 
> 
> The maps in the back of my Bible call the place Palestine. Preachers call the place Palestine in their sermons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know how many times we've explained how that name came about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The entire basis of the discussion is about the historical connection established.  The question of --- "Who are the Palestinians" --- is an argument that has little or no bearing on the issues of the day.  Who they are today, is defined by what they manage to control today _(which is a deeper question - that may have an answer that they are not proud of)_.  In the 20th century, we've seen two dozen Empires and Dynasties change; one of which was the Ottoman Empire ---  the origins of which can be traced back to the late 11th century and the Turkic Emirates of Anatolian Beyliks.  At the turn of the 19th-to-20th Century, much of what we call "Palestine" today was under the administration of the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem --- a S_anjak_ within the Syria Vilayet [_(Damsacus) of the Ottoman Empire]_.   There was no political subdivision known as "Palestine" with the Ottoman Empire --- not for 500 years.  "Palestine" was a "regional" name denoting the administrative divisions covered by the Sanjak of Nablus, Sanjak of Acre, and the Mutasarrfate of Jerusalem _(Special Ottoman District)_.  _(Note: This is historically why today, both the State of Israel (circa 1967) and the State of Palestine (circa 1988) each claim Jerusalem as their respective capitals.)_
> 
> Administrative divisions of the Mutasarrifate (1872-1909):
> 
> *Beersheba Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا بءرالسبع*; Turkish: _Birüsseb' kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء بئر السبع*‎), which included two sub-districts and a municipality:
> a-Hafir (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه حفير*; Turkish: _Hafır nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية عوجة الحفير*‎), created in 1908 as a middle point between Beersheba and Aqaba, close to the newly agreed border with Sinai[15]
> al-Mulayha, created in 1908 as a midway point between Hafir and Aqaba
> Beersheba (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية بءرالسبع*; Turkish: _Birüsseb' belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية بئر السبع*‎), created in 1901
> 
> 
> *Gaza Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا غزّه*; Turkish: _Gazze kazası_ ; Arabic: *قضاء غزة*‎), which included three sub-districts and a municipality:
> Al-Faluja (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه فلوجه*; Turkish: _Felluce nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية الفالوجة*‎), created in 1903
> Khan Yunis (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه خان يونس*; Turkish: _Hanyunus nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية خان يونس*‎), created in 1903 and became a municipality in 1917
> al-Majdal (Ottoman Turkish: *... ناحيه*; Turkish: _Mücdel nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية المجدل*‎), created in 1880
> Gaza (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية غزّه*; Turkish: _Gazze belediyesı_ ; Arabic: *بلدية غزة*‎), created in 1893
> 
> 
> *Hebron Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا خليل الرحمن*; Turkish: _Halilü'r Rahman kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء الخليل*‎), which included two sub-districts and a municipality:
> Bayt 'Itab (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه بيت اعطاب*; Turkish: _Beyt-i a'tâb nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية بيت عطاب*‎), created in 1903
> Bayt Jibrin (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه بيت جبرين*; Turkish: _Beyt-i Cireyn nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية بيت جبرين*‎), created in 1903
> Hebron (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية خليل الرحمن*; Turkish: _Halilü'r Rahman belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية الخليل*‎), created in 1886
> 
> 
> *Jaffa Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا يافه*; Turkish: _Yafa kazası_ ; Arabic: *قضاء يَافَا*‎), which included two sub-districts and a municipality:
> Ni'lin (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه نعلين*; Turkish: _Na’leyn nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية نعلين*‎),created in 1903
> Ramla (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه رمله*; Turkish: _Remle nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية الرملة*‎), created in 1880, became municipality before 1888 and re-established as sub-district in 1889
> Lydda (Ottoman Turkish: *... بلدية*; Turkish: _Lod belediyesı_ ; Arabic: *... بلدية*‎)
> 
> 
> *Jerusalem Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا قدس*; Turkish: _Kudüs-i Şerif kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء القدس الشريف*‎), which included four sub-districts and two municipalities:
> Abwein (Ottoman Turkish: *... ناحيه*; Turkish: _Abaveyn nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية عبوين*‎), created in 1903;
> Bethlehem (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه بيت اللحم*; Turkish: _Beytü'l lahim nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية بيت لحم*‎), created in 1883 and became a municipality in 1894;
> Ramallah (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه رام الله*; Turkish: _Ramallah nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية رام الله*‎), created in 1903 and became a municipality in 1911,
> Saffa (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه صفا*; Turkish: _Safa nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية صفّا*‎),
> Jerusalem (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية قدس*; Turkish: _Kudüs-i Şerif belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية القدس الشريف*‎), created in 1867 and
> Beit Jala (Ottoman Turkish: *... بلدية*; Turkish: _... belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية بيت جالا*‎),created in 1912.
> 
> 
> *Nazareth Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا الْنَاصِرَة*; Turkish: _Nasra kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء الْنَاصِرَة*‎), established 1906.
> Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem
> 
> The Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem (Ottoman Turkish: Kudüs-i Şerif Mutasarrıflığı; Arabic: متصرفية القدس الشريف‎), also known as the Sanjak of Jerusalem was an Ottoman district with special administrative status established in 1872. The district encompassed Jerusalem as well as the other major cities of Gaza, Jaffa, Hebron, Bethlehem and Beersheba. During the late Ottoman period, the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, together with the Sanjak of Nablus and Sanjak of Acre, formed the region that was commonly referred to as "Southern Syria" or "Palestine".​
> The pro-Jihadists that wish to turn the question into an argument over the sovereign rights to the territory are merely attempting to grasp at straws to suggest there is a moral and historical obligation to recognize the Palestinians as a people and a nation.  It has nothing to do with the evolution over time of the territorial control over the land parcel.  Historically, there are very - very - few territories in the world that have not undergone an evolutionary change in sovereignty and the complexion of governmental control.  The area, formerly known as the territory under the Mandate for Palestine, is a land parcel that has changed sovereign control many - many times.
> 
> Today, we are discussing the consequences to the evolution of territorial control in the last half century (since 1948).  While I find it interesting at how some might re-interpret the historical connections, it has nothing to do with the evolution as viewed today in terms of recognition of sovereignty and control.  No matter how the contemporary Palestinian might view history, or whether they recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel --- it exists.
> 
> The issue of the day is not whether there is a historical connection --- it is not a matter of recognition --- it is not a matter of legitimacy...  It is a matter of reestablishing regional peace and the neutralization of radical Islamic influences and Jihadist activity.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine is Palestine by law. Its international borders were defined by post war treaties.
> 
> Palestinians are Palestinians by law.
> -----------------
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Palestinians had no Law Making capabilities (Legislative Powers); not under the Ottoman Empire and not under the Mandate.
> 
> The Article 30 Passage did not refer to to Palestine specifically, be generally to all the territories under the concept that no person should be "stateless."  It did not establish a nation or new nationality.
> 
> The second passage was authored and introduced by the Mandatory (the UK).  The UK wrote the Citizenship Order, and the meaning of "Palestine" was defined by the Palestine Order in Council" (written by the UK) and referred to the territories under the Mandate.  Thus, Palestine Citizens meant something different then you are trying to imply here.  At the end of the Mandate, you will not that the UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT (PAL/138 27 February 1948) reiterated the status of Palestine:
> 
> "Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs."​
> It was not a "sovereign nation."
> 
> You are twisting the intent --- trying to assert something that was never stated.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

It was not a "sovereign nation."

You are pimping Israeli propaganda.

The people in trust and non self governing territories have the right to self determination, sovereignty, and territorial integrity without regard to political status.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I believe you are incorrectly interpreting it again.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful, P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> It is merely a territorial reference name; ---- its meaning buried in the context of the historical association.
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The maps in the back of my Bible call the place Palestine. Preachers call the place Palestine in their sermons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how many times we've explained how that name came about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The entire basis of the discussion is about the historical connection established.  The question of --- "Who are the Palestinians" --- is an argument that has little or no bearing on the issues of the day.  Who they are today, is defined by what they manage to control today _(which is a deeper question - that may have an answer that they are not proud of)_.  In the 20th century, we've seen two dozen Empires and Dynasties change; one of which was the Ottoman Empire ---  the origins of which can be traced back to the late 11th century and the Turkic Emirates of Anatolian Beyliks.  At the turn of the 19th-to-20th Century, much of what we call "Palestine" today was under the administration of the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem --- a S_anjak_ within the Syria Vilayet [_(Damsacus) of the Ottoman Empire]_.   There was no political subdivision known as "Palestine" with the Ottoman Empire --- not for 500 years.  "Palestine" was a "regional" name denoting the administrative divisions covered by the Sanjak of Nablus, Sanjak of Acre, and the Mutasarrfate of Jerusalem _(Special Ottoman District)_.  _(Note: This is historically why today, both the State of Israel (circa 1967) and the State of Palestine (circa 1988) each claim Jerusalem as their respective capitals.)_
> 
> Administrative divisions of the Mutasarrifate (1872-1909):
> 
> *Beersheba Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا بءرالسبع*; Turkish: _Birüsseb' kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء بئر السبع*‎), which included two sub-districts and a municipality:
> a-Hafir (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه حفير*; Turkish: _Hafır nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية عوجة الحفير*‎), created in 1908 as a middle point between Beersheba and Aqaba, close to the newly agreed border with Sinai[15]
> al-Mulayha, created in 1908 as a midway point between Hafir and Aqaba
> Beersheba (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية بءرالسبع*; Turkish: _Birüsseb' belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية بئر السبع*‎), created in 1901
> 
> 
> *Gaza Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا غزّه*; Turkish: _Gazze kazası_ ; Arabic: *قضاء غزة*‎), which included three sub-districts and a municipality:
> Al-Faluja (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه فلوجه*; Turkish: _Felluce nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية الفالوجة*‎), created in 1903
> Khan Yunis (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه خان يونس*; Turkish: _Hanyunus nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية خان يونس*‎), created in 1903 and became a municipality in 1917
> al-Majdal (Ottoman Turkish: *... ناحيه*; Turkish: _Mücdel nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية المجدل*‎), created in 1880
> Gaza (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية غزّه*; Turkish: _Gazze belediyesı_ ; Arabic: *بلدية غزة*‎), created in 1893
> 
> 
> *Hebron Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا خليل الرحمن*; Turkish: _Halilü'r Rahman kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء الخليل*‎), which included two sub-districts and a municipality:
> Bayt 'Itab (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه بيت اعطاب*; Turkish: _Beyt-i a'tâb nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية بيت عطاب*‎), created in 1903
> Bayt Jibrin (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه بيت جبرين*; Turkish: _Beyt-i Cireyn nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية بيت جبرين*‎), created in 1903
> Hebron (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية خليل الرحمن*; Turkish: _Halilü'r Rahman belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية الخليل*‎), created in 1886
> 
> 
> *Jaffa Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا يافه*; Turkish: _Yafa kazası_ ; Arabic: *قضاء يَافَا*‎), which included two sub-districts and a municipality:
> Ni'lin (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه نعلين*; Turkish: _Na’leyn nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية نعلين*‎),created in 1903
> Ramla (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه رمله*; Turkish: _Remle nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية الرملة*‎), created in 1880, became municipality before 1888 and re-established as sub-district in 1889
> Lydda (Ottoman Turkish: *... بلدية*; Turkish: _Lod belediyesı_ ; Arabic: *... بلدية*‎)
> 
> 
> *Jerusalem Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا قدس*; Turkish: _Kudüs-i Şerif kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء القدس الشريف*‎), which included four sub-districts and two municipalities:
> Abwein (Ottoman Turkish: *... ناحيه*; Turkish: _Abaveyn nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية عبوين*‎), created in 1903;
> Bethlehem (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه بيت اللحم*; Turkish: _Beytü'l lahim nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية بيت لحم*‎), created in 1883 and became a municipality in 1894;
> Ramallah (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه رام الله*; Turkish: _Ramallah nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية رام الله*‎), created in 1903 and became a municipality in 1911,
> Saffa (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه صفا*; Turkish: _Safa nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية صفّا*‎),
> Jerusalem (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية قدس*; Turkish: _Kudüs-i Şerif belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية القدس الشريف*‎), created in 1867 and
> Beit Jala (Ottoman Turkish: *... بلدية*; Turkish: _... belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية بيت جالا*‎),created in 1912.
> 
> 
> *Nazareth Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا الْنَاصِرَة*; Turkish: _Nasra kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء الْنَاصِرَة*‎), established 1906.
> Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem
> 
> The Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem (Ottoman Turkish: Kudüs-i Şerif Mutasarrıflığı; Arabic: متصرفية القدس الشريف‎), also known as the Sanjak of Jerusalem was an Ottoman district with special administrative status established in 1872. The district encompassed Jerusalem as well as the other major cities of Gaza, Jaffa, Hebron, Bethlehem and Beersheba. During the late Ottoman period, the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, together with the Sanjak of Nablus and Sanjak of Acre, formed the region that was commonly referred to as "Southern Syria" or "Palestine".​
> The pro-Jihadists that wish to turn the question into an argument over the sovereign rights to the territory are merely attempting to grasp at straws to suggest there is a moral and historical obligation to recognize the Palestinians as a people and a nation.  It has nothing to do with the evolution over time of the territorial control over the land parcel.  Historically, there are very - very - few territories in the world that have not undergone an evolutionary change in sovereignty and the complexion of governmental control.  The area, formerly known as the territory under the Mandate for Palestine, is a land parcel that has changed sovereign control many - many times.
> 
> Today, we are discussing the consequences to the evolution of territorial control in the last half century (since 1948).  While I find it interesting at how some might re-interpret the historical connections, it has nothing to do with the evolution as viewed today in terms of recognition of sovereignty and control.  No matter how the contemporary Palestinian might view history, or whether they recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel --- it exists.
> 
> The issue of the day is not whether there is a historical connection --- it is not a matter of recognition --- it is not a matter of legitimacy...  It is a matter of reestablishing regional peace and the neutralization of radical Islamic influences and Jihadist activity.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine is Palestine by law. Its international borders were defined by post war treaties.
> 
> Palestinians are Palestinians by law.
> -----------------
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Palestinians had no Law Making capabilities (Legislative Powers); not under the Ottoman Empire and not under the Mandate.
> 
> The Article 30 Passage did not refer to to Palestine specifically, be generally to all the territories under the concept that no person should be "stateless."  It did not establish a nation or new nationality.
> 
> The second passage was authored and introduced by the Mandatory (the UK).  The UK wrote the Citizenship Order, and the meaning of "Palestine" was defined by the Palestine Order in Council" (written by the UK) and referred to the territories under the Mandate.  Thus, Palestine Citizens meant something different then you are trying to imply here.  At the end of the Mandate, you will not that the UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT (PAL/138 27 February 1948) reiterated the status of Palestine:
> 
> "Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs."​
> It was not a "sovereign nation."
> 
> You are twisting the intent --- trying to assert something that was never stated.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was not a "sovereign nation."
> 
> You are pimping Israeli propaganda.
> 
> The people in trust and non self governing territories have the right to self determination, sovereignty, and territorial integrity without regard to political status.
Click to expand...


Are you serious?  Give Palestinians "self determination" without having _I_srael to suck off of any longer??  Do you hate Palestinians?


----------



## Friends

Penelope said:


> That's as far as I got, a *mighty Jewish empire never existed*.



King David conquered Syria and what is now Jordan. At that time his empire had roughly the same territory and population of the empires of Egypt, and Assyria.

Unfortunately, the Israelites did little to assimilate the peoples they conquered and to encourage them to identify themselves as Israelites. Therefore, David's empire was unstable. As soon as the conquered peoples could become independent, they did.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I believe you are incorrectly interpreting it again.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful, P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> It is merely a territorial reference name; ---- its meaning buried in the context of the historical association.
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The maps in the back of my Bible call the place Palestine. Preachers call the place Palestine in their sermons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how many times we've explained how that name came about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The entire basis of the discussion is about the historical connection established.  The question of --- "Who are the Palestinians" --- is an argument that has little or no bearing on the issues of the day.  Who they are today, is defined by what they manage to control today _(which is a deeper question - that may have an answer that they are not proud of)_.  In the 20th century, we've seen two dozen Empires and Dynasties change; one of which was the Ottoman Empire ---  the origins of which can be traced back to the late 11th century and the Turkic Emirates of Anatolian Beyliks.  At the turn of the 19th-to-20th Century, much of what we call "Palestine" today was under the administration of the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem --- a S_anjak_ within the Syria Vilayet [_(Damsacus) of the Ottoman Empire]_.   There was no political subdivision known as "Palestine" with the Ottoman Empire --- not for 500 years.  "Palestine" was a "regional" name denoting the administrative divisions covered by the Sanjak of Nablus, Sanjak of Acre, and the Mutasarrfate of Jerusalem _(Special Ottoman District)_.  _(Note: This is historically why today, both the State of Israel (circa 1967) and the State of Palestine (circa 1988) each claim Jerusalem as their respective capitals.)_
> 
> Administrative divisions of the Mutasarrifate (1872-1909):
> 
> *Beersheba Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا بءرالسبع*; Turkish: _Birüsseb' kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء بئر السبع*‎), which included two sub-districts and a municipality:
> a-Hafir (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه حفير*; Turkish: _Hafır nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية عوجة الحفير*‎), created in 1908 as a middle point between Beersheba and Aqaba, close to the newly agreed border with Sinai[15]
> al-Mulayha, created in 1908 as a midway point between Hafir and Aqaba
> Beersheba (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية بءرالسبع*; Turkish: _Birüsseb' belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية بئر السبع*‎), created in 1901
> 
> 
> *Gaza Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا غزّه*; Turkish: _Gazze kazası_ ; Arabic: *قضاء غزة*‎), which included three sub-districts and a municipality:
> Al-Faluja (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه فلوجه*; Turkish: _Felluce nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية الفالوجة*‎), created in 1903
> Khan Yunis (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه خان يونس*; Turkish: _Hanyunus nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية خان يونس*‎), created in 1903 and became a municipality in 1917
> al-Majdal (Ottoman Turkish: *... ناحيه*; Turkish: _Mücdel nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية المجدل*‎), created in 1880
> Gaza (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية غزّه*; Turkish: _Gazze belediyesı_ ; Arabic: *بلدية غزة*‎), created in 1893
> 
> 
> *Hebron Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا خليل الرحمن*; Turkish: _Halilü'r Rahman kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء الخليل*‎), which included two sub-districts and a municipality:
> Bayt 'Itab (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه بيت اعطاب*; Turkish: _Beyt-i a'tâb nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية بيت عطاب*‎), created in 1903
> Bayt Jibrin (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه بيت جبرين*; Turkish: _Beyt-i Cireyn nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية بيت جبرين*‎), created in 1903
> Hebron (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية خليل الرحمن*; Turkish: _Halilü'r Rahman belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية الخليل*‎), created in 1886
> 
> 
> *Jaffa Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا يافه*; Turkish: _Yafa kazası_ ; Arabic: *قضاء يَافَا*‎), which included two sub-districts and a municipality:
> Ni'lin (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه نعلين*; Turkish: _Na’leyn nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية نعلين*‎),created in 1903
> Ramla (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه رمله*; Turkish: _Remle nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية الرملة*‎), created in 1880, became municipality before 1888 and re-established as sub-district in 1889
> Lydda (Ottoman Turkish: *... بلدية*; Turkish: _Lod belediyesı_ ; Arabic: *... بلدية*‎)
> 
> 
> *Jerusalem Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا قدس*; Turkish: _Kudüs-i Şerif kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء القدس الشريف*‎), which included four sub-districts and two municipalities:
> Abwein (Ottoman Turkish: *... ناحيه*; Turkish: _Abaveyn nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية عبوين*‎), created in 1903;
> Bethlehem (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه بيت اللحم*; Turkish: _Beytü'l lahim nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية بيت لحم*‎), created in 1883 and became a municipality in 1894;
> Ramallah (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه رام الله*; Turkish: _Ramallah nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية رام الله*‎), created in 1903 and became a municipality in 1911,
> Saffa (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه صفا*; Turkish: _Safa nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية صفّا*‎),
> Jerusalem (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية قدس*; Turkish: _Kudüs-i Şerif belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية القدس الشريف*‎), created in 1867 and
> Beit Jala (Ottoman Turkish: *... بلدية*; Turkish: _... belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية بيت جالا*‎),created in 1912.
> 
> 
> *Nazareth Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا الْنَاصِرَة*; Turkish: _Nasra kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء الْنَاصِرَة*‎), established 1906.
> Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem
> 
> The Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem (Ottoman Turkish: Kudüs-i Şerif Mutasarrıflığı; Arabic: متصرفية القدس الشريف‎), also known as the Sanjak of Jerusalem was an Ottoman district with special administrative status established in 1872. The district encompassed Jerusalem as well as the other major cities of Gaza, Jaffa, Hebron, Bethlehem and Beersheba. During the late Ottoman period, the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, together with the Sanjak of Nablus and Sanjak of Acre, formed the region that was commonly referred to as "Southern Syria" or "Palestine".​
> The pro-Jihadists that wish to turn the question into an argument over the sovereign rights to the territory are merely attempting to grasp at straws to suggest there is a moral and historical obligation to recognize the Palestinians as a people and a nation.  It has nothing to do with the evolution over time of the territorial control over the land parcel.  Historically, there are very - very - few territories in the world that have not undergone an evolutionary change in sovereignty and the complexion of governmental control.  The area, formerly known as the territory under the Mandate for Palestine, is a land parcel that has changed sovereign control many - many times.
> 
> Today, we are discussing the consequences to the evolution of territorial control in the last half century (since 1948).  While I find it interesting at how some might re-interpret the historical connections, it has nothing to do with the evolution as viewed today in terms of recognition of sovereignty and control.  No matter how the contemporary Palestinian might view history, or whether they recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel --- it exists.
> 
> The issue of the day is not whether there is a historical connection --- it is not a matter of recognition --- it is not a matter of legitimacy...  It is a matter of reestablishing regional peace and the neutralization of radical Islamic influences and Jihadist activity.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine is Palestine by law. Its international borders were defined by post war treaties.
> 
> Palestinians are Palestinians by law.
> -----------------
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Palestinians had no Law Making capabilities (Legislative Powers); not under the Ottoman Empire and not under the Mandate.
> 
> The Article 30 Passage did not refer to to Palestine specifically, be generally to all the territories under the concept that no person should be "stateless."  It did not establish a nation or new nationality.
> 
> The second passage was authored and introduced by the Mandatory (the UK).  The UK wrote the Citizenship Order, and the meaning of "Palestine" was defined by the Palestine Order in Council" (written by the UK) and referred to the territories under the Mandate.  Thus, Palestine Citizens meant something different then you are trying to imply here.  At the end of the Mandate, you will not that the UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT (PAL/138 27 February 1948) reiterated the status of Palestine:
> 
> "Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs."​
> It was not a "sovereign nation."
> 
> You are twisting the intent --- trying to assert something that was never stated.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was not a "sovereign nation."
> 
> You are pimping Israeli propaganda.
> 
> The people in trust and non self governing territories have the right to self determination, sovereignty, and territorial integrity without regard to political status.
Click to expand...



 Not in the 1920's to 1948 they didn't, as that was recent legislature. So stop trying to make the new customs fit olden days


----------



## Dogmaphobe

P F Tinmore said:


> The maps in the back of my Bible call the place Palestine. Preachers call the place Palestine in their sermons.




Are those the bibles you burn as an offering to the dark lord you actually follow?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful, P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> It is merely a territorial reference name; ---- its meaning buried in the context of the historical association.
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus.
> 
> 
> The birth and life of Jesus has been hijacked by the Palestinian movement, which seeks to portray Jesus as a Palestinian, writes this Noahide Christian. This effort is often referred to as Christian Palestinianism.
> 
> The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus - Op-Eds - Arutz Sheva
> 
> 
> 
> The maps in the back of my Bible call the place Palestine. Preachers call the place Palestine in their sermons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know how many times we've explained how that name came about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The entire basis of the discussion is about the historical connection established.  The question of --- "Who are the Palestinians" --- is an argument that has little or no bearing on the issues of the day.  Who they are today, is defined by what they manage to control today _(which is a deeper question - that may have an answer that they are not proud of)_.  In the 20th century, we've seen two dozen Empires and Dynasties change; one of which was the Ottoman Empire ---  the origins of which can be traced back to the late 11th century and the Turkic Emirates of Anatolian Beyliks.  At the turn of the 19th-to-20th Century, much of what we call "Palestine" today was under the administration of the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem --- a S_anjak_ within the Syria Vilayet [_(Damsacus) of the Ottoman Empire]_.   There was no political subdivision known as "Palestine" with the Ottoman Empire --- not for 500 years.  "Palestine" was a "regional" name denoting the administrative divisions covered by the Sanjak of Nablus, Sanjak of Acre, and the Mutasarrfate of Jerusalem _(Special Ottoman District)_.  _(Note: This is historically why today, both the State of Israel (circa 1967) and the State of Palestine (circa 1988) each claim Jerusalem as their respective capitals.)_
> 
> Administrative divisions of the Mutasarrifate (1872-1909):
> 
> *Beersheba Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا بءرالسبع*; Turkish: _Birüsseb' kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء بئر السبع*‎), which included two sub-districts and a municipality:
> a-Hafir (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه حفير*; Turkish: _Hafır nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية عوجة الحفير*‎), created in 1908 as a middle point between Beersheba and Aqaba, close to the newly agreed border with Sinai[15]
> al-Mulayha, created in 1908 as a midway point between Hafir and Aqaba
> Beersheba (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية بءرالسبع*; Turkish: _Birüsseb' belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية بئر السبع*‎), created in 1901
> 
> 
> *Gaza Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا غزّه*; Turkish: _Gazze kazası_ ; Arabic: *قضاء غزة*‎), which included three sub-districts and a municipality:
> Al-Faluja (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه فلوجه*; Turkish: _Felluce nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية الفالوجة*‎), created in 1903
> Khan Yunis (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه خان يونس*; Turkish: _Hanyunus nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية خان يونس*‎), created in 1903 and became a municipality in 1917
> al-Majdal (Ottoman Turkish: *... ناحيه*; Turkish: _Mücdel nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية المجدل*‎), created in 1880
> Gaza (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية غزّه*; Turkish: _Gazze belediyesı_ ; Arabic: *بلدية غزة*‎), created in 1893
> 
> 
> *Hebron Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا خليل الرحمن*; Turkish: _Halilü'r Rahman kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء الخليل*‎), which included two sub-districts and a municipality:
> Bayt 'Itab (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه بيت اعطاب*; Turkish: _Beyt-i a'tâb nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية بيت عطاب*‎), created in 1903
> Bayt Jibrin (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه بيت جبرين*; Turkish: _Beyt-i Cireyn nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية بيت جبرين*‎), created in 1903
> Hebron (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية خليل الرحمن*; Turkish: _Halilü'r Rahman belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية الخليل*‎), created in 1886
> 
> 
> *Jaffa Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا يافه*; Turkish: _Yafa kazası_ ; Arabic: *قضاء يَافَا*‎), which included two sub-districts and a municipality:
> Ni'lin (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه نعلين*; Turkish: _Na’leyn nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية نعلين*‎),created in 1903
> Ramla (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه رمله*; Turkish: _Remle nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية الرملة*‎), created in 1880, became municipality before 1888 and re-established as sub-district in 1889
> Lydda (Ottoman Turkish: *... بلدية*; Turkish: _Lod belediyesı_ ; Arabic: *... بلدية*‎)
> 
> 
> *Jerusalem Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا قدس*; Turkish: _Kudüs-i Şerif kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء القدس الشريف*‎), which included four sub-districts and two municipalities:
> Abwein (Ottoman Turkish: *... ناحيه*; Turkish: _Abaveyn nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية عبوين*‎), created in 1903;
> Bethlehem (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه بيت اللحم*; Turkish: _Beytü'l lahim nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية بيت لحم*‎), created in 1883 and became a municipality in 1894;
> Ramallah (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه رام الله*; Turkish: _Ramallah nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية رام الله*‎), created in 1903 and became a municipality in 1911,
> Saffa (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه صفا*; Turkish: _Safa nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية صفّا*‎),
> Jerusalem (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية قدس*; Turkish: _Kudüs-i Şerif belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية القدس الشريف*‎), created in 1867 and
> Beit Jala (Ottoman Turkish: *... بلدية*; Turkish: _... belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية بيت جالا*‎),created in 1912.
> 
> 
> *Nazareth Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا الْنَاصِرَة*; Turkish: _Nasra kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء الْنَاصِرَة*‎), established 1906.
> Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem
> 
> The Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem (Ottoman Turkish: Kudüs-i Şerif Mutasarrıflığı; Arabic: متصرفية القدس الشريف‎), also known as the Sanjak of Jerusalem was an Ottoman district with special administrative status established in 1872. The district encompassed Jerusalem as well as the other major cities of Gaza, Jaffa, Hebron, Bethlehem and Beersheba. During the late Ottoman period, the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, together with the Sanjak of Nablus and Sanjak of Acre, formed the region that was commonly referred to as "Southern Syria" or "Palestine".​
> The pro-Jihadists that wish to turn the question into an argument over the sovereign rights to the territory are merely attempting to grasp at straws to suggest there is a moral and historical obligation to recognize the Palestinians as a people and a nation.  It has nothing to do with the evolution over time of the territorial control over the land parcel.  Historically, there are very - very - few territories in the world that have not undergone an evolutionary change in sovereignty and the complexion of governmental control.  The area, formerly known as the territory under the Mandate for Palestine, is a land parcel that has changed sovereign control many - many times.
> 
> Today, we are discussing the consequences to the evolution of territorial control in the last half century (since 1948).  While I find it interesting at how some might re-interpret the historical connections, it has nothing to do with the evolution as viewed today in terms of recognition of sovereignty and control.  No matter how the contemporary Palestinian might view history, or whether they recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel --- it exists.
> 
> The issue of the day is not whether there is a historical connection --- it is not a matter of recognition --- it is not a matter of legitimacy...  It is a matter of reestablishing regional peace and the neutralization of radical Islamic influences and Jihadist activity.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine is Palestine by law. Its international borders were defined by post war treaties.
> 
> Palestinians are Palestinians by law.
> -----------------
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only borders are those of the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE, not the nation of Palestine. This falls at the first hurdle of any court if used to claim Palestine as a nation existed before 1988.
> 
> WRONG again as they became BRITISH Palestinian citizens, an interim measure to allow them to travel freely on valid passports and have valid I.D. papers.
> 
> As your first paragraph states  " nationals of the state to which territory is transferred" this was Britain as no state of Palestine existed until 1988.
Click to expand...

Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them _on her behalf,_ in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the *Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State,* though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; *there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.*
- See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Oh --- come now!  This is a gross misinterpretation.



P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them _on her behalf,_ in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the *Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State,* though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; *there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.*
> - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937


*(COMMENT)*

Article 19 of the Mandate, was a measure to insure that the Mandatory --- as the Administrator of the Mandate of Palestine --- would apply certain International Conventions to the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies under the Palestine Order in Council.

Article 7 of the Mandate, ensures that the Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law, to the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies; pursuant to Clauses 59 and 64 of the Palestine Order in Council and --- the parallel Palestine Legislative Council Election Order, 1922 (Clause 2) which indicates that "For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner. "  (Note: Amended slightly by the 1925 Citizenship Order.)

These two "articles" had nothing to do with the suggestion that the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies under the Palestine Order in Council of 1922, AKA: Palestine (see  Clause 1 --- Part I) that the description of Palestine was anything other than "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."  And the description of that legal entity lasted until the termination of the Mandate in 1948 and the trusteeship was passed the the Successor Government.

Whatever a "separate political entity" may have been 1937 --- it was still a non-self-governing entity.  The minutes of the meeting did not end with a change in the status of Palestine as described under the Order in Council, or the Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hossfly

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Oh --- come now!  This is a gross misinterpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them _on her behalf,_ in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the *Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State,* though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; *there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.*
> - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Article 19 of the Mandate, was a measure to insure that the Mandatory --- as the Administrator of the Mandate of Palestine --- would apply certain International Conventions to the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies under the Palestine Order in Council.
> 
> Article 7 of the Mandate, ensures that the Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law, to the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies; pursuant to Clauses 59 and 64 of the Palestine Order in Council and --- the parallel Palestine Legislative Council Election Order, 1922 (Clause 2) which indicates that "For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner. "  (Note: Amended slightly by the 1925 Citizenship Order.)
> 
> These two "articles" had nothing to do with the suggestion that the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies under the Palestine Order in Council of 1922, AKA: Palestine (see  Clause 1 --- Part I) that the description of Palestine was anything other than "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."  And the description of that legal entity lasted until the termination of the Mandate in 1948 and the trusteeship was passed the the Successor Government.
> 
> Whatever a "separate political entity" may have been 1937 --- it was still a non-self-governing entity.  The minutes of the meeting did not end with a change in the status of Palestine as described under the Order in Council, or the Mandate.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

RoccoR , Tinmore has a severe case of Oldtimers Disease and is to be excused.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Oh --- come now!  This is a gross misinterpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them _on her behalf,_ in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the *Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State,* though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; *there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.*
> - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Article 19 of the Mandate, was a measure to insure that the Mandatory --- as the Administrator of the Mandate of Palestine --- would apply certain International Conventions to the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies under the Palestine Order in Council.
> 
> Article 7 of the Mandate, ensures that the Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law, to the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies; pursuant to Clauses 59 and 64 of the Palestine Order in Council and --- the parallel Palestine Legislative Council Election Order, 1922 (Clause 2) which indicates that "For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner. "  (Note: Amended slightly by the 1925 Citizenship Order.)
> 
> These two "articles" had nothing to do with the suggestion that the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies under the Palestine Order in Council of 1922, AKA: Palestine (see  Clause 1 --- Part I) that the description of Palestine was anything other than "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."  And the description of that legal entity lasted until the termination of the Mandate in 1948 and the trusteeship was passed the the Successor Government.
> 
> Whatever a "separate political entity" may have been 1937 --- it was still a non-self-governing entity.  The minutes of the meeting did not end with a change in the status of Palestine as described under the Order in Council, or the Mandate.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

What part of this changes my post?

Be more specific.


----------



## docmauser1

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Oh --- come now!  This is a gross misinterpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them _on her behalf,_ in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the *Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State,* though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; *there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.*
> - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Article 19 of the Mandate, was a measure to insure that the Mandatory --- as the Administrator of the Mandate of Palestine --- would apply certain International Conventions to the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies under the Palestine Order in Council.
> 
> Article 7 of the Mandate, ensures that the Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law, to the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies; pursuant to Clauses 59 and 64 of the Palestine Order in Council and --- the parallel Palestine Legislative Council Election Order, 1922 (Clause 2) which indicates that "For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner. "  (Note: Amended slightly by the 1925 Citizenship Order.)
> 
> These two "articles" had nothing to do with the suggestion that the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies under the Palestine Order in Council of 1922, AKA: Palestine (see  Clause 1 --- Part I) that the description of Palestine was anything other than "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."  And the description of that legal entity lasted until the termination of the Mandate in 1948 and the trusteeship was passed the the Successor Government.
> 
> Whatever a "separate political entity" may have been 1937 --- it was still a non-self-governing entity.  The minutes of the meeting did not end with a change in the status of Palestine as described under the Order in Council, or the Mandate.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part of this changes my post?
Click to expand...

Said post hasn't changed and remains drivel, of course.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful, P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> It is merely a territorial reference name; ---- its meaning buried in the context of the historical association.
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The maps in the back of my Bible call the place Palestine. Preachers call the place Palestine in their sermons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how many times we've explained how that name came about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The entire basis of the discussion is about the historical connection established.  The question of --- "Who are the Palestinians" --- is an argument that has little or no bearing on the issues of the day.  Who they are today, is defined by what they manage to control today _(which is a deeper question - that may have an answer that they are not proud of)_.  In the 20th century, we've seen two dozen Empires and Dynasties change; one of which was the Ottoman Empire ---  the origins of which can be traced back to the late 11th century and the Turkic Emirates of Anatolian Beyliks.  At the turn of the 19th-to-20th Century, much of what we call "Palestine" today was under the administration of the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem --- a S_anjak_ within the Syria Vilayet [_(Damsacus) of the Ottoman Empire]_.   There was no political subdivision known as "Palestine" with the Ottoman Empire --- not for 500 years.  "Palestine" was a "regional" name denoting the administrative divisions covered by the Sanjak of Nablus, Sanjak of Acre, and the Mutasarrfate of Jerusalem _(Special Ottoman District)_.  _(Note: This is historically why today, both the State of Israel (circa 1967) and the State of Palestine (circa 1988) each claim Jerusalem as their respective capitals.)_
> 
> Administrative divisions of the Mutasarrifate (1872-1909):
> 
> *Beersheba Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا بءرالسبع*; Turkish: _Birüsseb' kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء بئر السبع*‎), which included two sub-districts and a municipality:
> a-Hafir (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه حفير*; Turkish: _Hafır nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية عوجة الحفير*‎), created in 1908 as a middle point between Beersheba and Aqaba, close to the newly agreed border with Sinai[15]
> al-Mulayha, created in 1908 as a midway point between Hafir and Aqaba
> Beersheba (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية بءرالسبع*; Turkish: _Birüsseb' belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية بئر السبع*‎), created in 1901
> 
> 
> *Gaza Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا غزّه*; Turkish: _Gazze kazası_ ; Arabic: *قضاء غزة*‎), which included three sub-districts and a municipality:
> Al-Faluja (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه فلوجه*; Turkish: _Felluce nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية الفالوجة*‎), created in 1903
> Khan Yunis (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه خان يونس*; Turkish: _Hanyunus nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية خان يونس*‎), created in 1903 and became a municipality in 1917
> al-Majdal (Ottoman Turkish: *... ناحيه*; Turkish: _Mücdel nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية المجدل*‎), created in 1880
> Gaza (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية غزّه*; Turkish: _Gazze belediyesı_ ; Arabic: *بلدية غزة*‎), created in 1893
> 
> 
> *Hebron Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا خليل الرحمن*; Turkish: _Halilü'r Rahman kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء الخليل*‎), which included two sub-districts and a municipality:
> Bayt 'Itab (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه بيت اعطاب*; Turkish: _Beyt-i a'tâb nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية بيت عطاب*‎), created in 1903
> Bayt Jibrin (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه بيت جبرين*; Turkish: _Beyt-i Cireyn nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية بيت جبرين*‎), created in 1903
> Hebron (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية خليل الرحمن*; Turkish: _Halilü'r Rahman belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية الخليل*‎), created in 1886
> 
> 
> *Jaffa Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا يافه*; Turkish: _Yafa kazası_ ; Arabic: *قضاء يَافَا*‎), which included two sub-districts and a municipality:
> Ni'lin (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه نعلين*; Turkish: _Na’leyn nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية نعلين*‎),created in 1903
> Ramla (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه رمله*; Turkish: _Remle nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية الرملة*‎), created in 1880, became municipality before 1888 and re-established as sub-district in 1889
> Lydda (Ottoman Turkish: *... بلدية*; Turkish: _Lod belediyesı_ ; Arabic: *... بلدية*‎)
> 
> 
> *Jerusalem Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا قدس*; Turkish: _Kudüs-i Şerif kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء القدس الشريف*‎), which included four sub-districts and two municipalities:
> Abwein (Ottoman Turkish: *... ناحيه*; Turkish: _Abaveyn nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية عبوين*‎), created in 1903;
> Bethlehem (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه بيت اللحم*; Turkish: _Beytü'l lahim nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية بيت لحم*‎), created in 1883 and became a municipality in 1894;
> Ramallah (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه رام الله*; Turkish: _Ramallah nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية رام الله*‎), created in 1903 and became a municipality in 1911,
> Saffa (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه صفا*; Turkish: _Safa nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية صفّا*‎),
> Jerusalem (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية قدس*; Turkish: _Kudüs-i Şerif belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية القدس الشريف*‎), created in 1867 and
> Beit Jala (Ottoman Turkish: *... بلدية*; Turkish: _... belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية بيت جالا*‎),created in 1912.
> 
> 
> *Nazareth Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا الْنَاصِرَة*; Turkish: _Nasra kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء الْنَاصِرَة*‎), established 1906.
> Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem
> 
> The Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem (Ottoman Turkish: Kudüs-i Şerif Mutasarrıflığı; Arabic: متصرفية القدس الشريف‎), also known as the Sanjak of Jerusalem was an Ottoman district with special administrative status established in 1872. The district encompassed Jerusalem as well as the other major cities of Gaza, Jaffa, Hebron, Bethlehem and Beersheba. During the late Ottoman period, the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, together with the Sanjak of Nablus and Sanjak of Acre, formed the region that was commonly referred to as "Southern Syria" or "Palestine".​
> The pro-Jihadists that wish to turn the question into an argument over the sovereign rights to the territory are merely attempting to grasp at straws to suggest there is a moral and historical obligation to recognize the Palestinians as a people and a nation.  It has nothing to do with the evolution over time of the territorial control over the land parcel.  Historically, there are very - very - few territories in the world that have not undergone an evolutionary change in sovereignty and the complexion of governmental control.  The area, formerly known as the territory under the Mandate for Palestine, is a land parcel that has changed sovereign control many - many times.
> 
> Today, we are discussing the consequences to the evolution of territorial control in the last half century (since 1948).  While I find it interesting at how some might re-interpret the historical connections, it has nothing to do with the evolution as viewed today in terms of recognition of sovereignty and control.  No matter how the contemporary Palestinian might view history, or whether they recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel --- it exists.
> 
> The issue of the day is not whether there is a historical connection --- it is not a matter of recognition --- it is not a matter of legitimacy...  It is a matter of reestablishing regional peace and the neutralization of radical Islamic influences and Jihadist activity.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine is Palestine by law. Its international borders were defined by post war treaties.
> 
> Palestinians are Palestinians by law.
> -----------------
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only borders are those of the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE, not the nation of Palestine. This falls at the first hurdle of any court if used to claim Palestine as a nation existed before 1988.
> 
> WRONG again as they became BRITISH Palestinian citizens, an interim measure to allow them to travel freely on valid passports and have valid I.D. papers.
> 
> As your first paragraph states  " nationals of the state to which territory is transferred" this was Britain as no state of Palestine existed until 1988.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them _on her behalf,_ in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the *Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State,* though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; *there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.*
> - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937
Click to expand...





Just the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE, and the truth is that the people were granted a watered down version of British citizenship. They did not issue their own passports in the name of Palestine, apart from a short period in the 1930's


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Oh --- come now!  This is a gross misinterpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them _on her behalf,_ in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the *Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State,* though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; *there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.*
> - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Article 19 of the Mandate, was a measure to insure that the Mandatory --- as the Administrator of the Mandate of Palestine --- would apply certain International Conventions to the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies under the Palestine Order in Council.
> 
> Article 7 of the Mandate, ensures that the Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law, to the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies; pursuant to Clauses 59 and 64 of the Palestine Order in Council and --- the parallel Palestine Legislative Council Election Order, 1922 (Clause 2) which indicates that "For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner. "  (Note: Amended slightly by the 1925 Citizenship Order.)
> 
> These two "articles" had nothing to do with the suggestion that the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies under the Palestine Order in Council of 1922, AKA: Palestine (see  Clause 1 --- Part I) that the description of Palestine was anything other than "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."  And the description of that legal entity lasted until the termination of the Mandate in 1948 and the trusteeship was passed the the Successor Government.
> 
> Whatever a "separate political entity" may have been 1937 --- it was still a non-self-governing entity.  The minutes of the meeting did not end with a change in the status of Palestine as described under the Order in Council, or the Mandate.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part of this changes my post?
> 
> Be more specific.
Click to expand...




 That the Palestinians formed a nation and that Palestine was a state, how about some details of this that include the words Palestinian nation and state of Palestine.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful, P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> It is merely a territorial reference name; ---- its meaning buried in the context of the historical association.
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how many times we've explained how that name came about.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The entire basis of the discussion is about the historical connection established.  The question of --- "Who are the Palestinians" --- is an argument that has little or no bearing on the issues of the day.  Who they are today, is defined by what they manage to control today _(which is a deeper question - that may have an answer that they are not proud of)_.  In the 20th century, we've seen two dozen Empires and Dynasties change; one of which was the Ottoman Empire ---  the origins of which can be traced back to the late 11th century and the Turkic Emirates of Anatolian Beyliks.  At the turn of the 19th-to-20th Century, much of what we call "Palestine" today was under the administration of the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem --- a S_anjak_ within the Syria Vilayet [_(Damsacus) of the Ottoman Empire]_.   There was no political subdivision known as "Palestine" with the Ottoman Empire --- not for 500 years.  "Palestine" was a "regional" name denoting the administrative divisions covered by the Sanjak of Nablus, Sanjak of Acre, and the Mutasarrfate of Jerusalem _(Special Ottoman District)_.  _(Note: This is historically why today, both the State of Israel (circa 1967) and the State of Palestine (circa 1988) each claim Jerusalem as their respective capitals.)_
> 
> Administrative divisions of the Mutasarrifate (1872-1909):
> 
> *Beersheba Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا بءرالسبع*; Turkish: _Birüsseb' kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء بئر السبع*‎), which included two sub-districts and a municipality:
> a-Hafir (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه حفير*; Turkish: _Hafır nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية عوجة الحفير*‎), created in 1908 as a middle point between Beersheba and Aqaba, close to the newly agreed border with Sinai[15]
> al-Mulayha, created in 1908 as a midway point between Hafir and Aqaba
> Beersheba (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية بءرالسبع*; Turkish: _Birüsseb' belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية بئر السبع*‎), created in 1901
> 
> 
> *Gaza Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا غزّه*; Turkish: _Gazze kazası_ ; Arabic: *قضاء غزة*‎), which included three sub-districts and a municipality:
> Al-Faluja (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه فلوجه*; Turkish: _Felluce nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية الفالوجة*‎), created in 1903
> Khan Yunis (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه خان يونس*; Turkish: _Hanyunus nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية خان يونس*‎), created in 1903 and became a municipality in 1917
> al-Majdal (Ottoman Turkish: *... ناحيه*; Turkish: _Mücdel nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية المجدل*‎), created in 1880
> Gaza (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية غزّه*; Turkish: _Gazze belediyesı_ ; Arabic: *بلدية غزة*‎), created in 1893
> 
> 
> *Hebron Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا خليل الرحمن*; Turkish: _Halilü'r Rahman kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء الخليل*‎), which included two sub-districts and a municipality:
> Bayt 'Itab (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه بيت اعطاب*; Turkish: _Beyt-i a'tâb nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية بيت عطاب*‎), created in 1903
> Bayt Jibrin (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه بيت جبرين*; Turkish: _Beyt-i Cireyn nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية بيت جبرين*‎), created in 1903
> Hebron (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية خليل الرحمن*; Turkish: _Halilü'r Rahman belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية الخليل*‎), created in 1886
> 
> 
> *Jaffa Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا يافه*; Turkish: _Yafa kazası_ ; Arabic: *قضاء يَافَا*‎), which included two sub-districts and a municipality:
> Ni'lin (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه نعلين*; Turkish: _Na’leyn nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية نعلين*‎),created in 1903
> Ramla (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه رمله*; Turkish: _Remle nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية الرملة*‎), created in 1880, became municipality before 1888 and re-established as sub-district in 1889
> Lydda (Ottoman Turkish: *... بلدية*; Turkish: _Lod belediyesı_ ; Arabic: *... بلدية*‎)
> 
> 
> *Jerusalem Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا قدس*; Turkish: _Kudüs-i Şerif kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء القدس الشريف*‎), which included four sub-districts and two municipalities:
> Abwein (Ottoman Turkish: *... ناحيه*; Turkish: _Abaveyn nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية عبوين*‎), created in 1903;
> Bethlehem (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه بيت اللحم*; Turkish: _Beytü'l lahim nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية بيت لحم*‎), created in 1883 and became a municipality in 1894;
> Ramallah (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه رام الله*; Turkish: _Ramallah nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية رام الله*‎), created in 1903 and became a municipality in 1911,
> Saffa (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه صفا*; Turkish: _Safa nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية صفّا*‎),
> Jerusalem (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية قدس*; Turkish: _Kudüs-i Şerif belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية القدس الشريف*‎), created in 1867 and
> Beit Jala (Ottoman Turkish: *... بلدية*; Turkish: _... belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية بيت جالا*‎),created in 1912.
> 
> 
> *Nazareth Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا الْنَاصِرَة*; Turkish: _Nasra kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء الْنَاصِرَة*‎), established 1906.
> Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem
> 
> The Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem (Ottoman Turkish: Kudüs-i Şerif Mutasarrıflığı; Arabic: متصرفية القدس الشريف‎), also known as the Sanjak of Jerusalem was an Ottoman district with special administrative status established in 1872. The district encompassed Jerusalem as well as the other major cities of Gaza, Jaffa, Hebron, Bethlehem and Beersheba. During the late Ottoman period, the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, together with the Sanjak of Nablus and Sanjak of Acre, formed the region that was commonly referred to as "Southern Syria" or "Palestine".​
> The pro-Jihadists that wish to turn the question into an argument over the sovereign rights to the territory are merely attempting to grasp at straws to suggest there is a moral and historical obligation to recognize the Palestinians as a people and a nation.  It has nothing to do with the evolution over time of the territorial control over the land parcel.  Historically, there are very - very - few territories in the world that have not undergone an evolutionary change in sovereignty and the complexion of governmental control.  The area, formerly known as the territory under the Mandate for Palestine, is a land parcel that has changed sovereign control many - many times.
> 
> Today, we are discussing the consequences to the evolution of territorial control in the last half century (since 1948).  While I find it interesting at how some might re-interpret the historical connections, it has nothing to do with the evolution as viewed today in terms of recognition of sovereignty and control.  No matter how the contemporary Palestinian might view history, or whether they recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel --- it exists.
> 
> The issue of the day is not whether there is a historical connection --- it is not a matter of recognition --- it is not a matter of legitimacy...  It is a matter of reestablishing regional peace and the neutralization of radical Islamic influences and Jihadist activity.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine is Palestine by law. Its international borders were defined by post war treaties.
> 
> Palestinians are Palestinians by law.
> -----------------
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only borders are those of the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE, not the nation of Palestine. This falls at the first hurdle of any court if used to claim Palestine as a nation existed before 1988.
> 
> WRONG again as they became BRITISH Palestinian citizens, an interim measure to allow them to travel freely on valid passports and have valid I.D. papers.
> 
> As your first paragraph states  " nationals of the state to which territory is transferred" this was Britain as no state of Palestine existed until 1988.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them _on her behalf,_ in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the *Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State,* though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; *there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.*
> - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE, and the truth is that the people were granted a watered down version of British citizenship. They did not issue their own passports in the name of Palestine, apart from a short period in the 1930's
Click to expand...

Where do you keep getting all of your lies? Seriously, give me some links?
-------------------
With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:
“(1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
(2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them…”92 ​
Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Your response in the line makes no contribution.



P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful, P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> It is merely a territorial reference name; ---- its meaning buried in the context of the historical association.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The entire basis of the discussion is about the historical connection established.  The question of --- "Who are the Palestinians" --- is an argument that has little or no bearing on the issues of the day.  Who they are today, is defined by what they manage to control today _(which is a deeper question - that may have an answer that they are not proud of)_.  In the 20th century, we've seen two dozen Empires and Dynasties change; one of which was the Ottoman Empire ---  the origins of which can be traced back to the late 11th century and the Turkic Emirates of Anatolian Beyliks.  At the turn of the 19th-to-20th Century, much of what we call "Palestine" today was under the administration of the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem --- a S_anjak_ within the Syria Vilayet [_(Damsacus) of the Ottoman Empire]_.   There was no political subdivision known as "Palestine" with the Ottoman Empire --- not for 500 years.  "Palestine" was a "regional" name denoting the administrative divisions covered by the Sanjak of Nablus, Sanjak of Acre, and the Mutasarrfate of Jerusalem _(Special Ottoman District)_.  _(Note: This is historically why today, both the State of Israel (circa 1967) and the State of Palestine (circa 1988) each claim Jerusalem as their respective capitals.)_
> 
> Administrative divisions of the Mutasarrifate (1872-1909):
> 
> *Beersheba Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا بءرالسبع*; Turkish: _Birüsseb' kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء بئر السبع*‎), which included two sub-districts and a municipality:
> a-Hafir (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه حفير*; Turkish: _Hafır nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية عوجة الحفير*‎), created in 1908 as a middle point between Beersheba and Aqaba, close to the newly agreed border with Sinai[15]
> al-Mulayha, created in 1908 as a midway point between Hafir and Aqaba
> Beersheba (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية بءرالسبع*; Turkish: _Birüsseb' belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية بئر السبع*‎), created in 1901
> 
> 
> *Gaza Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا غزّه*; Turkish: _Gazze kazası_ ; Arabic: *قضاء غزة*‎), which included three sub-districts and a municipality:
> Al-Faluja (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه فلوجه*; Turkish: _Felluce nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية الفالوجة*‎), created in 1903
> Khan Yunis (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه خان يونس*; Turkish: _Hanyunus nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية خان يونس*‎), created in 1903 and became a municipality in 1917
> al-Majdal (Ottoman Turkish: *... ناحيه*; Turkish: _Mücdel nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية المجدل*‎), created in 1880
> Gaza (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية غزّه*; Turkish: _Gazze belediyesı_ ; Arabic: *بلدية غزة*‎), created in 1893
> 
> 
> *Hebron Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا خليل الرحمن*; Turkish: _Halilü'r Rahman kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء الخليل*‎), which included two sub-districts and a municipality:
> Bayt 'Itab (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه بيت اعطاب*; Turkish: _Beyt-i a'tâb nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية بيت عطاب*‎), created in 1903
> Bayt Jibrin (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه بيت جبرين*; Turkish: _Beyt-i Cireyn nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية بيت جبرين*‎), created in 1903
> Hebron (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية خليل الرحمن*; Turkish: _Halilü'r Rahman belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية الخليل*‎), created in 1886
> 
> 
> *Jaffa Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا يافه*; Turkish: _Yafa kazası_ ; Arabic: *قضاء يَافَا*‎), which included two sub-districts and a municipality:
> Ni'lin (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه نعلين*; Turkish: _Na’leyn nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية نعلين*‎),created in 1903
> Ramla (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه رمله*; Turkish: _Remle nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية الرملة*‎), created in 1880, became municipality before 1888 and re-established as sub-district in 1889
> Lydda (Ottoman Turkish: *... بلدية*; Turkish: _Lod belediyesı_ ; Arabic: *... بلدية*‎)
> 
> 
> *Jerusalem Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا قدس*; Turkish: _Kudüs-i Şerif kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء القدس الشريف*‎), which included four sub-districts and two municipalities:
> Abwein (Ottoman Turkish: *... ناحيه*; Turkish: _Abaveyn nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية عبوين*‎), created in 1903;
> Bethlehem (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه بيت اللحم*; Turkish: _Beytü'l lahim nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية بيت لحم*‎), created in 1883 and became a municipality in 1894;
> Ramallah (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه رام الله*; Turkish: _Ramallah nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية رام الله*‎), created in 1903 and became a municipality in 1911,
> Saffa (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه صفا*; Turkish: _Safa nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية صفّا*‎),
> Jerusalem (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية قدس*; Turkish: _Kudüs-i Şerif belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية القدس الشريف*‎), created in 1867 and
> Beit Jala (Ottoman Turkish: *... بلدية*; Turkish: _... belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية بيت جالا*‎),created in 1912.
> 
> 
> *Nazareth Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا الْنَاصِرَة*; Turkish: _Nasra kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء الْنَاصِرَة*‎), established 1906.
> Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem
> 
> The Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem (Ottoman Turkish: Kudüs-i Şerif Mutasarrıflığı; Arabic: متصرفية القدس الشريف‎), also known as the Sanjak of Jerusalem was an Ottoman district with special administrative status established in 1872. The district encompassed Jerusalem as well as the other major cities of Gaza, Jaffa, Hebron, Bethlehem and Beersheba. During the late Ottoman period, the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, together with the Sanjak of Nablus and Sanjak of Acre, formed the region that was commonly referred to as "Southern Syria" or "Palestine".​
> The pro-Jihadists that wish to turn the question into an argument over the sovereign rights to the territory are merely attempting to grasp at straws to suggest there is a moral and historical obligation to recognize the Palestinians as a people and a nation.  It has nothing to do with the evolution over time of the territorial control over the land parcel.  Historically, there are very - very - few territories in the world that have not undergone an evolutionary change in sovereignty and the complexion of governmental control.  The area, formerly known as the territory under the Mandate for Palestine, is a land parcel that has changed sovereign control many - many times.
> 
> Today, we are discussing the consequences to the evolution of territorial control in the last half century (since 1948).  While I find it interesting at how some might re-interpret the historical connections, it has nothing to do with the evolution as viewed today in terms of recognition of sovereignty and control.  No matter how the contemporary Palestinian might view history, or whether they recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel --- it exists.
> 
> The issue of the day is not whether there is a historical connection --- it is not a matter of recognition --- it is not a matter of legitimacy...  It is a matter of reestablishing regional peace and the neutralization of radical Islamic influences and Jihadist activity.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine is Palestine by law. Its international borders were defined by post war treaties.
> 
> Palestinians are Palestinians by law.
> -----------------
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only borders are those of the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE, not the nation of Palestine. This falls at the first hurdle of any court if used to claim Palestine as a nation existed before 1988.
> 
> WRONG again as they became BRITISH Palestinian citizens, an interim measure to allow them to travel freely on valid passports and have valid I.D. papers.
> 
> As your first paragraph states  " nationals of the state to which territory is transferred" this was Britain as no state of Palestine existed until 1988.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them _on her behalf,_ in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the *Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State,* though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; *there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.*
> - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE, and the truth is that the people were granted a watered down version of British citizenship. They did not issue their own passports in the name of Palestine, apart from a short period in the 1930's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do you keep getting all of your lies? Seriously, give me some links?
> -------------------
> With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:
> “(1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
> (2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them…”92 ​
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Of course there is a difference between the "native inhabitants" and those that are "UK Citizens."  But how does that come into play?  That does not have anything to do with the fact that the "Passports" (Palestinian) were printed and issued by the Mandatory (the UK). 

What was the point trying to be made here?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Mindful

Myth of Palestine.

 The myth of 8216 Palestine A much watch video on the biggest lie in world history


----------



## aris2chat

Mindful said:


> Myth of Palestine.
> 
> The myth of 8216 Palestine A much watch video on the biggest lie in world history



Azem's book was available from the Cairo press.  I don't know if it was ever published in english.  I wish I still had my copy for reference


----------



## aris2chat

Who are the Palestinian Refugees Messiah s Mandate

More information and references


----------



## MJB12741

aris2chat said:


> Who are the Palestinian Refugees Messiah s Mandate
> 
> More information and references



I must say it truly saddens me what the Arab countries did & still do to Palestinians.  And yet no compalints from Palis or their supporters.  Not even over Black September.  But let Israel make peace offerings to them, build a security fence & conceed land to them so they can remain in Israel & Israel is their enemy.  It's called Palestinian menatlity.


----------



## aris2chat

MJB12741 said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinian Refugees Messiah s Mandate
> 
> More information and references
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I must say it truly saddens me what the Arab countries did & still do to Palestinians.  And yet no compalints from Palis or their supporters.  Not even over Black September.  But let Israel make peace offerings to them, build a security fence & conceed land to them so they can remain in Israel & Israel is their enemy.  It's called Palestinian menatlity.
Click to expand...


you did notice the quote by Abbas

>>Mahmud Abbas (“Abu Mazen”), PLO spokesman, wrote: “The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live.”<<


----------



## Hossfly

aris2chat said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinian Refugees Messiah s Mandate
> 
> More information and references
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I must say it truly saddens me what the Arab countries did & still do to Palestinians.  And yet no compalints from Palis or their supporters.  Not even over Black September.  But let Israel make peace offerings to them, build a security fence & conceed land to them so they can remain in Israel & Israel is their enemy.  It's called Palestinian menatlity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you did notice the quote by Abbas
> 
> >>Mahmud Abbas (“Abu Mazen”), PLO spokesman, wrote: “The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live.”<<
Click to expand...

It doesn't make any difference, Aris. All the pro-Palestinians will say the translators are lying or traitors.


----------



## fanger

Mindful said:


> Myth of Palestine.
> 
> The myth of 8216 Palestine A much watch video on the biggest lie in world history


*Pierre Rehov* is the pseudonym of a French-Israeli film maker and novelist, who fled his native Algeria, after scare-mongering from zionists


----------



## MJB12741

Hossfly said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinian Refugees Messiah s Mandate
> 
> More information and references
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I must say it truly saddens me what the Arab countries did & still do to Palestinians.  And yet no compalints from Palis or their supporters.  Not even over Black September.  But let Israel make peace offerings to them, build a security fence & conceed land to them so they can remain in Israel & Israel is their enemy.  It's called Palestinian menatlity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you did notice the quote by Abbas
> 
> >>Mahmud Abbas (“Abu Mazen”), PLO spokesman, wrote: “The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live.”<<
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't make any difference, Aris. All the pro-Palestinians will say the translators are lying or traitors.
Click to expand...


Yeah but ya gotta love the Palis for their great sense of humor.


----------



## aris2chat

MJB12741 said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinian Refugees Messiah s Mandate
> 
> More information and references
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I must say it truly saddens me what the Arab countries did & still do to Palestinians.  And yet no compalints from Palis or their supporters.  Not even over Black September.  But let Israel make peace offerings to them, build a security fence & conceed land to them so they can remain in Israel & Israel is their enemy.  It's called Palestinian menatlity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you did notice the quote by Abbas
> 
> >>Mahmud Abbas (“Abu Mazen”), PLO spokesman, wrote: “The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live.”<<
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't make any difference, Aris. All the pro-Palestinians will say the translators are lying or traitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah but ya gotta love the Palis for their great sense of humor.
Click to expand...


LOL


----------



## MJB12741

aris2chat said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinian Refugees Messiah s Mandate
> 
> More information and references
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I must say it truly saddens me what the Arab countries did & still do to Palestinians.  And yet no compalints from Palis or their supporters.  Not even over Black September.  But let Israel make peace offerings to them, build a security fence & conceed land to them so they can remain in Israel & Israel is their enemy.  It's called Palestinian menatlity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you did notice the quote by Abbas
> 
> >>Mahmud Abbas (“Abu Mazen”), PLO spokesman, wrote: “The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live.”<<
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't make any difference, Aris. All the pro-Palestinians will say the translators are lying or traitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah but ya gotta love the Palis for their great sense of humor.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL
Click to expand...


Palis should have a Palestinian olympics with a pin pull contest where they each pull their pins one by one to see who can scatter their body parts the furthest.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Leila Sansour, director of the film "Open Bethlehem"*


----------



## MJB12741

http://commentisfreewatch.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/al-aqsa_martyrs_brigade.jpg


----------



## MJB12741

Yo Tinmore, remember this one?

Palestinian terrorists hijack an Italian cruise ship mdash History.com This Day in History mdash 10 7 1985


----------



## MJB12741

Just curious, who was it that stooped so low as to kill the Israeli Olympics team in Munich?  Has any other people ever done such a crime in a world international event of peace?


----------



## montelatici

"*Cubana de Aviación Flight 455* was a Cuban flight from Barbados to Jamaica that was brought down on October 6, 1976 by a bomb attack. All 73 people on board the Douglas DC-8 aircraft were killed. Two time bombs were used, variously described as dynamite or C-4.

Several CIA-linked anti-Castro Cuban exiles and members of the Venezuelan secret police DISIP were implicated by the evidence. Political complications quickly arose when Cuba accused the US government of being an accomplice to the attack. CIA documents released in 2005 indicate that the agency "had concrete advance intelligence, as early as June 1976, on plans by Cuban exile terrorist groups to bomb a Cubana airliner." Former CIA terrorist operative Luis Posada Carriles denies involvement but provides many details of the incident in his book _Caminos del Guerrero_ (Way of the Warrior).[1][2]

Four men were arrested in connection with the bombing, and a trial was held in Venezuela. Freddy Lugo and Hernán Ricardo Lozano were each sentenced to 20-year prison terms. Orlando Bosch was acquitted and later moved to Miami, Florida, where he lived until his death on April 27, 2011. Luis Posada Carriles was held for eight years while awaiting a final sentence but eventually fled. He later entered the United States, where he was held on charges of entering the country illegally, but was released on April 19, 2007...*Among the dead were all 24 members of the 1975 national Cuban fencing team that had just won all the gold medals in the Central American and Caribbean Championships; many were teenagers.* Several officials of the Cuban government were also aboard the plane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubana_de_Aviación_Flight_455


----------



## toastman

MJB12741 said:


> Just curious, who was it that stooped so low as to kill the Israeli Olympics team in Munich?  Has any other people ever done such a crime in a world international event of peace?


They spent months and months planning the attack. Traveled to Germany and carefully executed the murder of those Israel athletes. According to Palestinians, that's resistance.


----------



## Mindful

Chew on this.


----------



## gtopa1

montelatici said:


> "*Cubana de Aviación Flight 455* was a Cuban flight from Barbados to Jamaica that was brought down on October 6, 1976 by a bomb attack. All 73 people on board the Douglas DC-8 aircraft were killed. Two time bombs were used, variously described as dynamite or C-4.
> 
> Several CIA-linked anti-Castro Cuban exiles and members of the Venezuelan secret police DISIP were implicated by the evidence. Political complications quickly arose when Cuba accused the US government of being an accomplice to the attack. CIA documents released in 2005 indicate that the agency "had concrete advance intelligence, as early as June 1976, on plans by Cuban exile terrorist groups to bomb a Cubana airliner." Former CIA terrorist operative Luis Posada Carriles denies involvement but provides many details of the incident in his book _Caminos del Guerrero_ (Way of the Warrior).[1][2]
> 
> Four men were arrested in connection with the bombing, and a trial was held in Venezuela. Freddy Lugo and Hernán Ricardo Lozano were each sentenced to 20-year prison terms. Orlando Bosch was acquitted and later moved to Miami, Florida, where he lived until his death on April 27, 2011. Luis Posada Carriles was held for eight years while awaiting a final sentence but eventually fled. He later entered the United States, where he was held on charges of entering the country illegally, but was released on April 19, 2007...*Among the dead were all 24 members of the 1975 national Cuban fencing team that had just won all the gold medals in the Central American and Caribbean Championships; many were teenagers.* Several officials of the Cuban government were also aboard the plane.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubana_de_Aviación_Flight_455






> Several officials of the Cuban government were also aboard the plane.



So the targets were the Cuban Gov officials?? The same ones who ordered the murder and torture of thousands of Cubans??

Greg


----------



## gtopa1

> *Sirhan Bishara Sirhan* (Arabic: سرحان بشارة سرحان‎, _Sirḥān Bishārah Sirḥān_; born March 19, 1944) is a Palestinian of Jordanian citizenship who was convicted of the 1968 assassination of United States Senator Robert F. Kennedy. He is currently serving a life sentence at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego County, California.
> 
> Sirhan was born in British-ruled Jerusalem and is a strong opponent of Israel. In 1989, he told David Frost, "My only connection with Robert Kennedy was his sole support of Israel and his deliberate attempt to send those 50 bombers to Israel to obviously do harm to the Palestinians."[1] Some scholars believe that the assassination was the first major incident of political violence in the United States stemming from the Arab–Israeli conflict in the Middle East.[2]



Killing a US President in waiting didn't get the chair?? Now that's CHARITY!!!

PLUS!!!

Understanding RFK s assassination as Palestinian terror - Blogs - Jerusalem Post


The USA was attacked and it's most wonderful future murdered by a Pal terrorist!!! It's only natural that all anti-Americans support the terrorists in Palestine!!

Greg


----------



## MJB12741

gtopa1 said:


> *Sirhan Bishara Sirhan* (Arabic: سرحان بشارة سرحان‎, _Sirḥān Bishārah Sirḥān_; born March 19, 1944) is a Palestinian of Jordanian citizenship who was convicted of the 1968 assassination of United States Senator Robert F. Kennedy. He is currently serving a life sentence at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego County, California.
> 
> Sirhan was born in British-ruled Jerusalem and is a strong opponent of Israel. In 1989, he told David Frost, "My only connection with Robert Kennedy was his sole support of Israel and his deliberate attempt to send those 50 bombers to Israel to obviously do harm to the Palestinians."[1] Some scholars believe that the assassination was the first major incident of political violence in the United States stemming from the Arab–Israeli conflict in the Middle East.[2]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Killing a US President in waiting didn't get the chair?? Now that's CHARITY!!!
> 
> PLUS!!!
> 
> Understanding RFK s assassination as Palestinian terror - Blogs - Jerusalem Post
> 
> 
> The USA was attacked and it's most wonderful future murdered by a Pal terrorist!!! It's only natural that all anti-Americans support the terrorists in Palestine!!
> 
> Greg
Click to expand...


So true that enemies of Israel are also enemies of the USA.


----------



## MJB12741




----------



## aris2chat

Joan Peters passed away today.  Her book should be a must read but there are some points that are in question.  Overall the book brings a well researched perspective of the situation.  Like everything written about the middle east, you should do your own research and read what others say with a pinch of salt, especially things with a strong perspective.  Facts might be correct but opinions from both sides usually are somewhere in the middle.  Either way the book should be a staple for anyone interested in the situation.  I used to have quite the library that I used for reference, Peter's book was just one among them.  When the book came out there was quite the discussion about it.

From Time ImmemorialThe Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine



danielpipes.org/1110/from-time-immemorial

 by Joan Peters
Reviewed by Daniel Pipes
_Commentary_
July 1984


Joan Peters began this book planning to write about the Arabs who fled Palestine in 1948-49, when armies of the Arab states attempted to destroy the fledgling state of Israel. In the course of research on this subject, she came across a "seemingly casual" discrepancy between the standard definition of a refugee and the definition used for the Palestinian Arabs. In other cases, a refugee is someone forced to leave a permanent or habitual home. In this case, however, it is someone who had lived in Palestine for just two years before the flight that began in 1948.


This discrepancy made little impression on her at first, Miss Peters recounts. But as she continued, the anomaly of the Palestinians "began to nag and unravel" the outline of her book. Why a separate definition for the Palestinians? What was it about them that had to be incorporated in the official description of eligibility for refugee status? Reading historical materials about Palestine in the years before 1948, Miss Peters came across a statement by Winston Churchill that she says opened her eyes to the situation in Palestine. In 1939 Churchill challenged the common notion that Jewish immigration into Palestine had uprooted its Arab residents. To the contrary, according to him, "So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population."


Arabs crowded into Palestine? As Miss Peters pursued this angle she found a fund of obscure information that confirmed Churchill's observation. Drawing on census statistics and a great number of contemporary accounts, she pieced together the dimensions of Arab immigration into Palestine before 1948. Although others have noted this phenomenon, she is the first to document it, to attempt to quantify it, and to draw conclusions from it. Her historical detective work has produced startling results, which should materially influence the future course of the debate about the Palestinian problem.

 Before entering into the statistics and reports Miss Peters uses to put forward her argument, however, I should enter a word of caution about _From Time Immemorial._ The author is not a historian or someone practiced in writing on politics, and she tends to let her passions carry her away. As a result, the book suffers from chaotic presentation and an excess of partisanship, faults which seriously mar its impact. But they do not diminish the importance of the facts presented. Despite its drawbacks. _From Time Immemorial_ contains a wealth of information, which is well worth the effort to uncover. 
Making use of work done by Kemal Karpat in the Ottoman records, Miss Peters ascertains the non-Jewish population in 1893 of the area that would later form Palestine under the British Mandate. She then divides this area into three parts: one without Jewish settlement, one with light Jewish settlement, and one with heavy Jewish settlement. She compares the non-Jewish population of each of these parts in 1893 and 1947, on the eve of Israel's independence. In the area of no Jewish settlement, the non-Jewish population stood in 1893 at 337,200; in 1947 it was 730,000, a growth of 116 percent. In the area of light Jewish settlement, the non-Jewish population grew in the same period from 38,900 to 110,900 or 185 percent. Finally, in the area of heavy Jewish settlement, the non-Jewish population grew from 92,300 in 1893 to 462,000 in 1947—or 401 percent. From these figures Miss Peters concludes that "the Arab population appears to have increased in direct proportion to the Jewish presence."


The great variance in the figures usually gets obscured because the three regions are lumped together and counted as a single unit. Population in the whole area of Mandatory Palestine grew 178 percent in fifty-four years. This increase can be accounted for through natural reproduction alone; it therefore raises few questions. But 401 percent cannot be explained in this way, much less the vast difference in growth rates among the three divisions.


How, then, to account for the varying rates? By the movement of peoples. Although the Jews alone moved to Palestine for ideological reasons, they were not alone in emigrating there. Arabs joined them in large numbers, from the first _aliyah_ in 1882 to the creation of Israel in 1948. "The Arabs were moving into the very areas where Jewish settlement had preceded them and was luring them." Arab immigration received much less attention because both the Turkish and British administrators (before and after 1917, respectively) took little interest in them. Under the latter, for instance, "there was not even a serious gauge for considering the incidence of Arab immigration into Palestine." The return of Zionists to the land of their ancestors was a topic of nearly universal fascination, both positive and negative. Arabs crossing newly-established and artificial boundaries caught no one's interest.


As a result, officials in Palestine counted only a small percentage of the Arab immigrants. British records for 1934 show only 1,734 non-Jews as legal immigrants and about 3,000 as illegals. Yet, according to a newspaper interview in August 1934 with the governor of the Hauran district in Syria, "In the last few months from 30,000 to 36,000 Hauranese had entered Palestine and settled there." In 1947, British officials had counted only 37,000 Arabs as the aggregate of non-Jewish immigrants in Palestine since 1917—hardly more than had come from one district of Syria in less than one year alone.


Non-Jewish immigrants came from all parts of the Middle East, including Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Transjordan (as Jordan was once known), Saudi Arabia, the Yemens, Egypt, Sudan, and Libya. Thanks to British unconcern, Arab immigrants were generally left alone and allowed to settle in Mandatory Palestine. So many Arabs came, Miss Peters estimates, that "if all those Jews and all those Arabs who arrived in ... Palestine between 1893 and 1948 had remained, and if they were forced to leave now, a dual exodus of at least equal proportion would in all probability take place. Palestine would be depopulated once again."


Some British administrators complained about the laxness toward Arab immigration, but to little avail. The author devotes sixteen pages to the memoranda sent in the latter part of 1937 by the British consul in Damascus, Colonel Gilbert MacKereth, in which he urges a more effective patrolling of Palestine's borders. MacKereth failed in this because British concern with immigration remained always focused on the Jews.


What took hundreds of thousands of Arabs to Palestine? Economic opportunity. The Zionists brought the skills and resources of Europe. Like other Europeans settling scarcely populated areas in recent times—in Australia, Southern Africa, or the American West—the Jews in Palestine initiated economic activities that created jobs and wealth on a level far beyond that of the indigenous peoples. In response, large numbers of Arabs moved toward the settlers to find employment.


The conventional picture has it that Jewish immigrants bought up Arab properties, forcing the former owners into unemployment. Miss Peters argues exactly the contrary, that the Jews created new opportunities, which attracted emigrants from distant places. To the extent that there was unemployment among the Arabs, it was mostly among the recent arrivals.


This reversal of the usual interpretation implies a wholly different way of seeing the Arab position in Mandatory Palestine. As C. S.Jarvis, governor of the Sinai in 1923-36, [_DP_: this corrects the 1984 text, which wrongly ascribed the following quote to Winston Churchill] observed, "It is very difficult to make a case out for the misery of the Arabs if at the same time their compatriots from adjoining states could not be kept from going in to share that misery." The data unearthed by Joan Peters indicate that Arabs benefited economically so much by the presence of Jewish settlers from Europe that they traveled hundreds of miles to get closer to them.


In turn, this explains why the definition of a refugee from Palestine in 1948 is a person who lived there for just two years: because many Arab residents in 1948 had immigrated so recently. The usual definition would have cut out a substantial portion of the persons who later claimed to be refugees from Palestine.


Thus, the "Palestinian problem" lacks firm grounding. Many of those who now consider themselves Palestinian refugees were either immigrants themselves before 1948 or the children of immigrants. This historical fact reduces their claim to the land of Israel; it also reinforces the point that the real problem in the Middle East has little to do with Palestinian-Arab rights.


Letter to the Editor
by Daniel Pipes
_New York Review of Books_
March 27, 1986


Joan Peters, author of "From Time Immemorial."

 Joan Peters's _From Time Immemorial_ has, broadly speaking, been received in two ways at two times. Early reviews treated her book as a serious contribution to the study of the Arab-Israeli conflict and late ones dismissed it as propaganda. Coming almost two years after the book's publication, Professor Yehoshua Porath's review in your January 16, 1986 issue probably closes the second round. As one of those who reviewed the book when it first appeared—and who was referred to for this reason in Professor Porath's review—I should at this time like to comment on the debate. 
The difference between the two rounds is not hard to explain. Most early reviewers, including myself, focused on the substance of Miss Peters's central thesis; the later reviewers, in contrast, emphasized the faults—technical, historical, and literary—in Miss Peters's book.


I would not dispute the existence of those faults. _From Time Immemorial_ quotes carelessly, uses statistics sloppily, and ignores inconvenient facts. Much of the book is irrelevant to Miss Peters's central thesis. The author's linguistic and scholarly abilities are open to question. Excessive use of quotation marks, eccentric footnotes, and a polemical, somewhat hysterical undertone mar the book. In short, _From Time Immemorial_ stands out as an appallingly crafted book.


Granting all this, the fact remains that the book presents a thesis that neither Professor Porath nor any other reviewer has so far succeeded in refuting. Miss Peters's central thesis is that a substantial immigration of Arabs to Palestine took place during the first half of the twentieth century. She supports this argument with an array of demographic statistics and contemporary accounts, the bulk of which have not been questioned by any reviewer, including Professor Porath.


Nonetheless, Professor Porath dismisses her argument as "fanciful." He says that "the main reason" for Arab population growth is that Arab births remained steady while infant mortality decreased. He concludes that the movement of population was not significant in comparison with natural increase.


Now, there can be no question that improvements in medical conditions contributed to the increase in Arab population. But it is not immediately clear that declining infant mortality was more important than immigration. Professor Porath asserts this but he does not provide the evidence necessary to convince a reader.


The disproof of Miss Peters's thesis requires a detailed inquiry into birth and death records, immigration and emigration registers, employment rolls, nomadic settlement patterns, and so forth. She may be wrong; but this will be proven only when another researcher goes through the evidence and shows that immigration was unimportant. The existence or absence of large-scale Arab immigration to Palestine has nothing to do, of course, with Miss Peters's motives or the obvious short-comings of her book. The facts about population change will not be established by heaping scorn on Miss Peters, only by going back to the archives.


Faulty presentation notwithstanding, Miss Peters's hypothesis is on the table; it is incumbent on her critics to cease the name-calling and make a serious effort to show her wrong by demonstrating that many thousands of Arabs did not emigrate to Palestine in the period under question.


Until such happens, what is one to think? Is there reason to accept Miss Peters's version of events? I believe so: even though _From Time Immemorial_ does not place Arab immigration to Palestine in a historical context, it is not hard to find a rationale for their movement. The Arabs who went to Palestine sought economic opportunity created by the Zionists. As Europeans, the Zionists brought with them to Palestine resources and skills far in advance of anything possessed by the local population. Jews initiated advanced economic activities that created jobs and wealth and drew Arabs. Zionists resembled the British, Germans, and other Europeans of modern times who settled in sparsely populated areas—Australia, southern Africa, or the American West—and then attracted the indigenous people to themselves.


There is really nothing surprising in all this; and because it makes such good sense, I put credence in the argument that substantial numbers of Arabs moved to Palestine. I will adjust my views, of course, should compelling evidence be found to show otherwise. But this will require that Miss Peters's critics go beyond polemics and actually prove her thesis wrong.


Jan. 1, 2003 update: For a slimmed-down and more reliable version of the Peters' thesis, see Fred M. Gottheil, "The Smoking Gun: Arab Immigration into Palestine, 1922-1931," _Middle East Quarterly_, Winter 2003.


Belated mention should also be made of the important study by Aryeh L. Avneri_, The Claim of Dispossession: Jewish land-Settlement and the Arabs, 1878-1948_. First published in Hebrew in 1980, it appeared in English translation from Transaction Books in 1984, the same years as Peters' analysis.


Aug. 20, 2009 update: In "The lost Palestinian Jews," David Shamah of the _Jerusalem Post_ tells about the unlikel work of Tsvi Misinai. In sum:


After years of research, Misinai says that he can declare with certainty that nearly 90 percent of all Palestinians are descended from the Jews. "And what's more, about half of them know it," he says.


For details, read the fascinating article.


June 7, 2011 update: David P. Goldman notes in "Israel, Ireland and the peace of the aging" that the pattern of Arabs huddling for economic reasons with Jews continues as much as ever:


5,800 Palestinians are working at technology companies on the West Bank, and the booming Israeli software sector is outsourcing to the West Bank, with a third of Palestinian software companies filling orders for Israeli firms, Bloomberg News reported March 15.


And the top school for Palestinian computer science students is Ariel University in Samaria, in the midst of a settlement near Nablus. "Administrators at the Ariel University Center are proud to have the Arab students, saying their enrollment is an example of loyalty and equality among Israeli citizens. For their part, the Arab students seem not to feel uncomfortable attending the college despite its reputation and location," wrote the _Chronicle of Higher Education_.


"On campus the fact that we are in occupied territory is irrelevant - it doesn't affect us at all. We leave all the politics outside," the _Chronicle_ quoted Manar Dewany, a 20-year-old student in math and computer science who commutes each day from the Israeli Arab town of Taybeh. "I never even considered it a reason for not coming here," Ms Dewany added. "I have no problem with it. Why not come here? This place is full of Arabs."


No one outsources computer technology to Egypt, where very few of each year's crop of 700,000 college graduates meets world standards. The education that young Arabs receive at the settlers' university on the West Bank is better than anything available among Israel's Arab neighbors. In a quiet way, the settlers of Samaria may do more for peace than the diplomats.


Apr. 1, 2013 update: A Ḥamas leader, Fathi Ḥammad, said on March 23, 2012, that "half of the Palestinians are Egyptian and the other half are Saudis," providing Gideon M. Kressel and the late Reuven Aharoni with a proof text for their brave and original study, _Egyptian Émigrés in the Levant of the 19th and 20th Centuries_. In it, they establish that many "Palestinians" in fact came from Egypt. Indeed, "the Egyptian population is a very large component that, relatively speaking, only recently arrived in Palestine."


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful, P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> It is merely a territorial reference name; ---- its meaning buried in the context of the historical association.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The entire basis of the discussion is about the historical connection established.  The question of --- "Who are the Palestinians" --- is an argument that has little or no bearing on the issues of the day.  Who they are today, is defined by what they manage to control today _(which is a deeper question - that may have an answer that they are not proud of)_.  In the 20th century, we've seen two dozen Empires and Dynasties change; one of which was the Ottoman Empire ---  the origins of which can be traced back to the late 11th century and the Turkic Emirates of Anatolian Beyliks.  At the turn of the 19th-to-20th Century, much of what we call "Palestine" today was under the administration of the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem --- a S_anjak_ within the Syria Vilayet [_(Damsacus) of the Ottoman Empire]_.   There was no political subdivision known as "Palestine" with the Ottoman Empire --- not for 500 years.  "Palestine" was a "regional" name denoting the administrative divisions covered by the Sanjak of Nablus, Sanjak of Acre, and the Mutasarrfate of Jerusalem _(Special Ottoman District)_.  _(Note: This is historically why today, both the State of Israel (circa 1967) and the State of Palestine (circa 1988) each claim Jerusalem as their respective capitals.)_
> 
> Administrative divisions of the Mutasarrifate (1872-1909):
> 
> *Beersheba Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا بءرالسبع*; Turkish: _Birüsseb' kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء بئر السبع*‎), which included two sub-districts and a municipality:
> a-Hafir (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه حفير*; Turkish: _Hafır nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية عوجة الحفير*‎), created in 1908 as a middle point between Beersheba and Aqaba, close to the newly agreed border with Sinai[15]
> al-Mulayha, created in 1908 as a midway point between Hafir and Aqaba
> Beersheba (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية بءرالسبع*; Turkish: _Birüsseb' belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية بئر السبع*‎), created in 1901
> 
> 
> *Gaza Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا غزّه*; Turkish: _Gazze kazası_ ; Arabic: *قضاء غزة*‎), which included three sub-districts and a municipality:
> Al-Faluja (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه فلوجه*; Turkish: _Felluce nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية الفالوجة*‎), created in 1903
> Khan Yunis (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه خان يونس*; Turkish: _Hanyunus nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية خان يونس*‎), created in 1903 and became a municipality in 1917
> al-Majdal (Ottoman Turkish: *... ناحيه*; Turkish: _Mücdel nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية المجدل*‎), created in 1880
> Gaza (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية غزّه*; Turkish: _Gazze belediyesı_ ; Arabic: *بلدية غزة*‎), created in 1893
> 
> 
> *Hebron Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا خليل الرحمن*; Turkish: _Halilü'r Rahman kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء الخليل*‎), which included two sub-districts and a municipality:
> Bayt 'Itab (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه بيت اعطاب*; Turkish: _Beyt-i a'tâb nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية بيت عطاب*‎), created in 1903
> Bayt Jibrin (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه بيت جبرين*; Turkish: _Beyt-i Cireyn nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية بيت جبرين*‎), created in 1903
> Hebron (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية خليل الرحمن*; Turkish: _Halilü'r Rahman belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية الخليل*‎), created in 1886
> 
> 
> *Jaffa Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا يافه*; Turkish: _Yafa kazası_ ; Arabic: *قضاء يَافَا*‎), which included two sub-districts and a municipality:
> Ni'lin (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه نعلين*; Turkish: _Na’leyn nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية نعلين*‎),created in 1903
> Ramla (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه رمله*; Turkish: _Remle nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية الرملة*‎), created in 1880, became municipality before 1888 and re-established as sub-district in 1889
> Lydda (Ottoman Turkish: *... بلدية*; Turkish: _Lod belediyesı_ ; Arabic: *... بلدية*‎)
> 
> 
> *Jerusalem Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا قدس*; Turkish: _Kudüs-i Şerif kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء القدس الشريف*‎), which included four sub-districts and two municipalities:
> Abwein (Ottoman Turkish: *... ناحيه*; Turkish: _Abaveyn nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية عبوين*‎), created in 1903;
> Bethlehem (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه بيت اللحم*; Turkish: _Beytü'l lahim nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية بيت لحم*‎), created in 1883 and became a municipality in 1894;
> Ramallah (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه رام الله*; Turkish: _Ramallah nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية رام الله*‎), created in 1903 and became a municipality in 1911,
> Saffa (Ottoman Turkish: *ناحيه صفا*; Turkish: _Safa nahiyesı_; Arabic: *ناحية صفّا*‎),
> Jerusalem (Ottoman Turkish: *بلدية قدس*; Turkish: _Kudüs-i Şerif belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية القدس الشريف*‎), created in 1867 and
> Beit Jala (Ottoman Turkish: *... بلدية*; Turkish: _... belediyesı_; Arabic: *بلدية بيت جالا*‎),created in 1912.
> 
> 
> *Nazareth Kaza* (Ottoman Turkish: *قضا الْنَاصِرَة*; Turkish: _Nasra kazası_; Arabic: *قضاء الْنَاصِرَة*‎), established 1906.
> Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem
> 
> The Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem (Ottoman Turkish: Kudüs-i Şerif Mutasarrıflığı; Arabic: متصرفية القدس الشريف‎), also known as the Sanjak of Jerusalem was an Ottoman district with special administrative status established in 1872. The district encompassed Jerusalem as well as the other major cities of Gaza, Jaffa, Hebron, Bethlehem and Beersheba. During the late Ottoman period, the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, together with the Sanjak of Nablus and Sanjak of Acre, formed the region that was commonly referred to as "Southern Syria" or "Palestine".​
> The pro-Jihadists that wish to turn the question into an argument over the sovereign rights to the territory are merely attempting to grasp at straws to suggest there is a moral and historical obligation to recognize the Palestinians as a people and a nation.  It has nothing to do with the evolution over time of the territorial control over the land parcel.  Historically, there are very - very - few territories in the world that have not undergone an evolutionary change in sovereignty and the complexion of governmental control.  The area, formerly known as the territory under the Mandate for Palestine, is a land parcel that has changed sovereign control many - many times.
> 
> Today, we are discussing the consequences to the evolution of territorial control in the last half century (since 1948).  While I find it interesting at how some might re-interpret the historical connections, it has nothing to do with the evolution as viewed today in terms of recognition of sovereignty and control.  No matter how the contemporary Palestinian might view history, or whether they recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel --- it exists.
> 
> The issue of the day is not whether there is a historical connection --- it is not a matter of recognition --- it is not a matter of legitimacy...  It is a matter of reestablishing regional peace and the neutralization of radical Islamic influences and Jihadist activity.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine is Palestine by law. Its international borders were defined by post war treaties.
> 
> Palestinians are Palestinians by law.
> -----------------
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only borders are those of the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE, not the nation of Palestine. This falls at the first hurdle of any court if used to claim Palestine as a nation existed before 1988.
> 
> WRONG again as they became BRITISH Palestinian citizens, an interim measure to allow them to travel freely on valid passports and have valid I.D. papers.
> 
> As your first paragraph states  " nationals of the state to which territory is transferred" this was Britain as no state of Palestine existed until 1988.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them _on her behalf,_ in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the *Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State,* though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; *there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.*
> - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE, and the truth is that the people were granted a watered down version of British citizenship. They did not issue their own passports in the name of Palestine, apart from a short period in the 1930's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do you keep getting all of your lies? Seriously, give me some links?
> -------------------
> With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:
> “(1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
> (2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them…”92 ​
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
Click to expand...





 Which is a watered down version of British citizenship, otherwise they would be stateless people. What other government was in evidence, who was its leader, what was its currency, where was its capital, what was its GDP. The other parts of Palestine and the mandates were ruled by Jordan, Syria, Iraq etc. who ruled palestine


----------



## MJB12741

aris2chat said:


> Joan Peters passed away today.  Her book should be a must read but there are some points that are in question.  Overall the book brings a well researched perspective of the situation.  Like everything written about the middle east, you should do your own research and read what others say with a pinch of salt, especially things with a strong perspective.  Facts might be correct but opinions from both sides usually are somewhere in the middle.  Either way the book should be a staple for anyone interested in the situation.  I used to have quite the library that I used for reference, Peter's book was just one among them.  When the book came out there was quite the discussion about it.
> 
> From Time ImmemorialThe Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> danielpipes.org/1110/from-time-immemorial
> 
> by Joan Peters
> Reviewed by Daniel Pipes
> _Commentary_
> July 1984
> 
> 
> Joan Peters began this book planning to write about the Arabs who fled Palestine in 1948-49, when armies of the Arab states attempted to destroy the fledgling state of Israel. In the course of research on this subject, she came across a "seemingly casual" discrepancy between the standard definition of a refugee and the definition used for the Palestinian Arabs. In other cases, a refugee is someone forced to leave a permanent or habitual home. In this case, however, it is someone who had lived in Palestine for just two years before the flight that began in 1948.
> 
> 
> This discrepancy made little impression on her at first, Miss Peters recounts. But as she continued, the anomaly of the Palestinians "began to nag and unravel" the outline of her book. Why a separate definition for the Palestinians? What was it about them that had to be incorporated in the official description of eligibility for refugee status? Reading historical materials about Palestine in the years before 1948, Miss Peters came across a statement by Winston Churchill that she says opened her eyes to the situation in Palestine. In 1939 Churchill challenged the common notion that Jewish immigration into Palestine had uprooted its Arab residents. To the contrary, according to him, "So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population."
> 
> 
> Arabs crowded into Palestine? As Miss Peters pursued this angle she found a fund of obscure information that confirmed Churchill's observation. Drawing on census statistics and a great number of contemporary accounts, she pieced together the dimensions of Arab immigration into Palestine before 1948. Although others have noted this phenomenon, she is the first to document it, to attempt to quantify it, and to draw conclusions from it. Her historical detective work has produced startling results, which should materially influence the future course of the debate about the Palestinian problem.
> 
> Before entering into the statistics and reports Miss Peters uses to put forward her argument, however, I should enter a word of caution about _From Time Immemorial._ The author is not a historian or someone practiced in writing on politics, and she tends to let her passions carry her away. As a result, the book suffers from chaotic presentation and an excess of partisanship, faults which seriously mar its impact. But they do not diminish the importance of the facts presented. Despite its drawbacks. _From Time Immemorial_ contains a wealth of information, which is well worth the effort to uncover.
> Making use of work done by Kemal Karpat in the Ottoman records, Miss Peters ascertains the non-Jewish population in 1893 of the area that would later form Palestine under the British Mandate. She then divides this area into three parts: one without Jewish settlement, one with light Jewish settlement, and one with heavy Jewish settlement. She compares the non-Jewish population of each of these parts in 1893 and 1947, on the eve of Israel's independence. In the area of no Jewish settlement, the non-Jewish population stood in 1893 at 337,200; in 1947 it was 730,000, a growth of 116 percent. In the area of light Jewish settlement, the non-Jewish population grew in the same period from 38,900 to 110,900 or 185 percent. Finally, in the area of heavy Jewish settlement, the non-Jewish population grew from 92,300 in 1893 to 462,000 in 1947—or 401 percent. From these figures Miss Peters concludes that "the Arab population appears to have increased in direct proportion to the Jewish presence."
> 
> 
> The great variance in the figures usually gets obscured because the three regions are lumped together and counted as a single unit. Population in the whole area of Mandatory Palestine grew 178 percent in fifty-four years. This increase can be accounted for through natural reproduction alone; it therefore raises few questions. But 401 percent cannot be explained in this way, much less the vast difference in growth rates among the three divisions.
> 
> 
> How, then, to account for the varying rates? By the movement of peoples. Although the Jews alone moved to Palestine for ideological reasons, they were not alone in emigrating there. Arabs joined them in large numbers, from the first _aliyah_ in 1882 to the creation of Israel in 1948. "The Arabs were moving into the very areas where Jewish settlement had preceded them and was luring them." Arab immigration received much less attention because both the Turkish and British administrators (before and after 1917, respectively) took little interest in them. Under the latter, for instance, "there was not even a serious gauge for considering the incidence of Arab immigration into Palestine." The return of Zionists to the land of their ancestors was a topic of nearly universal fascination, both positive and negative. Arabs crossing newly-established and artificial boundaries caught no one's interest.
> 
> 
> As a result, officials in Palestine counted only a small percentage of the Arab immigrants. British records for 1934 show only 1,734 non-Jews as legal immigrants and about 3,000 as illegals. Yet, according to a newspaper interview in August 1934 with the governor of the Hauran district in Syria, "In the last few months from 30,000 to 36,000 Hauranese had entered Palestine and settled there." In 1947, British officials had counted only 37,000 Arabs as the aggregate of non-Jewish immigrants in Palestine since 1917—hardly more than had come from one district of Syria in less than one year alone.
> 
> 
> Non-Jewish immigrants came from all parts of the Middle East, including Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Transjordan (as Jordan was once known), Saudi Arabia, the Yemens, Egypt, Sudan, and Libya. Thanks to British unconcern, Arab immigrants were generally left alone and allowed to settle in Mandatory Palestine. So many Arabs came, Miss Peters estimates, that "if all those Jews and all those Arabs who arrived in ... Palestine between 1893 and 1948 had remained, and if they were forced to leave now, a dual exodus of at least equal proportion would in all probability take place. Palestine would be depopulated once again."
> 
> 
> Some British administrators complained about the laxness toward Arab immigration, but to little avail. The author devotes sixteen pages to the memoranda sent in the latter part of 1937 by the British consul in Damascus, Colonel Gilbert MacKereth, in which he urges a more effective patrolling of Palestine's borders. MacKereth failed in this because British concern with immigration remained always focused on the Jews.
> 
> 
> What took hundreds of thousands of Arabs to Palestine? Economic opportunity. The Zionists brought the skills and resources of Europe. Like other Europeans settling scarcely populated areas in recent times—in Australia, Southern Africa, or the American West—the Jews in Palestine initiated economic activities that created jobs and wealth on a level far beyond that of the indigenous peoples. In response, large numbers of Arabs moved toward the settlers to find employment.
> 
> 
> The conventional picture has it that Jewish immigrants bought up Arab properties, forcing the former owners into unemployment. Miss Peters argues exactly the contrary, that the Jews created new opportunities, which attracted emigrants from distant places. To the extent that there was unemployment among the Arabs, it was mostly among the recent arrivals.
> 
> 
> This reversal of the usual interpretation implies a wholly different way of seeing the Arab position in Mandatory Palestine. As C. S.Jarvis, governor of the Sinai in 1923-36, [_DP_: this corrects the 1984 text, which wrongly ascribed the following quote to Winston Churchill] observed, "It is very difficult to make a case out for the misery of the Arabs if at the same time their compatriots from adjoining states could not be kept from going in to share that misery." The data unearthed by Joan Peters indicate that Arabs benefited economically so much by the presence of Jewish settlers from Europe that they traveled hundreds of miles to get closer to them.
> 
> 
> In turn, this explains why the definition of a refugee from Palestine in 1948 is a person who lived there for just two years: because many Arab residents in 1948 had immigrated so recently. The usual definition would have cut out a substantial portion of the persons who later claimed to be refugees from Palestine.
> 
> 
> Thus, the "Palestinian problem" lacks firm grounding. Many of those who now consider themselves Palestinian refugees were either immigrants themselves before 1948 or the children of immigrants. This historical fact reduces their claim to the land of Israel; it also reinforces the point that the real problem in the Middle East has little to do with Palestinian-Arab rights.
> 
> 
> Letter to the Editor
> by Daniel Pipes
> _New York Review of Books_
> March 27, 1986
> 
> 
> Joan Peters, author of "From Time Immemorial."
> 
> Joan Peters's _From Time Immemorial_ has, broadly speaking, been received in two ways at two times. Early reviews treated her book as a serious contribution to the study of the Arab-Israeli conflict and late ones dismissed it as propaganda. Coming almost two years after the book's publication, Professor Yehoshua Porath's review in your January 16, 1986 issue probably closes the second round. As one of those who reviewed the book when it first appeared—and who was referred to for this reason in Professor Porath's review—I should at this time like to comment on the debate.
> The difference between the two rounds is not hard to explain. Most early reviewers, including myself, focused on the substance of Miss Peters's central thesis; the later reviewers, in contrast, emphasized the faults—technical, historical, and literary—in Miss Peters's book.
> 
> 
> I would not dispute the existence of those faults. _From Time Immemorial_ quotes carelessly, uses statistics sloppily, and ignores inconvenient facts. Much of the book is irrelevant to Miss Peters's central thesis. The author's linguistic and scholarly abilities are open to question. Excessive use of quotation marks, eccentric footnotes, and a polemical, somewhat hysterical undertone mar the book. In short, _From Time Immemorial_ stands out as an appallingly crafted book.
> 
> 
> Granting all this, the fact remains that the book presents a thesis that neither Professor Porath nor any other reviewer has so far succeeded in refuting. Miss Peters's central thesis is that a substantial immigration of Arabs to Palestine took place during the first half of the twentieth century. She supports this argument with an array of demographic statistics and contemporary accounts, the bulk of which have not been questioned by any reviewer, including Professor Porath.
> 
> 
> Nonetheless, Professor Porath dismisses her argument as "fanciful." He says that "the main reason" for Arab population growth is that Arab births remained steady while infant mortality decreased. He concludes that the movement of population was not significant in comparison with natural increase.
> 
> 
> Now, there can be no question that improvements in medical conditions contributed to the increase in Arab population. But it is not immediately clear that declining infant mortality was more important than immigration. Professor Porath asserts this but he does not provide the evidence necessary to convince a reader.
> 
> 
> The disproof of Miss Peters's thesis requires a detailed inquiry into birth and death records, immigration and emigration registers, employment rolls, nomadic settlement patterns, and so forth. She may be wrong; but this will be proven only when another researcher goes through the evidence and shows that immigration was unimportant. The existence or absence of large-scale Arab immigration to Palestine has nothing to do, of course, with Miss Peters's motives or the obvious short-comings of her book. The facts about population change will not be established by heaping scorn on Miss Peters, only by going back to the archives.
> 
> 
> Faulty presentation notwithstanding, Miss Peters's hypothesis is on the table; it is incumbent on her critics to cease the name-calling and make a serious effort to show her wrong by demonstrating that many thousands of Arabs did not emigrate to Palestine in the period under question.
> 
> 
> Until such happens, what is one to think? Is there reason to accept Miss Peters's version of events? I believe so: even though _From Time Immemorial_ does not place Arab immigration to Palestine in a historical context, it is not hard to find a rationale for their movement. The Arabs who went to Palestine sought economic opportunity created by the Zionists. As Europeans, the Zionists brought with them to Palestine resources and skills far in advance of anything possessed by the local population. Jews initiated advanced economic activities that created jobs and wealth and drew Arabs. Zionists resembled the British, Germans, and other Europeans of modern times who settled in sparsely populated areas—Australia, southern Africa, or the American West—and then attracted the indigenous people to themselves.
> 
> 
> There is really nothing surprising in all this; and because it makes such good sense, I put credence in the argument that substantial numbers of Arabs moved to Palestine. I will adjust my views, of course, should compelling evidence be found to show otherwise. But this will require that Miss Peters's critics go beyond polemics and actually prove her thesis wrong.
> 
> 
> Jan. 1, 2003 update: For a slimmed-down and more reliable version of the Peters' thesis, see Fred M. Gottheil, "The Smoking Gun: Arab Immigration into Palestine, 1922-1931," _Middle East Quarterly_, Winter 2003.
> 
> 
> Belated mention should also be made of the important study by Aryeh L. Avneri_, The Claim of Dispossession: Jewish land-Settlement and the Arabs, 1878-1948_. First published in Hebrew in 1980, it appeared in English translation from Transaction Books in 1984, the same years as Peters' analysis.
> 
> 
> Aug. 20, 2009 update: In "The lost Palestinian Jews," David Shamah of the _Jerusalem Post_ tells about the unlikel work of Tsvi Misinai. In sum:
> 
> 
> After years of research, Misinai says that he can declare with certainty that nearly 90 percent of all Palestinians are descended from the Jews. "And what's more, about half of them know it," he says.
> 
> 
> For details, read the fascinating article.
> 
> 
> June 7, 2011 update: David P. Goldman notes in "Israel, Ireland and the peace of the aging" that the pattern of Arabs huddling for economic reasons with Jews continues as much as ever:
> 
> 
> 5,800 Palestinians are working at technology companies on the West Bank, and the booming Israeli software sector is outsourcing to the West Bank, with a third of Palestinian software companies filling orders for Israeli firms, Bloomberg News reported March 15.
> 
> 
> And the top school for Palestinian computer science students is Ariel University in Samaria, in the midst of a settlement near Nablus. "Administrators at the Ariel University Center are proud to have the Arab students, saying their enrollment is an example of loyalty and equality among Israeli citizens. For their part, the Arab students seem not to feel uncomfortable attending the college despite its reputation and location," wrote the _Chronicle of Higher Education_.
> 
> 
> "On campus the fact that we are in occupied territory is irrelevant - it doesn't affect us at all. We leave all the politics outside," the _Chronicle_ quoted Manar Dewany, a 20-year-old student in math and computer science who commutes each day from the Israeli Arab town of Taybeh. "I never even considered it a reason for not coming here," Ms Dewany added. "I have no problem with it. Why not come here? This place is full of Arabs."
> 
> 
> No one outsources computer technology to Egypt, where very few of each year's crop of 700,000 college graduates meets world standards. The education that young Arabs receive at the settlers' university on the West Bank is better than anything available among Israel's Arab neighbors. In a quiet way, the settlers of Samaria may do more for peace than the diplomats.
> 
> 
> Apr. 1, 2013 update: A Ḥamas leader, Fathi Ḥammad, said on March 23, 2012, that "half of the Palestinians are Egyptian and the other half are Saudis," providing Gideon M. Kressel and the late Reuven Aharoni with a proof text for their brave and original study, _Egyptian Émigrés in the Levant of the 19th and 20th Centuries_. In it, they establish that many "Palestinians" in fact came from Egypt. Indeed, "the Egyptian population is a very large component that, relatively speaking, only recently arrived in Palestine."



I don't see how anyone who knows anything of the Middle East can deny that Muslim Palestinians are not indigenous to the land they stole & are still stealing.


----------



## RoccoR

MJB12741,  _et al,_

On this single point I have to agree.



MJB12741 said:


> I don't see how anyone who knows anything of the Middle East can deny that Muslim Palestinians are not indigenous to the land they stole & are still stealing.


*(COMMENT)*

I look at it more as the "Arab Palestinian" as opposed to "Muslim Palestinians;"  as the "Arab" _(the Semitic peoples originated on the Arabian Peninsula)_ pre-dates the 7th Century "Muslims" by more than a millennium.

The questions becomes:

How long do a people have to live in a region before they become "indigenous?" 
Is the term "indigenous" a relative term?







Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MJB12741

RoccoR said:


> MJB12741,  _et al,_
> 
> On this single point I have to agree.
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how anyone who knows anything of the Middle East can deny that Muslim Palestinians are not indigenous to the land they stole & are still stealing.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I look at it more as the "Arab Palestinian" as opposed to "Muslim Palestinians;"  as the "Arab" _(the Semitic peoples originated on the Arabian Peninsula)_ pre-dates the 7th Century "Muslims" by more than a millennium.
> 
> The questions becomes:
> 
> How long do a people have to live in a region before they become "indigenous?"
> Is the term "indigenous" a relative term?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


As always your point is valid.  However we know the Israelites occupied the land for thousands of years before Islam began in the 7th century AD.  Therefore how can Muslim Palestinians be indigenous to the land except for a possible small percentage of Jews who converted?


----------



## RoccoR

MJB12741,  et al,

Yes, this is often confusing.




MJB12741 said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741,  _et al,_
> 
> On this single point I have to agree.
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how anyone who knows anything of the Middle East can deny that Muslim Palestinians are not indigenous to the land they stole & are still stealing.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I look at it more as the "Arab Palestinian" as opposed to "Muslim Palestinians;"  as the "Arab" _(the Semitic peoples originated on the Arabian Peninsula)_ pre-dates the 7th Century "Muslims" by more than a millennium.
> 
> The questions becomes:
> 
> How long do a people have to live in a region before they become "indigenous?"
> Is the term "indigenous" a relative term?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As always your point is valid.  However we know the Israelites occupied the land for thousands of years before Islam began in the 7th century AD.  Therefore how can Muslim Palestinians be indigenous to the land except for a possible small percentage of Jews who converted?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The "Arab" people is referring to the greater heterogeneous cultural _(a panethnic group)_ that is not divided by religious affiliation.  When one talks of "Arab Muslims" --- you have restricted yourself to describing a portion of the culture that come post-Islam and temporally after the rise of the following to the _Word of the Supreme Being _as revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad (PBUH) _(7th Century and forward to present day)_.  

I find it entirely impractical to discuss the Arab People _(inhabitants to the Arabian plate)_ of the Levant _(all the Middle East of today)_ and the Hebrew People _(semi-nomadic Habiru people)_ as separate and distinct --- especially ten centuries BCE _(nearly three thousand years ago)_.          

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## aris2chat

fanger said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Myth of Palestine.
> 
> The myth of 8216 Palestine A much watch video on the biggest lie in world history
> 
> 
> 
> *Pierre Rehov* is the pseudonym of a French-Israeli film maker and novelist, who fled his native Algeria, after scare-mongering from zionists
Click to expand...


It was not zionist scare mongering, it was the pogroms against the jews in Algeria and other MENA countries that forced the jews to leave.


----------



## teddyearp

aris2chat said:


> Joan Peters passed away today.  Her book should be a must read but there are some points that are in question.  Overall the book brings a well researched perspective of the situation.  Like everything written about the middle east, you should do your own research and read what others say with a pinch of salt, especially things with a strong perspective.  Facts might be correct but opinions from both sides usually are somewhere in the middle.  Either way the book should be a staple for anyone interested in the situation.  I used to have quite the library that I used for reference, Peter's book was just one among them.  When the book came out there was quite the discussion about it.
> 
> From Time ImmemorialThe Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> danielpipes.org/1110/from-time-immemorial
> 
> by Joan Peters
> Reviewed by Daniel Pipes
> _Commentary_
> July 1984




This is awesome, however, most pro-pali's claim that Daniel Pipes is not to be trusted and will discount everything he has said or touched out of hand.


----------



## Hossfly

teddyearp said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joan Peters passed away today.  Her book should be a must read but there are some points that are in question.  Overall the book brings a well researched perspective of the situation.  Like everything written about the middle east, you should do your own research and read what others say with a pinch of salt, especially things with a strong perspective.  Facts might be correct but opinions from both sides usually are somewhere in the middle.  Either way the book should be a staple for anyone interested in the situation.  I used to have quite the library that I used for reference, Peter's book was just one among them.  When the book came out there was quite the discussion about it.
> 
> From Time ImmemorialThe Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> danielpipes.org/1110/from-time-immemorial
> 
> by Joan Peters
> Reviewed by Daniel Pipes
> _Commentary_
> July 1984
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is awesome, however, most pro-pali's claim that Daniel Pipes is not to be trusted and will discount everything he has said or touched out of hand.
Click to expand...

That's because they aren't literate.


----------



## teddyearp

The Palestinians have been used as pawns in the political game that the Arabs have been playing since 1948 to try to destroy and discredit Israel.

What if the USA did not allow any refugees to assimilate?  What if they were all kept in refugee camps?  The Vietnamese come to mind since we did have a war there parallels could be seen in that conflict to this one.

What if the USA allowed the south Vietnamese into the US and put them in refugee camps "until we go back and get your homes back".  Maybe the US should have.  As a publicity/political ploy to defeat the Viet Kong in the court of world public opinion.  sound familiar?

But we didn't.  We are not that cruel.  It is time that the Palestinians learn from history and quit playing the victim card and make something for themselves right where they are.  The Israelis are not going anywhere.  EVER!

You cannot unscramble eggs.


----------



## teddyearp

Thanks Hoss.


----------



## MJB12741

teddyearp said:


> The Palestinians have been used as pawns in the political game that the Arabs have been playing since 1948 to try to destroy and discredit Israel.
> 
> What if the USA did not allow any refugees to assimilate?  What if they were all kept in refugee camps?  The Vietnamese come to mind since we did have a war there parallels could be seen in that conflict to this one.
> 
> What if the USA allowed the south Vietnamese into the US and put them in refugee camps "until we go back and get your homes back".  Maybe the US should have.  As a publicity/political ploy to defeat the Viet Kong in the court of world public opinion.  sound familiar?
> 
> But we didn't.  We are not that cruel.  It is time that the Palestinians learn from history and quit playing the victim card and make something for themselves right where they are.  The Israelis are not going anywhere.  EVER!
> 
> You cannot unscramble eggs.



It is indeed so sad what the surrounding Arab countries have done to their Palestinians massacring them by the tens of thousands & leaving tens of thousands of others as refugees.   But hey, anyone ever hear any Palestinian or Palestinian supporter complaint about it?  Yet they sure blame Israel for their peace offerings, security fence & land concessions so they can remain in Israel.  It's called Palestinian mentality.


----------



## Phoenall

teddyearp said:


> The Palestinians have been used as pawns in the political game that the Arabs have been playing since 1948 to try to destroy and discredit Israel.
> 
> What if the USA did not allow any refugees to assimilate?  What if they were all kept in refugee camps?  The Vietnamese come to mind since we did have a war there parallels could be seen in that conflict to this one.
> 
> What if the USA allowed the south Vietnamese into the US and put them in refugee camps "until we go back and get your homes back".  Maybe the US should have.  As a publicity/political ploy to defeat the Viet Kong in the court of world public opinion.  sound familiar?
> 
> But we didn't.  We are not that cruel.  It is time that the Palestinians learn from history and quit playing the victim card and make something for themselves right where they are.  The Israelis are not going anywhere.  EVER!
> 
> You cannot unscramble eggs.






 Maybe the west should be doing this with all the muslims living there now, and telling the rest of the world this is how Islamic nations operate with impunity and without censure so why cant we.


----------



## MJB12741

Phoenall said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have been used as pawns in the political game that the Arabs have been playing since 1948 to try to destroy and discredit Israel.
> 
> What if the USA did not allow any refugees to assimilate?  What if they were all kept in refugee camps?  The Vietnamese come to mind since we did have a war there parallels could be seen in that conflict to this one.
> 
> What if the USA allowed the south Vietnamese into the US and put them in refugee camps "until we go back and get your homes back".  Maybe the US should have.  As a publicity/political ploy to defeat the Viet Kong in the court of world public opinion.  sound familiar?
> 
> But we didn't.  We are not that cruel.  It is time that the Palestinians learn from history and quit playing the victim card and make something for themselves right where they are.  The Israelis are not going anywhere.  EVER!
> 
> You cannot unscramble eggs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the west should be doing this with all the muslims living there now, and telling the rest of the world this is how Islamic nations operate with impunity and without censure so why cant we.
Click to expand...


I certainly hope the USA will make some revisions to our easy immigration policy after what the Western nations have witnessed from raduical Islamists.


----------



## montelatici

If the Europeans had not colonized Palestine, there wouldn't be Palestinian refugee camps.

As a Christian nation,  only Christians should be allowed to immigrate to the U.S., right?


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> If the Europeans had not colonized Palestine, there wouldn't be Palestinian refugee camps.
> 
> As a Christian nation,  only Christians should be allowed to immigrate to the U.S., right?


Who told you all that folderol? Europeans didn't colonize Israel. There wasn't anything there.


----------



## teddyearp

montelatici said:


> As a Christian nation,  only Christians should be allowed to immigrate to the U.S., right?



Hmm, guess you didn't read my post above, #1473 did you?  The U.S. takes in all kinds, what planet are you living on?

And here's a neat video I found to further my post in #1473:


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> MJB12741,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is often confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741,  _et al,_
> 
> On this single point I have to agree.
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how anyone who knows anything of the Middle East can deny that Muslim Palestinians are not indigenous to the land they stole & are still stealing.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I look at it more as the "Arab Palestinian" as opposed to "Muslim Palestinians;"  as the "Arab" _(the Semitic peoples originated on the Arabian Peninsula)_ pre-dates the 7th Century "Muslims" by more than a millennium.
> 
> The questions becomes:
> 
> How long do a people have to live in a region before they become "indigenous?"
> Is the term "indigenous" a relative term?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As always your point is valid.  However we know the Israelites occupied the land for thousands of years before Islam began in the 7th century AD.  Therefore how can Muslim Palestinians be indigenous to the land except for a possible small percentage of Jews who converted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "Arab" people is referring to the greater heterogeneous cultural _(a panethnic group)_ that is not divided by religious affiliation.  When one talks of "Arab Muslims" --- you have restricted yourself to describing a portion of the culture that come post-Islam and temporally after the rise of the following to the _Word of the Supreme Being _as revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad (PBUH) _(7th Century and forward to present day)_.
> 
> I find it entirely impractical to discuss the Arab People _(inhabitants to the Arabian plate)_ of the Levant _(all the Middle East of today)_ and the Hebrew People _(semi-nomadic Habiru people)_ as separate and distinct --- especially ten centuries BCE _(nearly three thousand years ago)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Good post, thanks.

Palestine has a long history of invasions, conquests, and other movements of people. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.

The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine.

Any discussion outside of this legal framework is irrelevant.


----------



## Challenger

teddyearp said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joan Peters passed away today.  Her book should be a must read but there are some points that are in question.  Overall the book brings a well researched perspective of the situation.  Like everything written about the middle east, you should do your own research and read what others say with a pinch of salt, especially things with a strong perspective.  Facts might be correct but opinions from both sides usually are somewhere in the middle.  Either way the book should be a staple for anyone interested in the situation.  I used to have quite the library that I used for reference, Peter's book was just one among them.  When the book came out there was quite the discussion about it.
> 
> From Time ImmemorialThe Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> danielpipes.org/1110/from-time-immemorial
> 
> by Joan Peters
> Reviewed by Daniel Pipes
> _Commentary_
> July 1984
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is awesome, however, most pro-pali's claim that Daniel Pipes is not to be trusted and will discount everything he has said or touched out of hand.
Click to expand...


OK, fair point. I'll allow an Israeli academic, Professor Yehoshua Porath, professor emeritus of Middle East history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem to do an objective demolition of both Joan Peter's book ( objectivity even agreed by Daniel Pipes himself in the second article) and Daniel Pipe's defence of her "central thesis" read and enjoy:

Mrs. Peters 8217 s Palestine by Yehoshua Porath The New York Review of Books
Mrs. Peters 8217 s Palestine An Exchange by Ronald Sanders and Daniel Pipes The New York Review of Books


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> If the Europeans had not colonized Palestine, there wouldn't be Palestinian refugee camps.
> 
> As a Christian nation,  only Christians should be allowed to immigrate to the U.S., right?






 They were invited by the lands legal owners, the arab muslims were not invited were they. So they are the illegal immigrants that also stole the land from the Jews


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is often confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741,  _et al,_
> 
> On this single point I have to agree.
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how anyone who knows anything of the Middle East can deny that Muslim Palestinians are not indigenous to the land they stole & are still stealing.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I look at it more as the "Arab Palestinian" as opposed to "Muslim Palestinians;"  as the "Arab" _(the Semitic peoples originated on the Arabian Peninsula)_ pre-dates the 7th Century "Muslims" by more than a millennium.
> 
> The questions becomes:
> 
> How long do a people have to live in a region before they become "indigenous?"
> Is the term "indigenous" a relative term?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As always your point is valid.  However we know the Israelites occupied the land for thousands of years before Islam began in the 7th century AD.  Therefore how can Muslim Palestinians be indigenous to the land except for a possible small percentage of Jews who converted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "Arab" people is referring to the greater heterogeneous cultural _(a panethnic group)_ that is not divided by religious affiliation.  When one talks of "Arab Muslims" --- you have restricted yourself to describing a portion of the culture that come post-Islam and temporally after the rise of the following to the _Word of the Supreme Being _as revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad (PBUH) _(7th Century and forward to present day)_.
> 
> I find it entirely impractical to discuss the Arab People _(inhabitants to the Arabian plate)_ of the Levant _(all the Middle East of today)_ and the Hebrew People _(semi-nomadic Habiru people)_ as separate and distinct --- especially ten centuries BCE _(nearly three thousand years ago)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good post, thanks.
> 
> Palestine has a long history of invasions, conquests, and other movements of people. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.
> 
> The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine.
> 
> Any discussion outside of this legal framework is irrelevant.
Click to expand...





 Until the terms of the Mandate were filled and then it does become relevant. And the terms were the RESURECTION OF THE NATIONAL HOWME OF THE JEWS. No mention of arab muslims anywhere.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is often confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741,  _et al,_
> 
> On this single point I have to agree.
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how anyone who knows anything of the Middle East can deny that Muslim Palestinians are not indigenous to the land they stole & are still stealing.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I look at it more as the "Arab Palestinian" as opposed to "Muslim Palestinians;"  as the "Arab" _(the Semitic peoples originated on the Arabian Peninsula)_ pre-dates the 7th Century "Muslims" by more than a millennium.
> 
> The questions becomes:
> 
> How long do a people have to live in a region before they become "indigenous?"
> Is the term "indigenous" a relative term?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As always your point is valid.  However we know the Israelites occupied the land for thousands of years before Islam began in the 7th century AD.  Therefore how can Muslim Palestinians be indigenous to the land except for a possible small percentage of Jews who converted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "Arab" people is referring to the greater heterogeneous cultural _(a panethnic group)_ that is not divided by religious affiliation.  When one talks of "Arab Muslims" --- you have restricted yourself to describing a portion of the culture that come post-Islam and temporally after the rise of the following to the _Word of the Supreme Being _as revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad (PBUH) _(7th Century and forward to present day)_.
> 
> I find it entirely impractical to discuss the Arab People _(inhabitants to the Arabian plate)_ of the Levant _(all the Middle East of today)_ and the Hebrew People _(semi-nomadic Habiru people)_ as separate and distinct --- especially ten centuries BCE _(nearly three thousand years ago)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good post, thanks.
> 
> Palestine has a long history of invasions, conquests, and other movements of people. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.
> 
> The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine.
> 
> Any discussion outside of this legal framework is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until the terms of the Mandate were filled and then it does become relevant. And the terms were the RESURECTION OF THE NATIONAL HOWME OF THE JEWS. No mention of arab muslims anywhere.
Click to expand...

What do you mean?

The British threw up their hands and left failing to accomplish their mandate. Their mandate crashed and burned, and all they could do is watch. They passed it on to the UN and they flopped too.


----------



## fanger

Phoenall said:


> Until the terms of the Mandate were filled and then it does become relevant. And the terms were the RESURECTION OF THE NATIONAL HOWME OF THE JEWS. No mention of arab muslims anywhere.


nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is often confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741,  _et al,_
> 
> On this single point I have to agree.
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how anyone who knows anything of the Middle East can deny that Muslim Palestinians are not indigenous to the land they stole & are still stealing.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I look at it more as the "Arab Palestinian" as opposed to "Muslim Palestinians;"  as the "Arab" _(the Semitic peoples originated on the Arabian Peninsula)_ pre-dates the 7th Century "Muslims" by more than a millennium.
> 
> The questions becomes:
> 
> How long do a people have to live in a region before they become "indigenous?"
> Is the term "indigenous" a relative term?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As always your point is valid.  However we know the Israelites occupied the land for thousands of years before Islam began in the 7th century AD.  Therefore how can Muslim Palestinians be indigenous to the land except for a possible small percentage of Jews who converted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "Arab" people is referring to the greater heterogeneous cultural _(a panethnic group)_ that is not divided by religious affiliation.  When one talks of "Arab Muslims" --- you have restricted yourself to describing a portion of the culture that come post-Islam and temporally after the rise of the following to the _Word of the Supreme Being _as revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad (PBUH) _(7th Century and forward to present day)_.
> 
> I find it entirely impractical to discuss the Arab People _(inhabitants to the Arabian plate)_ of the Levant _(all the Middle East of today)_ and the Hebrew People _(semi-nomadic Habiru people)_ as separate and distinct --- especially ten centuries BCE _(nearly three thousand years ago)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good post, thanks.
> 
> Palestine has a long history of invasions, conquests, and other movements of people. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.
> 
> The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine.
> 
> Any discussion outside of this legal framework is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


According to WHO???  "The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine."


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

We will have to agree to - "disagree" - on what the Treaty of Lausanne has to say on the subject; fore it does not mention Palestine; but rather Syria.  The Treaty of Sèvres, which predates the Treaty of Lausanne by four years,  directly mention Palestine.

Syria was divided by previous agreements between the Allied Powers.  The establishment of the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applies, and the establishment of the accompanying Order in Council, also predates any effect of the Treaty of Lausanne relative to Palestine.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is often confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741,  _et al,_
> 
> On this single point I have to agree.
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how anyone who knows anything of the Middle East can deny that Muslim Palestinians are not indigenous to the land they stole & are still stealing.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I look at it more as the "Arab Palestinian" as opposed to "Muslim Palestinians;"  as the "Arab" _(the Semitic peoples originated on the Arabian Peninsula)_ pre-dates the 7th Century "Muslims" by more than a millennium.
> 
> The questions becomes:
> 
> How long do a people have to live in a region before they become "indigenous?"
> Is the term "indigenous" a relative term?
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As always your point is valid.  However we know the Israelites occupied the land for thousands of years before Islam began in the 7th century AD.  Therefore how can Muslim Palestinians be indigenous to the land except for a possible small percentage of Jews who converted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "Arab" people is referring to the greater heterogeneous cultural _(a panethnic group)_ that is not divided by religious affiliation.  When one talks of "Arab Muslims" --- you have restricted yourself to describing a portion of the culture that come post-Islam and temporally after the rise of the following to the _Word of the Supreme Being _as revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad (PBUH) _(7th Century and forward to present day)_.
> 
> I find it entirely impractical to discuss the Arab People _(inhabitants to the Arabian plate)_ of the Levant _(all the Middle East of today)_ and the Hebrew People _(semi-nomadic Habiru people)_ as separate and distinct --- especially ten centuries BCE _(nearly three thousand years ago)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good post, thanks.
> 
> Palestine has a long history of invasions, conquests, and other movements of people. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.
> 
> The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine.
> 
> Any discussion outside of this legal framework is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The question of citizenship to the Mandate Territory is an interesting one, but does not change the status of the territory in the least.  Whether a person, indigenous or not, was granted Palestinian Citizenship as a matter for the Mandatory power, as the successor government to the Ottoman Empire, to administer make no difference.  And if the Mandatory extended citizenship under the post-War Treatise and Mandate by the Powers, such citizenship did not have any impact on the establishment of a sovereign and independent nation.  Palestine as an "entity" only existed to the degree and extent as the Allied Powers decided it should exist.

The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine or citizenship at all.  Relative to Section II, Article 30, the Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory detached from Turkey became nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred; --- except that in the Middle East territories _[today known as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestine (WB & G)]_ there were no self-governing states.  That control was transferred to the Allied Powers under Mandate by the League of Nations.  And the citizenship was established under the Mandate.  

Whatever the Palestinian may think today, the status of the territory and the people have changed over time.  By 1950 the Palestinians in the West Bank had _(by right of self-determination)_ adopted Jordanian Citizenship through the Parliamentary process; --- while the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip became constituents represented politically by the All Palestine Government (APG) under the protection and control of the Egyptian Military Governorship.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is often confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741,  _et al,_
> 
> On this single point I have to agree.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I look at it more as the "Arab Palestinian" as opposed to "Muslim Palestinians;"  as the "Arab" _(the Semitic peoples originated on the Arabian Peninsula)_ pre-dates the 7th Century "Muslims" by more than a millennium.
> 
> The questions becomes:
> 
> How long do a people have to live in a region before they become "indigenous?"
> Is the term "indigenous" a relative term?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As always your point is valid.  However we know the Israelites occupied the land for thousands of years before Islam began in the 7th century AD.  Therefore how can Muslim Palestinians be indigenous to the land except for a possible small percentage of Jews who converted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "Arab" people is referring to the greater heterogeneous cultural _(a panethnic group)_ that is not divided by religious affiliation.  When one talks of "Arab Muslims" --- you have restricted yourself to describing a portion of the culture that come post-Islam and temporally after the rise of the following to the _Word of the Supreme Being _as revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad (PBUH) _(7th Century and forward to present day)_.
> 
> I find it entirely impractical to discuss the Arab People _(inhabitants to the Arabian plate)_ of the Levant _(all the Middle East of today)_ and the Hebrew People _(semi-nomadic Habiru people)_ as separate and distinct --- especially ten centuries BCE _(nearly three thousand years ago)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good post, thanks.
> 
> Palestine has a long history of invasions, conquests, and other movements of people. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.
> 
> The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine.
> 
> Any discussion outside of this legal framework is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until the terms of the Mandate were filled and then it does become relevant. And the terms were the RESURECTION OF THE NATIONAL HOWME OF THE JEWS. No mention of arab muslims anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you mean?
> 
> The British threw up their hands and left failing to accomplish their mandate. Their mandate crashed and burned, and all they could do is watch. They passed it on to the UN and they flopped too.
Click to expand...




 Because they were sick of arab muslims creating civil unrest and engaging in violence. But the terms of the MANDATE still stood right up until the Jews exercised their right to free determination and declared independence. The mandate ended as far as the arab muslims were concerned in May 1948, and the UN should have sent in a task force to evict the arab muslims from Palestine and Jerusalem until they could learn to live in peace.


----------



## Phoenall

fanger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until the terms of the Mandate were filled and then it does become relevant. And the terms were the RESURECTION OF THE NATIONAL HOWME OF THE JEWS. No mention of arab muslims anywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine
Click to expand...





 Why do you ISLAMONAZI STOOGES always miss out the second part of that part of the MANDATE.  Here it is in full and it is INTERNATIONAL LAW

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


 Now this makes it clear that the arab muslims have no legal claim to any part of Palestine, and that it is illegal to evict Jews from any country in the world just because they are Jews. 

 You lose again to CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW and it is time the ICC took an interest in every Islamic nation that has evicted Jews since 1920*


----------



## teddyearp

Challenger said:


> OK, fair point. I'll allow an Israeli academic, Professor Yehoshua Porath, professor emeritus of Middle East history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem to do an objective demolition of both Joan Peter's book ( objectivity even agreed by Daniel Pipes himself in the second article) and Daniel Pipe's defence of her "central thesis" read and enjoy:
> 
> Mrs. Peters 8217 s Palestine by Yehoshua Porath The New York Review of Books
> Mrs. Peters 8217 s Palestine An Exchange by Ronald Sanders and Daniel Pipes The New York Review of Books



More interesting information.  Odd that it leaves out so much in the first few paragraphs that I read.

Anyways, the part of aris' post I found interesting is the fact the the UN has a special consideration for a "Palestinian" refugee than any other.  For the most part, a 'refugee' has been expelled from a land lived on for many years and/or generations, yet Palestinians only had to be there for two years.

That's just something that makes me go, hmmm.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> We will have to agree to - "disagree" - on what the Treaty of Lausanne has to say on the subject; fore it does not mention Palestine; but rather Syria.  The Treaty of Sèvres, which predates the Treaty of Lausanne by four years,  directly mention Palestine.
> 
> Syria was divided by previous agreements between the Allied Powers.  The establishment of the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applies, and the establishment of the accompanying Order in Council, also predates any effect of the Treaty of Lausanne relative to Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is often confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741,  _et al,_
> 
> On this single point I have to agree.
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how anyone who knows anything of the Middle East can deny that Muslim Palestinians are not indigenous to the land they stole & are still stealing.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I look at it more as the "Arab Palestinian" as opposed to "Muslim Palestinians;"  as the "Arab" _(the Semitic peoples originated on the Arabian Peninsula)_ pre-dates the 7th Century "Muslims" by more than a millennium.
> 
> The questions becomes:
> 
> How long do a people have to live in a region before they become "indigenous?"
> Is the term "indigenous" a relative term?
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As always your point is valid.  However we know the Israelites occupied the land for thousands of years before Islam began in the 7th century AD.  Therefore how can Muslim Palestinians be indigenous to the land except for a possible small percentage of Jews who converted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "Arab" people is referring to the greater heterogeneous cultural _(a panethnic group)_ that is not divided by religious affiliation.  When one talks of "Arab Muslims" --- you have restricted yourself to describing a portion of the culture that come post-Islam and temporally after the rise of the following to the _Word of the Supreme Being _as revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad (PBUH) _(7th Century and forward to present day)_.
> 
> I find it entirely impractical to discuss the Arab People _(inhabitants to the Arabian plate)_ of the Levant _(all the Middle East of today)_ and the Hebrew People _(semi-nomadic Habiru people)_ as separate and distinct --- especially ten centuries BCE _(nearly three thousand years ago)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good post, thanks.
> 
> Palestine has a long history of invasions, conquests, and other movements of people. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.
> 
> The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine.
> 
> Any discussion outside of this legal framework is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The question of citizenship to the Mandate Territory is an interesting one, but does not change the status of the territory in the least.  Whether a person, indigenous or not, was granted Palestinian Citizenship as a matter for the Mandatory power, as the successor government to the Ottoman Empire, to administer make no difference.  And if the Mandatory extended citizenship under the post-War Treatise and Mandate by the Powers, such citizenship did not have any impact on the establishment of a sovereign and independent nation.  Palestine as an "entity" only existed to the degree and extent as the Allied Powers decided it should exist.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine or citizenship at all.  Relative to Section II, Article 30, the Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory detached from Turkey became nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred; --- except that in the Middle East territories _[today known as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestine (WB & G)]_ there were no self-governing states.  That control was transferred to the Allied Powers under Mandate by the League of Nations.  And the citizenship was established under the Mandate.
> 
> Whatever the Palestinian may think today, the status of the territory and the people have changed over time.  By 1950 the Palestinians in the West Bank had _(by right of self-determination)_ adopted Jordanian Citizenship through the Parliamentary process; --- while the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip became constituents represented politically by the All Palestine Government (APG) under the protection and control of the Egyptian Military Governorship.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The bottom line is that this is Palestine.

Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them _on her behalf,_ in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which *again* showed that the *Palestinians formed a nation,* and that *Palestine was a State, *though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; *there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.*

See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​
The mandate was to act in the best interest of the people. (The people being the above mentioned Palestinians.) The mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. (An independent Palestinian state.)

The LoN Covenant provided a means, a goal, and a time frame for the mandate as a temporary assignment.

The Jewish National Home was *not* to be a separate state. The mandate was to assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship where they would have equal rights to the other citizens.

The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that had nothing to do with the mandate.


----------



## P F Tinmore

teddyearp said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, fair point. I'll allow an Israeli academic, Professor Yehoshua Porath, professor emeritus of Middle East history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem to do an objective demolition of both Joan Peter's book ( objectivity even agreed by Daniel Pipes himself in the second article) and Daniel Pipe's defence of her "central thesis" read and enjoy:
> 
> Mrs. Peters 8217 s Palestine by Yehoshua Porath The New York Review of Books
> Mrs. Peters 8217 s Palestine An Exchange by Ronald Sanders and Daniel Pipes The New York Review of Books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More interesting information.  Odd that it leaves out so much in the first few paragraphs that I read.
> 
> Anyways, the part of aris' post I found interesting is the fact the the UN has a special consideration for a "Palestinian" refugee than any other.  For the most part, a 'refugee' has been expelled from a land lived on for many years and/or generations, yet Palestinians only had to be there for two years.
> 
> That's just something that makes me go, hmmm.
Click to expand...

The two year rule was not made by the UN. Two years from immigration to citizenship was a rule in the Palestinian citizenship order created by the British.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> We will have to agree to - "disagree" - on what the Treaty of Lausanne has to say on the subject; fore it does not mention Palestine; but rather Syria.  The Treaty of Sèvres, which predates the Treaty of Lausanne by four years,  directly mention Palestine.
> 
> Syria was divided by previous agreements between the Allied Powers.  The establishment of the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applies, and the establishment of the accompanying Order in Council, also predates any effect of the Treaty of Lausanne relative to Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is often confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741,  _et al,_
> 
> On this single point I have to agree.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I look at it more as the "Arab Palestinian" as opposed to "Muslim Palestinians;"  as the "Arab" _(the Semitic peoples originated on the Arabian Peninsula)_ pre-dates the 7th Century "Muslims" by more than a millennium.
> 
> The questions becomes:
> 
> How long do a people have to live in a region before they become "indigenous?"
> Is the term "indigenous" a relative term?
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As always your point is valid.  However we know the Israelites occupied the land for thousands of years before Islam began in the 7th century AD.  Therefore how can Muslim Palestinians be indigenous to the land except for a possible small percentage of Jews who converted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "Arab" people is referring to the greater heterogeneous cultural _(a panethnic group)_ that is not divided by religious affiliation.  When one talks of "Arab Muslims" --- you have restricted yourself to describing a portion of the culture that come post-Islam and temporally after the rise of the following to the _Word of the Supreme Being _as revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad (PBUH) _(7th Century and forward to present day)_.
> 
> I find it entirely impractical to discuss the Arab People _(inhabitants to the Arabian plate)_ of the Levant _(all the Middle East of today)_ and the Hebrew People _(semi-nomadic Habiru people)_ as separate and distinct --- especially ten centuries BCE _(nearly three thousand years ago)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good post, thanks.
> 
> Palestine has a long history of invasions, conquests, and other movements of people. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.
> 
> The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine.
> 
> Any discussion outside of this legal framework is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The question of citizenship to the Mandate Territory is an interesting one, but does not change the status of the territory in the least.  Whether a person, indigenous or not, was granted Palestinian Citizenship as a matter for the Mandatory power, as the successor government to the Ottoman Empire, to administer make no difference.  And if the Mandatory extended citizenship under the post-War Treatise and Mandate by the Powers, such citizenship did not have any impact on the establishment of a sovereign and independent nation.  Palestine as an "entity" only existed to the degree and extent as the Allied Powers decided it should exist.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine or citizenship at all.  Relative to Section II, Article 30, the Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory detached from Turkey became nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred; --- except that in the Middle East territories _[today known as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestine (WB & G)]_ there were no self-governing states.  That control was transferred to the Allied Powers under Mandate by the League of Nations.  And the citizenship was established under the Mandate.
> 
> Whatever the Palestinian may think today, the status of the territory and the people have changed over time.  By 1950 the Palestinians in the West Bank had _(by right of self-determination)_ adopted Jordanian Citizenship through the Parliamentary process; --- while the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip became constituents represented politically by the All Palestine Government (APG) under the protection and control of the Egyptian Military Governorship.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bottom line is that this is Palestine.
> 
> Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them _on her behalf,_ in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which *again* showed that the *Palestinians formed a nation,* and that *Palestine was a State, *though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; *there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.*
> 
> See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​
> The mandate was to act in the best interest of the people. (The people being the above mentioned Palestinians.) The mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. (An independent Palestinian state.)
> 
> The LoN Covenant provided a means, a goal, and a time frame for the mandate as a temporary assignment.
> 
> The Jewish National Home was *not* to be a separate state. The mandate was to assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship where they would have equal rights to the other citizens.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that had nothing to do with the mandate.
Click to expand...


A Jewish national homeland in Israel was established legally & ethically by a vote of the member nations of the UN whereas all Muslim lands are stolen lands conquered by force whereby the indiginous populations were forced to convert, leave or be killed.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> We will have to agree to - "disagree" - on what the Treaty of Lausanne has to say on the subject; fore it does not mention Palestine; but rather Syria.  The Treaty of Sèvres, which predates the Treaty of Lausanne by four years,  directly mention Palestine.
> 
> Syria was divided by previous agreements between the Allied Powers.  The establishment of the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applies, and the establishment of the accompanying Order in Council, also predates any effect of the Treaty of Lausanne relative to Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is often confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As always your point is valid.  However we know the Israelites occupied the land for thousands of years before Islam began in the 7th century AD.  Therefore how can Muslim Palestinians be indigenous to the land except for a possible small percentage of Jews who converted?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "Arab" people is referring to the greater heterogeneous cultural _(a panethnic group)_ that is not divided by religious affiliation.  When one talks of "Arab Muslims" --- you have restricted yourself to describing a portion of the culture that come post-Islam and temporally after the rise of the following to the _Word of the Supreme Being _as revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad (PBUH) _(7th Century and forward to present day)_.
> 
> I find it entirely impractical to discuss the Arab People _(inhabitants to the Arabian plate)_ of the Levant _(all the Middle East of today)_ and the Hebrew People _(semi-nomadic Habiru people)_ as separate and distinct --- especially ten centuries BCE _(nearly three thousand years ago)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good post, thanks.
> 
> Palestine has a long history of invasions, conquests, and other movements of people. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.
> 
> The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine.
> 
> Any discussion outside of this legal framework is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The question of citizenship to the Mandate Territory is an interesting one, but does not change the status of the territory in the least.  Whether a person, indigenous or not, was granted Palestinian Citizenship as a matter for the Mandatory power, as the successor government to the Ottoman Empire, to administer make no difference.  And if the Mandatory extended citizenship under the post-War Treatise and Mandate by the Powers, such citizenship did not have any impact on the establishment of a sovereign and independent nation.  Palestine as an "entity" only existed to the degree and extent as the Allied Powers decided it should exist.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine or citizenship at all.  Relative to Section II, Article 30, the Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory detached from Turkey became nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred; --- except that in the Middle East territories _[today known as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestine (WB & G)]_ there were no self-governing states.  That control was transferred to the Allied Powers under Mandate by the League of Nations.  And the citizenship was established under the Mandate.
> 
> Whatever the Palestinian may think today, the status of the territory and the people have changed over time.  By 1950 the Palestinians in the West Bank had _(by right of self-determination)_ adopted Jordanian Citizenship through the Parliamentary process; --- while the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip became constituents represented politically by the All Palestine Government (APG) under the protection and control of the Egyptian Military Governorship.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bottom line is that this is Palestine.
> 
> Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them _on her behalf,_ in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which *again* showed that the *Palestinians formed a nation,* and that *Palestine was a State, *though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; *there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.*
> 
> See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​
> The mandate was to act in the best interest of the people. (The people being the above mentioned Palestinians.) The mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. (An independent Palestinian state.)
> 
> The LoN Covenant provided a means, a goal, and a time frame for the mandate as a temporary assignment.
> 
> The Jewish National Home was *not* to be a separate state. The mandate was to assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship where they would have equal rights to the other citizens.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that had nothing to do with the mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Jewish national homeland in Israel was established legally & ethically by a vote of the member nations of the UN whereas all Muslim lands are stolen lands conquered by force whereby the indiginous populations were forced to convert, leave or be killed.
Click to expand...

*Not true.*

UN resolution 181 flopped. The creation of Israel was a unilateral move.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

This is merely a one-sided interpretation of the facts; as the hostile Palestinian sees it _(as opposed to various other factions)_.



P F Tinmore said:


> *Not true.*
> 
> UN resolution 181 flopped. The creation of Israel was a unilateral move.



*(COMMENT)*

There are a number of observers _(both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian)_ that would prefer GA Resolution 181(II),  29 November 1947, to be wiped from history.  It is simply not that easy.  Israel had to complete the Step Preparatory to Independence outlined in the Resolution to the satisfaction of the UN Palestine Commission _(UNPC --- the Successor Government)_. 

First, in 1948, the Successor Government to Palestine (UNPC) officially announced (PAL/169 17 May 1948) through UN Channels:

During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. *In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented*."​
Second, the GA Resolution A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988 which _Acknowledges _the proclamation of the State of Palestine (See Link 

 A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988) by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988, Palestinian Declaration of Independence, make direct reference to Resolution 181(II):

Palestinian Proclamation:
By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,
Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the *international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947*, and  Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.​
UN Acknowledgement:
_Recalling _its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, in which, _inter alia_, it called for the establishment of an Arab State and a Jewish State in Palestine,
_Aware _of the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council in line with General Assembly resolution 181 (II) and in exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people,​
Third, that in the Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General (A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999), the Palestinians official take the position that:

For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. *The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II)*, as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.

Israel must comply with United Nations resolutions. It has no power to unilaterally annul any of those resolutions, particularly such a historic resolution as 181 (II). *Israel's claim that the resolution is "null and void" is illegal*, and it is also inadmissible given the history of the matter.​Fourth, that Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations  (A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012) which _Decides_ to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations --- states:  _Recalling_ its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,​
These four points make it clear that Resolution 181(II) was active and acknowledged by the UN and the Palestinians up to and through the Process used by the Palestinian Authority to achieve both "State" status and membership into key UN organizations, treaties and conventions.

My interpretation is not one held by Israel --- but --- one held by the sole representative of the Palestinian people.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

Tinmore loves to repeat the same lie about Resolution 181, that it had flopped. Even though it's been proven MANY times that his statement is alse:

*This Palestinian Declaration of Independence explicitly accepted the UN General Assembly’s Partition Resolution 181(II) of 1947:*

Palestine Independence Day 24 Years Ago November 15 1988 Global Research


*Legal justification for the declaration was based on United Nations General AssemblyResolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, which provided for the termination and partition of the British Mandate into two states*

Palestinian Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Hossfly

toastman said:


> Tinmore loves to repeat the same lie about Resolution 181, that it had flopped. Even though it's been proven MANY times that his statement is alse:
> 
> *This Palestinian Declaration of Independence explicitly accepted the UN General Assembly’s Partition Resolution 181(II) of 1947:*
> 
> Palestine Independence Day 24 Years Ago November 15 1988 Global Research
> 
> 
> *Legal justification for the declaration was based on United Nations General AssemblyResolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, which provided for the termination and partition of the British Mandate into two states*
> 
> Palestinian Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Tinmore's logic has alway been: Nobody won, nobody can show a 1948 map and something or other about no borders.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is merely a one-sided interpretation of the facts; as the hostile Palestinian sees it _(as opposed to various other factions)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not true.*
> 
> UN resolution 181 flopped. The creation of Israel was a unilateral move.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are a number of observers _(both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian)_ that would prefer GA Resolution 181(II),  29 November 1947, to be wiped from history.  It is simply not that easy.  Israel had to complete the Step Preparatory to Independence outlined in the Resolution to the satisfaction of the UN Palestine Commission _(UNPC --- the Successor Government)_.
> 
> First, in 1948, the Successor Government to Palestine (UNPC) officially announced (PAL/169 17 May 1948) through UN Channels:
> 
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. *In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented*."​Second, the GA Resolution A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988 which _Acknowledges _the proclamation of the State of Palestine (See Link
> 
> A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988) by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988, Palestinian Declaration of Independence, make direct reference to Resolution 181(II):
> 
> Palestinian Proclamation:
> By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,
> Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the *international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947*, and  Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
> The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.​UN Acknowledgement:
> _Recalling _its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, in which, _inter alia_, it called for the establishment of an Arab State and a Jewish State in Palestine,
> _Aware _of the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council in line with General Assembly resolution 181 (II) and in exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people,​Third, that in the Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General (A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999), the Palestinians official take the position that:
> 
> For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. *The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II)*, as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.
> 
> Israel must comply with United Nations resolutions. It has no power to unilaterally annul any of those resolutions, particularly such a historic resolution as 181 (II). *Israel's claim that the resolution is "null and void" is illegal*, and it is also inadmissible given the history of the matter.​Fourth, that Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations  (A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012) which _Decides_ to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations --- states:  _Recalling_ its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,​
> These four points make it clear that Resolution 181(II) was active and acknowledged by the UN and the Palestinians up to and through the Process used by the Palestinian Authority to achieve both "State" status and membership into key UN organizations, treaties and conventions.
> 
> My interpretation is not one held by Israel --- but --- one held by the sole representative of the Palestinian people.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah, you have posted that verbosity before. Look at the facts.

Neither Israel nor Palestine ever accepted resolution 181. By the time Israel mentioned the resolution in its declaration of independence it had already violated all of the major tenets of the resolution. Israel never had any intentions of abiding by resolution 181.

The UN did not lift a finger to defend the resolution from Israel's violations.

Sure, the PLO mentioned resolution 181. What part of it was revived by that? None of it. It is just as dead as it was in 1948.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is merely a one-sided interpretation of the facts; as the hostile Palestinian sees it _(as opposed to various other factions)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not true.*
> 
> UN resolution 181 flopped. The creation of Israel was a unilateral move.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are a number of observers _(both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian)_ that would prefer GA Resolution 181(II),  29 November 1947, to be wiped from history.  It is simply not that easy.  Israel had to complete the Step Preparatory to Independence outlined in the Resolution to the satisfaction of the UN Palestine Commission _(UNPC --- the Successor Government)_.
> 
> First, in 1948, the Successor Government to Palestine (UNPC) officially announced (PAL/169 17 May 1948) through UN Channels:
> 
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. *In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented*."​Second, the GA Resolution A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988 which _Acknowledges _the proclamation of the State of Palestine (See Link
> 
> A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988) by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988, Palestinian Declaration of Independence, make direct reference to Resolution 181(II):
> 
> Palestinian Proclamation:
> By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,
> Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the *international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947*, and  Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
> The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.​UN Acknowledgement:
> _Recalling _its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, in which, _inter alia_, it called for the establishment of an Arab State and a Jewish State in Palestine,
> _Aware _of the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council in line with General Assembly resolution 181 (II) and in exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people,​Third, that in the Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General (A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999), the Palestinians official take the position that:
> 
> For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. *The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II)*, as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.
> 
> Israel must comply with United Nations resolutions. It has no power to unilaterally annul any of those resolutions, particularly such a historic resolution as 181 (II). *Israel's claim that the resolution is "null and void" is illegal*, and it is also inadmissible given the history of the matter.​Fourth, that Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations  (A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012) which _Decides_ to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations --- states:  _Recalling_ its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,​
> These four points make it clear that Resolution 181(II) was active and acknowledged by the UN and the Palestinians up to and through the Process used by the Palestinian Authority to achieve both "State" status and membership into key UN organizations, treaties and conventions.
> 
> My interpretation is not one held by Israel --- but --- one held by the sole representative of the Palestinian people.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, yeah, you have posted that verbosity before. Look at the facts.
> 
> Neither Israel nor Palestine ever accepted resolution 181. By the time Israel mentioned the resolution in its declaration of independence *it had already violated all of the major tenets of the resolution. Israel never had any intentions of abiding by resolution 181.*
> 
> The UN did not lift a finger to defend the resolution from Israel's violations.
> 
> Sure, the PLO mentioned resolution 181. What part of it was revived by that? None of it. It is just as dead as it was in 1948.
Click to expand...


First off, I've asked you several times in the past to provide a link for the bold.

Second, Rocco and I have provided several links that proves that resolution 181 was valid and absolutely was used in Israels' DOI (1948) and 'Palestines' DOI (1988)

You have provided ZERO evidence to back up your claim. All you end up doing is asking stupid and irrelevant questions.
Then you have the nerve to call Rocco's post verbosity, and ask him to look at the fact. Guess what, he provided facts with link, you didn't. 
Therefore, you lost the debate.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is merely a one-sided interpretation of the facts; as the hostile Palestinian sees it _(as opposed to various other factions)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not true.*
> 
> UN resolution 181 flopped. The creation of Israel was a unilateral move.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are a number of observers _(both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian)_ that would prefer GA Resolution 181(II),  29 November 1947, to be wiped from history.  It is simply not that easy.  Israel had to complete the Step Preparatory to Independence outlined in the Resolution to the satisfaction of the UN Palestine Commission _(UNPC --- the Successor Government)_.
> 
> First, in 1948, the Successor Government to Palestine (UNPC) officially announced (PAL/169 17 May 1948) through UN Channels:
> 
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. *In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented*."​Second, the GA Resolution A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988 which _Acknowledges _the proclamation of the State of Palestine (See Link
> 
> A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988) by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988, Palestinian Declaration of Independence, make direct reference to Resolution 181(II):
> 
> Palestinian Proclamation:
> By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,
> Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the *international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947*, and  Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
> The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.​UN Acknowledgement:
> _Recalling _its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, in which, _inter alia_, it called for the establishment of an Arab State and a Jewish State in Palestine,
> _Aware _of the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council in line with General Assembly resolution 181 (II) and in exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people,​Third, that in the Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General (A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999), the Palestinians official take the position that:
> 
> For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. *The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II)*, as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.
> 
> Israel must comply with United Nations resolutions. It has no power to unilaterally annul any of those resolutions, particularly such a historic resolution as 181 (II). *Israel's claim that the resolution is "null and void" is illegal*, and it is also inadmissible given the history of the matter.​Fourth, that Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations  (A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012) which _Decides_ to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations --- states:  _Recalling_ its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,​
> These four points make it clear that Resolution 181(II) was active and acknowledged by the UN and the Palestinians up to and through the Process used by the Palestinian Authority to achieve both "State" status and membership into key UN organizations, treaties and conventions.
> 
> My interpretation is not one held by Israel --- but --- one held by the sole representative of the Palestinian people.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, yeah, you have posted that verbosity before. Look at the facts.
> 
> Neither Israel nor Palestine ever accepted resolution 181. By the time Israel mentioned the resolution in its declaration of independence *it had already violated all of the major tenets of the resolution. Israel never had any intentions of abiding by resolution 181.*
> 
> The UN did not lift a finger to defend the resolution from Israel's violations.
> 
> Sure, the PLO mentioned resolution 181. What part of it was revived by that? None of it. It is just as dead as it was in 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, I've asked you several times in the past to provide a link for the bold.
> 
> Second, Rocco and I have provided several links that proves that resolution 181 was valid and absolutely was used in Israels' DOI (1948) and 'Palestines' DOI (1988)
> 
> You have provided ZERO evidence to back up your claim. All you end up doing is asking stupid and irrelevant questions.
> Then you have the nerve to call Rocco's post verbosity, and ask him to look at the fact. Guess what, he provided facts with link, you didn't.
> Therefore, you lost the debate.
Click to expand...

Sure he did, but what is the relevance? You are not looking at the facts.

By the time Israel mentioned resolution 181 it was already removing Palestinians from their homes in the territory designated for the Jewish state. It had already moved into the territory designated for the Arab state expelling the Palestinians. It had already attacked Jerusalem and was expelling Palestinians. Over 300,000 Palestinians were refugees before the start of the 1948 war.

Israel had already violated the rights of the non Jewish population, the proposed borders, the designated Arab territory, and the international city of Jerusalem. What part of resolution 181 did Israel accept?


----------



## theliq

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is merely a one-sided interpretation of the facts; as the hostile Palestinian sees it _(as opposed to various other factions)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not true.*
> 
> UN resolution 181 flopped. The creation of Israel was a unilateral move.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are a number of observers _(both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian)_ that would prefer GA Resolution 181(II),  29 November 1947, to be wiped from history.  It is simply not that easy.  Israel had to complete the Step Preparatory to Independence outlined in the Resolution to the satisfaction of the UN Palestine Commission _(UNPC --- the Successor Government)_.
> 
> First, in 1948, the Successor Government to Palestine (UNPC) officially announced (PAL/169 17 May 1948) through UN Channels:
> 
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. *In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented*."​Second, the GA Resolution A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988 which _Acknowledges _the proclamation of the State of Palestine (See Link
> 
> A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988) by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988, Palestinian Declaration of Independence, make direct reference to Resolution 181(II):
> 
> Palestinian Proclamation:
> By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,
> Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the *international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947*, and  Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
> The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.​UN Acknowledgement:
> _Recalling _its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, in which, _inter alia_, it called for the establishment of an Arab State and a Jewish State in Palestine,
> _Aware _of the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council in line with General Assembly resolution 181 (II) and in exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people,​Third, that in the Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General (A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999), the Palestinians official take the position that:
> 
> For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. *The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II)*, as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.
> 
> Israel must comply with United Nations resolutions. It has no power to unilaterally annul any of those resolutions, particularly such a historic resolution as 181 (II). *Israel's claim that the resolution is "null and void" is illegal*, and it is also inadmissible given the history of the matter.​Fourth, that Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations  (A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012) which _Decides_ to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations --- states:  _Recalling_ its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,​
> These four points make it clear that Resolution 181(II) was active and acknowledged by the UN and the Palestinians up to and through the Process used by the Palestinian Authority to achieve both "State" status and membership into key UN organizations, treaties and conventions.
> 
> My interpretation is not one held by Israel --- but --- one held by the sole representative of the Palestinian people.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, yeah, you have posted that verbosity before. Look at the facts.
> 
> Neither Israel nor Palestine ever accepted resolution 181. By the time Israel mentioned the resolution in its declaration of independence *it had already violated all of the major tenets of the resolution. Israel never had any intentions of abiding by resolution 181.*
> 
> The UN did not lift a finger to defend the resolution from Israel's violations.
> 
> Sure, the PLO mentioned resolution 181. What part of it was revived by that? None of it. It is just as dead as it was in 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, I've asked you several times in the past to provide a link for the bold.
> 
> Second, Rocco and I have provided several links that proves that resolution 181 was valid and absolutely was used in Israels' DOI (1948) and 'Palestines' DOI (1988)
> 
> You have provided ZERO evidence to back up your claim. All you end up doing is asking stupid and irrelevant questions.
> Then you have the nerve to call Rocco's post verbosity, and ask him to look at the fact. Guess what, he provided facts with link, you didn't.
> Therefore, you lost the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure he did, but what is the relevance? You are not looking at the facts.
> 
> By the time Israel mentioned resolution 181 it was already removing Palestinians from their homes in the territory designated for the Jewish state. It had already moved into the territory designated for the Arab state expelling the Palestinians. It had already attacked Jerusalem and was expelling Palestinians. Over 300,000 Palestinians were refugees before the start of the 1948 war.
> 
> Israel had already violated the rights of the non Jewish population, the proposed borders, the designated Arab territory, and the international city of Jerusalem. What part of resolution 181 did Israel accept?
Click to expand...

And Tinnie,Israel has violated UN resolutions ever since..steve


----------



## theliq

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> We will have to agree to - "disagree" - on what the Treaty of Lausanne has to say on the subject; fore it does not mention Palestine; but rather Syria.  The Treaty of Sèvres, which predates the Treaty of Lausanne by four years,  directly mention Palestine.
> 
> Syria was divided by previous agreements between the Allied Powers.  The establishment of the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applies, and the establishment of the accompanying Order in Council, also predates any effect of the Treaty of Lausanne relative to Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is often confusing.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "Arab" people is referring to the greater heterogeneous cultural _(a panethnic group)_ that is not divided by religious affiliation.  When one talks of "Arab Muslims" --- you have restricted yourself to describing a portion of the culture that come post-Islam and temporally after the rise of the following to the _Word of the Supreme Being _as revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad (PBUH) _(7th Century and forward to present day)_.
> 
> I find it entirely impractical to discuss the Arab People _(inhabitants to the Arabian plate)_ of the Levant _(all the Middle East of today)_ and the Hebrew People _(semi-nomadic Habiru people)_ as separate and distinct --- especially ten centuries BCE _(nearly three thousand years ago)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Good post, thanks.
> 
> Palestine has a long history of invasions, conquests, and other movements of people. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.
> 
> The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine.
> 
> Any discussion outside of this legal framework is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The question of citizenship to the Mandate Territory is an interesting one, but does not change the status of the territory in the least.  Whether a person, indigenous or not, was granted Palestinian Citizenship as a matter for the Mandatory power, as the successor government to the Ottoman Empire, to administer make no difference.  And if the Mandatory extended citizenship under the post-War Treatise and Mandate by the Powers, such citizenship did not have any impact on the establishment of a sovereign and independent nation.  Palestine as an "entity" only existed to the degree and extent as the Allied Powers decided it should exist.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine or citizenship at all.  Relative to Section II, Article 30, the Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory detached from Turkey became nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred; --- except that in the Middle East territories _[today known as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestine (WB & G)]_ there were no self-governing states.  That control was transferred to the Allied Powers under Mandate by the League of Nations.  And the citizenship was established under the Mandate.
> 
> Whatever the Palestinian may think today, the status of the territory and the people have changed over time.  By 1950 the Palestinians in the West Bank had _(by right of self-determination)_ adopted Jordanian Citizenship through the Parliamentary process; --- while the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip became constituents represented politically by the All Palestine Government (APG) under the protection and control of the Egyptian Military Governorship.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bottom line is that this is Palestine.
> 
> Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them _on her behalf,_ in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which *again* showed that the *Palestinians formed a nation,* and that *Palestine was a State, *though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; *there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.*
> 
> See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​
> The mandate was to act in the best interest of the people. (The people being the above mentioned Palestinians.) The mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. (An independent Palestinian state.)
> 
> The LoN Covenant provided a means, a goal, and a time frame for the mandate as a temporary assignment.
> 
> The Jewish National Home was *not* to be a separate state. The mandate was to assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship where they would have equal rights to the other citizens.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that had nothing to do with the mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Jewish national homeland in Israel was established legally & ethically by a vote of the member nations of the UN whereas all Muslim lands are stolen lands conquered by force whereby the indiginous populations were forced to convert, leave or be killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Not true.*
> 
> UN resolution 181 flopped. The creation of Israel was a unilateral move.
Click to expand...

Quite CORRECT Tinnie...the previous poster is out of their depth in this threat .....CLEARLY


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is merely a one-sided interpretation of the facts; as the hostile Palestinian sees it _(as opposed to various other factions)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not true.*
> 
> UN resolution 181 flopped. The creation of Israel was a unilateral move.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are a number of observers _(both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian)_ that would prefer GA Resolution 181(II),  29 November 1947, to be wiped from history.  It is simply not that easy.  Israel had to complete the Step Preparatory to Independence outlined in the Resolution to the satisfaction of the UN Palestine Commission _(UNPC --- the Successor Government)_.
> 
> First, in 1948, the Successor Government to Palestine (UNPC) officially announced (PAL/169 17 May 1948) through UN Channels:
> 
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. *In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented*."​Second, the GA Resolution A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988 which _Acknowledges _the proclamation of the State of Palestine (See Link
> 
> A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988) by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988, Palestinian Declaration of Independence, make direct reference to Resolution 181(II):
> 
> Palestinian Proclamation:
> By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,
> Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the *international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947*, and  Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
> The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.​UN Acknowledgement:
> _Recalling _its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, in which, _inter alia_, it called for the establishment of an Arab State and a Jewish State in Palestine,
> _Aware _of the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council in line with General Assembly resolution 181 (II) and in exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people,​Third, that in the Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General (A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999), the Palestinians official take the position that:
> 
> For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. *The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II)*, as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.
> 
> Israel must comply with United Nations resolutions. It has no power to unilaterally annul any of those resolutions, particularly such a historic resolution as 181 (II). *Israel's claim that the resolution is "null and void" is illegal*, and it is also inadmissible given the history of the matter.​Fourth, that Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations  (A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012) which _Decides_ to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations --- states:  _Recalling_ its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,​
> These four points make it clear that Resolution 181(II) was active and acknowledged by the UN and the Palestinians up to and through the Process used by the Palestinian Authority to achieve both "State" status and membership into key UN organizations, treaties and conventions.
> 
> My interpretation is not one held by Israel --- but --- one held by the sole representative of the Palestinian people.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, yeah, you have posted that verbosity before. Look at the facts.
> 
> Neither Israel nor Palestine ever accepted resolution 181. By the time Israel mentioned the resolution in its declaration of independence *it had already violated all of the major tenets of the resolution. Israel never had any intentions of abiding by resolution 181.*
> 
> The UN did not lift a finger to defend the resolution from Israel's violations.
> 
> Sure, the PLO mentioned resolution 181. What part of it was revived by that? None of it. It is just as dead as it was in 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, I've asked you several times in the past to provide a link for the bold.
> 
> Second, Rocco and I have provided several links that proves that resolution 181 was valid and absolutely was used in Israels' DOI (1948) and 'Palestines' DOI (1988)
> 
> You have provided ZERO evidence to back up your claim. All you end up doing is asking stupid and irrelevant questions.
> Then you have the nerve to call Rocco's post verbosity, and ask him to look at the fact. Guess what, he provided facts with link, you didn't.
> Therefore, you lost the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure he did, but what is the relevance? You are not looking at the facts.
> 
> By the time Israel mentioned resolution 181 it was already removing Palestinians from their homes in the territory designated for the Jewish state. It had already moved into the territory designated for the Arab state expelling the Palestinians. It had already attacked Jerusalem and was expelling Palestinians. Over 300,000 Palestinians were refugees before the start of the 1948 war.
> 
> Israel had already violated the rights of the non Jewish population, the proposed borders, the designated Arab territory, and the international city of Jerusalem. What part of resolution 181 did Israel accept?
Click to expand...

What's the relevance ? Well you keep running around claiming resolution 181 was never used. But Rocco and I have proved you wrong. All you have is deflections.t
BTW, Israel advancing onto land allotted to the Arab state was a result of Jews continuously getting attacked. Arabs massacring/attacking Jews preceded any of what you said. 
Either way, irrelevant. Both sides used 181 as a legal basis to declare independence.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> We will have to agree to - "disagree" - on what the Treaty of Lausanne has to say on the subject; fore it does not mention Palestine; but rather Syria.  The Treaty of Sèvres, which predates the Treaty of Lausanne by four years,  directly mention Palestine.
> 
> Syria was divided by previous agreements between the Allied Powers.  The establishment of the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applies, and the establishment of the accompanying Order in Council, also predates any effect of the Treaty of Lausanne relative to Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is often confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741,  _et al,_
> 
> On this single point I have to agree.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I look at it more as the "Arab Palestinian" as opposed to "Muslim Palestinians;"  as the "Arab" _(the Semitic peoples originated on the Arabian Peninsula)_ pre-dates the 7th Century "Muslims" by more than a millennium.
> 
> The questions becomes:
> 
> How long do a people have to live in a region before they become "indigenous?"
> Is the term "indigenous" a relative term?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As always your point is valid.  However we know the Israelites occupied the land for thousands of years before Islam began in the 7th century AD.  Therefore how can Muslim Palestinians be indigenous to the land except for a possible small percentage of Jews who converted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "Arab" people is referring to the greater heterogeneous cultural _(a panethnic group)_ that is not divided by religious affiliation.  When one talks of "Arab Muslims" --- you have restricted yourself to describing a portion of the culture that come post-Islam and temporally after the rise of the following to the _Word of the Supreme Being _as revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad (PBUH) _(7th Century and forward to present day)_.
> 
> I find it entirely impractical to discuss the Arab People _(inhabitants to the Arabian plate)_ of the Levant _(all the Middle East of today)_ and the Hebrew People _(semi-nomadic Habiru people)_ as separate and distinct --- especially ten centuries BCE _(nearly three thousand years ago)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good post, thanks.
> 
> Palestine has a long history of invasions, conquests, and other movements of people. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.
> 
> The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine.
> 
> Any discussion outside of this legal framework is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The question of citizenship to the Mandate Territory is an interesting one, but does not change the status of the territory in the least.  Whether a person, indigenous or not, was granted Palestinian Citizenship as a matter for the Mandatory power, as the successor government to the Ottoman Empire, to administer make no difference.  And if the Mandatory extended citizenship under the post-War Treatise and Mandate by the Powers, such citizenship did not have any impact on the establishment of a sovereign and independent nation.  Palestine as an "entity" only existed to the degree and extent as the Allied Powers decided it should exist.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine or citizenship at all.  Relative to Section II, Article 30, the Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory detached from Turkey became nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred; --- except that in the Middle East territories _[today known as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestine (WB & G)]_ there were no self-governing states.  That control was transferred to the Allied Powers under Mandate by the League of Nations.  And the citizenship was established under the Mandate.
> 
> Whatever the Palestinian may think today, the status of the territory and the people have changed over time.  By 1950 the Palestinians in the West Bank had _(by right of self-determination)_ adopted Jordanian Citizenship through the Parliamentary process; --- while the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip became constituents represented politically by the All Palestine Government (APG) under the protection and control of the Egyptian Military Governorship.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bottom line is that this is Palestine.
> 
> Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them _on her behalf,_ in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which *again* showed that the *Palestinians formed a nation,* and that *Palestine was a State, *though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; *there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.*
> 
> See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​
> The mandate was to act in the best interest of the people. (The people being the above mentioned Palestinians.) The mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. (An independent Palestinian state.)
> 
> The LoN Covenant provided a means, a goal, and a time frame for the mandate as a temporary assignment.
> 
> The Jewish National Home was *not* to be a separate state. The mandate was to assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship where they would have equal rights to the other citizens.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that had nothing to do with the mandate.
Click to expand...






 Once again you attempt to bestow sovereignty on to Palestine when none existed, the Mandate set in stone the simple fact that it dealt with the mandate for Palestine and not the nation. Under International law of the time the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE bequeathed the land to the Jews of the world for the RESURECTION OF THE NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS. It did not give anything to the arab muslims as they had received their allotment with Jordan, Syria and Iraq.
 You need to read the Mandate for Palestine to see where it is stated that the Jews will have a separate state.

The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate


*ART. 4.*
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect* the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine*, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure *the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.


ART. 5.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power



ART. 6.
The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes



ART. 7.
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine


 Just a few of the articles that set in stone and CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW the resurrection of Israel*


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, fair point. I'll allow an Israeli academic, Professor Yehoshua Porath, professor emeritus of Middle East history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem to do an objective demolition of both Joan Peter's book ( objectivity even agreed by Daniel Pipes himself in the second article) and Daniel Pipe's defence of her "central thesis" read and enjoy:
> 
> Mrs. Peters 8217 s Palestine by Yehoshua Porath The New York Review of Books
> Mrs. Peters 8217 s Palestine An Exchange by Ronald Sanders and Daniel Pipes The New York Review of Books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More interesting information.  Odd that it leaves out so much in the first few paragraphs that I read.
> 
> Anyways, the part of aris' post I found interesting is the fact the the UN has a special consideration for a "Palestinian" refugee than any other.  For the most part, a 'refugee' has been expelled from a land lived on for many years and/or generations, yet Palestinians only had to be there for two years.
> 
> That's just something that makes me go, hmmm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The two year rule was not made by the UN. Two years from immigration to citizenship was a rule in the Palestinian citizenship order created by the British.
Click to expand...






 LINK ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> We will have to agree to - "disagree" - on what the Treaty of Lausanne has to say on the subject; fore it does not mention Palestine; but rather Syria.  The Treaty of Sèvres, which predates the Treaty of Lausanne by four years,  directly mention Palestine.
> 
> Syria was divided by previous agreements between the Allied Powers.  The establishment of the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applies, and the establishment of the accompanying Order in Council, also predates any effect of the Treaty of Lausanne relative to Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is often confusing.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "Arab" people is referring to the greater heterogeneous cultural _(a panethnic group)_ that is not divided by religious affiliation.  When one talks of "Arab Muslims" --- you have restricted yourself to describing a portion of the culture that come post-Islam and temporally after the rise of the following to the _Word of the Supreme Being _as revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad (PBUH) _(7th Century and forward to present day)_.
> 
> I find it entirely impractical to discuss the Arab People _(inhabitants to the Arabian plate)_ of the Levant _(all the Middle East of today)_ and the Hebrew People _(semi-nomadic Habiru people)_ as separate and distinct --- especially ten centuries BCE _(nearly three thousand years ago)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Good post, thanks.
> 
> Palestine has a long history of invasions, conquests, and other movements of people. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.
> 
> The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine.
> 
> Any discussion outside of this legal framework is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The question of citizenship to the Mandate Territory is an interesting one, but does not change the status of the territory in the least.  Whether a person, indigenous or not, was granted Palestinian Citizenship as a matter for the Mandatory power, as the successor government to the Ottoman Empire, to administer make no difference.  And if the Mandatory extended citizenship under the post-War Treatise and Mandate by the Powers, such citizenship did not have any impact on the establishment of a sovereign and independent nation.  Palestine as an "entity" only existed to the degree and extent as the Allied Powers decided it should exist.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine or citizenship at all.  Relative to Section II, Article 30, the Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory detached from Turkey became nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred; --- except that in the Middle East territories _[today known as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestine (WB & G)]_ there were no self-governing states.  That control was transferred to the Allied Powers under Mandate by the League of Nations.  And the citizenship was established under the Mandate.
> 
> Whatever the Palestinian may think today, the status of the territory and the people have changed over time.  By 1950 the Palestinians in the West Bank had _(by right of self-determination)_ adopted Jordanian Citizenship through the Parliamentary process; --- while the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip became constituents represented politically by the All Palestine Government (APG) under the protection and control of the Egyptian Military Governorship.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bottom line is that this is Palestine.
> 
> Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them _on her behalf,_ in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which *again* showed that the *Palestinians formed a nation,* and that *Palestine was a State, *though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; *there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.*
> 
> See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​
> The mandate was to act in the best interest of the people. (The people being the above mentioned Palestinians.) The mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. (An independent Palestinian state.)
> 
> The LoN Covenant provided a means, a goal, and a time frame for the mandate as a temporary assignment.
> 
> The Jewish National Home was *not* to be a separate state. The mandate was to assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship where they would have equal rights to the other citizens.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that had nothing to do with the mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Jewish national homeland in Israel was established legally & ethically by a vote of the member nations of the UN whereas all Muslim lands are stolen lands conquered by force whereby the indiginous populations were forced to convert, leave or be killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Not true.*
> 
> UN resolution 181 flopped. The creation of Israel was a unilateral move.
Click to expand...





 Then the arab muslims cant use it as the basis for their claims, making Palestine a non entity and the arab muslims stateless people again. Israel exists because of CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW that was around in 1920, 1922 and 1924.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is merely a one-sided interpretation of the facts; as the hostile Palestinian sees it _(as opposed to various other factions)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not true.*
> 
> UN resolution 181 flopped. The creation of Israel was a unilateral move.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are a number of observers _(both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian)_ that would prefer GA Resolution 181(II),  29 November 1947, to be wiped from history.  It is simply not that easy.  Israel had to complete the Step Preparatory to Independence outlined in the Resolution to the satisfaction of the UN Palestine Commission _(UNPC --- the Successor Government)_.
> 
> First, in 1948, the Successor Government to Palestine (UNPC) officially announced (PAL/169 17 May 1948) through UN Channels:
> 
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. *In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented*."​Second, the GA Resolution A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988 which _Acknowledges _the proclamation of the State of Palestine (See Link
> 
> A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988) by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988, Palestinian Declaration of Independence, make direct reference to Resolution 181(II):
> 
> Palestinian Proclamation:
> By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,
> Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the *international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947*, and  Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
> The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.​UN Acknowledgement:
> _Recalling _its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, in which, _inter alia_, it called for the establishment of an Arab State and a Jewish State in Palestine,
> _Aware _of the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council in line with General Assembly resolution 181 (II) and in exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people,​Third, that in the Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General (A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999), the Palestinians official take the position that:
> 
> For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. *The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II)*, as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.
> 
> Israel must comply with United Nations resolutions. It has no power to unilaterally annul any of those resolutions, particularly such a historic resolution as 181 (II). *Israel's claim that the resolution is "null and void" is illegal*, and it is also inadmissible given the history of the matter.​Fourth, that Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations  (A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012) which _Decides_ to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations --- states:  _Recalling_ its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,​
> These four points make it clear that Resolution 181(II) was active and acknowledged by the UN and the Palestinians up to and through the Process used by the Palestinian Authority to achieve both "State" status and membership into key UN organizations, treaties and conventions.
> 
> My interpretation is not one held by Israel --- but --- one held by the sole representative of the Palestinian people.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, yeah, you have posted that verbosity before. Look at the facts.
> 
> Neither Israel nor Palestine ever accepted resolution 181. By the time Israel mentioned the resolution in its declaration of independence it had already violated all of the major tenets of the resolution. Israel never had any intentions of abiding by resolution 181.
> 
> The UN did not lift a finger to defend the resolution from Israel's violations.
> 
> Sure, the PLO mentioned resolution 181. What part of it was revived by that? None of it. It is just as dead as it was in 1948.
Click to expand...






 Totally irrelevant in any case as CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW of 1920, 1922 and 1924 take precedence over 181 and grants the Jews the whole of Palestine, Judea and Samaria. The UN can not repeal International Law so these stand to this day.


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> We will have to agree to - "disagree" - on what the Treaty of Lausanne has to say on the subject; fore it does not mention Palestine; but rather Syria.  The Treaty of Sèvres, which predates the Treaty of Lausanne by four years,  directly mention Palestine.
> 
> Syria was divided by previous agreements between the Allied Powers.  The establishment of the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applies, and the establishment of the accompanying Order in Council, also predates any effect of the Treaty of Lausanne relative to Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good post, thanks.
> 
> Palestine has a long history of invasions, conquests, and other movements of people. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.
> 
> The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine.
> 
> Any discussion outside of this legal framework is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The question of citizenship to the Mandate Territory is an interesting one, but does not change the status of the territory in the least.  Whether a person, indigenous or not, was granted Palestinian Citizenship as a matter for the Mandatory power, as the successor government to the Ottoman Empire, to administer make no difference.  And if the Mandatory extended citizenship under the post-War Treatise and Mandate by the Powers, such citizenship did not have any impact on the establishment of a sovereign and independent nation.  Palestine as an "entity" only existed to the degree and extent as the Allied Powers decided it should exist.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine or citizenship at all.  Relative to Section II, Article 30, the Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory detached from Turkey became nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred; --- except that in the Middle East territories _[today known as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestine (WB & G)]_ there were no self-governing states.  That control was transferred to the Allied Powers under Mandate by the League of Nations.  And the citizenship was established under the Mandate.
> 
> Whatever the Palestinian may think today, the status of the territory and the people have changed over time.  By 1950 the Palestinians in the West Bank had _(by right of self-determination)_ adopted Jordanian Citizenship through the Parliamentary process; --- while the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip became constituents represented politically by the All Palestine Government (APG) under the protection and control of the Egyptian Military Governorship.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bottom line is that this is Palestine.
> 
> Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them _on her behalf,_ in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which *again* showed that the *Palestinians formed a nation,* and that *Palestine was a State, *though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; *there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.*
> 
> See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​
> The mandate was to act in the best interest of the people. (The people being the above mentioned Palestinians.) The mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. (An independent Palestinian state.)
> 
> The LoN Covenant provided a means, a goal, and a time frame for the mandate as a temporary assignment.
> 
> The Jewish National Home was *not* to be a separate state. The mandate was to assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship where they would have equal rights to the other citizens.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that had nothing to do with the mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Jewish national homeland in Israel was established legally & ethically by a vote of the member nations of the UN whereas all Muslim lands are stolen lands conquered by force whereby the indiginous populations were forced to convert, leave or be killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Not true.*
> 
> UN resolution 181 flopped. The creation of Israel was a unilateral move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quite CORRECT Tinnie...the previous poster is out of their depth in this threat .....CLEARLY
Click to expand...





 But the LoN treaties from 1920, 1922 and 1924 which set in stone the creation on Israel entered into CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW. The UN had no legal right to change these laws so 181 was just a paper exercise that the Palestinian arab muslims are now using for their own ends.


----------



## MJB12741

Israel accepted UN resolution 181.  The Palestinians rejected it, thus making it non binding.  Not too bright those Palestinians, are they?


BBC NEWS In Depth Israel and the Palestinians key documents UN Partition Plan


----------



## aris2chat

MJB12741 said:


> Israel accepted UN resolution 181.  The Palestinians rejected it, thus making it non binding.  Not too bright those Palestinians, are they?
> 
> 
> BBC NEWS In Depth Israel and the Palestinians key documents UN Partition Plan



Palestinians can't reject it then demand Israel abide to a non binding resolution.
Palestinians act like the rules or resolutions don't apply to them.  If they wish to become a state they need to grow up and act like adults with a measure of common sense and rational thought


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> We will have to agree to - "disagree" - on what the Treaty of Lausanne has to say on the subject; fore it does not mention Palestine; but rather Syria.  The Treaty of Sèvres, which predates the Treaty of Lausanne by four years,  directly mention Palestine.
> 
> Syria was divided by previous agreements between the Allied Powers.  The establishment of the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applies, and the establishment of the accompanying Order in Council, also predates any effect of the Treaty of Lausanne relative to Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is often confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As always your point is valid.  However we know the Israelites occupied the land for thousands of years before Islam began in the 7th century AD.  Therefore how can Muslim Palestinians be indigenous to the land except for a possible small percentage of Jews who converted?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "Arab" people is referring to the greater heterogeneous cultural _(a panethnic group)_ that is not divided by religious affiliation.  When one talks of "Arab Muslims" --- you have restricted yourself to describing a portion of the culture that come post-Islam and temporally after the rise of the following to the _Word of the Supreme Being _as revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad (PBUH) _(7th Century and forward to present day)_.
> 
> I find it entirely impractical to discuss the Arab People _(inhabitants to the Arabian plate)_ of the Levant _(all the Middle East of today)_ and the Hebrew People _(semi-nomadic Habiru people)_ as separate and distinct --- especially ten centuries BCE _(nearly three thousand years ago)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good post, thanks.
> 
> Palestine has a long history of invasions, conquests, and other movements of people. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.
> 
> The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine.
> 
> Any discussion outside of this legal framework is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The question of citizenship to the Mandate Territory is an interesting one, but does not change the status of the territory in the least.  Whether a person, indigenous or not, was granted Palestinian Citizenship as a matter for the Mandatory power, as the successor government to the Ottoman Empire, to administer make no difference.  And if the Mandatory extended citizenship under the post-War Treatise and Mandate by the Powers, such citizenship did not have any impact on the establishment of a sovereign and independent nation.  Palestine as an "entity" only existed to the degree and extent as the Allied Powers decided it should exist.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine or citizenship at all.  Relative to Section II, Article 30, the Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory detached from Turkey became nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred; --- except that in the Middle East territories _[today known as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestine (WB & G)]_ there were no self-governing states.  That control was transferred to the Allied Powers under Mandate by the League of Nations.  And the citizenship was established under the Mandate.
> 
> Whatever the Palestinian may think today, the status of the territory and the people have changed over time.  By 1950 the Palestinians in the West Bank had _(by right of self-determination)_ adopted Jordanian Citizenship through the Parliamentary process; --- while the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip became constituents represented politically by the All Palestine Government (APG) under the protection and control of the Egyptian Military Governorship.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bottom line is that this is Palestine.
> 
> Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them _on her behalf,_ in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which *again* showed that the *Palestinians formed a nation,* and that *Palestine was a State, *though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; *there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.*
> 
> See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​
> The mandate was to act in the best interest of the people. (The people being the above mentioned Palestinians.) The mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. (An independent Palestinian state.)
> 
> The LoN Covenant provided a means, a goal, and a time frame for the mandate as a temporary assignment.
> 
> The Jewish National Home was *not* to be a separate state. The mandate was to assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship where they would have equal rights to the other citizens.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that had nothing to do with the mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you attempt to bestow sovereignty on to Palestine when none existed, the Mandate set in stone the simple fact that it dealt with the mandate for Palestine and not the nation. Under International law of the time the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE bequeathed the land to the Jews of the world for the RESURECTION OF THE NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS. It did not give anything to the arab muslims as they had received their allotment with Jordan, Syria and Iraq.
> You need to read the Mandate for Palestine to see where it is stated that the Jews will have a separate state.
> 
> The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate
> 
> 
> *ART. 4.*
> An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect* the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine*, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
> The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure *the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
> 
> 
> ART. 5.
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power
> 
> 
> 
> ART. 6.
> The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes
> 
> 
> 
> ART. 7.
> The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine
> 
> 
> Just a few of the articles that set in stone and CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW the resurrection of Israel*
Click to expand...


"National home" does not necesarily mean "Sovereign State"


----------



## toastman

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> We will have to agree to - "disagree" - on what the Treaty of Lausanne has to say on the subject; fore it does not mention Palestine; but rather Syria.  The Treaty of Sèvres, which predates the Treaty of Lausanne by four years,  directly mention Palestine.
> 
> Syria was divided by previous agreements between the Allied Powers.  The establishment of the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applies, and the establishment of the accompanying Order in Council, also predates any effect of the Treaty of Lausanne relative to Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is often confusing.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "Arab" people is referring to the greater heterogeneous cultural _(a panethnic group)_ that is not divided by religious affiliation.  When one talks of "Arab Muslims" --- you have restricted yourself to describing a portion of the culture that come post-Islam and temporally after the rise of the following to the _Word of the Supreme Being _as revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad (PBUH) _(7th Century and forward to present day)_.
> 
> I find it entirely impractical to discuss the Arab People _(inhabitants to the Arabian plate)_ of the Levant _(all the Middle East of today)_ and the Hebrew People _(semi-nomadic Habiru people)_ as separate and distinct --- especially ten centuries BCE _(nearly three thousand years ago)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Good post, thanks.
> 
> Palestine has a long history of invasions, conquests, and other movements of people. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.
> 
> The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine.
> 
> Any discussion outside of this legal framework is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The question of citizenship to the Mandate Territory is an interesting one, but does not change the status of the territory in the least.  Whether a person, indigenous or not, was granted Palestinian Citizenship as a matter for the Mandatory power, as the successor government to the Ottoman Empire, to administer make no difference.  And if the Mandatory extended citizenship under the post-War Treatise and Mandate by the Powers, such citizenship did not have any impact on the establishment of a sovereign and independent nation.  Palestine as an "entity" only existed to the degree and extent as the Allied Powers decided it should exist.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine or citizenship at all.  Relative to Section II, Article 30, the Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory detached from Turkey became nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred; --- except that in the Middle East territories _[today known as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestine (WB & G)]_ there were no self-governing states.  That control was transferred to the Allied Powers under Mandate by the League of Nations.  And the citizenship was established under the Mandate.
> 
> Whatever the Palestinian may think today, the status of the territory and the people have changed over time.  By 1950 the Palestinians in the West Bank had _(by right of self-determination)_ adopted Jordanian Citizenship through the Parliamentary process; --- while the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip became constituents represented politically by the All Palestine Government (APG) under the protection and control of the Egyptian Military Governorship.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bottom line is that this is Palestine.
> 
> Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them _on her behalf,_ in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which *again* showed that the *Palestinians formed a nation,* and that *Palestine was a State, *though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; *there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.*
> 
> See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​
> The mandate was to act in the best interest of the people. (The people being the above mentioned Palestinians.) The mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. (An independent Palestinian state.)
> 
> The LoN Covenant provided a means, a goal, and a time frame for the mandate as a temporary assignment.
> 
> The Jewish National Home was *not* to be a separate state. The mandate was to assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship where they would have equal rights to the other citizens.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that had nothing to do with the mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you attempt to bestow sovereignty on to Palestine when none existed, the Mandate set in stone the simple fact that it dealt with the mandate for Palestine and not the nation. Under International law of the time the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE bequeathed the land to the Jews of the world for the RESURECTION OF THE NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS. It did not give anything to the arab muslims as they had received their allotment with Jordan, Syria and Iraq.
> You need to read the Mandate for Palestine to see where it is stated that the Jews will have a separate state.
> 
> The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate
> 
> 
> *ART. 4.*
> An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect* the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine*, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
> The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure *the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
> 
> 
> ART. 5.
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power
> 
> 
> 
> ART. 6.
> The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes
> 
> 
> 
> ART. 7.
> The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine
> 
> 
> Just a few of the articles that set in stone and CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW the resurrection of Israel*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "National home" does not necesarily mean "Sovereign State"
Click to expand...

National home could mean a lot of things, including sovereign state.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> We will have to agree to - "disagree" - on what the Treaty of Lausanne has to say on the subject; fore it does not mention Palestine; but rather Syria.  The Treaty of Sèvres, which predates the Treaty of Lausanne by four years,  directly mention Palestine.
> 
> Syria was divided by previous agreements between the Allied Powers.  The establishment of the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applies, and the establishment of the accompanying Order in Council, also predates any effect of the Treaty of Lausanne relative to Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is often confusing.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "Arab" people is referring to the greater heterogeneous cultural _(a panethnic group)_ that is not divided by religious affiliation.  When one talks of "Arab Muslims" --- you have restricted yourself to describing a portion of the culture that come post-Islam and temporally after the rise of the following to the _Word of the Supreme Being _as revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad (PBUH) _(7th Century and forward to present day)_.
> 
> I find it entirely impractical to discuss the Arab People _(inhabitants to the Arabian plate)_ of the Levant _(all the Middle East of today)_ and the Hebrew People _(semi-nomadic Habiru people)_ as separate and distinct --- especially ten centuries BCE _(nearly three thousand years ago)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Good post, thanks.
> 
> Palestine has a long history of invasions, conquests, and other movements of people. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.
> 
> The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine.
> 
> Any discussion outside of this legal framework is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The question of citizenship to the Mandate Territory is an interesting one, but does not change the status of the territory in the least.  Whether a person, indigenous or not, was granted Palestinian Citizenship as a matter for the Mandatory power, as the successor government to the Ottoman Empire, to administer make no difference.  And if the Mandatory extended citizenship under the post-War Treatise and Mandate by the Powers, such citizenship did not have any impact on the establishment of a sovereign and independent nation.  Palestine as an "entity" only existed to the degree and extent as the Allied Powers decided it should exist.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine or citizenship at all.  Relative to Section II, Article 30, the Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory detached from Turkey became nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred; --- except that in the Middle East territories _[today known as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestine (WB & G)]_ there were no self-governing states.  That control was transferred to the Allied Powers under Mandate by the League of Nations.  And the citizenship was established under the Mandate.
> 
> Whatever the Palestinian may think today, the status of the territory and the people have changed over time.  By 1950 the Palestinians in the West Bank had _(by right of self-determination)_ adopted Jordanian Citizenship through the Parliamentary process; --- while the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip became constituents represented politically by the All Palestine Government (APG) under the protection and control of the Egyptian Military Governorship.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bottom line is that this is Palestine.
> 
> Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them _on her behalf,_ in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which *again* showed that the *Palestinians formed a nation,* and that *Palestine was a State, *though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; *there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.*
> 
> See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​
> The mandate was to act in the best interest of the people. (The people being the above mentioned Palestinians.) The mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. (An independent Palestinian state.)
> 
> The LoN Covenant provided a means, a goal, and a time frame for the mandate as a temporary assignment.
> 
> The Jewish National Home was *not* to be a separate state. The mandate was to assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship where they would have equal rights to the other citizens.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that had nothing to do with the mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you attempt to bestow sovereignty on to Palestine when none existed, the Mandate set in stone the simple fact that it dealt with the mandate for Palestine and not the nation. Under International law of the time the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE bequeathed the land to the Jews of the world for the RESURECTION OF THE NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS. It did not give anything to the arab muslims as they had received their allotment with Jordan, Syria and Iraq.
> You need to read the Mandate for Palestine to see where it is stated that the Jews will have a separate state.
> 
> The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate
> 
> 
> *ART. 4.*
> An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect* the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine*, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
> The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure *the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
> 
> 
> ART. 5.
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power
> 
> 
> 
> ART. 6.
> The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes
> 
> 
> 
> ART. 7.
> The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine
> 
> 
> Just a few of the articles that set in stone and CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW the resurrection of Israel*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "National home" does not necesarily mean "Sovereign State"
Click to expand...





 It did in 1920, 1922 and 1924 if you read the full Mandate for Palestine


----------



## RoccoR

Challenger,  _et al,_

Our friend "Challenger" is correct.  The concept of a "National Home" is a greater idea then its subset of a "Sovereign State."  It doesn't mean that the concept of a "National Home" does not include a possible subset of a "Sovereign State."



Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> We will have to agree to - "disagree" - on what the Treaty of Lausanne has to say on the subject; fore it does not mention Palestine; but rather Syria.  The Treaty of Sèvres, which predates the Treaty of Lausanne by four years,  directly mention Palestine.
> 
> Syria was divided by previous agreements between the Allied Powers.  The establishment of the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applies, and the establishment of the accompanying Order in Council, also predates any effect of the Treaty of Lausanne relative to Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is often confusing.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "Arab" people is referring to the greater heterogeneous cultural _(a panethnic group)_ that is not divided by religious affiliation.  When one talks of "Arab Muslims" --- you have restricted yourself to describing a portion of the culture that come post-Islam and temporally after the rise of the following to the _Word of the Supreme Being _as revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad (PBUH) _(7th Century and forward to present day)_.
> 
> I find it entirely impractical to discuss the Arab People _(inhabitants to the Arabian plate)_ of the Levant _(all the Middle East of today)_ and the Hebrew People _(semi-nomadic Habiru people)_ as separate and distinct --- especially ten centuries BCE _(nearly three thousand years ago)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Good post, thanks.
> 
> Palestine has a long history of invasions, conquests, and other movements of people. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.
> 
> The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine.
> 
> Any discussion outside of this legal framework is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The question of citizenship to the Mandate Territory is an interesting one, but does not change the status of the territory in the least.  Whether a person, indigenous or not, was granted Palestinian Citizenship as a matter for the Mandatory power, as the successor government to the Ottoman Empire, to administer make no difference.  And if the Mandatory extended citizenship under the post-War Treatise and Mandate by the Powers, such citizenship did not have any impact on the establishment of a sovereign and independent nation.  Palestine as an "entity" only existed to the degree and extent as the Allied Powers decided it should exist.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine or citizenship at all.  Relative to Section II, Article 30, the Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory detached from Turkey became nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred; --- except that in the Middle East territories _[today known as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestine (WB & G)]_ there were no self-governing states.  That control was transferred to the Allied Powers under Mandate by the League of Nations.  And the citizenship was established under the Mandate.
> 
> Whatever the Palestinian may think today, the status of the territory and the people have changed over time.  By 1950 the Palestinians in the West Bank had _(by right of self-determination)_ adopted Jordanian Citizenship through the Parliamentary process; --- while the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip became constituents represented politically by the All Palestine Government (APG) under the protection and control of the Egyptian Military Governorship.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bottom line is that this is Palestine.
> 
> Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them _on her behalf,_ in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which *again* showed that the *Palestinians formed a nation,* and that *Palestine was a State, *though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; *there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.*
> 
> See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​
> The mandate was to act in the best interest of the people. (The people being the above mentioned Palestinians.) The mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. (An independent Palestinian state.)
> 
> The LoN Covenant provided a means, a goal, and a time frame for the mandate as a temporary assignment.
> 
> The Jewish National Home was *not* to be a separate state. The mandate was to assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship where they would have equal rights to the other citizens.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that had nothing to do with the mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you attempt to bestow sovereignty on to Palestine when none existed, the Mandate set in stone the simple fact that it dealt with the mandate for Palestine and not the nation. Under International law of the time the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE bequeathed the land to the Jews of the world for the RESURECTION OF THE NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS. It did not give anything to the arab muslims as they had received their allotment with Jordan, Syria and Iraq.
> You need to read the Mandate for Palestine to see where it is stated that the Jews will have a separate state.
> 
> The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate
> 
> *ART. 4.*
> An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect* the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine*, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
> The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure *the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.*
> 
> *ART. 5.
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power*
> 
> *ART. 6.
> The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes*
> 
> *ART. 7.
> The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine*
> 
> *Just a few of the articles that set in stone and CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW the resurrection of Israel*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "National home" does not necessarily mean "Sovereign State"
Click to expand...

*(OBSERVATION)*

In the US, we have a type of territory known as an "Indian Reservation;" --- independent sovereign land _("a domestic dependent nation")_  and internationally considered an autonomous administrative division (AAD), which are managed by Native American tribes under the US Bureau of Indian Affairs.  This is an example as an alternative to a complete "sovereign state."

*(COMMENT)*

The use of an AAD has been considered the preferred type of alternative in cases where the parent sovereign nation does not wish to subdivide a large homogenous population and territory into clearly identifiable demographic segments having similar requirements, and economic characteristics.  The complete separation, segmentation and partition is the more applicable choice when the two population are incompatible and maintain unreconcilable differences.  In such cases where the minority (the Jewish) is completely surrounded by a hostile majority population (Arabs) --- complete partition is preferred in order to preserve the minority from extinction by the majority. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MJB12741

aris2chat said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel accepted UN resolution 181.  The Palestinians rejected it, thus making it non binding.  Not too bright those Palestinians, are they?
> 
> 
> BBC NEWS In Depth Israel and the Palestinians key documents UN Partition Plan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians can't reject it then demand Israel abide to a non binding resolution.
> Palestinians act like the rules or resolutions don't apply to them.  If they wish to become a state they need to grow up and act like adults with a measure of common sense and rational thought
Click to expand...


The Palis screwed themselves but good on UN 181.  And have been screwing themselves ever since.  First Arafat & now Hamas.  Long live Hamas!


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Challenger,  _et al,_
> 
> Our friend "Challenger" is correct.  The concept of a "National Home" is a greater idea then its subset of a "Sovereign State."  It doesn't mean that the concept of a "National Home" does not include a possible subset of a "Sovereign State."
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> We will have to agree to - "disagree" - on what the Treaty of Lausanne has to say on the subject; fore it does not mention Palestine; but rather Syria.  The Treaty of Sèvres, which predates the Treaty of Lausanne by four years,  directly mention Palestine.
> 
> Syria was divided by previous agreements between the Allied Powers.  The establishment of the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applies, and the establishment of the accompanying Order in Council, also predates any effect of the Treaty of Lausanne relative to Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good post, thanks.
> 
> Palestine has a long history of invasions, conquests, and other movements of people. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.
> 
> The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine.
> 
> Any discussion outside of this legal framework is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The question of citizenship to the Mandate Territory is an interesting one, but does not change the status of the territory in the least.  Whether a person, indigenous or not, was granted Palestinian Citizenship as a matter for the Mandatory power, as the successor government to the Ottoman Empire, to administer make no difference.  And if the Mandatory extended citizenship under the post-War Treatise and Mandate by the Powers, such citizenship did not have any impact on the establishment of a sovereign and independent nation.  Palestine as an "entity" only existed to the degree and extent as the Allied Powers decided it should exist.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine or citizenship at all.  Relative to Section II, Article 30, the Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory detached from Turkey became nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred; --- except that in the Middle East territories _[today known as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestine (WB & G)]_ there were no self-governing states.  That control was transferred to the Allied Powers under Mandate by the League of Nations.  And the citizenship was established under the Mandate.
> 
> Whatever the Palestinian may think today, the status of the territory and the people have changed over time.  By 1950 the Palestinians in the West Bank had _(by right of self-determination)_ adopted Jordanian Citizenship through the Parliamentary process; --- while the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip became constituents represented politically by the All Palestine Government (APG) under the protection and control of the Egyptian Military Governorship.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bottom line is that this is Palestine.
> 
> Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them _on her behalf,_ in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which *again* showed that the *Palestinians formed a nation,* and that *Palestine was a State, *though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; *there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.*
> 
> See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​
> The mandate was to act in the best interest of the people. (The people being the above mentioned Palestinians.) The mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. (An independent Palestinian state.)
> 
> The LoN Covenant provided a means, a goal, and a time frame for the mandate as a temporary assignment.
> 
> The Jewish National Home was *not* to be a separate state. The mandate was to assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship where they would have equal rights to the other citizens.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that had nothing to do with the mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you attempt to bestow sovereignty on to Palestine when none existed, the Mandate set in stone the simple fact that it dealt with the mandate for Palestine and not the nation. Under International law of the time the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE bequeathed the land to the Jews of the world for the RESURECTION OF THE NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS. It did not give anything to the arab muslims as they had received their allotment with Jordan, Syria and Iraq.
> You need to read the Mandate for Palestine to see where it is stated that the Jews will have a separate state.
> 
> The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate
> 
> *ART. 4.*
> An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect* the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine*, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
> The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure *the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.*
> 
> *ART. 5.
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power*
> 
> *ART. 6.
> The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes*
> 
> *ART. 7.
> The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine*
> 
> *Just a few of the articles that set in stone and CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW the resurrection of Israel*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "National home" does not necessarily mean "Sovereign State"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> In the US, we have a type of territory known as an "Indian Reservation;" --- independent sovereign land _("a domestic dependent nation")_  and internationally considered an autonomous administrative division (AAD), which are managed by Native American tribes under the US Bureau of Indian Affairs.  This is an example as an alternative to a complete "sovereign state."
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The use of an AAD has been considered the preferred type of alternative in cases where the parent sovereign nation does not wish to subdivide a large homogenous population and territory into clearly identifiable demographic segments having similar requirements, and economic characteristics.  The complete separation, segmentation and partition is the more applicable choice when the two population are incompatible and maintain unreconcilable differences.  In such cases where the minority (the Jewish) is completely surrounded by a hostile majority population (Arabs) --- complete partition is preferred in order to preserve the minority from extinction by the majority.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

*...complete partition is preferred...​*
Partition of what, Rocco?


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> Challenger,  _et al,_
> 
> Our friend "Challenger" is correct.  The concept of a "National Home" is a greater idea then its subset of a "Sovereign State."  It doesn't mean that the concept of a "National Home" does not include a possible subset of a "Sovereign State."
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> We will have to agree to - "disagree" - on what the Treaty of Lausanne has to say on the subject; fore it does not mention Palestine; but rather Syria.  The Treaty of Sèvres, which predates the Treaty of Lausanne by four years,  directly mention Palestine.
> 
> Syria was divided by previous agreements between the Allied Powers.  The establishment of the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applies, and the establishment of the accompanying Order in Council, also predates any effect of the Treaty of Lausanne relative to Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good post, thanks.
> 
> Palestine has a long history of invasions, conquests, and other movements of people. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.
> 
> The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine.
> 
> Any discussion outside of this legal framework is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The question of citizenship to the Mandate Territory is an interesting one, but does not change the status of the territory in the least.  Whether a person, indigenous or not, was granted Palestinian Citizenship as a matter for the Mandatory power, as the successor government to the Ottoman Empire, to administer make no difference.  And if the Mandatory extended citizenship under the post-War Treatise and Mandate by the Powers, such citizenship did not have any impact on the establishment of a sovereign and independent nation.  Palestine as an "entity" only existed to the degree and extent as the Allied Powers decided it should exist.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine or citizenship at all.  Relative to Section II, Article 30, the Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory detached from Turkey became nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred; --- except that in the Middle East territories _[today known as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestine (WB & G)]_ there were no self-governing states.  That control was transferred to the Allied Powers under Mandate by the League of Nations.  And the citizenship was established under the Mandate.
> 
> Whatever the Palestinian may think today, the status of the territory and the people have changed over time.  By 1950 the Palestinians in the West Bank had _(by right of self-determination)_ adopted Jordanian Citizenship through the Parliamentary process; --- while the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip became constituents represented politically by the All Palestine Government (APG) under the protection and control of the Egyptian Military Governorship.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bottom line is that this is Palestine.
> 
> Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them _on her behalf,_ in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which *again* showed that the *Palestinians formed a nation,* and that *Palestine was a State, *though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; *there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.*
> 
> See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​
> The mandate was to act in the best interest of the people. (The people being the above mentioned Palestinians.) The mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. (An independent Palestinian state.)
> 
> The LoN Covenant provided a means, a goal, and a time frame for the mandate as a temporary assignment.
> 
> The Jewish National Home was *not* to be a separate state. The mandate was to assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship where they would have equal rights to the other citizens.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that had nothing to do with the mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you attempt to bestow sovereignty on to Palestine when none existed, the Mandate set in stone the simple fact that it dealt with the mandate for Palestine and not the nation. Under International law of the time the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE bequeathed the land to the Jews of the world for the RESURECTION OF THE NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS. It did not give anything to the arab muslims as they had received their allotment with Jordan, Syria and Iraq.
> You need to read the Mandate for Palestine to see where it is stated that the Jews will have a separate state.
> 
> The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate
> 
> *ART. 4.*
> An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect* the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine*, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
> The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure *the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.*
> 
> *ART. 5.
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power*
> 
> *ART. 6.
> The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes*
> 
> *ART. 7.
> The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine*
> 
> *Just a few of the articles that set in stone and CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW the resurrection of Israel*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "National home" does not necessarily mean "Sovereign State"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> In the US, we have a type of territory known as an "Indian Reservation;" --- independent sovereign land _("a domestic dependent nation")_  and internationally considered an autonomous administrative division (AAD), which are managed by Native American tribes under the US Bureau of Indian Affairs.  This is an example as an alternative to a complete "sovereign state."
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The use of an AAD has been considered the preferred type of alternative in cases where the parent sovereign nation does not wish to subdivide a large homogenous population and territory into clearly identifiable demographic segments having similar requirements, and economic characteristics.  The complete separation, segmentation and partition is the more applicable choice when the two population are incompatible and maintain unreconcilable differences.  In such cases where the minority (the Jewish) is completely surrounded by a hostile majority population (Arabs) --- complete partition is preferred in order to preserve the minority from extinction by the majority.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


They are called Bantustans.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  _et al,_

Nonsense.  You've misunderstood the entire concept.



montelatici said:


> They are called Bantustans.


*(COMMENT)*

The term "Bantustan" is an apartheid term.  An attempt by the pro-Palestinians to make an association with a territory set aside as part of the policy or system of segregation on grounds of race _(nonexistent racial difference between Israelis 'vs' Palestinians)_.  When in fact the entire reason (multiple) for the separation, partition, and quarantine is actually based on the protection and preservation of a minority culture (Jewish) --- a majority group (Arab) attempting the hostile domination in favor of its members over a minority group (Israelis) which have been historically --- the disadvantaged culture attempting to establish a safe haven and permanent homeland for the protection of the group.

The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is a rare example of the reverse-Apartheid in which the regional Majority Population _(multiple Arab Jihadist and Fedayeen)_ are attempting to forcibly dislodge, dissect, and disburse a surrounded Minority Population attempting to establish, protect and defend, a National Home as originally conceived by the Principle Allied Powers nearly a century ago.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MJB12741

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> Nonsense.  You've misunderstood the entire concept.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are called Bantustans.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The term "Bantustan" is an apartheid term.  An attempt by the pro-Palestinians to make an association with a territory set aside as part of the policy or system of segregation on grounds of race _(nonexistent racial difference between Israelis 'vs' Palestinians)_.  When in fact the entire reason (multiple) for the separation, partition, and quarantine is actually based on the protection and preservation of a minority culture (Jewish) --- a majority group (Arab) attempting the hostile domination in favor of its members over a minority group (Israelis) which have been historically --- the disadvantaged culture attempting to establish a safe haven and permanent homeland for the protection of the group.
> 
> The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is a rare example of the reverse-Apartheid in which the regional Majority Population _(multiple Arab Jihadist and Fedayeen)_ are attempting to forcibly dislodge, dissect, and disburse a surrounded Minority Population attempting to establish, protect and defend, a National Home as originally conceived by the Principle Allied Powers nearly a century ago.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Israel is so damn apartheid it is the only country in the entire Middle East with citizens of virtually allliving faiths including Palestinians with equal voting rights in the Knesset.  You know, just like the non apartheid Arab countries have Christians & Jews with equal voting rights in their governments.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> Nonsense.  You've misunderstood the entire concept.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are called Bantustans.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The term "Bantustan" is an apartheid term.  An attempt by the pro-Palestinians to make an association with a territory set aside as part of the policy or system of segregation on grounds of race _(nonexistent racial difference between Israelis 'vs' Palestinians)_.  When in fact the entire reason (multiple) for the separation, partition, and quarantine is actually based on the protection and preservation of a minority culture (Jewish) --- a majority group (Arab) attempting the hostile domination in favor of its members over a minority group (Israelis) which have been historically --- the disadvantaged culture attempting to establish a safe haven and permanent homeland for the protection of the group.
> 
> The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is a rare example of the reverse-Apartheid in which the regional Majority Population _(multiple Arab Jihadist and Fedayeen)_ are attempting to forcibly dislodge, dissect, and disburse a surrounded Minority Population attempting to establish, protect and defend, a National Home as originally conceived by the Principle Allied Powers nearly a century ago.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel is so damn apartheid it is the only country in the entire Middle East with citizens of virtually allliving faiths including Palestinians with equal voting rights in the Knesset.  You know, just like the non apartheid Arab countries have Christians & Jews with equal voting rights in their governments.
Click to expand...

Palestinians with equal voting rights in the Knesset.​
I hear that a lot. How many proposals have they made in the Knesset that became law?


----------



## toastman

MJB12741 said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> Nonsense.  You've misunderstood the entire concept.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are called Bantustans.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The term "Bantustan" is an apartheid term.  An attempt by the pro-Palestinians to make an association with a territory set aside as part of the policy or system of segregation on grounds of race _(nonexistent racial difference between Israelis 'vs' Palestinians)_.  When in fact the entire reason (multiple) for the separation, partition, and quarantine is actually based on the protection and preservation of a minority culture (Jewish) --- a majority group (Arab) attempting the hostile domination in favor of its members over a minority group (Israelis) which have been historically --- the disadvantaged culture attempting to establish a safe haven and permanent homeland for the protection of the group.
> 
> The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is a rare example of the reverse-Apartheid in which the regional Majority Population _(multiple Arab Jihadist and Fedayeen)_ are attempting to forcibly dislodge, dissect, and disburse a surrounded Minority Population attempting to establish, protect and defend, a National Home as originally conceived by the Principle Allied Powers nearly a century ago.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel is so damn apartheid it is the only country in the entire Middle East with citizens of virtually *allliving faiths including Palestinians with equal voting rights in the Knesset*.  You know, just like the non apartheid Arab countries have Christians & Jews with equal voting rights in their governments.[/QUOTE
Click to expand...




P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> Nonsense.  You've misunderstood the entire concept.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are called Bantustans.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The term "Bantustan" is an apartheid term.  An attempt by the pro-Palestinians to make an association with a territory set aside as part of the policy or system of segregation on grounds of race _(nonexistent racial difference between Israelis 'vs' Palestinians)_.  When in fact the entire reason (multiple) for the separation, partition, and quarantine is actually based on the protection and preservation of a minority culture (Jewish) --- a majority group (Arab) attempting the hostile domination in favor of its members over a minority group (Israelis) which have been historically --- the disadvantaged culture attempting to establish a safe haven and permanent homeland for the protection of the group.
> 
> The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is a rare example of the reverse-Apartheid in which the regional Majority Population _(multiple Arab Jihadist and Fedayeen)_ are attempting to forcibly dislodge, dissect, and disburse a surrounded Minority Population attempting to establish, protect and defend, a National Home as originally conceived by the Principle Allied Powers nearly a century ago.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel is so damn apartheid it is the only country in the entire Middle East with citizens of virtually allliving faiths including Palestinians with equal voting rights in the Knesset.  You know, just like the non apartheid Arab countries have Christians & Jews with equal voting rights in their governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians with equal voting rights in the Knesset.​
> I hear that a lot. How many proposals have they made in the Knesset that became law?
Click to expand...

Who cares ?? You people will always find something to complain about. Even if there had been 20 laws passed that originated from Palestinian proposals, you would look for something else to whine about.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> Nonsense.  You've misunderstood the entire concept.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are called Bantustans.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The term "Bantustan" is an apartheid term.  An attempt by the pro-Palestinians to make an association with a territory set aside as part of the policy or system of segregation on grounds of race _(nonexistent racial difference between Israelis 'vs' Palestinians)_.  When in fact the entire reason (multiple) for the separation, partition, and quarantine is actually based on the protection and preservation of a minority culture (Jewish) --- a majority group (Arab) attempting the hostile domination in favor of its members over a minority group (Israelis) which have been historically --- the disadvantaged culture attempting to establish a safe haven and permanent homeland for the protection of the group.
> 
> The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is a rare example of the reverse-Apartheid in which the regional Majority Population _(multiple Arab Jihadist and Fedayeen)_ are attempting to forcibly dislodge, dissect, and disburse a surrounded Minority Population attempting to establish, protect and defend, a National Home as originally conceived by the Principle Allied Powers nearly a century ago.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel is so damn apartheid it is the only country in the entire Middle East with citizens of virtually *allliving faiths including Palestinians with equal voting rights in the Knesset*.  You know, just like the non apartheid Arab countries have Christians & Jews with equal voting rights in their governments.[/QUOTE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> Nonsense.  You've misunderstood the entire concept.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are called Bantustans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The term "Bantustan" is an apartheid term.  An attempt by the pro-Palestinians to make an association with a territory set aside as part of the policy or system of segregation on grounds of race _(nonexistent racial difference between Israelis 'vs' Palestinians)_.  When in fact the entire reason (multiple) for the separation, partition, and quarantine is actually based on the protection and preservation of a minority culture (Jewish) --- a majority group (Arab) attempting the hostile domination in favor of its members over a minority group (Israelis) which have been historically --- the disadvantaged culture attempting to establish a safe haven and permanent homeland for the protection of the group.
> 
> The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is a rare example of the reverse-Apartheid in which the regional Majority Population _(multiple Arab Jihadist and Fedayeen)_ are attempting to forcibly dislodge, dissect, and disburse a surrounded Minority Population attempting to establish, protect and defend, a National Home as originally conceived by the Principle Allied Powers nearly a century ago.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel is so damn apartheid it is the only country in the entire Middle East with citizens of virtually allliving faiths including Palestinians with equal voting rights in the Knesset.  You know, just like the non apartheid Arab countries have Christians & Jews with equal voting rights in their governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians with equal voting rights in the Knesset.​
> I hear that a lot. How many proposals have they made in the Knesset that became law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who cares ?? You people will always find something to complain about. Even if there had been 20 laws passed that originated from Palestinian proposals, you would look for something else to whine about.
Click to expand...

Can I take that as a big fat  *0*


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> Nonsense.  You've misunderstood the entire concept.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are called Bantustans.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The term "Bantustan" is an apartheid term.  An attempt by the pro-Palestinians to make an association with a territory set aside as part of the policy or system of segregation on grounds of race _(nonexistent racial difference between Israelis 'vs' Palestinians)_.  When in fact the entire reason (multiple) for the separation, partition, and quarantine is actually based on the protection and preservation of a minority culture (Jewish) --- a majority group (Arab) attempting the hostile domination in favor of its members over a minority group (Israelis) which have been historically --- the disadvantaged culture attempting to establish a safe haven and permanent homeland for the protection of the group.
> 
> The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is a rare example of the reverse-Apartheid in which the regional Majority Population _(multiple Arab Jihadist and Fedayeen)_ are attempting to forcibly dislodge, dissect, and disburse a surrounded Minority Population attempting to establish, protect and defend, a National Home as originally conceived by the Principle Allied Powers nearly a century ago.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel is so damn apartheid it is the only country in the entire Middle East with citizens of virtually *allliving faiths including Palestinians with equal voting rights in the Knesset*.  You know, just like the non apartheid Arab countries have Christians & Jews with equal voting rights in their governments.[/QUOTE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> Nonsense.  You've misunderstood the entire concept.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are called Bantustans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The term "Bantustan" is an apartheid term.  An attempt by the pro-Palestinians to make an association with a territory set aside as part of the policy or system of segregation on grounds of race _(nonexistent racial difference between Israelis 'vs' Palestinians)_.  When in fact the entire reason (multiple) for the separation, partition, and quarantine is actually based on the protection and preservation of a minority culture (Jewish) --- a majority group (Arab) attempting the hostile domination in favor of its members over a minority group (Israelis) which have been historically --- the disadvantaged culture attempting to establish a safe haven and permanent homeland for the protection of the group.
> 
> The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is a rare example of the reverse-Apartheid in which the regional Majority Population _(multiple Arab Jihadist and Fedayeen)_ are attempting to forcibly dislodge, dissect, and disburse a surrounded Minority Population attempting to establish, protect and defend, a National Home as originally conceived by the Principle Allied Powers nearly a century ago.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel is so damn apartheid it is the only country in the entire Middle East with citizens of virtually allliving faiths including Palestinians with equal voting rights in the Knesset.  You know, just like the non apartheid Arab countries have Christians & Jews with equal voting rights in their governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians with equal voting rights in the Knesset.​
> I hear that a lot. How many proposals have they made in the Knesset that became law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who cares ?? You people will always find something to complain about. Even if there had been 20 laws passed that originated from Palestinian proposals, you would look for something else to whine about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can I take that as a big fat  *0*
Click to expand...

 You're trying to make it seem like it is relevant, when we both know it's not.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> Nonsense.  You've misunderstood the entire concept.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are called Bantustans.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The term "Bantustan" is an apartheid term.  An attempt by the pro-Palestinians to make an association with a territory set aside as part of the policy or system of segregation on grounds of race _(nonexistent racial difference between Israelis 'vs' Palestinians)_.  When in fact the entire reason (multiple) for the separation, partition, and quarantine is actually based on the protection and preservation of a minority culture (Jewish) --- a majority group (Arab) attempting the hostile domination in favor of its members over a minority group (Israelis) which have been historically --- the disadvantaged culture attempting to establish a safe haven and permanent homeland for the protection of the group.
> 
> The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is a rare example of the reverse-Apartheid in which the regional Majority Population _(multiple Arab Jihadist and Fedayeen)_ are attempting to forcibly dislodge, dissect, and disburse a surrounded Minority Population attempting to establish, protect and defend, a National Home as originally conceived by the Principle Allied Powers nearly a century ago.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel is so damn apartheid it is the only country in the entire Middle East with citizens of virtually *allliving faiths including Palestinians with equal voting rights in the Knesset*.  You know, just like the non apartheid Arab countries have Christians & Jews with equal voting rights in their governments.[/QUOTE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> Nonsense.  You've misunderstood the entire concept.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The term "Bantustan" is an apartheid term.  An attempt by the pro-Palestinians to make an association with a territory set aside as part of the policy or system of segregation on grounds of race _(nonexistent racial difference between Israelis 'vs' Palestinians)_.  When in fact the entire reason (multiple) for the separation, partition, and quarantine is actually based on the protection and preservation of a minority culture (Jewish) --- a majority group (Arab) attempting the hostile domination in favor of its members over a minority group (Israelis) which have been historically --- the disadvantaged culture attempting to establish a safe haven and permanent homeland for the protection of the group.
> 
> The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is a rare example of the reverse-Apartheid in which the regional Majority Population _(multiple Arab Jihadist and Fedayeen)_ are attempting to forcibly dislodge, dissect, and disburse a surrounded Minority Population attempting to establish, protect and defend, a National Home as originally conceived by the Principle Allied Powers nearly a century ago.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel is so damn apartheid it is the only country in the entire Middle East with citizens of virtually allliving faiths including Palestinians with equal voting rights in the Knesset.  You know, just like the non apartheid Arab countries have Christians & Jews with equal voting rights in their governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians with equal voting rights in the Knesset.​
> I hear that a lot. How many proposals have they made in the Knesset that became law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who cares ?? You people will always find something to complain about. Even if there had been 20 laws passed that originated from Palestinian proposals, you would look for something else to whine about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can I take that as a big fat  *0*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're trying to make it seem like it is relevant, when we both know it's not.
Click to expand...

Horsefeathers, we all know that a few token Palestinians in the Knesset are irrelevant.

It is a good talking point though.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> Nonsense.  You've misunderstood the entire concept.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The term "Bantustan" is an apartheid term.  An attempt by the pro-Palestinians to make an association with a territory set aside as part of the policy or system of segregation on grounds of race _(nonexistent racial difference between Israelis 'vs' Palestinians)_.  When in fact the entire reason (multiple) for the separation, partition, and quarantine is actually based on the protection and preservation of a minority culture (Jewish) --- a majority group (Arab) attempting the hostile domination in favor of its members over a minority group (Israelis) which have been historically --- the disadvantaged culture attempting to establish a safe haven and permanent homeland for the protection of the group.
> 
> The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is a rare example of the reverse-Apartheid in which the regional Majority Population _(multiple Arab Jihadist and Fedayeen)_ are attempting to forcibly dislodge, dissect, and disburse a surrounded Minority Population attempting to establish, protect and defend, a National Home as originally conceived by the Principle Allied Powers nearly a century ago.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is so damn apartheid it is the only country in the entire Middle East with citizens of virtually *allliving faiths including Palestinians with equal voting rights in the Knesset*.  You know, just like the non apartheid Arab countries have Christians & Jews with equal voting rights in their governments.[/QUOTE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is so damn apartheid it is the only country in the entire Middle East with citizens of virtually allliving faiths including Palestinians with equal voting rights in the Knesset.  You know, just like the non apartheid Arab countries have Christians & Jews with equal voting rights in their governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians with equal voting rights in the Knesset.​
> I hear that a lot. How many proposals have they made in the Knesset that became law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who cares ?? You people will always find something to complain about. Even if there had been 20 laws passed that originated from Palestinian proposals, you would look for something else to whine about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can I take that as a big fat  *0*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're trying to make it seem like it is relevant, when we both know it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Horsefeathers, we all know that a few token Palestinians in the Knesset are irrelevant.
> 
> It is a good talking point though.
Click to expand...

It is relevant. Whether not they passed laws is not relevant. You are just , as usual, finding something to whine about .


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Yes, it may be a good "talking point."  But it is not relevant to the Israeli-Palestine Conflict; or the Palestinians of the West Bank or Gaza Strip.



P F Tinmore said:


> Horsefeathers, we all know that a few token Palestinians in the Knesset are irrelevant.
> 
> It is a good talking point though.


*(COMMENT)*

This is purely an internal and domestic issue.  The Knesset is the principle arm in the Israeli government --- in which the political power resides in the general population; in which the government is ruled through elected leaders --- and its representative members --- operate legislatively according to the basic law.  

Surely, you have no objection to that form of government.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger,  _et al,_
> 
> Our friend "Challenger" is correct.  The concept of a "National Home" is a greater idea then its subset of a "Sovereign State."  It doesn't mean that the concept of a "National Home" does not include a possible subset of a "Sovereign State."
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> We will have to agree to - "disagree" - on what the Treaty of Lausanne has to say on the subject; fore it does not mention Palestine; but rather Syria.  The Treaty of Sèvres, which predates the Treaty of Lausanne by four years,  directly mention Palestine.
> 
> Syria was divided by previous agreements between the Allied Powers.  The establishment of the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applies, and the establishment of the accompanying Order in Council, also predates any effect of the Treaty of Lausanne relative to Palestine.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The question of citizenship to the Mandate Territory is an interesting one, but does not change the status of the territory in the least.  Whether a person, indigenous or not, was granted Palestinian Citizenship as a matter for the Mandatory power, as the successor government to the Ottoman Empire, to administer make no difference.  And if the Mandatory extended citizenship under the post-War Treatise and Mandate by the Powers, such citizenship did not have any impact on the establishment of a sovereign and independent nation.  Palestine as an "entity" only existed to the degree and extent as the Allied Powers decided it should exist.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine or citizenship at all.  Relative to Section II, Article 30, the Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory detached from Turkey became nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred; --- except that in the Middle East territories _[today known as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestine (WB & G)]_ there were no self-governing states.  That control was transferred to the Allied Powers under Mandate by the League of Nations.  And the citizenship was established under the Mandate.
> 
> Whatever the Palestinian may think today, the status of the territory and the people have changed over time.  By 1950 the Palestinians in the West Bank had _(by right of self-determination)_ adopted Jordanian Citizenship through the Parliamentary process; --- while the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip became constituents represented politically by the All Palestine Government (APG) under the protection and control of the Egyptian Military Governorship.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line is that this is Palestine.
> 
> Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them _on her behalf,_ in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which *again* showed that the *Palestinians formed a nation,* and that *Palestine was a State, *though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; *there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.*
> 
> See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​
> The mandate was to act in the best interest of the people. (The people being the above mentioned Palestinians.) The mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. (An independent Palestinian state.)
> 
> The LoN Covenant provided a means, a goal, and a time frame for the mandate as a temporary assignment.
> 
> The Jewish National Home was *not* to be a separate state. The mandate was to assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship where they would have equal rights to the other citizens.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that had nothing to do with the mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you attempt to bestow sovereignty on to Palestine when none existed, the Mandate set in stone the simple fact that it dealt with the mandate for Palestine and not the nation. Under International law of the time the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE bequeathed the land to the Jews of the world for the RESURECTION OF THE NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS. It did not give anything to the arab muslims as they had received their allotment with Jordan, Syria and Iraq.
> You need to read the Mandate for Palestine to see where it is stated that the Jews will have a separate state.
> 
> The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate
> 
> *ART. 4.*
> An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect* the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine*, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
> The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure *the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.*
> 
> *ART. 5.
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power*
> 
> *ART. 6.
> The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes*
> 
> *ART. 7.
> The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine*
> 
> *Just a few of the articles that set in stone and CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW the resurrection of Israel*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "National home" does not necessarily mean "Sovereign State"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> In the US, we have a type of territory known as an "Indian Reservation;" --- independent sovereign land _("a domestic dependent nation")_  and internationally considered an autonomous administrative division (AAD), which are managed by Native American tribes under the US Bureau of Indian Affairs.  This is an example as an alternative to a complete "sovereign state."
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The use of an AAD has been considered the preferred type of alternative in cases where the parent sovereign nation does not wish to subdivide a large homogenous population and territory into clearly identifiable demographic segments having similar requirements, and economic characteristics.  The complete separation, segmentation and partition is the more applicable choice when the two population are incompatible and maintain unreconcilable differences.  In such cases where the minority (the Jewish) is completely surrounded by a hostile majority population (Arabs) --- complete partition is preferred in order to preserve the minority from extinction by the majority.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *...complete partition is preferred...*​
> Partition of what, Rocco?
Click to expand...




 Well it would not be arab muslim land as they did not have any in Palestine, so it must be the land that was "spoils of war" after WW1 that the LoN owned and had bequeathed to the Jews for their NATIONAL HOME.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger,  _et al,_
> 
> Our friend "Challenger" is correct.  The concept of a "National Home" is a greater idea then its subset of a "Sovereign State."  It doesn't mean that the concept of a "National Home" does not include a possible subset of a "Sovereign State."
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> We will have to agree to - "disagree" - on what the Treaty of Lausanne has to say on the subject; fore it does not mention Palestine; but rather Syria.  The Treaty of Sèvres, which predates the Treaty of Lausanne by four years,  directly mention Palestine.
> 
> Syria was divided by previous agreements between the Allied Powers.  The establishment of the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applies, and the establishment of the accompanying Order in Council, also predates any effect of the Treaty of Lausanne relative to Palestine.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The question of citizenship to the Mandate Territory is an interesting one, but does not change the status of the territory in the least.  Whether a person, indigenous or not, was granted Palestinian Citizenship as a matter for the Mandatory power, as the successor government to the Ottoman Empire, to administer make no difference.  And if the Mandatory extended citizenship under the post-War Treatise and Mandate by the Powers, such citizenship did not have any impact on the establishment of a sovereign and independent nation.  Palestine as an "entity" only existed to the degree and extent as the Allied Powers decided it should exist.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine or citizenship at all.  Relative to Section II, Article 30, the Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory detached from Turkey became nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred; --- except that in the Middle East territories _[today known as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestine (WB & G)]_ there were no self-governing states.  That control was transferred to the Allied Powers under Mandate by the League of Nations.  And the citizenship was established under the Mandate.
> 
> Whatever the Palestinian may think today, the status of the territory and the people have changed over time.  By 1950 the Palestinians in the West Bank had _(by right of self-determination)_ adopted Jordanian Citizenship through the Parliamentary process; --- while the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip became constituents represented politically by the All Palestine Government (APG) under the protection and control of the Egyptian Military Governorship.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line is that this is Palestine.
> 
> Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them _on her behalf,_ in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which *again* showed that the *Palestinians formed a nation,* and that *Palestine was a State, *though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; *there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.*
> 
> See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​
> The mandate was to act in the best interest of the people. (The people being the above mentioned Palestinians.) The mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. (An independent Palestinian state.)
> 
> The LoN Covenant provided a means, a goal, and a time frame for the mandate as a temporary assignment.
> 
> The Jewish National Home was *not* to be a separate state. The mandate was to assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship where they would have equal rights to the other citizens.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that had nothing to do with the mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you attempt to bestow sovereignty on to Palestine when none existed, the Mandate set in stone the simple fact that it dealt with the mandate for Palestine and not the nation. Under International law of the time the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE bequeathed the land to the Jews of the world for the RESURECTION OF THE NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS. It did not give anything to the arab muslims as they had received their allotment with Jordan, Syria and Iraq.
> You need to read the Mandate for Palestine to see where it is stated that the Jews will have a separate state.
> 
> The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate
> 
> *ART. 4.*
> An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect* the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine*, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
> The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure *the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.*
> 
> *ART. 5.
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power*
> 
> *ART. 6.
> The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes*
> 
> *ART. 7.
> The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine*
> 
> *Just a few of the articles that set in stone and CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW the resurrection of Israel*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "National home" does not necessarily mean "Sovereign State"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> In the US, we have a type of territory known as an "Indian Reservation;" --- independent sovereign land _("a domestic dependent nation")_  and internationally considered an autonomous administrative division (AAD), which are managed by Native American tribes under the US Bureau of Indian Affairs.  This is an example as an alternative to a complete "sovereign state."
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The use of an AAD has been considered the preferred type of alternative in cases where the parent sovereign nation does not wish to subdivide a large homogenous population and territory into clearly identifiable demographic segments having similar requirements, and economic characteristics.  The complete separation, segmentation and partition is the more applicable choice when the two population are incompatible and maintain unreconcilable differences.  In such cases where the minority (the Jewish) is completely surrounded by a hostile majority population (Arabs) --- complete partition is preferred in order to preserve the minority from extinction by the majority.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are called Bantustans.
Click to expand...




 No they are called AAD's, Bantustan is a South African term that has no meaning anywhere else in the world,


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> Nonsense.  You've misunderstood the entire concept.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The term "Bantustan" is an apartheid term.  An attempt by the pro-Palestinians to make an association with a territory set aside as part of the policy or system of segregation on grounds of race _(nonexistent racial difference between Israelis 'vs' Palestinians)_.  When in fact the entire reason (multiple) for the separation, partition, and quarantine is actually based on the protection and preservation of a minority culture (Jewish) --- a majority group (Arab) attempting the hostile domination in favor of its members over a minority group (Israelis) which have been historically --- the disadvantaged culture attempting to establish a safe haven and permanent homeland for the protection of the group.
> 
> The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is a rare example of the reverse-Apartheid in which the regional Majority Population _(multiple Arab Jihadist and Fedayeen)_ are attempting to forcibly dislodge, dissect, and disburse a surrounded Minority Population attempting to establish, protect and defend, a National Home as originally conceived by the Principle Allied Powers nearly a century ago.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is so damn apartheid it is the only country in the entire Middle East with citizens of virtually *allliving faiths including Palestinians with equal voting rights in the Knesset*.  You know, just like the non apartheid Arab countries have Christians & Jews with equal voting rights in their governments.[/QUOTE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is so damn apartheid it is the only country in the entire Middle East with citizens of virtually allliving faiths including Palestinians with equal voting rights in the Knesset.  You know, just like the non apartheid Arab countries have Christians & Jews with equal voting rights in their governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians with equal voting rights in the Knesset.​
> I hear that a lot. How many proposals have they made in the Knesset that became law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who cares ?? You people will always find something to complain about. Even if there had been 20 laws passed that originated from Palestinian proposals, you would look for something else to whine about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can I take that as a big fat  *0*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're trying to make it seem like it is relevant, when we both know it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Horsefeathers, we all know that a few token Palestinians in the Knesset are irrelevant.
> 
> It is a good talking point though.
Click to expand...



So then, how many token Christians & Jews are represented in Arab country governments with equal voting rights?


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is so damn apartheid it is the only country in the entire Middle East with citizens of virtually *allliving faiths including Palestinians with equal voting rights in the Knesset*.  You know, just like the non apartheid Arab countries have Christians & Jews with equal voting rights in their governments.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians with equal voting rights in the Knesset.​
> I hear that a lot. How many proposals have they made in the Knesset that became law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who cares ?? You people will always find something to complain about. Even if there had been 20 laws passed that originated from Palestinian proposals, you would look for something else to whine about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can I take that as a big fat  *0*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're trying to make it seem like it is relevant, when we both know it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Horsefeathers, we all know that a few token Palestinians in the Knesset are irrelevant.
> 
> It is a good talking point though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So then, how many token Christians & Jews are represented in Arab country governments with equal voting rights?
Click to expand...


Hmmm!  Still no reply.  Gosh I wonder why that is?


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares ?? You people will always find something to complain about. Even if there had been 20 laws passed that originated from Palestinian proposals, you would look for something else to whine about.
> 
> 
> 
> Can I take that as a big fat  *0*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're trying to make it seem like it is relevant, when we both know it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Horsefeathers, we all know that a few token Palestinians in the Knesset are irrelevant.
> 
> It is a good talking point though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So then, how many token Christians & Jews are represented in Arab country governments with equal voting rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm!  Still no reply.  Gosh I wonder why that is?
Click to expand...

It is difficult to tell in Palestine. They do not mention the religion of their officials. You can't tell by the party because parties, including the Change and Reform (Hamas) Party, includes Christians. Christians are elected in Muslim majority areas.

Palestinian March 2007 National Unity Government - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can I take that as a big fat  *0*
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying to make it seem like it is relevant, when we both know it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Horsefeathers, we all know that a few token Palestinians in the Knesset are irrelevant.
> 
> It is a good talking point though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So then, how many token Christians & Jews are represented in Arab country governments with equal voting rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm!  Still no reply.  Gosh I wonder why that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is difficult to tell in Palestine. They do not mention the religion of their officials. You can't tell by the party because parties, including the Change and Reform (Hamas) Party, includes Christians. Christians are elected in Muslim majority areas.
> 
> Palestinian March 2007 National Unity Government - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Nothing in that link says anything about Christians being in the government.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying to make it seem like it is relevant, when we both know it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> Horsefeathers, we all know that a few token Palestinians in the Knesset are irrelevant.
> 
> It is a good talking point though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So then, how many token Christians & Jews are represented in Arab country governments with equal voting rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm!  Still no reply.  Gosh I wonder why that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is difficult to tell in Palestine. They do not mention the religion of their officials. You can't tell by the party because parties, including the Change and Reform (Hamas) Party, includes Christians. Christians are elected in Muslim majority areas.
> 
> Palestinian March 2007 National Unity Government - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing in that link says anything about Christians being in the government.
Click to expand...

It is difficult to tell. Palestine does not divide people by religion like Israel does. Sometimes you can get that information from a bios printed someplace. Some are well known Christians like Hannon Ashrawi or Janet Janet Mikhail.

Here is another one.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horsefeathers, we all know that a few token Palestinians in the Knesset are irrelevant.
> 
> It is a good talking point though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then, how many token Christians & Jews are represented in Arab country governments with equal voting rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm!  Still no reply.  Gosh I wonder why that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is difficult to tell in Palestine. They do not mention the religion of their officials. You can't tell by the party because parties, including the Change and Reform (Hamas) Party, includes Christians. Christians are elected in Muslim majority areas.
> 
> Palestinian March 2007 National Unity Government - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing in that link says anything about Christians being in the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is difficult to tell. Palestine does not divide people by religion like Israel does. Sometimes you can get that information from a bios printed someplace. Some are well known Christians like Hannon Ashrawi or Janet Janet Mikhail.
> 
> Here is another one.
Click to expand...

How is it that Israel divide's people by religion?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can I take that as a big fat  *0*
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying to make it seem like it is relevant, when we both know it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Horsefeathers, we all know that a few token Palestinians in the Knesset are irrelevant.
> 
> It is a good talking point though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So then, how many token Christians & Jews are represented in Arab country governments with equal voting rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm!  Still no reply.  Gosh I wonder why that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is difficult to tell in Palestine. They do not mention the religion of their officials. You can't tell by the party because parties, including the Change and Reform (Hamas) Party, includes Christians. Christians are elected in Muslim majority areas.
> 
> Palestinian March 2007 National Unity Government - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...





 Now the Christians are ethnically cleansed from Palestine and not allowed to hold any political posts.


----------



## Challenger

RoccoR said:


> Challenger,  _et al,_
> 
> Our friend "Challenger" is correct.  The concept of a "National Home" is a greater idea then its subset of a "Sovereign State."  It doesn't mean that the concept of a "National Home" does not include a possible subset of a "Sovereign State."
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> We will have to agree to - "disagree" - on what the Treaty of Lausanne has to say on the subject; fore it does not mention Palestine; but rather Syria.  The Treaty of Sèvres, which predates the Treaty of Lausanne by four years,  directly mention Palestine.
> 
> Syria was divided by previous agreements between the Allied Powers.  The establishment of the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applies, and the establishment of the accompanying Order in Council, also predates any effect of the Treaty of Lausanne relative to Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good post, thanks.
> 
> Palestine has a long history of invasions, conquests, and other movements of people. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.
> 
> The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine.
> 
> Any discussion outside of this legal framework is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The question of citizenship to the Mandate Territory is an interesting one, but does not change the status of the territory in the least.  Whether a person, indigenous or not, was granted Palestinian Citizenship as a matter for the Mandatory power, as the successor government to the Ottoman Empire, to administer make no difference.  And if the Mandatory extended citizenship under the post-War Treatise and Mandate by the Powers, such citizenship did not have any impact on the establishment of a sovereign and independent nation.  Palestine as an "entity" only existed to the degree and extent as the Allied Powers decided it should exist.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine or citizenship at all.  Relative to Section II, Article 30, the Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory detached from Turkey became nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred; --- except that in the Middle East territories _[today known as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestine (WB & G)]_ there were no self-governing states.  That control was transferred to the Allied Powers under Mandate by the League of Nations.  And the citizenship was established under the Mandate.
> 
> Whatever the Palestinian may think today, the status of the territory and the people have changed over time.  By 1950 the Palestinians in the West Bank had _(by right of self-determination)_ adopted Jordanian Citizenship through the Parliamentary process; --- while the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip became constituents represented politically by the All Palestine Government (APG) under the protection and control of the Egyptian Military Governorship.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bottom line is that this is Palestine.
> 
> Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them _on her behalf,_ in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which *again* showed that the *Palestinians formed a nation,* and that *Palestine was a State, *though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; *there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.*
> 
> See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​
> The mandate was to act in the best interest of the people. (The people being the above mentioned Palestinians.) The mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. (An independent Palestinian state.)
> 
> The LoN Covenant provided a means, a goal, and a time frame for the mandate as a temporary assignment.
> 
> The Jewish National Home was *not* to be a separate state. The mandate was to assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship where they would have equal rights to the other citizens.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that had nothing to do with the mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you attempt to bestow sovereignty on to Palestine when none existed, the Mandate set in stone the simple fact that it dealt with the mandate for Palestine and not the nation. Under International law of the time the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE bequeathed the land to the Jews of the world for the RESURECTION OF THE NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS. It did not give anything to the arab muslims as they had received their allotment with Jordan, Syria and Iraq.
> You need to read the Mandate for Palestine to see where it is stated that the Jews will have a separate state.
> 
> The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate
> 
> *ART. 4.*
> An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect* the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine*, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
> The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure *the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.*
> 
> *ART. 5.
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power*
> 
> *ART. 6.
> The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes*
> 
> *ART. 7.
> The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine*
> 
> *Just a few of the articles that set in stone and CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW the resurrection of Israel*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "National home" does not necessarily mean "Sovereign State"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> In the US, we have a type of territory known as an "Indian Reservation;" --- independent sovereign land _("a domestic dependent nation")_  and internationally considered an autonomous administrative division (AAD), which are managed by Native American tribes under the US Bureau of Indian Affairs.  This is an example as an alternative to a complete "sovereign state."
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The use of an AAD has been considered the preferred type of alternative in cases where the parent sovereign nation does not wish to subdivide a large homogenous population and territory into clearly identifiable demographic segments having similar requirements, and economic characteristics.  The complete separation, segmentation and partition is the more applicable choice when the two population are incompatible and maintain unreconcilable differences.  In such cases where the minority (the Jewish) is completely surrounded by a hostile majority population (Arabs) --- complete partition is preferred in order to preserve the minority from extinction by the majority.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


In South Africa it was called Apartheid.


----------



## Challenger

RoccoR said:


> When in fact the entire reason (multiple) for the separation, partition, and quarantine is actually based on the protection and preservation of a minority culture (Jewish) --- a majority group (Arab) attempting the hostile domination in favor of its members over a minority group (Israelis) which have been historically --- the disadvantaged culture attempting to establish a safe haven and permanent homeland for the protection of the group.



This is a Zionist logical fallacy akin to, "let's put all our eggs into one basket". Judaism survived only because it was a scattered religious group. If all the world's Jewish population only lived in Poland in 1939 for example...oops. The same applies to Zionist Israel today.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger,  _et al,_
> 
> Our friend "Challenger" is correct.  The concept of a "National Home" is a greater idea then its subset of a "Sovereign State."  It doesn't mean that the concept of a "National Home" does not include a possible subset of a "Sovereign State."
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> We will have to agree to - "disagree" - on what the Treaty of Lausanne has to say on the subject; fore it does not mention Palestine; but rather Syria.  The Treaty of Sèvres, which predates the Treaty of Lausanne by four years,  directly mention Palestine.
> 
> Syria was divided by previous agreements between the Allied Powers.  The establishment of the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applies, and the establishment of the accompanying Order in Council, also predates any effect of the Treaty of Lausanne relative to Palestine.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The question of citizenship to the Mandate Territory is an interesting one, but does not change the status of the territory in the least.  Whether a person, indigenous or not, was granted Palestinian Citizenship as a matter for the Mandatory power, as the successor government to the Ottoman Empire, to administer make no difference.  And if the Mandatory extended citizenship under the post-War Treatise and Mandate by the Powers, such citizenship did not have any impact on the establishment of a sovereign and independent nation.  Palestine as an "entity" only existed to the degree and extent as the Allied Powers decided it should exist.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine or citizenship at all.  Relative to Section II, Article 30, the Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory detached from Turkey became nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred; --- except that in the Middle East territories _[today known as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestine (WB & G)]_ there were no self-governing states.  That control was transferred to the Allied Powers under Mandate by the League of Nations.  And the citizenship was established under the Mandate.
> 
> Whatever the Palestinian may think today, the status of the territory and the people have changed over time.  By 1950 the Palestinians in the West Bank had _(by right of self-determination)_ adopted Jordanian Citizenship through the Parliamentary process; --- while the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip became constituents represented politically by the All Palestine Government (APG) under the protection and control of the Egyptian Military Governorship.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line is that this is Palestine.
> 
> Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them _on her behalf,_ in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which *again* showed that the *Palestinians formed a nation,* and that *Palestine was a State, *though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; *there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.*
> 
> See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​
> The mandate was to act in the best interest of the people. (The people being the above mentioned Palestinians.) The mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. (An independent Palestinian state.)
> 
> The LoN Covenant provided a means, a goal, and a time frame for the mandate as a temporary assignment.
> 
> The Jewish National Home was *not* to be a separate state. The mandate was to assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship where they would have equal rights to the other citizens.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that had nothing to do with the mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you attempt to bestow sovereignty on to Palestine when none existed, the Mandate set in stone the simple fact that it dealt with the mandate for Palestine and not the nation. Under International law of the time the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE bequeathed the land to the Jews of the world for the RESURECTION OF THE NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS. It did not give anything to the arab muslims as they had received their allotment with Jordan, Syria and Iraq.
> You need to read the Mandate for Palestine to see where it is stated that the Jews will have a separate state.
> 
> The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate
> 
> *ART. 4.*
> An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect* the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine*, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
> The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure *the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.*
> 
> *ART. 5.
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power*
> 
> *ART. 6.
> The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes*
> 
> *ART. 7.
> The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine*
> 
> *Just a few of the articles that set in stone and CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW the resurrection of Israel*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "National home" does not necessarily mean "Sovereign State"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> In the US, we have a type of territory known as an "Indian Reservation;" --- independent sovereign land _("a domestic dependent nation")_  and internationally considered an autonomous administrative division (AAD), which are managed by Native American tribes under the US Bureau of Indian Affairs.  This is an example as an alternative to a complete "sovereign state."
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The use of an AAD has been considered the preferred type of alternative in cases where the parent sovereign nation does not wish to subdivide a large homogenous population and territory into clearly identifiable demographic segments having similar requirements, and economic characteristics.  The complete separation, segmentation and partition is the more applicable choice when the two population are incompatible and maintain unreconcilable differences.  In such cases where the minority (the Jewish) is completely surrounded by a hostile majority population (Arabs) --- complete partition is preferred in order to preserve the minority from extinction by the majority.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In South Africa it was called Apartheid.
Click to expand...





 WRONG AGAIN as there is no apartheid in Israel, but plenty in Palestine at the hands of the arab muslims. What does every one of their charters say about Jews and Palestine again ?


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> When in fact the entire reason (multiple) for the separation, partition, and quarantine is actually based on the protection and preservation of a minority culture (Jewish) --- a majority group (Arab) attempting the hostile domination in favor of its members over a minority group (Israelis) which have been historically --- the disadvantaged culture attempting to establish a safe haven and permanent homeland for the protection of the group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a Zionist logical fallacy akin to, "let's put all our eggs into one basket". Judaism survived only because it was a scattered religious group. If all the world's Jewish population only lived in Poland in 1939 for example...oops. The same applies to Zionist Israel today.
Click to expand...





 And this is nothing more than ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA and BLOOD LIBELS put about because islam is losing its way in the world. If all the worlds "moderate" muslims were placed in one hut in Ramallah you would be able to execute them without any blood being shed.


----------



## Challenger

RoccoR said:


> The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is a rare example of the reverse-Apartheid in which the regional Majority Population _(multiple Arab Jihadist and Fedayeen)_ are attempting to forcibly dislodge, dissect, and disburse a surrounded Minority Population attempting to establish, protect and defend, a National Home as originally conceived by the Principle Allied Powers nearly a century ago.



Nonsense. The "National Home" was concieved as just that; no more than a "tribal homeland" where Jewish people, at that time considered a "race", could settle. Not one of the Principle Allied powers conceived the idea of an independant soveriegn Jewish state in Palestine.


----------



## MJB12741

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is a rare example of the reverse-Apartheid in which the regional Majority Population _(multiple Arab Jihadist and Fedayeen)_ are attempting to forcibly dislodge, dissect, and disburse a surrounded Minority Population attempting to establish, protect and defend, a National Home as originally conceived by the Principle Allied Powers nearly a century ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The "National Home" was concieved as just that; no more than a "tribal homeland" where Jewish people, at that time considered a "race", could settle. Not one of the Principle Allied powers conceived the idea of an independant soveriegn Jewish state in Palestine.
Click to expand...


Oh now I get it.  That's why the member nations of the UN approved & voted for it.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Janet Mikhail*

The stream of people in and out of Janet Mikhail's Ramallah office is endless. The mayor of what has become the administrative centre of the Palestinian Territories is unusual in almost every way - a woman, a Christian, unmarried and essentially chosen by Hamas.

In 2005, the city held its first municipal elections in almost three decades. Mikhail ran as part of an independent list called Ramallah for All. The list won six council seats, while the Fatah-affiliated Watan list also won six, and Hamas' Change and Reform list won three. It was the decision of the Hamas list to back Mikhail over the Fatah candidate that brought her to power.

"I used to work as a school headmistress, so I am known by the citizens here. They encouraged me, and my family encouraged me, too - so I went for the elections," says Mikhail. She dismisses suggestions that her gender is an impediment to her work.

"It is the opposite," Mikhail, 66, says. "The Palestinian woman is a strong woman and she can lead in Palestine. In Ramallah especially, there are a lot of women who have the role of president or head of NGO [non-governmental organisation] associations."

There are five female ministers in the Palestinian cabinet, and women have long played a more active role in society than in many other countries in the region. Literacy rates for females are around 90 per cent - only slightly lower than the rate for males — and girls are now more likely to enrol in secondary school than boys in the Palestinian Territories.

Janet Mikhail is more than just the mayor of Ramallah The National


----------



## toastman

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is a rare example of the reverse-Apartheid in which the regional Majority Population _(multiple Arab Jihadist and Fedayeen)_ are attempting to forcibly dislodge, dissect, and disburse a surrounded Minority Population attempting to establish, protect and defend, a National Home as originally conceived by the Principle Allied Powers nearly a century ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The "National Home" was concieved as just that; no more than a "tribal homeland" where Jewish people, at that time considered a "race", could settle. Not *one
> 
> * of the Principle Allied powers conceived the idea of an independant soveriegn Jewish state in Palestine.
Click to expand...




Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is a rare example of the reverse-Apartheid in which the regional Majority Population _(multiple Arab Jihadist and Fedayeen)_ are attempting to forcibly dislodge, dissect, and disburse a surrounded Minority Population attempting to establish, protect and defend, a National Home as originally conceived by the Principle Allied Powers nearly a century ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The "National Home" was concieved as just that; no more than a "tribal homeland" where Jewish people, at that time considered a "race", could settle. Not one of the Principle Allied powers conceived the idea of an independant soveriegn Jewish state in Palestine.
Click to expand...


How do YOU know what they meant when they said national home ? Seems like you are making up your own definition.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is a rare example of the reverse-Apartheid in which the regional Majority Population _(multiple Arab Jihadist and Fedayeen)_ are attempting to forcibly dislodge, dissect, and disburse a surrounded Minority Population attempting to establish, protect and defend, a National Home as originally conceived by the Principle Allied Powers nearly a century ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The "National Home" was concieved as just that; no more than a "tribal homeland" where Jewish people, at that time considered a "race", could settle. Not *one
> 
> * of the Principle Allied powers conceived the idea of an independant soveriegn Jewish state in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is a rare example of the reverse-Apartheid in which the regional Majority Population _(multiple Arab Jihadist and Fedayeen)_ are attempting to forcibly dislodge, dissect, and disburse a surrounded Minority Population attempting to establish, protect and defend, a National Home as originally conceived by the Principle Allied Powers nearly a century ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The "National Home" was concieved as just that; no more than a "tribal homeland" where Jewish people, at that time considered a "race", could settle. Not one of the Principle Allied powers conceived the idea of an independant soveriegn Jewish state in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do YOU know what they meant when they said national home ? Seems like you are making up your own definition.
Click to expand...

Because the British, who were charged with creating the Jewish National Home under its mandate, said that they were not to create a Jewish state.

So they didn't.


----------



## Hossfly

MJB12741 said:


> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine



The current Palestinian are no different than they were in from the olden days. Except nowadays they do it to music.

Propaganda department of Hamas creates a choreographed musical video clip depicting murder of yeshiva student.


Hamas's creative department has come up with a video clip that features a choreographed, musical scene in which terrorists murder a Jewish yeshiva student.



The clip shows two people acting out the roles of Jews in a synagogue or yeshiva, apparently studying Torah, but doing so somewhat bizarrely next to a midel of the Al Aqsa mosque. A terrorist enters and stabs one of them.



This is followed by a similar scene in which a troupe of dancing terrorists cartwheels its way into the hall and shoots the yeshiva student.



This is not the first Hamas video encouraging the murder of Jews and providing instructions for how to do so.


Hamas Choreography Features Synagogue Stabbing - Defense Security - News - Arutz Sheva
Video is in link above


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is a rare example of the reverse-Apartheid in which the regional Majority Population _(multiple Arab Jihadist and Fedayeen)_ are attempting to forcibly dislodge, dissect, and disburse a surrounded Minority Population attempting to establish, protect and defend, a National Home as originally conceived by the Principle Allied Powers nearly a century ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The "National Home" was concieved as just that; no more than a "tribal homeland" where Jewish people, at that time considered a "race", could settle. Not *one
> 
> * of the Principle Allied powers conceived the idea of an independant soveriegn Jewish state in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is a rare example of the reverse-Apartheid in which the regional Majority Population _(multiple Arab Jihadist and Fedayeen)_ are attempting to forcibly dislodge, dissect, and disburse a surrounded Minority Population attempting to establish, protect and defend, a National Home as originally conceived by the Principle Allied Powers nearly a century ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The "National Home" was concieved as just that; no more than a "tribal homeland" where Jewish people, at that time considered a "race", could settle. Not one of the Principle Allied powers conceived the idea of an independant soveriegn Jewish state in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do YOU know what they meant when they said national home ? Seems like you are making up your own definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the British, who were charged with creating the Jewish National Home under its mandate, said that they were not to create a Jewish state.
> 
> So they didn't.
Click to expand...


Link ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is a rare example of the reverse-Apartheid in which the regional Majority Population _(multiple Arab Jihadist and Fedayeen)_ are attempting to forcibly dislodge, dissect, and disburse a surrounded Minority Population attempting to establish, protect and defend, a National Home as originally conceived by the Principle Allied Powers nearly a century ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The "National Home" was concieved as just that; no more than a "tribal homeland" where Jewish people, at that time considered a "race", could settle. Not *one
> 
> * of the Principle Allied powers conceived the idea of an independant soveriegn Jewish state in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is a rare example of the reverse-Apartheid in which the regional Majority Population _(multiple Arab Jihadist and Fedayeen)_ are attempting to forcibly dislodge, dissect, and disburse a surrounded Minority Population attempting to establish, protect and defend, a National Home as originally conceived by the Principle Allied Powers nearly a century ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The "National Home" was concieved as just that; no more than a "tribal homeland" where Jewish people, at that time considered a "race", could settle. Not one of the Principle Allied powers conceived the idea of an independant soveriegn Jewish state in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do YOU know what they meant when they said national home ? Seems like you are making up your own definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the British, who were charged with creating the Jewish National Home under its mandate, said that they were not to create a Jewish state.
> 
> So they didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link ?
Click to expand...

But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.

The Avalon Project British White Paper of 1939


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is a rare example of the reverse-Apartheid in which the regional Majority Population _(multiple Arab Jihadist and Fedayeen)_ are attempting to forcibly dislodge, dissect, and disburse a surrounded Minority Population attempting to establish, protect and defend, a National Home as originally conceived by the Principle Allied Powers nearly a century ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The "National Home" was concieved as just that; no more than a "tribal homeland" where Jewish people, at that time considered a "race", could settle. Not *one
> 
> * of the Principle Allied powers conceived the idea of an independant soveriegn Jewish state in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is a rare example of the reverse-Apartheid in which the regional Majority Population _(multiple Arab Jihadist and Fedayeen)_ are attempting to forcibly dislodge, dissect, and disburse a surrounded Minority Population attempting to establish, protect and defend, a National Home as originally conceived by the Principle Allied Powers nearly a century ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The "National Home" was concieved as just that; no more than a "tribal homeland" where Jewish people, at that time considered a "race", could settle. Not one of the Principle Allied powers conceived the idea of an independant soveriegn Jewish state in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do YOU know what they meant when they said national home ? Seems like you are making up your own definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the British, who were charged with creating the Jewish National Home under its mandate, said that they were not to create a Jewish state.
> 
> So they didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.
> 
> The Avalon Project British White Paper of 1939
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter.

1948-1949 changed all that.

The Jews carved-out a _Nation_ for themselves, not just a 'national homeland'.

The Muslim-Arabs of Old Palestine ran like rabbits, trusting to their lying sack-of-shit Muslim-Arab neighbors' promises to do their fighting for them.

The only 'nakba' at-work here is The Great Arab Skeddadle of 1948.

"_He who pees his pants, then runs away, lives to regret it, for many a day._"

Vae victus.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is a rare example of the reverse-Apartheid in which the regional Majority Population _(multiple Arab Jihadist and Fedayeen)_ are attempting to forcibly dislodge, dissect, and disburse a surrounded Minority Population attempting to establish, protect and defend, a National Home as originally conceived by the Principle Allied Powers nearly a century ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The "National Home" was concieved as just that; no more than a "tribal homeland" where Jewish people, at that time considered a "race", could settle. Not one of the Principle Allied powers conceived the idea of an independant soveriegn Jewish state in Palestine.
Click to expand...





 Another ISLAMONAZI moron that does not know how to interpret 1920's treaty speech. The national home of the Jews was a phrase used because they did not have a name for it. Just as Palestine was the term used for the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE. No computers back then so the treaties were written by hand and any means of making the reports shorter were used.
 The NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS was the same thing as the Balfour declaration, their homeland.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Janet Mikhail*
> 
> The stream of people in and out of Janet Mikhail's Ramallah office is endless. The mayor of what has become the administrative centre of the Palestinian Territories is unusual in almost every way - a woman, a Christian, unmarried and essentially chosen by Hamas.
> 
> In 2005, the city held its first municipal elections in almost three decades. Mikhail ran as part of an independent list called Ramallah for All. The list won six council seats, while the Fatah-affiliated Watan list also won six, and Hamas' Change and Reform list won three. It was the decision of the Hamas list to back Mikhail over the Fatah candidate that brought her to power.
> 
> "I used to work as a school headmistress, so I am known by the citizens here. They encouraged me, and my family encouraged me, too - so I went for the elections," says Mikhail. She dismisses suggestions that her gender is an impediment to her work.
> 
> "It is the opposite," Mikhail, 66, says. "The Palestinian woman is a strong woman and she can lead in Palestine. In Ramallah especially, there are a lot of women who have the role of president or head of NGO [non-governmental organisation] associations."
> 
> There are five female ministers in the Palestinian cabinet, and women have long played a more active role in society than in many other countries in the region. Literacy rates for females are around 90 per cent - only slightly lower than the rate for males — and girls are now more likely to enrol in secondary school than boys in the Palestinian Territories.
> 
> Janet Mikhail is more than just the mayor of Ramallah The National






 Ten year old PROPAGANDA, is this the best you can come up with ? ? ? ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is a rare example of the reverse-Apartheid in which the regional Majority Population _(multiple Arab Jihadist and Fedayeen)_ are attempting to forcibly dislodge, dissect, and disburse a surrounded Minority Population attempting to establish, protect and defend, a National Home as originally conceived by the Principle Allied Powers nearly a century ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The "National Home" was concieved as just that; no more than a "tribal homeland" where Jewish people, at that time considered a "race", could settle. Not *one
> 
> * of the Principle Allied powers conceived the idea of an independant soveriegn Jewish state in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is a rare example of the reverse-Apartheid in which the regional Majority Population _(multiple Arab Jihadist and Fedayeen)_ are attempting to forcibly dislodge, dissect, and disburse a surrounded Minority Population attempting to establish, protect and defend, a National Home as originally conceived by the Principle Allied Powers nearly a century ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The "National Home" was concieved as just that; no more than a "tribal homeland" where Jewish people, at that time considered a "race", could settle. Not one of the Principle Allied powers conceived the idea of an independant soveriegn Jewish state in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do YOU know what they meant when they said national home ? Seems like you are making up your own definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the British, who were charged with creating the Jewish National Home under its mandate, said that they were not to create a Jewish state.
> 
> So they didn't.
Click to expand...






 LINK


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is a rare example of the reverse-Apartheid in which the regional Majority Population _(multiple Arab Jihadist and Fedayeen)_ are attempting to forcibly dislodge, dissect, and disburse a surrounded Minority Population attempting to establish, protect and defend, a National Home as originally conceived by the Principle Allied Powers nearly a century ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The "National Home" was concieved as just that; no more than a "tribal homeland" where Jewish people, at that time considered a "race", could settle. Not *one
> 
> * of the Principle Allied powers conceived the idea of an independant soveriegn Jewish state in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is a rare example of the reverse-Apartheid in which the regional Majority Population _(multiple Arab Jihadist and Fedayeen)_ are attempting to forcibly dislodge, dissect, and disburse a surrounded Minority Population attempting to establish, protect and defend, a National Home as originally conceived by the Principle Allied Powers nearly a century ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The "National Home" was concieved as just that; no more than a "tribal homeland" where Jewish people, at that time considered a "race", could settle. Not one of the Principle Allied powers conceived the idea of an independant soveriegn Jewish state in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do YOU know what they meant when they said national home ? Seems like you are making up your own definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the British, who were charged with creating the Jewish National Home under its mandate, said that they were not to create a Jewish state.
> 
> So they didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.
> 
> The Avalon Project British White Paper of 1939
Click to expand...





 Which means nothing as the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE is still in force, and the British government could not make that decision on its own


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The "National Home" was concieved as just that; no more than a "tribal homeland" where Jewish people, at that time considered a "race", could settle. Not *one
> 
> * of the Principle Allied powers conceived the idea of an independant soveriegn Jewish state in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The "National Home" was concieved as just that; no more than a "tribal homeland" where Jewish people, at that time considered a "race", could settle. Not one of the Principle Allied powers conceived the idea of an independant soveriegn Jewish state in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do YOU know what they meant when they said national home ? Seems like you are making up your own definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the British, who were charged with creating the Jewish National Home under its mandate, said that they were not to create a Jewish state.
> 
> So they didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.
> 
> The Avalon Project British White Paper of 1939
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which means nothing as the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE is still in force, and the British government could not make that decision on its own
Click to expand...


Where does it state in the Mandate for Palestine that Britain had to create a Jewish state in Palestine?


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is a rare example of the reverse-Apartheid in which the regional Majority Population _(multiple Arab Jihadist and Fedayeen)_ are attempting to forcibly dislodge, dissect, and disburse a surrounded Minority Population attempting to establish, protect and defend, a National Home as originally conceived by the Principle Allied Powers nearly a century ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The "National Home" was concieved as just that; no more than a "tribal homeland" where Jewish people, at that time considered a "race", could settle. Not one of the Principle Allied powers conceived the idea of an independant soveriegn Jewish state in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another ISLAMONAZI moron that does not know how to interpret 1920's treaty speech. The national home of the Jews was a phrase used because they did not have a name for it. Just as Palestine was the term used for the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE. No computers back then so the treaties were written by hand and any means of making the reports shorter were used.
> The NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS was the same thing as the Balfour declaration, their homeland.
Click to expand...


"National home" was used because the British government would not countenance a sovereign Jewish state in Palestine, period and the Zionists were well aware of that fact. One of the best objective accounts of what went on in the background can be found here: The Balfour Declaration The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict Amazon.co.uk Jonathan Schneer 9781408809709 Books

Oh, and before you go off on one of your stupid rants, Professor Schneer's book, _The Balfour Declaration: The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict _which won a National Jewish Book Award in 2010.


----------



## Challenger

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The "National Home" was concieved as just that; no more than a "tribal homeland" where Jewish people, at that time considered a "race", could settle. Not *one
> 
> * of the Principle Allied powers conceived the idea of an independant soveriegn Jewish state in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The "National Home" was concieved as just that; no more than a "tribal homeland" where Jewish people, at that time considered a "race", could settle. Not one of the Principle Allied powers conceived the idea of an independant soveriegn Jewish state in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do YOU know what they meant when they said national home ? Seems like you are making up your own definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the British, who were charged with creating the Jewish National Home under its mandate, said that they were not to create a Jewish state.
> 
> So they didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.
> 
> The Avalon Project British White Paper of 1939
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter.
> 
> 1948-1949 changed all that.
> 
> The Jews carved-out a _Nation_ for themselves, not just a 'national homeland'.
> 
> The Muslim-Arabs of Old Palestine ran like rabbits, trusting to their lying sack-of-shit Muslim-Arab neighbors' promises to do their fighting for them.
> 
> The only 'nakba' at-work here is The Great Arab Skeddadle of 1948.
> 
> "_He who pees his pants, then runs away, lives to regret it, for many a day._"
> 
> Vae victus.
Click to expand...


There's another old saying, "What goes around, comes around".


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do YOU know what they meant when they said national home ? Seems like you are making up your own definition.
> 
> 
> 
> Because the British, who were charged with creating the Jewish National Home under its mandate, said that they were not to create a Jewish state.
> 
> So they didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.
> 
> The Avalon Project British White Paper of 1939
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which means nothing as the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE is still in force, and the British government could not make that decision on its own
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does it state in the Mandate for Palestine that Britain had to create a Jewish state in Palestine?
Click to expand...





 It doesn't as Britain did not have that power, what it say is the land will be handed over to the Jews on fulfilment of the Mandate for them to RECREATE THE NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS.  This translates as nation or state in anyones language.   Here are the exact words of the Mandate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)


The preamble of the mandate document declared:

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


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is a rare example of the reverse-Apartheid in which the regional Majority Population _(multiple Arab Jihadist and Fedayeen)_ are attempting to forcibly dislodge, dissect, and disburse a surrounded Minority Population attempting to establish, protect and defend, a National Home as originally conceived by the Principle Allied Powers nearly a century ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The "National Home" was concieved as just that; no more than a "tribal homeland" where Jewish people, at that time considered a "race", could settle. Not one of the Principle Allied powers conceived the idea of an independant soveriegn Jewish state in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another ISLAMONAZI moron that does not know how to interpret 1920's treaty speech. The national home of the Jews was a phrase used because they did not have a name for it. Just as Palestine was the term used for the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE. No computers back then so the treaties were written by hand and any means of making the reports shorter were used.
> The NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS was the same thing as the Balfour declaration, their homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "National home" was used because the British government would not countenance a sovereign Jewish state in Palestine, period and the Zionists were well aware of that fact. One of the best objective accounts of what went on in the background can be found here: The Balfour Declaration The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict Amazon.co.uk Jonathan Schneer 9781408809709 Books
> 
> Oh, and before you go off on one of your stupid rants, Professor Schneer's book, _The Balfour Declaration: The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict _which won a National Jewish Book Award in 2010.
Click to expand...






 WRONG AGAIN  as National Home was used because they had no other name for what was proposed. Just as they had no other name for the mandate so called it Palestine, a shortened version of THE MANDATE FOR PALESTINE


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is a rare example of the reverse-Apartheid in which the regional Majority Population _(multiple Arab Jihadist and Fedayeen)_ are attempting to forcibly dislodge, dissect, and disburse a surrounded Minority Population attempting to establish, protect and defend, a National Home as originally conceived by the Principle Allied Powers nearly a century ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The "National Home" was concieved as just that; no more than a "tribal homeland" where Jewish people, at that time considered a "race", could settle. Not one of the Principle Allied powers conceived the idea of an independant soveriegn Jewish state in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another ISLAMONAZI moron that does not know how to interpret 1920's treaty speech. The national home of the Jews was a phrase used because they did not have a name for it. Just as Palestine was the term used for the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE. No computers back then so the treaties were written by hand and any means of making the reports shorter were used.
> The NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS was the same thing as the Balfour declaration, their homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "National home" was used because the British government would not countenance a sovereign Jewish state in Palestine, period and the Zionists were well aware of that fact. One of the best objective accounts of what went on in the background can be found here: The Balfour Declaration The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict Amazon.co.uk Jonathan Schneer 9781408809709 Books
> 
> Oh, and before you go off on one of your stupid rants, Professor Schneer's book, _The Balfour Declaration: The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict _which won a National Jewish Book Award in 2010.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG AGAIN  as National Home was used because they had no other name for what was proposed. Just as they had no other name for the mandate so called it Palestine, a shortened version of THE MANDATE FOR PALESTINE
Click to expand...


Prove it.


----------



## Kondor3

Challenger said:


> ...There's another old saying, "What goes around, comes around".


Indeed.

And, by the look of it, the Jews of Israel are paying back the Muslims for...

1. kicking over a million Jews - citizens of Muslim countries - out of those Muslim countries, in the timeframe 1948-1975

2. a dozen centuries of Muslim-imposed Dhimmitude and second-class citizenship for Jews living in Muslim countries

You're right... what goes around, comes around... karma's a bitch... and now it's the *Muslims'* turn in the barrel.

Good catch, that.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is a rare example of the reverse-Apartheid in which the regional Majority Population _(multiple Arab Jihadist and Fedayeen)_ are attempting to forcibly dislodge, dissect, and disburse a surrounded Minority Population attempting to establish, protect and defend, a National Home as originally conceived by the Principle Allied Powers nearly a century ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The "National Home" was concieved as just that; no more than a "tribal homeland" where Jewish people, at that time considered a "race", could settle. Not one of the Principle Allied powers conceived the idea of an independant soveriegn Jewish state in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another ISLAMONAZI moron that does not know how to interpret 1920's treaty speech. The national home of the Jews was a phrase used because they did not have a name for it. Just as Palestine was the term used for the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE. No computers back then so the treaties were written by hand and any means of making the reports shorter were used.
> The NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS was the same thing as the Balfour declaration, their homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "National home" was used because the British government would not countenance a sovereign Jewish state in Palestine, period and the Zionists were well aware of that fact. One of the best objective accounts of what went on in the background can be found here: The Balfour Declaration The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict Amazon.co.uk Jonathan Schneer 9781408809709 Books
> 
> Oh, and before you go off on one of your stupid rants, Professor Schneer's book, _The Balfour Declaration: The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict _which won a National Jewish Book Award in 2010.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG AGAIN  as National Home was used because they had no other name for what was proposed. Just as they had no other name for the mandate so called it Palestine, a shortened version of THE MANDATE FOR PALESTINE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it.
Click to expand...





 Read the LoN treaties which spell it out, they have been posted on here many times. Not my fault you cant bring yourself to be a decent human being, just some ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDIST


----------



## MJB12741

Hossfly said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The current Palestinian are no different than they were in from the olden days. Except nowadays they do it to music.
> 
> Propaganda department of Hamas creates a choreographed musical video clip depicting murder of yeshiva student.
> 
> 
> Hamas's creative department has come up with a video clip that features a choreographed, musical scene in which terrorists murder a Jewish yeshiva student.
> 
> 
> 
> The clip shows two people acting out the roles of Jews in a synagogue or yeshiva, apparently studying Torah, but doing so somewhat bizarrely next to a midel of the Al Aqsa mosque. A terrorist enters and stabs one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> This is followed by a similar scene in which a troupe of dancing terrorists cartwheels its way into the hall and shoots the yeshiva student.
> 
> 
> 
> This is not the first Hamas video encouraging the murder of Jews and providing instructions for how to do so.
> 
> 
> Hamas Choreography Features Synagogue Stabbing - Defense Security - News - Arutz Sheva
> Video is in link above
Click to expand...


And these are the noble Palestinian people Israel is supposed to make peace with?


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The "National Home" was concieved as just that; no more than a "tribal homeland" where Jewish people, at that time considered a "race", could settle. Not one of the Principle Allied powers conceived the idea of an independant soveriegn Jewish state in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another ISLAMONAZI moron that does not know how to interpret 1920's treaty speech. The national home of the Jews was a phrase used because they did not have a name for it. Just as Palestine was the term used for the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE. No computers back then so the treaties were written by hand and any means of making the reports shorter were used.
> The NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS was the same thing as the Balfour declaration, their homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "National home" was used because the British government would not countenance a sovereign Jewish state in Palestine, period and the Zionists were well aware of that fact. One of the best objective accounts of what went on in the background can be found here: The Balfour Declaration The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict Amazon.co.uk Jonathan Schneer 9781408809709 Books
> 
> Oh, and before you go off on one of your stupid rants, Professor Schneer's book, _The Balfour Declaration: The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict _which won a National Jewish Book Award in 2010.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG AGAIN  as National Home was used because they had no other name for what was proposed. Just as they had no other name for the mandate so called it Palestine, a shortened version of THE MANDATE FOR PALESTINE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the LoN treaties which spell it out, they have been posted on here many times. Not my fault you cant bring yourself to be a decent human being, just some ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDIST
Click to expand...


Phoney, you have never posted anything resembling source documentation. You merely spout ZioNazi propaganda.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another ISLAMONAZI moron that does not know how to interpret 1920's treaty speech. The national home of the Jews was a phrase used because they did not have a name for it. Just as Palestine was the term used for the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE. No computers back then so the treaties were written by hand and any means of making the reports shorter were used.
> The NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS was the same thing as the Balfour declaration, their homeland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "National home" was used because the British government would not countenance a sovereign Jewish state in Palestine, period and the Zionists were well aware of that fact. One of the best objective accounts of what went on in the background can be found here: The Balfour Declaration The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict Amazon.co.uk Jonathan Schneer 9781408809709 Books
> 
> Oh, and before you go off on one of your stupid rants, Professor Schneer's book, _The Balfour Declaration: The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict _which won a National Jewish Book Award in 2010.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG AGAIN  as National Home was used because they had no other name for what was proposed. Just as they had no other name for the mandate so called it Palestine, a shortened version of THE MANDATE FOR PALESTINE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the LoN treaties which spell it out, they have been posted on here many times. Not my fault you cant bring yourself to be a decent human being, just some ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDIST
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Phoney, you have never posted anything resembling source documentation. You merely spout ZioNazi propaganda.
Click to expand...


HUH?  Phoenall is regarded as one of the most credible posters on the board.  Do you think maybe it is you who is regarded as a fool?  Think about it.


----------



## montelatici

Now that is hilarious.  Phoney the psychopath a credible poster.  I only post fact from source documents, that's what gets to you ZioNazis.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another ISLAMONAZI moron that does not know how to interpret 1920's treaty speech. The national home of the Jews was a phrase used because they did not have a name for it. Just as Palestine was the term used for the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE. No computers back then so the treaties were written by hand and any means of making the reports shorter were used.
> The NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS was the same thing as the Balfour declaration, their homeland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "National home" was used because the British government would not countenance a sovereign Jewish state in Palestine, period and the Zionists were well aware of that fact. One of the best objective accounts of what went on in the background can be found here: The Balfour Declaration The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict Amazon.co.uk Jonathan Schneer 9781408809709 Books
> 
> Oh, and before you go off on one of your stupid rants, Professor Schneer's book, _The Balfour Declaration: The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict _which won a National Jewish Book Award in 2010.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG AGAIN  as National Home was used because they had no other name for what was proposed. Just as they had no other name for the mandate so called it Palestine, a shortened version of THE MANDATE FOR PALESTINE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the LoN treaties which spell it out, they have been posted on here many times. Not my fault you cant bring yourself to be a decent human being, just some ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDIST
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Phoney, you have never posted anything resembling source documentation. You merely spout ZioNazi propaganda.
Click to expand...





 The LoN treaties are true source ducumantation, unlike your abridged pamphlets collated for some ad hoc committee of ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATERS


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Now that is hilarious.  Phoney the psychopath a credible poster.  I only post fact from source documents, that's what gets to you ZioNazis.






 Collated reports from many different sources are not source documents Abdul, a source document has only one author and is meant for a wide audience.


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The "National Home" was concieved as just that; no more than a "tribal homeland" where Jewish people, at that time considered a "race", could settle. Not one of the Principle Allied powers conceived the idea of an independant soveriegn Jewish state in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another ISLAMONAZI moron that does not know how to interpret 1920's treaty speech. The national home of the Jews was a phrase used because they did not have a name for it. Just as Palestine was the term used for the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE. No computers back then so the treaties were written by hand and any means of making the reports shorter were used.
> The NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS was the same thing as the Balfour declaration, their homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "National home" was used because the British government would not countenance a sovereign Jewish state in Palestine, period and the Zionists were well aware of that fact. One of the best objective accounts of what went on in the background can be found here: The Balfour Declaration The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict Amazon.co.uk Jonathan Schneer 9781408809709 Books
> 
> Oh, and before you go off on one of your stupid rants, Professor Schneer's book, _The Balfour Declaration: The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict _which won a National Jewish Book Award in 2010.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG AGAIN  as National Home was used because they had no other name for what was proposed. Just as they had no other name for the mandate so called it Palestine, a shortened version of THE MANDATE FOR PALESTINE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the LoN treaties which spell it out, they have been posted on here many times. Not my fault you cant bring yourself to be a decent human being, just some ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDIST
Click to expand...


Ok, I'll accept your admission you can't prove your assertions.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Now that is hilarious.  Phoney the psychopath a credible poster.  I only post fact from source documents, that's what gets to you ZioNazis.



So tell us, how are they treating you on the funny farm?


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another ISLAMONAZI moron that does not know how to interpret 1920's treaty speech. The national home of the Jews was a phrase used because they did not have a name for it. Just as Palestine was the term used for the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE. No computers back then so the treaties were written by hand and any means of making the reports shorter were used.
> The NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS was the same thing as the Balfour declaration, their homeland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "National home" was used because the British government would not countenance a sovereign Jewish state in Palestine, period and the Zionists were well aware of that fact. One of the best objective accounts of what went on in the background can be found here: The Balfour Declaration The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict Amazon.co.uk Jonathan Schneer 9781408809709 Books
> 
> Oh, and before you go off on one of your stupid rants, Professor Schneer's book, _The Balfour Declaration: The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict _which won a National Jewish Book Award in 2010.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG AGAIN  as National Home was used because they had no other name for what was proposed. Just as they had no other name for the mandate so called it Palestine, a shortened version of THE MANDATE FOR PALESTINE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the LoN treaties which spell it out, they have been posted on here many times. Not my fault you cant bring yourself to be a decent human being, just some ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDIST
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, I'll accept your admission you can't prove your assertions.
Click to expand...




 In other words you don't want to read the truth because it will burst your bubble by reading what became STATUTORY INTERNATIONAL LAW


----------



## fanger

Post a link to STATUTORY INTERNATIONAL LAW


----------



## aris2chat

fanger said:


> Post a link to STATUTORY INTERNATIONAL LAW



Do you mean the "Statute"?


----------



## RoccoR

aris2chat, fanger, _et al,_

I'm a bit confused as well.



aris2chat said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post a link to STATUTORY INTERNATIONAL LAW
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the "Statute"?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

There are several codified sets; the three most common _(excluding the Hague and Geneva Conventions)_ are:

The Rome Statutes for the ICC

Admiralty and Maritime Law (Used every day)

UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982,  
Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone of 1958, 
Convention on the High Seas of 1958, 
Convention on the Continental Shelf of 1958, 
International Convention on Protection of Underwater Telegraph Cables of 1884,

International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea of 1974,  
International Convention on Cargo Mark of 1966, changed by the Protocol of 1988; 
International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships of 1969; 
International Convention on the International Regulations for Prevention Collision at Sea of 1972 International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watching for Sea Farers of 1978, changed by the Conference of 1995; the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue of 1979, etc.​*Sources of international law*
Article 38 (1) of the ICJ’s statute identifies three sources of international law: treaties, custom, and general principles. Because the system of international law is horizontal and decentralized, the creation of international laws is inevitably more complicated than the creation of laws in domestic systems.
The Statutes of the International Court of Justice

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## fanger

Exactly
 There is no such thing as  "STATUTORY INTERNATIONAL LAW"


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> "National home" was used because the British government would not countenance a sovereign Jewish state in Palestine, period and the Zionists were well aware of that fact. One of the best objective accounts of what went on in the background can be found here: The Balfour Declaration The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict Amazon.co.uk Jonathan Schneer 9781408809709 Books
> 
> Oh, and before you go off on one of your stupid rants, Professor Schneer's book, _The Balfour Declaration: The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict _which won a National Jewish Book Award in 2010.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG AGAIN  as National Home was used because they had no other name for what was proposed. Just as they had no other name for the mandate so called it Palestine, a shortened version of THE MANDATE FOR PALESTINE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the LoN treaties which spell it out, they have been posted on here many times. Not my fault you cant bring yourself to be a decent human being, just some ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDIST
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, I'll accept your admission you can't prove your assertions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you don't want to read the truth because it will burst your bubble by reading what became STATUTORY INTERNATIONAL LAW
Click to expand...


Still no evidence to back your assertions, just hot air.


----------



## Challenger

fanger said:


> Exactly
> There is no such thing as  "STATUTORY INTERNATIONAL LAW"


Except on planet Phoney...


----------



## MJB12741

Getting back to who are the Palestinians ---

AOL Search


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> Getting back to who are the Palestinians ---
> 
> AOL Search


 Whoops!

The Truth about the Palestinian People


----------



## Phoenall

fanger said:


> Post a link to STATUTORY INTERNATIONAL LAW






 Which one ?      There are so many that you need to be more explicit.


----------



## Phoenall

fanger said:


> Exactly
> There is no such thing as  "STATUTORY INTERNATIONAL LAW"






 Yes there is . It is when International law becomes embodied in most nations national laws. A good example is that of fighting from civilian areas, it is STATUTORY INTERNATIONAL LAW to refrain from doing so as they will be blamed for any deaths so caused.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG AGAIN  as National Home was used because they had no other name for what was proposed. Just as they had no other name for the mandate so called it Palestine, a shortened version of THE MANDATE FOR PALESTINE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the LoN treaties which spell it out, they have been posted on here many times. Not my fault you cant bring yourself to be a decent human being, just some ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDIST
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, I'll accept your admission you can't prove your assertions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you don't want to read the truth because it will burst your bubble by reading what became STATUTORY INTERNATIONAL LAW
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still no evidence to back your assertions, just hot air.
Click to expand...





 Told you read the LoN treaties setting in stone what later became International law.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly
> There is no such thing as  "STATUTORY INTERNATIONAL LAW"
> 
> 
> 
> Except on planet Phoney...
Click to expand...




 How about when it suits team Palestine to twist international law and blame Israel for deaths caused by hamas breaches of international law.


----------



## MJB12741

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly
> There is no such thing as  "STATUTORY INTERNATIONAL LAW"
> 
> 
> 
> Except on planet Phoney...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about when it suits team Palestine to twist international law and blame Israel for deaths caused by hamas breaches of international law.
Click to expand...


I fully support Hamas.  They are doing a fine job of filling Arafat's shoes to keep the Palestinians living in ignorance & poverty with no hope for a Palestinian State.


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly
> There is no such thing as  "STATUTORY INTERNATIONAL LAW"
> 
> 
> 
> Except on planet Phoney...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about when it suits team Palestine to twist international law and blame Israel for deaths caused by hamas breaches of international law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I fully support Hamas.  They are doing a fine job of filling Arafat's shoes to keep the Palestinians living in ignorance & poverty with no hope for a Palestinian State.
Click to expand...


As long as Hamas is the elected government of the Palestinians, there will be no more peace concessions given by Israel.


----------



## aris2chat

MJB12741 said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly
> There is no such thing as  "STATUTORY INTERNATIONAL LAW"
> 
> 
> 
> Except on planet Phoney...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about when it suits team Palestine to twist international law and blame Israel for deaths caused by hamas breaches of international law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I fully support Hamas.  They are doing a fine job of filling Arafat's shoes to keep the Palestinians living in ignorance & poverty with no hope for a Palestinian State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as Hamas is the elected government of the Palestinians, there will be no more peace concessions given by Israel.
Click to expand...


Hamas is not the elected government of the palestinians, only to seats in the palestinians parliament representing certain districts.  The government is the PA, not hamas.
Hamas took control of gaza by force and set up their own government there.


----------



## MJB12741

aris2chat said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly
> There is no such thing as  "STATUTORY INTERNATIONAL LAW"
> 
> 
> 
> Except on planet Phoney...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about when it suits team Palestine to twist international law and blame Israel for deaths caused by hamas breaches of international law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I fully support Hamas.  They are doing a fine job of filling Arafat's shoes to keep the Palestinians living in ignorance & poverty with no hope for a Palestinian State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as Hamas is the elected government of the Palestinians, there will be no more peace concessions given by Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hamas is not the elected government of the palestinians, only to seats in the palestinians parliament representing certain districts.  The government is the PA, not hamas.
> Hamas took control of gaza by force and set up their own government there.
Click to expand...



Hamas Wins Palestinian Elections Questions you need answered Jewish Voice for Peace


----------



## Phoenall

MJB12741 said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except on planet Phoney...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about when it suits team Palestine to twist international law and blame Israel for deaths caused by hamas breaches of international law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I fully support Hamas.  They are doing a fine job of filling Arafat's shoes to keep the Palestinians living in ignorance & poverty with no hope for a Palestinian State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as Hamas is the elected government of the Palestinians, there will be no more peace concessions given by Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hamas is not the elected government of the palestinians, only to seats in the palestinians parliament representing certain districts.  The government is the PA, not hamas.
> Hamas took control of gaza by force and set up their own government there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas Wins Palestinian Elections Questions you need answered Jewish Voice for Peace
Click to expand...






I liked the part were they asked is Hamas a terrorist group, and answered YES


----------



## fanger

Phoenall said:


> Hamas Wins Palestinian Elections Questions you need answered Jewish Voice for Peace







I liked the part were they asked is Hamas a terrorist group, and answered YES[/QUOTE]



> *Q: So is Hamas a terrorist group?*
> 
> 
> A: Yes. But many terrorist groups have become governments or taken leadership positions in governments in the past. That includes groups like the Irgun Z’vai Leumi and the Lochamei Herut Israel (LEHI or Stern Group), terrorist groups from the pre-state Yishuv, or Jewish settlement in Palestine. From the ranks of those groups came two Israeli Prime Ministers, Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir.


----------



## Phoenall

fanger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas Wins Palestinian Elections Questions you need answered Jewish Voice for Peace
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I liked the part were they asked is Hamas a terrorist group, and answered YES
Click to expand...




> *Q: So is Hamas a terrorist group?*
> 
> 
> A: Yes. But many terrorist groups have become governments or taken leadership positions in governments in the past. That includes groups like the Irgun Z’vai Leumi and the Lochamei Herut Israel (LEHI or Stern Group), terrorist groups from the pre-state Yishuv, or Jewish settlement in Palestine. From the ranks of those groups came two Israeli Prime Ministers, Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir.


[/QUOTE]




 Not forgetting the pride of team Palestine the ANC led by Sixpence mandella, You know the terrorist leader of the terrorist neo Marxist group that led South Africa into hell


----------



## MJB12741

fanger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas Wins Palestinian Elections Questions you need answered Jewish Voice for Peace
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I liked the part were they asked is Hamas a terrorist group, and answered YES
Click to expand...




> *Q: So is Hamas a terrorist group?*
> 
> 
> A: Yes. But many terrorist groups have become governments or taken leadership positions in governments in the past. That includes groups like the Irgun Z’vai Leumi and the Lochamei Herut Israel (LEHI or Stern Group), terrorist groups from the pre-state Yishuv, or Jewish settlement in Palestine. From the ranks of those groups came two Israeli Prime Ministers, Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir.


[/QUOTE]

That was then.  This is now.


----------



## Mindful

MJB12741 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly
> There is no such thing as  "STATUTORY INTERNATIONAL LAW"
> 
> 
> 
> Except on planet Phoney...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about when it suits team Palestine to twist international law and blame Israel for deaths caused by hamas breaches of international law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I fully support Hamas.  They are doing a fine job of filling Arafat's shoes to keep the Palestinians living in ignorance & poverty with no hope for a Palestinian State.
Click to expand...


It was better "before" than "after" Arafat. I went all round the WB in those days, and saw it for myself.

Then came his triumphant procession  into Ramallah. A Trojan Horse, no more, no less.


----------



## Mindful

Remember the Professor from Al-Quds University who took his students to Auschwitz and promptly lost his job? His name is Mohammed S. Dajani. This is what his car looked like this morning:

The High Price Of Being A Decent Palestinian by Brian Of London Israellycool


----------



## Challenger

MJB12741 said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas Wins Palestinian Elections Questions you need answered Jewish Voice for Peace
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I liked the part were they asked is Hamas a terrorist group, and answered YES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Q: So is Hamas a terrorist group?*
> 
> 
> A: Yes. But many terrorist groups have become governments or taken leadership positions in governments in the past. That includes groups like the Irgun Z’vai Leumi and the Lochamei Herut Israel (LEHI or Stern Group), terrorist groups from the pre-state Yishuv, or Jewish settlement in Palestine. From the ranks of those groups came two Israeli Prime Ministers, Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


That was then.  This is now.[/QUOTE]

Likud is just another name for Irgun


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas Wins Palestinian Elections Questions you need answered Jewish Voice for Peace
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I liked the part were they asked is Hamas a terrorist group, and answered YES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Q: So is Hamas a terrorist group?*
> 
> 
> A: Yes. But many terrorist groups have become governments or taken leadership positions in governments in the past. That includes groups like the Irgun Z’vai Leumi and the Lochamei Herut Israel (LEHI or Stern Group), terrorist groups from the pre-state Yishuv, or Jewish settlement in Palestine. From the ranks of those groups came two Israeli Prime Ministers, Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was then.  This is now.
Click to expand...


Likud is just another name for Irgun[/QUOTE]




 Do you mean like hamas is just another name for iran terrorists


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas Wins Palestinian Elections Questions you need answered Jewish Voice for Peace
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I liked the part were they asked is Hamas a terrorist group, and answered YES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Q: So is Hamas a terrorist group?*
> 
> 
> A: Yes. But many terrorist groups have become governments or taken leadership positions in governments in the past. That includes groups like the Irgun Z’vai Leumi and the Lochamei Herut Israel (LEHI or Stern Group), terrorist groups from the pre-state Yishuv, or Jewish settlement in Palestine. From the ranks of those groups came two Israeli Prime Ministers, Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was then.  This is now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Likud is just another name for Irgun
Click to expand...





Do you mean like hamas is just another name for iran terrorists[/QUOTE]
No.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas Wins Palestinian Elections Questions you need answered Jewish Voice for Peace
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I liked the part were they asked is Hamas a terrorist group, and answered YES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Q: So is Hamas a terrorist group?*
> 
> 
> A: Yes. But many terrorist groups have become governments or taken leadership positions in governments in the past. That includes groups like the Irgun Z’vai Leumi and the Lochamei Herut Israel (LEHI or Stern Group), terrorist groups from the pre-state Yishuv, or Jewish settlement in Palestine. From the ranks of those groups came two Israeli Prime Ministers, Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was then.  This is now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Likud is just another name for Irgun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean like hamas is just another name for iran terrorists
Click to expand...

No.[/QUOTE]




 So it must be another name for A.Q. or ISIS or M.B or is it just all of them wrapped up in one bundle and presented as a typical ISLAMONAZI terrorist group


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I liked the part were they asked is Hamas a terrorist group, and answered YES
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Q: So is Hamas a terrorist group?*
> 
> 
> A: Yes. But many terrorist groups have become governments or taken leadership positions in governments in the past. That includes groups like the Irgun Z’vai Leumi and the Lochamei Herut Israel (LEHI or Stern Group), terrorist groups from the pre-state Yishuv, or Jewish settlement in Palestine. From the ranks of those groups came two Israeli Prime Ministers, Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was then.  This is now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Likud is just another name for Irgun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean like hamas is just another name for iran terrorists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
Click to expand...





So it must be another name for A.Q. or ISIS or M.B or is it just all of them wrapped up in one bundle and presented as a typical ISLAMONAZI terrorist group[/QUOTE]

Nope.


----------



## MJB12741

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was then.  This is now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likud is just another name for Irgun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean like hamas is just another name for iran terrorists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it must be another name for A.Q. or ISIS or M.B or is it just all of them wrapped up in one bundle and presented as a typical ISLAMONAZI terrorist group
Click to expand...


Nope.[/QUOTE]

America, Israel & all the other Western nations have had it with all the radical Islamist terrorist groups of the Middle East.  If this trend continues it will soon be Islam Vs. the entire civilized world.  Yet the fact is only the Muslims themselves can put an end to it & save many lives by killing their own radicals & gaining world respect for their religion.


----------



## Challenger

MJB12741 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was then.  This is now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likud is just another name for Irgun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean like hamas is just another name for iran terrorists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it must be another name for A.Q. or ISIS or M.B or is it just all of them wrapped up in one bundle and presented as a typical ISLAMONAZI terrorist group
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.
Click to expand...


America, Israel & all the other Western nations have had it with all the radical Islamist terrorist groups of the Middle East.  If this trend continues it will soon be Islam Vs. the entire civilized world.  Yet the fact is only the Muslims themselves can put an end to it & save many lives by killing their own radicals & gaining world respect for their religion.[/QUOTE]

Really? Zionist Israel seems to be supporting ISIS according to this article:

UN Report Israel in Regular Contact with Syrian Rebels including ISIS

Sadly America, Britain and France created the problem, so we're all reaping what our forefathers and their governments sowed. Maybe we should do our bit to help our by killing all our own Christian and Jewish radicals and fundamentalists?


----------



## aris2chat

EU wants to keep Hamas on the terror list.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Likud is just another name for Irgun
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean like hamas is just another name for iran terrorists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it must be another name for A.Q. or ISIS or M.B or is it just all of them wrapped up in one bundle and presented as a typical ISLAMONAZI terrorist group
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> America, Israel & all the other Western nations have had it with all the radical Islamist terrorist groups of the Middle East.  If this trend continues it will soon be Islam Vs. the entire civilized world.  Yet the fact is only the Muslims themselves can put an end to it & save many lives by killing their own radicals & gaining world respect for their religion.
Click to expand...


Really? Zionist Israel seems to be supporting ISIS according to this article:

UN Report Israel in Regular Contact with Syrian Rebels including ISIS

Sadly America, Britain and France created the problem, so we're all reaping what our forefathers and their governments sowed. Maybe we should do our bit to help our by killing all our own Christian and Jewish radicals and fundamentalists?[/QUOTE]






 Reported by who, ISLAMONAZI SCUM of course. No actual proof apart from unsubstantiated ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA.
 Sadly the paedophile prophet created the problem and now muslims are having to deal with the violence, killing, rape and theft by fellow muslims.


----------



## MJB12741

The Palestinians alone have many terrorist organizations.  The only good news is they often kill each other.

List of Palestinian organizations designated as terrorist - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## fanger

Jewish religious terrorism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Mindful

fanger said:


> Jewish religious terrorism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



This stuff is older than stale bread. How many times do you think it's been tried before?


----------



## MJB12741

And these are the lovely people Israel has for neighbors.  Golly gee, why is there no peace?

Arab-Palestinian Terrorist Groups


----------



## fanger

Mindful said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish religious terrorism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This stuff is older than stale bread. How many times do you think it's been tried before?
Click to expand...

Twice?


----------



## Phoenall

fanger said:


> Jewish religious terrorism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia





 On investigation of the source I find this

*This user has been **blocked indefinitely** from editing Wikipedia

This account may need to be blocked due to abusive use of multiple accounts.

 User:Siddiqui


 Another  Fail by you to demonise the Jews, must try harder and must get real facts and not ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA*


----------



## Phoenall

fanger said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish religious terrorism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This stuff is older than stale bread. How many times do you think it's been tried before?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Twice?
Click to expand...




 By you in the last 6 months, every ISLAMONAZI stooge has tried it at least 5 times before that.


----------



## aris2chat

Considering the praise and celebration of the paris terrorist, France might want to boycott gaza.


----------



## aris2chat

fanger said:


> Jewish religious terrorism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



I'm no fan of orthodoxy and extremism, but fortunately it is a small segment and not support by most Israelis.  They are not the heroes like extremists and radicals are in islam or more specifically gaza.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish religious terrorism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On investigation of the source I find this
> 
> *This user has been **blocked indefinitely** from editing Wikipedia
> 
> This account may need to be blocked due to abusive use of multiple accounts.
> 
> User:Siddiqui
> 
> 
> Another  Fail by you to demonise the Jews, must try harder and must get real facts and not ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA*
Click to expand...


As usual, you are lying.  No user was blocked.  Why do you always lie.


----------



## montelatici

aris2chat said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish religious terrorism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm no fan of orthodoxy and extremism, but fortunately it is a small segment and not support by most Israelis.  They are not the heroes like extremists and radicals are in islam or more specifically gaza.
Click to expand...


Not only are they heroes to the Jews, some have been Prime Ministers of Israel.  Menachem Begin, for example.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish religious terrorism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On investigation of the source I find this
> 
> *This user has been **blocked indefinitely** from editing Wikipedia
> 
> This account may need to be blocked due to abusive use of multiple accounts.
> 
> User:Siddiqui
> 
> 
> Another  Fail by you to demonise the Jews, must try harder and must get real facts and not ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you are lying.  No user was blocked.  Why do you always lie.
Click to expand...



Do you want the Wikipedia page then Abdul in full so you can grovel on your belly for making false accusations



 Here you go Abdul, time to eat crow methinks and apologise for your behaviour

User Siddiqui - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish religious terrorism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm no fan of orthodoxy and extremism, but fortunately it is a small segment and not support by most Israelis.  They are not the heroes like extremists and radicals are in islam or more specifically gaza.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only are they heroes to the Jews, some have been Prime Ministers of Israel.  Menachem Begin, for example.
Click to expand...





AND   who are you to complain when you hold up the worlds second worst terrorists as shining examples of how to gain power and destroy a country.


----------



## fanger




----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish religious terrorism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On investigation of the source I find this
> 
> *This user has been **blocked indefinitely** from editing Wikipedia
> 
> This account may need to be blocked due to abusive use of multiple accounts.
> 
> User:Siddiqui
> 
> 
> Another  Fail by you to demonise the Jews, must try harder and must get real facts and not ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you are lying.  No user was blocked.  Why do you always lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want the Wikipedia page then Abdul in full so you can grovel on your belly for making false accusations
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go Abdul, time to eat crow methinks and apologise for your behaviour
> 
> User Siddiqui - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Doubt it, since Siddiqui never wrote the article in question and he was blocked from editing, primarily for infringing copyrights on multiple occasions as opposed to any accuracy issues. That, and given the article itself is not under any sanction for bias, your post is irrelevant as is your sad attempt to discredit the article.


----------



## Phoenall

fanger said:


>





 So now you use thejoyofsatan.org for your sources, you really are scrapping the bottom of the barrel now


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish religious terrorism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On investigation of the source I find this
> 
> *This user has been **blocked indefinitely** from editing Wikipedia
> 
> This account may need to be blocked due to abusive use of multiple accounts.
> 
> User:Siddiqui
> 
> 
> Another  Fail by you to demonise the Jews, must try harder and must get real facts and not ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you are lying.  No user was blocked.  Why do you always lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want the Wikipedia page then Abdul in full so you can grovel on your belly for making false accusations
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go Abdul, time to eat crow methinks and apologise for your behaviour
> 
> User Siddiqui - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doubt it, since Siddiqui never wrote the article in question and he was blocked from editing, primarily for infringing copyrights on multiple occasions as opposed to any accuracy issues. That, and given the article itself is not under any sanction for bias, your post is irrelevant as is your sad attempt to discredit the article.
Click to expand...





 He edited the article and others to meet with his ISLAMONAZI views, that was why he was banned from wiki. Read the reasons for his ban, mainly because he had multiple accounts and abuse. So making the source suspect and not usable as indicative of the truth. It is tainted by ISLAMONAZI TAMPERING and PROPAGANDA, which is much more common on Wikipedia than anything coming from the Jews


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish religious terrorism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On investigation of the source I find this
> 
> *This user has been **blocked indefinitely** from editing Wikipedia
> 
> This account may need to be blocked due to abusive use of multiple accounts.
> 
> User:Siddiqui
> 
> 
> Another  Fail by you to demonise the Jews, must try harder and must get real facts and not ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you are lying.  No user was blocked.  Why do you always lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want the Wikipedia page then Abdul in full so you can grovel on your belly for making false accusations
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go Abdul, time to eat crow methinks and apologise for your behaviour
> 
> User Siddiqui - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doubt it, since Siddiqui never wrote the article in question and he was blocked from editing, primarily for infringing copyrights on multiple occasions as opposed to any accuracy issues. That, and given the article itself is not under any sanction for bias, your post is irrelevant as is your sad attempt to discredit the article.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He edited the article and others to meet with his ISLAMONAZI views, that was why he was banned from wiki. Read the reasons for his ban, mainly because he had multiple accounts and abuse. So making the source suspect and not usable as indicative of the truth. It is tainted by ISLAMONAZI TAMPERING and PROPAGANDA, which is much more common on Wikipedia than anything coming from the Jews
Click to expand...


The flaw with your argument is that in your mind Muslims are "stupid" and "savage" "living in the middle ages" yet, bizarrely, they're suddenly capable of tampering with Wikepedia, when it shows information you disagree with, what a jerk.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> On investigation of the source I find this
> 
> *This user has been **blocked indefinitely** from editing Wikipedia
> 
> This account may need to be blocked due to abusive use of multiple accounts.
> 
> User:Siddiqui
> 
> 
> Another  Fail by you to demonise the Jews, must try harder and must get real facts and not ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you are lying.  No user was blocked.  Why do you always lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want the Wikipedia page then Abdul in full so you can grovel on your belly for making false accusations
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go Abdul, time to eat crow methinks and apologise for your behaviour
> 
> User Siddiqui - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doubt it, since Siddiqui never wrote the article in question and he was blocked from editing, primarily for infringing copyrights on multiple occasions as opposed to any accuracy issues. That, and given the article itself is not under any sanction for bias, your post is irrelevant as is your sad attempt to discredit the article.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He edited the article and others to meet with his ISLAMONAZI views, that was why he was banned from wiki. Read the reasons for his ban, mainly because he had multiple accounts and abuse. So making the source suspect and not usable as indicative of the truth. It is tainted by ISLAMONAZI TAMPERING and PROPAGANDA, which is much more common on Wikipedia than anything coming from the Jews
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The flaw with your argument is that in your mind Muslims are "stupid" and "savage" "living in the middle ages" yet, bizarrely, they're suddenly capable of tampering with Wikepedia, when it shows information you disagree with, what a jerk.
Click to expand...





 Does not take a great deal of intelligence to create a wiki account and then to edit another persons work, many children are doing it these days. But the majority of muslims are semi literate, savage and live in medieval times because that is what they have been told to do by their clerics and imam's. When allegedly intelligent people like doctors come along and show a total disregard for human life and set out to kill thousands of children in the UK then it should tell you how stupid and savage they are.


----------



## aris2chat

fanger said:


>



Balanced, truth, defense against bias anti-israeli attacks.  Not allowing a one sided narrative of information to be stacked against Israel.
Information still has to be supported and factual.  To think that Wiki can be "changed" is incorrect.  It can be edited like any encyclopedia to be more correct.  Any editing is check before becoming part of the text.
Those people are making sure there is no rabid anti-semitism propaganda being posted as fact through Wiki.


----------



## P F Tinmore

fanger said:


>


I can remember after the 1948 war when it said that Israel occupied Palestine. It was changed to controlled territory.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Your memory my very well be quite accurate.



P F Tinmore said:


> I can remember after the 1948 war when it said that Israel occupied Palestine. It was changed to controlled territory.


*(COMMENT)*

The name "Palestine" was the official short title for the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied according to "The Palestine Order in Council, (1922);" that remained in force until midnight 14/15 May '48 - the termination of the Mandate Palestine _(territory administered under mandate by His Majesty Government - UK)_.  However, there was an appointment of a successor government.  And in that appointment, the name of the legal entity remained Palestine.  The successor government never changed the name; nor did it change the status of the "legal entity."

*UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT* - PAL/138 27 February 1948
"Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.

"After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can remember after the 1948 war when it said that Israel occupied Palestine. It was changed to controlled territory.
Click to expand...




 As in occupied PARTS OF PALESTINE, get it right. And it still does not mean that a nation or state of Palestine existed before 1988.


----------



## MJB12741

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can remember after the 1948 war when it said that Israel occupied Palestine. It was changed to controlled territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As in occupied PARTS OF PALESTINE, get it right. And it still does not mean that a nation or state of Palestine existed before 1988.
Click to expand...



There NEVER was any nation or state of Palestine.  Just a territory.


----------



## theliq

MJB12741 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can remember after the 1948 war when it said that Israel occupied Palestine. It was changed to controlled territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As in occupied PARTS OF PALESTINE, get it right. And it still does not mean that a nation or state of Palestine existed before 1988.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There NEVER was any nation or state of Palestine.  Just tory.[/]
> There always was a nation,people and state of Palestine and the sight of seeing thousands of Australians....watching and supporting Palestine last night in their Asian Cup match against Iraq.....was Great to Behold.
> 
> The Jews stole Palestine as they slyly used anti-semetism by the "White" Western European Christians....who reviled them...the Zionists used Barbarity and Murder on an uncurspecting nation......who of all people had helped and got on with jews.
> 
> Israel NEVER EXISTED IN ANY FORM UNTIL 1948 you mean't to say.......in that you would have been correct.
> 
> NOW REMIND ME AGAIN,WHAT WAS THE NAME OF THE AREA<THE JEWS WANTED TO CARVE UP AND KEEP FOR THEMSELVES ????????????????????
> 
> 
> PALESTINE........thanks for that.................Dumb Ass
Click to expand...

.......You Jews....!!!!!!!Reality and Telling the Truth....were never you strong points......Liars and twister's of the facts and truth,you do well


----------



## MJB12741

theliq said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can remember after the 1948 war when it said that Israel occupied Palestine. It was changed to controlled territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, will you be so kind as toeducate the Jews as to when there was a nation or
> 
> 
> As in occupied PARTS OF PALESTINE, get it right. And it still does not mean that a nation or state of Palestine existed before 1988.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There NEVER was any nation or state of Palestine.  Just tory.[/]
> There always was a nation,people and state of Palestine and the sight of seeing thousands of Australians....watching and supporting Palestine last night in their Asian Cup match against Iraq.....was Great to Behold.
> 
> The Jews stole Palestine as they slyly used anti-semetism by the "White" Western European Christians....who reviled them...the Zionists used Barbarity and Murder on an uncurspecting nation......who of all people had helped and got on with jews.
> 
> Israel NEVER EXISTED IN ANY FORM UNTIL 1948 you mean't to say.......in that you would have been correct.
> 
> NOW REMIND ME AGAIN,WHAT WAS THE NAME OF THE AREA<THE JEWS WANTED TO CARVE UP AND KEEP FOR THEMSELVES ????????????????????
> 
> 
> PALESTINE........thanks for that.................Dumb Ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .......You Jews....!!!!!!!Reality and Telling the Truth....were never you strong points......Liars and twister's of the facts and truth,you do well
Click to expand...




theliq said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can remember after the 1948 war when it said that Israel occupied Palestine. It was changed to controlled territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As in occupied PARTS OF PALESTINE, get it right. And it still does not mean that a nation or state of Palestine existed before 1988.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There NEVER was any nation or state of Palestine.  Just tory.[/]
> There always was a nation,people and state of Palestine and the sight of seeing thousands of Australians....watching and supporting Palestine last night in their Asian Cup match against Iraq.....was Great to Behold.
> 
> The Jews stole Palestine as they slyly used anti-semetism by the "White" Western European Christians....who reviled them...the Zionists used Barbarity and Murder on an uncurspecting nation......who of all people had helped and got on with jews.
> 
> Israel NEVER EXISTED IN ANY FORM UNTIL 1948 you mean't to say.......in that you would have been correct.
> 
> NOW REMIND ME AGAIN,WHAT WAS THE NAME OF THE AREA<THE JEWS WANTED TO CARVE UP AND KEEP FOR THEMSELVES ????????????????????
> 
> 
> PALESTINE........thanks for that.................Dumb Ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .......You Jews....!!!!!!!Reality and Telling the Truth....were never you strong points......Liars and twister's of the facts and truth,you do well
Click to expand...



So then, will you be so kind as to educate those lying Jews as to when there was a nation or state of Palestine.?  Atta boy!


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can remember after the 1948 war when it said that Israel occupied Palestine. It was changed to controlled territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As in occupied PARTS OF PALESTINE, get it right. And it still does not mean that a nation or state of Palestine existed before 1988.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There NEVER was any nation or state of Palestine.  Just a territory.
Click to expand...

You keep telling that lie.

The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which *again* showed that the *Palestinians formed a nation,* and that *Palestine was a State*, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; *there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.*

-​Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This is erroneous.



P F Tinmore said:


> You keep telling that lie.
> 
> The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which *again* showed that the *Palestinians formed a nation,* and that *Palestine was a State*, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; *there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.*
> 
> -​Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937


*(OBSERVATION)*

_Mandate for Palestine --- Article 7  (In its entirety!)
_
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.​
*(COMMENT)*

Article 7 says  no such thing as you suggest, and the minutes of the 32d Session show not action on the issue.  The minutes of the meeting that record one members thoughts or opinion of one member --- are not confirmation that the concept had any impact on the committee as a whole or the official position or policy.   In fact, the adoption of the Resolution 181(II) clearly shows that the preponderance of the General Assembly did not have the intention of either an all Arab Palestine or an all Jewish Palestine.

Article 7 nationality law requirements were as a consequence of Palestine Order in Council _(that coming before treaty of 1924, which adopted the language of the Palestine Order in Council)_:

Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.​It has been the long standing position by some elements of the Arab Community that the entirely territory formerly under the Mandate was to be Arab Palestine.  This is repeated over and over again by various hostile Arab Palestinian elements bend on undermining the decisions made nearly seven decades ago in the recognition of Jewish self-determination.  It is a territorial dispute that the Arab Community has attempted to overturn by force several times.  It is the underpinning that has evolved into the conflict faced today.  No one _(Israel or Palestinian)_ expects that the Palestinian will adopt any other position in the near future.  The Palestinians have yet to establish a working government, but HAMAS has made their position very clear:

"Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures."  _Khaled Meshal Chief, Political Bureau, HAMAS, 2013_​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> "Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures." _Khaled Meshal Chief, Political Bureau, HAMAS, 2013_



Indeed, that is Palestine inside its international borders.

2. _Reaffirms_ the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, *territorial integrity,* national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;

3. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the * Palestinian people* and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, *territorial integrity,* and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;

A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​
Why would there be confusion on this? It is perfectly clear.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

There is no confusion; except on the part of the Arab Palestinian.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures." _Khaled Meshal Chief, Political Bureau, HAMAS, 2013_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, that is Palestine inside its international borders.
> 
> 2. _Reaffirms_ the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, *territorial integrity,* national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;
> 
> 3. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the * Palestinian people* and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, *territorial integrity,* and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
> 
> A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​
> Why would there be confusion on this? It is perfectly clear.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*


The Resolution in question (A RES 33 24) says that the Palestinian has a non-transferrable right.  It does not give say the Palestinian exercised that right concerning a specific "self-determination, national independence, *territorial integrity,* and national unity and sovereignty."  It merely says they have the opportunity to exercise the right.  

Relative to the 1978 Resolution, the Palestinians did not exercise the right until November 1988 (a decade later).

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> There is no confusion; except on the part of the Arab Palestinian.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures." _Khaled Meshal Chief, Political Bureau, HAMAS, 2013_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, that is Palestine inside its international borders.
> 
> 2. _Reaffirms_ the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, *territorial integrity,* national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;
> 
> 3. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the * Palestinian people* and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, *territorial integrity,* and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
> 
> A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​
> Why would there be confusion on this? It is perfectly clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 
> The Resolution in question (A RES 33 24) says that the Palestinian has a non-transferrable right.  It does not give say the Palestinian exercised that right concerning a specific "self-determination, national independence, *territorial integrity,* and national unity and sovereignty."  It merely says they have the opportunity to exercise the right.
> 
> Relative to the 1978 Resolution, the Palestinians did not exercise the right until November 1988 (a decade later).
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

And the 1988 declaration went the way of the 1948 declaration. What makes one more valid than the other?

Palestinians still call Israel "48" in spite of what some non elected officials declare.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I don't agree.



P F Tinmore said:


> And the 1988 declaration went the way of the 1948 declaration. What makes one more valid than the other?
> 
> Palestinians still call Israel "48" in spite of what some non elected officials declare.


*(COMMENT)*

The 1948 All Palestine Government was a puppet government under the umbrella of the Egyptian Government and declared independence over territory already acknowledged as independent under the Jewish right of self-determination.  This was a conflict.

The 1988 Declaration of Independence, by the sole representative of the Palestinian People, was acknowledge as having exercised the Arab Palestinian right of self-determination to sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967.

Simple.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well, I don't agree.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the 1988 declaration went the way of the 1948 declaration. What makes one more valid than the other?
> 
> Palestinians still call Israel "48" in spite of what some non elected officials declare.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The 1948 All Palestine Government was a puppet government under the umbrella of the Egyptian Government and declared independence over territory already acknowledged as independent under the Jewish right of self-determination.  This was a conflict.
> 
> The 1988 Declaration of Independence, by the sole representative of the Palestinian People, was acknowledge as having exercised the Arab Palestinian right of self-determination to sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Palestinians have complained for many years that the PLO is out of step with the people.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

This may be true.  I will not ague the point.



P F Tinmore said:


> Palestinians have complained for many years that the PLO is out of step with the people.


*(COMMENT)*

It is not in the province of the Western World to be concerned as to whether or not there the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) is in step with the Arab Palestinian people.  Nor, is it truly a concern of Israel as to whether or not the PLO is in step with its people.

The fact of the matter is, the Arab World has been up front and forward in taking the Arab Palestinian under its umbrella since before the Mandate terminated.  Even the Arab Higher Committee, which rejected the Partition Plan, was an instrument of the Arab League.  And it was the Arab League that agreed to the selection of the PLO as the "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated."

Remembering that all the advancements in the recognition of the Palestinian People have come as a product of PLO efforts and that no other Palestinian Organization has emerged as a legitimate leader.  Thus far, in the last quarter century, the Arab Palestinian people have not had the ability to form a mature government that can peacefully change administrations in accordance with their basic laws; or even conduct the routine functions of a minimal government.

Whether the PLO is or is not the voice of the people has yet to be demonstrated.  And that begs the question, is the State of Palestine a real and competent government --- or a mere figment of the imagination?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> It is not in the province of the Western World to be concerned as to whether or not there the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) is in step with the Arab Palestinian people.



In fact foreign powers have never allowed the Palestinians to select their own leadership through illegal external interference. Look what happened to the 2006 elections.


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can remember after the 1948 war when it said that Israel occupied Palestine. It was changed to controlled territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As in occupied PARTS OF PALESTINE, get it right. And it still does not mean that a nation or state of Palestine existed before 1988.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There NEVER was any nation or state of Palestine.  Just tory.[/]
> There always was a nation,people and state of Palestine and the sight of seeing thousands of Australians....watching and supporting Palestine last night in their Asian Cup match against Iraq.....was Great to Behold.
> 
> The Jews stole Palestine as they slyly used anti-semetism by the "White" Western European Christians....who reviled them...the Zionists used Barbarity and Murder on an uncurspecting nation......who of all people had helped and got on with jews.
> 
> Israel NEVER EXISTED IN ANY FORM UNTIL 1948 you mean't to say.......in that you would have been correct.
> 
> NOW REMIND ME AGAIN,WHAT WAS THE NAME OF THE AREA<THE JEWS WANTED TO CARVE UP AND KEEP FOR THEMSELVES ????????????????????
> 
> 
> PALESTINE........thanks for that.................Dumb Ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .......You Jews....!!!!!!!Reality and Telling the Truth....were never you strong points......Liars and twister's of the facts and truth,you do well
Click to expand...





 There was never a nation of Palestine before 1988

 The only Palestinians were the Jews until 1960 when Arafat stole the term to give the arab muslims a legitimacy

 They had no leaders, no monetary unit, no passports, no capital city, no GDP and no land so how were they a nation

 They were like the bush on Oz that is just a place, or the Gobi desert.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can remember after the 1948 war when it said that Israel occupied Palestine. It was changed to controlled territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As in occupied PARTS OF PALESTINE, get it right. And it still does not mean that a nation or state of Palestine existed before 1988.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There NEVER was any nation or state of Palestine.  Just a territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep telling that lie.
> 
> The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which *again* showed that the *Palestinians formed a nation,* and that *Palestine was a State*, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; *there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.*
> 
> -​Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937
Click to expand...




 Why don't you try reading it and seeing were it DOES NOT SAY this is because it is a nation or state. If it was then the Mandate would have been over and the British would have left. THAT IS IN THE MANDATE.

So who was the leader of Palestine, what was its currency, where was its capital city. Just 3 questions that you cant answer because Palestine was not a state.
 Now once again the nationality law was just a paper exercise that bestowed protection on those Palestinians that travelled, it did not give them a state. The passports stated very clearly BRITISH PASSPORT and not Palestinian passport, but you are too stupid to realise that this means that Palestine as a state did not exist


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures." _Khaled Meshal Chief, Political Bureau, HAMAS, 2013_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, that is Palestine inside its international borders.
> 
> 2. _Reaffirms_ the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, *territorial integrity,* national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;
> 
> 3. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the * Palestinian people* and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, *territorial integrity,* and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
> 
> A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​
> Why would there be confusion on this? It is perfectly clear.
Click to expand...





 MANDATE FOR PALESTINE borders and not state of Palestine borders. They have yet to be agreed.

 Tell it to the Palestinians who cant even decide just what is Palestine and what isn't

 It is so clear that you cant understand it at all. Not when you look at the way the arab muslims are trying to force the world to grant them something they already have.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not in the province of the Western World to be concerned as to whether or not there the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) is in step with the Arab Palestinian people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact foreign powers have never allowed the Palestinians to select their own leadership through illegal external interference. Look what happened to the 2006 elections.
Click to expand...





 Who stopped the Palestinians from voting for the candidates they wanted. The only nations that have illegally exerted external influence on the Palestinians have been arab muslim ones, and they are still doing so today. We see Syria sending hamas weapons to attack Israel with, we see iran sending weapons to hamas to attack Israel with both illegal external interference in the running of Palestine.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

The Western Powers were only concerned that the Arab Palestinian People, who elected a government of the HAMAS political party, would further complicate regional peace.  US domestic law forbids financing a government that threatens to use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State (Israel).  And the UN had to consider upholding the tenants of the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States and General Assembly resolution 49/60 of 9 December 1994 _(against Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them)_ the measures of General Assembly resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996 _(against attacks by means of bombs, explosives or other incendiary or lethal devices have become increasingly widespread by HAMAS and other Palestinian groups that were known to carry-out attacks by such means)_, and the concepts of the 2005 World Summit Outcome.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not in the province of the Western World to be concerned as to whether or not there the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) is in step with the Arab Palestinian people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact foreign powers have never allowed the Palestinians to select their own leadership through illegal external interference. Look what happened to the 2006 elections.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The irresponsible actions of the Arab Palestinian people in even considering HAMAS as a legitimate leadership was bound to have consequences.  The fact that the Arab Palestinians complains that the many external powers frowned upon HAMAS only demonstrates their immaturity in electing a leadership that would NOT observance the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and faithfully observe the obligations assumed by more mature constituents.  The Palestinians are unable to refrain, in their international relations, from the use of hostile military, political, economic, or any other form of coercion, aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State; including Israel.

The fact that the Arab Palestinian has not elected to pursue the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States only further exemplifies the inability of the Arab Palestinian as a whole to serve the cause of regional peace.

If there is a problem with the elected Palestinian Government, it is the Arab Palestinian themselves that is to blame.  No external government moved to remove or suppress the 2006 government; excepts for cause --- wherein the HAMAS Government acted as the aggressor and provoked a security response.

No people can expect to engage in tunneling activity across the borders and not expect a response.
No people can expect to fire rockets and mortars and not expect a response.
No people can expect to engage in kidnapping and murder and not expect a response.
No people can expect to engage in armed attacks and bombings and not expect a response.
The Arab Palestinian does not have some special dispensation to engage in these hostile act without a defensive response.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can remember after the 1948 war when it said that Israel occupied Palestine. It was changed to controlled territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As in occupied PARTS OF PALESTINE, get it right. And it still does not mean that a nation or state of Palestine existed before 1988.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There NEVER was any nation or state of Palestine.  Just tory.[/]
> There always was a nation,people and state of Palestine and the sight of seeing thousands of Australians....watching and supporting Palestine last night in their Asian Cup match against Iraq.....was Great to Behold.
> 
> The Jews stole Palestine as they slyly used anti-semetism by the "White" Western European Christians....who reviled them...the Zionists used Barbarity and Murder on an uncurspecting nation......who of all people had helped and got on with jews.
> 
> Israel NEVER EXISTED IN ANY FORM UNTIL 1948 you mean't to say.......in that you would have been correct.
> 
> NOW REMIND ME AGAIN,WHAT WAS THE NAME OF THE AREA<THE JEWS WANTED TO CARVE UP AND KEEP FOR THEMSELVES ????????????????????
> 
> 
> PALESTINE........thanks for that.................Dumb Ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .......You Jews....!!!!!!!Reality and Telling the Truth....were never you strong points......Liars and twister's of the facts and truth,you do well
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was never a nation of Palestine before 1988
> 
> The only Palestinians were the Jews until 1960 when Arafat stole the term to give the arab muslims a legitimacy
> 
> They had no leaders, no monetary unit, no passports, no capital city, no GDP and no land so how were they a nation
> 
> They were like the bush on Oz that is just a place, or the Gobi desert.
Click to expand...

What complete SHIT


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can remember after the 1948 war when it said that Israel occupied Palestine. It was changed to controlled territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As in occupied PARTS OF PALESTINE, get it right. And it still does not mean that a nation or state of Palestine existed before 1988.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There NEVER was any nation or state of Palestine.  Just tory.[/]
> There always was a nation,people and state of Palestine and the sight of seeing thousands of Australians....watching and supporting Palestine last night in their Asian Cup match against Iraq.....was Great to Behold.
> 
> The Jews stole Palestine as they slyly used anti-semetism by the "White" Western European Christians....who reviled them...the Zionists used Barbarity and Murder on an uncurspecting nation......who of all people had helped and got on with jews.
> 
> Israel NEVER EXISTED IN ANY FORM UNTIL 1948 you mean't to say.......in that you would have been correct.
> 
> NOW REMIND ME AGAIN,WHAT WAS THE NAME OF THE AREA<THE JEWS WANTED TO CARVE UP AND KEEP FOR THEMSELVES ????????????????????
> 
> 
> PALESTINE........thanks for that.................Dumb Ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .......You Jews....!!!!!!!Reality and Telling the Truth....were never you strong points......Liars and twister's of the facts and truth,you do well
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was never a nation of Palestine before 1988
> 
> The only Palestinians were the Jews until 1960 when Arafat stole the term to give the arab muslims a legitimacy
> 
> They had no leaders, no monetary unit, no passports, no capital city, no GDP and no land so how were they a nation
> 
> They were like the bush on Oz that is just a place, or the Gobi desert.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What complete SHIT
Click to expand...




 Only to BRAINWASHED ISLAMONAZI ILLITERATES that are told that the truth is Israeli propaganda and that the Palestinians have owned Palestine for the last 2000 years. Isn't that what you have been told by your imam and clerics, and that the Jews are the invaders and land thieves taking Palestinian land and homes.  Clearly you have not heard about the Jews that owned Jerusalem prior to 1948, or the ones that owned Hebron, Bethlehem, Nazareth in fact most major towns and cities were owned by the Jews, the arab muslims just rented the hovels they lived in. That is the truth that ISLAMONAZI LIARS and TERRORISTS don't want to be told because it destroys their legitimacy and claims to the land.


----------



## Challenger

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The Western Powers were only concerned that the Arab Palestinian People, who elected a government of the HAMAS political party, would further complicate regional peace.  US domestic law forbids financing a government that threatens to use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State (Israel).  And the UN had to consider upholding the tenants of the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States and General Assembly resolution 49/60 of 9 December 1994 _(against Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them)_ the measures of General Assembly resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996 _(against attacks by means of bombs, explosives or other incendiary or lethal devices have become increasingly widespread by HAMAS and other Palestinian groups that were known to carry-out attacks by such means)_, and the concepts of the 2005 World Summit Outcome.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not in the province of the Western World to be concerned as to whether or not there the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) is in step with the Arab Palestinian people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact foreign powers have never allowed the Palestinians to select their own leadership through illegal external interference. Look what happened to the 2006 elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The irresponsible actions of the Arab Palestinian people in even considering HAMAS as a legitimate leadership was bound to have consequences.  The fact that the Arab Palestinians complains that the many external powers frowned upon HAMAS only demonstrates their immaturity in electing a leadership that would NOT observance the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and faithfully observe the obligations assumed by more mature constituents.  The Palestinians are unable to refrain, in their international relations, from the use of hostile military, political, economic, or any other form of coercion, aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State; including Israel.
> 
> The fact that the Arab Palestinian has not elected to pursue the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States only further exemplifies the inability of the Arab Palestinian as a whole to serve the cause of regional peace.
> 
> If there is a problem with the elected Palestinian Government, it is the Arab Palestinian themselves that is to blame.  No external government moved to remove or suppress the 2006 government; excepts for cause --- wherein the HAMAS Government acted as the aggressor and provoked a security response.
> 
> No people can expect to engage in tunneling activity across the borders and not expect a response.
> No people can expect to fire rockets and mortars and not expect a response.
> No people can expect to engage in kidnapping and murder and not expect a response.
> No people can expect to engage in armed attacks and bombings and not expect a response.
> The Arab Palestinian does not have some special dispensation to engage in these hostile act without a defensive response.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Well, that's certainly one possible interpretation of International law, but it omits or ignores the question of the legitimacy of armed resistance to occupation and that well worn phrase, "one man's "Terrorist" is another man's "Freedom Fighter" This article, although dated, sums it up nicely:

"...This is the question of the right of a people to resist an aggressor and/or an oppressor, and the legitimacy of such resistance. I would argue that according to international law today, Israel has no rights to or in the Occupied territories of Palestine. According to the same international law, the occupation ought to have ceased one year after its beginning, that is by June 1968. The United Nations Security Council passed a resolution requiring Israel to withdraw from all occupied territories, Resolution 242 in November 1967. 

I would contend that the continuing presence of Israel in these occupied territories, its building of settlements and the transfer of a huge Jewish population into it, and an infrastructure built from Palestinian assets to serve those settlements, its control over the use of land and water, and its continuing oppression of the indigenous population, should be classified as a colonialist venture. From the Palestinian point of view, the Israeli policies and practices are formulated and executed for the destruction of Palestinian society, private and public life, and their material assets.

In this situation of continuing oppression, dispossession, detention, killing and destruction of social frameworks, are Palestinians not permitted to resist all or any of this? If Israel is a colonizing power over and above its status as Military Occupier, precisely because of its settlement activity and control of the resources of the territory in Occupied Palestine then it would seem that the Declaration on Granting Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, 1960 General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), December 14, 1960 applies to Palestinians today. I quote two relevant articles. 

1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.

2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Above and beyond the basic right of all human beings to resist their being killed and harmed, and a society to take armed actions to protect itself, this document legitimizes also national liberation struggles, including, at this time in history, most particularly, the Palestinian people’s struggle for its own freedom. It is this right which legitimizes all Palestinian attempts to lift the yoke of Israeli oppression from Palestine, including all the actions taken by the Palestinians during Operation Cast Lead...."

Judge Goldstone 8217 s Bogus Test of War Time Culpability CounterPunch Tells the Facts Names the Names


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The Western Powers were only concerned that the Arab Palestinian People, who elected a government of the HAMAS political party, would further complicate regional peace.  US domestic law forbids financing a government that threatens to use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State (Israel).  And the UN had to consider upholding the tenants of the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States and General Assembly resolution 49/60 of 9 December 1994 _(against Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them)_ the measures of General Assembly resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996 _(against attacks by means of bombs, explosives or other incendiary or lethal devices have become increasingly widespread by HAMAS and other Palestinian groups that were known to carry-out attacks by such means)_, and the concepts of the 2005 World Summit Outcome.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not in the province of the Western World to be concerned as to whether or not there the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) is in step with the Arab Palestinian people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact foreign powers have never allowed the Palestinians to select their own leadership through illegal external interference. Look what happened to the 2006 elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The irresponsible actions of the Arab Palestinian people in even considering HAMAS as a legitimate leadership was bound to have consequences.  The fact that the Arab Palestinians complains that the many external powers frowned upon HAMAS only demonstrates their immaturity in electing a leadership that would NOT observance the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and faithfully observe the obligations assumed by more mature constituents.  The Palestinians are unable to refrain, in their international relations, from the use of hostile military, political, economic, or any other form of coercion, aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State; including Israel.
> 
> The fact that the Arab Palestinian has not elected to pursue the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States only further exemplifies the inability of the Arab Palestinian as a whole to serve the cause of regional peace.
> 
> If there is a problem with the elected Palestinian Government, it is the Arab Palestinian themselves that is to blame.  No external government moved to remove or suppress the 2006 government; excepts for cause --- wherein the HAMAS Government acted as the aggressor and provoked a security response.
> 
> No people can expect to engage in tunneling activity across the borders and not expect a response.
> No people can expect to fire rockets and mortars and not expect a response.
> No people can expect to engage in kidnapping and murder and not expect a response.
> No people can expect to engage in armed attacks and bombings and not expect a response.
> The Arab Palestinian does not have some special dispensation to engage in these hostile act without a defensive response.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's certainly one possible interpretation of International law, but it omits or ignores the question of the legitimacy of armed resistance to occupation and that well worn phrase, "one man's "Terrorist" is another man's "Freedom Fighter" This article, although dated, sums it up nicely:
> 
> "...This is the question of the right of a people to resist an aggressor and/or an oppressor, and the legitimacy of such resistance. I would argue that according to international law today, Israel has no rights to or in the Occupied territories of Palestine. According to the same international law, the occupation ought to have ceased one year after its beginning, that is by June 1968. The United Nations Security Council passed a resolution requiring Israel to withdraw from all occupied territories, Resolution 242 in November 1967.
> 
> I would contend that the continuing presence of Israel in these occupied territories, its building of settlements and the transfer of a huge Jewish population into it, and an infrastructure built from Palestinian assets to serve those settlements, its control over the use of land and water, and its continuing oppression of the indigenous population, should be classified as a colonialist venture. From the Palestinian point of view, the Israeli policies and practices are formulated and executed for the destruction of Palestinian society, private and public life, and their material assets.
> 
> In this situation of continuing oppression, dispossession, detention, killing and destruction of social frameworks, are Palestinians not permitted to resist all or any of this? If Israel is a colonizing power over and above its status as Military Occupier, precisely because of its settlement activity and control of the resources of the territory in Occupied Palestine then it would seem that the Declaration on Granting Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, 1960 General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), December 14, 1960 applies to Palestinians today. I quote two relevant articles.
> 
> 1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
> 
> 2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> Above and beyond the basic right of all human beings to resist their being killed and harmed, and a society to take armed actions to protect itself, this document legitimizes also national liberation struggles, including, at this time in history, most particularly, the Palestinian people’s struggle for its own freedom. It is this right which legitimizes all Palestinian attempts to lift the yoke of Israeli oppression from Palestine, including all the actions taken by the Palestinians during Operation Cast Lead...."
> 
> Judge Goldstone 8217 s Bogus Test of War Time Culpability CounterPunch Tells the Facts Names the Names
Click to expand...






 If you bother to read UN res 242 you will see that the word ALL is not present when dealing with the occupied territories. And further to this you will see that  the term after negotiations on mutual borders is.  The ISLAMONAZI's grasped the French version because of French syntax and grammar that was in their favour, while the official version was written in English.
 Anyone that attempts to use UN res 242 is advised to look at the authors notes on what each clause means, and to study those notes before trying to post half truths and outright lies.


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The Western Powers were only concerned that the Arab Palestinian People, who elected a government of the HAMAS political party, would further complicate regional peace.  US domestic law forbids financing a government that threatens to use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State (Israel).  And the UN had to consider upholding the tenants of the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States and General Assembly resolution 49/60 of 9 December 1994 _(against Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them)_ the measures of General Assembly resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996 _(against attacks by means of bombs, explosives or other incendiary or lethal devices have become increasingly widespread by HAMAS and other Palestinian groups that were known to carry-out attacks by such means)_, and the concepts of the 2005 World Summit Outcome.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not in the province of the Western World to be concerned as to whether or not there the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) is in step with the Arab Palestinian people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact foreign powers have never allowed the Palestinians to select their own leadership through illegal external interference. Look what happened to the 2006 elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The irresponsible actions of the Arab Palestinian people in even considering HAMAS as a legitimate leadership was bound to have consequences.  The fact that the Arab Palestinians complains that the many external powers frowned upon HAMAS only demonstrates their immaturity in electing a leadership that would NOT observance the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and faithfully observe the obligations assumed by more mature constituents.  The Palestinians are unable to refrain, in their international relations, from the use of hostile military, political, economic, or any other form of coercion, aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State; including Israel.
> 
> The fact that the Arab Palestinian has not elected to pursue the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States only further exemplifies the inability of the Arab Palestinian as a whole to serve the cause of regional peace.
> 
> If there is a problem with the elected Palestinian Government, it is the Arab Palestinian themselves that is to blame.  No external government moved to remove or suppress the 2006 government; excepts for cause --- wherein the HAMAS Government acted as the aggressor and provoked a security response.
> 
> No people can expect to engage in tunneling activity across the borders and not expect a response.
> No people can expect to fire rockets and mortars and not expect a response.
> No people can expect to engage in kidnapping and murder and not expect a response.
> No people can expect to engage in armed attacks and bombings and not expect a response.
> The Arab Palestinian does not have some special dispensation to engage in these hostile act without a defensive response.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's certainly one possible interpretation of International law, but it omits or ignores the question of the legitimacy of armed resistance to occupation and that well worn phrase, "one man's "Terrorist" is another man's "Freedom Fighter" This article, although dated, sums it up nicely:
> 
> "...This is the question of the right of a people to resist an aggressor and/or an oppressor, and the legitimacy of such resistance. I would argue that according to international law today, Israel has no rights to or in the Occupied territories of Palestine. According to the same international law, the occupation ought to have ceased one year after its beginning, that is by June 1968. The United Nations Security Council passed a resolution requiring Israel to withdraw from all occupied territories, Resolution 242 in November 1967.
> 
> I would contend that the continuing presence of Israel in these occupied territories, its building of settlements and the transfer of a huge Jewish population into it, and an infrastructure built from Palestinian assets to serve those settlements, its control over the use of land and water, and its continuing oppression of the indigenous population, should be classified as a colonialist venture. From the Palestinian point of view, the Israeli policies and practices are formulated and executed for the destruction of Palestinian society, private and public life, and their material assets.
> 
> In this situation of continuing oppression, dispossession, detention, killing and destruction of social frameworks, are Palestinians not permitted to resist all or any of this? If Israel is a colonizing power over and above its status as Military Occupier, precisely because of its settlement activity and control of the resources of the territory in Occupied Palestine then it would seem that the Declaration on Granting Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, 1960 General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), December 14, 1960 applies to Palestinians today. I quote two relevant articles.
> 
> 1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
> 
> 2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> Above and beyond the basic right of all human beings to resist their being killed and harmed, and a society to take armed actions to protect itself, this document legitimizes also national liberation struggles, including, at this time in history, most particularly, the Palestinian people’s struggle for its own freedom. It is this right which legitimizes all Palestinian attempts to lift the yoke of Israeli oppression from Palestine, including all the actions taken by the Palestinians during Operation Cast Lead...."
> 
> Judge Goldstone 8217 s Bogus Test of War Time Culpability CounterPunch Tells the Facts Names the Names
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you bother to read UN res 242 you will see that the word ALL is not present when dealing with the occupied territories. And further to this you will see that  the term after negotiations on mutual borders is.  The ISLAMONAZI's grasped the French version because of French syntax and grammar that was in their favour, while the official version was written in English.
> Anyone that attempts to use UN res 242 is advised to look at the authors notes on what each clause means, and to study those notes before trying to post half truths and outright lies.
Click to expand...


It doesn't need to, that's already covered;

*Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war* and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with *Article 2 of the Charter,*


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The Western Powers were only concerned that the Arab Palestinian People, who elected a government of the HAMAS political party, would further complicate regional peace.  US domestic law forbids financing a government that threatens to use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State (Israel).  And the UN had to consider upholding the tenants of the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States and General Assembly resolution 49/60 of 9 December 1994 _(against Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them)_ the measures of General Assembly resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996 _(against attacks by means of bombs, explosives or other incendiary or lethal devices have become increasingly widespread by HAMAS and other Palestinian groups that were known to carry-out attacks by such means)_, and the concepts of the 2005 World Summit Outcome.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not in the province of the Western World to be concerned as to whether or not there the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) is in step with the Arab Palestinian people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact foreign powers have never allowed the Palestinians to select their own leadership through illegal external interference. Look what happened to the 2006 elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The irresponsible actions of the Arab Palestinian people in even considering HAMAS as a legitimate leadership was bound to have consequences.  The fact that the Arab Palestinians complains that the many external powers frowned upon HAMAS only demonstrates their immaturity in electing a leadership that would NOT observance the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and faithfully observe the obligations assumed by more mature constituents.  The Palestinians are unable to refrain, in their international relations, from the use of hostile military, political, economic, or any other form of coercion, aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State; including Israel.
> 
> The fact that the Arab Palestinian has not elected to pursue the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States only further exemplifies the inability of the Arab Palestinian as a whole to serve the cause of regional peace.
> 
> If there is a problem with the elected Palestinian Government, it is the Arab Palestinian themselves that is to blame.  No external government moved to remove or suppress the 2006 government; excepts for cause --- wherein the HAMAS Government acted as the aggressor and provoked a security response.
> 
> No people can expect to engage in tunneling activity across the borders and not expect a response.
> No people can expect to fire rockets and mortars and not expect a response.
> No people can expect to engage in kidnapping and murder and not expect a response.
> No people can expect to engage in armed attacks and bombings and not expect a response.
> The Arab Palestinian does not have some special dispensation to engage in these hostile act without a defensive response.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

You are getting ahead of the game. We haven't dealt with the Palestinian's territorial integrity and illegal external interference.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The Western Powers were only concerned that the Arab Palestinian People, who elected a government of the HAMAS political party, would further complicate regional peace.  US domestic law forbids financing a government that threatens to use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State (Israel).  And the UN had to consider upholding the tenants of the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States and General Assembly resolution 49/60 of 9 December 1994 _(against Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them)_ the measures of General Assembly resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996 _(against attacks by means of bombs, explosives or other incendiary or lethal devices have become increasingly widespread by HAMAS and other Palestinian groups that were known to carry-out attacks by such means)_, and the concepts of the 2005 World Summit Outcome.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not in the province of the Western World to be concerned as to whether or not there the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) is in step with the Arab Palestinian people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact foreign powers have never allowed the Palestinians to select their own leadership through illegal external interference. Look what happened to the 2006 elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The irresponsible actions of the Arab Palestinian people in even considering HAMAS as a legitimate leadership was bound to have consequences.  The fact that the Arab Palestinians complains that the many external powers frowned upon HAMAS only demonstrates their immaturity in electing a leadership that would NOT observance the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and faithfully observe the obligations assumed by more mature constituents.  The Palestinians are unable to refrain, in their international relations, from the use of hostile military, political, economic, or any other form of coercion, aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State; including Israel.
> 
> The fact that the Arab Palestinian has not elected to pursue the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States only further exemplifies the inability of the Arab Palestinian as a whole to serve the cause of regional peace.
> 
> If there is a problem with the elected Palestinian Government, it is the Arab Palestinian themselves that is to blame.  No external government moved to remove or suppress the 2006 government; excepts for cause --- wherein the HAMAS Government acted as the aggressor and provoked a security response.
> 
> No people can expect to engage in tunneling activity across the borders and not expect a response.
> No people can expect to fire rockets and mortars and not expect a response.
> No people can expect to engage in kidnapping and murder and not expect a response.
> No people can expect to engage in armed attacks and bombings and not expect a response.
> The Arab Palestinian does not have some special dispensation to engage in these hostile act without a defensive response.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's certainly one possible interpretation of International law, but it omits or ignores the question of the legitimacy of armed resistance to occupation and that well worn phrase, "one man's "Terrorist" is another man's "Freedom Fighter" This article, although dated, sums it up nicely:
> 
> "...This is the question of the right of a people to resist an aggressor and/or an oppressor, and the legitimacy of such resistance. I would argue that according to international law today, Israel has no rights to or in the Occupied territories of Palestine. According to the same international law, the occupation ought to have ceased one year after its beginning, that is by June 1968. The United Nations Security Council passed a resolution requiring Israel to withdraw from all occupied territories, Resolution 242 in November 1967.
> 
> I would contend that the continuing presence of Israel in these occupied territories, its building of settlements and the transfer of a huge Jewish population into it, and an infrastructure built from Palestinian assets to serve those settlements, its control over the use of land and water, and its continuing oppression of the indigenous population, should be classified as a colonialist venture. From the Palestinian point of view, the Israeli policies and practices are formulated and executed for the destruction of Palestinian society, private and public life, and their material assets.
> 
> In this situation of continuing oppression, dispossession, detention, killing and destruction of social frameworks, are Palestinians not permitted to resist all or any of this? If Israel is a colonizing power over and above its status as Military Occupier, precisely because of its settlement activity and control of the resources of the territory in Occupied Palestine then it would seem that the Declaration on Granting Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, 1960 General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), December 14, 1960 applies to Palestinians today. I quote two relevant articles.
> 
> 1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
> 
> 2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> Above and beyond the basic right of all human beings to resist their being killed and harmed, and a society to take armed actions to protect itself, this document legitimizes also national liberation struggles, including, at this time in history, most particularly, the Palestinian people’s struggle for its own freedom. It is this right which legitimizes all Palestinian attempts to lift the yoke of Israeli oppression from Palestine, including all the actions taken by the Palestinians during Operation Cast Lead...."
> 
> Judge Goldstone 8217 s Bogus Test of War Time Culpability CounterPunch Tells the Facts Names the Names
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you bother to read UN res 242 you will see that the word ALL is not present when dealing with the occupied territories. And further to this you will see that  the term after negotiations on mutual borders is.  The ISLAMONAZI's grasped the French version because of French syntax and grammar that was in their favour, while the official version was written in English.
> Anyone that attempts to use UN res 242 is advised to look at the authors notes on what each clause means, and to study those notes before trying to post half truths and outright lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't need to, that's already covered;
> 
> *Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war* and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,
> 
> Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with *Article 2 of the Charter,*
Click to expand...





 Do you mean like Jordan and Egypt did in 1948/1949 when they acquired gaza and the west bank by war ?

 Israel have offered to hand the west bank back since 1967 on the understanding that there would be peace talks and agreement on mutual borders. Since the peace agreement with Jordan the Israelis have offered the P.A. the chance to sit down and talk mutual borders and peace but they have refused. Now that the P.A. has signed the UN charter you would think that the UN would be putting pressure on them to fulfil their obligations and agree to talks. It is not in their best interests to constantly resort to violent means to bring about an end to the problem, and they will never win any concessions by doing so. All that will happen is the noose will tighten and even more Palestinians will be homeless or killed in the fighting


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The Western Powers were only concerned that the Arab Palestinian People, who elected a government of the HAMAS political party, would further complicate regional peace.  US domestic law forbids financing a government that threatens to use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State (Israel).  And the UN had to consider upholding the tenants of the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States and General Assembly resolution 49/60 of 9 December 1994 _(against Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them)_ the measures of General Assembly resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996 _(against attacks by means of bombs, explosives or other incendiary or lethal devices have become increasingly widespread by HAMAS and other Palestinian groups that were known to carry-out attacks by such means)_, and the concepts of the 2005 World Summit Outcome.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not in the province of the Western World to be concerned as to whether or not there the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) is in step with the Arab Palestinian people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact foreign powers have never allowed the Palestinians to select their own leadership through illegal external interference. Look what happened to the 2006 elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The irresponsible actions of the Arab Palestinian people in even considering HAMAS as a legitimate leadership was bound to have consequences.  The fact that the Arab Palestinians complains that the many external powers frowned upon HAMAS only demonstrates their immaturity in electing a leadership that would NOT observance the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and faithfully observe the obligations assumed by more mature constituents.  The Palestinians are unable to refrain, in their international relations, from the use of hostile military, political, economic, or any other form of coercion, aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State; including Israel.
> 
> The fact that the Arab Palestinian has not elected to pursue the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States only further exemplifies the inability of the Arab Palestinian as a whole to serve the cause of regional peace.
> 
> If there is a problem with the elected Palestinian Government, it is the Arab Palestinian themselves that is to blame.  No external government moved to remove or suppress the 2006 government; excepts for cause --- wherein the HAMAS Government acted as the aggressor and provoked a security response.
> 
> No people can expect to engage in tunneling activity across the borders and not expect a response.
> No people can expect to fire rockets and mortars and not expect a response.
> No people can expect to engage in kidnapping and murder and not expect a response.
> No people can expect to engage in armed attacks and bombings and not expect a response.
> The Arab Palestinian does not have some special dispensation to engage in these hostile act without a defensive response.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are getting ahead of the game. We haven't dealt with the Palestinian's territorial integrity and illegal external interference.
Click to expand...






 Have they complied with CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW and agreed mutual borders to define their territorial integrity. As history does not show any acceptance by the Palestinians of any borders, no signatures appended to any treaties, no meetings with the representatives of the neighbouring nations. While they allow the external interference by  Iran and Syria supplying weapons to fight a proxy war with Israel they only have themselves to blame and they should be demanding that elections are held immediately  to elect new leaders.


----------



## aris2chat

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures." _Khaled Meshal Chief, Political Bureau, HAMAS, 2013_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, that is Palestine inside its international borders.
> 
> 2. _Reaffirms_ the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, *territorial integrity,* national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;
> 
> 3. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the * Palestinian people* and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, *territorial integrity,* and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
> 
> A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​
> Why would there be confusion on this? It is perfectly clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MANDATE FOR PALESTINE borders and not state of Palestine borders. They have yet to be agreed.
> 
> Tell it to the Palestinians who cant even decide just what is Palestine and what isn't
> 
> It is so clear that you cant understand it at all. Not when you look at the way the arab muslims are trying to force the world to grant them something they already have.
Click to expand...


as with the french mandate, the area was to be divided into states.  In the case of the french the territory was divided into 5 states that later became modern syria and Lebanon.
The british mandate was to create a jewish homeland.


----------



## fanger

aris2chat said:


> as with the french mandate, the area was to be divided into states.  In the case of the french the territory was divided into 5 states that later became modern syria and Lebanon.
> The british mandate was to create a jewish homeland.





> His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine


Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Phoenall

fanger said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> as with the french mandate, the area was to be divided into states.  In the case of the french the territory was divided into 5 states that later became modern syria and Lebanon.
> The british mandate was to create a jewish homeland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...





 Why do you ISLAMONAZI SCUM always remove the last part that sets in stone the rights of Jews

  or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.[1][2]

 Do you even understand what this means on the world stage, and how if Israel decided to take action in the ICC and ICJ they could bankrupt most ISLAMONAZI nations in the M.E.


 Now show were the civil and religious rights of non Jews were prejudiced by the creation of Israel, other than by the arab muslims attack and invasion in May 1948 ?


----------



## fanger

Well, *Zionazi-scum*, Israel doesn't want to go anywhere near the ICC, they are no longer a member, as to the Frase, "rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country"  Balfour  had no control over other countries


----------



## Phoenall

fanger said:


> Well, *Zionazi-scum*, Israel doesn't want to go anywhere near the ICC, they are no longer a member, as to the Frase, "rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country"  Balfour  had no control over other countries





 You do know the two terms are not compatible and only an illiterate ISLAMONAZI would meld the two together. How can you be for the existence of a Jewish homeland with the Jews living in peace and be for the extermination of the Jews.

 Balfour may not have had any control over other countries, but the Mandate did and this was also part of the mandate. This meant it became INTERNATIONAL LAW and the nations that forcibly evicted the Jews after 1948 can still be charged with war crimes, genocide and ethnic cleansing in the ICC. There is no statute of limitations on these crimes as the many Nazi leaders found out when hunted by the Jews.


----------



## fanger

INTERNATIONAL LAW does not hold trumps over National laws


----------



## Phoenall

fanger said:


> INTERNATIONAL LAW does not hold trumps over National laws






 Want to try it and see ?


----------



## MJB12741

fanger said:


> INTERNATIONAL LAW does not hold trumps over National laws


HUH???   

Amazing what we can learn here from the Pali supporters.  Did you all hear the one about "Israel is stealing 'Palestinian' land"?


----------



## theliq

MJB12741 said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> INTERNATIONAL LAW does not hold trumps over National laws
> 
> 
> 
> HUH???
> 
> Amazing what we can learn here from the Pali supporters.  Did you all hear the one about "Israel is stealing 'Palestinian' land"?
Click to expand...

We don't have to hear...we can blatantly see these land grabs with our own eyes.....The Balfour Declaration....was just that..a Declaration....nothing concrete,but I was inspired by a Zionist,run by Zionist Terrorists and even the British Commissioner to/in Palestine in 1948 and years prior was a ZIONIST...........the West didn't want the Jews so with their immoral behaviour dumped them in Palestine........problem sorted....so they thought...but the Palestinians are made of sterner stuff,and the world now realise the injustice done to them...........America are of course the Israeli lackies and have No Credibility at all......and tell Phoney to Stop using the term Islamnazis as it was the Zionists who collaborated with Hitler en-al and help send 100's of thousands of Jews to the Charnels(Ovens) as you full well know......the world knows......What sort of debased people are these Zionist Terrorist...not real Jews..........Zionists are un Godly in every way. I support the Palestinians and Jews but NEVER TERRORISTS.....all of them are the scum of the earth.


----------



## theliq

MJB12741 said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> INTERNATIONAL LAW does not hold trumps over National laws
> 
> 
> 
> HUH???
> 
> Amazing what we can learn here from the Pali supporters.  Did you all hear the one about "Israel is stealing 'Palestinian' land"?
Click to expand...

You don't learn a thing you Cretin


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> as with the french mandate, the area was to be divided into states.  In the case of the french the territory was divided into 5 states that later became modern syria and Lebanon.
> The british mandate was to create a jewish homeland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you ISLAMONAZI SCUM always remove the last part that sets in stone the rights of Jews
> 
> or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.[1][2]
> 
> Do you even understand what this means on the world stage, and how if Israel decided to take action in the ICC and ICJ they could bankrupt most ISLAMONAZI nations in the M.E.
> 
> 
> Now show were the civil and religious rights of non Jews were prejudiced by the creation of Israel, other than by the arab muslims attack and invasion in May 1948 ?
Click to expand...

Idiot..Fanger is one of the most intelligent and moral posters on this site.............steven


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> as with the french mandate, the area was to be divided into states.  In the case of the french the territory was divided into 5 states that later became modern syria and Lebanon.
> The british mandate was to create a jewish homeland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you ISLAMONAZI SCUM always remove the last part that sets in stone the rights of Jews
> 
> or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.[1][2]
> 
> Do you even understand what this means on the world stage, and how if Israel decided to take action in the ICC and ICJ they could bankrupt most ISLAMONAZI nations in the M.E.
> 
> 
> Now show were the civil and religious rights of non Jews were prejudiced by the creation of Israel, other than by the arab muslims attack and invasion in May 1948 ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot..Fanger is one of the most intelligent and moral posters on this site.............steven
Click to expand...


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> as with the french mandate, the area was to be divided into states.  In the case of the french the territory was divided into 5 states that later became modern syria and Lebanon.
> The british mandate was to create a jewish homeland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you ISLAMONAZI SCUM always remove the last part that sets in stone the rights of Jews
> 
> or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.[1][2]
> 
> Do you even understand what this means on the world stage, and how if Israel decided to take action in the ICC and ICJ they could bankrupt most ISLAMONAZI nations in the M.E.
> 
> 
> Now show were the civil and religious rights of non Jews were prejudiced by the creation of Israel, other than by the arab muslims attack and invasion in May 1948 ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot..Fanger is one of the most intelligent and moral posters on this site.............steven
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

And Your Negative reasons are Hoss


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> INTERNATIONAL LAW does not hold trumps over National laws
> 
> 
> 
> HUH???
> 
> Amazing what we can learn here from the Pali supporters.  Did you all hear the one about "Israel is stealing 'Palestinian' land"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have to hear...we can blatantly see these land grabs with our own eyes.....The Balfour Declaration....was just that..a Declaration....nothing concrete,but I was inspired by a Zionist,run by Zionist Terrorists and even the British Commissioner to/in Palestine in 1948 and years prior was a ZIONIST...........the West didn't want the Jews so with their immoral behaviour dumped them in Palestine........problem sorted....so they thought...but the Palestinians are made of sterner stuff,and the world now realise the injustice done to them...........America are of course the Israeli lackies and have No Credibility at all......and tell Phoney to Stop using the term Islamnazis as it was the Zionists who collaborated with Hitler en-al and help send 100's of thousands of Jews to the Charnels(Ovens) as you full well know......the world knows......What sort of debased people are these Zionist Terrorist...not real Jews..........Zionists are un Godly in every way. I support the Palestinians and Jews but NEVER TERRORISTS.....all of them are the scum of the earth.
Click to expand...




 So who was the legal land owner in 1914 when WW1 broke out, then who was the legal land owner in 1919 when WW1 ended. Were does it say that the Palestinians were the legal land owners at any time. The Zionists have been around since before the Diaspora, and two very famous historical figures spring to mind as Zionists  Jesus and Mohamed. The Balfour declaration entered in part into International law under the LoN treaties as did the passing of land title to the Jews once they had attained independence. The arab muslims were allocated 96% of the land as their homelands, but being greedy immoral and ignorant they demanded it all as commanded by their religion. No I wont stop calling muslims ISLAMONAZIS because that is what they are, it is from islam and its pact of Omar and dhimmi laws that the German Riech first got its ideas for branding Jews, homosexuals, mentally defectives and gypsies. It was from the pact of Omar and the dhimmi laws it got the idea of working the "untermensch" to death, much as the muslims do to the dhimmi and kuufar. It was from the muslims that it recruited many thousands of sadistic guards and soldiers that would strike fear into the enemy when the bloodlust was on them.   The Zionist tried to save as many Jews from Germany's clutches as it could, but could not raise the funds needed. Even the likes of Switzerland wanted large sums to allow the Jews passage through the country. It was the ISLAMONAZI contingents that sent millions of Jews to their deaths. Even the Palestinian leader at the time was all friendly with Hitler and asked him for more Jews to kill when he ran out.
 By supporting the Palestinians you support ISLAMONAZI TERRORISM and you defend their actions because you are brainwashed to do so.


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> INTERNATIONAL LAW does not hold trumps over National laws
> 
> 
> 
> HUH???
> 
> Amazing what we can learn here from the Pali supporters.  Did you all hear the one about "Israel is stealing 'Palestinian' land"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't learn a thing you Cretin
Click to expand...




 It is you that never learns, there was never any "Palestinian" land to begin with, so how can you steal something that does not exist


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> as with the french mandate, the area was to be divided into states.  In the case of the french the territory was divided into 5 states that later became modern syria and Lebanon.
> The british mandate was to create a jewish homeland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you ISLAMONAZI SCUM always remove the last part that sets in stone the rights of Jews
> 
> or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.[1][2]
> 
> Do you even understand what this means on the world stage, and how if Israel decided to take action in the ICC and ICJ they could bankrupt most ISLAMONAZI nations in the M.E.
> 
> 
> Now show were the civil and religious rights of non Jews were prejudiced by the creation of Israel, other than by the arab muslims attack and invasion in May 1948 ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot..Fanger is one of the most intelligent and moral posters on this site.............steven
Click to expand...





 He's a complete imbecile and has no grasp of reality, then again he is an ISLAMONAZI STOOGE so that explains it


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> INTERNATIONAL LAW does not hold trumps over National laws
> 
> 
> 
> HUH???
> 
> Amazing what we can learn here from the Pali supporters.  Did you all hear the one about "Israel is stealing 'Palestinian' land"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have to hear...we can blatantly see these land grabs with our own eyes.....The Balfour Declaration....was just that..a Declaration....nothing concrete,but I was inspired by a Zionist,run by Zionist Terrorists and even the British Commissioner to/in Palestine in 1948 and years prior was a ZIONIST...........the West didn't want the Jews so with their immoral behaviour dumped them in Palestine........problem sorted....so they thought...but the Palestinians are made of sterner stuff,and the world now realise the injustice done to them...........America are of course the Israeli lackies and have No Credibility at all......and tell Phoney to Stop using the term Islamnazis as it was the Zionists who collaborated with Hitler en-al and help send 100's of thousands of Jews to the Charnels(Ovens) as you full well know......the world knows......What sort of debased people are these Zionist Terrorist...not real Jews..........Zionists are un Godly in every way. I support the Palestinians and Jews but NEVER TERRORISTS.....all of them are the scum of the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who was the legal land owner in 1914 when WW1 broke out, then who was the legal land owner in 1919 when WW1 ended. Were does it say that the Palestinians were the legal land owners at any time. The Zionists have been around since before the Diaspora, and two very famous historical figures spring to mind as Zionists  Jesus and Mohamed. The Balfour declaration entered in part into International law under the LoN treaties as did the passing of land title to the Jews once they had attained independence. The arab muslims were allocated 96% of the land as their homelands, but being greedy immoral and ignorant they demanded it all as commanded by their religion. No I wont stop calling muslims ISLAMONAZIS because that is what they are, it is from islam and its pact of Omar and dhimmi laws that the German Riech first got its ideas for branding Jews, homosexuals, mentally defectives and gypsies. It was from the pact of Omar and the dhimmi laws it got the idea of working the "untermensch" to death, much as the muslims do to the dhimmi and kuufar. It was from the muslims that it recruited many thousands of sadistic guards and soldiers that would strike fear into the enemy when the bloodlust was on them.   The Zionist tried to save as many Jews from Germany's clutches as it could, but could not raise the funds needed. Even the likes of Switzerland wanted large sums to allow the Jews passage through the country. It was the ISLAMONAZI contingents that sent millions of Jews to their deaths. Even the Palestinian leader at the time was all friendly with Hitler and asked him for more Jews to kill when he ran out.
> By supporting the Palestinians you support ISLAMONAZI TERRORISM and you defend their actions because you are brainwashed to do so.
Click to expand...

Utter Garbage...and you know it,Palestinians have been in the process of gaining their independence from Yoke of Israel for 60 years+....these Islamists you call Islamonazis (garbage monika in the first place)ISIS have only been around for the past few years!!!!!!!so your summation is fraudulent to say the least.

As for calling Pro-Palestinian posters ISLAMONAZI is a corruption of your mind only(What mind I hear the folks say)Palestine is not ISIS,never have been,never will be.....the nearest thing in the last 100 years to ISISium is Zionism


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> INTERNATIONAL LAW does not hold trumps over National laws
> 
> 
> 
> HUH???
> 
> Amazing what we can learn here from the Pali supporters.  Did you all hear the one about "Israel is stealing 'Palestinian' land"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have to hear...we can blatantly see these land grabs with our own eyes.....The Balfour Declaration....was just that..a Declaration....nothing concrete,but I was inspired by a Zionist,run by Zionist Terrorists and even the British Commissioner to/in Palestine in 1948 and years prior was a ZIONIST...........the West didn't want the Jews so with their immoral behaviour dumped them in Palestine........problem sorted....so they thought...but the Palestinians are made of sterner stuff,and the world now realise the injustice done to them...........America are of course the Israeli lackies and have No Credibility at all......and tell Phoney to Stop using the term Islamnazis as it was the Zionists who collaborated with Hitler en-al and help send 100's of thousands of Jews to the Charnels(Ovens) as you full well know......the world knows......What sort of debased people are these Zionist Terrorist...not real Jews..........Zionists are un Godly in every way. I support the Palestinians and Jews but NEVER TERRORISTS.....all of them are the scum of the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who was the legal land owner in 1914 when WW1 broke out, then who was the legal land owner in 1919 when WW1 ended. Were does it say that the Palestinians were the legal land owners at any time. The Zionists have been around since before the Diaspora, and two very famous historical figures spring to mind as Zionists  Jesus and Mohamed. The Balfour declaration entered in part into International law under the LoN treaties as did the passing of land title to the Jews once they had attained independence. The arab muslims were allocated 96% of the land as their homelands, but being greedy immoral and ignorant they demanded it all as commanded by their religion. No I wont stop calling muslims ISLAMONAZIS because that is what they are, it is from islam and its pact of Omar and dhimmi laws that the German Riech first got its ideas for branding Jews, homosexuals, mentally defectives and gypsies. It was from the pact of Omar and the dhimmi laws it got the idea of working the "untermensch" to death, much as the muslims do to the dhimmi and kuufar. It was from the muslims that it recruited many thousands of sadistic guards and soldiers that would strike fear into the enemy when the bloodlust was on them.   The Zionist tried to save as many Jews from Germany's clutches as it could, but could not raise the funds needed. Even the likes of Switzerland wanted large sums to allow the Jews passage through the country. It was the ISLAMONAZI contingents that sent millions of Jews to their deaths. Even the Palestinian leader at the time was all friendly with Hitler and asked him for more Jews to kill when he ran out.
> By supporting the Palestinians you support ISLAMONAZI TERRORISM and you defend their actions because you are brainwashed to do so.
Click to expand...

The Zionists were friendlier...............cret


----------



## theliq

fanger said:


> Whats your excuse fatty?


I thought I'd put your response to music ..fanger,trust you don't mind steve


www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE9xub-rfQQ


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> INTERNATIONAL LAW does not hold trumps over National laws
> 
> 
> 
> HUH???
> 
> Amazing what we can learn here from the Pali supporters.  Did you all hear the one about "Israel is stealing 'Palestinian' land"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have to hear...we can blatantly see these land grabs with our own eyes.....The Balfour Declaration....was just that..a Declaration....nothing concrete,but I was inspired by a Zionist,run by Zionist Terrorists and even the British Commissioner to/in Palestine in 1948 and years prior was a ZIONIST...........the West didn't want the Jews so with their immoral behaviour dumped them in Palestine........problem sorted....so they thought...but the Palestinians are made of sterner stuff,and the world now realise the injustice done to them...........America are of course the Israeli lackies and have No Credibility at all......and tell Phoney to Stop using the term Islamnazis as it was the Zionists who collaborated with Hitler en-al and help send 100's of thousands of Jews to the Charnels(Ovens) as you full well know......the world knows......What sort of debased people are these Zionist Terrorist...not real Jews..........Zionists are un Godly in every way. I support the Palestinians and Jews but NEVER TERRORISTS.....all of them are the scum of the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who was the legal land owner in 1914 when WW1 broke out, then who was the legal land owner in 1919 when WW1 ended. Were does it say that the Palestinians were the legal land owners at any time. The Zionists have been around since before the Diaspora, and two very famous historical figures spring to mind as Zionists  Jesus and Mohamed. The Balfour declaration entered in part into International law under the LoN treaties as did the passing of land title to the Jews once they had attained independence. The arab muslims were allocated 96% of the land as their homelands, but being greedy immoral and ignorant they demanded it all as commanded by their religion. No I wont stop calling muslims ISLAMONAZIS because that is what they are, it is from islam and its pact of Omar and dhimmi laws that the German Riech first got its ideas for branding Jews, homosexuals, mentally defectives and gypsies. It was from the pact of Omar and the dhimmi laws it got the idea of working the "untermensch" to death, much as the muslims do to the dhimmi and kuufar. It was from the muslims that it recruited many thousands of sadistic guards and soldiers that would strike fear into the enemy when the bloodlust was on them.   The Zionist tried to save as many Jews from Germany's clutches as it could, but could not raise the funds needed. Even the likes of Switzerland wanted large sums to allow the Jews passage through the country. It was the ISLAMONAZI contingents that sent millions of Jews to their deaths. Even the Palestinian leader at the time was all friendly with Hitler and asked him for more Jews to kill when he ran out.
> By supporting the Palestinians you support ISLAMONAZI TERRORISM and you defend their actions because you are brainwashed to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Utter Garbage...and you know it,Palestinians have been in the process of gaining their independence from Yoke of Israel for 60 years+....these Islamists you call Islamonazis (garbage monika in the first place)ISIS have only been around for the past few years!!!!!!!so your summation is fraudulent to say the least.
> 
> As for calling Pro-Palestinian posters ISLAMONAZI is a corruption of your mind only(What mind I hear the folks say)Palestine is not ISIS,never have been,never will be.....the nearest thing in the last 100 years to ISISium is Zionism
Click to expand...




 Hardly true as they have only been Palestinians since 1964 when Arafat told them they were, before that they were Syrians. They had the chance of freedom in 1948 and refused to take it up, preferring to go to war in the false idea that they would win. They were destroyed and the real reason for the invasion by Jordan was soon realised. The fact that their leader was one of Hitlers bed fellows shows that they were more akin to the NAZI's and FASCIST's than any other political ideology. The concept of both ideologies are firmly based on the practises of islam notably the dhimmi laws, pact of Omar and the totalitarian caliphate. If Palestine wanted independence they need only apply the terms of the UN charter and agree to abide by the many resolutions dictating negotiations on mutual borders and peace and they could be independent within a month. But with independence comes a high price, and just part of that price is border controls that are covered by International law. Along with paying for services provided and setting in place a means of supplying goods to the people. It also means they will have to give up terrorism, violence, belligerence and anti Israeli propaganda or face sanctions imposed by the UN.
 I call all muslims  that subscribe to the Koran and its teachings of death to the unbelievers ISLAMONAZIS because that is a Nazi concept. So until islam alters the way it teaches its followers the violence and terrorism it does then they will be ISLAMONAZI's, Just as the brainwashed muslims that deny there is a major problem with islam and its teachings will be called ISLAMONAZI BRAINWASHED STOOGES.  Don't like the reality then change the fundementals.
 As for ISLAMONAZI TERORISTS the only answer is a cluster bomb dropped on them and their remains left for the dogs to eat. They have no place even in an uncivilised country for the way they treat others, and those that travel from other countries to fight should face seeing their families rounded up and evicted as enemy undesireables.


 Calling pro Palestinians ISLAMONAZI BRAINWASHED STOOGES is a truth that you don't like, just as Wilders film Fitna was a truth that ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDISTS did not like being shown. The truth about islam can be found in the Koran and hadiths by anyone that has a mind to look and read them in their full and proper context. Many read the Koran as any other book and start at page one, when the trick is to get an abrogated copy so you can see the decent of the false prophets decline into greater mental instability. Then you see how his mental instability forged the violent islam we see today, how muslims are taught from an early age barbarity and  violence. How killing is a way of life and land theft a command from their moon god.


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> INTERNATIONAL LAW does not hold trumps over National laws
> 
> 
> 
> HUH???
> 
> Amazing what we can learn here from the Pali supporters.  Did you all hear the one about "Israel is stealing 'Palestinian' land"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have to hear...we can blatantly see these land grabs with our own eyes.....The Balfour Declaration....was just that..a Declaration....nothing concrete,but I was inspired by a Zionist,run by Zionist Terrorists and even the British Commissioner to/in Palestine in 1948 and years prior was a ZIONIST...........the West didn't want the Jews so with their immoral behaviour dumped them in Palestine........problem sorted....so they thought...but the Palestinians are made of sterner stuff,and the world now realise the injustice done to them...........America are of course the Israeli lackies and have No Credibility at all......and tell Phoney to Stop using the term Islamnazis as it was the Zionists who collaborated with Hitler en-al and help send 100's of thousands of Jews to the Charnels(Ovens) as you full well know......the world knows......What sort of debased people are these Zionist Terrorist...not real Jews..........Zionists are un Godly in every way. I support the Palestinians and Jews but NEVER TERRORISTS.....all of them are the scum of the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who was the legal land owner in 1914 when WW1 broke out, then who was the legal land owner in 1919 when WW1 ended. Were does it say that the Palestinians were the legal land owners at any time. The Zionists have been around since before the Diaspora, and two very famous historical figures spring to mind as Zionists  Jesus and Mohamed. The Balfour declaration entered in part into International law under the LoN treaties as did the passing of land title to the Jews once they had attained independence. The arab muslims were allocated 96% of the land as their homelands, but being greedy immoral and ignorant they demanded it all as commanded by their religion. No I wont stop calling muslims ISLAMONAZIS because that is what they are, it is from islam and its pact of Omar and dhimmi laws that the German Riech first got its ideas for branding Jews, homosexuals, mentally defectives and gypsies. It was from the pact of Omar and the dhimmi laws it got the idea of working the "untermensch" to death, much as the muslims do to the dhimmi and kuufar. It was from the muslims that it recruited many thousands of sadistic guards and soldiers that would strike fear into the enemy when the bloodlust was on them.   The Zionist tried to save as many Jews from Germany's clutches as it could, but could not raise the funds needed. Even the likes of Switzerland wanted large sums to allow the Jews passage through the country. It was the ISLAMONAZI contingents that sent millions of Jews to their deaths. Even the Palestinian leader at the time was all friendly with Hitler and asked him for more Jews to kill when he ran out.
> By supporting the Palestinians you support ISLAMONAZI TERRORISM and you defend their actions because you are brainwashed to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Zionists were friendlier...............cret
Click to expand...






 Typical ISLAMONAZI reply when the reality that is islam is shown as a self evident truth, resort to personal abuse. Keep it up and you will be reported with a request you be banned.


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have to hear...we can blatantly see these land grabs with our own eyes.....The Balfour Declaration....was just that..a Declaration....nothing concrete,but I was inspired by a Zionist,run by Zionist Terrorists and even the British Commissioner to/in Palestine in 1948 and years prior was a ZIONIST...........the West didn't want the Jews so with their immoral behaviour dumped them in Palestine........problem sorted....so they thought...but the Palestinians are made of sterner stuff,and the world now realise the injustice done to them...........America are of course the Israeli lackies and have No Credibility at all......and tell Phoney to Stop using the term Islamnazis as it was the Zionists who collaborated with Hitler en-al and help send 100's of thousands of Jews to the Charnels(Ovens) as you full well know......the world knows......What sort of debased people are these Zionist Terrorist...not real Jews..........Zionists are un Godly in every way. I support the Palestinians and Jews but NEVER TERRORISTS.....all of them are the scum of the earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who was the legal land owner in 1914 when WW1 broke out, then who was the legal land owner in 1919 when WW1 ended. Were does it say that the Palestinians were the legal land owners at any time. The Zionists have been around since before the Diaspora, and two very famous historical figures spring to mind as Zionists  Jesus and Mohamed. The Balfour declaration entered in part into International law under the LoN treaties as did the passing of land title to the Jews once they had attained independence. The arab muslims were allocated 96% of the land as their homelands, but being greedy immoral and ignorant they demanded it all as commanded by their religion. No I wont stop calling muslims ISLAMONAZIS because that is what they are, it is from islam and its pact of Omar and dhimmi laws that the German Riech first got its ideas for branding Jews, homosexuals, mentally defectives and gypsies. It was from the pact of Omar and the dhimmi laws it got the idea of working the "untermensch" to death, much as the muslims do to the dhimmi and kuufar. It was from the muslims that it recruited many thousands of sadistic guards and soldiers that would strike fear into the enemy when the bloodlust was on them.   The Zionist tried to save as many Jews from Germany's clutches as it could, but could not raise the funds needed. Even the likes of Switzerland wanted large sums to allow the Jews passage through the country. It was the ISLAMONAZI contingents that sent millions of Jews to their deaths. Even the Palestinian leader at the time was all friendly with Hitler and asked him for more Jews to kill when he ran out.
> By supporting the Palestinians you support ISLAMONAZI TERRORISM and you defend their actions because you are brainwashed to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Utter Garbage...and you know it,Palestinians have been in the process of gaining their independence from Yoke of Israel for 60 years+....these Islamists you call Islamonazis (garbage monika in the first place)ISIS have only been around for the past few years!!!!!!!so your summation is fraudulent to say the least.
> 
> As for calling Pro-Palestinian posters ISLAMONAZI is a corruption of your mind only(What mind I hear the folks say)Palestine is not ISIS,never have been,never will be.....the nearest thing in the last 100 years to ISISium is Zionism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly true as they have only been Palestinians since 1964 when Arafat told them they were, before that they were Syrians. They had the chance of freedom in 1948 and refused to take it up, preferring to go to war in the false idea that they would win. They were destroyed and the real reason for the invasion by Jordan was soon realised. The fact that their leader was one of Hitlers bed fellows shows that they were more akin to the NAZI's and FASCIST's than any other political ideology. The concept of both ideologies are firmly based on the practises of islam notably the dhimmi laws, pact of Omar and the totalitarian caliphate. If Palestine wanted independence they need only apply the terms of the UN charter and agree to abide by the many resolutions dictating negotiations on mutual borders and peace and they could be independent within a month. But with independence comes a high price, and just part of that price is border controls that are covered by International law. Along with paying for services provided and setting in place a means of supplying goods to the people. It also means they will have to give up terrorism, violence, belligerence and anti Israeli propaganda or face sanctions imposed by the UN.
> I call all muslims  that subscribe to the Koran and its teachings of death to the unbelievers ISLAMONAZIS because that is a Nazi concept. So until islam alters the way it teaches its followers the violence and terrorism it does then they will be ISLAMONAZI's, Just as the brainwashed muslims that deny there is a major problem with islam and its teachings will be called ISLAMONAZI BRAINWASHED STOOGES.  Don't like the reality then change the fundementals.
> As for ISLAMONAZI TERORISTS the only answer is a cluster bomb dropped on them and their remains left for the dogs to eat. They have no place even in an uncivilised country for the way they treat others, and those that travel from other countries to fight should face seeing their families rounded up and evicted as enemy undesireables.
> 
> 
> Calling pro Palestinians ISLAMONAZI BRAINWASHED STOOGES is a truth that you don't like, just as Wilders film Fitna was a truth that ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDISTS did not like being shown. The truth about islam can be found in the Koran and hadiths by anyone that has a mind to look and read them in their full and proper context. Many read the Koran as any other book and start at page one, when the trick is to get an abrogated copy so you can see the decent of the false prophets decline into greater mental instability. Then you see how his mental instability forged the violent islam we see today, how muslims are taught from an early age barbarity and  violence. How killing is a way of life and land theft a command from their moon god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said IDIOT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical ISLAMONAZI reply when the reality that is islam is shown as a self evident truth, resort to personal abuse. Keep it up and you will be reported with a request you be banned.
Click to expand...

Of course you will....Hoss is a mate,I'm sure he will take my tease in the way it is given......LOL...anyhow,a normal bodily function a bit hard (excuse the pun) for you to take Fatty-Fatty.....Too bad........I have a great sense of humour(and for the rhythm track alone,it's worth a listen).............shame you carry Zionist Guiltiness like a chip on your shoulder......the post wasn't for you but for Hoss..........so stop being Nosey invading other folks posts but then you know all about invading,don't ya.

Keep it up and YOU will be BANNED for being a NOSEY B_T_H.......lol.


----------



## MJB12741

Yo Theliq, who is this friend of Hitler?

http://histclo.com/imagef/date/2011/12/mufti-ah41s.jpg


----------



## RoccoR

MJB12741,  _et al,_

I don't think that this line of discussion will bare fruit or become productive in any meaningful way.

I'm sure that everyone recognizes the photo of Haj Mohammed Amin al-Husseini and Adolf Hitler (_alla_ November 1941 Summit); it is quite famous.  Most people associate this photo with the WWII Pact and the agreement to the independence of Arab Palestine and post-War plans for the elimination of the Jewish National Home _(assuming a Germany Victory against Allied Forces)_.  

Haj Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, best known as The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and the first Chairman of Arab Palestinian permanent executive organ known as the Arab Higher Committee, was also the President of the All-Palestine Government.



MJB12741 said:


> Yo Theliq, who is this friend of Hitler?
> 
> http://histclo.com/imagef/date/2011/12/mufti-ah41s.jpg


*(COMMENT)*

There is no question that the World War II Conflict was fresh in everyones mind in the post-War Period leading up to the Korean War era.  And that the NAZI associations were a huge negative to have associated with anything.  But that was more than seven decades ago.  Former enemies are now allies of great importance and economic concern.  The images of the Axis Powers a very distant memory.  

What is important today, is that the Middle Eastern Nations reestablish the necessary framework and relations for the peace and security throughout the region.  As I see the news today, I see that elements within the Palestinian Unity Government are calling for a widening of the conflict and appealing to the Lebanese Hezbollah group (also a terrorists) to unite with HAMAS (terrorists) in battling Israel; a violation of A/RES/2/110 - Measures to be taken against propaganda and the inciters of a new war; the planning, preparation, initiation or execution of an act of using armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State --- or “crime of aggression.” 

Right now, the State of Palestine and its Unity Government, have been emboldened and encouraged by the International Criminal Court (ICC) opening an inquiry, paving the way for possible war crimes investigation against Israelis.  The actions of the ICC have opened a new avenue for the conflict - no longer preventing but actually widening the conflict to include the coordinated alliance between two designed terrorist organizations against a member nation. 

This is what really is important.  The alliance of the Grand Mufti with the NAZI Regime 70 years ago is not _(interesting maybe - but not important today)_. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MJB12741

RoccoR said:


> MJB12741,  _et al,_
> 
> I don't think that this line of discussion will bare fruit or become productive in any meaningful way.
> 
> I'm sure that everyone recognizes the photo of Haj Mohammed Amin al-Husseini and Adolf Hitler (_alla_ November 1941 Summit); it is quite famous.  Most people associate this photo with the WWII Pact and the agreement to the independence of Arab Palestine and post-War plans for the elimination of the Jewish National Home _(assuming a Germany Victory against Allied Forces)_.
> 
> Haj Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, best known as The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and the first Chairman of Arab Palestinian permanent executive organ known as the Arab Higher Committee, was also the President of the All-Palestine Government.
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo Theliq, who is this friend of Hitler?
> 
> http://histclo.com/imagef/date/2011/12/mufti-ah41s.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is no question that the World War II Conflict was fresh in everyones mind in the post-War Period leading up to the Korean War era.  And that the NAZI associations were a huge negative to have associated with anything.  But that was more than seven decades ago.  Former enemies are now allies of great importance and economic concern.  The images of the Axis Powers a very distant memory.
> 
> What is important today, is that the Middle Eastern Nations reestablish the necessary framework and relations for the peace and security throughout the region.  As I see the news today, I see that elements within the Palestinian Unity Government are calling for a widening of the conflict and appealing to the Lebanese Hezbollah group (also a terrorists) to unite with HAMAS (terrorists) in battling Israel; a violation of A/RES/2/110 - Measures to be taken against propaganda and the inciters of a new war; the planning, preparation, initiation or execution of an act of using armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State --- or “crime of aggression.”
> 
> Right now, the State of Palestine and its Unity Government, have been emboldened and encouraged by the International Criminal Court (ICC) opening an inquiry, paving the way for possible war crimes investigation against Israelis.  The actions of the ICC have opened a new avenue for the conflict - no longer preventing but actually widening the conflict to include the coordinated alliance between two designed terrorist organizations against a member nation.
> 
> This is what really is important.  The alliance of the Grand Mufti with the NAZI Regime 70 years ago is not _(interesting maybe - but not important today)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


All history of today is predicated on the history of the past.


----------



## theliq

MJB12741 said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741,  _et al,_
> 
> I don't think that this line of discussion will bare fruit or become productive in any meaningful way.
> 
> I'm sure that everyone recognizes the photo of Haj Mohammed Amin al-Husseini and Adolf Hitler (_alla_ November 1941 Summit); it is quite famous.  Most people associate this photo with the WWII Pact and the agreement to the independence of Arab Palestine and post-War plans for the elimination of the Jewish National Home _(assuming a Germany Victory against Allied Forces)_.
> 
> Haj Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, best known as The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and the first Chairman of Arab Palestinian permanent executive organ known as the Arab Higher Committee, was also the President of the All-Palestine Government.
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo Theliq, who is this friend of Hitler?
> 
> http://histclo.com/imagef/date/2011/12/mufti-ah41s.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is no question that the World War II Conflict was fresh in everyones mind in the post-War Period leading up to the Korean War era.  And that the NAZI associations were a huge negative to have associated with anything.  But that was more than seven decades ago.  Former enemies are now allies of great importance and economic concern.  The images of the Axis Powers a very distant memory.
> 
> What is important today, is that the Middle Eastern Nations reestablish the necessary framework and relations for the peace and security throughout the region.  As I see the news today, I see that elements within the Palestinian Unity Government are calling for a widening of the conflict and appealing to the Lebanese Hezbollah group (also a terrorists) to unite with HAMAS (terrorists) in battling Israel; a violation of A/RES/2/110 - Measures to be taken against propaganda and the inciters of a new war; the planning, preparation, initiation or execution of an act of using armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State --- or “crime of aggression.”
> 
> Right now, the State of Palestine and its Unity Government, have been emboldened and encouraged by the International Criminal Court (ICC) opening an inquiry, paving the way for possible war crimes investigation against Israelis.  The actions of the ICC have opened a new avenue for the conflict - no longer preventing but actually widening the conflict to include the coordinated alliance between two designed terrorist organizations against a member nation.
> 
> This is what really is important.  The alliance of the Grand Mufti with the NAZI Regime 70 years ago is not _(interesting maybe - but not important today)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All history of today is predicated on the history of the past.
Click to expand...

Wrong,where in history do you get the mentality and murderous dealings like the Zionists


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741,  _et al,_
> 
> I don't think that this line of discussion will bare fruit or become productive in any meaningful way.
> 
> I'm sure that everyone recognizes the photo of Haj Mohammed Amin al-Husseini and Adolf Hitler (_alla_ November 1941 Summit); it is quite famous.  Most people associate this photo with the WWII Pact and the agreement to the independence of Arab Palestine and post-War plans for the elimination of the Jewish National Home _(assuming a Germany Victory against Allied Forces)_.
> 
> Haj Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, best known as The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and the first Chairman of Arab Palestinian permanent executive organ known as the Arab Higher Committee, was also the President of the All-Palestine Government.
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo Theliq, who is this friend of Hitler?
> 
> http://histclo.com/imagef/date/2011/12/mufti-ah41s.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is no question that the World War II Conflict was fresh in everyones mind in the post-War Period leading up to the Korean War era.  And that the NAZI associations were a huge negative to have associated with anything.  But that was more than seven decades ago.  Former enemies are now allies of great importance and economic concern.  The images of the Axis Powers a very distant memory.
> 
> What is important today, is that the Middle Eastern Nations reestablish the necessary framework and relations for the peace and security throughout the region.  As I see the news today, I see that elements within the Palestinian Unity Government are calling for a widening of the conflict and appealing to the Lebanese Hezbollah group (also a terrorists) to unite with HAMAS (terrorists) in battling Israel; a violation of A/RES/2/110 - Measures to be taken against propaganda and the inciters of a new war; the planning, preparation, initiation or execution of an act of using armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State --- or “crime of aggression.”
> 
> Right now, the State of Palestine and its Unity Government, have been emboldened and encouraged by the International Criminal Court (ICC) opening an inquiry, paving the way for possible war crimes investigation against Israelis.  The actions of the ICC have opened a new avenue for the conflict - no longer preventing but actually widening the conflict to include the coordinated alliance between two designed terrorist organizations against a member nation.
> 
> This is what really is important.  The alliance of the Grand Mufti with the NAZI Regime 70 years ago is not _(interesting maybe - but not important today)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All history of today is predicated on the history of the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong,where in history do you get the mentality and murderous dealings like the Zionists
Click to expand...

From Muslims, nacherally.


----------



## theliq

MJB12741[/URL] said:


> Yo Theliq, who is this friend of Hitler?
> 
> [URL]http://histclo.com/imagef/date/2011/12/mufti-ah41s.jpg


[/URL]
[URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741']I have never been an admirer of hitler in anyway unlike you Zionist Terrorists.....people on here are Not anti-semitic they are ANTI-ZIONIST TERRORIST,that foreign established Terrorist Group who have managed to con decent Jews..........As these original instigaters of Terrorism,ARE the Zionists actually Jews at all ???These foreign European Jews have No direct lineage to the Shepardic Jews at all.......no direct link to Abraham or David.......just a motley crew of Terrorist who have unsuccessfully been able to shed their Wolf.....by trying to wear sheep's clothing,their mantra of trying to tell the awful lie that Zionism equates to Judeasim.........Even Jews detest Zionists......No it is not Anti-Semitism but Anti- Zionism
www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]']Zionism and the Third Reich                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             [/URL]
[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who was the legal land owner in 1914 when WW1 broke out, then who was the legal land owner in 1919 when WW1 ended. Were does it say that the Palestinians were the legal land owners at any time. The Zionists have been around since before the Diaspora, and two very famous historical figures spring to mind as Zionists  Jesus and Mohamed. The Balfour declaration entered in part into International law under the LoN treaties as did the passing of land title to the Jews once they had attained independence. The arab muslims were allocated 96% of the land as their homelands, but being greedy immoral and ignorant they demanded it all as commanded by their religion. No I wont stop calling muslims ISLAMONAZIS because that is what they are, it is from islam and its pact of Omar and dhimmi laws that the German Riech first got its ideas for branding Jews, homosexuals, mentally defectives and gypsies. It was from the pact of Omar and the dhimmi laws it got the idea of working the "untermensch" to death, much as the muslims do to the dhimmi and kuufar. It was from the muslims that it recruited many thousands of sadistic guards and soldiers that would strike fear into the enemy when the bloodlust was on them.   The Zionist tried to save as many Jews from Germany's clutches as it could, but could not raise the funds needed. Even the likes of Switzerland wanted large sums to allow the Jews passage through the country. It was the ISLAMONAZI contingents that sent millions of Jews to their deaths. Even the Palestinian leader at the time was all friendly with Hitler and asked him for more Jews to kill when he ran out.
> By supporting the Palestinians you support ISLAMONAZI TERRORISM and you defend their actions because you are brainwashed to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> Utter Garbage...and you know it,Palestinians have been in the process of gaining their independence from Yoke of Israel for 60 years+....these Islamists you call Islamonazis (garbage monika in the first place)ISIS have only been around for the past few years!!!!!!!so your summation is fraudulent to say the least.
> 
> As for calling Pro-Palestinian posters ISLAMONAZI is a corruption of your mind only(What mind I hear the folks say)Palestine is not ISIS,never have been,never will be.....the nearest thing in the last 100 years to ISISium is Zionism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly true as they have only been Palestinians since 1964 when Arafat told them they were, before that they were Syrians. They had the chance of freedom in 1948 and refused to take it up, preferring to go to war in the false idea that they would win. They were destroyed and the real reason for the invasion by Jordan was soon realised. The fact that their leader was one of Hitlers bed fellows shows that they were more akin to the NAZI's and FASCIST's than any other political ideology. The concept of both ideologies are firmly based on the practises of islam notably the dhimmi laws, pact of Omar and the totalitarian caliphate. If Palestine wanted independence they need only apply the terms of the UN charter and agree to abide by the many resolutions dictating negotiations on mutual borders and peace and they could be independent within a month. But with independence comes a high price, and just part of that price is border controls that are covered by International law. Along with paying for services provided and setting in place a means of supplying goods to the people. It also means they will have to give up terrorism, violence, belligerence and anti Israeli propaganda or face sanctions imposed by the UN.
> I call all muslims  that subscribe to the Koran and its teachings of death to the unbelievers ISLAMONAZIS because that is a Nazi concept. So until islam alters the way it teaches its followers the violence and terrorism it does then they will be ISLAMONAZI's, Just as the brainwashed muslims that deny there is a major problem with islam and its teachings will be called ISLAMONAZI BRAINWASHED STOOGES.  Don't like the reality then change the fundementals.
> As for ISLAMONAZI TERORISTS the only answer is a cluster bomb dropped on them and their remains left for the dogs to eat. They have no place even in an uncivilised country for the way they treat others, and those that travel from other countries to fight should face seeing their families rounded up and evicted as enemy undesireables.
> 
> 
> Calling pro Palestinians ISLAMONAZI BRAINWASHED STOOGES is a truth that you don't like, just as Wilders film Fitna was a truth that ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDISTS did not like being shown. The truth about islam can be found in the Koran and hadiths by anyone that has a mind to look and read them in their full and proper context. Many read the Koran as any other book and start at page one, when the trick is to get an abrogated copy so you can see the decent of the false prophets decline into greater mental instability. Then you see how his mental instability forged the violent islam we see today, how muslims are taught from an early age barbarity and  violence. How killing is a way of life and land theft a command from their moon god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said IDIOT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical ISLAMONAZI reply when the reality that is islam is shown as a self evident truth, resort to personal abuse. Keep it up and you will be reported with a request you be banned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you will....Hoss is a mate,I'm sure he will take my tease in the way it is given......LOL...anyhow,a normal bodily function a bit hard (excuse the pun) for you to take Fatty-Fatty.....Too bad........I have a great sense of humour(and for the rhythm track alone,it's worth a listen).............shame you carry Zionist Guiltiness like a chip on your shoulder......the post wasn't for you but for Hoss..........so stop being Nosey invading other folks posts but then you know all about invading,don't ya.
> 
> Keep it up and YOU will be BANNED for being a NOSEY B_T_H.......lol.
Click to expand...

You can keep repeating yourself on this ad nauseum, Steve, but anti-Zionism is the new way to be anti-Semitic while claiming that you aren't.  If the pro Pali posters here were not anti-Semitic, they wouldn't be obsessing about the Jews and Israel only but would also be concerned with what is happening to innocent people in the rest of the Middle East.  This is how readers can tell who is just anti-Israel and not plain anti-Semitic.  I don't think that the readers are stupid enough to believe that all you pro Palis really care about the Arabs.  Also, Steve, you are not running this forum.  Everyone can post on any thread they want to, even those in response to your posts regardless of you addressing them or not.  Phoenall has every right to post without you threatening to get him banned.


----------



## toastman

theliq said:


> MJB12741[/URL] said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo Theliq, who is this friend of Hitler?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741[/URL] said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://histclo.com/imagef/date/2011/12/mufti-ah41s.jpg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have never been an admirer of hitler in anyway unlike you Zionist Terrorists.....people on here are Not anti-semitic they are ANTI-ZIONIST TERRORIST,that foreign established Terrorist Group who have managed to con decent Jews..........As these original instigaters of Terrorism,ARE the Zionists actually Jews at all ???These foreign European Jews have No direct lineage to the Shepardic Jews at all.......no direct link to Abraham or David.......just a motley crew of Terrorist who have unsuccessfully been able to shed their Wolf.....by trying to wear sheep's clothing,their mantra of trying to tell the awful lie that Zionism equates to Judeasim.........Even Jews detest Zionists......No it is not Anti-Semitism but Anti- Zionism
> www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]']Zionism and the Third Reich                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             [/URL]
> [/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]
Click to expand...


"I have never been an admirer of hitler in anyway unlike you Zionist Terrorists"

What the hell is the matter with you ??


----------



## toastman

MJB12741 said:


> Yo Theliq, who is this friend of Hitler?
> 
> http://histclo.com/imagef/date/2011/12/mufti-ah41s.jpg


Who woulds thought they would end up having so much in common?


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Utter Garbage...and you know it,Palestinians have been in the process of gaining their independence from Yoke of Israel for 60 years+....these Islamists you call Islamonazis (garbage monika in the first place)ISIS have only been around for the past few years!!!!!!!so your summation is fraudulent to say the least.
> 
> As for calling Pro-Palestinian posters ISLAMONAZI is a corruption of your mind only(What mind I hear the folks say)Palestine is not ISIS,never have been,never will be.....the nearest thing in the last 100 years to ISISium is Zionism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly true as they have only been Palestinians since 1964 when Arafat told them they were, before that they were Syrians. They had the chance of freedom in 1948 and refused to take it up, preferring to go to war in the false idea that they would win. They were destroyed and the real reason for the invasion by Jordan was soon realised. The fact that their leader was one of Hitlers bed fellows shows that they were more akin to the NAZI's and FASCIST's than any other political ideology. The concept of both ideologies are firmly based on the practises of islam notably the dhimmi laws, pact of Omar and the totalitarian caliphate. If Palestine wanted independence they need only apply the terms of the UN charter and agree to abide by the many resolutions dictating negotiations on mutual borders and peace and they could be independent within a month. But with independence comes a high price, and just part of that price is border controls that are covered by International law. Along with paying for services provided and setting in place a means of supplying goods to the people. It also means they will have to give up terrorism, violence, belligerence and anti Israeli propaganda or face sanctions imposed by the UN.
> I call all muslims  that subscribe to the Koran and its teachings of death to the unbelievers ISLAMONAZIS because that is a Nazi concept. So until islam alters the way it teaches its followers the violence and terrorism it does then they will be ISLAMONAZI's, Just as the brainwashed muslims that deny there is a major problem with islam and its teachings will be called ISLAMONAZI BRAINWASHED STOOGES.  Don't like the reality then change the fundementals.
> As for ISLAMONAZI TERORISTS the only answer is a cluster bomb dropped on them and their remains left for the dogs to eat. They have no place even in an uncivilised country for the way they treat others, and those that travel from other countries to fight should face seeing their families rounded up and evicted as enemy undesireables.
> 
> 
> Calling pro Palestinians ISLAMONAZI BRAINWASHED STOOGES is a truth that you don't like, just as Wilders film Fitna was a truth that ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDISTS did not like being shown. The truth about islam can be found in the Koran and hadiths by anyone that has a mind to look and read them in their full and proper context. Many read the Koran as any other book and start at page one, when the trick is to get an abrogated copy so you can see the decent of the false prophets decline into greater mental instability. Then you see how his mental instability forged the violent islam we see today, how muslims are taught from an early age barbarity and  violence. How killing is a way of life and land theft a command from their moon god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said IDIOT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical ISLAMONAZI reply when the reality that is islam is shown as a self evident truth, resort to personal abuse. Keep it up and you will be reported with a request you be banned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you will....Hoss is a mate,I'm sure he will take my tease in the way it is given......LOL...anyhow,a normal bodily function a bit hard (excuse the pun) for you to take Fatty-Fatty.....Too bad........I have a great sense of humour(and for the rhythm track alone,it's worth a listen).............shame you carry Zionist Guiltiness like a chip on your shoulder......the post wasn't for you but for Hoss..........so stop being Nosey invading other folks posts but then you know all about invading,don't ya.
> 
> Keep it up and YOU will be BANNED for being a NOSEY B_T_H.......lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can keep repeating yourself on this ad nauseum, Steve, but anti-Zionism is the new way to be anti-Semitic while claiming that you aren't.  If the pro Pali posters here were not anti-Semitic, they wouldn't be obsessing about the Jews and Israel only but would also be concerned with what is happening to innocent people in the rest of the Middle East.  This is how readers can tell who is just anti-Israel and not plain anti-Semitic.  I don't think that the readers are stupid enough to believe that all you pro Palis really care about the Arabs.  Also, Steve, you are not running this forum.  Everyone can post on any thread they want to, even those in response to your posts regardless of you addressing them or not.  Phoenall has every right to post without you threatening to get him banned.
Click to expand...

O shit Hoss, I thought Phoney was a Femme........so the JOKE IS ON ME..LOL....................NO ANTI-ZIONISM........is NOT ANTI-SEMITISM ,treat me with a bit of Savvy......not some Clod........only Zionist Terrorists say SHIT LIKE THAT because they are the GUILTY...the Murderers and Userpers...SAY NO TO VILE ZIONISM........but say YES FOR JEWS AND PALESTINIANS...the true Simetic people


----------



## theliq

toastman said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo Theliq, who is this friend of Hitler?
> 
> http://histclo.com/imagef/date/2011/12/mufti-ah41s.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> Who woulds thought they would end up having so much in common?
Click to expand...

Your Grammar is appaulling today Toastie


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Utter Garbage...and you know it,Palestinians have been in the process of gaining their independence from Yoke of Israel for 60 years+....these Islamists you call Islamonazis (garbage monika in the first place)ISIS have only been around for the past few years!!!!!!!so your summation is fraudulent to say the least.
> 
> As for calling Pro-Palestinian posters ISLAMONAZI is a corruption of your mind only(What mind I hear the folks say)Palestine is not ISIS,never have been,never will be.....the nearest thing in the last 100 years to ISISium is Zionism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly true as they have only been Palestinians since 1964 when Arafat told them they were, before that they were Syrians. They had the chance of freedom in 1948 and refused to take it up, preferring to go to war in the false idea that they would win. They were destroyed and the real reason for the invasion by Jordan was soon realised. The fact that their leader was one of Hitlers bed fellows shows that they were more akin to the NAZI's and FASCIST's than any other political ideology. The concept of both ideologies are firmly based on the practises of islam notably the dhimmi laws, pact of Omar and the totalitarian caliphate. If Palestine wanted independence they need only apply the terms of the UN charter and agree to abide by the many resolutions dictating negotiations on mutual borders and peace and they could be independent within a month. But with independence comes a high price, and just part of that price is border controls that are covered by International law. Along with paying for services provided and setting in place a means of supplying goods to the people. It also means they will have to give up terrorism, violence, belligerence and anti Israeli propaganda or face sanctions imposed by the UN.
> I call all muslims  that subscribe to the Koran and its teachings of death to the unbelievers ISLAMONAZIS because that is a Nazi concept. So until islam alters the way it teaches its followers the violence and terrorism it does then they will be ISLAMONAZI's, Just as the brainwashed muslims that deny there is a major problem with islam and its teachings will be called ISLAMONAZI BRAINWASHED STOOGES.  Don't like the reality then change the fundementals.
> As for ISLAMONAZI TERORISTS the only answer is a cluster bomb dropped on them and their remains left for the dogs to eat. They have no place even in an uncivilised country for the way they treat others, and those that travel from other countries to fight should face seeing their families rounded up and evicted as enemy undesireables.
> 
> 
> Calling pro Palestinians ISLAMONAZI BRAINWASHED STOOGES is a truth that you don't like, just as Wilders film Fitna was a truth that ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDISTS did not like being shown. The truth about islam can be found in the Koran and hadiths by anyone that has a mind to look and read them in their full and proper context. Many read the Koran as any other book and start at page one, when the trick is to get an abrogated copy so you can see the decent of the false prophets decline into greater mental instability. Then you see how his mental instability forged the violent islam we see today, how muslims are taught from an early age barbarity and  violence. How killing is a way of life and land theft a command from their moon god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said IDIOT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical ISLAMONAZI reply when the reality that is islam is shown as a self evident truth, resort to personal abuse. Keep it up and you will be reported with a request you be banned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you will....Hoss is a mate,I'm sure he will take my tease in the way it is given......LOL...anyhow,a normal bodily function a bit hard (excuse the pun) for you to take Fatty-Fatty.....Too bad........I have a great sense of humour(and for the rhythm track alone,it's worth a listen).............shame you carry Zionist Guiltiness like a chip on your shoulder......the post wasn't for you but for Hoss..........so stop being Nosey invading other folks posts but then you know all about invading,don't ya.
> 
> Keep it up and YOU will be BANNED for being a NOSEY B_T_H.......lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can keep repeating yourself on this ad nauseum, Steve, but anti-Zionism is the new way to be anti-Semitic while claiming that you aren't.  If the pro Pali posters here were not anti-Semitic, they wouldn't be obsessing about the Jews and Israel only but would also be concerned with what is happening to innocent people in the rest of the Middle East.  This is how readers can tell who is just anti-Israel and not plain anti-Semitic.  I don't think that the readers are stupid enough to believe that all you pro Palis really care about the Arabs.  Also, Steve, you are not running this forum.  Everyone can post on any thread they want to, even those in response to your posts regardless of you addressing them or not.  Phoenall has every right to post without you threatening to get him banned.
Click to expand...

I am disgusted with some of the Arab world Hoss but that and my opinions are for another thread..steve


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Utter Garbage...and you know it,Palestinians have been in the process of gaining their independence from Yoke of Israel for 60 years+....these Islamists you call Islamonazis (garbage monika in the first place)ISIS have only been around for the past few years!!!!!!!so your summation is fraudulent to say the least.
> 
> As for calling Pro-Palestinian posters ISLAMONAZI is a corruption of your mind only(What mind I hear the folks say)Palestine is not ISIS,never have been,never will be.....the nearest thing in the last 100 years to ISISium is Zionism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly true as they have only been Palestinians since 1964 when Arafat told them they were, before that they were Syrians. They had the chance of freedom in 1948 and refused to take it up, preferring to go to war in the false idea that they would win. They were destroyed and the real reason for the invasion by Jordan was soon realised. The fact that their leader was one of Hitlers bed fellows shows that they were more akin to the NAZI's and FASCIST's than any other political ideology. The concept of both ideologies are firmly based on the practises of islam notably the dhimmi laws, pact of Omar and the totalitarian caliphate. If Palestine wanted independence they need only apply the terms of the UN charter and agree to abide by the many resolutions dictating negotiations on mutual borders and peace and they could be independent within a month. But with independence comes a high price, and just part of that price is border controls that are covered by International law. Along with paying for services provided and setting in place a means of supplying goods to the people. It also means they will have to give up terrorism, violence, belligerence and anti Israeli propaganda or face sanctions imposed by the UN.
> I call all muslims  that subscribe to the Koran and its teachings of death to the unbelievers ISLAMONAZIS because that is a Nazi concept. So until islam alters the way it teaches its followers the violence and terrorism it does then they will be ISLAMONAZI's, Just as the brainwashed muslims that deny there is a major problem with islam and its teachings will be called ISLAMONAZI BRAINWASHED STOOGES.  Don't like the reality then change the fundementals.
> As for ISLAMONAZI TERORISTS the only answer is a cluster bomb dropped on them and their remains left for the dogs to eat. They have no place even in an uncivilised country for the way they treat others, and those that travel from other countries to fight should face seeing their families rounded up and evicted as enemy undesireables.
> 
> 
> Calling pro Palestinians ISLAMONAZI BRAINWASHED STOOGES is a truth that you don't like, just as Wilders film Fitna was a truth that ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDISTS did not like being shown. The truth about islam can be found in the Koran and hadiths by anyone that has a mind to look and read them in their full and proper context. Many read the Koran as any other book and start at page one, when the trick is to get an abrogated copy so you can see the decent of the false prophets decline into greater mental instability. Then you see how his mental instability forged the violent islam we see today, how muslims are taught from an early age barbarity and  violence. How killing is a way of life and land theft a command from their moon god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said IDIOT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical ISLAMONAZI reply when the reality that is islam is shown as a self evident truth, resort to personal abuse. Keep it up and you will be reported with a request you be banned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you will....Hoss is a mate,I'm sure he will take my tease in the way it is given......LOL...anyhow,a normal bodily function a bit hard (excuse the pun) for you to take Fatty-Fatty.....Too bad........I have a great sense of humour(and for the rhythm track alone,it's worth a listen).............shame you carry Zionist Guiltiness like a chip on your shoulder......the post wasn't for you but for Hoss..........so stop being Nosey invading other folks posts but then you know all about invading,don't ya.
> 
> Keep it up and YOU will be BANNED for being a NOSEY B_T_H.......lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can keep repeating yourself on this ad nauseum, Steve, but anti-Zionism is the new way to be anti-Semitic while claiming that you aren't.  If the pro Pali posters here were not anti-Semitic, they wouldn't be obsessing about the Jews and Israel only but would also be concerned with what is happening to innocent people in the rest of the Middle East.  This is how readers can tell who is just anti-Israel and not plain anti-Semitic.  I don't think that the readers are stupid enough to believe that all you pro Palis really care about the Arabs.  Also, Steve, you are not running this forum.  Everyone can post on any thread they want to, even those in response to your posts regardless of you addressing them or not.  Phoenall has every right to post without you threatening to get him banned.
Click to expand...

Gee that's a bit rich Hoss...considering it was he(not she) was the first to threaten me with expulsion........you need glasses.


Time for you and I to have a few beers......what's your fancy then......with a good steak of course...steve


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741,  _et al,_
> 
> I don't think that this line of discussion will bare fruit or become productive in any meaningful way.
> 
> I'm sure that everyone recognizes the photo of Haj Mohammed Amin al-Husseini and Adolf Hitler (_alla_ November 1941 Summit); it is quite famous.  Most people associate this photo with the WWII Pact and the agreement to the independence of Arab Palestine and post-War plans for the elimination of the Jewish National Home _(assuming a Germany Victory against Allied Forces)_.
> 
> Haj Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, best known as The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and the first Chairman of Arab Palestinian permanent executive organ known as the Arab Higher Committee, was also the President of the All-Palestine Government.
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo Theliq, who is this friend of Hitler?
> 
> http://histclo.com/imagef/date/2011/12/mufti-ah41s.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is no question that the World War II Conflict was fresh in everyones mind in the post-War Period leading up to the Korean War era.  And that the NAZI associations were a huge negative to have associated with anything.  But that was more than seven decades ago.  Former enemies are now allies of great importance and economic concern.  The images of the Axis Powers a very distant memory.
> 
> What is important today, is that the Middle Eastern Nations reestablish the necessary framework and relations for the peace and security throughout the region.  As I see the news today, I see that elements within the Palestinian Unity Government are calling for a widening of the conflict and appealing to the Lebanese Hezbollah group (also a terrorists) to unite with HAMAS (terrorists) in battling Israel; a violation of A/RES/2/110 - Measures to be taken against propaganda and the inciters of a new war; the planning, preparation, initiation or execution of an act of using armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State --- or “crime of aggression.”
> 
> Right now, the State of Palestine and its Unity Government, have been emboldened and encouraged by the International Criminal Court (ICC) opening an inquiry, paving the way for possible war crimes investigation against Israelis.  The actions of the ICC have opened a new avenue for the conflict - no longer preventing but actually widening the conflict to include the coordinated alliance between two designed terrorist organizations against a member nation.
> 
> This is what really is important.  The alliance of the Grand Mufti with the NAZI Regime 70 years ago is not _(interesting maybe - but not important today)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All history of today is predicated on the history of the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong,where in history do you get the mentality and murderous dealings like the Zionists
Click to expand...





 Lets see if you will answer this question.    What do you mean when you spew out the term Zionist, and were did you get your information from ?


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> MJB12741[/URL] said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo Theliq, who is this friend of Hitler?
> 
> [URL]http://histclo.com/imagef/date/2011/12/mufti-ah41s.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL]
> [URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741']I have never been an admirer of hitler in anyway unlike you Zionist Terrorists.....people on here are Not anti-semitic they are ANTI-ZIONIST TERRORIST,that foreign established Terrorist Group who have managed to con decent Jews..........As these original instigaters of Terrorism,ARE the Zionists actually Jews at all ???These foreign European Jews have No direct lineage to the Shepardic Jews at all.......no direct link to Abraham or David.......just a motley crew of Terrorist who have unsuccessfully been able to shed their Wolf.....by trying to wear sheep's clothing,their mantra of trying to tell the awful lie that Zionism equates to Judeasim.........Even Jews detest Zionists......No it is not Anti-Semitism but Anti- Zionism
> [URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741']       [URL='http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html']www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]']Zionism and the Third Reich                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             [/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]
> [URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]
Click to expand...





 Every Jew ever born in the last 1200 years has been a Zionist in the truest sense of the term. Now tell the board what you mean by Zionist and were you got your information from ?[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]


----------



## Phoenall

toastman said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741[/URL] said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo Theliq, who is this friend of Hitler?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741[/URL] said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://histclo.com/imagef/date/2011/12/mufti-ah41s.jpg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have never been an admirer of hitler in anyway unlike you Zionist Terrorists.....people on here are Not anti-semitic they are ANTI-ZIONIST TERRORIST,that foreign established Terrorist Group who have managed to con decent Jews..........As these original instigaters of Terrorism,ARE the Zionists actually Jews at all ???These foreign European Jews have No direct lineage to the Shepardic Jews at all.......no direct link to Abraham or David.......just a motley crew of Terrorist who have unsuccessfully been able to shed their Wolf.....by trying to wear sheep's clothing,their mantra of trying to tell the awful lie that Zionism equates to Judeasim.........Even Jews detest Zionists......No it is not Anti-Semitism but Anti- Zionism
> www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]']Zionism and the Third Reich                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             [/URL]
> [/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I have never been an admirer of hitler in anyway unlike you Zionist Terrorists"
> 
> What the hell is the matter with you ??
Click to expand...





 Just ISLAMONAZI MENTALLITY


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly true as they have only been Palestinians since 1964 when Arafat told them they were, before that they were Syrians. They had the chance of freedom in 1948 and refused to take it up, preferring to go to war in the false idea that they would win. They were destroyed and the real reason for the invasion by Jordan was soon realised. The fact that their leader was one of Hitlers bed fellows shows that they were more akin to the NAZI's and FASCIST's than any other political ideology. The concept of both ideologies are firmly based on the practises of islam notably the dhimmi laws, pact of Omar and the totalitarian caliphate. If Palestine wanted independence they need only apply the terms of the UN charter and agree to abide by the many resolutions dictating negotiations on mutual borders and peace and they could be independent within a month. But with independence comes a high price, and just part of that price is border controls that are covered by International law. Along with paying for services provided and setting in place a means of supplying goods to the people. It also means they will have to give up terrorism, violence, belligerence and anti Israeli propaganda or face sanctions imposed by the UN.
> I call all muslims  that subscribe to the Koran and its teachings of death to the unbelievers ISLAMONAZIS because that is a Nazi concept. So until islam alters the way it teaches its followers the violence and terrorism it does then they will be ISLAMONAZI's, Just as the brainwashed muslims that deny there is a major problem with islam and its teachings will be called ISLAMONAZI BRAINWASHED STOOGES.  Don't like the reality then change the fundementals.
> As for ISLAMONAZI TERORISTS the only answer is a cluster bomb dropped on them and their remains left for the dogs to eat. They have no place even in an uncivilised country for the way they treat others, and those that travel from other countries to fight should face seeing their families rounded up and evicted as enemy undesireables.
> 
> 
> Calling pro Palestinians ISLAMONAZI BRAINWASHED STOOGES is a truth that you don't like, just as Wilders film Fitna was a truth that ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDISTS did not like being shown. The truth about islam can be found in the Koran and hadiths by anyone that has a mind to look and read them in their full and proper context. Many read the Koran as any other book and start at page one, when the trick is to get an abrogated copy so you can see the decent of the false prophets decline into greater mental instability. Then you see how his mental instability forged the violent islam we see today, how muslims are taught from an early age barbarity and  violence. How killing is a way of life and land theft a command from their moon god.
> 
> 
> 
> As I said IDIOT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical ISLAMONAZI reply when the reality that is islam is shown as a self evident truth, resort to personal abuse. Keep it up and you will be reported with a request you be banned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you will....Hoss is a mate,I'm sure he will take my tease in the way it is given......LOL...anyhow,a normal bodily function a bit hard (excuse the pun) for you to take Fatty-Fatty.....Too bad........I have a great sense of humour(and for the rhythm track alone,it's worth a listen).............shame you carry Zionist Guiltiness like a chip on your shoulder......the post wasn't for you but for Hoss..........so stop being Nosey invading other folks posts but then you know all about invading,don't ya.
> 
> Keep it up and YOU will be BANNED for being a NOSEY B_T_H.......lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can keep repeating yourself on this ad nauseum, Steve, but anti-Zionism is the new way to be anti-Semitic while claiming that you aren't.  If the pro Pali posters here were not anti-Semitic, they wouldn't be obsessing about the Jews and Israel only but would also be concerned with what is happening to innocent people in the rest of the Middle East.  This is how readers can tell who is just anti-Israel and not plain anti-Semitic.  I don't think that the readers are stupid enough to believe that all you pro Palis really care about the Arabs.  Also, Steve, you are not running this forum.  Everyone can post on any thread they want to, even those in response to your posts regardless of you addressing them or not.  Phoenall has every right to post without you threatening to get him banned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am disgusted with some of the Arab world Hoss but that and my opinions are for another thread..steve
Click to expand...






 Typical ISLAMONAZI response always after the event, or when painted into a corner.


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly true as they have only been Palestinians since 1964 when Arafat told them they were, before that they were Syrians. They had the chance of freedom in 1948 and refused to take it up, preferring to go to war in the false idea that they would win. They were destroyed and the real reason for the invasion by Jordan was soon realised. The fact that their leader was one of Hitlers bed fellows shows that they were more akin to the NAZI's and FASCIST's than any other political ideology. The concept of both ideologies are firmly based on the practises of islam notably the dhimmi laws, pact of Omar and the totalitarian caliphate. If Palestine wanted independence they need only apply the terms of the UN charter and agree to abide by the many resolutions dictating negotiations on mutual borders and peace and they could be independent within a month. But with independence comes a high price, and just part of that price is border controls that are covered by International law. Along with paying for services provided and setting in place a means of supplying goods to the people. It also means they will have to give up terrorism, violence, belligerence and anti Israeli propaganda or face sanctions imposed by the UN.
> I call all muslims  that subscribe to the Koran and its teachings of death to the unbelievers ISLAMONAZIS because that is a Nazi concept. So until islam alters the way it teaches its followers the violence and terrorism it does then they will be ISLAMONAZI's, Just as the brainwashed muslims that deny there is a major problem with islam and its teachings will be called ISLAMONAZI BRAINWASHED STOOGES.  Don't like the reality then change the fundementals.
> As for ISLAMONAZI TERORISTS the only answer is a cluster bomb dropped on them and their remains left for the dogs to eat. They have no place even in an uncivilised country for the way they treat others, and those that travel from other countries to fight should face seeing their families rounded up and evicted as enemy undesireables.
> 
> 
> Calling pro Palestinians ISLAMONAZI BRAINWASHED STOOGES is a truth that you don't like, just as Wilders film Fitna was a truth that ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDISTS did not like being shown. The truth about islam can be found in the Koran and hadiths by anyone that has a mind to look and read them in their full and proper context. Many read the Koran as any other book and start at page one, when the trick is to get an abrogated copy so you can see the decent of the false prophets decline into greater mental instability. Then you see how his mental instability forged the violent islam we see today, how muslims are taught from an early age barbarity and  violence. How killing is a way of life and land theft a command from their moon god.
> 
> 
> 
> As I said IDIOT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical ISLAMONAZI reply when the reality that is islam is shown as a self evident truth, resort to personal abuse. Keep it up and you will be reported with a request you be banned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you will....Hoss is a mate,I'm sure he will take my tease in the way it is given......LOL...anyhow,a normal bodily function a bit hard (excuse the pun) for you to take Fatty-Fatty.....Too bad........I have a great sense of humour(and for the rhythm track alone,it's worth a listen).............shame you carry Zionist Guiltiness like a chip on your shoulder......the post wasn't for you but for Hoss..........so stop being Nosey invading other folks posts but then you know all about invading,don't ya.
> 
> Keep it up and YOU will be BANNED for being a NOSEY B_T_H.......lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can keep repeating yourself on this ad nauseum, Steve, but anti-Zionism is the new way to be anti-Semitic while claiming that you aren't.  If the pro Pali posters here were not anti-Semitic, they wouldn't be obsessing about the Jews and Israel only but would also be concerned with what is happening to innocent people in the rest of the Middle East.  This is how readers can tell who is just anti-Israel and not plain anti-Semitic.  I don't think that the readers are stupid enough to believe that all you pro Palis really care about the Arabs.  Also, Steve, you are not running this forum.  Everyone can post on any thread they want to, even those in response to your posts regardless of you addressing them or not.  Phoenall has every right to post without you threatening to get him banned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee that's a bit rich Hoss...considering it was he(not she) was the first to threaten me with expulsion........you need glasses.
> 
> 
> Time for you and I to have a few beers......what's your fancy then......with a good steak of course...steve
Click to expand...





 Because you were in breach of the rules on here, and decided to make personal remarks.   Fed by trolls makes you a troll as well, and trolls get their just deserts now.


----------



## MJB12741

theliq said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741,  _et al,_
> 
> I don't think that this line of discussion will bare fruit or become productive in any meaningful way.
> 
> I'm sure that everyone recognizes the photo of Haj Mohammed Amin al-Husseini and Adolf Hitler (_alla_ November 1941 Summit); it is quite famous.  Most people associate this photo with the WWII Pact and the agreement to the independence of Arab Palestine and post-War plans for the elimination of the Jewish National Home _(assuming a Germany Victory against Allied Forces)_.
> 
> Haj Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, best known as The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and the first Chairman of Arab Palestinian permanent executive organ known as the Arab Higher Committee, was also the President of the All-Palestine Government.
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo Theliq, who is this friend of Hitler?
> 
> http://histclo.com/imagef/date/2011/12/mufti-ah41s.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is no question that the World War II Conflict was fresh in everyones mind in the post-War Period leading up to the Korean War era.  And that the NAZI associations were a huge negative to have associated with anything.  But that was more than seven decades ago.  Former enemies are now allies of great importance and economic concern.  The images of the Axis Powers a very distant memory.
> 
> What is important today, is that the Middle Eastern Nations reestablish the necessary framework and relations for the peace and security throughout the region.  As I see the news today, I see that elements within the Palestinian Unity Government are calling for a widening of the conflict and appealing to the Lebanese Hezbollah group (also a terrorists) to unite with HAMAS (terrorists) in battling Israel; a violation of A/RES/2/110 - Measures to be taken against propaganda and the inciters of a new war; the planning, preparation, initiation or execution of an act of using armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State --- or “crime of aggression.”
> 
> Right now, the State of Palestine and its Unity Government, have been emboldened and encouraged by the International Criminal Court (ICC) opening an inquiry, paving the way for possible war crimes investigation against Israelis.  The actions of the ICC have opened a new avenue for the conflict - no longer preventing but actually widening the conflict to include the coordinated alliance between two designed terrorist organizations against a member nation.
> 
> This is what really is important.  The alliance of the Grand Mufti with the NAZI Regime 70 years ago is not _(interesting maybe - but not important today)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All history of today is predicated on the history of the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong,where in history do you get the mentality and murderous dealings like the Zionists
Click to expand...


So tell us, what non murderous Arab country ever treated Palestinians with the mentality of peace offerings, a security fence & land concessions to allow the Palestinians to remain in their land?  Want peace?  This entire damn Zionist agenda has to go.


----------



## toastman

theliq said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo Theliq, who is this friend of Hitler?
> 
> http://histclo.com/imagef/date/2011/12/mufti-ah41s.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> Who woulds thought they would end up having so much in common?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your Grammar is appaulling today Toastie
Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing out my typo moron


----------



## MJB12741

All these replies & we're still trying to define who are the Palestinians?  Anything we can all agree on as to this question?


----------



## RoccoR

theliq,  _et al,_

I noticed your source for the quoted information is from:  "The *Institute for Historical Review* (*IHR*) is an antiSemitic organization:

"Founded in 1978 by Willis Carto, a longtime anti-Semite, the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) is a pseudo-academic organization that claims to seek "truth and accuracy in history," but whose real purpose is to promote Holocaust denial and defend Nazism. Once a prominent voice in extremist circles, the IHR has been on the decline, unable to publish its anti-Semitic _Journal of Historical Review_ or sponsor major international Holocaust denial conferences since 2004. The organization still runs its website, where it peddles extremist books and other materials, and hosts some minor extremist gatherings."
_*SOURCEs:*_

Combined Education Source Page --- Princeton Univ
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Southern Poverty Law Center 



theliq said:


> MJB12741[/URL] said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo Theliq, who is this friend of Hitler?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741[/URL] said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://histclo.com/imagef/date/2011/12/mufti-ah41s.jpg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have never been an admirer of hitler in anyway unlike you Zionist Terrorists.....people on here are Not anti-semitic they are ANTI-ZIONIST TERRORIST,that foreign established Terrorist Group who have managed to con decent Jews..........As these original instigaters of Terrorism,ARE the Zionists actually Jews at all ???These foreign European Jews have No direct lineage to the Shepardic Jews at all.......no direct link to Abraham or David.......just a motley crew of Terrorist who have unsuccessfully been able to shed their Wolf.....by trying to wear sheep's clothing,their mantra of trying to tell the awful lie that Zionism equates to Judeasim.........Even Jews detest Zionists......No it is not Anti-Semitism but Anti- Zionism
> www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]']Zionism and the Third Reich                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             [/URL]
> [/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)
*
Couple Points:

I'm not sure that anyone one, involved in this Discussion Group, is an "admirer" of Hitler.  

Zionism defines the philosophy behind the development of a Jewish National Home (JNH) _(as opposed to Judaism which describes the Jewish faith)_.  The fundamental concept behind the JNH was embedded by the international community within the theme outlined in the 1947 Partition Plan --- the establishment of the Jewish State.   Most proPalestinians hide their antisemitism behind the camouflage of antiZionism.   Certainly there are common accusations:

There is the common claim of racism; wherein the proPalestinian attempts to make a connection with "apartheid."
There is the constant allegations of murderous war crimes; wherein the proPalestinian attempts to instigate a provocative event then blame the outcome of conflict on the Israelis.
There is the common claim for the entire territory formerly under mandate and the absence of any legitimate claim by the Israeli.
There is the proPalestinian cry and disdain for Jewish human rights and self-determination.
There is the proPalestinian attempts to destroy Israeli national identity.
The essence of the Palestinian struggle is portraying themselves as long standing victims of their own historical making; attempting to roll back the timeline to an era prior to World War I.  They are constantly making an issue out of their "inalienable" rights as if something should have been handed to them on a silver platter; as opposed to them working towards the development of their own national heritage.  When we ask the question:  Who are the Palestinians?  What we see are a people that never opted to build a positive construct for their culture to develop in any positive way --- always requiring a handout and always in turmoil. 

In the present, one only needs to examine what positive and constructive steps they are taking today --- to understand the direction the Palestinian has taken over time; politically, economically, and culturally, to fathom where they have been for the last century.  Zero real development; as oppose to every cultural segment around them.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

MJB12741,  _et al,_

Each nation had a population that "worked" for the culture they have today.  That includes the regional nations of the Middle East.



MJB12741 said:


> So tell us, what non murderous Arab country ever treated Palestinians with the mentality of peace offerings, a security fence & land concessions to allow the Palestinians to remain in their land?  Want peace?  This entire damn Zionist agenda has to go.



*(COMMENT)*

What in the Zionist agenda "has to go?"  What are the official tenants of "Zionism" today?  (Not yesteryear!)

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MJB12741

RoccoR said:


> MJB12741,  _et al,_
> 
> Each nation had a population that "worked" for the culture they have today.  That includes the regional nations of the Middle East.
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us, what non murderous Arab country ever treated Palestinians with the mentality of peace offerings, a security fence & land concessions to allow the Palestinians to remain in their land?  Want peace?  This entire damn Zionist agenda has to go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What in the Zionist agenda "has to go?"  What are the official tenants of "Zionism" today?  (Not yesteryear!)
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...



Today's Zionist agenda of peace offerings a security fence & land concessions so Palestinians can remain in Israel to kill more Israeli's is disgusting.  It is they who are mostly responsible for this ongoing conflict.  Jordan's Black September sure knew how to achieve a lasting peace from Pallestinians.  And has ANYONE EVER heard a single complaint about it from Palestinians or their supporters?  When will those Zionists in Israel ever learn?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> theliq,  _et al,_
> 
> I noticed your source for the quoted information is from:  "The *Institute for Historical Review* (*IHR*) is an antiSemitic organization:
> 
> "Founded in 1978 by Willis Carto, a longtime anti-Semite, the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) is a pseudo-academic organization that claims to seek "truth and accuracy in history," but whose real purpose is to promote Holocaust denial and defend Nazism. Once a prominent voice in extremist circles, the IHR has been on the decline, unable to publish its anti-Semitic _Journal of Historical Review_ or sponsor major international Holocaust denial conferences since 2004. The organization still runs its website, where it peddles extremist books and other materials, and hosts some minor extremist gatherings."
> _*SOURCEs:*_
> 
> Combined Education Source Page --- Princeton Univ
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> The Southern Poverty Law Center
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741[/URL] said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo Theliq, who is this friend of Hitler?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741[/URL] said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://histclo.com/imagef/date/2011/12/mufti-ah41s.jpg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have never been an admirer of hitler in anyway unlike you Zionist Terrorists.....people on here are Not anti-semitic they are ANTI-ZIONIST TERRORIST,that foreign established Terrorist Group who have managed to con decent Jews..........As these original instigaters of Terrorism,ARE the Zionists actually Jews at all ???These foreign European Jews have No direct lineage to the Shepardic Jews at all.......no direct link to Abraham or David.......just a motley crew of Terrorist who have unsuccessfully been able to shed their Wolf.....by trying to wear sheep's clothing,their mantra of trying to tell the awful lie that Zionism equates to Judeasim.........Even Jews detest Zionists......No it is not Anti-Semitism but Anti- Zionism
> www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]']Zionism and the Third Reich                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             [/URL]
> [/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)
> *
> Couple Points:
> 
> I'm not sure that anyone one, involved in this Discussion Group, is an "admirer" of Hitler.
> 
> Zionism defines the philosophy behind the development of a Jewish National Home (JNH) _(as opposed to Judaism which describes the Jewish faith)_.  The fundamental concept behind the JNH was embedded by the international community within the theme outlined in the 1947 Partition Plan --- the establishment of the Jewish State.   Most proPalestinians hide their antisemitism behind the camouflage of antiZionism.   Certainly there are common accusations:
> 
> There is the common claim of racism; wherein the proPalestinian attempts to make a connection with "apartheid."
> There is the constant allegations of murderous war crimes; wherein the proPalestinian attempts to instigate a provocative event then blame the outcome of conflict on the Israelis.
> There is the common claim for the entire territory formerly under mandate and the absence of any legitimate claim by the Israeli.
> There is the proPalestinian cry and disdain for Jewish human rights and self-determination.
> There is the proPalestinian attempts to destroy Israeli national identity.
> The essence of the Palestinian struggle is portraying themselves as long standing victims of their own historical making; attempting to roll back the timeline to an era prior to World War I.  They are constantly making an issue out of their "inalienable" rights as if something should have been handed to them on a silver platter; as opposed to them working towards the development of their own national heritage.  When we ask the question:  Who are the Palestinians?  What we see are a people that never opted to build a positive construct for their culture to develop in any positive way --- always requiring a handout and always in turmoil.
> 
> In the present, one only needs to examine what positive and constructive steps they are taking today --- to understand the direction the Palestinian has taken over time; politically, economically, and culturally, to fathom where they have been for the last century.  Zero real development; as oppose to every cultural segment around them.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Nice post of Israel's talking points.

Good boy.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Somehow --- I don't believe you meant that in a complementary fashion.



P F Tinmore said:


> Nice post of Israel's talking points.
> 
> Good boy.


*(COMMENT --- The Context)*

It is an alternative view that must be understood in its given context; with the opposite intention or designed --- likely to provoke or encourage in a threat to the peace, or promote an act of aggression.  Clearly different than the policy of the Unity Government _(or HAMAS specifically)_ to further hostilities. 

The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) element often focuses on the Oslo Area "C" settlements describing them as a "colonial entity" and attempts to imply the supposedly virtuous US imperial project are false assumptions and lies. 
The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) prefers to refers to the occupation as "Palestine" _[(“from the river to the sea”) or (simply referring to "the 67 year occupation")]_. 
The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) defends the right of the Palestinian people to self-defense and resistance, including armed resistance --- in regards to the Palestine _(from the river to the sea) and the occupied territory (all the territory formerly under mandate and occupied for 67 years)_.  They present that view with the implication that the attacks on Israeli sovereignty are really domestic attacks on Palestinian Territory.
The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) implies that HAMAS is the largest of the resistance groups in the greater occupied Palestine with the full support of the Palestinian people.
The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) want to shift the offensive from a more contained “Israeli-Palestinian conflict” --- to --- an "Arab _(greater) _- Zionist _(smaller)_ conflict."  They want to expand the conflict such that it is "all Arabs" against "subset of Jews."
The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) rejects all “peace process” or “political solutions.” The HoAP trivialize the dispute resolution process by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice --- to that of --- riddle, or puzzles.  They suggest games requires a “solution,” but "colonization and occupation" requires "decolonization and liberation."  This is an offshoot in the denial of the Partition Plan and the idea that the Jews represent a foreign invaders.
The HoAP do not just suggest that it is not enough to condemn Israeli and the US for war crimes; but that there is accountability by arrest and trial of all war criminals.  And that all HoAP are absolved from war crimes.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Somehow --- I don't believe you meant that in a complementary fashion.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice post of Israel's talking points.
> 
> Good boy.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT --- The Context)*
> 
> It is an alternative view that must be understood in its given context; with the opposite intention or designed --- likely to provoke or encourage in a threat to the peace, or promote an act of aggression.  Clearly different than the policy of the Unity Government _(or HAMAS specifically)_ to further hostilities.
> 
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) element often focuses on the Oslo Area "C" settlements describing them as a "colonial entity" and attempts to imply the supposedly virtuous US imperial project are false assumptions and lies.
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) prefers to refers to the occupation as "Palestine" _[(“from the river to the sea”) or (simply referring to "the 67 year occupation")]_.
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) defends the right of the Palestinian people to self-defense and resistance, including armed resistance --- in regards to the Palestine _(from the river to the sea) and the occupied territory (all the territory formerly under mandate and occupied for 67 years)_.  They present that view with the implication that the attacks on Israeli sovereignty are really domestic attacks on Palestinian Territory.
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) implies that HAMAS is the largest of the resistance groups in the greater occupied Palestine with the full support of the Palestinian people.
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) want to shift the offensive from a more contained “Israeli-Palestinian conflict” --- to --- an "Arab _(greater) _- Zionist _(smaller)_ conflict."  They want to expand the conflict such that it is "all Arabs" against "subset of Jews."
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) rejects all “peace process” or “political solutions.” The HoAP trivialize the dispute resolution process by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice --- to that of --- riddle, or puzzles.  They suggest games requires a “solution,” but "colonization and occupation" requires "decolonization and liberation."  This is an offshoot in the denial of the Partition Plan and the idea that the Jews represent a foreign invaders.
> The HoAP do not just suggest that it is not enough to condemn Israeli and the US for war crimes; but that there is accountability by arrest and trial of all war criminals.  And that all HoAP are absolved from war crimes.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

You call that hostile but you do no show where any of that is not true.


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741[/URL] said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo Theliq, who is this friend of Hitler?
> 
> [URL]http://histclo.com/imagef/date/2011/12/mufti-ah41s.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL]
> [URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741']I have never been an admirer of hitler in anyway unlike you Zionist Terrorists.....people on here are Not anti-semitic they are ANTI-ZIONIST TERRORIST,that foreign established Terrorist Group who have managed to con decent Jews..........As these original instigaters of Terrorism,ARE the Zionists actually Jews at all ???These foreign European Jews have No direct lineage to the Shepardic Jews at all.......no direct link to Abraham or David.......just a motley crew of Terrorist who have unsuccessfully been able to shed their Wolf.....by trying to wear sheep's clothing,their mantra of trying to tell the awful lie that Zionism equates to Judeasim.........Even Jews detest Zionists......No it is not Anti-Semitism but Anti- Zionism
> [URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741']       [URL='http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html']www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html[/URL][/URL]']Zionism and the Third Reich                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             [/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]
> [URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741']
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every Jew ever born in the last 1200 years has been a Zionist in the truest sense of the term. Now tell the board what you mean by Zionist and were you got your information from ?[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url]
Click to expand...

[URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741']
Idiot try from late 1890's........but Zionist are NOT REAL Jews.............as they have No direct lineage to Abraham      you have become a Joke[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, _et al,_

You're jumping the gun here.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Somehow --- I don't believe you meant that in a complementary fashion.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice post of Israel's talking points.
> 
> Good boy.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT --- The Context)*
> 
> It is an alternative view that must be understood in its given context; with the opposite intention or designed --- likely to provoke or encourage in a threat to the peace, or promote an act of aggression.  Clearly different than the policy of the Unity Government _(or HAMAS specifically)_ to further hostilities.
> 
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) element often focuses on the Oslo Area "C" settlements describing them as a "colonial entity" and attempts to imply the supposedly virtuous US imperial project are false assumptions and lies.
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) prefers to refers to the occupation as "Palestine" _[(“from the river to the sea”) or (simply referring to "the 67 year occupation")]_.
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) defends the right of the Palestinian people to self-defense and resistance, including armed resistance --- in regards to the Palestine _(from the river to the sea) and the occupied territory (all the territory formerly under mandate and occupied for 67 years)_.  They present that view with the implication that the attacks on Israeli sovereignty are really domestic attacks on Palestinian Territory.
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) implies that HAMAS is the largest of the resistance groups in the greater occupied Palestine with the full support of the Palestinian people.
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) want to shift the offensive from a more contained “Israeli-Palestinian conflict” --- to --- an "Arab _(greater) _- Zionist _(smaller)_ conflict."  They want to expand the conflict such that it is "all Arabs" against "subset of Jews."
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) rejects all “peace process” or “political solutions.” The HoAP trivialize the dispute resolution process by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice --- to that of --- riddle, or puzzles.  They suggest games requires a “solution,” but "colonization and occupation" requires "decolonization and liberation."  This is an offshoot in the denial of the Partition Plan and the idea that the Jews represent a foreign invaders.
> The HoAP do not just suggest that it is not enough to condemn Israeli and the US for war crimes; but that there is accountability by arrest and trial of all war criminals.  And that all HoAP are absolved from war crimes.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You call that hostile but you do no show where any of that is not true.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

This is an exercise in the understanding of the scope and nature of the positions held; from the more neutral perspective.  There was no intent (yet - in this segment of the discussion) on challenging the points.  Your position merely corroborates the accuracy of the objective statements. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> You're jumping the gun here.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Somehow --- I don't believe you meant that in a complementary fashion.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice post of Israel's talking points.
> 
> Good boy.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT --- The Context)*
> 
> It is an alternative view that must be understood in its given context; with the opposite intention or designed --- likely to provoke or encourage in a threat to the peace, or promote an act of aggression.  Clearly different than the policy of the Unity Government _(or HAMAS specifically)_ to further hostilities.
> 
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) element often focuses on the Oslo Area "C" settlements describing them as a "colonial entity" and attempts to imply the supposedly virtuous US imperial project are false assumptions and lies.
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) prefers to refers to the occupation as "Palestine" _[(“from the river to the sea”) or (simply referring to "the 67 year occupation")]_.
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) defends the right of the Palestinian people to self-defense and resistance, including armed resistance --- in regards to the Palestine _(from the river to the sea) and the occupied territory (all the territory formerly under mandate and occupied for 67 years)_.  They present that view with the implication that the attacks on Israeli sovereignty are really domestic attacks on Palestinian Territory.
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) implies that HAMAS is the largest of the resistance groups in the greater occupied Palestine with the full support of the Palestinian people.
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) want to shift the offensive from a more contained “Israeli-Palestinian conflict” --- to --- an "Arab _(greater) _- Zionist _(smaller)_ conflict."  They want to expand the conflict such that it is "all Arabs" against "subset of Jews."
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) rejects all “peace process” or “political solutions.” The HoAP trivialize the dispute resolution process by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice --- to that of --- riddle, or puzzles.  They suggest games requires a “solution,” but "colonization and occupation" requires "decolonization and liberation."  This is an offshoot in the denial of the Partition Plan and the idea that the Jews represent a foreign invaders.
> The HoAP do not just suggest that it is not enough to condemn Israeli and the US for war crimes; but that there is accountability by arrest and trial of all war criminals.  And that all HoAP are absolved from war crimes.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You call that hostile but you do no show where any of that is not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is an exercise in the understanding of the scope and nature of the positions held; from the more neutral perspective.  There was no intent (yet - in this segment of the discussion) on challenging the points.  Your position merely corroborates the accuracy of the objective statements.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

If the Palestinian position is true then it is  not hostile.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Again, you're jumping the gun.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> You're jumping the gun here.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Somehow --- I don't believe you meant that in a complementary fashion.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice post of Israel's talking points.
> 
> Good boy.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT --- The Context)*
> 
> It is an alternative view that must be understood in its given context; with the opposite intention or designed --- likely to provoke or encourage in a threat to the peace, or promote an act of aggression.  Clearly different than the policy of the Unity Government _(or HAMAS specifically)_ to further hostilities.
> 
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) element often focuses on the Oslo Area "C" settlements describing them as a "colonial entity" and attempts to imply the supposedly virtuous US imperial project are false assumptions and lies.
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) prefers to refers to the occupation as "Palestine" _[(“from the river to the sea”) or (simply referring to "the 67 year occupation")]_.
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) defends the right of the Palestinian people to self-defense and resistance, including armed resistance --- in regards to the Palestine _(from the river to the sea) and the occupied territory (all the territory formerly under mandate and occupied for 67 years)_.  They present that view with the implication that the attacks on Israeli sovereignty are really domestic attacks on Palestinian Territory.
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) implies that HAMAS is the largest of the resistance groups in the greater occupied Palestine with the full support of the Palestinian people.
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) want to shift the offensive from a more contained “Israeli-Palestinian conflict” --- to --- an "Arab _(greater) _- Zionist _(smaller)_ conflict."  They want to expand the conflict such that it is "all Arabs" against "subset of Jews."
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) rejects all “peace process” or “political solutions.” The HoAP trivialize the dispute resolution process by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice --- to that of --- riddle, or puzzles.  They suggest games requires a “solution,” but "colonization and occupation" requires "decolonization and liberation."  This is an offshoot in the denial of the Partition Plan and the idea that the Jews represent a foreign invaders.
> The HoAP do not just suggest that it is not enough to condemn Israeli and the US for war crimes; but that there is accountability by arrest and trial of all war criminals.  And that all HoAP are absolved from war crimes.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You call that hostile but you do no show where any of that is not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is an exercise in the understanding of the scope and nature of the positions held; from the more neutral perspective.  There was no intent (yet - in this segment of the discussion) on challenging the points.  Your position merely corroborates the accuracy of the objective statements.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Palestinian position is true then it is  not hostile.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The accuracy of the restatement of the Hostile Arab Palestinian claims --- and the truth of the statements are two different things.

You are still trying to justify the use of jihad and armed struggle by the Fedayeen, as a means to circumvent Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States and the Definition of Aggression.

There are arguments to be made for both sides.  

Since the Palestinians limited the ICC complaint to the most recent Operation Protective Edge, it is an opportune time to state the case and determine which side is the aggressor and which side is the defender.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Again, you're jumping the gun.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> You're jumping the gun here.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Somehow --- I don't believe you meant that in a complementary fashion.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice post of Israel's talking points.
> 
> Good boy.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT --- The Context)*
> 
> It is an alternative view that must be understood in its given context; with the opposite intention or designed --- likely to provoke or encourage in a threat to the peace, or promote an act of aggression.  Clearly different than the policy of the Unity Government _(or HAMAS specifically)_ to further hostilities.
> 
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) element often focuses on the Oslo Area "C" settlements describing them as a "colonial entity" and attempts to imply the supposedly virtuous US imperial project are false assumptions and lies.
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) prefers to refers to the occupation as "Palestine" _[(“from the river to the sea”) or (simply referring to "the 67 year occupation")]_.
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) defends the right of the Palestinian people to self-defense and resistance, including armed resistance --- in regards to the Palestine _(from the river to the sea) and the occupied territory (all the territory formerly under mandate and occupied for 67 years)_.  They present that view with the implication that the attacks on Israeli sovereignty are really domestic attacks on Palestinian Territory.
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) implies that HAMAS is the largest of the resistance groups in the greater occupied Palestine with the full support of the Palestinian people.
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) want to shift the offensive from a more contained “Israeli-Palestinian conflict” --- to --- an "Arab _(greater) _- Zionist _(smaller)_ conflict."  They want to expand the conflict such that it is "all Arabs" against "subset of Jews."
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) rejects all “peace process” or “political solutions.” The HoAP trivialize the dispute resolution process by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice --- to that of --- riddle, or puzzles.  They suggest games requires a “solution,” but "colonization and occupation" requires "decolonization and liberation."  This is an offshoot in the denial of the Partition Plan and the idea that the Jews represent a foreign invaders.
> The HoAP do not just suggest that it is not enough to condemn Israeli and the US for war crimes; but that there is accountability by arrest and trial of all war criminals.  And that all HoAP are absolved from war crimes.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You call that hostile but you do no show where any of that is not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is an exercise in the understanding of the scope and nature of the positions held; from the more neutral perspective.  There was no intent (yet - in this segment of the discussion) on challenging the points.  Your position merely corroborates the accuracy of the objective statements.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Palestinian position is true then it is  not hostile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The accuracy of the restatement of the Hostile Arab Palestinian claims --- and the truth of the statements are two different things.
> 
> You are still trying to justify the use of jihad and armed struggle by the Fedayeen, as a means to circumvent Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States and the Definition of Aggression.
> 
> There are arguments to be made for both sides.
> 
> Since the Palestinians limited the ICC complaint to the most recent Operation Protective Edge, it is an opportune time to state the case and determine which side is the aggressor and which side is the defender.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

If the statements are true, why do you call them hostile?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Again, and Again, you are jumping the gun.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Again, you're jumping the gun.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> You're jumping the gun here.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Somehow --- I don't believe you meant that in a complementary fashion.
> 
> *(COMMENT --- The Context)*
> 
> It is an alternative view that must be understood in its given context; with the opposite intention or designed --- likely to provoke or encourage in a threat to the peace, or promote an act of aggression.  Clearly different than the policy of the Unity Government _(or HAMAS specifically)_ to further hostilities.
> 
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) element often focuses on the Oslo Area "C" settlements describing them as a "colonial entity" and attempts to imply the supposedly virtuous US imperial project are false assumptions and lies.
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) prefers to refers to the occupation as "Palestine" _[(“from the river to the sea”) or (simply referring to "the 67 year occupation")]_.
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) defends the right of the Palestinian people to self-defense and resistance, including armed resistance --- in regards to the Palestine _(from the river to the sea) and the occupied territory (all the territory formerly under mandate and occupied for 67 years)_.  They present that view with the implication that the attacks on Israeli sovereignty are really domestic attacks on Palestinian Territory.
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) implies that HAMAS is the largest of the resistance groups in the greater occupied Palestine with the full support of the Palestinian people.
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) want to shift the offensive from a more contained “Israeli-Palestinian conflict” --- to --- an "Arab _(greater) _- Zionist _(smaller)_ conflict."  They want to expand the conflict such that it is "all Arabs" against "subset of Jews."
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) rejects all “peace process” or “political solutions.” The HoAP trivialize the dispute resolution process by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice --- to that of --- riddle, or puzzles.  They suggest games requires a “solution,” but "colonization and occupation" requires "decolonization and liberation."  This is an offshoot in the denial of the Partition Plan and the idea that the Jews represent a foreign invaders.
> The HoAP do not just suggest that it is not enough to condemn Israeli and the US for war crimes; but that there is accountability by arrest and trial of all war criminals.  And that all HoAP are absolved from war crimes.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> You call that hostile but you do no show where any of that is not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is an exercise in the understanding of the scope and nature of the positions held; from the more neutral perspective.  There was no intent (yet - in this segment of the discussion) on challenging the points.  Your position merely corroborates the accuracy of the objective statements.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Palestinian position is true then it is  not hostile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The accuracy of the restatement of the Hostile Arab Palestinian claims --- and the truth of the statements are two different things.
> 
> You are still trying to justify the use of jihad and armed struggle by the Fedayeen, as a means to circumvent Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States and the Definition of Aggression.
> 
> There are arguments to be made for both sides.
> 
> Since the Palestinians limited the ICC complaint to the most recent Operation Protective Edge, it is an opportune time to state the case and determine which side is the aggressor and which side is the defender.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the statements are true, why do you call them hostile?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

No one said they were true.  All that was said was that they are accurate restatements.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Again, and Again, you are jumping the gun.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Again, you're jumping the gun.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> You're jumping the gun here.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You call that hostile but you do no show where any of that is not true.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is an exercise in the understanding of the scope and nature of the positions held; from the more neutral perspective.  There was no intent (yet - in this segment of the discussion) on challenging the points.  Your position merely corroborates the accuracy of the objective statements.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Palestinian position is true then it is  not hostile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The accuracy of the restatement of the Hostile Arab Palestinian claims --- and the truth of the statements are two different things.
> 
> You are still trying to justify the use of jihad and armed struggle by the Fedayeen, as a means to circumvent Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States and the Definition of Aggression.
> 
> There are arguments to be made for both sides.
> 
> Since the Palestinians limited the ICC complaint to the most recent Operation Protective Edge, it is an opportune time to state the case and determine which side is the aggressor and which side is the defender.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the statements are true, why do you call them hostile?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> No one said they were true.  All that was said was that they are accurate restatements.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Indeed, what are you trying to say? That their statements are false?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Somehow --- I don't believe you meant that in a complementary fashion.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice post of Israel's talking points.
> 
> Good boy.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT --- The Context)*
> 
> It is an alternative view that must be understood in its given context; with the opposite intention or designed --- likely to provoke or encourage in a threat to the peace, or promote an act of aggression.  Clearly different than the policy of the Unity Government _(or HAMAS specifically)_ to further hostilities.
> 
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) element often focuses on the Oslo Area "C" settlements describing them as a "colonial entity" and attempts to imply the supposedly virtuous US imperial project are false assumptions and lies.
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) prefers to refers to the occupation as "Palestine" _[(“from the river to the sea”) or (simply referring to "the 67 year occupation")]_.
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) defends the right of the Palestinian people to self-defense and resistance, including armed resistance --- in regards to the Palestine _(from the river to the sea) and the occupied territory (all the territory formerly under mandate and occupied for 67 years)_.  They present that view with the implication that the attacks on Israeli sovereignty are really domestic attacks on Palestinian Territory.
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) implies that HAMAS is the largest of the resistance groups in the greater occupied Palestine with the full support of the Palestinian people.
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) want to shift the offensive from a more contained “Israeli-Palestinian conflict” --- to --- an "Arab _(greater) _- Zionist _(smaller)_ conflict."  They want to expand the conflict such that it is "all Arabs" against "subset of Jews."
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) rejects all “peace process” or “political solutions.” The HoAP trivialize the dispute resolution process by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice --- to that of --- riddle, or puzzles.  They suggest games requires a “solution,” but "colonization and occupation" requires "decolonization and liberation."  This is an offshoot in the denial of the Partition Plan and the idea that the Jews represent a foreign invaders.
> The HoAP do not just suggest that it is not enough to condemn Israeli and the US for war crimes; but that there is accountability by arrest and trial of all war criminals.  And that all HoAP are absolved from war crimes.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You call that hostile but you do no show where any of that is not true.
Click to expand...


The problem with your post here Tinmore, is that you always say something like this, even though the person you were debating with DID show you where something is true.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq,  _et al,_
> 
> I noticed your source for the quoted information is from:  "The *Institute for Historical Review* (*IHR*) is an antiSemitic organization:
> 
> "Founded in 1978 by Willis Carto, a longtime anti-Semite, the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) is a pseudo-academic organization that claims to seek "truth and accuracy in history," but whose real purpose is to promote Holocaust denial and defend Nazism. Once a prominent voice in extremist circles, the IHR has been on the decline, unable to publish its anti-Semitic _Journal of Historical Review_ or sponsor major international Holocaust denial conferences since 2004. The organization still runs its website, where it peddles extremist books and other materials, and hosts some minor extremist gatherings."
> _*SOURCEs:*_
> 
> Combined Education Source Page --- Princeton Univ
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> The Southern Poverty Law Center
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741[/URL] said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo Theliq, who is this friend of Hitler?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741[/URL] said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://histclo.com/imagef/date/2011/12/mufti-ah41s.jpg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have never been an admirer of hitler in anyway unlike you Zionist Terrorists.....people on here are Not anti-semitic they are ANTI-ZIONIST TERRORIST,that foreign established Terrorist Group who have managed to con decent Jews..........As these original instigaters of Terrorism,ARE the Zionists actually Jews at all ???These foreign European Jews have No direct lineage to the Shepardic Jews at all.......no direct link to Abraham or David.......just a motley crew of Terrorist who have unsuccessfully been able to shed their Wolf.....by trying to wear sheep's clothing,their mantra of trying to tell the awful lie that Zionism equates to Judeasim.........Even Jews detest Zionists......No it is not Anti-Semitism but Anti- Zionism
> www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]']Zionism and the Third Reich                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             [/URL]
> [/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)
> *
> Couple Points:
> 
> I'm not sure that anyone one, involved in this Discussion Group, is an "admirer" of Hitler.
> 
> Zionism defines the philosophy behind the development of a Jewish National Home (JNH) _(as opposed to Judaism which describes the Jewish faith)_.  The fundamental concept behind the JNH was embedded by the international community within the theme outlined in the 1947 Partition Plan --- the establishment of the Jewish State.   Most proPalestinians hide their antisemitism behind the camouflage of antiZionism.   Certainly there are common accusations:
> 
> There is the common claim of racism; wherein the proPalestinian attempts to make a connection with "apartheid."
> There is the constant allegations of murderous war crimes; wherein the proPalestinian attempts to instigate a provocative event then blame the outcome of conflict on the Israelis.
> There is the common claim for the entire territory formerly under mandate and the absence of any legitimate claim by the Israeli.
> There is the proPalestinian cry and disdain for Jewish human rights and self-determination.
> There is the proPalestinian attempts to destroy Israeli national identity.
> The essence of the Palestinian struggle is portraying themselves as long standing victims of their own historical making; attempting to roll back the timeline to an era prior to World War I.  They are constantly making an issue out of their "inalienable" rights as if something should have been handed to them on a silver platter; as opposed to them working towards the development of their own national heritage.  When we ask the question:  Who are the Palestinians?  What we see are a people that never opted to build a positive construct for their culture to develop in any positive way --- always requiring a handout and always in turmoil.
> 
> In the present, one only needs to examine what positive and constructive steps they are taking today --- to understand the direction the Palestinian has taken over time; politically, economically, and culturally, to fathom where they have been for the last century.  Zero real development; as oppose to every cultural segment around them.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice post of Israel's talking points.
> 
> Good boy.
Click to expand...

Nice job refuting his points or even coming up with a valid rebuttal. Oh wait, you're incapable of doing so.


----------



## theliq

RoccoR said:


> theliq,  _et al,_
> 
> I noticed your source for the quoted information is from:  "The *Institute for Historical Review* (*IHR*) is an antiSemitic organization:
> 
> "Founded in 1978 by Willis Carto, a longtime anti-Semite, the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) is a pseudo-academic organization that claims to seek "truth and accuracy in history," but whose real purpose is to promote Holocaust denial and defend Nazism. Once a prominent voice in extremist circles, the IHR has been on the decline, unable to publish its anti-Semitic _Journal of Historical Review_ or sponsor major international Holocaust denial conferences since 2004. The organization still runs its website, where it peddles extremist books and other materials, and hosts some minor extremist gatherings."
> _*SOURCEs:*_
> 
> Combined Education Source Page --- Princeton Univ
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> The Southern Poverty Law Center
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741[/URL] said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo Theliq, who is this friend of Hitler?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741[/URL] said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://histclo.com/imagef/date/2011/12/mufti-ah41s.jpg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have never been an admirer of hitler in anyway unlike you Zionist Terrorists.....people on here are Not anti-semitic they are ANTI-ZIONIST TERRORIST,that foreign established Terrorist Group who have managed to con decent Jews..........As these original instigaters of Terrorism,ARE the Zionists actually Jews at all ???These foreign European Jews have No direct lineage to the Shepardic Jews at all.......no direct link to Abraham or David.......just a motley crew of Terrorist who have unsuccessfully been able to shed their Wolf.....by trying to wear sheep's clothing,their mantra of trying to tell the awful lie that Zionism equates to Judeasim.........Even Jews detest Zionists......No it is not Anti-Semitism but Anti- Zionism
> www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]']Zionism and the Third Reich                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             [/URL]
> [/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)
> *
> Couple Points:
> 
> I'm not sure that anyone one, involved in this Discussion Group, is an "admirer" of Hitler.
> 
> Zionism defines the philosophy behind the development of a Jewish National Home (JNH) _(as opposed to Judaism which describes the Jewish faith)_.  The fundamental concept behind the JNH was embedded by the international community within the theme outlined in the 1947 Partition Plan --- the establishment of the Jewish State.   Most proPalestinians hide their antisemitism behind the camouflage of antiZionism.   Certainly there are common accusations:
> 
> There is the common claim of racism; wherein the proPalestinian attempts to make a connection with "apartheid."
> There is the constant allegations of murderous war crimes; wherein the proPalestinian attempts to instigate a provocative event then blame the outcome of conflict on the Israelis.
> There is the common claim for the entire territory formerly under mandate and the absence of any legitimate claim by the Israeli.
> There is the proPalestinian cry and disdain for Jewish human rights and self-determination.
> There is the proPalestinian attempts to destroy Israeli national identity.
> The essence of the Palestinian struggle is portraying themselves as long standing victims of their own historical making; attempting to roll back the timeline to an era prior to World War I.  They are constantly making an issue out of their "inalienable" rights as if something should have been handed to them on a silver platter; as opposed to them working towards the development of their own national heritage.  When we ask the question:  Who are the Palestinians?  What we see are a people that never opted to build a positive construct for their culture to develop in any positive way --- always requiring a handout and always in turmoil.
> 
> In the present, one only needs to examine what positive and constructive steps they are taking today --- to understand the direction the Palestinian has taken over time; politically, economically, and culturally, to fathom where they have been for the last century.  Zero real development; as oppose to every cultural segment around them.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Well R,with respect.......you and others may think anything that criticizes Zionism is Anti-Semitic...well it is not,the Facts of the matter are true......I get irritated with this "Anti-Semitic" red herring one liner which is the Zionist attempt to deflect anything about their murderous behaviour.....so stop using it.

Yes there are People who Hate Jews......I am not one of them...............Anti-Jew....is Anti-Humanity and history shows it is debased logic.

I only deal in reality and facts..........Some Jews have treated Palestinians in a horrible manner,yet most of you have no backbone when you should criticize the Germans......but with them you seem to have forgotten..Yet dehumanize the Palestinians.steve


----------



## toastman

theliq said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq,  _et al,_
> 
> I noticed your source for the quoted information is from:  "The *Institute for Historical Review* (*IHR*) is an antiSemitic organization:
> 
> "Founded in 1978 by Willis Carto, a longtime anti-Semite, the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) is a pseudo-academic organization that claims to seek "truth and accuracy in history," but whose real purpose is to promote Holocaust denial and defend Nazism. Once a prominent voice in extremist circles, the IHR has been on the decline, unable to publish its anti-Semitic _Journal of Historical Review_ or sponsor major international Holocaust denial conferences since 2004. The organization still runs its website, where it peddles extremist books and other materials, and hosts some minor extremist gatherings."
> _*SOURCEs:*_
> 
> Combined Education Source Page --- Princeton Univ
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> The Southern Poverty Law Center
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741[/URL] said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo Theliq, who is this friend of Hitler?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741[/URL] said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://histclo.com/imagef/date/2011/12/mufti-ah41s.jpg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have never been an admirer of hitler in anyway unlike you Zionist Terrorists.....people on here are Not anti-semitic they are ANTI-ZIONIST TERRORIST,that foreign established Terrorist Group who have managed to con decent Jews..........As these original instigaters of Terrorism,ARE the Zionists actually Jews at all ???These foreign European Jews have No direct lineage to the Shepardic Jews at all.......no direct link to Abraham or David.......just a motley crew of Terrorist who have unsuccessfully been able to shed their Wolf.....by trying to wear sheep's clothing,their mantra of trying to tell the awful lie that Zionism equates to Judeasim.........Even Jews detest Zionists......No it is not Anti-Semitism but Anti- Zionism
> www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]']Zionism and the Third Reich                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             [/URL]
> [/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)
> *
> Couple Points:
> 
> I'm not sure that anyone one, involved in this Discussion Group, is an "admirer" of Hitler.
> 
> Zionism defines the philosophy behind the development of a Jewish National Home (JNH) _(as opposed to Judaism which describes the Jewish faith)_.  The fundamental concept behind the JNH was embedded by the international community within the theme outlined in the 1947 Partition Plan --- the establishment of the Jewish State.   Most proPalestinians hide their antisemitism behind the camouflage of antiZionism.   Certainly there are common accusations:
> 
> There is the common claim of racism; wherein the proPalestinian attempts to make a connection with "apartheid."
> There is the constant allegations of murderous war crimes; wherein the proPalestinian attempts to instigate a provocative event then blame the outcome of conflict on the Israelis.
> There is the common claim for the entire territory formerly under mandate and the absence of any legitimate claim by the Israeli.
> There is the proPalestinian cry and disdain for Jewish human rights and self-determination.
> There is the proPalestinian attempts to destroy Israeli national identity.
> The essence of the Palestinian struggle is portraying themselves as long standing victims of their own historical making; attempting to roll back the timeline to an era prior to World War I.  They are constantly making an issue out of their "inalienable" rights as if something should have been handed to them on a silver platter; as opposed to them working towards the development of their own national heritage.  When we ask the question:  Who are the Palestinians?  What we see are a people that never opted to build a positive construct for their culture to develop in any positive way --- always requiring a handout and always in turmoil.
> 
> In the present, one only needs to examine what positive and constructive steps they are taking today --- to understand the direction the Palestinian has taken over time; politically, economically, and culturally, to fathom where they have been for the last century.  Zero real development; as oppose to every cultural segment around them.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well R,with respect.......you and others may think anything that criticizes Zionism is Anti-Semitic...well it is not,the Facts of the matter are true......I get irritated with this "Anti-Semitic" red herring one liner which is the Zionist attempt to deflect anything about their murderous behaviour.....so stop using it.
> 
> Yes there are People who Hate Jews......I am not one of them...............Anti-Jew....is Anti-Humanity and history shows it is debased logic.
> 
> I only deal in reality and facts..........Some Jews have treated Palestinians in a horrible manner,yet most of you have no backbone when you should criticize the Germans......but with them you seem to have forgotten..Yet dehumanize the Palestinians.steve
Click to expand...

Speaking the truth about Palestinians is not dehuhanizing them.


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq,  _et al,_
> 
> I noticed your source for the quoted information is from:  "The *Institute for Historical Review* (*IHR*) is an antiSemitic organization:
> 
> "Founded in 1978 by Willis Carto, a longtime anti-Semite, the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) is a pseudo-academic organization that claims to seek "truth and accuracy in history," but whose real purpose is to promote Holocaust denial and defend Nazism. Once a prominent voice in extremist circles, the IHR has been on the decline, unable to publish its anti-Semitic _Journal of Historical Review_ or sponsor major international Holocaust denial conferences since 2004. The organization still runs its website, where it peddles extremist books and other materials, and hosts some minor extremist gatherings."
> _*SOURCEs:*_
> 
> Combined Education Source Page --- Princeton Univ
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> The Southern Poverty Law Center
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741[/URL] said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo Theliq, who is this friend of Hitler?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741[/URL] said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://histclo.com/imagef/date/2011/12/mufti-ah41s.jpg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have never been an admirer of hitler in anyway unlike you Zionist Terrorists.....people on here are Not anti-semitic they are ANTI-ZIONIST TERRORIST,that foreign established Terrorist Group who have managed to con decent Jews..........As these original instigaters of Terrorism,ARE the Zionists actually Jews at all ???These foreign European Jews have No direct lineage to the Shepardic Jews at all.......no direct link to Abraham or David.......just a motley crew of Terrorist who have unsuccessfully been able to shed their Wolf.....by trying to wear sheep's clothing,their mantra of trying to tell the awful lie that Zionism equates to Judeasim.........Even Jews detest Zionists......No it is not Anti-Semitism but Anti- Zionism
> www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]']Zionism and the Third Reich                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             [/URL]
> [/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)
> *
> Couple Points:
> 
> I'm not sure that anyone one, involved in this Discussion Group, is an "admirer" of Hitler.
> 
> Zionism defines the philosophy behind the development of a Jewish National Home (JNH) _(as opposed to Judaism which describes the Jewish faith)_.  The fundamental concept behind the JNH was embedded by the international community within the theme outlined in the 1947 Partition Plan --- the establishment of the Jewish State.   Most proPalestinians hide their antisemitism behind the camouflage of antiZionism.   Certainly there are common accusations:
> 
> There is the common claim of racism; wherein the proPalestinian attempts to make a connection with "apartheid."
> There is the constant allegations of murderous war crimes; wherein the proPalestinian attempts to instigate a provocative event then blame the outcome of conflict on the Israelis.
> There is the common claim for the entire territory formerly under mandate and the absence of any legitimate claim by the Israeli.
> There is the proPalestinian cry and disdain for Jewish human rights and self-determination.
> There is the proPalestinian attempts to destroy Israeli national identity.
> The essence of the Palestinian struggle is portraying themselves as long standing victims of their own historical making; attempting to roll back the timeline to an era prior to World War I.  They are constantly making an issue out of their "inalienable" rights as if something should have been handed to them on a silver platter; as opposed to them working towards the development of their own national heritage.  When we ask the question:  Who are the Palestinians?  What we see are a people that never opted to build a positive construct for their culture to develop in any positive way --- always requiring a handout and always in turmoil.
> 
> In the present, one only needs to examine what positive and constructive steps they are taking today --- to understand the direction the Palestinian has taken over time; politically, economically, and culturally, to fathom where they have been for the last century.  Zero real development; as oppose to every cultural segment around them.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well R,with respect.......you and others may think anything that criticizes Zionism is Anti-Semitic...well it is not,the Facts of the matter are true......I get irritated with this "Anti-Semitic" red herring one liner which is the Zionist attempt to deflect anything about their murderous behaviour.....so stop using it.
> 
> Yes there are People who Hate Jews......I am not one of them...............Anti-Jew....is Anti-Humanity and history shows it is debased logic.
> 
> I only deal in reality and facts..........Some Jews have treated Palestinians in a horrible manner,yet most of you have no backbone when you should criticize the Germans......but with them you seem to have forgotten..Yet dehumanize the Palestinians.steve
Click to expand...

Explain why and how a person could be anti-Zionist and not anti-Semitic, Steve. It's not possible.


----------



## RoccoR

theliq,  _et al,_

This is incoherent nonsense.



theliq said:


> Well R,with respect.......you and others may think anything that criticizes Zionism is Anti-Semitic...well it is not,the Facts of the matter are true......I get irritated with this "Anti-Semitic" red herring one liner which is the Zionist attempt to deflect anything about their murderous behaviour.....so stop using it.


*(COMMENT)*

Murderous Behaviors?  The entire Arab Palestinians culture exemplifies a Past History of Murderous Behaviors.

Your outburst is right-up the strategy expressed by the "*Tips for Arabs About Speaking (about Palestine) to Western audiences."  *The general construct is based on either a design, provocation, or means of encouragement to further a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.



theliq said:


> Yes there are People who Hate Jews......I am not one of them...............Anti-Jew....is Anti-Humanity and history shows it is debased logic.


*(COMMENT)*

How can you claim not to be one of them when you are using "Zionism" as a means to promote an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group (Arab Palestinians) over any other racial group (Zionists) with the intention of maintaining a HAMAS/Fatah regime; and to overtake Palestine in the Jihadist context that all of the former territory.   



theliq said:


> I only deal in reality and facts..........Some Jews have treated Palestinians in a horrible manner,yet most of you have no backbone when you should criticize the Germans......but with them you seem to have forgotten..Yet dehumanize the Palestinians.steve


*(COMMENT)*

What should we criticize the Germans for?  This is the 21st Century.  

There is a difference between dehumanization and the statement of facts:

What do you call the entity that during the Olympic Games in Munich, took hostage 11 members of the Israeli Olympic team. Nine athletes were killed.
Palestinian Black September

What do you call the entity that attacked Israel's major airline at the Istanbul airport. Four civilians were killed and 20 injured.
Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine

What do you call the entity that detonate a van full of explosives 30 feet in front of the U.S. Embassy annex severely damaging the building, killing two U.S. servicemen and seven Lebanese employees, as well as 5 to 15 non-employees. Twenty Americans were injured, including U.S. Ambassador Reginald Bartholomew and visiting British Ambassador David Miers. An estimated 40 to 50 Lebanese were hurt. 
Palestinian Islamic Jihad

What do you call the entity that seized control of the steering wheel of a crowded bus enroute from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and drove the bus off a cliff in the area of Kiryat Ye'arim. 16 civilians were killed.
Palestinian Islamic Jihad

What do you call the entity that kidnapped and murdered a family from New York.
HAMAS

What do you call the entity that carried out the Bombing on Ben-Yehuda Street, Jerusalem. U.S. citizens killed: Yael Botwin, 14, of Los Angeles and Jerusalem. U.S. citizens injured: Diana Campuzano of New York, Abraham Mendelson of Los Angeles, CA, Greg Salzman of New Jersey, Stuart E. Hersh of Kiryat Arba, Israel, Michael Alzer, Abraham Elias, David Keinan, Daniel Miller of Boca Raton, FL, Noam Rozenman of Jerusalem, Jenny (Yocheved) Rubin of Los Angeles, CA. 
HAMAS

What do you call the entity that carried out the Bombing of American convoy in the Gaza Strip: John Branchizio, 37, Mark Parson, 31, and John Martin Linde, 30, were on contract to the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv through the defense contracting company Dyncorp.U.S. citizens injured: One as-yet-unnamed U.S. citizen.
HAMAS

What do you call the entity that carried out the 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers.
HAMAS

What do you call the entity that launched over 4000 Rockets and Mortars indiscriminately into Israel.
HAMAS

Every State _(even the Palestinians)_ has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.  Every State _(even the Palestinians)_ has the duty to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries, for incursion into the territory of another State.  States _(even the Palestinians)_ shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties _(Israeli and Palestinian) _shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.  

HAMAS always has tried to maintain the appearance of a proper Islamic posture in the belief that it would strengthen the Palestinian national struggle _(the manipulative use of religion to further the political objectives)_.  The idea of going back to the Supreme Being _(death in the service of HAMAS --- is the same as death in the service of Islamic Nationalism)_ would be the first step _(righteous martyrs')_ and most important step --- that the constituent followers would come to believe is the true path towards of liberation _(the actual path necessary for HAMAS to achieve political power and influence)_.  In the sphere of resistance against Israeli occupation, HAMAS (short title for the Islamic Resistance Movement) advocated violent tactics, and for this purpose it created _Kata’ib Izz-al-Din al-Qassam (A strategy used by‘Izz al-Din al-Qassam, being a Muslim Preacher, and founder of the Palestinian Black Hand)_.  This is a blend of religious and nationalist axioms, with emphasis on how religion should be employed in the service of nationalism.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> theliq,  _et al,_
> 
> This is incoherent nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well R,with respect.......you and others may think anything that criticizes Zionism is Anti-Semitic...well it is not,the Facts of the matter are true......I get irritated with this "Anti-Semitic" red herring one liner which is the Zionist attempt to deflect anything about their murderous behaviour.....so stop using it.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Murderous Behaviors?  The entire Arab Palestinians culture exemplifies a Past History of Murderous Behaviors.
> 
> Your outburst is right-up the strategy expressed by the "*Tips for Arabs About Speaking (about Palestine) to Western audiences."  *The general construct is based on either a design, provocation, or means of encouragement to further a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there are People who Hate Jews......I am not one of them...............Anti-Jew....is Anti-Humanity and history shows it is debased logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> How can you claim not to be one of them when you are using "Zionism" as a means to promote an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group (Arab Palestinians) over any other racial group (Zionists) with the intention of maintaining a HAMAS/Fatah regime; and to overtake Palestine in the Jihadist context that all of the former territory.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only deal in reality and facts..........Some Jews have treated Palestinians in a horrible manner,yet most of you have no backbone when you should criticize the Germans......but with them you seem to have forgotten..Yet dehumanize the Palestinians.steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What should we criticize the Germans for?  This is the 21st Century.
> 
> There is a difference between dehumanization and the statement of facts:
> 
> What do you call the entity that during the Olympic Games in Munich, took hostage 11 members of the Israeli Olympic team. Nine athletes were killed.
> Palestinian Black September
> 
> What do you call the entity that attacked Israel's major airline at the Istanbul airport. Four civilians were killed and 20 injured.
> Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine
> 
> What do you call the entity that detonate a van full of explosives 30 feet in front of the U.S. Embassy annex severely damaging the building, killing two U.S. servicemen and seven Lebanese employees, as well as 5 to 15 non-employees. Twenty Americans were injured, including U.S. Ambassador Reginald Bartholomew and visiting British Ambassador David Miers. An estimated 40 to 50 Lebanese were hurt.
> Palestinian Islamic Jihad
> 
> What do you call the entity that seized control of the steering wheel of a crowded bus enroute from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and drove the bus off a cliff in the area of Kiryat Ye'arim. 16 civilians were killed.
> Palestinian Islamic Jihad
> 
> What do you call the entity that kidnapped and murdered a family from New York.
> HAMAS
> 
> What do you call the entity that carried out the Bombing on Ben-Yehuda Street, Jerusalem. U.S. citizens killed: Yael Botwin, 14, of Los Angeles and Jerusalem. U.S. citizens injured: Diana Campuzano of New York, Abraham Mendelson of Los Angeles, CA, Greg Salzman of New Jersey, Stuart E. Hersh of Kiryat Arba, Israel, Michael Alzer, Abraham Elias, David Keinan, Daniel Miller of Boca Raton, FL, Noam Rozenman of Jerusalem, Jenny (Yocheved) Rubin of Los Angeles, CA.
> HAMAS
> 
> What do you call the entity that carried out the Bombing of American convoy in the Gaza Strip: John Branchizio, 37, Mark Parson, 31, and John Martin Linde, 30, were on contract to the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv through the defense contracting company Dyncorp.U.S. citizens injured: One as-yet-unnamed U.S. citizen.
> HAMAS
> 
> What do you call the entity that carried out the 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers.
> HAMAS
> 
> What do you call the entity that launched over 4000 Rockets and Mortars indiscriminately into Israel.
> HAMAS
> 
> Every State _(even the Palestinians)_ has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.  Every State _(even the Palestinians)_ has the duty to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries, for incursion into the territory of another State.  States _(even the Palestinians)_ shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties _(Israeli and Palestinian) _shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.
> 
> HAMAS always has tried to maintain the appearance of a proper Islamic posture in the belief that it would strengthen the Palestinian national struggle _(the manipulative use of religion to further the political objectives)_.  The idea of going back to the Supreme Being _(death in the service of HAMAS --- is the same as death in the service of Islamic Nationalism)_ would be the first step _(righteous martyrs')_ and most important step --- that the constituent followers would come to believe is the true path towards of liberation _(the actual path necessary for HAMAS to achieve political power and influence)_.  In the sphere of resistance against Israeli occupation, HAMAS (short title for the Islamic Resistance Movement) advocated violent tactics, and for this purpose it created _Kata’ib Izz-al-Din al-Qassam (A strategy used by‘Izz al-Din al-Qassam, being a Muslim Preacher, and founder of the Palestinian Black Hand)_.  This is a blend of religious and nationalist axioms, with emphasis on how religion should be employed in the service of nationalism.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Every State _(even the Palestinians)_ has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.​
You have continuously danced around this issue and have never proved your point to be true.


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741[/URL] said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo Theliq, who is this friend of Hitler?
> 
> [URL]http://histclo.com/imagef/date/2011/12/mufti-ah41s.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL]
> [URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741']I have never been an admirer of hitler in anyway unlike you Zionist Terrorists.....people on here are Not anti-semitic they are ANTI-ZIONIST TERRORIST,that foreign established Terrorist Group who have managed to con decent Jews..........As these original instigaters of Terrorism,ARE the Zionists actually Jews at all ???These foreign European Jews have No direct lineage to the Shepardic Jews at all.......no direct link to Abraham or David.......just a motley crew of Terrorist who have unsuccessfully been able to shed their Wolf.....by trying to wear sheep's clothing,their mantra of trying to tell the awful lie that Zionism equates to Judeasim.........Even Jews detest Zionists......No it is not Anti-Semitism but Anti- Zionism
> [URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741']       [URL='http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html']www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html[/URL][/URL]']Zionism and the Third Reich                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             [/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]
> [URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741']
> [URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741']
> [URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741']
> [URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741']
> [URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741']
> [URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741']Every Jew ever born in the last 1200 years has been a Zionist in the truest sense of the term. Now tell the board what you mean by Zionist and were you got your information from ?[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741']
> [URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741']Idiot try from late 1890's........but Zionist are NOT REAL Jews.............as they have No direct lineage to Abraham      you have become a Joke[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url][/url]
Click to expand...

[URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741'][URL='http://www.[QUOTE="MJB12741']



 How about a LINK from a non partisan source that shows this, seeing as the DNA tests done show a 93% or better match between Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardic Jews. The best the arab muslims can muster is less than their link to dogs, apes and bananas[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq,  _et al,_
> 
> This is incoherent nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well R,with respect.......you and others may think anything that criticizes Zionism is Anti-Semitic...well it is not,the Facts of the matter are true......I get irritated with this "Anti-Semitic" red herring one liner which is the Zionist attempt to deflect anything about their murderous behaviour.....so stop using it.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Murderous Behaviors?  The entire Arab Palestinians culture exemplifies a Past History of Murderous Behaviors.
> 
> Your outburst is right-up the strategy expressed by the "*Tips for Arabs About Speaking (about Palestine) to Western audiences."  *The general construct is based on either a design, provocation, or means of encouragement to further a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there are People who Hate Jews......I am not one of them...............Anti-Jew....is Anti-Humanity and history shows it is debased logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> How can you claim not to be one of them when you are using "Zionism" as a means to promote an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group (Arab Palestinians) over any other racial group (Zionists) with the intention of maintaining a HAMAS/Fatah regime; and to overtake Palestine in the Jihadist context that all of the former territory.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only deal in reality and facts..........Some Jews have treated Palestinians in a horrible manner,yet most of you have no backbone when you should criticize the Germans......but with them you seem to have forgotten..Yet dehumanize the Palestinians.steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What should we criticize the Germans for?  This is the 21st Century.
> 
> There is a difference between dehumanization and the statement of facts:
> 
> What do you call the entity that during the Olympic Games in Munich, took hostage 11 members of the Israeli Olympic team. Nine athletes were killed.
> Palestinian Black September
> 
> What do you call the entity that attacked Israel's major airline at the Istanbul airport. Four civilians were killed and 20 injured.
> Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine
> 
> What do you call the entity that detonate a van full of explosives 30 feet in front of the U.S. Embassy annex severely damaging the building, killing two U.S. servicemen and seven Lebanese employees, as well as 5 to 15 non-employees. Twenty Americans were injured, including U.S. Ambassador Reginald Bartholomew and visiting British Ambassador David Miers. An estimated 40 to 50 Lebanese were hurt.
> Palestinian Islamic Jihad
> 
> What do you call the entity that seized control of the steering wheel of a crowded bus enroute from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and drove the bus off a cliff in the area of Kiryat Ye'arim. 16 civilians were killed.
> Palestinian Islamic Jihad
> 
> What do you call the entity that kidnapped and murdered a family from New York.
> HAMAS
> 
> What do you call the entity that carried out the Bombing on Ben-Yehuda Street, Jerusalem. U.S. citizens killed: Yael Botwin, 14, of Los Angeles and Jerusalem. U.S. citizens injured: Diana Campuzano of New York, Abraham Mendelson of Los Angeles, CA, Greg Salzman of New Jersey, Stuart E. Hersh of Kiryat Arba, Israel, Michael Alzer, Abraham Elias, David Keinan, Daniel Miller of Boca Raton, FL, Noam Rozenman of Jerusalem, Jenny (Yocheved) Rubin of Los Angeles, CA.
> HAMAS
> 
> What do you call the entity that carried out the Bombing of American convoy in the Gaza Strip: John Branchizio, 37, Mark Parson, 31, and John Martin Linde, 30, were on contract to the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv through the defense contracting company Dyncorp.U.S. citizens injured: One as-yet-unnamed U.S. citizen.
> HAMAS
> 
> What do you call the entity that carried out the 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers.
> HAMAS
> 
> What do you call the entity that launched over 4000 Rockets and Mortars indiscriminately into Israel.
> HAMAS
> 
> Every State _(even the Palestinians)_ has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.  Every State _(even the Palestinians)_ has the duty to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries, for incursion into the territory of another State.  States _(even the Palestinians)_ shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties _(Israeli and Palestinian) _shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.
> 
> HAMAS always has tried to maintain the appearance of a proper Islamic posture in the belief that it would strengthen the Palestinian national struggle _(the manipulative use of religion to further the political objectives)_.  The idea of going back to the Supreme Being _(death in the service of HAMAS --- is the same as death in the service of Islamic Nationalism)_ would be the first step _(righteous martyrs')_ and most important step --- that the constituent followers would come to believe is the true path towards of liberation _(the actual path necessary for HAMAS to achieve political power and influence)_.  In the sphere of resistance against Israeli occupation, HAMAS (short title for the Islamic Resistance Movement) advocated violent tactics, and for this purpose it created _Kata’ib Izz-al-Din al-Qassam (A strategy used by‘Izz al-Din al-Qassam, being a Muslim Preacher, and founder of the Palestinian Black Hand)_.  This is a blend of religious and nationalist axioms, with emphasis on how religion should be employed in the service of nationalism.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every State _(even the Palestinians)_ has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.​
> You have continuously danced around this issue and have never proved your point to be true.
Click to expand...




 It is part of the UN charter that you are quick to quote when it deals with the Jews, and the P.A. have just recently agreed to be bound by its terms.  So what is there to prove other than you are certifiably insane


----------



## MJB12741

RoccoR said:


> theliq,  _et al,_
> 
> This is incoherent nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well R,with respect.......you and others may think anything that criticizes Zionism is Anti-Semitic...well it is not,the Facts of the matter are true......I get irritated with this "Anti-Semitic" red herring one liner which is the Zionist attempt to deflect anything about their murderous behaviour.....so stop using it.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Murderous Behaviors?  The entire Arab Palestinians culture exemplifies a Past History of Murderous Behaviors.
> 
> Your outburst is right-up the strategy expressed by the "*Tips for Arabs About Speaking (about Palestine) to Western audiences."  *The general construct is based on either a design, provocation, or means of encouragement to further a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there are People who Hate Jews......I am not one of them...............Anti-Jew....is Anti-Humanity and history shows it is debased logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> How can you claim not to be one of them when you are using "Zionism" as a means to promote an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group (Arab Palestinians) over any other racial group (Zionists) with the intention of maintaining a HAMAS/Fatah regime; and to overtake Palestine in the Jihadist context that all of the former territory.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only deal in reality and facts..........Some Jews have treated Palestinians in a horrible manner,yet most of you have no backbone when you should criticize the Germans......but with them you seem to have forgotten..Yet dehumanize the Palestinians.steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What should we criticize the Germans for?  This is the 21st Century.
> 
> There is a difference between dehumanization and the statement of facts:
> 
> What do you call the entity that during the Olympic Games in Munich, took hostage 11 members of the Israeli Olympic team. Nine athletes were killed.
> Palestinian Black September
> 
> What do you call the entity that attacked Israel's major airline at the Istanbul airport. Four civilians were killed and 20 injured.
> Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine
> 
> What do you call the entity that detonate a van full of explosives 30 feet in front of the U.S. Embassy annex severely damaging the building, killing two U.S. servicemen and seven Lebanese employees, as well as 5 to 15 non-employees. Twenty Americans were injured, including U.S. Ambassador Reginald Bartholomew and visiting British Ambassador David Miers. An estimated 40 to 50 Lebanese were hurt.
> Palestinian Islamic Jihad
> 
> What do you call the entity that seized control of the steering wheel of a crowded bus enroute from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and drove the bus off a cliff in the area of Kiryat Ye'arim. 16 civilians were killed.
> Palestinian Islamic Jihad
> 
> What do you call the entity that kidnapped and murdered a family from New York.
> HAMAS
> 
> What do you call the entity that carried out the Bombing on Ben-Yehuda Street, Jerusalem. U.S. citizens killed: Yael Botwin, 14, of Los Angeles and Jerusalem. U.S. citizens injured: Diana Campuzano of New York, Abraham Mendelson of Los Angeles, CA, Greg Salzman of New Jersey, Stuart E. Hersh of Kiryat Arba, Israel, Michael Alzer, Abraham Elias, David Keinan, Daniel Miller of Boca Raton, FL, Noam Rozenman of Jerusalem, Jenny (Yocheved) Rubin of Los Angeles, CA.
> HAMAS
> 
> What do you call the entity that carried out the Bombing of American convoy in the Gaza Strip: John Branchizio, 37, Mark Parson, 31, and John Martin Linde, 30, were on contract to the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv through the defense contracting company Dyncorp.U.S. citizens injured: One as-yet-unnamed U.S. citizen.
> HAMAS
> 
> What do you call the entity that carried out the 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers.
> HAMAS
> 
> What do you call the entity that launched over 4000 Rockets and Mortars indiscriminately into Israel.
> HAMAS
> 
> Every State _(even the Palestinians)_ has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.  Every State _(even the Palestinians)_ has the duty to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries, for incursion into the territory of another State.  States _(even the Palestinians)_ shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties _(Israeli and Palestinian) _shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.
> 
> HAMAS always has tried to maintain the appearance of a proper Islamic posture in the belief that it would strengthen the Palestinian national struggle _(the manipulative use of religion to further the political objectives)_.  The idea of going back to the Supreme Being _(death in the service of HAMAS --- is the same as death in the service of Islamic Nationalism)_ would be the first step _(righteous martyrs')_ and most important step --- that the constituent followers would come to believe is the true path towards of liberation _(the actual path necessary for HAMAS to achieve political power and influence)_.  In the sphere of resistance against Israeli occupation, HAMAS (short title for the Islamic Resistance Movement) advocated violent tactics, and for this purpose it created _Kata’ib Izz-al-Din al-Qassam (A strategy used by‘Izz al-Din al-Qassam, being a Muslim Preacher, and founder of the Palestinian Black Hand)_.  This is a blend of religious and nationalist axioms, with emphasis on how religion should be employed in the service of nationalism.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


And never any criticism from Tinmore over all the murderous Palestinian behavior. Only for Israel when Israel retaliates.


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq,  _et al,_
> 
> This is incoherent nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well R,with respect.......you and others may think anything that criticizes Zionism is Anti-Semitic...well it is not,the Facts of the matter are true......I get irritated with this "Anti-Semitic" red herring one liner which is the Zionist attempt to deflect anything about their murderous behaviour.....so stop using it.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Murderous Behaviors?  The entire Arab Palestinians culture exemplifies a Past History of Murderous Behaviors.
> 
> Your outburst is right-up the strategy expressed by the "*Tips for Arabs About Speaking (about Palestine) to Western audiences."  *The general construct is based on either a design, provocation, or means of encouragement to further a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there are People who Hate Jews......I am not one of them...............Anti-Jew....is Anti-Humanity and history shows it is debased logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> How can you claim not to be one of them when you are using "Zionism" as a means to promote an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group (Arab Palestinians) over any other racial group (Zionists) with the intention of maintaining a HAMAS/Fatah regime; and to overtake Palestine in the Jihadist context that all of the former territory.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only deal in reality and facts..........Some Jews have treated Palestinians in a horrible manner,yet most of you have no backbone when you should criticize the Germans......but with them you seem to have forgotten..Yet dehumanize the Palestinians.steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What should we criticize the Germans for?  This is the 21st Century.
> 
> There is a difference between dehumanization and the statement of facts:
> 
> What do you call the entity that during the Olympic Games in Munich, took hostage 11 members of the Israeli Olympic team. Nine athletes were killed.
> Palestinian Black September
> 
> What do you call the entity that attacked Israel's major airline at the Istanbul airport. Four civilians were killed and 20 injured.
> Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine
> 
> What do you call the entity that detonate a van full of explosives 30 feet in front of the U.S. Embassy annex severely damaging the building, killing two U.S. servicemen and seven Lebanese employees, as well as 5 to 15 non-employees. Twenty Americans were injured, including U.S. Ambassador Reginald Bartholomew and visiting British Ambassador David Miers. An estimated 40 to 50 Lebanese were hurt.
> Palestinian Islamic Jihad
> 
> What do you call the entity that seized control of the steering wheel of a crowded bus enroute from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and drove the bus off a cliff in the area of Kiryat Ye'arim. 16 civilians were killed.
> Palestinian Islamic Jihad
> 
> What do you call the entity that kidnapped and murdered a family from New York.
> HAMAS
> 
> What do you call the entity that carried out the Bombing on Ben-Yehuda Street, Jerusalem. U.S. citizens killed: Yael Botwin, 14, of Los Angeles and Jerusalem. U.S. citizens injured: Diana Campuzano of New York, Abraham Mendelson of Los Angeles, CA, Greg Salzman of New Jersey, Stuart E. Hersh of Kiryat Arba, Israel, Michael Alzer, Abraham Elias, David Keinan, Daniel Miller of Boca Raton, FL, Noam Rozenman of Jerusalem, Jenny (Yocheved) Rubin of Los Angeles, CA.
> HAMAS
> 
> What do you call the entity that carried out the Bombing of American convoy in the Gaza Strip: John Branchizio, 37, Mark Parson, 31, and John Martin Linde, 30, were on contract to the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv through the defense contracting company Dyncorp.U.S. citizens injured: One as-yet-unnamed U.S. citizen.
> HAMAS
> 
> What do you call the entity that carried out the 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers.
> HAMAS
> 
> What do you call the entity that launched over 4000 Rockets and Mortars indiscriminately into Israel.
> HAMAS
> 
> Every State _(even the Palestinians)_ has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.  Every State _(even the Palestinians)_ has the duty to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries, for incursion into the territory of another State.  States _(even the Palestinians)_ shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties _(Israeli and Palestinian) _shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.
> 
> HAMAS always has tried to maintain the appearance of a proper Islamic posture in the belief that it would strengthen the Palestinian national struggle _(the manipulative use of religion to further the political objectives)_.  The idea of going back to the Supreme Being _(death in the service of HAMAS --- is the same as death in the service of Islamic Nationalism)_ would be the first step _(righteous martyrs')_ and most important step --- that the constituent followers would come to believe is the true path towards of liberation _(the actual path necessary for HAMAS to achieve political power and influence)_.  In the sphere of resistance against Israeli occupation, HAMAS (short title for the Islamic Resistance Movement) advocated violent tactics, and for this purpose it created _Kata’ib Izz-al-Din al-Qassam (A strategy used by‘Izz al-Din al-Qassam, being a Muslim Preacher, and founder of the Palestinian Black Hand)_.  This is a blend of religious and nationalist axioms, with emphasis on how religion should be employed in the service of nationalism.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And never any criticism from Tinmore over all the murderous Palestinian behavior. Only for Israel when Israel retaliates.
Click to expand...


Has Tinmore ever made a valid point that was proven to be true?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq,  _et al,_
> 
> This is incoherent nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well R,with respect.......you and others may think anything that criticizes Zionism is Anti-Semitic...well it is not,the Facts of the matter are true......I get irritated with this "Anti-Semitic" red herring one liner which is the Zionist attempt to deflect anything about their murderous behaviour.....so stop using it.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Murderous Behaviors?  The entire Arab Palestinians culture exemplifies a Past History of Murderous Behaviors.
> 
> Your outburst is right-up the strategy expressed by the "*Tips for Arabs About Speaking (about Palestine) to Western audiences."  *The general construct is based on either a design, provocation, or means of encouragement to further a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there are People who Hate Jews......I am not one of them...............Anti-Jew....is Anti-Humanity and history shows it is debased logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> How can you claim not to be one of them when you are using "Zionism" as a means to promote an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group (Arab Palestinians) over any other racial group (Zionists) with the intention of maintaining a HAMAS/Fatah regime; and to overtake Palestine in the Jihadist context that all of the former territory.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only deal in reality and facts..........Some Jews have treated Palestinians in a horrible manner,yet most of you have no backbone when you should criticize the Germans......but with them you seem to have forgotten..Yet dehumanize the Palestinians.steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What should we criticize the Germans for?  This is the 21st Century.
> 
> There is a difference between dehumanization and the statement of facts:
> 
> What do you call the entity that during the Olympic Games in Munich, took hostage 11 members of the Israeli Olympic team. Nine athletes were killed.
> Palestinian Black September
> 
> What do you call the entity that attacked Israel's major airline at the Istanbul airport. Four civilians were killed and 20 injured.
> Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine
> 
> What do you call the entity that detonate a van full of explosives 30 feet in front of the U.S. Embassy annex severely damaging the building, killing two U.S. servicemen and seven Lebanese employees, as well as 5 to 15 non-employees. Twenty Americans were injured, including U.S. Ambassador Reginald Bartholomew and visiting British Ambassador David Miers. An estimated 40 to 50 Lebanese were hurt.
> Palestinian Islamic Jihad
> 
> What do you call the entity that seized control of the steering wheel of a crowded bus enroute from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and drove the bus off a cliff in the area of Kiryat Ye'arim. 16 civilians were killed.
> Palestinian Islamic Jihad
> 
> What do you call the entity that kidnapped and murdered a family from New York.
> HAMAS
> 
> What do you call the entity that carried out the Bombing on Ben-Yehuda Street, Jerusalem. U.S. citizens killed: Yael Botwin, 14, of Los Angeles and Jerusalem. U.S. citizens injured: Diana Campuzano of New York, Abraham Mendelson of Los Angeles, CA, Greg Salzman of New Jersey, Stuart E. Hersh of Kiryat Arba, Israel, Michael Alzer, Abraham Elias, David Keinan, Daniel Miller of Boca Raton, FL, Noam Rozenman of Jerusalem, Jenny (Yocheved) Rubin of Los Angeles, CA.
> HAMAS
> 
> What do you call the entity that carried out the Bombing of American convoy in the Gaza Strip: John Branchizio, 37, Mark Parson, 31, and John Martin Linde, 30, were on contract to the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv through the defense contracting company Dyncorp.U.S. citizens injured: One as-yet-unnamed U.S. citizen.
> HAMAS
> 
> What do you call the entity that carried out the 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers.
> HAMAS
> 
> What do you call the entity that launched over 4000 Rockets and Mortars indiscriminately into Israel.
> HAMAS
> 
> Every State _(even the Palestinians)_ has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.  Every State _(even the Palestinians)_ has the duty to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries, for incursion into the territory of another State.  States _(even the Palestinians)_ shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties _(Israeli and Palestinian) _shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.
> 
> HAMAS always has tried to maintain the appearance of a proper Islamic posture in the belief that it would strengthen the Palestinian national struggle _(the manipulative use of religion to further the political objectives)_.  The idea of going back to the Supreme Being _(death in the service of HAMAS --- is the same as death in the service of Islamic Nationalism)_ would be the first step _(righteous martyrs')_ and most important step --- that the constituent followers would come to believe is the true path towards of liberation _(the actual path necessary for HAMAS to achieve political power and influence)_.  In the sphere of resistance against Israeli occupation, HAMAS (short title for the Islamic Resistance Movement) advocated violent tactics, and for this purpose it created _Kata’ib Izz-al-Din al-Qassam (A strategy used by‘Izz al-Din al-Qassam, being a Muslim Preacher, and founder of the Palestinian Black Hand)_.  This is a blend of religious and nationalist axioms, with emphasis on how religion should be employed in the service of nationalism.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every State _(even the Palestinians)_ has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.​
> You have continuously danced around this issue and have never proved your point to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is part of the UN charter that you are quick to quote when it deals with the Jews, and the P.A. have just recently agreed to be bound by its terms.  So what is there to prove other than you are certifiably insane
Click to expand...


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq,  _et al,_
> 
> This is incoherent nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well R,with respect.......you and others may think anything that criticizes Zionism is Anti-Semitic...well it is not,the Facts of the matter are true......I get irritated with this "Anti-Semitic" red herring one liner which is the Zionist attempt to deflect anything about their murderous behaviour.....so stop using it.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Murderous Behaviors?  The entire Arab Palestinians culture exemplifies a Past History of Murderous Behaviors.
> 
> Your outburst is right-up the strategy expressed by the "*Tips for Arabs About Speaking (about Palestine) to Western audiences."  *The general construct is based on either a design, provocation, or means of encouragement to further a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there are People who Hate Jews......I am not one of them...............Anti-Jew....is Anti-Humanity and history shows it is debased logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> How can you claim not to be one of them when you are using "Zionism" as a means to promote an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group (Arab Palestinians) over any other racial group (Zionists) with the intention of maintaining a HAMAS/Fatah regime; and to overtake Palestine in the Jihadist context that all of the former territory.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only deal in reality and facts..........Some Jews have treated Palestinians in a horrible manner,yet most of you have no backbone when you should criticize the Germans......but with them you seem to have forgotten..Yet dehumanize the Palestinians.steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What should we criticize the Germans for?  This is the 21st Century.
> 
> There is a difference between dehumanization and the statement of facts:
> 
> What do you call the entity that during the Olympic Games in Munich, took hostage 11 members of the Israeli Olympic team. Nine athletes were killed.
> Palestinian Black September
> 
> What do you call the entity that attacked Israel's major airline at the Istanbul airport. Four civilians were killed and 20 injured.
> Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine
> 
> What do you call the entity that detonate a van full of explosives 30 feet in front of the U.S. Embassy annex severely damaging the building, killing two U.S. servicemen and seven Lebanese employees, as well as 5 to 15 non-employees. Twenty Americans were injured, including U.S. Ambassador Reginald Bartholomew and visiting British Ambassador David Miers. An estimated 40 to 50 Lebanese were hurt.
> Palestinian Islamic Jihad
> 
> What do you call the entity that seized control of the steering wheel of a crowded bus enroute from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and drove the bus off a cliff in the area of Kiryat Ye'arim. 16 civilians were killed.
> Palestinian Islamic Jihad
> 
> What do you call the entity that kidnapped and murdered a family from New York.
> HAMAS
> 
> What do you call the entity that carried out the Bombing on Ben-Yehuda Street, Jerusalem. U.S. citizens killed: Yael Botwin, 14, of Los Angeles and Jerusalem. U.S. citizens injured: Diana Campuzano of New York, Abraham Mendelson of Los Angeles, CA, Greg Salzman of New Jersey, Stuart E. Hersh of Kiryat Arba, Israel, Michael Alzer, Abraham Elias, David Keinan, Daniel Miller of Boca Raton, FL, Noam Rozenman of Jerusalem, Jenny (Yocheved) Rubin of Los Angeles, CA.
> HAMAS
> 
> What do you call the entity that carried out the Bombing of American convoy in the Gaza Strip: John Branchizio, 37, Mark Parson, 31, and John Martin Linde, 30, were on contract to the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv through the defense contracting company Dyncorp.U.S. citizens injured: One as-yet-unnamed U.S. citizen.
> HAMAS
> 
> What do you call the entity that carried out the 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers.
> HAMAS
> 
> What do you call the entity that launched over 4000 Rockets and Mortars indiscriminately into Israel.
> HAMAS
> 
> Every State _(even the Palestinians)_ has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.  Every State _(even the Palestinians)_ has the duty to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries, for incursion into the territory of another State.  States _(even the Palestinians)_ shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties _(Israeli and Palestinian) _shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.
> 
> HAMAS always has tried to maintain the appearance of a proper Islamic posture in the belief that it would strengthen the Palestinian national struggle _(the manipulative use of religion to further the political objectives)_.  The idea of going back to the Supreme Being _(death in the service of HAMAS --- is the same as death in the service of Islamic Nationalism)_ would be the first step _(righteous martyrs')_ and most important step --- that the constituent followers would come to believe is the true path towards of liberation _(the actual path necessary for HAMAS to achieve political power and influence)_.  In the sphere of resistance against Israeli occupation, HAMAS (short title for the Islamic Resistance Movement) advocated violent tactics, and for this purpose it created _Kata’ib Izz-al-Din al-Qassam (A strategy used by‘Izz al-Din al-Qassam, being a Muslim Preacher, and founder of the Palestinian Black Hand)_.  This is a blend of religious and nationalist axioms, with emphasis on how religion should be employed in the service of nationalism.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every State _(even the Palestinians)_ has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.​
> You have continuously danced around this issue and have never proved your point to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is part of the UN charter that you are quick to quote when it deals with the Jews, and the P.A. have just recently agreed to be bound by its terms.  So what is there to prove other than you are certifiably insane
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Them poppies must be good this year, eh Tinmore?


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq,  _et al,_
> 
> I noticed your source for the quoted information is from:  "The *Institute for Historical Review* (*IHR*) is an antiSemitic organization:
> 
> "Founded in 1978 by Willis Carto, a longtime anti-Semite, the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) is a pseudo-academic organization that claims to seek "truth and accuracy in history," but whose real purpose is to promote Holocaust denial and defend Nazism. Once a prominent voice in extremist circles, the IHR has been on the decline, unable to publish its anti-Semitic _Journal of Historical Review_ or sponsor major international Holocaust denial conferences since 2004. The organization still runs its website, where it peddles extremist books and other materials, and hosts some minor extremist gatherings."
> _*SOURCEs:*_
> 
> Combined Education Source Page --- Princeton Univ
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> The Southern Poverty Law Center
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741[/URL] said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo Theliq, who is this friend of Hitler?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741[/URL] said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://histclo.com/imagef/date/2011/12/mufti-ah41s.jpg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have never been an admirer of hitler in anyway unlike you Zionist Terrorists.....people on here are Not anti-semitic they are ANTI-ZIONIST TERRORIST,that foreign established Terrorist Group who have managed to con decent Jews..........As these original instigaters of Terrorism,ARE the Zionists actually Jews at all ???These foreign European Jews have No direct lineage to the Shepardic Jews at all.......no direct link to Abraham or David.......just a motley crew of Terrorist who have unsuccessfully been able to shed their Wolf.....by trying to wear sheep's clothing,their mantra of trying to tell the awful lie that Zionism equates to Judeasim.........Even Jews detest Zionists......No it is not Anti-Semitism but Anti- Zionism
> www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]']Zionism and the Third Reich                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             [/URL]
> [/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)
> *
> Couple Points:
> 
> I'm not sure that anyone one, involved in this Discussion Group, is an "admirer" of Hitler.
> 
> Zionism defines the philosophy behind the development of a Jewish National Home (JNH) _(as opposed to Judaism which describes the Jewish faith)_.  The fundamental concept behind the JNH was embedded by the international community within the theme outlined in the 1947 Partition Plan --- the establishment of the Jewish State.   Most proPalestinians hide their antisemitism behind the camouflage of antiZionism.   Certainly there are common accusations:
> 
> There is the common claim of racism; wherein the proPalestinian attempts to make a connection with "apartheid."
> There is the constant allegations of murderous war crimes; wherein the proPalestinian attempts to instigate a provocative event then blame the outcome of conflict on the Israelis.
> There is the common claim for the entire territory formerly under mandate and the absence of any legitimate claim by the Israeli.
> There is the proPalestinian cry and disdain for Jewish human rights and self-determination.
> There is the proPalestinian attempts to destroy Israeli national identity.
> The essence of the Palestinian struggle is portraying themselves as long standing victims of their own historical making; attempting to roll back the timeline to an era prior to World War I.  They are constantly making an issue out of their "inalienable" rights as if something should have been handed to them on a silver platter; as opposed to them working towards the development of their own national heritage.  When we ask the question:  Who are the Palestinians?  What we see are a people that never opted to build a positive construct for their culture to develop in any positive way --- always requiring a handout and always in turmoil.
> 
> In the present, one only needs to examine what positive and constructive steps they are taking today --- to understand the direction the Palestinian has taken over time; politically, economically, and culturally, to fathom where they have been for the last century.  Zero real development; as oppose to every cultural segment around them.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well R,with respect.......you and others may think anything that criticizes Zionism is Anti-Semitic...well it is not,the Facts of the matter are true......I get irritated with this "Anti-Semitic" red herring one liner which is the Zionist attempt to deflect anything about their murderous behaviour.....so stop using it.
> 
> Yes there are People who Hate Jews......I am not one of them...............Anti-Jew....is Anti-Humanity and history shows it is debased logic.
> 
> I only deal in reality and facts..........Some Jews have treated Palestinians in a horrible manner,yet most of you have no backbone when you should criticize the Germans......but with them you seem to have forgotten..Yet dehumanize the Palestinians.steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain why and how a person could be anti-Zionist and not anti-Semitic, Steve. It's not possible.
Click to expand...

Well Zionists are a murderous terrorist group as you well know,although cleverly they have tried to entwine themselves with Judeaism...they are not,many Jews detest Zionism......they do not represent Real Jews.....they are merely THE TERRORIST SECTION of Israel.

That SOME Jews have tied their wagon to this mantra of a dishonourable group of Zionists,just shows the dread mentality of them.

Of course I can differentiate between Zionist Terrorist and other Jewish folk but by your comments guys and girls...YOU CLEARLY CANNOT and that is the Guiltiness that you carry for life.......Their the Zionists TACTICS mirror those of ISIS...........which has been mentioned before......Killing Jews with Hitler,the 100,000 plus Palestinians,I need not go on.

I am a sentinel against Terrorism.......HIM theliq    SAY NO TO ZIONISM........The Rest of the World Do
ps...Tinnie is a Great Man.....you could learn from him,if you could be bothered to listen


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq,  _et al,_
> 
> I noticed your source for the quoted information is from:  "The *Institute for Historical Review* (*IHR*) is an antiSemitic organization:
> 
> "Founded in 1978 by Willis Carto, a longtime anti-Semite, the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) is a pseudo-academic organization that claims to seek "truth and accuracy in history," but whose real purpose is to promote Holocaust denial and defend Nazism. Once a prominent voice in extremist circles, the IHR has been on the decline, unable to publish its anti-Semitic _Journal of Historical Review_ or sponsor major international Holocaust denial conferences since 2004. The organization still runs its website, where it peddles extremist books and other materials, and hosts some minor extremist gatherings."
> _*SOURCEs:*_
> 
> Combined Education Source Page --- Princeton Univ
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> The Southern Poverty Law Center
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741[/URL] said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo Theliq, who is this friend of Hitler?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741[/URL] said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://histclo.com/imagef/date/2011/12/mufti-ah41s.jpg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have never been an admirer of hitler in anyway unlike you Zionist Terrorists.....people on here are Not anti-semitic they are ANTI-ZIONIST TERRORIST,that foreign established Terrorist Group who have managed to con decent Jews..........As these original instigaters of Terrorism,ARE the Zionists actually Jews at all ???These foreign European Jews have No direct lineage to the Shepardic Jews at all.......no direct link to Abraham or David.......just a motley crew of Terrorist who have unsuccessfully been able to shed their Wolf.....by trying to wear sheep's clothing,their mantra of trying to tell the awful lie that Zionism equates to Judeasim.........Even Jews detest Zionists......No it is not Anti-Semitism but Anti- Zionism
> www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]']Zionism and the Third Reich                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             [/URL]
> [/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)
> *
> Couple Points:
> 
> I'm not sure that anyone one, involved in this Discussion Group, is an "admirer" of Hitler.
> 
> Zionism defines the philosophy behind the development of a Jewish National Home (JNH) _(as opposed to Judaism which describes the Jewish faith)_.  The fundamental concept behind the JNH was embedded by the international community within the theme outlined in the 1947 Partition Plan --- the establishment of the Jewish State.   Most proPalestinians hide their antisemitism behind the camouflage of antiZionism.   Certainly there are common accusations:
> 
> There is the common claim of racism; wherein the proPalestinian attempts to make a connection with "apartheid."
> There is the constant allegations of murderous war crimes; wherein the proPalestinian attempts to instigate a provocative event then blame the outcome of conflict on the Israelis.
> There is the common claim for the entire territory formerly under mandate and the absence of any legitimate claim by the Israeli.
> There is the proPalestinian cry and disdain for Jewish human rights and self-determination.
> There is the proPalestinian attempts to destroy Israeli national identity.
> The essence of the Palestinian struggle is portraying themselves as long standing victims of their own historical making; attempting to roll back the timeline to an era prior to World War I.  They are constantly making an issue out of their "inalienable" rights as if something should have been handed to them on a silver platter; as opposed to them working towards the development of their own national heritage.  When we ask the question:  Who are the Palestinians?  What we see are a people that never opted to build a positive construct for their culture to develop in any positive way --- always requiring a handout and always in turmoil.
> 
> In the present, one only needs to examine what positive and constructive steps they are taking today --- to understand the direction the Palestinian has taken over time; politically, economically, and culturally, to fathom where they have been for the last century.  Zero real development; as oppose to every cultural segment around them.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well R,with respect.......you and others may think anything that criticizes Zionism is Anti-Semitic...well it is not,the Facts of the matter are true......I get irritated with this "Anti-Semitic" red herring one liner which is the Zionist attempt to deflect anything about their murderous behaviour.....so stop using it.
> 
> Yes there are People who Hate Jews......I am not one of them...............Anti-Jew....is Anti-Humanity and history shows it is debased logic.
> 
> I only deal in reality and facts..........Some Jews have treated Palestinians in a horrible manner,yet most of you have no backbone when you should criticize the Germans......but with them you seem to have forgotten..Yet dehumanize the Palestinians.steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain why and how a person could be anti-Zionist and not anti-Semitic, Steve. It's not possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well Zionists are a murderous terrorist group as you well know,although cleverly they have tried to entwine themselves with Judeaism...they are not,many Jews detest Zionism......they do not represent Real Jews.....they are merely THE TERRORIST SECTION of Israel.
> 
> That SOME Jews have tied their wagon to this
Click to expand...

Try asking Lipush and Daniyel what they think about Zionism. They're both Israelis.


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq,  _et al,_
> 
> I noticed your source for the quoted information is from:  "The *Institute for Historical Review* (*IHR*) is an antiSemitic organization:
> 
> "Founded in 1978 by Willis Carto, a longtime anti-Semite, the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) is a pseudo-academic organization that claims to seek "truth and accuracy in history," but whose real purpose is to promote Holocaust denial and defend Nazism. Once a prominent voice in extremist circles, the IHR has been on the decline, unable to publish its anti-Semitic _Journal of Historical Review_ or sponsor major international Holocaust denial conferences since 2004. The organization still runs its website, where it peddles extremist books and other materials, and hosts some minor extremist gatherings."
> _*SOURCEs:*_
> 
> Combined Education Source Page --- Princeton Univ
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> The Southern Poverty Law Center
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never been an admirer of hitler in anyway unlike you Zionist Terrorists.....people on here are Not anti-semitic they are ANTI-ZIONIST TERRORIST,that foreign established Terrorist Group who have managed to con decent Jews..........As these original instigaters of Terrorism,ARE the Zionists actually Jews at all ???These foreign European Jews have No direct lineage to the Shepardic Jews at all.......no direct link to Abraham or David.......just a motley crew of Terrorist who have unsuccessfully been able to shed their Wolf.....by trying to wear sheep's clothing,their mantra of trying to tell the awful lie that Zionism equates to Judeasim.........Even Jews detest Zionists......No it is not Anti-Semitism but Anti- Zionism
> www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]']Zionism and the Third Reich                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             [/URL]
> [/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)
> *
> Couple Points:
> 
> I'm not sure that anyone one, involved in this Discussion Group, is an "admirer" of Hitler.
> 
> Zionism defines the philosophy behind the development of a Jewish National Home (JNH) _(as opposed to Judaism which describes the Jewish faith)_.  The fundamental concept behind the JNH was embedded by the international community within the theme outlined in the 1947 Partition Plan --- the establishment of the Jewish State.   Most proPalestinians hide their antisemitism behind the camouflage of antiZionism.   Certainly there are common accusations:
> 
> There is the common claim of racism; wherein the proPalestinian attempts to make a connection with "apartheid."
> There is the constant allegations of murderous war crimes; wherein the proPalestinian attempts to instigate a provocative event then blame the outcome of conflict on the Israelis.
> There is the common claim for the entire territory formerly under mandate and the absence of any legitimate claim by the Israeli.
> There is the proPalestinian cry and disdain for Jewish human rights and self-determination.
> There is the proPalestinian attempts to destroy Israeli national identity.
> The essence of the Palestinian struggle is portraying themselves as long standing victims of their own historical making; attempting to roll back the timeline to an era prior to World War I.  They are constantly making an issue out of their "inalienable" rights as if something should have been handed to them on a silver platter; as opposed to them working towards the development of their own national heritage.  When we ask the question:  Who are the Palestinians?  What we see are a people that never opted to build a positive construct for their culture to develop in any positive way --- always requiring a handout and always in turmoil.
> 
> In the present, one only needs to examine what positive and constructive steps they are taking today --- to understand the direction the Palestinian has taken over time; politically, economically, and culturally, to fathom where they have been for the last century.  Zero real development; as oppose to every cultural segment around them.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well R,with respect.......you and others may think anything that criticizes Zionism is Anti-Semitic...well it is not,the Facts of the matter are true......I get irritated with this "Anti-Semitic" red herring one liner which is the Zionist attempt to deflect anything about their murderous behaviour.....so stop using it.
> 
> Yes there are People who Hate Jews......I am not one of them...............Anti-Jew....is Anti-Humanity and history shows it is debased logic.
> 
> I only deal in reality and facts..........Some Jews have treated Palestinians in a horrible manner,yet most of you have no backbone when you should criticize the Germans......but with them you seem to have forgotten..Yet dehumanize the Palestinians.steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain why and how a person could be anti-Zionist and not anti-Semitic, Steve. It's not possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well Zionists are a murderous terrorist group as you well know,although cleverly they have tried to entwine themselves with Judeaism...they are not,many Jews detest Zionism......they do not represent Real Jews.....they are merely THE TERRORIST SECTION of Israel.
> 
> That SOME Jews have tied their wagon to this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try asking Lipush and Daniyel what they think about Zionism. They're both Israelis.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Hoss, why would I lower myself......being as they are both rabid Zionist Terrorist and agree with their Mantra........and why would I bother....I prefer to deal with Non Terrorist Jews and Israelis......................how much Zionism in you Hoss......steve


----------



## RoccoR

theliq, et al,

I'm confused.



theliq said:


> Yeah, Hoss, why would I lower myself......being as they are both rabid Zionist Terrorist and agree with their Mantra........and why would I bother....I prefer to deal with Non Terrorist Jews and Israelis......................how much Zionism in you Hoss......steve


*(QUESTION)*

What is the name of this "Zionist Terrorist Group?"

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq,  _et al,_
> 
> I noticed your source for the quoted information is from:  "The *Institute for Historical Review* (*IHR*) is an antiSemitic organization:
> 
> "Founded in 1978 by Willis Carto, a longtime anti-Semite, the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) is a pseudo-academic organization that claims to seek "truth and accuracy in history," but whose real purpose is to promote Holocaust denial and defend Nazism. Once a prominent voice in extremist circles, the IHR has been on the decline, unable to publish its anti-Semitic _Journal of Historical Review_ or sponsor major international Holocaust denial conferences since 2004. The organization still runs its website, where it peddles extremist books and other materials, and hosts some minor extremist gatherings."
> _*SOURCEs:*_
> 
> Combined Education Source Page --- Princeton Univ
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> The Southern Poverty Law Center
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741[/URL] said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo Theliq, who is this friend of Hitler?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741[/URL] said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://histclo.com/imagef/date/2011/12/mufti-ah41s.jpg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have never been an admirer of hitler in anyway unlike you Zionist Terrorists.....people on here are Not anti-semitic they are ANTI-ZIONIST TERRORIST,that foreign established Terrorist Group who have managed to con decent Jews..........As these original instigaters of Terrorism,ARE the Zionists actually Jews at all ???These foreign European Jews have No direct lineage to the Shepardic Jews at all.......no direct link to Abraham or David.......just a motley crew of Terrorist who have unsuccessfully been able to shed their Wolf.....by trying to wear sheep's clothing,their mantra of trying to tell the awful lie that Zionism equates to Judeasim.........Even Jews detest Zionists......No it is not Anti-Semitism but Anti- Zionism
> www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]']Zionism and the Third Reich                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             [/URL]
> [/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)
> *
> Couple Points:
> 
> I'm not sure that anyone one, involved in this Discussion Group, is an "admirer" of Hitler.
> 
> Zionism defines the philosophy behind the development of a Jewish National Home (JNH) _(as opposed to Judaism which describes the Jewish faith)_.  The fundamental concept behind the JNH was embedded by the international community within the theme outlined in the 1947 Partition Plan --- the establishment of the Jewish State.   Most proPalestinians hide their antisemitism behind the camouflage of antiZionism.   Certainly there are common accusations:
> 
> There is the common claim of racism; wherein the proPalestinian attempts to make a connection with "apartheid."
> There is the constant allegations of murderous war crimes; wherein the proPalestinian attempts to instigate a provocative event then blame the outcome of conflict on the Israelis.
> There is the common claim for the entire territory formerly under mandate and the absence of any legitimate claim by the Israeli.
> There is the proPalestinian cry and disdain for Jewish human rights and self-determination.
> There is the proPalestinian attempts to destroy Israeli national identity.
> The essence of the Palestinian struggle is portraying themselves as long standing victims of their own historical making; attempting to roll back the timeline to an era prior to World War I.  They are constantly making an issue out of their "inalienable" rights as if something should have been handed to them on a silver platter; as opposed to them working towards the development of their own national heritage.  When we ask the question:  Who are the Palestinians?  What we see are a people that never opted to build a positive construct for their culture to develop in any positive way --- always requiring a handout and always in turmoil.
> 
> In the present, one only needs to examine what positive and constructive steps they are taking today --- to understand the direction the Palestinian has taken over time; politically, economically, and culturally, to fathom where they have been for the last century.  Zero real development; as oppose to every cultural segment around them.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well R,with respect.......you and others may think anything that criticizes Zionism is Anti-Semitic...well it is not,the Facts of the matter are true......I get irritated with this "Anti-Semitic" red herring one liner which is the Zionist attempt to deflect anything about their murderous behaviour.....so stop using it.
> 
> Yes there are People who Hate Jews......I am not one of them...............Anti-Jew....is Anti-Humanity and history shows it is debased logic.
> 
> I only deal in reality and facts..........Some Jews have treated Palestinians in a horrible manner,yet most of you have no backbone when you should criticize the Germans......but with them you seem to have forgotten..Yet dehumanize the Palestinians.steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain why and how a person could be anti-Zionist and not anti-Semitic, Steve. It's not possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well Zionists are a murderous terrorist group as you well know,although cleverly they have tried to entwine themselves with Judeaism...they are not,many Jews detest Zionism......they do not represent Real Jews.....they are merely THE TERRORIST SECTION of Israel.
> 
> That SOME Jews have tied their wagon to this mantra of a dishonourable group of Zionists,just shows the dread mentality of them.
> 
> Of course I can differentiate between Zionist Terrorist and other Jewish folk but by your comments guys and girls...YOU CLEARLY CANNOT and that is the Guiltiness that you carry for life.......Their the Zionists TACTICS mirror those of ISIS...........which has been mentioned before......Killing Jews with Hitler,the 100,000 plus Palestinians,I need not go on.
> 
> I am a sentinel against Terrorism.......HIM theliq    SAY NO TO ZIONISM........The Rest of the World Do
> ps...Tinnie is a Great Man.....you could learn from him,if you could be bothered to listen
Click to expand...






 Still waiting for you to give your own personal definition of what you mean when you spew out the term Zionist, just to see how much you really know about Jews and Jewish history. ( not forgetting the history of Mohamed as well )


----------



## theliq

RoccoR said:


> theliq, et al,
> 
> I'm confused.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, Hoss, why would I lower myself......being as they are both rabid Zionist Terrorist and agree with their Mantra........and why would I bother....I prefer to deal with Non Terrorist Jews and Israelis......................how much Zionism in you Hoss......steve
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> What is the name of this "Zionist Terrorist Group?"
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Cretin
Zionism=Terrorist........always have always will......I am not getting into semantics with Zionist Terrorists like you or your possee HIM theliq.....Hugana,Stern Gang,Irugun(two of which of who's leadership,went on to be Israeli Prime Ministers!!!!!!!!......Shamir and Begin the Godfather of Terrorism................and todays Zionist Terrorists......Fcuked if you know any Jewish history at all.


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq,  _et al,_
> 
> I noticed your source for the quoted information is from:  "The *Institute for Historical Review* (*IHR*) is an antiSemitic organization:
> 
> "Founded in 1978 by Willis Carto, a longtime anti-Semite, the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) is a pseudo-academic organization that claims to seek "truth and accuracy in history," but whose real purpose is to promote Holocaust denial and defend Nazism. Once a prominent voice in extremist circles, the IHR has been on the decline, unable to publish its anti-Semitic _Journal of Historical Review_ or sponsor major international Holocaust denial conferences since 2004. The organization still runs its website, where it peddles extremist books and other materials, and hosts some minor extremist gatherings."
> _*SOURCEs:*_
> 
> Combined Education Source Page --- Princeton Univ
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> The Southern Poverty Law Center
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never been an admirer of hitler in anyway unlike you Zionist Terrorists.....people on here are Not anti-semitic they are ANTI-ZIONIST TERRORIST,that foreign established Terrorist Group who have managed to con decent Jews..........As these original instigaters of Terrorism,ARE the Zionists actually Jews at all ???These foreign European Jews have No direct lineage to the Shepardic Jews at all.......no direct link to Abraham or David.......just a motley crew of Terrorist who have unsuccessfully been able to shed their Wolf.....by trying to wear sheep's clothing,their mantra of trying to tell the awful lie that Zionism equates to Judeasim.........Even Jews detest Zionists......No it is not Anti-Semitism but Anti- Zionism
> www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]']Zionism and the Third Reich                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             [/URL]
> [/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)
> *
> Couple Points:
> 
> I'm not sure that anyone one, involved in this Discussion Group, is an "admirer" of Hitler.
> 
> Zionism defines the philosophy behind the development of a Jewish National Home (JNH) _(as opposed to Judaism which describes the Jewish faith)_.  The fundamental concept behind the JNH was embedded by the international community within the theme outlined in the 1947 Partition Plan --- the establishment of the Jewish State.   Most proPalestinians hide their antisemitism behind the camouflage of antiZionism.   Certainly there are common accusations:
> 
> There is the common claim of racism; wherein the proPalestinian attempts to make a connection with "apartheid."
> There is the constant allegations of murderous war crimes; wherein the proPalestinian attempts to instigate a provocative event then blame the outcome of conflict on the Israelis.
> There is the common claim for the entire territory formerly under mandate and the absence of any legitimate claim by the Israeli.
> There is the proPalestinian cry and disdain for Jewish human rights and self-determination.
> There is the proPalestinian attempts to destroy Israeli national identity.
> The essence of the Palestinian struggle is portraying themselves as long standing victims of their own historical making; attempting to roll back the timeline to an era prior to World War I.  They are constantly making an issue out of their "inalienable" rights as if something should have been handed to them on a silver platter; as opposed to them working towards the development of their own national heritage.  When we ask the question:  Who are the Palestinians?  What we see are a people that never opted to build a positive construct for their culture to develop in any positive way --- always requiring a handout and always in turmoil.
> 
> In the present, one only needs to examine what positive and constructive steps they are taking today --- to understand the direction the Palestinian has taken over time; politically, economically, and culturally, to fathom where they have been for the last century.  Zero real development; as oppose to every cultural segment around them.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well R,with respect.......you and others may think anything that criticizes Zionism is Anti-Semitic...well it is not,the Facts of the matter are true......I get irritated with this "Anti-Semitic" red herring one liner which is the Zionist attempt to deflect anything about their murderous behaviour.....so stop using it.
> 
> Yes there are People who Hate Jews......I am not one of them...............Anti-Jew....is Anti-Humanity and history shows it is debased logic.
> 
> I only deal in reality and facts..........Some Jews have treated Palestinians in a horrible manner,yet most of you have no backbone when you should criticize the Germans......but with them you seem to have forgotten..Yet dehumanize the Palestinians.steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain why and how a person could be anti-Zionist and not anti-Semitic, Steve. It's not possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well Zionists are a murderous terrorist group as you well know,although cleverly they have tried to entwine themselves with Judeaism...they are not,many Jews detest Zionism......they do not represent Real Jews.....they are merely THE TERRORIST SECTION of Israel.
> 
> That SOME Jews have tied their wagon to this mantra of a dishonourable group of Zionists,just shows the dread mentality of them.
> 
> Of course I can differentiate between Zionist Terrorist and other Jewish folk but by your comments guys and girls...YOU CLEARLY CANNOT and that is the Guiltiness that you carry for life.......Their the Zionists TACTICS mirror those of ISIS...........which has been mentioned before......Killing Jews with Hitler,the 100,000 plus Palestinians,I need not go on.
> 
> I am a sentinel against Terrorism.......HIM theliq    SAY NO TO ZIONISM........The Rest of the World Do
> ps...Tinnie is a Great Man.....you could learn from him,if you could be bothered to listen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for you to give your own personal definition of what you mean when you spew out the term Zionist, just to see how much you really know about Jews and Jewish history. ( not forgetting the history of Mohamed as well )
Click to expand...

Cretin


----------



## Daniyel

theliq said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq, et al,
> 
> I'm confused.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, Hoss, why would I lower myself......being as they are both rabid Zionist Terrorist and agree with their Mantra........and why would I bother....I prefer to deal with Non Terrorist Jews and Israelis......................how much Zionism in you Hoss......steve
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> What is the name of this "Zionist Terrorist Group?"
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cretin
> Zionism=Terrorist........always have always will......I am not getting into semantics with Zionist Terrorists like you or your possee HIM theliq.....Hugana,Stern Gang,Irugun(two of which of who's leadership,went on to be Israeli Prime Ministers!!!!!!!!......Shamir and Begin the Godfather of Terrorism................and todays Zionist Terrorists......Fcuked if you know any Jewish history at all.
Click to expand...

That is the difference between resistance fighters and terrorists, those who come to resist the attack from the Arabs and those who come to terrorize the Jews.


----------



## RoccoR

theliq,  et al,

Hummm!



theliq said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq, et al,
> 
> I'm confused.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, Hoss, why would I lower myself......being as they are both rabid Zionist Terrorist and agree with their Mantra........and why would I bother....I prefer to deal with Non Terrorist Jews and Israelis......................how much Zionism in you Hoss......steve
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> What is the name of this "Zionist Terrorist Group?"
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cretin
> Zionism=Terrorist........always have always will......I am not getting into semantics with Zionist Terrorists like you or your possee HIM theliq.....Hugana,Stern Gang,Irugun(two of which of who's leadership,went on to be Israeli Prime Ministers!!!!!!!!......Shamir and Begin the Godfather of Terrorism................and todays Zionist Terrorists......Fcuked if you know any Jewish history at all.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Even if I were to agree, the Haganah, the Irgun, and the Stern Gang haven't been around for more than half a century.  They are pre-War of Independence (1948) entities. 

Do you have any knowledge of a 21st Century Zionist Group that you define as terrorists?  Or any Zionist Terror Group that has operated since 1988 when the Arab Palestinians Declared Independence?  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MJB12741

RoccoR said:


> theliq,  et al,
> 
> Hummm!
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq, et al,
> 
> I'm confused.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, Hoss, why would I lower myself......being as they are both rabid Zionist Terrorist and agree with their Mantra........and why would I bother....I prefer to deal with Non Terrorist Jews and Israelis......................how much Zionism in you Hoss......steve
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> What is the name of this "Zionist Terrorist Group?"
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cretin
> Zionism=Terrorist........always have always will......I am not getting into semantics with Zionist Terrorists like you or your possee HIM theliq.....Hugana,Stern Gang,Irugun(two of which of who's leadership,went on to be Israeli Prime Ministers!!!!!!!!......Shamir and Begin the Godfather of Terrorism................and todays Zionist Terrorists......Fcuked if you know any Jewish history at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Even if I were to agree, the Haganah, the Irgun, and the Stern Gang haven't been around for more than half a century.  They are pre-War of Independence (1948) entities.
> 
> Do you have any knowledge of a 21st Century Zionist Group that you define as terrorists?  Or any Zionist Terror Group that has operated since 1988 when the Arab Palestinians Declared Independence?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Although there are no Zionist terrorist groups, the Zionists are mostly to blame for the ongoing Israeli/Palestinian conflict.  Who in their right minds makes peace offerings to Palestinians, builds a security fence & grants Palestinian requests for their own land?


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq, et al,
> 
> I'm confused.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, Hoss, why would I lower myself......being as they are both rabid Zionist Terrorist and agree with their Mantra........and why would I bother....I prefer to deal with Non Terrorist Jews and Israelis......................how much Zionism in you Hoss......steve
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> What is the name of this "Zionist Terrorist Group?"
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cretin
> Zionism=Terrorist........always have always will......I am not getting into semantics with Zionist Terrorists like you or your possee HIM theliq.....Hugana,Stern Gang,Irugun(two of which of who's leadership,went on to be Israeli Prime Ministers!!!!!!!!......Shamir and Begin the Godfather of Terrorism................and todays Zionist Terrorists......Fcuked if you know any Jewish history at all.
Click to expand...





 Your evidence from a non partisan source or retract your RACIST comments


----------



## MJB12741

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq, et al,
> 
> I'm confused.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, Hoss, why would I lower myself......being as they are both rabid Zionist Terrorist and agree with their Mantra........and why would I bother....I prefer to deal with Non Terrorist Jews and Israelis......................how much Zionism in you Hoss......steve
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> What is the name of this "Zionist Terrorist Group?"
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cretin
> Zionism=Terrorist........always have always will......I am not getting into semantics with Zionist Terrorists like you or your possee HIM theliq.....Hugana,Stern Gang,Irugun(two of which of who's leadership,went on to be Israeli Prime Ministers!!!!!!!!......Shamir and Begin the Godfather of Terrorism................and todays Zionist Terrorists......Fcuked if you know any Jewish history at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your evidence from a non partisan source or retract your RACIST comments
Click to expand...


Maybe Theliq is referring to these Zionist terrorist groups.

Category Palestinian militant groups - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Phoenall

MJB12741 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq, et al,
> 
> I'm confused.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, Hoss, why would I lower myself......being as they are both rabid Zionist Terrorist and agree with their Mantra........and why would I bother....I prefer to deal with Non Terrorist Jews and Israelis......................how much Zionism in you Hoss......steve
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> What is the name of this "Zionist Terrorist Group?"
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cretin
> Zionism=Terrorist........always have always will......I am not getting into semantics with Zionist Terrorists like you or your possee HIM theliq.....Hugana,Stern Gang,Irugun(two of which of who's leadership,went on to be Israeli Prime Ministers!!!!!!!!......Shamir and Begin the Godfather of Terrorism................and todays Zionist Terrorists......Fcuked if you know any Jewish history at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your evidence from a non partisan source or retract your RACIST comments
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe Theliq is referring to these Zionist terrorist groups.
> 
> Category Palestinian militant groups - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...






 He must be as islam was once a Zionist organisation, until Mohamed had a seizure and committed genocide on the Jewish in medina. That is were the muslim hate for the Jews comes from one mans mental instability


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq, et al,
> 
> I'm confused.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, Hoss, why would I lower myself......being as they are both rabid Zionist Terrorist and agree with their Mantra........and why would I bother....I prefer to deal with Non Terrorist Jews and Israelis......................how much Zionism in you Hoss......steve
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> What is the name of this "Zionist Terrorist Group?"
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cretin
> Zionism=Terrorist........always have always will......I am not getting into semantics with Zionist Terrorists like you or your possee HIM theliq.....Hugana,Stern Gang,Irugun(two of which of who's leadership,went on to be Israeli Prime Ministers!!!!!!!!......Shamir and Begin the Godfather of Terrorism................and todays Zionist Terrorists......Fcuked if you know any Jewish history at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your evidence from a non partisan source or retract your RACIST comments
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe Theliq is referring to these Zionist terrorist groups.
> 
> Category Palestinian militant groups - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He must be as islam was once a Zionist organisation, until Mohamed had a seizure and committed genocide on the Jewish in medina. That is were the muslim hate for the Jews comes from one mans mental instability
Click to expand...

Cretins


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq, et al,
> 
> I'm confused.
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> What is the name of this "Zionist Terrorist Group?"
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Cretin
> Zionism=Terrorist........always have always will......I am not getting into semantics with Zionist Terrorists like you or your possee HIM theliq.....Hugana,Stern Gang,Irugun(two of which of who's leadership,went on to be Israeli Prime Ministers!!!!!!!!......Shamir and Begin the Godfather of Terrorism................and todays Zionist Terrorists......Fcuked if you know any Jewish history at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your evidence from a non partisan source or retract your RACIST comments
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe Theliq is referring to these Zionist terrorist groups.
> 
> Category Palestinian militant groups - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He must be as islam was once a Zionist organisation, until Mohamed had a seizure and committed genocide on the Jewish in medina. That is were the muslim hate for the Jews comes from one mans mental instability
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cretins
Click to expand...




 Read your religions history and see that Mohamed showed all the signs of frontal lobe epilepsy, from the voices to the visions and finally the change in mood from pacifist to violent warlord. He started out claiming the Jews had the right to live in Israel unmolested and in peace, then turned to a rapacious murdering thief and welcomed any violent thug to his band of cutthroats.


----------



## theliq

MJB12741 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq, et al,
> 
> I'm confused.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, Hoss, why would I lower myself......being as they are both rabid Zionist Terrorist and agree with their Mantra........and why would I bother....I prefer to deal with Non Terrorist Jews and Israelis......................how much Zionism in you Hoss......steve
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> What is the name of this "Zionist Terrorist Group?"
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cretin
> Zionism=Terrorist........always have always will......I am not getting into semantics with Zionist Terrorists like you or your possee HIM theliq.....Hugana,Stern Gang,Irugun(two of which of who's leadership,went on to be Israeli Prime Ministers!!!!!!!!......Shamir and Begin the Godfather of Terrorism................and todays Zionist Terrorists......Fcuked if you know any Jewish history at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your evidence from a non partisan source or retract your RACIST comments
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe Theliq is referring to these Zionist terrorist groups.
> 
> Category Palestinian militant groups - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Been away checking on my overseas operations...all good.....back to you Cretins though........"It's the same old story from you Cretins" nice to see you had NO defence against the Zionist MURDEROUS Groups I mentioned......You really are a Joke....some Moron mentioned "What have the Zionist Terrorist done since 1988".....your admission of guilt only exposes you for the scum you are......think I would that a backward step against the filthy organization you belong to.........well you have No fear of that......I am just going to Ramp Up the Pressure a little more......when questioned with the facts you try to introduce the dealings of the Muslim Arabs(I will discuss their barbarity at a later date)....on this threat we are talking about Zionism(try to keep up to speed with what actually is being discussed,I know it's hard for you because of the way you Crets have been indoctorinated(that's for another thread).

As Zionism has morphed itself into the conservative polotik in Israel over the past 30 years or so,even the attempt to imagine that Zionism is Judeaism(Such corrupted Bullshit) Everything your most(but not all) of your Politicians(stained and dripping in Zionism) approve.....thus carried out through the IDF...is still part of the Zionist Mantra of wiping out the Palestinians.....you Cretins have the temerity of crying foul and sickeningly pleading the innocent....is seen as total hypocricy in its entirety.

The Palestinian deaths of mainly innocent women and children.........you claim innocence...ARE YOU COMPLETELY MAD......the Israeli Jewish deaths are appauling in this on going conflict but remain lower,much lower than the Palestinian DEATHS.

I don't think you Terrorists want peace in any form as has been expressed by so many in Israel......Hamas have been much the same.....The trouble today is......that Israel are totally inflexible to move forward and like Hamas HATRED has taken over normal rationale.......but Zionists do not have the term "Olive Branch" in their vocabulary and lets be honest NEVER HAVE.........we have seen their barbaric behaviour in the past and present.......with Zionism Israel has little future...Not matter how much money is given and no matter how much Nuclear capability and state of the Art Weaponary  you aquire.......History proves this mentality is Futile.and it is.........It is Sad as it could have been different if both sides had played their cards better.Today we have to intelligent peoples...Totally Traumatized,with no where to turn..........as the hands have been played out.

It will take generational change for things to really improve............Soon Forward To That I say....steve.........Viva Israel(without Zionism) Viva Palestine(without Hamas)


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq, et al,
> 
> I'm confused.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, Hoss, why would I lower myself......being as they are both rabid Zionist Terrorist and agree with their Mantra........and why would I bother....I prefer to deal with Non Terrorist Jews and Israelis......................how much Zionism in you Hoss......steve
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> What is the name of this "Zionist Terrorist Group?"
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cretin
> Zionism=Terrorist........always have always will......I am not getting into semantics with Zionist Terrorists like you or your possee HIM theliq.....Hugana,Stern Gang,Irugun(two of which of who's leadership,went on to be Israeli Prime Ministers!!!!!!!!......Shamir and Begin the Godfather of Terrorism................and todays Zionist Terrorists......Fcuked if you know any Jewish history at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your evidence from a non partisan source or retract your RACIST comments
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe Theliq is referring to these Zionist terrorist groups.
> 
> Category Palestinian militant groups - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Been away checking on my overseas operations...all good.....back to you Cretins though........"It's the same old story from you Cretins" nice to see you had NO defence against the Zionist MURDEROUS Groups I mentioned......You really are a Joke....some Moron mentioned "What have the Zionist Terrorist done since 1988".....your admission of guilt only exposes you for the scum you are......think I would that a backward step against the filthy organization you belong to.........well you have No fear of that......I am just going to Ramp Up the Pressure a little more......when questioned with the facts you try to introduce the dealings of the Muslim Arabs(I will discuss their barbarity at a later date)....on this threat we are talking about Zionism(try to keep up to speed with what actually is being discussed,I know it's hard for you because of the way you Crets have been indoctorinated(that's for another thread).
> 
> As Zionism has morphed itself into the conservative polotik in Israel over the past 30 years or so,even the attempt to imagine that Zionism is Judeaism(Such corrupted Bullshit) Everything your most(but not all) of your Politicians(stained and dripping in Zionism) approve.....thus carried out through the IDF...is still part of the Zionist Mantra of wiping out the Palestinians.....you Cretins have the temerity of crying foul and sickeningly pleading the innocent....is seen as total hypocricy in its entirety.
> 
> The Palestinian deaths of mainly innocent women and children.........you claim innocence...ARE YOU COMPLETELY MAD......the Israeli Jewish deaths are appauling in this on going conflict but remain lower,much lower than the Palestinian DEATHS.
> 
> I don't think you Terrorists want peace in any form as has been expressed by so many in Israel......Hamas have been much the same.....The trouble today is......that Israel are totally inflexible to move forward and like Hamas HATRED has taken over normal rationale.......but Zionists do not have the term "Olive Branch" in their vocabulary and lets be honest NEVER HAVE.........we have seen their barbaric behaviour in the past and present.......with Zionism Israel has little future...Not matter how much money is given and no matter how much Nuclear capability and state of the Art Weaponary  you aquire.......History proves this mentality is Futile.and it is.........It is Sad as it could have been different if both sides had played their cards better.Today we have to intelligent peoples...Totally Traumatized,with no where to turn..........as the hands have been played out.
> 
> It will take generational change for things to really improve............Soon Forward To That I say....steve.........Viva Israel(without Zionism) Viva Palestine(without Hamas)
Click to expand...





 JUST MORE ISLAMONAZI PSYCHOBABBLE that shows the muslims are far from sane.
 The 2000 dead Palestinians were the fault of hamas UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW and you cant alter that fact. When it is decided by the ICC that hamas is at fault you will claim that the ICC is s Zionist terror group. You are fixated to the point of insanity with blaming everything on the Jews, when you know that it is the muslims that are the root cause.


----------



## MJB12741

theliq said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq, et al,
> 
> I'm confused.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, Hoss, why would I lower myself......being as they are both rabid Zionist Terrorist and agree with their Mantra........and why would I bother....I prefer to deal with Non Terrorist Jews and Israelis......................how much Zionism in you Hoss......steve
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> What is the name of this "Zionist Terrorist Group?"
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cretin
> Zionism=Terrorist........always have always will......I am not getting into semantics with Zionist Terrorists like you or your possee HIM theliq.....Hugana,Stern Gang,Irugun(two of which of who's leadership,went on to be Israeli Prime Ministers!!!!!!!!......Shamir and Begin the Godfather of Terrorism................and todays Zionist Terrorists......Fcuked if you know any Jewish history at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your evidence from a non partisan source or retract your RACIST comments
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe Theliq is referring to these Zionist terrorist groups.
> 
> Category Palestinian militant groups - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Been away checking on my overseas operations...all good.....back to you Cretins though........"It's the same old story from you Cretins" nice to see you had NO defence against the Zionist MURDEROUS Groups I mentioned......You really are a Joke....some Moron mentioned "What have the Zionist Terrorist done since 1988".....your admission of guilt only exposes you for the scum you are......think I would that a backward step against the filthy organization you belong to.........well you have No fear of that......I am just going to Ramp Up the Pressure a little more......when questioned with the facts you try to introduce the dealings of the Muslim Arabs(I will discuss their barbarity at a later date)....on this threat we are talking about Zionism(try to keep up to speed with what actually is being discussed,I know it's hard for you because of the way you Crets have been indoctorinated(that's for another thread).
> 
> As Zionism has morphed itself into the conservative polotik in Israel over the past 30 years or so,even the attempt to imagine that Zionism is Judeaism(Such corrupted Bullshit) Everything your most(but not all) of your Politicians(stained and dripping in Zionism) approve.....thus carried out through the IDF...is still part of the Zionist Mantra of wiping out the Palestinians.....you Cretins have the temerity of crying foul and sickeningly pleading the innocent....is seen as total hypocricy in its entirety.
> 
> The Palestinian deaths of mainly innocent women and children.........you claim innocence...ARE YOU COMPLETELY MAD......the Israeli Jewish deaths are appauling in this on going conflict but remain lower,much lower than the Palestinian DEATHS.
> 
> I don't think you Terrorists want peace in any form as has been expressed by so many in Israel......Hamas have been much the same.....The trouble today is......that Israel are totally inflexible to move forward and like Hamas HATRED has taken over normal rationale.......but Zionists do not have the term "Olive Branch" in their vocabulary and lets be honest NEVER HAVE.........we have seen their barbaric behaviour in the past and present.......with Zionism Israel has little future...Not matter how much money is given and no matter how much Nuclear capability and state of the Art Weaponary  you aquire.......History proves this mentality is Futile.and it is.........It is Sad as it could have been different if both sides had played their cards better.Today we have to intelligent peoples...Totally Traumatized,with no where to turn..........as the hands have been played out.
> 
> It will take generational change for things to really improve............Soon Forward To That I say....steve.........Viva Israel(without Zionism) Viva Palestine(without Hamas)
Click to expand...


Well golly gee Theliq. Palestinian deaths are so much higher than Israeli deaths.   Do you think maybe the Palestinians should stop their violence against Israel so Israel won't have to kill them?


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq, et al,
> 
> I'm confused.
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> What is the name of this "Zionist Terrorist Group?"
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Cretin
> Zionism=Terrorist........always have always will......I am not getting into semantics with Zionist Terrorists like you or your possee HIM theliq.....Hugana,Stern Gang,Irugun(two of which of who's leadership,went on to be Israeli Prime Ministers!!!!!!!!......Shamir and Begin the Godfather of Terrorism................and todays Zionist Terrorists......Fcuked if you know any Jewish history at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your evidence from a non partisan source or retract your RACIST comments
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe Theliq is referring to these Zionist terrorist groups.
> 
> Category Palestinian militant groups - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Been away checking on my overseas operations...all good.....back to you Cretins though........"It's the same old story from you Cretins" nice to see you had NO defence against the Zionist MURDEROUS Groups I mentioned......You really are a Joke....some Moron mentioned "What have the Zionist Terrorist done since 1988".....your admission of guilt only exposes you for the scum you are......think I would that a backward step against the filthy organization you belong to.........well you have No fear of that......I am just going to Ramp Up the Pressure a little more......when questioned with the facts you try to introduce the dealings of the Muslim Arabs(I will discuss their barbarity at a later date)....on this threat we are talking about Zionism(try to keep up to speed with what actually is being discussed,I know it's hard for you because of the way you Crets have been indoctorinated(that's for another thread).
> 
> As Zionism has morphed itself into the conservative polotik in Israel over the past 30 years or so,even the attempt to imagine that Zionism is Judeaism(Such corrupted Bullshit) Everything your most(but not all) of your Politicians(stained and dripping in Zionism) approve.....thus carried out through the IDF...is still part of the Zionist Mantra of wiping out the Palestinians.....you Cretins have the temerity of crying foul and sickeningly pleading the innocent....is seen as total hypocricy in its entirety.
> 
> The Palestinian deaths of mainly innocent women and children.........you claim innocence...ARE YOU COMPLETELY MAD......the Israeli Jewish deaths are appauling in this on going conflict but remain lower,much lower than the Palestinian DEATHS.
> 
> I don't think you Terrorists want peace in any form as has been expressed by so many in Israel......Hamas have been much the same.....The trouble today is......that Israel are totally inflexible to move forward and like Hamas HATRED has taken over normal rationale.......but Zionists do not have the term "Olive Branch" in their vocabulary and lets be honest NEVER HAVE.........we have seen their barbaric behaviour in the past and present.......with Zionism Israel has little future...Not matter how much money is given and no matter how much Nuclear capability and state of the Art Weaponary  you aquire.......History proves this mentality is Futile.and it is.........It is Sad as it could have been different if both sides had played their cards better.Today we have to intelligent peoples...Totally Traumatized,with no where to turn..........as the hands have been played out.
> 
> It will take generational change for things to really improve............Soon Forward To That I say....steve.........Viva Israel(without Zionism) Viva Palestine(without Hamas)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well golly gee Theliq. Palestinian deaths are so much higher than Israeli deaths.   Do you think maybe the Palestinians should stop their violence against Israel so Israel won't have to kill them?
Click to expand...


Like asking if the non-whites in Apartheid South Africa should have stopped their violence against Apartheid South Africa so the whites wouldn't have to kill so many of them.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cretin
> Zionism=Terrorist........always have always will......I am not getting into semantics with Zionist Terrorists like you or your possee HIM theliq.....Hugana,Stern Gang,Irugun(two of which of who's leadership,went on to be Israeli Prime Ministers!!!!!!!!......Shamir and Begin the Godfather of Terrorism................and todays Zionist Terrorists......Fcuked if you know any Jewish history at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your evidence from a non partisan source or retract your RACIST comments
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe Theliq is referring to these Zionist terrorist groups.
> 
> Category Palestinian militant groups - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Been away checking on my overseas operations...all good.....back to you Cretins though........"It's the same old story from you Cretins" nice to see you had NO defence against the Zionist MURDEROUS Groups I mentioned......You really are a Joke....some Moron mentioned "What have the Zionist Terrorist done since 1988".....your admission of guilt only exposes you for the scum you are......think I would that a backward step against the filthy organization you belong to.........well you have No fear of that......I am just going to Ramp Up the Pressure a little more......when questioned with the facts you try to introduce the dealings of the Muslim Arabs(I will discuss their barbarity at a later date)....on this threat we are talking about Zionism(try to keep up to speed with what actually is being discussed,I know it's hard for you because of the way you Crets have been indoctorinated(that's for another thread).
> 
> As Zionism has morphed itself into the conservative polotik in Israel over the past 30 years or so,even the attempt to imagine that Zionism is Judeaism(Such corrupted Bullshit) Everything your most(but not all) of your Politicians(stained and dripping in Zionism) approve.....thus carried out through the IDF...is still part of the Zionist Mantra of wiping out the Palestinians.....you Cretins have the temerity of crying foul and sickeningly pleading the innocent....is seen as total hypocricy in its entirety.
> 
> The Palestinian deaths of mainly innocent women and children.........you claim innocence...ARE YOU COMPLETELY MAD......the Israeli Jewish deaths are appauling in this on going conflict but remain lower,much lower than the Palestinian DEATHS.
> 
> I don't think you Terrorists want peace in any form as has been expressed by so many in Israel......Hamas have been much the same.....The trouble today is......that Israel are totally inflexible to move forward and like Hamas HATRED has taken over normal rationale.......but Zionists do not have the term "Olive Branch" in their vocabulary and lets be honest NEVER HAVE.........we have seen their barbaric behaviour in the past and present.......with Zionism Israel has little future...Not matter how much money is given and no matter how much Nuclear capability and state of the Art Weaponary  you aquire.......History proves this mentality is Futile.and it is.........It is Sad as it could have been different if both sides had played their cards better.Today we have to intelligent peoples...Totally Traumatized,with no where to turn..........as the hands have been played out.
> 
> It will take generational change for things to really improve............Soon Forward To That I say....steve.........Viva Israel(without Zionism) Viva Palestine(without Hamas)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well golly gee Theliq. Palestinian deaths are so much higher than Israeli deaths.   Do you think maybe the Palestinians should stop their violence against Israel so Israel won't have to kill them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like asking if the non-whites in Apartheid South Africa should have stopped their violence against Apartheid South Africa so the whites wouldn't have to kill so many of them.
Click to expand...


Bottom line is this:  Don't attack Israel if you don't want an Israeli retaliation to kill far more Palestinians.


----------



## montelatici

Oppressed people will always attack their oppressors and more of the oppressed die than the oppressor during the struggle.  It's always been that way throughout history.  The Nazis killed far more of the people in the nations they occupied than the partisans/resistance killed Germans.  Many more Algerians died than French, and so on.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cretin
> Zionism=Terrorist........always have always will......I am not getting into semantics with Zionist Terrorists like you or your possee HIM theliq.....Hugana,Stern Gang,Irugun(two of which of who's leadership,went on to be Israeli Prime Ministers!!!!!!!!......Shamir and Begin the Godfather of Terrorism................and todays Zionist Terrorists......Fcuked if you know any Jewish history at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your evidence from a non partisan source or retract your RACIST comments
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe Theliq is referring to these Zionist terrorist groups.
> 
> Category Palestinian militant groups - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Been away checking on my overseas operations...all good.....back to you Cretins though........"It's the same old story from you Cretins" nice to see you had NO defence against the Zionist MURDEROUS Groups I mentioned......You really are a Joke....some Moron mentioned "What have the Zionist Terrorist done since 1988".....your admission of guilt only exposes you for the scum you are......think I would that a backward step against the filthy organization you belong to.........well you have No fear of that......I am just going to Ramp Up the Pressure a little more......when questioned with the facts you try to introduce the dealings of the Muslim Arabs(I will discuss their barbarity at a later date)....on this threat we are talking about Zionism(try to keep up to speed with what actually is being discussed,I know it's hard for you because of the way you Crets have been indoctorinated(that's for another thread).
> 
> As Zionism has morphed itself into the conservative polotik in Israel over the past 30 years or so,even the attempt to imagine that Zionism is Judeaism(Such corrupted Bullshit) Everything your most(but not all) of your Politicians(stained and dripping in Zionism) approve.....thus carried out through the IDF...is still part of the Zionist Mantra of wiping out the Palestinians.....you Cretins have the temerity of crying foul and sickeningly pleading the innocent....is seen as total hypocricy in its entirety.
> 
> The Palestinian deaths of mainly innocent women and children.........you claim innocence...ARE YOU COMPLETELY MAD......the Israeli Jewish deaths are appauling in this on going conflict but remain lower,much lower than the Palestinian DEATHS.
> 
> I don't think you Terrorists want peace in any form as has been expressed by so many in Israel......Hamas have been much the same.....The trouble today is......that Israel are totally inflexible to move forward and like Hamas HATRED has taken over normal rationale.......but Zionists do not have the term "Olive Branch" in their vocabulary and lets be honest NEVER HAVE.........we have seen their barbaric behaviour in the past and present.......with Zionism Israel has little future...Not matter how much money is given and no matter how much Nuclear capability and state of the Art Weaponary  you aquire.......History proves this mentality is Futile.and it is.........It is Sad as it could have been different if both sides had played their cards better.Today we have to intelligent peoples...Totally Traumatized,with no where to turn..........as the hands have been played out.
> 
> It will take generational change for things to really improve............Soon Forward To That I say....steve.........Viva Israel(without Zionism) Viva Palestine(without Hamas)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well golly gee Theliq. Palestinian deaths are so much higher than Israeli deaths.   Do you think maybe the Palestinians should stop their violence against Israel so Israel won't have to kill them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like asking if the non-whites in Apartheid South Africa should have stopped their violence against Apartheid South Africa so the whites wouldn't have to kill so many of them.
Click to expand...





 Do you even know how many blacks were killed by the white rulers of South Africa, compared to how many were murdered by the ANC led by the terrorist Mandella.  I bet you don't know the figures and will be surprised to hear that less than 1000 were killed under white rule, but over 10,000 were killed by the neo Marxist ANC at the same time.

 Sounds similar to what is happening in gaza with many of the murders carried out by hamas being put down to the Israelis.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Oppressed people will always attack their oppressors and more of the oppressed die than the oppressor during the struggle.  It's always been that way throughout history.  The Nazis killed far more of the people in the nations they occupied than the partisans/resistance killed Germans.  Many more Algerians died than French, and so on.






 Then you would think the Palestinians would have learnt their lesson by now. Soon the world will turn away from gaza and ignore what is happening and leave Israel to sort out the problems


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Oppressed people will always attack their oppressors and more of the oppressed die than the oppressor during the struggle.  It's always been that way throughout history.  The Nazis killed far more of the people in the nations they occupied than the partisans/resistance killed Germans.  Many more Algerians died than French, and so on.



How many of those "oppressed" Palestinians would prefer living in some surrounding Arab country?


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your evidence from a non partisan source or retract your RACIST comments
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Theliq is referring to these Zionist terrorist groups.
> 
> Category Palestinian militant groups - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Been away checking on my overseas operations...all good.....back to you Cretins though........"It's the same old story from you Cretins" nice to see you had NO defence against the Zionist MURDEROUS Groups I mentioned......You really are a Joke....some Moron mentioned "What have the Zionist Terrorist done since 1988".....your admission of guilt only exposes you for the scum you are......think I would that a backward step against the filthy organization you belong to.........well you have No fear of that......I am just going to Ramp Up the Pressure a little more......when questioned with the facts you try to introduce the dealings of the Muslim Arabs(I will discuss their barbarity at a later date)....on this threat we are talking about Zionism(try to keep up to speed with what actually is being discussed,I know it's hard for you because of the way you Crets have been indoctorinated(that's for another thread).
> 
> As Zionism has morphed itself into the conservative polotik in Israel over the past 30 years or so,even the attempt to imagine that Zionism is Judeaism(Such corrupted Bullshit) Everything your most(but not all) of your Politicians(stained and dripping in Zionism) approve.....thus carried out through the IDF...is still part of the Zionist Mantra of wiping out the Palestinians.....you Cretins have the temerity of crying foul and sickeningly pleading the innocent....is seen as total hypocricy in its entirety.
> 
> The Palestinian deaths of mainly innocent women and children.........you claim innocence...ARE YOU COMPLETELY MAD......the Israeli Jewish deaths are appauling in this on going conflict but remain lower,much lower than the Palestinian DEATHS.
> 
> I don't think you Terrorists want peace in any form as has been expressed by so many in Israel......Hamas have been much the same.....The trouble today is......that Israel are totally inflexible to move forward and like Hamas HATRED has taken over normal rationale.......but Zionists do not have the term "Olive Branch" in their vocabulary and lets be honest NEVER HAVE.........we have seen their barbaric behaviour in the past and present.......with Zionism Israel has little future...Not matter how much money is given and no matter how much Nuclear capability and state of the Art Weaponary  you aquire.......History proves this mentality is Futile.and it is.........It is Sad as it could have been different if both sides had played their cards better.Today we have to intelligent peoples...Totally Traumatized,with no where to turn..........as the hands have been played out.
> 
> It will take generational change for things to really improve............Soon Forward To That I say....steve.........Viva Israel(without Zionism) Viva Palestine(without Hamas)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well golly gee Theliq. Palestinian deaths are so much higher than Israeli deaths.   Do you think maybe the Palestinians should stop their violence against Israel so Israel won't have to kill them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like asking if the non-whites in Apartheid South Africa should have stopped their violence against Apartheid South Africa so the whites wouldn't have to kill so many of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even know how many blacks were killed by the white rulers of South Africa, compared to how many were murdered by the ANC led by the terrorist Mandella.  I bet you don't know the figures and will be surprised to hear that less than 1000 were killed under white rule, but over 10,000 were killed by the neo Marxist ANC at the same time.
> 
> Sounds similar to what is happening in gaza with many of the murders carried out by hamas being put down to the Israelis.
Click to expand...


It is true that the white South Africans were less brutal than the Israelis, but I think your number of only 1,000 non-whites/blacks killed by the Apartheid regime are fantasy.  

Only a few racists claim that Mandela was a terrorist,most believe he was a great man and a freedom fighter, but it is par for the course for you.  

Again, you are not claiming that Israel is NOT an Apartheid state, you are just espousing the virtues of Apartheid.  It is your right to believe this, however wrong headed you are.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oppressed people will always attack their oppressors and more of the oppressed die than the oppressor during the struggle.  It's always been that way throughout history.  The Nazis killed far more of the people in the nations they occupied than the partisans/resistance killed Germans.  Many more Algerians died than French, and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you would think the Palestinians would have learnt their lesson by now. Soon the world will turn away from gaza and ignore what is happening and leave Israel to sort out the problems
Click to expand...


No, they will do what all people in those circumstances do historically.  They will struggle against the oppressor until they gain their freedom or are eliminated by the oppressor.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oppressed people will always attack their oppressors and more of the oppressed die than the oppressor during the struggle.  It's always been that way throughout history.  The Nazis killed far more of the people in the nations they occupied than the partisans/resistance killed Germans.  Many more Algerians died than French, and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many of those "oppressed" Palestinians would prefer living in some surrounding Arab country?
Click to expand...


Who can know, probably about the same percentage of blacks that would have preferred living in the black ruled countries surrounding Apartheid South Africa at the time.


----------



## Mindful

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oppressed people will always attack their oppressors and more of the oppressed die than the oppressor during the struggle.  It's always been that way throughout history.  The Nazis killed far more of the people in the nations they occupied than the partisans/resistance killed Germans.  Many more Algerians died than French, and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many of those "oppressed" Palestinians would prefer living in some surrounding Arab country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who can know, probably about the same percentage of blacks that would have preferred living in the black ruled countries surrounding Apartheid South Africa at the time.
Click to expand...


What a twonk you are.


----------



## montelatici

Mindful said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oppressed people will always attack their oppressors and more of the oppressed die than the oppressor during the struggle.  It's always been that way throughout history.  The Nazis killed far more of the people in the nations they occupied than the partisans/resistance killed Germans.  Many more Algerians died than French, and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many of those "oppressed" Palestinians would prefer living in some surrounding Arab country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who can know, probably about the same percentage of blacks that would have preferred living in the black ruled countries surrounding Apartheid South Africa at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a twonk you are.
Click to expand...


I guess I win. LOL


----------



## Mindful

montelatici said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oppressed people will always attack their oppressors and more of the oppressed die than the oppressor during the struggle.  It's always been that way throughout history.  The Nazis killed far more of the people in the nations they occupied than the partisans/resistance killed Germans.  Many more Algerians died than French, and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many of those "oppressed" Palestinians would prefer living in some surrounding Arab country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who can know, probably about the same percentage of blacks that would have preferred living in the black ruled countries surrounding Apartheid South Africa at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a twonk you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess I win. LOL
Click to expand...


Win what? Is there a competition or something?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Theliq is referring to these Zionist terrorist groups.
> 
> Category Palestinian militant groups - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Been away checking on my overseas operations...all good.....back to you Cretins though........"It's the same old story from you Cretins" nice to see you had NO defence against the Zionist MURDEROUS Groups I mentioned......You really are a Joke....some Moron mentioned "What have the Zionist Terrorist done since 1988".....your admission of guilt only exposes you for the scum you are......think I would that a backward step against the filthy organization you belong to.........well you have No fear of that......I am just going to Ramp Up the Pressure a little more......when questioned with the facts you try to introduce the dealings of the Muslim Arabs(I will discuss their barbarity at a later date)....on this threat we are talking about Zionism(try to keep up to speed with what actually is being discussed,I know it's hard for you because of the way you Crets have been indoctorinated(that's for another thread).
> 
> As Zionism has morphed itself into the conservative polotik in Israel over the past 30 years or so,even the attempt to imagine that Zionism is Judeaism(Such corrupted Bullshit) Everything your most(but not all) of your Politicians(stained and dripping in Zionism) approve.....thus carried out through the IDF...is still part of the Zionist Mantra of wiping out the Palestinians.....you Cretins have the temerity of crying foul and sickeningly pleading the innocent....is seen as total hypocricy in its entirety.
> 
> The Palestinian deaths of mainly innocent women and children.........you claim innocence...ARE YOU COMPLETELY MAD......the Israeli Jewish deaths are appauling in this on going conflict but remain lower,much lower than the Palestinian DEATHS.
> 
> I don't think you Terrorists want peace in any form as has been expressed by so many in Israel......Hamas have been much the same.....The trouble today is......that Israel are totally inflexible to move forward and like Hamas HATRED has taken over normal rationale.......but Zionists do not have the term "Olive Branch" in their vocabulary and lets be honest NEVER HAVE.........we have seen their barbaric behaviour in the past and present.......with Zionism Israel has little future...Not matter how much money is given and no matter how much Nuclear capability and state of the Art Weaponary  you aquire.......History proves this mentality is Futile.and it is.........It is Sad as it could have been different if both sides had played their cards better.Today we have to intelligent peoples...Totally Traumatized,with no where to turn..........as the hands have been played out.
> 
> It will take generational change for things to really improve............Soon Forward To That I say....steve.........Viva Israel(without Zionism) Viva Palestine(without Hamas)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well golly gee Theliq. Palestinian deaths are so much higher than Israeli deaths.   Do you think maybe the Palestinians should stop their violence against Israel so Israel won't have to kill them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like asking if the non-whites in Apartheid South Africa should have stopped their violence against Apartheid South Africa so the whites wouldn't have to kill so many of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even know how many blacks were killed by the white rulers of South Africa, compared to how many were murdered by the ANC led by the terrorist Mandella.  I bet you don't know the figures and will be surprised to hear that less than 1000 were killed under white rule, but over 10,000 were killed by the neo Marxist ANC at the same time.
> 
> Sounds similar to what is happening in gaza with many of the murders carried out by hamas being put down to the Israelis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is true that the white South Africans were less brutal than the Israelis, but I think your number of only 1,000 non-whites/blacks killed by the Apartheid regime are fantasy.
> 
> Only a few racists claim that Mandela was a terrorist,most believe he was a great man and a freedom fighter, but it is par for the course for you.
> 
> Again, you are not claiming that Israel is NOT an Apartheid state, you are just espousing the virtues of Apartheid.  It is your right to believe this, however wrong headed you are.
Click to expand...






 NOPE a fact that shuts up idiots that try and claim Israel is as bad as white S.A.

 He was convicted and put in prison for life, while he was there he gave orders to necklace thousands of black South Africans because they had paid work with the whites.

I don't need to cliam it as the world already knows it is not apartheid, it is only idiots that make that claim of it being apartheid because it is defending itself against Palestinian terrorism.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oppressed people will always attack their oppressors and more of the oppressed die than the oppressor during the struggle.  It's always been that way throughout history.  The Nazis killed far more of the people in the nations they occupied than the partisans/resistance killed Germans.  Many more Algerians died than French, and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many of those "oppressed" Palestinians would prefer living in some surrounding Arab country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who can know, probably about the same percentage of blacks that would have preferred living in the black ruled countries surrounding Apartheid South Africa at the time.
Click to expand...





 Very few then as the blacks had a wage coming in every week and could feed and clothe their families. Now they want out and the surrounding nations are shooting any that cross the borders.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oppressed people will always attack their oppressors and more of the oppressed die than the oppressor during the struggle.  It's always been that way throughout history.  The Nazis killed far more of the people in the nations they occupied than the partisans/resistance killed Germans.  Many more Algerians died than French, and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many of those "oppressed" Palestinians would prefer living in some surrounding Arab country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who can know, probably about the same percentage of blacks that would have preferred living in the black ruled countries surrounding Apartheid South Africa at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a twonk you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess I win. LOL
Click to expand...




 Yes the booby prize that goes with the booby, you in this case.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oppressed people will always attack their oppressors and more of the oppressed die than the oppressor during the struggle.  It's always been that way throughout history.  The Nazis killed far more of the people in the nations they occupied than the partisans/resistance killed Germans.  Many more Algerians died than French, and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many of those "oppressed" Palestinians would prefer living in some surrounding Arab country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who can know, probably about the same percentage of blacks that would have preferred living in the black ruled countries surrounding Apartheid South Africa at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very few then as the blacks had a wage coming in every week and could feed and clothe their families. Now they want out and the surrounding nations are shooting any that cross the borders.
Click to expand...


OK Phoney, you are a supporter of Apartheid.  We got that.  You made your point.  You are the type of person that supports Israel.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oppressed people will always attack their oppressors and more of the oppressed die than the oppressor during the struggle.  It's always been that way throughout history.  The Nazis killed far more of the people in the nations they occupied than the partisans/resistance killed Germans.  Many more Algerians died than French, and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many of those "oppressed" Palestinians would prefer living in some surrounding Arab country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who can know, probably about the same percentage of blacks that would have preferred living in the black ruled countries surrounding Apartheid South Africa at the time.
Click to expand...


You forgot to remind those Zionists about all the gas chambers Israel built in Gaza to solve the Palestinian problem.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oppressed people will always attack their oppressors and more of the oppressed die than the oppressor during the struggle.  It's always been that way throughout history.  The Nazis killed far more of the people in the nations they occupied than the partisans/resistance killed Germans.  Many more Algerians died than French, and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many of those "oppressed" Palestinians would prefer living in some surrounding Arab country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who can know, probably about the same percentage of blacks that would have preferred living in the black ruled countries surrounding Apartheid South Africa at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot to remind those Zionists about all the gas chambers Israel built in Gaza to solve the Palestinian problem.
Click to expand...


Well, a few bombings with high tech weapons on schools and apartment buildings in Gaza does in a few thousand women and children every two years or so.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oppressed people will always attack their oppressors and more of the oppressed die than the oppressor during the struggle.  It's always been that way throughout history.  The Nazis killed far more of the people in the nations they occupied than the partisans/resistance killed Germans.  Many more Algerians died than French, and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many of those "oppressed" Palestinians would prefer living in some surrounding Arab country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who can know, probably about the same percentage of blacks that would have preferred living in the black ruled countries surrounding Apartheid South Africa at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot to remind those Zionists about all the gas chambers Israel built in Gaza to solve the Palestinian problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, a few bombings with high tech weapons on schools and apartment buildings in Gaza does in a few thousand women and children every two years or so.
Click to expand...


And still no peace, right?  Do you think Israel needs to wake up & learn from king Hussein's Black September how to establish a lasting peace from Palestinians?  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oppressed people will always attack their oppressors and more of the oppressed die than the oppressor during the struggle.  It's always been that way throughout history.  The Nazis killed far more of the people in the nations they occupied than the partisans/resistance killed Germans.  Many more Algerians died than French, and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many of those "oppressed" Palestinians would prefer living in some surrounding Arab country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who can know, probably about the same percentage of blacks that would have preferred living in the black ruled countries surrounding Apartheid South Africa at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot to remind those Zionists about all the gas chambers Israel built in Gaza to solve the Palestinian problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, a few bombings with high tech weapons on schools and apartment buildings in Gaza does in a few thousand women and children every two years or so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And still no peace, right?  Do you think Israel needs to wake up & learn from king Hussein's Black September how to establish a lasting peace from Palestinians?  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!
Click to expand...


Yes, like King Hussein, give citizenship to the Palestinians.


----------



## MJB12741

mazing what we can learn here from Monte


montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many of those "oppressed" Palestinians would prefer living in some surrounding Arab country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who can know, probably about the same percentage of blacks that would have preferred living in the black ruled countries surrounding Apartheid South Africa at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot to remind those Zionists about all the gas chambers Israel built in Gaza to solve the Palestinian problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, a few bombings with high tech weapons on schools and apartment buildings in Gaza does in a few thousand women and children every two years or so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And still no peace, right?  Do you think Israel needs to wake up & learn from king Hussein's Black September how to establish a lasting peace from Palestinians?  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, like King Hussein, give citizenship to the Palestinians.
Click to expand...


Oh now I get it.  You see you Zionists, king Hussein's Black September gave the Palestinians "CITIZENSHIP."   Amazing what we can learn from Monte.  LMAO!


----------



## montelatici

Well yes, most Palestinians received Jordanian citizenship.

"More than 2 million registered Palestine refugees live in Jordan.

Most Palestine refugees in Jordan, but not all, have full citizenship."

Where We Work UNRWA


----------



## Mindful

montelatici said:


> Well yes, most Palestinians received Jordanian citizenship.
> 
> "More than 2 million registered Palestine refugees live in Jordan.
> 
> Most Palestine refugees in Jordan, but not all, have full citizenship."
> 
> Where We Work UNRWA




Wow,


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Well yes, most Palestinians received Jordanian citizenship.
> 
> "More than 2 million registered Palestine refugees live in Jordan.
> 
> Most Palestine refugees in Jordan, but not all, have full citizenship."
> 
> Where We Work UNRWA



Oh my goodness.  How interesting your posts are & so well documented.

Anti-Palestinian Discrimination in Jordan


----------



## montelatici

Of course, as stated most Palestinians have full citizenship in Jordan.  I won.


----------



## montelatici

As usual.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> As usual.


You win a seegar and a Gillette razor.


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq, et al,
> 
> I'm confused.
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> What is the name of this "Zionist Terrorist Group?"
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Cretin
> Zionism=Terrorist........always have always will......I am not getting into semantics with Zionist Terrorists like you or your possee HIM theliq.....Hugana,Stern Gang,Irugun(two of which of who's leadership,went on to be Israeli Prime Ministers!!!!!!!!......Shamir and Begin the Godfather of Terrorism................and todays Zionist Terrorists......Fcuked if you know any Jewish history at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your evidence from a non partisan source or retract your RACIST comments
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe Theliq is referring to these Zionist terrorist groups.
> 
> Category Palestinian militant groups - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Been away checking on my overseas operations...all good.....back to you Cretins though........"It's the same old story from you Cretins" nice to see you had NO defence against the Zionist MURDEROUS Groups I mentioned......You really are a Joke....some Moron mentioned "What have the Zionist Terrorist done since 1988".....your admission of guilt only exposes you for the scum you are......think I would that a backward step against the filthy organization you belong to.........well you have No fear of that......I am just going to Ramp Up the Pressure a little more......when questioned with the facts you try to introduce the dealings of the Muslim Arabs(I will discuss their barbarity at a later date)....on this threat we are talking about Zionism(try to keep up to speed with what actually is being discussed,I know it's hard for you because of the way you Crets have been indoctorinated(that's for another thread).
> 
> As Zionism has morphed itself into the conservative polotik in Israel over the past 30 years or so,even the attempt to imagine that Zionism is Judeaism(Such corrupted Bullshit) Everything your most(but not all) of your Politicians(stained and dripping in Zionism) approve.....thus carried out through the IDF...is still part of the Zionist Mantra of wiping out the Palestinians.....you Cretins have the temerity of crying foul and sickeningly pleading the innocent....is seen as total hypocricy in its entirety.
> 
> The Palestinian deaths of mainly innocent women and children.........you claim innocence...ARE YOU COMPLETELY MAD......the Israeli Jewish deaths are appauling in this on going conflict but remain lower,much lower than the Palestinian DEATHS.
> 
> I don't think you Terrorists want peace in any form as has been expressed by so many in Israel......Hamas have been much the same.....The trouble today is......that Israel are totally inflexible to move forward and like Hamas HATRED has taken over normal rationale.......but Zionists do not have the term "Olive Branch" in their vocabulary and lets be honest NEVER HAVE.........we have seen their barbaric behaviour in the past and present.......with Zionism Israel has little future...Not matter how much money is given and no matter how much Nuclear capability and state of the Art Weaponary  you aquire.......History proves this mentality is Futile.and it is.........It is Sad as it could have been different if both sides had played their cards better.Today we have to intelligent peoples...Totally Traumatized,with no where to turn..........as the hands have been played out.
> 
> It will take generational change for things to really improve............Soon Forward To That I say....steve.........Viva Israel(without Zionism) Viva Palestine(without Hamas)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JUST MORE ISLAMONAZI PSYCHOBABBLE that shows the muslims are far from sane.
> The 2000 dead Palestinians were the fault of hamas UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW and you cant alter that fact. When it is decided by the ICC that hamas is at fault you will claim that the ICC is s Zionist terror group. You are fixated to the point of insanity with blaming everything on the Jews, when you know that it is the muslims that are the root cause.
Click to expand...

Well at least Hamas are fighting for Palestinian Nationhood......what is your the Terrorist Zionist EXCUSE.....I note that Hamas have not been as bad as the Zionists when they were fighting(murder,displacement and attempted obliteration of the Palestinians) for what you call Israel........It is you that is Totally Inane and Insane..........and a compulsive lair to boot..............I am neither Muslim or Jew but a person who wants peace in this conflict.......I never see you and your possee ever mention the word peaceful solution because you are the aggressor............and all these wannabee Jews flooding into Israel are just that......and you epitomise them perfectly........why do you crave Western support,when your behaviour denies you any Moral standing.

ICC or ISIS came out of Iraq/Syria because of being sidelined in the political process,you fool......Shit you are as Dumb as a box full of hammers.

Say NO to Zionism.......Viva Palestine...Visa Israel and Genuine Jewish people.........Zionism recruits any oddball and criminal it can find....and therein lies the Culture


----------



## theliq

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your evidence from a non partisan source or retract your RACIST comments
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Theliq is referring to these Zionist terrorist groups.
> 
> Category Palestinian militant groups - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Been away checking on my overseas operations...all good.....back to you Cretins though........"It's the same old story from you Cretins" nice to see you had NO defence against the Zionist MURDEROUS Groups I mentioned......You really are a Joke....some Moron mentioned "What have the Zionist Terrorist done since 1988".....your admission of guilt only exposes you for the scum you are......think I would that a backward step against the filthy organization you belong to.........well you have No fear of that......I am just going to Ramp Up the Pressure a little more......when questioned with the facts you try to introduce the dealings of the Muslim Arabs(I will discuss their barbarity at a later date)....on this threat we are talking about Zionism(try to keep up to speed with what actually is being discussed,I know it's hard for you because of the way you Crets have been indoctorinated(that's for another thread).
> 
> As Zionism has morphed itself into the conservative polotik in Israel over the past 30 years or so,even the attempt to imagine that Zionism is Judeaism(Such corrupted Bullshit) Everything your most(but not all) of your Politicians(stained and dripping in Zionism) approve.....thus carried out through the IDF...is still part of the Zionist Mantra of wiping out the Palestinians.....you Cretins have the temerity of crying foul and sickeningly pleading the innocent....is seen as total hypocricy in its entirety.
> 
> The Palestinian deaths of mainly innocent women and children.........you claim innocence...ARE YOU COMPLETELY MAD......the Israeli Jewish deaths are appauling in this on going conflict but remain lower,much lower than the Palestinian DEATHS.
> 
> I don't think you Terrorists want peace in any form as has been expressed by so many in Israel......Hamas have been much the same.....The trouble today is......that Israel are totally inflexible to move forward and like Hamas HATRED has taken over normal rationale.......but Zionists do not have the term "Olive Branch" in their vocabulary and lets be honest NEVER HAVE.........we have seen their barbaric behaviour in the past and present.......with Zionism Israel has little future...Not matter how much money is given and no matter how much Nuclear capability and state of the Art Weaponary  you aquire.......History proves this mentality is Futile.and it is.........It is Sad as it could have been different if both sides had played their cards better.Today we have to intelligent peoples...Totally Traumatized,with no where to turn..........as the hands have been played out.
> 
> It will take generational change for things to really improve............Soon Forward To That I say....steve.........Viva Israel(without Zionism) Viva Palestine(without Hamas)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well golly gee Theliq. Palestinian deaths are so much higher than Israeli deaths.   Do you think maybe the Palestinians should stop their violence against Israel so Israel won't have to kill them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like asking if the non-whites in Apartheid South Africa should have stopped their violence against Apartheid South Africa so the whites wouldn't have to kill so many of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bottom line is this:  Don't attack Israel if you don't want an Israeli retaliation to kill far more Palestinians.
Click to expand...

Typical Zionist Trollism....So the Palestinians are supposed to accept Theft of their Land and say  and do Nothing......You'd like that I'm sure...but the Palestinians are not afraid of you the Oppressor


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oppressed people will always attack their oppressors and more of the oppressed die than the oppressor during the struggle.  It's always been that way throughout history.  The Nazis killed far more of the people in the nations they occupied than the partisans/resistance killed Germans.  Many more Algerians died than French, and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many of those "oppressed" Palestinians would prefer living in some surrounding Arab country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who can know, probably about the same percentage of blacks that would have preferred living in the black ruled countries surrounding Apartheid South Africa at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very few then as the blacks had a wage coming in every week and could feed and clothe their families. Now they want out and the surrounding nations are shooting any that cross the borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK Phoney, you are a supporter of Apartheid.  We got that.  You made your point.  You are the type of person that supports Israel.
Click to expand...





 While you are a supporter of another HOLOCAUST on the Jews, ISLAMONAZI TERRORISM and Islamic world domination. This includes real apartheid, racism, brutality, slavery, misogyny and sharia.

You are the type of person that revels in bloodshed, violence and ISLAMONAZI MASS MURDER


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oppressed people will always attack their oppressors and more of the oppressed die than the oppressor during the struggle.  It's always been that way throughout history.  The Nazis killed far more of the people in the nations they occupied than the partisans/resistance killed Germans.  Many more Algerians died than French, and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many of those "oppressed" Palestinians would prefer living in some surrounding Arab country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who can know, probably about the same percentage of blacks that would have preferred living in the black ruled countries surrounding Apartheid South Africa at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot to remind those Zionists about all the gas chambers Israel built in Gaza to solve the Palestinian problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, a few bombings with high tech weapons on schools and apartment buildings in Gaza does in a few thousand women and children every two years or so.
Click to expand...




Maybe they should have moved away from the area when hamas moved the rocket launchers in. But then hamas would be out in the open without any human shields, or children acting as powder monkees for them. Keep telling you read the Geneva conventions that condemn hamas as war criminals and you might see that you are supporting the losing side. All the countries that promised building materials have reneged once hamas stole them and used them to build more tunnels. That is how the world is seeing gaza now as a cash cow.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many of those "oppressed" Palestinians would prefer living in some surrounding Arab country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who can know, probably about the same percentage of blacks that would have preferred living in the black ruled countries surrounding Apartheid South Africa at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot to remind those Zionists about all the gas chambers Israel built in Gaza to solve the Palestinian problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, a few bombings with high tech weapons on schools and apartment buildings in Gaza does in a few thousand women and children every two years or so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And still no peace, right?  Do you think Israel needs to wake up & learn from king Hussein's Black September how to establish a lasting peace from Palestinians?  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, like King Hussein, give citizenship to the Palestinians.
Click to expand...




 Then when they bit the hand that fed them he ordered the mass killing of 50,000 as an object lesson. Now they are no longer citizens of Jordan.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Well yes, most Palestinians received Jordanian citizenship.
> 
> "More than 2 million registered Palestine refugees live in Jordan.
> 
> Most Palestine refugees in Jordan, but not all, have full citizenship."
> 
> Where We Work UNRWA






 50,000 were mown down by machine gun fire, mostly women and children while caged in the concentration camps. Another 2 million had their citizenship removed and their protection removed as well when they were thrown to the dogs. This is how Muslims treat terrorists and you don't say a word about this treatment do you.


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Theliq is referring to these Zionist terrorist groups.
> 
> Category Palestinian militant groups - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Been away checking on my overseas operations...all good.....back to you Cretins though........"It's the same old story from you Cretins" nice to see you had NO defence against the Zionist MURDEROUS Groups I mentioned......You really are a Joke....some Moron mentioned "What have the Zionist Terrorist done since 1988".....your admission of guilt only exposes you for the scum you are......think I would that a backward step against the filthy organization you belong to.........well you have No fear of that......I am just going to Ramp Up the Pressure a little more......when questioned with the facts you try to introduce the dealings of the Muslim Arabs(I will discuss their barbarity at a later date)....on this threat we are talking about Zionism(try to keep up to speed with what actually is being discussed,I know it's hard for you because of the way you Crets have been indoctorinated(that's for another thread).
> 
> As Zionism has morphed itself into the conservative polotik in Israel over the past 30 years or so,even the attempt to imagine that Zionism is Judeaism(Such corrupted Bullshit) Everything your most(but not all) of your Politicians(stained and dripping in Zionism) approve.....thus carried out through the IDF...is still part of the Zionist Mantra of wiping out the Palestinians.....you Cretins have the temerity of crying foul and sickeningly pleading the innocent....is seen as total hypocricy in its entirety.
> 
> The Palestinian deaths of mainly innocent women and children.........you claim innocence...ARE YOU COMPLETELY MAD......the Israeli Jewish deaths are appauling in this on going conflict but remain lower,much lower than the Palestinian DEATHS.
> 
> I don't think you Terrorists want peace in any form as has been expressed by so many in Israel......Hamas have been much the same.....The trouble today is......that Israel are totally inflexible to move forward and like Hamas HATRED has taken over normal rationale.......but Zionists do not have the term "Olive Branch" in their vocabulary and lets be honest NEVER HAVE.........we have seen their barbaric behaviour in the past and present.......with Zionism Israel has little future...Not matter how much money is given and no matter how much Nuclear capability and state of the Art Weaponary  you aquire.......History proves this mentality is Futile.and it is.........It is Sad as it could have been different if both sides had played their cards better.Today we have to intelligent peoples...Totally Traumatized,with no where to turn..........as the hands have been played out.
> 
> It will take generational change for things to really improve............Soon Forward To That I say....steve.........Viva Israel(without Zionism) Viva Palestine(without Hamas)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well golly gee Theliq. Palestinian deaths are so much higher than Israeli deaths.   Do you think maybe the Palestinians should stop their violence against Israel so Israel won't have to kill them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like asking if the non-whites in Apartheid South Africa should have stopped their violence against Apartheid South Africa so the whites wouldn't have to kill so many of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bottom line is this:  Don't attack Israel if you don't want an Israeli retaliation to kill far more Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical Zionist Trollism....So the Palestinians are supposed to accept Theft of their Land and say  and do Nothing......You'd like that I'm sure...but the Palestinians are not afraid of you the Oppressor
Click to expand...






 What land, show the treaty that gave them the land in the first place. Or is it just the Islamic dar al islam and dar al harb coming into play.    It was never arab muslim land in the first place so how could it be stolen. Now jewish land in the west bank was stolen and now it is being reclaimed.


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Been away checking on my overseas operations...all good.....back to you Cretins though........"It's the same old story from you Cretins" nice to see you had NO defence against the Zionist MURDEROUS Groups I mentioned......You really are a Joke....some Moron mentioned "What have the Zionist Terrorist done since 1988".....your admission of guilt only exposes you for the scum you are......think I would that a backward step against the filthy organization you belong to.........well you have No fear of that......I am just going to Ramp Up the Pressure a little more......when questioned with the facts you try to introduce the dealings of the Muslim Arabs(I will discuss their barbarity at a later date)....on this threat we are talking about Zionism(try to keep up to speed with what actually is being discussed,I know it's hard for you because of the way you Crets have been indoctorinated(that's for another thread).
> 
> As Zionism has morphed itself into the conservative polotik in Israel over the past 30 years or so,even the attempt to imagine that Zionism is Judeaism(Such corrupted Bullshit) Everything your most(but not all) of your Politicians(stained and dripping in Zionism) approve.....thus carried out through the IDF...is still part of the Zionist Mantra of wiping out the Palestinians.....you Cretins have the temerity of crying foul and sickeningly pleading the innocent....is seen as total hypocricy in its entirety.
> 
> The Palestinian deaths of mainly innocent women and children.........you claim innocence...ARE YOU COMPLETELY MAD......the Israeli Jewish deaths are appauling in this on going conflict but remain lower,much lower than the Palestinian DEATHS.
> 
> I don't think you Terrorists want peace in any form as has been expressed by so many in Israel......Hamas have been much the same.....The trouble today is......that Israel are totally inflexible to move forward and like Hamas HATRED has taken over normal rationale.......but Zionists do not have the term "Olive Branch" in their vocabulary and lets be honest NEVER HAVE.........we have seen their barbaric behaviour in the past and present.......with Zionism Israel has little future...Not matter how much money is given and no matter how much Nuclear capability and state of the Art Weaponary  you aquire.......History proves this mentality is Futile.and it is.........It is Sad as it could have been different if both sides had played their cards better.Today we have to intelligent peoples...Totally Traumatized,with no where to turn..........as the hands have been played out.
> 
> It will take generational change for things to really improve............Soon Forward To That I say....steve.........Viva Israel(without Zionism) Viva Palestine(without Hamas)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well golly gee Theliq. Palestinian deaths are so much higher than Israeli deaths.   Do you think maybe the Palestinians should stop their violence against Israel so Israel won't have to kill them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like asking if the non-whites in Apartheid South Africa should have stopped their violence against Apartheid South Africa so the whites wouldn't have to kill so many of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bottom line is this:  Don't attack Israel if you don't want an Israeli retaliation to kill far more Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical Zionist Trollism....So the Palestinians are supposed to accept Theft of their Land and say  and do Nothing......You'd like that I'm sure...but the Palestinians are not afraid of you the Oppressor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What land, show the treaty that gave them the land in the first place. Or is it just the Islamic dar al islam and dar al harb coming into play.    It was never arab muslim land in the first place so how could it be stolen. Now jewish land in the west bank was stolen and now it is being reclaimed.
Click to expand...

Moron


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well golly gee Theliq. Palestinian deaths are so much higher than Israeli deaths.   Do you think maybe the Palestinians should stop their violence against Israel so Israel won't have to kill them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like asking if the non-whites in Apartheid South Africa should have stopped their violence against Apartheid South Africa so the whites wouldn't have to kill so many of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bottom line is this:  Don't attack Israel if you don't want an Israeli retaliation to kill far more Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical Zionist Trollism....So the Palestinians are supposed to accept Theft of their Land and say  and do Nothing......You'd like that I'm sure...but the Palestinians are not afraid of you the Oppressor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What land, show the treaty that gave them the land in the first place. Or is it just the Islamic dar al islam and dar al harb coming into play.    It was never arab muslim land in the first place so how could it be stolen. Now jewish land in the west bank was stolen and now it is being reclaimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron
Click to expand...





 Are you going to claim that allah gave them the land because they were his chosen ones ?

 You are the moron because you have no argument to the facts and attack the person instead, wont fly sunshine as you show yourself up by doing it.


----------



## Mindful

The flag of Palestine, 1939.


----------



## MJB12741

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, most Palestinians received Jordanian citizenship.
> 
> "More than 2 million registered Palestine refugees live in Jordan.
> 
> Most Palestine refugees in Jordan, but not all, have full citizenship."
> 
> Where We Work UNRWA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 50,000 were mown down by machine gun fire, mostly women and children while caged in the concentration camps. Another 2 million had their citizenship removed and their protection removed as well when they were thrown to the dogs. This is how Muslims treat terrorists and you don't say a word about this treatment do you.
Click to expand...


So true how the surrounding Arab countries massacred their Palestinians by the tens of thousands & left tens of thousands of others as refugees.  But let us not forget what those Zionists in Israel have also done to them with their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions to piss off the Palestinians thus making this an endless conflict.


----------



## theliq

Mindful said:


> The flag of Palestine, 1939.


Jesus Christ


----------



## theliq

MJB12741 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, most Palestinians received Jordanian citizenship.
> 
> "More than 2 million registered Palestine refugees live in Jordan.
> 
> Most Palestine refugees in Jordan, but not all, have full citizenship."
> 
> Where We Work UNRWA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 50,000 were mown down by machine gun fire, mostly women and children while caged in the concentration camps. Another 2 million had their citizenship removed and their protection removed as well when they were thrown to the dogs. This is how Muslims treat terrorists and you don't say a word about this treatment do you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So true how the surrounding Arab countries massacred their Palestinians by the tens of thousands & left tens of thousands of others as refugees.  But let us not forget what those Zionists in Israel have also done to them with their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions to piss off the Palestinians thus making this an endless conflict.
Click to expand...

There is something MENTALLY wrong with you and a statement like this........you really need medication

Hoss this is not informative,it is a Banal Untruth..........I expect a higher degree of sensibility from you.........not clonization of the Zionist Trolls on here,get a grip man


----------



## theliq

Mindful said:


> The flag of Palestine, 1939.


The more you post the more INSANE you become........I don't believe this flag is real because the Jews would Never use the Yellow Star of David.....the very colour and markings the Nazis painted on the shops and people of the Jewish faith......this post is disgusting for all the Jews that perished and those who survived at the hands of the EVIL Nazis........You really are as Mad as a Cut Snake....putting it mildly...steven


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flag of Palestine, 1939.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more you post the more INSANE you become........I don't believe this flag is real because the Jews would Never use the Yellow Star of David.....the very colour and markings the Nazis painted on the shops and people of the Jewish faith......this post is disgusting for all the Jews that perished and those who survived at the hands of the EVIL Nazis........You really are as Mad as a Cut Snake....putting it mildly...steven
Click to expand...

1939 Palestinian Flag What Does It Look Like Surprised - YouTube


----------



## Mindful

theliq said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flag of Palestine, 1939.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus Christ
Click to expand...



Yes, he was a Jew.


----------



## Mindful

Wherever one ventures on this site, onto  threads unrelated to Jews and Israel, our dear Penelope will be there, issuing forth some damning comment on Zionists.

I dread to think what he/she would do to a knitting thread.


----------



## Challenger

Mindful said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flag of Palestine, 1939.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus Christ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he was a Jew.
Click to expand...


Always thought he was a Palestinian who tried to reform the Temple Judaism cult in Jerusalem, assuming he existed at all


----------



## Mindful

Challenger said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flag of Palestine, 1939.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus Christ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he was a Jew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Always thought he was a Palestinian who tried to reform the Temple Judaism cult in Jerusalem, assuming he existed at all
Click to expand...


Carry on thinking. You'll get there in the end.


----------



## Challenger

Mindful said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flag of Palestine, 1939.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus Christ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he was a Jew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Always thought he was a Palestinian who tried to reform the Temple Judaism cult in Jerusalem, assuming he existed at all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Carry on thinking. You'll get there in the end.
Click to expand...


Already got there, thanks.


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flag of Palestine, 1939.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more you post the more INSANE you become........I don't believe this flag is real because the Jews would Never use the Yellow Star of David.....the very colour and markings the Nazis painted on the shops and people of the Jewish faith......this post is disgusting for all the Jews that perished and those who survived at the hands of the EVIL Nazis........You really are as Mad as a Cut Snake....putting it mildly...steven
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1939 Palestinian Flag What Does It Look Like Surprised - YouTube
Click to expand...

Don't be silly Hoss this flag was the Jewish Flag of all those Illegal Jewish Immigrants......this was never the flag of the Palestinian people at all....good try though......I note the book you used was by "Simmonds" another Rabid Zionist.........this post demeans your intelligence.steve


----------



## theliq

Mindful said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flag of Palestine, 1939.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus Christ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he was a Jew.
Click to expand...

Shame the Scribes/Jews didn't think so at the time


----------



## MJB12741

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flag of Palestine, 1939.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more you post the more INSANE you become........I don't believe this flag is real because the Jews would Never use the Yellow Star of David.....the very colour and markings the Nazis painted on the shops and people of the Jewish faith......this post is disgusting for all the Jews that perished and those who survived at the hands of the EVIL Nazis........You really are as Mad as a Cut Snake....putting it mildly...steven
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1939 Palestinian Flag What Does It Look Like Surprised - YouTube
Click to expand...


Great post Hoss.  I certainly don't want to upset any of the Pali supporters in fear that they may leave us if we educate them to the truth.  However the truth is the truth no matter how much it may hurt them.  The reason the Palestinian flag featured a Star of David is because the indigenous Palestinians were predominantly Jews.  The overwhelming majority of today's Muslim Palestinians are land theives with no titles or deeds whatsoever to the land they stole.


----------



## montelatici

There were only a handful of Jews in Palestine prior to the arrival of the land thieving European Jews. Why do you constantly lie?



Source documentation:
*
"AN INTERIM REPORT ON THE CIVIL ADMINISTRATION OF PALESTINE, during the period 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921."*​
"There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.

The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years.* Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.* - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921


----------



## Phoenall

Well he was a Jew...................


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> There were only a handful of Jews in Palestine prior to the arrival of the land thieving European Jews. Why do you constantly lie?
> 
> Oh now I get it.  So prior to 1850 the Palestinians were Muslims.  And Iz'll bet ya not a single Zion isy knew that.
> 
> 
> Source documentation:
> *
> "AN INTERIM REPORT ON THE CIVIL ADMINISTRATION OF PALESTINE, during the period 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921."*​
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years.* Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.* - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921



Oh now I get it.  So prior to 1850 the Palestinians were Muslims.  And I'll bet ya not a single Zionist knew that.  Keep up yoiur good work on educating all of us with your fine documentation.


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were only a handful of Jews in Palestine prior to the arrival of the land thieving European Jews. Why do you constantly lie?
> 
> Oh now I get it.  So prior to 1850 the Palestinians were Muslims.  And Iz'll bet ya not a single Zion isy knew that.
> 
> 
> Source documentation:
> *
> "AN INTERIM REPORT ON THE CIVIL ADMINISTRATION OF PALESTINE, during the period 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921."*​
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years.* Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.* - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh now I get it.  So prior to 1850 the Palestinians were Muslims.  And I'll bet ya not a single Zionist knew that.  Keep up yoiur good work on educating all of us with your fine documentation.
Click to expand...


Seriously, most of what Monte posts is so funny.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were only a handful of Jews in Palestine prior to the arrival of the land thieving European Jews. Why do you constantly lie?
> 
> Oh now I get it.  So prior to 1850 the Palestinians were Muslims.  And Iz'll bet ya not a single Zion isy knew that.
> 
> 
> Source documentation:
> *
> "AN INTERIM REPORT ON THE CIVIL ADMINISTRATION OF PALESTINE, during the period 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921."*​
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years.* Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.* - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh now I get it.  So prior to 1850 the Palestinians were Muslims.  And I'll bet ya not a single Zionist knew that.  Keep up yoiur good work on educating all of us with your fine documentation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, most of what Monte posts is so funny.
Click to expand...


Just facts from source documentation.  All you do is run your mouth pathologically lying.  But as the source documents state, prior to 1850 Palestinians were Muslim and Christian.


----------



## theliq

MJB12741 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, most Palestinians received Jordanian citizenship.
> 
> "More than 2 million registered Palestine refugees live in Jordan.
> 
> Most Palestine refugees in Jordan, but not all, have full citizenship."
> 
> Where We Work UNRWA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 50,000 were mown down by machine gun fire, mostly women and children while caged in the concentration camps. Another 2 million had their citizenship removed and their protection removed as well when they were thrown to the dogs. This is how Muslims treat terrorists and you don't say a word about this treatment do you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So true how the surrounding Arab countries massacred their Palestinians by the tens of thousands & left tens of thousands of others as refugees.  But let us not forget what those Zionists in Israel have also done to them with their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions to piss off the Palestinians thus making this an endless conflict.
Click to expand...

Silly Prick......I really believe that all you Zionists are totally brainwashed in Zionist Mantra Trash......I would like a world authority to medically examine you Zionists......they will no doubt find you Madder than ISIS at least they admit their atrosities sic...where as you lie through your teeth or blame others...sick bastards arn't you

but we all know the truth how Zionist Scum,Murdered,Maimed,Exiled and tried to ELIMINATE the Palestinians up until today.You carry collective GUILT........We have NO RESPECT at all for Zionists Terrorists,as they are wastrels of the worst degree.......and like theTerrorists they are,should be eliminated along with ISIS ect and all the other Mad Bastards worldwide..............Stop spewing your Zionist shit on here


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Laila El Haddad *

**


----------



## toastman

theliq said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, most Palestinians received Jordanian citizenship.
> 
> "More than 2 million registered Palestine refugees live in Jordan.
> 
> Most Palestine refugees in Jordan, but not all, have full citizenship."
> 
> Where We Work UNRWA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 50,000 were mown down by machine gun fire, mostly women and children while caged in the concentration camps. Another 2 million had their citizenship removed and their protection removed as well when they were thrown to the dogs. This is how Muslims treat terrorists and you don't say a word about this treatment do you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So true how the surrounding Arab countries massacred their Palestinians by the tens of thousands & left tens of thousands of others as refugees.  But let us not forget what those Zionists in Israel have also done to them with their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions to piss off the Palestinians thus making this an endless conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Silly Prick......I really believe that all you Zionists are totally brainwashed in Zionist Mantra Trash......I would like a world authority to medically examine you Zionists......they will no doubt find you Madder than ISIS at least they admit their atrosities sic...where as you lie through your teeth or blame others...sick bastards arn't you
> 
> but we all know the truth how Zionist Scum,Murdered,Maimed,Exiled and tried to ELIMINATE the Palestinians up until today.You carry collective GUILT........We have NO RESPECT at all for Zionists Terrorists,as they are wastrels of the worst degree.......and like theTerrorists they are,should be eliminated along with ISIS ect and all the other Mad Bastards worldwide..............Stop spewing your Zionist shit on here
Click to expand...


WTF is wrong with you ?? I mean seriously ??? All you do is post lies and demented crap.


----------



## theliq

toastman said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, most Palestinians received Jordanian citizenship.
> 
> "More than 2 million registered Palestine refugees live in Jordan.
> 
> Most Palestine refugees in Jordan, but not all, have full citizenship."
> 
> Where We Work UNRWA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 50,000 were mown down by machine gun fire, mostly women and children while caged in the concentration camps. Another 2 million had their citizenship removed and their protection removed as well when they were thrown to the dogs. This is how Muslims treat terrorists and you don't say a word about this treatment do you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So true how the surrounding Arab countries massacred their Palestinians by the tens of thousands & left tens of thousands of others as refugees.  But let us not forget what those Zionists in Israel have also done to them with their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions to piss off the Palestinians thus making this an endless conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Silly Prick......I really believe that all you Zionists are totally brainwashed in Zionist Mantra Trash......I would like a world authority to medically examine you Zionists......they will no doubt find you Madder than ISIS at least they admit their atrosities sic...where as you lie through your teeth or blame others...sick bastards arn't you
> 
> but we all know the truth how Zionist Scum,Murdered,Maimed,Exiled and tried to ELIMINATE the Palestinians up until today.You carry collective GUILT........We have NO RESPECT at all for Zionists Terrorists,as they are wastrels of the worst degree.......and like theTerrorists they are,should be eliminated along with ISIS ect and all the other Mad Bastards worldwide..............Stop spewing your Zionist shit on here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF is wrong with you ?? I mean seriously ??? All you do is post lies and demented crap.
Click to expand...

Sorry that the truth...Hurts so much Toastie......Everyman thinks his burden and Guilt is the heaviest  and in the Zionists case....It surely IS(IS)


fcuk I'm Good  steve


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, most Palestinians received Jordanian citizenship.
> 
> "More than 2 million registered Palestine refugees live in Jordan.
> 
> Most Palestine refugees in Jordan, but not all, have full citizenship."
> 
> Where We Work UNRWA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 50,000 were mown down by machine gun fire, mostly women and children while caged in the concentration camps. Another 2 million had their citizenship removed and their protection removed as well when they were thrown to the dogs. This is how Muslims treat terrorists and you don't say a word about this treatment do you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So true how the surrounding Arab countries massacred their Palestinians by the tens of thousands & left tens of thousands of others as refugees.  But let us not forget what those Zionists in Israel have also done to them with their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions to piss off the Palestinians thus making this an endless conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Silly Prick......I really believe that all you Zionists are totally brainwashed in Zionist Mantra Trash......I would like a world authority to medically examine you Zionists......they will no doubt find you Madder than ISIS at least they admit their atrosities sic...where as you lie through your teeth or blame others...sick bastards arn't you
> 
> but we all know the truth how Zionist Scum,Murdered,Maimed,Exiled and tried to ELIMINATE the Palestinians up until today.You carry collective GUILT........We have NO RESPECT at all for Zionists Terrorists,as they are wastrels of the worst degree.......and like theTerrorists they are,should be eliminated along with ISIS ect and all the other Mad Bastards worldwide..............Stop spewing your Zionist shit on here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF is wrong with you ?? I mean seriously ??? All you do is post lies and demented crap.
Click to expand...


Now that's funny.  The whole Zionist myth is a lie, and you are one of the propagators.


----------



## Mindful




----------



## montelatici

Hmmm.  That's like kind of like Putin saying Russia owns Ukraine. Wonderful analogy.


----------



## Mindful

montelatici said:


> Hmmm.  That's like kind of like Putin saying Russia owns Ukraine. Wonderful analogy.



No it isn't.


----------



## montelatici

Of course it is.


----------



## Mindful

Like you'd know. With an intellect like yours.


----------



## montelatici

I've forgotten more than you will ever learn in a lifetime, son.


----------



## Mindful

Good for you.


----------



## Mindful




----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> I've forgotten more than you will ever learn in a lifetime, son.



You sir should thank God every day for his mercy in sparing you the rigors of intelligence.  But we love you for all the laughs you give us.


----------



## Mindful

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've forgotten more than you will ever learn in a lifetime, son.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sir should thank God every day for his mercy in sparing you the rigors of intelligence.  But we love you for all the laughs you give us.
Click to expand...


I find him morbidly depressing.


----------



## montelatici

This is why:


----------



## toastman

theliq said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, most Palestinians received Jordanian citizenship.
> 
> "More than 2 million registered Palestine refugees live in Jordan.
> 
> Most Palestine refugees in Jordan, but not all, have full citizenship."
> 
> Where We Work UNRWA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 50,000 were mown down by machine gun fire, mostly women and children while caged in the concentration camps. Another 2 million had their citizenship removed and their protection removed as well when they were thrown to the dogs. This is how Muslims treat terrorists and you don't say a word about this treatment do you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So true how the surrounding Arab countries massacred their Palestinians by the tens of thousands & left tens of thousands of others as refugees.  But let us not forget what those Zionists in Israel have also done to them with their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions to piss off the Palestinians thus making this an endless conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Silly Prick......I really believe that all you Zionists are totally brainwashed in Zionist Mantra Trash......I would like a world authority to medically examine you Zionists......they will no doubt find you Madder than ISIS at least they admit their atrosities sic...where as you lie through your teeth or blame others...sick bastards arn't you
> 
> but we all know the truth how Zionist Scum,Murdered,Maimed,Exiled and tried to ELIMINATE the Palestinians up until today.You carry collective GUILT........We have NO RESPECT at all for Zionists Terrorists,as they are wastrels of the worst degree.......and like theTerrorists they are,should be eliminated along with ISIS ect and all the other Mad Bastards worldwide..............Stop spewing your Zionist shit on here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF is wrong with you ?? I mean seriously ??? All you do is post lies and demented crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry that the truth...Hurts so much Toastie......Everyman thinks his burden and Guilt is the heaviest  and in the Zionists case....It surely IS(IS)
> 
> 
> fcuk I'm Good  steve
Click to expand...

What truth did you post ? You are a nutcase Steve and your post could not be further from the truth.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, most Palestinians received Jordanian citizenship.
> 
> "More than 2 million registered Palestine refugees live in Jordan.
> 
> Most Palestine refugees in Jordan, but not all, have full citizenship."
> 
> Where We Work UNRWA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 50,000 were mown down by machine gun fire, mostly women and children while caged in the concentration camps. Another 2 million had their citizenship removed and their protection removed as well when they were thrown to the dogs. This is how Muslims treat terrorists and you don't say a word about this treatment do you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So true how the surrounding Arab countries massacred their Palestinians by the tens of thousands & left tens of thousands of others as refugees.  But let us not forget what those Zionists in Israel have also done to them with their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions to piss off the Palestinians thus making this an endless conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Silly Prick......I really believe that all you Zionists are totally brainwashed in Zionist Mantra Trash......I would like a world authority to medically examine you Zionists......they will no doubt find you Madder than ISIS at least they admit their atrosities sic...where as you lie through your teeth or blame others...sick bastards arn't you
> 
> but we all know the truth how Zionist Scum,Murdered,Maimed,Exiled and tried to ELIMINATE the Palestinians up until today.You carry collective GUILT........We have NO RESPECT at all for Zionists Terrorists,as they are wastrels of the worst degree.......and like theTerrorists they are,should be eliminated along with ISIS ect and all the other Mad Bastards worldwide..............Stop spewing your Zionist shit on here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF is wrong with you ?? I mean seriously ??? All you do is post lies and demented crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now that's funny.  The whole Zionist myth is a lie, and you are one of the propagators.
Click to expand...


Monti, you are known as one of the biggest propaganda spewers here. You are allergic to the truth, and you are as dumb as an ox.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, most Palestinians received Jordanian citizenship.
> 
> "More than 2 million registered Palestine refugees live in Jordan.
> 
> Most Palestine refugees in Jordan, but not all, have full citizenship."
> 
> Where We Work UNRWA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 50,000 were mown down by machine gun fire, mostly women and children while caged in the concentration camps. Another 2 million had their citizenship removed and their protection removed as well when they were thrown to the dogs. This is how Muslims treat terrorists and you don't say a word about this treatment do you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So true how the surrounding Arab countries massacred their Palestinians by the tens of thousands & left tens of thousands of others as refugees.  But let us not forget what those Zionists in Israel have also done to them with their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions to piss off the Palestinians thus making this an endless conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Silly Prick......I really believe that all you Zionists are totally brainwashed in Zionist Mantra Trash......I would like a world authority to medically examine you Zionists......they will no doubt find you Madder than ISIS at least they admit their atrosities sic...where as you lie through your teeth or blame others...sick bastards arn't you
> 
> but we all know the truth how Zionist Scum,Murdered,Maimed,Exiled and tried to ELIMINATE the Palestinians up until today.You carry collective GUILT........We have NO RESPECT at all for Zionists Terrorists,as they are wastrels of the worst degree.......and like theTerrorists they are,should be eliminated along with ISIS ect and all the other Mad Bastards worldwide..............Stop spewing your Zionist shit on here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF is wrong with you ?? I mean seriously ??? All you do is post lies and demented crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now that's funny.  The whole Zionist myth is a lie, and you are one of the propagators.
Click to expand...

BTW, what myth are you talking about ?


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50,000 were mown down by machine gun fire, mostly women and children while caged in the concentration camps. Another 2 million had their citizenship removed and their protection removed as well when they were thrown to the dogs. This is how Muslims treat terrorists and you don't say a word about this treatment do you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So true how the surrounding Arab countries massacred their Palestinians by the tens of thousands & left tens of thousands of others as refugees.  But let us not forget what those Zionists in Israel have also done to them with their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions to piss off the Palestinians thus making this an endless conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Silly Prick......I really believe that all you Zionists are totally brainwashed in Zionist Mantra Trash......I would like a world authority to medically examine you Zionists......they will no doubt find you Madder than ISIS at least they admit their atrosities sic...where as you lie through your teeth or blame others...sick bastards arn't you
> 
> but we all know the truth how Zionist Scum,Murdered,Maimed,Exiled and tried to ELIMINATE the Palestinians up until today.You carry collective GUILT........We have NO RESPECT at all for Zionists Terrorists,as they are wastrels of the worst degree.......and like theTerrorists they are,should be eliminated along with ISIS ect and all the other Mad Bastards worldwide..............Stop spewing your Zionist shit on here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF is wrong with you ?? I mean seriously ??? All you do is post lies and demented crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now that's funny.  The whole Zionist myth is a lie, and you are one of the propagators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Monti, you are known as one of the biggest propaganda spewers here. You are allergic to the truth, and you are as dumb as an ox.
Click to expand...


Posting source documentation from academic and/or UN archives is not posting propaganda.  It is called posting fact.  You have never posted a source document, you constantly post propaganda from Zionist sources.


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50,000 were mown down by machine gun fire, mostly women and children while caged in the concentration camps. Another 2 million had their citizenship removed and their protection removed as well when they were thrown to the dogs. This is how Muslims treat terrorists and you don't say a word about this treatment do you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So true how the surrounding Arab countries massacred their Palestinians by the tens of thousands & left tens of thousands of others as refugees.  But let us not forget what those Zionists in Israel have also done to them with their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions to piss off the Palestinians thus making this an endless conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Silly Prick......I really believe that all you Zionists are totally brainwashed in Zionist Mantra Trash......I would like a world authority to medically examine you Zionists......they will no doubt find you Madder than ISIS at least they admit their atrosities sic...where as you lie through your teeth or blame others...sick bastards arn't you
> 
> but we all know the truth how Zionist Scum,Murdered,Maimed,Exiled and tried to ELIMINATE the Palestinians up until today.You carry collective GUILT........We have NO RESPECT at all for Zionists Terrorists,as they are wastrels of the worst degree.......and like theTerrorists they are,should be eliminated along with ISIS ect and all the other Mad Bastards worldwide..............Stop spewing your Zionist shit on here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF is wrong with you ?? I mean seriously ??? All you do is post lies and demented crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now that's funny.  The whole Zionist myth is a lie, and you are one of the propagators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BTW, what myth are you talking about ?
Click to expand...


These myths:


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So true how the surrounding Arab countries massacred their Palestinians by the tens of thousands & left tens of thousands of others as refugees.  But let us not forget what those Zionists in Israel have also done to them with their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions to piss off the Palestinians thus making this an endless conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> Silly Prick......I really believe that all you Zionists are totally brainwashed in Zionist Mantra Trash......I would like a world authority to medically examine you Zionists......they will no doubt find you Madder than ISIS at least they admit their atrosities sic...where as you lie through your teeth or blame others...sick bastards arn't you
> 
> but we all know the truth how Zionist Scum,Murdered,Maimed,Exiled and tried to ELIMINATE the Palestinians up until today.You carry collective GUILT........We have NO RESPECT at all for Zionists Terrorists,as they are wastrels of the worst degree.......and like theTerrorists they are,should be eliminated along with ISIS ect and all the other Mad Bastards worldwide..............Stop spewing your Zionist shit on here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF is wrong with you ?? I mean seriously ??? All you do is post lies and demented crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now that's funny.  The whole Zionist myth is a lie, and you are one of the propagators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BTW, what myth are you talking about ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These myths:
Click to expand...



OMG!  Monte just posted indisputable documentation from the world renowned John Rose.  That does it you Zionists.  What a blast Monte is.  Heh Heh!


----------



## montelatici

No, I posted a response regarding Zionist myths.  The source documentation supports the myths John Rose lists, e.g. the Zionist myth that claimed that Palestine was uninhabited. The indisputable fact is that Palestine was inhabited by Christians and Muslims prior to the European settlement by Jews.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So true how the surrounding Arab countries massacred their Palestinians by the tens of thousands & left tens of thousands of others as refugees.  But let us not forget what those Zionists in Israel have also done to them with their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions to piss off the Palestinians thus making this an endless conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> Silly Prick......I really believe that all you Zionists are totally brainwashed in Zionist Mantra Trash......I would like a world authority to medically examine you Zionists......they will no doubt find you Madder than ISIS at least they admit their atrosities sic...where as you lie through your teeth or blame others...sick bastards arn't you
> 
> but we all know the truth how Zionist Scum,Murdered,Maimed,Exiled and tried to ELIMINATE the Palestinians up until today.You carry collective GUILT........We have NO RESPECT at all for Zionists Terrorists,as they are wastrels of the worst degree.......and like theTerrorists they are,should be eliminated along with ISIS ect and all the other Mad Bastards worldwide..............Stop spewing your Zionist shit on here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF is wrong with you ?? I mean seriously ??? All you do is post lies and demented crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now that's funny.  The whole Zionist myth is a lie, and you are one of the propagators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Monti, you are known as one of the biggest propaganda spewers here. You are allergic to the truth, and you are as dumb as an ox.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Posting source documentation from academic and/or UN archives is not posting propaganda.  It is called posting fact.  You have never posted a source document, you constantly post propaganda from Zionist sources.
Click to expand...

You've posted the same lies about me so many times, and you're never able to show what 'Zionist sources; you're talknting about.

You're nothing but a liar and a propagandist.


----------



## toastman

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silly Prick......I really believe that all you Zionists are totally brainwashed in Zionist Mantra Trash......I would like a world authority to medically examine you Zionists......they will no doubt find you Madder than ISIS at least they admit their atrosities sic...where as you lie through your teeth or blame others...sick bastards arn't you
> 
> but we all know the truth how Zionist Scum,Murdered,Maimed,Exiled and tried to ELIMINATE the Palestinians up until today.You carry collective GUILT........We have NO RESPECT at all for Zionists Terrorists,as they are wastrels of the worst degree.......and like theTerrorists they are,should be eliminated along with ISIS ect and all the other Mad Bastards worldwide..............Stop spewing your Zionist shit on here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF is wrong with you ?? I mean seriously ??? All you do is post lies and demented crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now that's funny.  The whole Zionist myth is a lie, and you are one of the propagators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BTW, what myth are you talking about ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These myths:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!  Monte just posted indisputable documentation from the world renowned John Rose.  That does it you Zionists.  What a blast Monte is.  Heh Heh!
Click to expand...


Don't you think that Monti and Tinmore make such a good Palestinian propaganda team ??


----------



## MJB12741

toastman said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF is wrong with you ?? I mean seriously ??? All you do is post lies and demented crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's funny.  The whole Zionist myth is a lie, and you are one of the propagators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BTW, what myth are you talking about ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These myths:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!  Monte just posted indisputable documentation from the world renowned John Rose.  That does it you Zionists.  What a blast Monte is.  Heh Heh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you think that Monti and Tinmore make such a good Palestinian propaganda team ??
Click to expand...


My favorite is the one about "Israel is stealing 'PALESTINIAN' LAND."  LOL.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So true how the surrounding Arab countries massacred their Palestinians by the tens of thousands & left tens of thousands of others as refugees.  But let us not forget what those Zionists in Israel have also done to them with their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions to piss off the Palestinians thus making this an endless conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> Silly Prick......I really believe that all you Zionists are totally brainwashed in Zionist Mantra Trash......I would like a world authority to medically examine you Zionists......they will no doubt find you Madder than ISIS at least they admit their atrosities sic...where as you lie through your teeth or blame others...sick bastards arn't you
> 
> but we all know the truth how Zionist Scum,Murdered,Maimed,Exiled and tried to ELIMINATE the Palestinians up until today.You carry collective GUILT........We have NO RESPECT at all for Zionists Terrorists,as they are wastrels of the worst degree.......and like theTerrorists they are,should be eliminated along with ISIS ect and all the other Mad Bastards worldwide..............Stop spewing your Zionist shit on here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF is wrong with you ?? I mean seriously ??? All you do is post lies and demented crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now that's funny.  The whole Zionist myth is a lie, and you are one of the propagators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BTW, what myth are you talking about ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These myths:
Click to expand...

How nice of Mr. Rose!!!  I am beginning to wonder if Mr. Monti S. thinks that there is some land in Israel which belongs to his own ancestors.

ISRAELI FRONTLINE A World Without Israel


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> No, I posted a response regarding Zionist myths.  The source documentation supports the myths John Rose lists, e.g. the Zionist myth that claimed that Palestine was uninhabited. The indisputable fact is that Palestine was inhabited by Christians and Muslims prior to the European settlement by Jews.


I think we have some Arabs here who resent the fact that there are Jewish leaders in one tiny part of the Middle East.  They want it all, and the Jews should be the dhimmis.

The Holy Land The Arabs in the Holy Land - Natives or Aliens


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I posted a response regarding Zionist myths.  The source documentation supports the myths John Rose lists, e.g. the Zionist myth that claimed that Palestine was uninhabited. The indisputable fact is that Palestine was inhabited by Christians and Muslims prior to the European settlement by Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> I think we have some Arabs here who resent the fact that there are Jewish leaders in one tiny part of the Middle East.  They want it all, and the Jews should be the dhimmis.
> 
> The Holy Land The Arabs in the Holy Land - Natives or Aliens
Click to expand...

I don't agree with you at all........Name those Arab Leaders.......steve


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I posted a response regarding Zionist myths.  The source documentation supports the myths John Rose lists, e.g. the Zionist myth that claimed that Palestine was uninhabited. The indisputable fact is that Palestine was inhabited by Christians and Muslims prior to the European settlement by Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> I think we have some Arabs here who resent the fact that there are Jewish leaders in one tiny part of the Middle East.  They want it all, and the Jews should be the dhimmis.
> 
> The Holy Land The Arabs in the Holy Land - Natives or Aliens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't agree with you at all........Name those Arab Leaders.......steve
Click to expand...

You must have been asleep, Steve, plus you are not important that I care or many others here care one way or the other whether  you believe it or not. The Arab leaders themselves have said there was no Palestine.  Say, how about your own country.  I was reading that the Shiites are coming in hordes because of the Sunnis suicide and car bombing all the times.  Maybe you can get busy and help them to assimilate.


----------



## 50_RiaL

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I posted a response regarding Zionist myths.  The source documentation supports the myths John Rose lists, e.g. the Zionist myth that claimed that Palestine was uninhabited. The indisputable fact is that Palestine was inhabited by Christians and Muslims prior to the European settlement by Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> I think we have some Arabs here who resent the fact that there are Jewish leaders in one tiny part of the Middle East.  They want it all, and the Jews should be the dhimmis.
> 
> The Holy Land The Arabs in the Holy Land - Natives or Aliens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't agree with you at all........Name those Arab Leaders.......steve
Click to expand...

"There is no such country! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. 'Palestine' is alien to us; it is the Zionists who introduced it." Awni Bey Abdul-Hadi, Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee, the Arab representation during the British Mandate period.


----------



## 50_RiaL

Challenger said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flag of Palestine, 1939.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus Christ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he was a Jew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Always thought he was a Palestinian who tried to reform the Temple Judaism cult in Jerusalem, assuming he existed at all
Click to expand...


Neither Palestine nor Palestinian appear in the New Testament.  Two ancient historians mention Jesus ... he existed.


----------



## 50_RiaL

montelatici said:


> There were only a handful of Jews in Palestine prior to the arrival of the land thieving European Jews. Why do you constantly lie?
> 
> 
> 
> Source documentation:
> *
> "AN INTERIM REPORT ON THE CIVIL ADMINISTRATION OF PALESTINE, during the period 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921."*​
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years.* Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.* - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921



So what?  There's has been a Jewish majority in Jerusalem since the 1840s.

Many of those Arab squatters crossed the Sinai from Egypt into the Holy Land to escape Mehmmet Ali's forced labor details beginning in 1829.

"[E]very Palestinian in Gaza and all over Palestine can prove their Arab roots, whether they be in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, or anywhere else ... half of my family is Egyptian ... [t]here are over 30 families in the Gaza Strip with the surname Al-Masri, 'Egyptian.'  Brothers, half of the Palestinians are Egyptian, and the other half are Saudi." -- Fathi Hamad, Hamas minister of the interior and of national security, March 23, 2012.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Najd* (Arabic: نجد‎) was a Palestinian Arab village, located 14 kilometers (8.7 mi) northeast of Gaza City.

Under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, in 1596, Najd formed part _nahiya_ (subdistrict) of Gaza under the _liwa'_ (district) of Gaza with a population of 215. It paid taxes on a number of crops, including wheat, barley and fruit, as well as on goats, beehives and vineyards.[8]

Cultivated lands in the village in 1944-45 included a total of 10 dunums allocated for citrus and bananas and 11,916 dunums for cereals. An additional 511 dunums were irrigated or used for orchards. The population at this time was 620.

Najd Gaza - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## theliq

50_RiaL said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were only a handful of Jews in Palestine prior to the arrival of the land thieving European Jews. Why do you constantly lie?
> 
> 
> 
> Source documentation:
> *
> "AN INTERIM REPORT ON THE CIVIL ADMINISTRATION OF PALESTINE, during the period 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921."*​
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years.* Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.* - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?  There's has been a Jewish majority in Jerusalem since the 1840s.
> 
> Many of those Arab squatters crossed the Sinai from Egypt into the Holy Land to escape Mehmmet Ali's forced labor details beginning in 1829.
> 
> "[E]very Palestinian in Gaza and all over Palestine can prove their Arab roots, whether they be in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, or anywhere else ... half of my family is Egyptian ... [t]here are over 30 families in the Gaza Strip with the surname Al-Masri, 'Egyptian.'  Brothers, half of the Palestinians are Egyptian, and the other half are Saudi." -- Fathi Hamad, Hamas minister of the interior and of national security, March 23, 2012.
Click to expand...

Idiot,all Palestinians are Semitic Peoples.....Some Jews are NOT......All other Arabs are NOT....you need educating in Geography,Demographics,and Jewish and Palestinian History..........or then why bother with a Zionist Drone like you


----------



## theliq

50_RiaL said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were only a handful of Jews in Palestine prior to the arrival of the land thieving European Jews. Why do you constantly lie?
> 
> 
> 
> Source documentation:
> *
> "AN INTERIM REPORT ON THE CIVIL ADMINISTRATION OF PALESTINE, during the period 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921."*​
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years.* Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.* - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?  There's has been a Jewish majority in Jerusalem since the 1840s.
> 
> Many of those Arab squatters crossed the Sinai from Egypt into the Holy Land to escape Mehmmet Ali's forced labor details beginning in 1829.
> 
> "[E]very Palestinian in Gaza and all over Palestine can prove their Arab roots, whether they be in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, or anywhere else ... half of my family is Egyptian ... [t]here are over 30 families in the Gaza Strip with the surname Al-Masri, 'Egyptian.'  Brothers, half of the Palestinians are Egyptian, and the other half are Saudi." -- Fathi Hamad, Hamas minister of the interior and of national security, March 23, 2012.
Click to expand...


Hoss to thank this poster really does show you never do,due diligence to any load of nonsense foisted upon the intelligentsia on here.

Here are the real statistic the imposter forgot to mention.......I have taken recorded figures from 1836 and 1850 either side of the inaccurate Zionist conjured figures....so here we go.

1836....In Jerusalem....Jews 3,250......Muslim Palestinians 4,500(corrected 6,700 )......Christians 3,250 of which 2,100 were Christian Palestinians.

So in 1836 there were 6,700 Palestinian Arabs..to.....3,250 Jews.

1850....In Jerusalem....Jews 6,000.....Muslim Palestinians 5,400(corrected 7,800)......Christians 3,600 of which 2,400 were Christian Palestinians

So despite a high % of Jewish increase (most Illegal) The majority of 7,800 Palestinians was still higher than the Jews figure of 6,000.

I really don't quite know what the poster "Rial" is trying to achieve by his post but some idiotic brain storm in that Zionist Terrorist mind of his.

Remembering  the  2 leaders of this Banal Terrorist Organization have become Israeli Prime Minister "Begin and Shamir" who openly carried out Terrorist Attacks and murder....and eventually Murdered the excellent Prime Minister of Israel Mr Rabin.....now there was a brilliant man,from head of the IDF realised that Peace with the Palestinians was best for Israel........Hardliners including the Zionists disagreed..So they ASSASINATED HIM.

Any Poster on here that has Zionist connections should rightly be Spurned Asunder and treated with the Contempt Due to them.

steven


----------



## toastman

theliq said:


> 50_RiaL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were only a handful of Jews in Palestine prior to the arrival of the land thieving European Jews. Why do you constantly lie?
> 
> 
> 
> Source documentation:
> *
> "AN INTERIM REPORT ON THE CIVIL ADMINISTRATION OF PALESTINE, during the period 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921."*​
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years.* Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.* - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?  There's has been a Jewish majority in Jerusalem since the 1840s.
> 
> Many of those Arab squatters crossed the Sinai from Egypt into the Holy Land to escape Mehmmet Ali's forced labor details beginning in 1829.
> 
> "[E]very Palestinian in Gaza and all over Palestine can prove their Arab roots, whether they be in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, or anywhere else ... half of my family is Egyptian ... [t]here are over 30 families in the Gaza Strip with the surname Al-Masri, 'Egyptian.'  Brothers, half of the Palestinians are Egyptian, and the other half are Saudi." -- Fathi Hamad, Hamas minister of the interior and of national security, March 23, 2012.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hoss to thank this poster really does show you never do,due diligence to any load of nonsense foisted upon the intelligentsia on here.
> 
> Here are the real statistic the imposter forgot to mention.......I have taken recorded figures from 1836 and 1850 either side of the inaccurate Zionist conjured figures....so here we go.
> 
> 1836....In Jerusalem....Jews 3,250......Muslim Palestinians 4,500(corrected 6,700 )......Christians 3,250 of which 2,100 were Christian Palestinians.
> 
> So in 1836 there were 6,700 Palestinian Arabs..to.....3,250 Jews.
> 
> 1850....In Jerusalem....Jews 6,000.....Muslim Palestinians 5,400(corrected 7,800)......Christians 3,600 of which 2,400 were Christian Palestinians
> 
> So despite a high % of Jewish increase (most Illegal) The majority of 7,800 Palestinians was still higher than the Jews figure of 6,000.
> 
> I really don't quite know what the poster "Rial" is trying to achieve by his post but some idiotic brain storm in that Zionist Terrorist mind of his.
> 
> Remembering  the  2 leaders of this Banal Terrorist Organization have become Israeli Prime Minister "Begin and Shamir" who openly carried out Terrorist Attacks and murder....and eventually Murdered the excellent Prime Minister of Israel Mr Rabin.....now there was a brilliant man,from head of the IDF realised that Peace with the Palestinians was best for Israel........Hardliners including the Zionists disagreed..So they ASSASINATED HIM.
> 
> Any Poster on here that has Zionist connections should rightly be Spurned Asunder and treated with the Contempt Due to them.
> 
> steven
Click to expand...


Psychiatrists in Australia


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I posted a response regarding Zionist myths.  The source documentation supports the myths John Rose lists, e.g. the Zionist myth that claimed that Palestine was uninhabited. The indisputable fact is that Palestine was inhabited by Christians and Muslims prior to the European settlement by Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> I think we have some Arabs here who resent the fact that there are Jewish leaders in one tiny part of the Middle East.  They want it all, and the Jews should be the dhimmis.
> 
> The Holy Land The Arabs in the Holy Land - Natives or Aliens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't agree with you at all........Name those Arab Leaders.......steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must have been asleep, Steve, plus you are not important that I care or many others here care one way or the other whether  you believe it or not. The Arab leaders themselves have said there was no Palestine.  Say, how about your own country.  I was reading that the Shiites are coming in hordes because of the Sunnis suicide and car bombing all the times.  Maybe you can get busy and help them to assimilate.
Click to expand...


Hoss,...Again what Arab Leaders and when........try to concentrate..!!!!!!!!!.....Well Australia welcomes many people to our Paradise.....I don't know about "Hordes" what I do know that the Iraqis and Afghans that helped our military certainly have been welcomed here,if others are coming,like Americans,Asians and Europeans and South Americans....of course we will assimilate them as we do with everyone that comes to this land.....steve...Hoss let me know who the Arab leaders were.


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I posted a response regarding Zionist myths.  The source documentation supports the myths John Rose lists, e.g. the Zionist myth that claimed that Palestine was uninhabited. The indisputable fact is that Palestine was inhabited by Christians and Muslims prior to the European settlement by Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> I think we have some Arabs here who resent the fact that there are Jewish leaders in one tiny part of the Middle East.  They want it all, and the Jews should be the dhimmis.
> 
> The Holy Land The Arabs in the Holy Land - Natives or Aliens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't agree with you at all........Name those Arab Leaders.......steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must have been asleep, Steve, plus you are not important that I care or many others here care one way or the other whether  you believe it or not. The Arab leaders themselves have said there was no Palestine.  Say, how about your own country.  I was reading that the Shiites are coming in hordes because of the Sunnis suicide and car bombing all the times.  Maybe you can get busy and help them to assimilate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hoss,...Again what Arab Leaders and when........try to concentrate..!!!!!!!!!.....Well Australia welcomes many people to our Paradise.....I don't know about "Hordes" what I do know that the Iraqis and Afghans that helped our military certainly have been welcomed here,if others are coming,like Americans,Asians and Europeans and South Americans....of course we will assimilate them as we do with everyone that comes to this land.....steve...Hoss let me know who the Arab leaders were.
Click to expand...

The list of Arab leaders has been posted many times the past couple of years. Try to keep up, Bunky.


----------



## theliq

toastman said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 50_RiaL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were only a handful of Jews in Palestine prior to the arrival of the land thieving European Jews. Why do you constantly lie?
> 
> 
> 
> Source documentation:
> *
> "AN INTERIM REPORT ON THE CIVIL ADMINISTRATION OF PALESTINE, during the period 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921."*​
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years.* Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.* - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?  There's has been a Jewish majority in Jerusalem since the 1840s.
> 
> Many of those Arab squatters crossed the Sinai from Egypt into the Holy Land to escape Mehmmet Ali's forced labor details beginning in 1829.
> 
> "[E]very Palestinian in Gaza and all over Palestine can prove their Arab roots, whether they be in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, or anywhere else ... half of my family is Egyptian ... [t]here are over 30 families in the Gaza Strip with the surname Al-Masri, 'Egyptian.'  Brothers, half of the Palestinians are Egyptian, and the other half are Saudi." -- Fathi Hamad, Hamas minister of the interior and of national security, March 23, 2012.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hoss to thank this poster really does show you never do,due diligence to any load of nonsense foisted upon the intelligentsia on here.
> 
> Here are the real statistic the imposter forgot to mention.......I have taken recorded figures from 1836 and 1850 either side of the inaccurate Zionist conjured figures....so here we go.
> 
> 1836....In Jerusalem....Jews 3,250......Muslim Palestinians 4,500(corrected 6,700 )......Christians 3,250 of which 2,100 were Christian Palestinians.
> 
> So in 1836 there were 6,700 Palestinian Arabs..to.....3,250 Jews.
> 
> 1850....In Jerusalem....Jews 6,000.....Muslim Palestinians 5,400(corrected 7,800)......Christians 3,600 of which 2,400 were Christian Palestinians
> 
> So despite a high % of Jewish increase (most Illegal) The majority of 7,800 Palestinians was still higher than the Jews figure of 6,000.
> 
> I really don't quite know what the poster "Rial" is trying to achieve by his post but some idiotic brain storm in that Zionist Terrorist mind of his.
> 
> Remembering  the  2 leaders of this Banal Terrorist Organization have become Israeli Prime Minister "Begin and Shamir" who openly carried out Terrorist Attacks and murder....and eventually Murdered the excellent Prime Minister of Israel Mr Rabin.....now there was a brilliant man,from head of the IDF realised that Peace with the Palestinians was best for Israel........Hardliners including the Zionists disagreed..So they ASSASINATED HIM.
> 
> Any Poster on here that has Zionist connections should rightly be Spurned Asunder and treated with the Contempt Due to them.
> 
> steven
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Psychiatrists in Australia
Click to expand...

Ho,Ho,Ho.............Unfortunate post really Toastie,because there is Nothing funny with folk who need Psychiatric help.....as you would I hope be well aware of in the USA and Israel and Palestine.....Thankfully I have been Lucky and hope you have too,as we have never needed their help....There but for the grace of God Toastie go both of us.steve...Mental Health todays epidemic.


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I posted a response regarding Zionist myths.  The source documentation supports the myths John Rose lists, e.g. the Zionist myth that claimed that Palestine was uninhabited. The indisputable fact is that Palestine was inhabited by Christians and Muslims prior to the European settlement by Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> I think we have some Arabs here who resent the fact that there are Jewish leaders in one tiny part of the Middle East.  They want it all, and the Jews should be the dhimmis.
> 
> The Holy Land The Arabs in the Holy Land - Natives or Aliens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't agree with you at all........Name those Arab Leaders.......steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must have been asleep, Steve, plus you are not important that I care or many others here care one way or the other whether  you believe it or not. The Arab leaders themselves have said there was no Palestine.  Say, how about your own country.  I was reading that the Shiites are coming in hordes because of the Sunnis suicide and car bombing all the times.  Maybe you can get busy and help them to assimilate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hoss,...Again what Arab Leaders and when........try to concentrate..!!!!!!!!!.....Well Australia welcomes many people to our Paradise.....I don't know about "Hordes" what I do know that the Iraqis and Afghans that helped our military certainly have been welcomed here,if others are coming,like Americans,Asians and Europeans and South Americans....of course we will assimilate them as we do with everyone that comes to this land.....steve...Hoss let me know who the Arab leaders were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The list of Arab leaders has been posted many times the past couple of years. Try to keep up, Bunky.
Click to expand...

Please remind me Hoss.....it can't be that hard ? can it? anyhow how come you are being a bit bitchy today..Bunkysteve.....has a nice ring to it.Hoss..I LIKE IT  LOL


----------



## Mindful




----------



## montelatici

Some more Hasbara propaganda: But as usual, source documentation shows that it is propaganda. The Palestinians were calling themselves Palestinian people at least in 1921 as this source document, a letter from the Palestinian Delegation to London (note the name), shows:

*PALESTINE. CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION AND THE ZIONIST ORGANISATION. 
Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty. JUNE, 1922. LONDON *​
"........Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving* the People of Palestine* full control of their own affairs could be acceptable. If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant* the People of Palestine* — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the *People of Palestine* assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration. - See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922


----------



## Mindful

montelatici said:


> Some more Hasbara propaganda: But as usual, source documentation shows that it is propaganda. The Palestinians were calling themselves Palestinian people at least in 1921 as this source document, a letter from the Palestinian Delegation to London (note the name), shows:
> 
> *PALESTINE. CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION AND THE ZIONIST ORGANISATION.
> Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty. JUNE, 1922. LONDON *​
> "........Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving* the People of Palestine* full control of their own affairs could be acceptable. If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant* the People of Palestine* — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the *People of Palestine* assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration. - See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922




I can almost predict, to the letter, what you are going to say on this thread. It's a given. 

I've heard it all before.

Where did you say your training ground is?


----------



## montelatici

Mindful said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some more Hasbara propaganda: But as usual, source documentation shows that it is propaganda. The Palestinians were calling themselves Palestinian people at least in 1921 as this source document, a letter from the Palestinian Delegation to London (note the name), shows:
> 
> *PALESTINE. CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION AND THE ZIONIST ORGANISATION.
> Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty. JUNE, 1922. LONDON *​
> "........Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving* the People of Palestine* full control of their own affairs could be acceptable. If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant* the People of Palestine* — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the *People of Palestine* assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration. - See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can almost predict, to the letter, what you are going to say on this thread. It's a given.
> 
> I've heard it all before.
> 
> Where did you say your training ground is?
Click to expand...



Rutgers University.  We had access to the source documentation.  That is, we had access to the facts.  You post propaganda.


----------



## Mindful

montelatici said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some more Hasbara propaganda: But as usual, source documentation shows that it is propaganda. The Palestinians were calling themselves Palestinian people at least in 1921 as this source document, a letter from the Palestinian Delegation to London (note the name), shows:
> 
> *PALESTINE. CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION AND THE ZIONIST ORGANISATION.
> Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty. JUNE, 1922. LONDON *​
> "........Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving* the People of Palestine* full control of their own affairs could be acceptable. If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant* the People of Palestine* — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the *People of Palestine* assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration. - See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can almost predict, to the letter, what you are going to say on this thread. It's a given.
> 
> I've heard it all before.
> 
> Where did you say your training ground is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Rutgers University.  We had access to the source documentation.  That is, we had access to the facts.  You post propaganda.
Click to expand...


No. You do.  Because you have a fevered agenda.


----------



## montelatici

Mindful said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some more Hasbara propaganda: But as usual, source documentation shows that it is propaganda. The Palestinians were calling themselves Palestinian people at least in 1921 as this source document, a letter from the Palestinian Delegation to London (note the name), shows:
> 
> *PALESTINE. CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION AND THE ZIONIST ORGANISATION.
> Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty. JUNE, 1922. LONDON *​
> "........Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving* the People of Palestine* full control of their own affairs could be acceptable. If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant* the People of Palestine* — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the *People of Palestine* assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration. - See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can almost predict, to the letter, what you are going to say on this thread. It's a given.
> 
> I've heard it all before.
> 
> Where did you say your training ground is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Rutgers University.  We had access to the source documentation.  That is, we had access to the facts.  You post propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. You do.  Because you have a fevered agenda.
Click to expand...


Facts are not an agenda.


----------



## Mindful

montelatici said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some more Hasbara propaganda: But as usual, source documentation shows that it is propaganda. The Palestinians were calling themselves Palestinian people at least in 1921 as this source document, a letter from the Palestinian Delegation to London (note the name), shows:
> 
> *PALESTINE. CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION AND THE ZIONIST ORGANISATION.
> Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty. JUNE, 1922. LONDON *​
> "........Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving* the People of Palestine* full control of their own affairs could be acceptable. If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant* the People of Palestine* — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the *People of Palestine* assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration. - See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can almost predict, to the letter, what you are going to say on this thread. It's a given.
> 
> I've heard it all before.
> 
> Where did you say your training ground is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Rutgers University.  We had access to the source documentation.  That is, we had access to the facts.  You post propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. You do.  Because you have a fevered agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts are not an agenda.
Click to expand...


You are though.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some more Hasbara propaganda: But as usual, source documentation shows that it is propaganda. The Palestinians were calling themselves Palestinian people at least in 1921 as this source document, a letter from the Palestinian Delegation to London (note the name), shows:
> 
> *PALESTINE. CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION AND THE ZIONIST ORGANISATION.
> Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty. JUNE, 1922. LONDON *​
> "........Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving* the People of Palestine* full control of their own affairs could be acceptable. If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant* the People of Palestine* — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the *People of Palestine* assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration. - See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can almost predict, to the letter, what you are going to say on this thread. It's a given.
> 
> I've heard it all before.
> 
> Where did you say your training ground is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Rutgers University.  We had access to the source documentation.  That is, we had access to the facts.  You post propaganda.
Click to expand...


Hey Monte, tell us the facts on Israel's GENOCIDE of the Palestinian people.


----------



## montelatici

Do you know what the definition of Genocide is?  I think not.  

*Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide* _(For full text click here)_
*"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:*

*(a) Killing members of the group; 
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; 
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; 
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; 
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.*


Israel has committed (a), (b), and (c), against the Palestinians.


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we have some Arabs here who resent the fact that there are Jewish leaders in one tiny part of the Middle East.  They want it all, and the Jews should be the dhimmis.
> 
> The Holy Land The Arabs in the Holy Land - Natives or Aliens
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with you at all........Name those Arab Leaders.......steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must have been asleep, Steve, plus you are not important that I care or many others here care one way or the other whether  you believe it or not. The Arab leaders themselves have said there was no Palestine.  Say, how about your own country.  I was reading that the Shiites are coming in hordes because of the Sunnis suicide and car bombing all the times.  Maybe you can get busy and help them to assimilate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hoss,...Again what Arab Leaders and when........try to concentrate..!!!!!!!!!.....Well Australia welcomes many people to our Paradise.....I don't know about "Hordes" what I do know that the Iraqis and Afghans that helped our military certainly have been welcomed here,if others are coming,like Americans,Asians and Europeans and South Americans....of course we will assimilate them as we do with everyone that comes to this land.....steve...Hoss let me know who the Arab leaders were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The list of Arab leaders has been posted many times the past couple of years. Try to keep up, Bunky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please remind me Hoss.....it can't be that hard ? can it? anyhow how come you are being a bit bitchy today..Bunkysteve.....has a nice ring to it.Hoss..I LIKE IT  LOL
Click to expand...

You always sound bitchy yourself, Steve, calling people who have a different viewpoint from yours as morons or idiots.  Speaking of psychiatrists which you brought up in response to Toastman's post, what has your therapist suggested for you lately?


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Do you know what the definition of Genocide is?  I think not.
> 
> *Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide* _(For full text click here)_
> *"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:*
> 
> *(a) Killing members of the group;
> (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
> (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
> (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
> (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.*
> 
> 
> Israel has committed (a), (b), and (c), against the Palestinians.



Oh now I get it.  You see you Zionists the Palestinians have not commited A, B & C  GENOCIDE on the Israeli's.  Right Monte.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flag of Palestine, 1939.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus Christ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he was a Jew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Always thought he was a Palestinian who tried to reform the Temple Judaism cult in Jerusalem, assuming he existed at all
Click to expand...





 He was back when arab muslims did not exist, and Palestinian was reserved for the Jews only


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flag of Palestine, 1939.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more you post the more INSANE you become........I don't believe this flag is real because the Jews would Never use the Yellow Star of David.....the very colour and markings the Nazis painted on the shops and people of the Jewish faith......this post is disgusting for all the Jews that perished and those who survived at the hands of the EVIL Nazis........You really are as Mad as a Cut Snake....putting it mildly...steven
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1939 Palestinian Flag What Does It Look Like Surprised - YouTube
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't be silly Hoss this flag was the Jewish Flag of all those Illegal Jewish Immigrants......this was never the flag of the Palestinian people at all....good try though......I note the book you used was by "Simmonds" another Rabid Zionist.........this post demeans your intelligence.steve
Click to expand...






 Correct me if I am wrong but didn't the Ottoman muslims invite the Jews to settle and work the land of Palestine, then the LoN who owned the land next did the same thing. So how are the Jews Illegal Immigrants when they had an open invite to migrate to Palestine. Surely it was the arab muslims that turned up uninvited that are the illegal immigrants.


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flag of Palestine, 1939.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus Christ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he was a Jew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shame the Scribes/Jews didn't think so at the time
Click to expand...






 A bit like the muslims who don't see Ahmadi's as muslims, even though the use the same Koran. Or the shia muslims and the sunni muslims who say they are the only true followers of allah. Well Jesus was a Pharisee Jew who preached peace and harmony, much to the dismay of the Rabbis of the time who held power over Judaism.


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flag of Palestine, 1939.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus Christ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he was a Jew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Always thought he was a Palestinian who tried to reform the Temple Judaism cult in Jerusalem, assuming he existed at all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was back when arab muslims did not exist, and Palestinian was reserved for the Jews only
Click to expand...


More Phoney baloney. Palestine has always been composed of many tribal groups; "The Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians and the Amorites." to name but a few.


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flag of Palestine, 1939.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more you post the more INSANE you become........I don't believe this flag is real because the Jews would Never use the Yellow Star of David.....the very colour and markings the Nazis painted on the shops and people of the Jewish faith......this post is disgusting for all the Jews that perished and those who survived at the hands of the EVIL Nazis........You really are as Mad as a Cut Snake....putting it mildly...steven
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1939 Palestinian Flag What Does It Look Like Surprised - YouTube
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't be silly Hoss this flag was the Jewish Flag of all those Illegal Jewish Immigrants......this was never the flag of the Palestinian people at all....good try though......I note the book you used was by "Simmonds" another Rabid Zionist.........this post demeans your intelligence.steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong but didn't the Ottoman muslims invite the Jews to settle and work the land of Palestine, then the LoN who owned the land next did the same thing. So how are the Jews Illegal Immigrants when they had an open invite to migrate to Palestine. Surely it was the arab muslims that turned up uninvited that are the illegal immigrants.
Click to expand...


Show me the invite.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> There were only a handful of Jews in Palestine prior to the arrival of the land thieving European Jews. Why do you constantly lie?
> 
> 
> 
> Source documentation:
> *
> "AN INTERIM REPORT ON THE CIVIL ADMINISTRATION OF PALESTINE, during the period 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921."*​
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years.* Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.* - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921






 Written by a committee so not a source document, want to try again. And this has been debunked by earlier reports and by the British census. Of course there was also the Ottoman census that showed a different picture along with the Ottoman histories.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flag of Palestine, 1939.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus Christ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he was a Jew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Always thought he was a Palestinian who tried to reform the Temple Judaism cult in Jerusalem, assuming he existed at all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was back when arab muslims did not exist, and Palestinian was reserved for the Jews only
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More Phoney baloney. Palestine has always been composed of many tribal groups; "The Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians and the Amorites." to name but a few.
Click to expand...





 But only one group was named Palestinian until 1960 when Arafat the boy lover stole the name because he did not have any other to call the arab muslims.  Or do you still think that arab muslims were living in Jerusalem when the Romans invaded ?


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flag of Palestine, 1939.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more you post the more INSANE you become........I don't believe this flag is real because the Jews would Never use the Yellow Star of David.....the very colour and markings the Nazis painted on the shops and people of the Jewish faith......this post is disgusting for all the Jews that perished and those who survived at the hands of the EVIL Nazis........You really are as Mad as a Cut Snake....putting it mildly...steven
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1939 Palestinian Flag What Does It Look Like Surprised - YouTube
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't be silly Hoss this flag was the Jewish Flag of all those Illegal Jewish Immigrants......this was never the flag of the Palestinian people at all....good try though......I note the book you used was by "Simmonds" another Rabid Zionist.........this post demeans your intelligence.steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong but didn't the Ottoman muslims invite the Jews to settle and work the land of Palestine, then the LoN who owned the land next did the same thing. So how are the Jews Illegal Immigrants when they had an open invite to migrate to Palestine. Surely it was the arab muslims that turned up uninvited that are the illegal immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me the invite.
Click to expand...





 You mean this one

Modern History Sourcebook League of Nations The Mandate for Palestine July 24 1922

*ARTICLE 6.* The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, *shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.*


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were only a handful of Jews in Palestine prior to the arrival of the land thieving European Jews. Why do you constantly lie?
> 
> Oh now I get it.  So prior to 1850 the Palestinians were Muslims.  And Iz'll bet ya not a single Zion isy knew that.
> 
> 
> Source documentation:
> *
> "AN INTERIM REPORT ON THE CIVIL ADMINISTRATION OF PALESTINE, during the period 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921."*​
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years.* Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.* - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh now I get it.  So prior to 1850 the Palestinians were Muslims.  And I'll bet ya not a single Zionist knew that.  Keep up yoiur good work on educating all of us with your fine documentation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, most of what Monte posts is so funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just facts from source documentation.  All you do is run your mouth pathologically lying.  But as the source documents state, prior to 1850 Palestinians were Muslim and Christian.
Click to expand...





 Told you before if a work is edited by another person then it is no longer a source document. It becomes an extension of the editors POV


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, most Palestinians received Jordanian citizenship.
> 
> "More than 2 million registered Palestine refugees live in Jordan.
> 
> Most Palestine refugees in Jordan, but not all, have full citizenship."
> 
> Where We Work UNRWA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 50,000 were mown down by machine gun fire, mostly women and children while caged in the concentration camps. Another 2 million had their citizenship removed and their protection removed as well when they were thrown to the dogs. This is how Muslims treat terrorists and you don't say a word about this treatment do you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So true how the surrounding Arab countries massacred their Palestinians by the tens of thousands & left tens of thousands of others as refugees.  But let us not forget what those Zionists in Israel have also done to them with their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions to piss off the Palestinians thus making this an endless conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Silly Prick......I really believe that all you Zionists are totally brainwashed in Zionist Mantra Trash......I would like a world authority to medically examine you Zionists......they will no doubt find you Madder than ISIS at least they admit their atrosities sic...where as you lie through your teeth or blame others...sick bastards arn't you
> 
> but we all know the truth how Zionist Scum,Murdered,Maimed,Exiled and tried to ELIMINATE the Palestinians up until today.You carry collective GUILT........We have NO RESPECT at all for Zionists Terrorists,as they are wastrels of the worst degree.......and like theTerrorists they are,should be eliminated along with ISIS ect and all the other Mad Bastards worldwide..............Stop spewing your Zionist shit on here
Click to expand...






 I believe you have Zionist fever that makes you attribute the work of arab muslims to innocent Jews. If the Jews were doing all this then surely we would have seen a decrease in the numbers of Palestinians by now, not a substantial increase.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Laila El Haddad *
> 
> **






 ISLAMONAZI LIES and PROPAGANDA from an ISLAMONAZI LIAR and PROPAGANDIST


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, most Palestinians received Jordanian citizenship.
> 
> "More than 2 million registered Palestine refugees live in Jordan.
> 
> Most Palestine refugees in Jordan, but not all, have full citizenship."
> 
> Where We Work UNRWA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 50,000 were mown down by machine gun fire, mostly women and children while caged in the concentration camps. Another 2 million had their citizenship removed and their protection removed as well when they were thrown to the dogs. This is how Muslims treat terrorists and you don't say a word about this treatment do you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So true how the surrounding Arab countries massacred their Palestinians by the tens of thousands & left tens of thousands of others as refugees.  But let us not forget what those Zionists in Israel have also done to them with their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions to piss off the Palestinians thus making this an endless conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Silly Prick......I really believe that all you Zionists are totally brainwashed in Zionist Mantra Trash......I would like a world authority to medically examine you Zionists......they will no doubt find you Madder than ISIS at least they admit their atrosities sic...where as you lie through your teeth or blame others...sick bastards arn't you
> 
> but we all know the truth how Zionist Scum,Murdered,Maimed,Exiled and tried to ELIMINATE the Palestinians up until today.You carry collective GUILT........We have NO RESPECT at all for Zionists Terrorists,as they are wastrels of the worst degree.......and like theTerrorists they are,should be eliminated along with ISIS ect and all the other Mad Bastards worldwide..............Stop spewing your Zionist shit on here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF is wrong with you ?? I mean seriously ??? All you do is post lies and demented crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now that's funny.  The whole Zionist myth is a lie, and you are one of the propagators.
Click to expand...





 What Zionist myth, and how about a link to a Zionist source proving this mythological myth


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Hmmm.  That's like kind of like Putin saying Russia owns Ukraine. Wonderful analogy.






 Jordan did annexe the west bank in 1948, and the Palestinians agreed to it. Then he cast them adrift after the failed coup by Arafat to steal all of Jordan, not before putting 50,000 to the sword as an object lesson.  Think about it Abdul 50,000 men, women and children mown down by machine guns while they were trapped inside barbed wire death camps. And not a Jew in sight to blame.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> I've forgotten more than you will ever learn in a lifetime, son.






 One thing you have not learnt is how to differentiate gender, could lead to confusion any time soon.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So true how the surrounding Arab countries massacred their Palestinians by the tens of thousands & left tens of thousands of others as refugees.  But let us not forget what those Zionists in Israel have also done to them with their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions to piss off the Palestinians thus making this an endless conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> Silly Prick......I really believe that all you Zionists are totally brainwashed in Zionist Mantra Trash......I would like a world authority to medically examine you Zionists......they will no doubt find you Madder than ISIS at least they admit their atrosities sic...where as you lie through your teeth or blame others...sick bastards arn't you
> 
> but we all know the truth how Zionist Scum,Murdered,Maimed,Exiled and tried to ELIMINATE the Palestinians up until today.You carry collective GUILT........We have NO RESPECT at all for Zionists Terrorists,as they are wastrels of the worst degree.......and like theTerrorists they are,should be eliminated along with ISIS ect and all the other Mad Bastards worldwide..............Stop spewing your Zionist shit on here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF is wrong with you ?? I mean seriously ??? All you do is post lies and demented crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now that's funny.  The whole Zionist myth is a lie, and you are one of the propagators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Monti, you are known as one of the biggest propaganda spewers here. You are allergic to the truth, and you are as dumb as an ox.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Posting source documentation from academic and/or UN archives is not posting propaganda.  It is called posting fact.  You have never posted a source document, you constantly post propaganda from Zionist sources.
Click to expand...






 As I keep telling you a source document is written by one person and is published unedited, anything else has been altered to suit another persons POV.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So true how the surrounding Arab countries massacred their Palestinians by the tens of thousands & left tens of thousands of others as refugees.  But let us not forget what those Zionists in Israel have also done to them with their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions to piss off the Palestinians thus making this an endless conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> Silly Prick......I really believe that all you Zionists are totally brainwashed in Zionist Mantra Trash......I would like a world authority to medically examine you Zionists......they will no doubt find you Madder than ISIS at least they admit their atrosities sic...where as you lie through your teeth or blame others...sick bastards arn't you
> 
> but we all know the truth how Zionist Scum,Murdered,Maimed,Exiled and tried to ELIMINATE the Palestinians up until today.You carry collective GUILT........We have NO RESPECT at all for Zionists Terrorists,as they are wastrels of the worst degree.......and like theTerrorists they are,should be eliminated along with ISIS ect and all the other Mad Bastards worldwide..............Stop spewing your Zionist shit on here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF is wrong with you ?? I mean seriously ??? All you do is post lies and demented crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now that's funny.  The whole Zionist myth is a lie, and you are one of the propagators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BTW, what myth are you talking about ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These myths:
Click to expand...






 What a load of old bullshit.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> No, I posted a response regarding Zionist myths.  The source documentation supports the myths John Rose lists, e.g. the Zionist myth that claimed that Palestine was uninhabited. The indisputable fact is that Palestine was inhabited by Christians and Muslims prior to the European settlement by Jews.





 What about the Jews that lived in Palestine, and had done for 3,200 years before the muslims did and 2,500 years before the Christians did ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> *Najd* (Arabic: نجد‎) was a Palestinian Arab village, located 14 kilometers (8.7 mi) northeast of Gaza City.
> 
> Under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, in 1596, Najd formed part _nahiya_ (subdistrict) of Gaza under the _liwa'_ (district) of Gaza with a population of 215. It paid taxes on a number of crops, including wheat, barley and fruit, as well as on goats, beehives and vineyards.[8]
> 
> Cultivated lands in the village in 1944-45 included a total of 10 dunums allocated for citrus and bananas and 11,916 dunums for cereals. An additional 511 dunums were irrigated or used for orchards. The population at this time was 620.
> 
> Najd Gaza - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia






 Ram was a Jewish town close to Jerusalem, until the arab muslims forcibly evicted the Jewish owners killing many in the process and renamed it Ramallah.


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> 50_RiaL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were only a handful of Jews in Palestine prior to the arrival of the land thieving European Jews. Why do you constantly lie?
> 
> 
> 
> Source documentation:
> *
> "AN INTERIM REPORT ON THE CIVIL ADMINISTRATION OF PALESTINE, during the period 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921."*​
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years.* Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.* - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?  There's has been a Jewish majority in Jerusalem since the 1840s.
> 
> Many of those Arab squatters crossed the Sinai from Egypt into the Holy Land to escape Mehmmet Ali's forced labor details beginning in 1829.
> 
> "[E]very Palestinian in Gaza and all over Palestine can prove their Arab roots, whether they be in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, or anywhere else ... half of my family is Egyptian ... [t]here are over 30 families in the Gaza Strip with the surname Al-Masri, 'Egyptian.'  Brothers, half of the Palestinians are Egyptian, and the other half are Saudi." -- Fathi Hamad, Hamas minister of the interior and of national security, March 23, 2012.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot,all Palestinians are Semitic Peoples.....Some Jews are NOT......All other Arabs are NOT....you need educating in Geography,Demographics,and Jewish and Palestinian History..........or then why bother with a Zionist Drone like you
Click to expand...





 So in one breath you are saying that arabs are not semitic, but in the next you are saying they are. Do you confuse yourself very often ?


----------



## fanger

You are wrong, as always
Ramallah - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> 50_RiaL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were only a handful of Jews in Palestine prior to the arrival of the land thieving European Jews. Why do you constantly lie?
> 
> 
> 
> Source documentation:
> *
> "AN INTERIM REPORT ON THE CIVIL ADMINISTRATION OF PALESTINE, during the period 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921."*​
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years.* Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.* - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?  There's has been a Jewish majority in Jerusalem since the 1840s.
> 
> Many of those Arab squatters crossed the Sinai from Egypt into the Holy Land to escape Mehmmet Ali's forced labor details beginning in 1829.
> 
> "[E]very Palestinian in Gaza and all over Palestine can prove their Arab roots, whether they be in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, or anywhere else ... half of my family is Egyptian ... [t]here are over 30 families in the Gaza Strip with the surname Al-Masri, 'Egyptian.'  Brothers, half of the Palestinians are Egyptian, and the other half are Saudi." -- Fathi Hamad, Hamas minister of the interior and of national security, March 23, 2012.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hoss to thank this poster really does show you never do,due diligence to any load of nonsense foisted upon the intelligentsia on here.
> 
> Here are the real statistic the imposter forgot to mention.......I have taken recorded figures from 1836 and 1850 either side of the inaccurate Zionist conjured figures....so here we go.
> 
> 1836....In Jerusalem....Jews 3,250......Muslim Palestinians 4,500(corrected 6,700 )......Christians 3,250 of which 2,100 were Christian Palestinians.
> 
> So in 1836 there were 6,700 Palestinian Arabs..to.....3,250 Jews.
> 
> 1850....In Jerusalem....Jews 6,000.....Muslim Palestinians 5,400(corrected 7,800)......Christians 3,600 of which 2,400 were Christian Palestinians
> 
> So despite a high % of Jewish increase (most Illegal) The majority of 7,800 Palestinians was still higher than the Jews figure of 6,000.
> 
> I really don't quite know what the poster "Rial" is trying to achieve by his post but some idiotic brain storm in that Zionist Terrorist mind of his.
> 
> Remembering  the  2 leaders of this Banal Terrorist Organization have become Israeli Prime Minister "Begin and Shamir" who openly carried out Terrorist Attacks and murder....and eventually Murdered the excellent Prime Minister of Israel Mr Rabin.....now there was a brilliant man,from head of the IDF realised that Peace with the Palestinians was best for Israel........Hardliners including the Zionists disagreed..So they ASSASINATED HIM.
> 
> Any Poster on here that has Zionist connections should rightly be Spurned Asunder and treated with the Contempt Due to them.
> 
> steven
Click to expand...






 BULLSHIT


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Some more Hasbara propaganda: But as usual, source documentation shows that it is propaganda. The Palestinians were calling themselves Palestinian people at least in 1921 as this source document, a letter from the Palestinian Delegation to London (note the name), shows:
> 
> *PALESTINE. CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION AND THE ZIONIST ORGANISATION.
> Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty. JUNE, 1922. LONDON *​
> "........Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving* the People of Palestine* full control of their own affairs could be acceptable. If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant* the People of Palestine* — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the *People of Palestine* assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration. - See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922






 And the first thing we read s this

*PUBLISHED BY HIS MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE.*

 So not a source document at all


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some more Hasbara propaganda: But as usual, source documentation shows that it is propaganda. The Palestinians were calling themselves Palestinian people at least in 1921 as this source document, a letter from the Palestinian Delegation to London (note the name), shows:
> 
> *PALESTINE. CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION AND THE ZIONIST ORGANISATION.
> Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty. JUNE, 1922. LONDON *​
> "........Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving* the People of Palestine* full control of their own affairs could be acceptable. If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant* the People of Palestine* — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the *People of Palestine* assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration. - See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can almost predict, to the letter, what you are going to say on this thread. It's a given.
> 
> I've heard it all before.
> 
> Where did you say your training ground is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Rutgers University.  We had access to the source documentation.  That is, we had access to the facts.  You post propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. You do.  Because you have a fevered agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts are not an agenda.
Click to expand...





 Published articles are not source documents


----------



## Mindful

LOL TIME The History of 8216 Palestine 8217 Museum 8230 it 8217 s the shortest tour you 8217 re ever going to take


----------



## aris2chat

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flag of Palestine, 1939.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more you post the more INSANE you become........I don't believe this flag is real because the Jews would Never use the Yellow Star of David.....the very colour and markings the Nazis painted on the shops and people of the Jewish faith......this post is disgusting for all the Jews that perished and those who survived at the hands of the EVIL Nazis........You really are as Mad as a Cut Snake....putting it mildly...steven
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1939 Palestinian Flag What Does It Look Like Surprised - YouTube
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't be silly Hoss this flag was the Jewish Flag of all those Illegal Jewish Immigrants......this was never the flag of the Palestinian people at all....good try though......I note the book you used was by "Simmonds" another Rabid Zionist.........this post demeans your intelligence.steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong but didn't the Ottoman muslims invite the Jews to settle and work the land of Palestine, then the LoN who owned the land next did the same thing. So how are the Jews Illegal Immigrants when they had an open invite to migrate to Palestine. Surely it was the arab muslims that turned up uninvited that are the illegal immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me the invite.
Click to expand...


several waves in the 15C, 17C and by Abdulhamid II with status the same under the Pact of Halepa.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the definition of Genocide is?  I think not.
> 
> *Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide* _(For full text click here)_
> *"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:*
> 
> *(a) Killing members of the group;
> (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
> (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
> (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
> (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.*
> 
> 
> Israel has committed (a), (b), and (c), against the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh now I get it.  You see you Zionists the Palestinians have not commited A, B & C  GENOCIDE on the Israeli's.  Right Monte.
Click to expand...

Galaxy Tab Accessories Galaxy Tab Cases Keyboards More Samsung
Does a Palestinian government have any sovereign control over the Jews of Israel?


Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I posted a response regarding Zionist myths.  The source documentation supports the myths John Rose lists, e.g. the Zionist myth that claimed that Palestine was uninhabited. The indisputable fact is that Palestine was inhabited by Christians and Muslims prior to the European settlement by Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the Jews that lived in Palestine, and had done for 3,200 years before the muslims did and 2,500 years before the Christians did ?
Click to expand...


There were only a handful of Jews in Palestine before the European Jews starting settling their.  They were Arab Jews.  They spoke Arabic and were well integrated in the Palestinian society.  No Christian or Muslim had any problem with the local Jews.

"The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. *Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.* In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921


----------



## Mindful

8216 Palestinian 8217 History 101 This is going to be a short class since they don 8217 t have any


----------



## MJB12741

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some more Hasbara propaganda: But as usual, source documentation shows that it is propaganda. The Palestinians were calling themselves Palestinian people at least in 1921 as this source document, a letter from the Palestinian Delegation to London (note the name), shows:
> 
> *PALESTINE. CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION AND THE ZIONIST ORGANISATION.
> Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty. JUNE, 1922. LONDON *​
> "........Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving* the People of Palestine* full control of their own affairs could be acceptable. If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant* the People of Palestine* — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the *People of Palestine* assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration. - See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the first thing we read s this
> 
> *PUBLISHED BY HIS MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE.*
> 
> So not a source document at all
Click to expand...



LOL!  Monte & his unbiased documented sources.  Oh Lord I love to see his funny posts.


----------



## montelatici

You are the hilarious one.  When you see source documentation that is unimpeachable evidence that all you post is propaganda, you deflect by posting a silly comment.  You have no other retort.  It's just too hilariious.


----------



## montelatici

Mindful said:


> 8216 Palestinian 8217 History 101 This is going to be a short class since they don 8217 t have any



Another propaganda blog being used to contradict facts from source documentation.  Do you think posting propaganda does your cause any good?


----------



## Mindful

montelatici said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8216 Palestinian 8217 History 101 This is going to be a short class since they don 8217 t have any
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another propaganda blog being used to contradict facts from source documentation.  Do you think posting propaganda does your cause any good?
Click to expand...


What cause is that?


----------



## montelatici

Mindful said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8216 Palestinian 8217 History 101 This is going to be a short class since they don 8217 t have any
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another propaganda blog being used to contradict facts from source documentation.  Do you think posting propaganda does your cause any good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What cause is that?
Click to expand...


To deligitimatize the rights of the Christians and Muslims of Palestine and rationalize the settlement of their land by Europeans.


----------



## Mindful

montelatici said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8216 Palestinian 8217 History 101 This is going to be a short class since they don 8217 t have any
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another propaganda blog being used to contradict facts from source documentation.  Do you think posting propaganda does your cause any good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What cause is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To deligitimatize the rights of the Christians and Muslims of Palestine and rationalize the settlement of their land by Europeans.
Click to expand...



Muslims in Israel are doing very well.


----------



## montelatici

Non-whites in the 


Mindful said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8216 Palestinian 8217 History 101 This is going to be a short class since they don 8217 t have any
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another propaganda blog being used to contradict facts from source documentation.  Do you think posting propaganda does your cause any good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What cause is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To deligitimatize the rights of the Christians and Muslims of Palestine and rationalize the settlement of their land by Europeans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Muslims in Israel are doing very well.
Click to expand...


Some non-whites under Apartheid South Africa control did quite well too.


----------



## Mindful

montelatici said:


> Non-whites in the
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8216 Palestinian 8217 History 101 This is going to be a short class since they don 8217 t have any
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another propaganda blog being used to contradict facts from source documentation.  Do you think posting propaganda does your cause any good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What cause is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To deligitimatize the rights of the Christians and Muslims of Palestine and rationalize the settlement of their land by Europeans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Muslims in Israel are doing very well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some non-whites under Apartheid South Africa control did quite well too.
Click to expand...


Oh that old chestnut. Yawn.

Is there something you are trying to convince me of? With all that tired stale old stuff.


----------



## montelatici

No need to convince anyone.  The facts are the facts.  The more knowledgeable Zionists and their supporters know what the facts are but maintain the myth.  Without the myth the operation is basically a land grab and ethnic cleansing.  There will be no peace until the Jews admit it to themselves and begin to compromise.


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Najd* (Arabic: نجد‎) was a Palestinian Arab village, located 14 kilometers (8.7 mi) northeast of Gaza City.
> 
> Under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, in 1596, Najd formed part _nahiya_ (subdistrict) of Gaza under the _liwa'_ (district) of Gaza with a population of 215. It paid taxes on a number of crops, including wheat, barley and fruit, as well as on goats, beehives and vineyards.[8]
> 
> Cultivated lands in the village in 1944-45 included a total of 10 dunums allocated for citrus and bananas and 11,916 dunums for cereals. An additional 511 dunums were irrigated or used for orchards. The population at this time was 620.
> 
> Najd Gaza - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ram was a Jewish town close to Jerusalem, until the arab muslims forcibly evicted the Jewish owners killing many in the process and renamed it Ramallah.
Click to expand...


More Phoney baloney. "Ram" is an Aramaic word and there's no archaeological evidence of any occupation of the site before the Crusader era. The first occupants were Christians. Ramallah


----------



## Challenger

aris2chat said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more you post the more INSANE you become........I don't believe this flag is real because the Jews would Never use the Yellow Star of David.....the very colour and markings the Nazis painted on the shops and people of the Jewish faith......this post is disgusting for all the Jews that perished and those who survived at the hands of the EVIL Nazis........You really are as Mad as a Cut Snake....putting it mildly...steven
> 
> 
> 
> 1939 Palestinian Flag What Does It Look Like Surprised - YouTube
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't be silly Hoss this flag was the Jewish Flag of all those Illegal Jewish Immigrants......this was never the flag of the Palestinian people at all....good try though......I note the book you used was by "Simmonds" another Rabid Zionist.........this post demeans your intelligence.steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong but didn't the Ottoman muslims invite the Jews to settle and work the land of Palestine, then the LoN who owned the land next did the same thing. So how are the Jews Illegal Immigrants when they had an open invite to migrate to Palestine. Surely it was the arab muslims that turned up uninvited that are the illegal immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me the invite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> several waves in the 15C, 17C and by Abdulhamid II with status the same under the Pact of Halepa.
Click to expand...


Not sure about Abdulhamid II, but I've since found that Sultan Bayezid II issued a formal invitation to those Jewish people from Spain fleeing the Reconquista to settle in the Empire and become Ottoman citizens. most settled in the European provinces and Anatolia, but significant numbers did settle in the Syrian provinces, so I'll give you that one.


----------



## montelatici

The Grand Duchy of Tuscany also invited Spanish Jews to Leghorn, and thousands went, but they didn't try to establish a Jewish state in Tuscany or did they try to evict the local people.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the definition of Genocide is?  I think not.
> 
> *Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide* _(For full text click here)_
> *"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:*
> 
> *(a) Killing members of the group;
> (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
> (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
> (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
> (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.*
> 
> 
> Israel has committed (a), (b), and (c), against the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh now I get it.  You see you Zionists the Palestinians have not commited A, B & C  GENOCIDE on the Israeli's.  Right Monte.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Galaxy Tab Accessories Galaxy Tab Cases Keyboards More Samsung
> Does a Palestinian government have any sovereign control over the Jews of Israel?
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I posted a response regarding Zionist myths.  The source documentation supports the myths John Rose lists, e.g. the Zionist myth that claimed that Palestine was uninhabited. The indisputable fact is that Palestine was inhabited by Christians and Muslims prior to the European settlement by Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the Jews that lived in Palestine, and had done for 3,200 years before the muslims did and 2,500 years before the Christians did ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were only a handful of Jews in Palestine before the European Jews starting settling their.  They were Arab Jews.  They spoke Arabic and were well integrated in the Palestinian society.  No Christian or Muslim had any problem with the local Jews.
> 
> "The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. *Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.* In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
Click to expand...






 Quoting ANTI SEMITIC propaganda again Abdul as this is a fact

Martin Gilbert estimated that* 50,000 Arabs immigrated to **Mandatory Palestine** from neighboring lands between 1919 and 1939* "attracted by the improving agricultural conditions and growing job opportunities, most of them created by the Jews". According to Itzhak Galnoor, although most of Arab population increase was the result of natural increase, Arab immigration to Palestine was significant. *Based on his estimates, approximately 100,000 Arabs immigrated to Palestine between 1922 and 1948*


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> You are the hilarious one.  When you see source documentation that is unimpeachable evidence that all you post is propaganda, you deflect by posting a silly comment.  You have no other retort.  It's just too hilariious.






 It is biased in the extreme as it was written by a committee and then edited. This means the whole work becomes one of fiction as the editor changes the tone and the context of the booklet. Thus destroying it as a source document and rendering it a work of ANTI SEMITIC PROPAGANDA


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8216 Palestinian 8217 History 101 This is going to be a short class since they don 8217 t have any
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another propaganda blog being used to contradict facts from source documentation.  Do you think posting propaganda does your cause any good?
Click to expand...




 Do you even know what a blog is Abdul, have you read any by ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDISTS who throw around BLOOD LIBELS and ANTI SEMITISM because it is a blog.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8216 Palestinian 8217 History 101 This is going to be a short class since they don 8217 t have any
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another propaganda blog being used to contradict facts from source documentation.  Do you think posting propaganda does your cause any good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What cause is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To deligitimatize the rights of the Christians and Muslims of Palestine and rationalize the settlement of their land by Europeans.
Click to expand...





 Strange then that the only place the Christians and muslims are delegitamized of their rights is in Palestine by the arab muslims of hamas and fatah.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> The Grand Duchy of Tuscany also invited Spanish Jews to Leghorn, and thousands went, but they didn't try to establish a Jewish state in Tuscany or did they try to evict the local people.






And the arab muslims just invaded the M.E and stole the land from everyone else. Then forced the survivors to convert or be killed. There is a story about your prophet were he raped a 12 year old girl in the blood of her father, a man he had just butchered because he was a non muslim.


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Grand Duchy of Tuscany also invited Spanish Jews to Leghorn, and thousands went, but they didn't try to establish a Jewish state in Tuscany or did they try to evict the local people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the arab muslims just invaded the M.E and stole the land from everyone else. Then forced the survivors to convert or be killed. There is a story about your prophet were he raped a 12 year old girl in the blood of her father, a man he had just butchered because he was a non muslim.
Click to expand...


Link or cite source please.


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the definition of Genocide is?  I think not.
> 
> *Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide* _(For full text click here)_
> *"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:*
> 
> *(a) Killing members of the group;
> (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
> (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
> (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
> (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.*
> 
> 
> Israel has committed (a), (b), and (c), against the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh now I get it.  You see you Zionists the Palestinians have not commited A, B & C  GENOCIDE on the Israeli's.  Right Monte.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Galaxy Tab Accessories Galaxy Tab Cases Keyboards More Samsung
> Does a Palestinian government have any sovereign control over the Jews of Israel?
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I posted a response regarding Zionist myths.  The source documentation supports the myths John Rose lists, e.g. the Zionist myth that claimed that Palestine was uninhabited. The indisputable fact is that Palestine was inhabited by Christians and Muslims prior to the European settlement by Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the Jews that lived in Palestine, and had done for 3,200 years before the muslims did and 2,500 years before the Christians did ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were only a handful of Jews in Palestine before the European Jews starting settling their.  They were Arab Jews.  They spoke Arabic and were well integrated in the Palestinian society.  No Christian or Muslim had any problem with the local Jews.
> 
> "The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. *Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.* In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quoting ANTI SEMITIC propaganda again Abdul as this is a fact
> 
> Martin Gilbert estimated that* 50,000 Arabs immigrated to **Mandatory Palestine** from neighboring lands between 1919 and 1939* "attracted by the improving agricultural conditions and growing job opportunities, most of them created by the Jews". According to Itzhak Galnoor, although most of Arab population increase was the result of natural increase, Arab immigration to Palestine was significant. *Based on his estimates, approximately 100,000 Arabs immigrated to Palestine between 1922 and 1948*
Click to expand...


Estimates are neither facts nor evidence.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Rafeef Ziadah*

**


----------



## MJB12741

Who are the Palestinians?   So much to be proud of.


List of Palestinian organizations designated as terrorist - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> Who are the Palestinians?   So much to be proud of.
> 
> 
> List of Palestinian organizations designated as terrorist - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


What about Third Way and National Initiative?

Israel is slipping. They missed some.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Grand Duchy of Tuscany also invited Spanish Jews to Leghorn, and thousands went, but they didn't try to establish a Jewish state in Tuscany or did they try to evict the local people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the arab muslims just invaded the M.E and stole the land from everyone else. Then forced the survivors to convert or be killed. There is a story about your prophet were he raped a 12 year old girl in the blood of her father, a man he had just butchered because he was a non muslim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link or cite source please.
Click to expand...





 Koran and hadiths of course, a source that you will not question


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

An interview with Susan Abulhawa, author of the book "Mornings in Jenin"  a best selling book that has been translated into over 30 languages.


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Grand Duchy of Tuscany also invited Spanish Jews to Leghorn, and thousands went, but they didn't try to establish a Jewish state in Tuscany or did they try to evict the local people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the arab muslims just invaded the M.E and stole the land from everyone else. Then forced the survivors to convert or be killed. There is a story about your prophet were he raped a 12 year old girl in the blood of her father, a man he had just butchered because he was a non muslim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link or cite source please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koran and hadiths of course, a source that you will not question
Click to expand...


Link or provide the specific verse or hadith regarding the "story about your prophet were he raped a 12 year old girl in the blood of her father, a man he had just butchered because he was a non muslim."

"Question everything" --Euripides, wise man that. It's what I do all the time, that's how I found that Zionists are mainly liars.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the definition of Genocide is?  I think not.
> 
> *Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide* _(For full text click here)_
> *"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:*
> 
> *(a) Killing members of the group;
> (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
> (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
> (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
> (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.*
> 
> 
> Israel has committed (a), (b), and (c), against the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh now I get it.  You see you Zionists the Palestinians have not commited A, B & C  GENOCIDE on the Israeli's.  Right Monte.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Galaxy Tab Accessories Galaxy Tab Cases Keyboards More Samsung
> Does a Palestinian government have any sovereign control over the Jews of Israel?
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I posted a response regarding Zionist myths.  The source documentation supports the myths John Rose lists, e.g. the Zionist myth that claimed that Palestine was uninhabited. The indisputable fact is that Palestine was inhabited by Christians and Muslims prior to the European settlement by Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the Jews that lived in Palestine, and had done for 3,200 years before the muslims did and 2,500 years before the Christians did ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were only a handful of Jews in Palestine before the European Jews starting settling their.  They were Arab Jews.  They spoke Arabic and were well integrated in the Palestinian society.  No Christian or Muslim had any problem with the local Jews.
> 
> "The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. *Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.* In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quoting ANTI SEMITIC propaganda again Abdul as this is a fact
> 
> Martin Gilbert estimated that* 50,000 Arabs immigrated to **Mandatory Palestine** from neighboring lands between 1919 and 1939* "attracted by the improving agricultural conditions and growing job opportunities, most of them created by the Jews". According to Itzhak Galnoor, although most of Arab population increase was the result of natural increase, Arab immigration to Palestine was significant. *Based on his estimates, approximately 100,000 Arabs immigrated to Palestine between 1922 and 1948*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Estimates are neither facts nor evidence.
Click to expand...





 Then no figures are acceptable to you or anyone, because at best they are estimates................


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Rafeef Ziadah*
> 
> **






 And what does this biased one sided piece of crap prove, I could say that the Palestinians are barbaric evil SOB's out to mass murder all the Jews and you would not agree. Even though they have it written into their various charters and spout it almost every day.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Grand Duchy of Tuscany also invited Spanish Jews to Leghorn, and thousands went, but they didn't try to establish a Jewish state in Tuscany or did they try to evict the local people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the arab muslims just invaded the M.E and stole the land from everyone else. Then forced the survivors to convert or be killed. There is a story about your prophet were he raped a 12 year old girl in the blood of her father, a man he had just butchered because he was a non muslim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link or cite source please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koran and hadiths of course, a source that you will not question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link or provide the specific verse or hadith regarding the "story about your prophet were he raped a 12 year old girl in the blood of her father, a man he had just butchered because he was a non muslim."
> 
> "Question everything" --Euripides, wise man that. It's what I do all the time, that's how I found that Zionists are mainly liars.
Click to expand...




 (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 522, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 367).


----------



## fanger

_Volume 5, Book 59, Number 522:_



We arrived at Khaibar, and when Allah helped His Apostle to open the fort, the beauty of Safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtaq whose husband had been killed while she was a bride, was mentioned to Allah's Apostle. The Prophet selected her for himself, and set out with her, and when we reached a place called Sidd-as-Sahba,' Safiya became clean from her menses then Allah's Apostle married her. Hais (i.e. an 'Arabian dish) was prepared on a small leather mat. Then the Prophet said to me, "I invite the people around you." So that was the marriage banquet of the Prophet and Safiya. Then we proceeded towards Medina, and I saw the Prophet, making for her a kind of cushion with his cloak behind him (on his camel). He then sat beside his camel and put his knee for Safiya to put her foot on, in order to ride (on the camel).
Sahih Bukhari Book of Expeditions 
*Volume 1, Book 8, Number 367 :*

Anas said, 'When Allah's Apostle invaded Khaibar, we offered the Fajr prayer there yearly in the morning) when it was still dark. The Prophet rode and Abu Talha rode too and I was riding behind Abu Talha. The Prophet passed through the lane of Khaibar quickly and my knee was touching the thigh of the Prophet . He uncovered his thigh and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet. When he entered the town, he said, 'Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we approach near a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning of those who have been warned.' He repeated this thrice. The people came out for their jobs and some of them said, 'Muhammad (has come).' (Some of our companions added, "With his army.") We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected. Dihya came and said, 'O Allah's Prophet! Give me a slave girl from the captives.' The Prophet said, 'Go and take any slave girl.' He took Safiya bint Huyai. A man came to the Prophet and said, 'O Allah's Apostles! You gave Safiya bint Huyai to Dihya and she is the chief mistress of the tribes of Quraiza and An-Nadir and she befits none but you.' So the Prophet said, 'Bring him along with her.' So Dihya came with her and when the Prophet saw her, he said to Dihya, 'Take any slave girl other than her from the captives.' Anas added: The Prophet then manumitted her and married her." Thabit asked Anas, "O Abu Hamza! What did the Prophet pay her (as Mahr)?" He said, "Her self was her Mahr for he manumitted her and then married her." Anas added, "While on the way, Um Sulaim dressed her for marriage (ceremony) and at night she sent her as a bride to the Prophet . So the Prophet was a bridegroom and he said, 'Whoever has anything (food) should bring it.' He spread out a leather sheet (for the food) and some brought dates and others cooking butter. (I think he (Anas) mentioned As-SawTq). So they prepared a dish of Hais (a kind of meal). And that was Walrma (the marriage banquet) of Allah's Apostle ."
Sahih Bukhari Book of Prayer Salat 

Phoney phails


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> An interview with Susan Abulhawa, author of the book "Mornings in Jenin"  a best selling book that has been translated into over 30 languages.




Who are the Palestinians? 

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03021/Gaza-Meshaal_3021030b.jpg


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Marah Zahalka*

**


----------



## montelatici

Here are the Palestinians in Palestine near the Jerusalem train station  filmed in 1896: Not very many, if any Jews, to be seen.  Just Christians and Muslims and one Jew. LOL


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Marah Zahalka*
> 
> **



Who are the Palestinians?

Hamas leaders praise Tel Aviv stabbing as heroic The Times of Israel


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> Here are the Palestinians in Palestine near the Jerusalem train station  filmed in 1896: Not very many, if any Jews, to be seen.  Just Christians and Muslims and one Jew. LOL




We're talking about photos now, Mr. S.?

9 000 Photographs from 1800 8217 s Palestine Israel 8211 with no trace of 8216 Palestinians 8217 Palestine-Israel Conflict

Picture a Day New Series and Site Launch -- The Jews of Palestine 1850-1948

photos of jews in palestine in 1850 - Google Search


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hossfly said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the Palestinians in Palestine near the Jerusalem train station  filmed in 1896: Not very many, if any Jews, to be seen.  Just Christians and Muslims and one Jew. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about photos now, Mr. S.?
> 
> 9 000 Photographs from 1800 8217 s Palestine Israel 8211 with no trace of 8216 Palestinians 8217 Palestine-Israel Conflict
> 
> Picture a Day New Series and Site Launch -- The Jews of Palestine 1850-1948
> 
> photos of jews in palestine in 1850 - Google Search
Click to expand...

So you have pictures?


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the Palestinians in Palestine near the Jerusalem train station  filmed in 1896: Not very many, if any Jews, to be seen.  Just Christians and Muslims and one Jew. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about photos now, Mr. S.?
> 
> 9 000 Photographs from 1800 8217 s Palestine Israel 8211 with no trace of 8216 Palestinians 8217 Palestine-Israel Conflict
> 
> Picture a Day New Series and Site Launch -- The Jews of Palestine 1850-1948
> 
> photos of jews in palestine in 1850 - Google Search
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you have pictures?
Click to expand...

Well your compatriot, Mr. S. showed a picture in 1890 trying to prove there were so few Jews so I thought 1850 with Jews would be even better.  Do you have any pictures of the old homestead you want to share with us?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the Palestinians in Palestine near the Jerusalem train station  filmed in 1896: Not very many, if any Jews, to be seen.  Just Christians and Muslims and one Jew. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about photos now, Mr. S.?
> 
> 9 000 Photographs from 1800 8217 s Palestine Israel 8211 with no trace of 8216 Palestinians 8217 Palestine-Israel Conflict
> 
> Picture a Day New Series and Site Launch -- The Jews of Palestine 1850-1948
> 
> photos of jews in palestine in 1850 - Google Search
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you have pictures?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well your compatriot, Mr. S. showed a picture in 1890 trying to prove there were so few Jews so I thought 1850 with Jews would be even better.  Do you have any pictures of the old homestead you want to share with us?
Click to expand...

Actually pictures don't say much. The population of Palestine at the turn of the century was about 5% Jews, 15% Christian, and the rest were mostly Muslim. There are some small variations depending on the source but nothing significant.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the Palestinians in Palestine near the Jerusalem train station  filmed in 1896: Not very many, if any Jews, to be seen.  Just Christians and Muslims and one Jew. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about photos now, Mr. S.?
> 
> 9 000 Photographs from 1800 8217 s Palestine Israel 8211 with no trace of 8216 Palestinians 8217 Palestine-Israel Conflict
> 
> Picture a Day New Series and Site Launch -- The Jews of Palestine 1850-1948
> 
> photos of jews in palestine in 1850 - Google Search
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you have pictures?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well your compatriot, Mr. S. showed a picture in 1890 trying to prove there were so few Jews so I thought 1850 with Jews would be even better.  Do you have any pictures of the old homestead you want to share with us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually pictures don't say much. The population of Palestine at the turn of the century was about 5% Jews, 15% Christian, and the rest were mostly Muslim. There are some small variations depending on the source but nothing significant.
Click to expand...

So you didn't like the pictures of the Jews shown being around in the 1850's.  By the way, the first picture you have shown was shown once before as being Jewish girls at school.  Hmm, wonder how come they all of a sudden became Arab girls.  They certainly don't look like Arabs to me.  As for the population, aren't you forgetting that Winston Churchill and the British Officials in the area said that the Arabs were arriving in hordes from the surrounding countries for the jobs the Jews had for them.  Tinmore, you really need to break away for a while.  Instead of having falafels delivered, go out and have a pizza.  I don't think Hamas will have a problem with that.  You have been so devoted to the cause.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Here are the Palestinians in Palestine near the Jerusalem train station  filmed in 1896: Not very many, if any Jews, to be seen.  Just Christians and Muslims and one Jew. LOL






 How do you know that if you were not there and asked every one there what they were. Yiu really are silly to make such wide sweeping statements that you know you cant substantiate. So now I will ask the $Trillion question      LINK to prove your claims that only one Jew is seen in this film?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the Palestinians in Palestine near the Jerusalem train station  filmed in 1896: Not very many, if any Jews, to be seen.  Just Christians and Muslims and one Jew. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about photos now, Mr. S.?
> 
> 9 000 Photographs from 1800 8217 s Palestine Israel 8211 with no trace of 8216 Palestinians 8217 Palestine-Israel Conflict
> 
> Picture a Day New Series and Site Launch -- The Jews of Palestine 1850-1948
> 
> photos of jews in palestine in 1850 - Google Search
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you have pictures?
Click to expand...





 Don't look like arab muslims do they, more like European's.    Could they be European Jews invited by the Ottomans and LoN


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the Palestinians in Palestine near the Jerusalem train station  filmed in 1896: Not very many, if any Jews, to be seen.  Just Christians and Muslims and one Jew. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about photos now, Mr. S.?
> 
> 9 000 Photographs from 1800 8217 s Palestine Israel 8211 with no trace of 8216 Palestinians 8217 Palestine-Israel Conflict
> 
> Picture a Day New Series and Site Launch -- The Jews of Palestine 1850-1948
> 
> photos of jews in palestine in 1850 - Google Search
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you have pictures?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well your compatriot, Mr. S. showed a picture in 1890 trying to prove there were so few Jews so I thought 1850 with Jews would be even better.  Do you have any pictures of the old homestead you want to share with us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually pictures don't say much. The population of Palestine at the turn of the century was about 5% Jews, 15% Christian, and the rest were mostly Muslim. There are some small variations depending on the source but nothing significant.
Click to expand...






 And which version of reality you believe, and wether or not there was any work for the itinerant workers.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the Palestinians in Palestine near the Jerusalem train station  filmed in 1896: Not very many, if any Jews, to be seen.  Just Christians and Muslims and one Jew. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about photos now, Mr. S.?
> 
> 9 000 Photographs from 1800 8217 s Palestine Israel 8211 with no trace of 8216 Palestinians 8217 Palestine-Israel Conflict
> 
> Picture a Day New Series and Site Launch -- The Jews of Palestine 1850-1948
> 
> photos of jews in palestine in 1850 - Google Search
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you have pictures?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't look like arab muslims do they, more like European's.    Could they be European Jews invited by the Ottomans and LoN
Click to expand...


Three posts to try to think up something and you come up claiming that  Arabs wearing the fez are Europeans. One Jew in the whole documentary. LOL.


----------



## montelatici

But I jest, there were Arab Jews in Palestine at the time and they formed nearly 50% of the population of Jerusalem.  However, as the source documentation demonstrates Jews made up only 5% of the population of Palestine at the time.  There were twice as many Christians in Palestine at the time.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> But I jest, there were Arab Jews in Palestine at the time and they formed nearly 50% of the population of Jerusalem.  However, as the source documentation demonstrates Jews made up only 5% of the population of Palestine at the time.  There were twice as many Christians in Palestine at the time.



What does it even matter.  The past is past.  Today is present.  And now Israel is a country & Palestine is not.  Enjoy!


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the Palestinians in Palestine near the Jerusalem train station  filmed in 1896: Not very many, if any Jews, to be seen.  Just Christians and Muslims and one Jew. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about photos now, Mr. S.?
> 
> 9 000 Photographs from 1800 8217 s Palestine Israel 8211 with no trace of 8216 Palestinians 8217 Palestine-Israel Conflict
> 
> Picture a Day New Series and Site Launch -- The Jews of Palestine 1850-1948
> 
> photos of jews in palestine in 1850 - Google Search
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you have pictures?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't look like arab muslims do they, more like European's.    Could they be European Jews invited by the Ottomans and LoN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Three posts to try to think up something and you come up claiming that  Arabs wearing the fez are Europeans. One Jew in the whole documentary. LOL.
Click to expand...






 Learn to read Abdul if you don't want to make a really big fool of yourself.   The post you quote was about the Jewish girls school picture.  Anyone can wear a fez, unless you want to claim that the arab muslims had a law against Jews and Christians wearing the fez.
 Now about this link proving that your video only had one Jew in it, do you want to change your claim to only one NK jew before you get in too deep ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> But I jest, there were Arab Jews in Palestine at the time and they formed nearly 50% of the population of Jerusalem.  However, as the source documentation demonstrates Jews made up only 5% of the population of Palestine at the time.  There were twice as many Christians in Palestine at the time.






 You mean the abridged and edited by anti semites document published for general reading that goes against government ministers personal views of Palestine. What was It Winston Churchill said about the arab muslims invading Palestine in droves


----------



## MJB12741

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the Palestinians in Palestine near the Jerusalem train station  filmed in 1896: Not very many, if any Jews, to be seen.  Just Christians and Muslims and one Jew. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about photos now, Mr. S.?
> 
> 9 000 Photographs from 1800 8217 s Palestine Israel 8211 with no trace of 8216 Palestinians 8217 Palestine-Israel Conflict
> 
> Picture a Day New Series and Site Launch -- The Jews of Palestine 1850-1948
> 
> photos of jews in palestine in 1850 - Google Search
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you have pictures?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't look like arab muslims do they, more like European's.    Could they be European Jews invited by the Ottomans and LoN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Three posts to try to think up something and you come up claiming that  Arabs wearing the fez are Europeans. One Jew in the whole documentary. LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Learn to read Abdul if you don't want to make a really big fool of yourself.   The post you quote was about the Jewish girls school picture.  Anyone can wear a fez, unless you want to claim that the arab muslims had a law against Jews and Christians wearing the fez.
> Now about this link proving that your video only had one Jew in it, do you want to change your claim to only one NK jew before you get in too deep ?
Click to expand...


Please don't piss Monte off with logic & reason.  He may leave us.


----------



## elektra

Palestine in the late 1800's  was in ruins. No "Palestinians" building schools or hospitals. In fact the population of Arabs was small, I guess 20k, give or take.

Jews were a small part of the population, they did not recover much after napoleon's army massacred them.

The only people in the entire world who cared were the Christians. We dumped a lot of money into Isreal, giving the Zionists a place to start. 

Got to remember Sir Moses Montefoire. He literally broke open the door.

Palestinians today are Arabs the Arabs did not want. Immigrants.


----------



## MJB12741

elektra said:


> Palestine in the late 1800's  was in ruins. No "Palestinians" building schools or hospitals. In fact the population of Arabs was small, I guess 20k, give or take.
> 
> Jews were a small part of the population, they did not recover much after napoleon's army massacred them.
> 
> The only people in the entire world who cared were the Christians. We dumped a lot of money into Isreal, giving the Zionists a place to start.
> 
> Got to remember Sir Moses Montefoire. He literally broke open the door.
> 
> Palestinians today are Arabs the Arabs did not want. Immigrants.



As soon as the Jews turned the wasteland into a thriving metropoulos, here came hords of Palestinians to claim it's their land.


----------



## aris2chat

elektra said:


> Palestine in the late 1800's  was in ruins. No "Palestinians" building schools or hospitals. In fact the population of Arabs was small, I guess 20k, give or take.
> 
> Jews were a small part of the population, they did not recover much after napoleon's army massacred them.
> 
> The only people in the entire world who cared were the Christians. We dumped a lot of money into Isreal, giving the Zionists a place to start.
> 
> Got to remember Sir Moses Montefoire. He literally broke open the door.
> 
> Palestinians today are Arabs the Arabs did not want. Immigrants.



Population of christians, jews and musims was closer to 200K.  That included what is now jordan, give or take a bit of syria as well.

Regional boundries are vague.  The sanjuks within what became the mandate did not follow the boundries of the british mandate exactly.


----------



## elektra

aris2chat said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine in the late 1800's  was in ruins. No "Palestinians" building schools or hospitals. In fact the population of Arabs was small, I guess 20k, give or take.
> 
> Jews were a small part of the population, they did not recover much after napoleon's army massacred them.
> 
> The only people in the entire world who cared were the Christians. We dumped a lot of money into Isreal, giving the Zionists a place to start.
> 
> Got to remember Sir Moses Montefoire. He literally broke open the door.
> 
> Palestinians today are Arabs the Arabs did not want. Immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Population of christians, jews and musims was closer to 200K.  That included what is now jordan, give or take a bit of syria as well.
> 
> Regional boundries are vague.  The sanjuks within what became the mandate did not follow the boundries of the british mandate exactly.
Click to expand...

Of course, back then Palestine was in Syria. Yes, boundaries were vague, sort of. And there are many varying figures as to population. Seems record keeping and census back then was not very good. What is easily seen/proven is that there was a huge migration of many people into Israel, from about the time Christians began building Israel, building Churches, Schools, Hospitals, all kind of stuff, in the mid-1800's and on. Arabs came for medical care, to escape Islam, to make money off the Christian Pilgrims, Arabs came because Israel had opportunity that did not exist in the Arab world.


----------



## montelatici

aris2chat said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine in the late 1800's  was in ruins. No "Palestinians" building schools or hospitals. In fact the population of Arabs was small, I guess 20k, give or take.
> 
> Jews were a small part of the population, they did not recover much after napoleon's army massacred them.
> 
> The only people in the entire world who cared were the Christians. We dumped a lot of money into Isreal, giving the Zionists a place to start.
> 
> Got to remember Sir Moses Montefoire. He literally broke open the door.
> 
> Palestinians today are Arabs the Arabs did not want. Immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Population of christians, jews and musims was closer to 200K.  That included what is now jordan, give or take a bit of syria as well.
> 
> Regional boundries are vague.  The sanjuks within what became the mandate did not follow the boundries of the british mandate exactly.
Click to expand...


Absolute bullshit.  Trans-Jordan was never considered in the population of Palestine.  There is a special section in the 1921 Report of the Mandatory  that states the population of Trans-Jordan separately.

Why do you Zionists just make things up when there is source documentation that contradicts your propaganda.

Palestine:

"There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
*
The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews*". - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921 

Trans-Jordan:

X.--TRANS-JORDANIA.

"Included in the area of the Palestine Mandate is the territory of Trans-Jordania. It is bounded on the north by the frontier of Syria, placed under the mandate of France; on the south by the kingdom of the Hejaz; and on the west by the line of the Jordan and the Dead Sea; while on the east it stretches into the desert and ends--the boundary is not yet defined--where Mesopotamia begins. *Trans-Jordania has a population of probably 350,000 people*. It contains a few small towns and large areas of fertile land, producing excellent wheat and barley."- See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921


----------



## montelatici

elektra said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine in the late 1800's  was in ruins. No "Palestinians" building schools or hospitals. In fact the population of Arabs was small, I guess 20k, give or take.
> 
> Jews were a small part of the population, they did not recover much after napoleon's army massacred them.
> 
> The only people in the entire world who cared were the Christians. We dumped a lot of money into Isreal, giving the Zionists a place to start.
> 
> Got to remember Sir Moses Montefoire. He literally broke open the door.
> 
> Palestinians today are Arabs the Arabs did not want. Immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Population of christians, jews and musims was closer to 200K.  That included what is now jordan, give or take a bit of syria as well.
> 
> Regional boundries are vague.  The sanjuks within what became the mandate did not follow the boundries of the british mandate exactly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, back then Palestine was in Syria. Yes, boundaries were vague, sort of. And there are many varying figures as to population. Seems record keeping and census back then was not very good. What is easily seen/proven is that there was a huge migration of many people into Israel, from about the time Christians began building Israel, building Churches, Schools, Hospitals, all kind of stuff, in the mid-1800's and on. Arabs came for medical care, to escape Islam, to make money off the Christian Pilgrims, Arabs came because Israel had opportunity that did not exist in the Arab world.
Click to expand...


There is source documentation that is accurate.  The "varying figures" are propaganda.  Very few non-Jews migrated to Palestine as the source documentation confirms:

From the Berman Jewish Policy Archive at NYU/Wagner Universities, Vol. 2 Survey of Palestine Of 414K migrants 376K were Jews. 38K were non-Jews.

A Survey of Palestine Volume 2 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the Palestinians in Palestine near the Jerusalem train station  filmed in 1896: Not very many, if any Jews, to be seen.  Just Christians and Muslims and one Jew. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about photos now, Mr. S.?
> 
> 9 000 Photographs from 1800 8217 s Palestine Israel 8211 with no trace of 8216 Palestinians 8217 Palestine-Israel Conflict
> 
> Picture a Day New Series and Site Launch -- The Jews of Palestine 1850-1948
> 
> photos of jews in palestine in 1850 - Google Search
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you have pictures?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't look like arab muslims do they, more like European's.    Could they be European Jews invited by the Ottomans and LoN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Three posts to try to think up something and you come up claiming that  Arabs wearing the fez are Europeans. One Jew in the whole documentary. LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Learn to read Abdul if you don't want to make a really big fool of yourself.   The post you quote was about the Jewish girls school picture.  Anyone can wear a fez, unless you want to claim that the arab muslims had a law against Jews and Christians wearing the fez.
> Now about this link proving that your video only had one Jew in it, do you want to change your claim to only one NK jew before you get in too deep ?
Click to expand...


OK, how about the same documentary with voice?


----------



## elektra

aris2chat said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine in the late 1800's  was in ruins. No "Palestinians" building schools or hospitals. In fact the population of Arabs was small, I guess 20k, give or take.
> 
> Jews were a small part of the population, they did not recover much after napoleon's army massacred them.
> 
> The only people in the entire world who cared were the Christians. We dumped a lot of money into Isreal, giving the Zionists a place to start.
> 
> Got to remember Sir Moses Montefoire. He literally broke open the door.
> 
> Palestinians today are Arabs the Arabs did not want. Immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Population of christians, jews and musims was closer to 200K.  That included what is now jordan, give or take a bit of syria as well.
> 
> Regional boundries are vague.  The sanjuks within what became the mandate did not follow the boundries of the british mandate exactly.
Click to expand...

I did say 1800's, not  the mandate period. Huge difference, either way I am not disagreeing because I know all the sources state widely varying numbers. Borders are as you say, known but vague and changing, as were the names of cities.


----------



## elektra

montelatici said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine in the late 1800's  was in ruins. No "Palestinians" building schools or hospitals. In fact the population of Arabs was small, I guess 20k, give or take.
> 
> Jews were a small part of the population, they did not recover much after napoleon's army massacred them.
> 
> The only people in the entire world who cared were the Christians. We dumped a lot of money into Isreal, giving the Zionists a place to start.
> 
> Got to remember Sir Moses Montefoire. He literally broke open the door.
> 
> Palestinians today are Arabs the Arabs did not want. Immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Population of christians, jews and musims was closer to 200K.  That included what is now jordan, give or take a bit of syria as well.
> 
> Regional boundries are vague.  The sanjuks within what became the mandate did not follow the boundries of the british mandate exactly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, back then Palestine was in Syria. Yes, boundaries were vague, sort of. And there are many varying figures as to population. Seems record keeping and census back then was not very good. What is easily seen/proven is that there was a huge migration of many people into Israel, from about the time Christians began building Israel, building Churches, Schools, Hospitals, all kind of stuff, in the mid-1800's and on. Arabs came for medical care, to escape Islam, to make money off the Christian Pilgrims, Arabs came because Israel had opportunity that did not exist in the Arab world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is source documentation that is accurate.  The "varying figures" are propaganda.  Very few non-Jews migrated to Palestine as the source documentation confirms:
> 
> From the Berman Jewish Policy Archive at NYU/Wagner Universities, Vol. 2 Survey of Palestine Of 414K migrants 376K were Jews. 38K were non-Jews.
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Volume 2 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner
> 
> View attachment 36636
Click to expand...

If you notice, I refer to the 1800's, not the time period you refer to. Isreal began at lot earlier than the 1900's. The propaganda began ini the era you are referring to. If you notice I mention napoleon as well, long before the document  you present.

Yes, propaganda. The population of Arabs was as new as the jews. They were proud to call themselves arabs, not palestinians.

Zionists have a tendency to exaggerate, most ignore Sir Moses Montefoire, who literally began modern Israel, that is why I specifically included him.

A discussion of Palestine and Israel begins in the 1800's. The propaganda begins later.


----------



## montelatici

elektra said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine in the late 1800's  was in ruins. No "Palestinians" building schools or hospitals. In fact the population of Arabs was small, I guess 20k, give or take.
> 
> Jews were a small part of the population, they did not recover much after napoleon's army massacred them.
> 
> The only people in the entire world who cared were the Christians. We dumped a lot of money into Isreal, giving the Zionists a place to start.
> 
> Got to remember Sir Moses Montefoire. He literally broke open the door.
> 
> Palestinians today are Arabs the Arabs did not want. Immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Population of christians, jews and musims was closer to 200K.  That included what is now jordan, give or take a bit of syria as well.
> 
> Regional boundries are vague.  The sanjuks within what became the mandate did not follow the boundries of the british mandate exactly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, back then Palestine was in Syria. Yes, boundaries were vague, sort of. And there are many varying figures as to population. Seems record keeping and census back then was not very good. What is easily seen/proven is that there was a huge migration of many people into Israel, from about the time Christians began building Israel, building Churches, Schools, Hospitals, all kind of stuff, in the mid-1800's and on. Arabs came for medical care, to escape Islam, to make money off the Christian Pilgrims, Arabs came because Israel had opportunity that did not exist in the Arab world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is source documentation that is accurate.  The "varying figures" are propaganda.  Very few non-Jews migrated to Palestine as the source documentation confirms:
> 
> From the Berman Jewish Policy Archive at NYU/Wagner Universities, Vol. 2 Survey of Palestine Of 414K migrants 376K were Jews. 38K were non-Jews.
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Volume 2 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner
> 
> View attachment 36636
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you notice, I refer to the 1800's, not the time period you refer to. Isreal began at lot earlier than the 1900's. The propaganda began ini the era you are referring to. If you notice I mention napoleon as well, long before the document  you present.
> 
> Yes, propaganda. The population of Arabs was as new as the jews. They were proud to call themselves arabs, not palestinians.
> 
> Zionists have a tendency to exaggerate, most ignore Sir Moses Montefoire, who literally began modern Israel, that is why I specifically included him.
> 
> A discussion of Palestine and Israel begins in the 1800's. The propaganda begins later.
Click to expand...


The Lumiere documentary film is from 1896.  The Christians, Muslims and Arab Jews, mentioned in the documentary, were already there in great numbers.


----------



## elektra

montelatici said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine in the late 1800's  was in ruins. No "Palestinians" building schools or hospitals. In fact the population of Arabs was small, I guess 20k, give or take.
> 
> Jews were a small part of the population, they did not recover much after napoleon's army massacred them.
> 
> The only people in the entire world who cared were the Christians. We dumped a lot of money into Isreal, giving the Zionists a place to start.
> 
> Got to remember Sir Moses Montefoire. He literally broke open the door.
> 
> Palestinians today are Arabs the Arabs did not want. Immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Population of christians, jews and musims was closer to 200K.  That included what is now jordan, give or take a bit of syria as well.
> 
> Regional boundries are vague.  The sanjuks within what became the mandate did not follow the boundries of the british mandate exactly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, back then Palestine was in Syria. Yes, boundaries were vague, sort of. And there are many varying figures as to population. Seems record keeping and census back then was not very good. What is easily seen/proven is that there was a huge migration of many people into Israel, from about the time Christians began building Israel, building Churches, Schools, Hospitals, all kind of stuff, in the mid-1800's and on. Arabs came for medical care, to escape Islam, to make money off the Christian Pilgrims, Arabs came because Israel had opportunity that did not exist in the Arab world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is source documentation that is accurate.  The "varying figures" are propaganda.  Very few non-Jews migrated to Palestine as the source documentation confirms:
> 
> From the Berman Jewish Policy Archive at NYU/Wagner Universities, Vol. 2 Survey of Palestine Of 414K migrants 376K were Jews. 38K were non-Jews.
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Volume 2 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner
> 
> View attachment 36636
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you notice, I refer to the 1800's, not the time period you refer to. Isreal began at lot earlier than the 1900's. The propaganda began ini the era you are referring to. If you notice I mention napoleon as well, long before the document  you present.
> 
> Yes, propaganda. The population of Arabs was as new as the jews. They were proud to call themselves arabs, not palestinians.
> 
> Zionists have a tendency to exaggerate, most ignore Sir Moses Montefoire, who literally began modern Israel, that is why I specifically included him.
> 
> A discussion of Palestine and Israel begins in the 1800's. The propaganda begins later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Lumiere documentary film is from 1896.  The Christians, Muslims and Arab Jews, mentioned in the documentary, were already there in great numbers.
Click to expand...

I did not watch the film, yet. I read books from the 1800's for my information.of course I read newer books as well. One thing I note is that Ben Gurion seemed to ignore Montefoire in his book. I know the population of Jews was small in the 1800's, detonate fact.

For me, they all.belong anywhere and everywhere they choose to live. The idea that anybody should be retrieved to such a miniscule area is ridiculous.


----------



## montelatici

"For me, they all.belong anywhere and everywhere they choose to live."

Even when they evict the people living in a place?


----------



## elektra

montelatici said:


> "For me, they all.belong anywhere and everywhere they choose to live."
> 
> Even when they evict the people living in a place?


You mean during the war, the 


montelatici said:


> "For me, they all.belong anywhere and everywhere they choose to live."
> 
> Even when they evict the people living in a place?


Depends on what you speak of, it hardly helps to make simple statements within the context of the history which is known.

Evictions, like the mosque that was Solomon's Temple?


----------



## montelatici

Millions of non-Jews were ethnically cleansed you idiot.


----------



## elektra

montelatici said:


> Millions of non-Jews were ethnically cleansed you idiot.


Oh, I thought we were simple going to discuss this, calling me an idiot certainly shows you may not be able to be rational. 

Ethnically Cleansed? You mean the Irgun thing? Could I refer to the book, "The Revolt", for information on that? 

Or maybe we could refer to one of the many great books written by the Arabs at that time, oops! Arabs did not build schools, universities or printing presses so there is really no books from that time, by Arabs. 

Millions? Now that is a number that could be easily argued, but then again, numbers do not mean a thing. 

I forget the name of the most famous University on the Arabian Peninsula of the time (early 1900's) refresh my memory please.


----------



## 50_RiaL

montelatici said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine in the late 1800's  was in ruins. No "Palestinians" building schools or hospitals. In fact the population of Arabs was small, I guess 20k, give or take.
> 
> Jews were a small part of the population, they did not recover much after napoleon's army massacred them.
> 
> The only people in the entire world who cared were the Christians. We dumped a lot of money into Isreal, giving the Zionists a place to start.
> 
> Got to remember Sir Moses Montefoire. He literally broke open the door.
> 
> Palestinians today are Arabs the Arabs did not want. Immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Population of christians, jews and musims was closer to 200K.  That included what is now jordan, give or take a bit of syria as well.
> 
> Regional boundries are vague.  The sanjuks within what became the mandate did not follow the boundries of the british mandate exactly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute bullshit.  Trans-Jordan was never considered in the population of Palestine.  There is a special section in the 1921 Report of the Mandatory  that states the population of Trans-Jordan separately.
> 
> Why do you Zionists just make things up when there is source documentation that contradicts your propaganda.
> 
> Palestine:
> 
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> *
> The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews*". - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
> 
> Trans-Jordan:
> 
> X.--TRANS-JORDANIA.
> 
> "Included in the area of the Palestine Mandate is the territory of Trans-Jordania. It is bounded on the north by the frontier of Syria, placed under the mandate of France; on the south by the kingdom of the Hejaz; and on the west by the line of the Jordan and the Dead Sea; while on the east it stretches into the desert and ends--the boundary is not yet defined--where Mesopotamia begins. *Trans-Jordania has a population of probably 350,000 people*. It contains a few small towns and large areas of fertile land, producing excellent wheat and barley."- See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
Click to expand...


Those Brits you're fond of quoting call those very same Muslim, occupiers: "A number of them [i.e. Jews] (as will appear later)  had clung throughout the centuries of *Moslem occupation* to what has once been their national soil" -- From the Palestine Royal Commission Report, July 1937


----------



## Vigilante

Showing how some are mindwashed.....


----------



## 50_RiaL

theliq said:


> 50_RiaL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were only a handful of Jews in Palestine prior to the arrival of the land thieving European Jews. Why do you constantly lie?
> 
> 
> 
> Source documentation:
> *
> "AN INTERIM REPORT ON THE CIVIL ADMINISTRATION OF PALESTINE, during the period 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921."*​
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years.* Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.* - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?  There's has been a Jewish majority in Jerusalem since the 1840s.
> 
> Many of those Arab squatters crossed the Sinai from Egypt into the Holy Land to escape Mehmmet Ali's forced labor details beginning in 1829.
> 
> "[E]very Palestinian in Gaza and all over Palestine can prove their Arab roots, whether they be in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, or anywhere else ... half of my family is Egyptian ... [t]here are over 30 families in the Gaza Strip with the surname Al-Masri, 'Egyptian.'  Brothers, half of the Palestinians are Egyptian, and the other half are Saudi." -- Fathi Hamad, Hamas minister of the interior and of national security, March 23, 2012.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot,all Palestinians are Semitic Peoples.....Some Jews are NOT......All other Arabs are NOT....you need educating in Geography,Demographics,and Jewish and Palestinian History..........or then why bother with a Zionist Drone like you
Click to expand...


Pipe down, puss.  Who's gonna know better, some ball-liqer in cyberspace or a Hamas senior official?  For there to be true peace, those Arab squatters' got to go where they came from -- be it the Arabian peninsula, Egypt or the Maghreb.


----------



## 50_RiaL

theliq said:


> 50_RiaL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were only a handful of Jews in Palestine prior to the arrival of the land thieving European Jews. Why do you constantly lie?
> 
> 
> 
> Source documentation:
> *
> "AN INTERIM REPORT ON THE CIVIL ADMINISTRATION OF PALESTINE, during the period 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921."*​
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years.* Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.* - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?  There's has been a Jewish majority in Jerusalem since the 1840s.
> 
> Many of those Arab squatters crossed the Sinai from Egypt into the Holy Land to escape Mehmmet Ali's forced labor details beginning in 1829.
> 
> "[E]very Palestinian in Gaza and all over Palestine can prove their Arab roots, whether they be in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, or anywhere else ... half of my family is Egyptian ... [t]here are over 30 families in the Gaza Strip with the surname Al-Masri, 'Egyptian.'  Brothers, half of the Palestinians are Egyptian, and the other half are Saudi." -- Fathi Hamad, Hamas minister of the interior and of national security, March 23, 2012.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hoss to thank this poster really does show you never do,due diligence to any load of nonsense foisted upon the intelligentsia on here.
> 
> Here are the real statistic the imposter forgot to mention.......I have taken recorded figures from 1836 and 1850 either side of the inaccurate Zionist conjured figures....so here we go.
> 
> 1836....In Jerusalem....Jews 3,250......Muslim Palestinians 4,500(corrected 6,700 )......Christians 3,250 of which 2,100 were Christian Palestinians.
> 
> So in 1836 there were 6,700 Palestinian Arabs..to.....3,250 Jews.
> 
> 1850....In Jerusalem....Jews 6,000.....Muslim Palestinians 5,400(corrected 7,800)......Christians 3,600 of which 2,400 were Christian Palestinians
> 
> So despite a high % of Jewish increase (most Illegal) The majority of 7,800 Palestinians was still higher than the Jews figure of 6,000.
> 
> I really don't quite know what the poster "Rial" is trying to achieve by his post but some idiotic brain storm in that Zionist Terrorist mind of his.
> 
> Remembering  the  2 leaders of this Banal Terrorist Organization have become Israeli Prime Minister "Begin and Shamir" who openly carried out Terrorist Attacks and murder....and eventually Murdered the excellent Prime Minister of Israel Mr Rabin.....now there was a brilliant man,from head of the IDF realised that Peace with the Palestinians was best for Israel........Hardliners including the Zionists disagreed..So they ASSASINATED HIM.
> 
> Any Poster on here that has Zionist connections should rightly be Spurned Asunder and treated with the Contempt Due to them.
> 
> Theliq writes, "1850....In Jerusalem....Jews 6,000.....Muslim Palestinians 5,400 (corrected 7,800). . . ."
> 
> Hey, puss, back in 1850 the Arabs (or anyone for that matter) did not refer to the Arab squatters as "Palestinians."  Sounds kinda new -- what's your source?
> 
> steven
Click to expand...


----------



## theliq

50_RiaL said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 50_RiaL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were only a handful of Jews in Palestine prior to the arrival of the land thieving European Jews. Why do you constantly lie?
> 
> 
> 
> Source documentation:
> *
> "AN INTERIM REPORT ON THE CIVIL ADMINISTRATION OF PALESTINE, during the period 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921."*​
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years.* Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.* - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?  There's has been a Jewish majority in Jerusalem since the 1840s.
> 
> Many of those Arab squatters crossed the Sinai from Egypt into the Holy Land to escape Mehmmet Ali's forced labor details beginning in 1829.
> 
> "[E]very Palestinian in Gaza and all over Palestine can prove their Arab roots, whether they be in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, or anywhere else ... half of my family is Egyptian ... [t]here are over 30 families in the Gaza Strip with the surname Al-Masri, 'Egyptian.'  Brothers, half of the Palestinians are Egyptian, and the other half are Saudi." -- Fathi Hamad, Hamas minister of the interior and of national security, March 23, 2012.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot,all Palestinians are Semitic Peoples.....Some Jews are NOT......All other Arabs are NOT....you need educating in Geography,Demographics,and Jewish and Palestinian History..........or then why bother with a Zionist Drone like you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pipe down, puss.  Who's gonna know better, some ball-liqer in cyberspace or a Hamas senior official?  For there to be true peace, those Arab squatters' got to go where they came from -- be it the Arabian peninsula, Egypt or the Maghreb.
Click to expand...

Huh......You are suffering from a non  ability of Geography from whence people came from but keep trying......you will find the place eventually,maybe not because your holy book..The Zionist Terrorist Mantra is only 100 years old.Moron


----------



## theliq

elektra said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Millions of non-Jews were ethnically cleansed you idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I thought we were simple going to discuss this, calling me an idiot certainly shows you may not be able to be rational.
> 
> Ethnically Cleansed? You mean the Irgun thing? Could I refer to the book, "The Revolt", for information on that?
> 
> Or maybe we could refer to one of the many great books written by the Arabs at that time, oops! Arabs did not build schools, universities or printing presses so there is really no books from that time, by Arabs.
> 
> Millions? Now that is a number that could be easily argued, but then again, numbers do not mean a thing.
> 
> I forget the name of the most famous University on the Arabian Peninsula of the time (early 1900's) refresh my memory please.
Click to expand...

Considering Arabs invented Universities and have had places of learning of excellence for over 1000 years ..... whilst your-lot were still licking clean the Dutchie Bowl......it merely makes your comment a source of mirth.....LOL......Cretin.......


----------



## elektra

theliq said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Millions of non-Jews were ethnically cleansed you idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I thought we were simple going to discuss this, calling me an idiot certainly shows you may not be able to be rational.
> 
> Ethnically Cleansed? You mean the Irgun thing? Could I refer to the book, "The Revolt", for information on that?
> 
> Or maybe we could refer to one of the many great books written by the Arabs at that time, oops! Arabs did not build schools, universities or printing presses so there is really no books from that time, by Arabs.
> 
> Millions? Now that is a number that could be easily argued, but then again, numbers do not mean a thing.
> 
> I forget the name of the most famous University on the Arabian Peninsula of the time (early 1900's) refresh my memory please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Considering Arabs invented Universities and have had places of learning of excellence for over 1000 years ..... whilst your-lot were still licking clean the Dutchie Bowl......it merely makes your comment a source of mirth.....LOL......Cretin.......
Click to expand...

Well, go ahead and tell us about the universities, in Palestine, back around 1900?


----------



## theliq

MJB12741 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine in the late 1800's  was in ruins. No "Palestinians" building schools or hospitals. In fact the population of Arabs was small, I guess 20k, give or take.
> 
> Jews were a small part of the population, they did not recover much after napoleon's army massacred them.
> 
> The only people in the entire world who cared were the Christians. We dumped a lot of money into Isreal, giving the Zionists a place to start.
> 
> Got to remember Sir Moses Montefoire. He literally broke open the door.
> 
> Palestinians today are Arabs the Arabs did not want. Immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as the Jews turned the wasteland into a thriving metropoulos, here came hords of Palestinians to claim it's their land.
Click to expand...

Another very silly comment.....During the period you mention....Palestine was exporting Goods to Europe,Wheat,Fruit etc.,get your facts right........Israel's economy today is a basket case........but beg harder like you have for the past 60 years and the US people will bundle you a few more $$$$$$$$$$$,which without their 60 billion you would be living in mud-huts................as you would know.


----------



## theliq

elektra said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Millions of non-Jews were ethnically cleansed you idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I thought we were simple going to discuss this, calling me an idiot certainly shows you may not be able to be rational.
> 
> Ethnically Cleansed? You mean the Irgun thing? Could I refer to the book, "The Revolt", for information on that?
> 
> Or maybe we could refer to one of the many great books written by the Arabs at that time, oops! Arabs did not build schools, universities or printing presses so there is really no books from that time, by Arabs.
> 
> Millions? Now that is a number that could be easily argued, but then again, numbers do not mean a thing.
> 
> I forget the name of the most famous University on the Arabian Peninsula of the time (early 1900's) refresh my memory please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Considering Arabs invented Universities and have had places of learning of excellence for over 1000 years ..... whilst your-lot were still licking clean the Dutchie Bowl......it merely makes your comment a source of mirth.....LOL......Cretin.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, go ahead and tell us about the universities, in Palestine, back around 1900?
Click to expand...

You clearly do not understand the clarity of the written word......and as a sidenote......Palestinians have one of the highest University entrants of any peoples around the world.


----------



## theliq

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about photos now, Mr. S.?
> 
> 9 000 Photographs from 1800 8217 s Palestine Israel 8211 with no trace of 8216 Palestinians 8217 Palestine-Israel Conflict
> 
> Picture a Day New Series and Site Launch -- The Jews of Palestine 1850-1948
> 
> photos of jews in palestine in 1850 - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> So you have pictures?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't look like arab muslims do they, more like European's.    Could they be European Jews invited by the Ottomans and LoN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Three posts to try to think up something and you come up claiming that  Arabs wearing the fez are Europeans. One Jew in the whole documentary. LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Learn to read Abdul if you don't want to make a really big fool of yourself.   The post you quote was about the Jewish girls school picture.  Anyone can wear a fez, unless you want to claim that the arab muslims had a law against Jews and Christians wearing the fez.
> Now about this link proving that your video only had one Jew in it, do you want to change your claim to only one NK jew before you get in too deep ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, how about the same documentary with voice?
Click to expand...

You will all notice that the Jewish man said Judeaism is NOT ZIONISM and IT IS NOT......ZIONISM IS TERRORISM....FACT.......Thanks for the vid Monte(Respect)     steve


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have pictures?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't look like arab muslims do they, more like European's.    Could they be European Jews invited by the Ottomans and LoN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Three posts to try to think up something and you come up claiming that  Arabs wearing the fez are Europeans. One Jew in the whole documentary. LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Learn to read Abdul if you don't want to make a really big fool of yourself.   The post you quote was about the Jewish girls school picture.  Anyone can wear a fez, unless you want to claim that the arab muslims had a law against Jews and Christians wearing the fez.
> Now about this link proving that your video only had one Jew in it, do you want to change your claim to only one NK jew before you get in too deep ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, how about the same documentary with voice?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You will all notice that the Jewish man said Judeaism is NOT ZIONISM and IT IS NOT......ZIONISM IS TERRORISM....FACT.......Thanks for the vid Monte(Respect)     steve
Click to expand...

 Get it in gear, Steve.


----------



## elektra

theliq said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine in the late 1800's  was in ruins. No "Palestinians" building schools or hospitals. In fact the population of Arabs was small, I guess 20k, give or take.
> 
> Jews were a small part of the population, they did not recover much after napoleon's army massacred them.
> 
> The only people in the entire world who cared were the Christians. We dumped a lot of money into Isreal, giving the Zionists a place to start.
> 
> Got to remember Sir Moses Montefoire. He literally broke open the door.
> 
> Palestinians today are Arabs the Arabs did not want. Immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as the Jews turned the wasteland into a thriving metropoulos, here came hords of Palestinians to claim it's their land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another very silly comment.....During the period you mention....Palestine was exporting Goods to Europe,Wheat,Fruit etc.,get your facts right........Israel's economy today is a basket case........but beg harder like you have for the past 60 years and the US people will bundle you a few more $$$$$$$$$$$,which without their 60 billion you would be living in mud-huts................as you would know.
Click to expand...

Mud huts, yet without the USA the entire world would live in mud huts, except of course the dictators and kings.

Exports of Israel? Which year do you speak of, vagueness in the context of known history is rhetoric.


----------



## elektra

theliq said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Millions of non-Jews were ethnically cleansed you idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I thought we were simple going to discuss this, calling me an idiot certainly shows you may not be able to be rational.
> 
> Ethnically Cleansed? You mean the Irgun thing? Could I refer to the book, "The Revolt", for information on that?
> 
> Or maybe we could refer to one of the many great books written by the Arabs at that time, oops! Arabs did not build schools, universities or printing presses so there is really no books from that time, by Arabs.
> 
> Millions? Now that is a number that could be easily argued, but then again, numbers do not mean a thing.
> 
> I forget the name of the most famous University on the Arabian Peninsula of the time (early 1900's) refresh my memory please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Considering Arabs invented Universities and have had places of learning of excellence for over 1000 years ..... whilst your-lot were still licking clean the Dutchie Bowl......it merely makes your comment a source of mirth.....LOL......Cretin.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, go ahead and tell us about the universities, in Palestine, back around 1900?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You clearly do not understand the clarity of the written word......and as a sidenote......Palestinians have one of the highest University entrants of any peoples around the world.
Click to expand...

As I knew, you would return with nothing, there were no universities in Palestine built by the Moslems or Arabs before Israel was built on the ruins, the neglected, decaying, area within Syria called Palestine.

no schools means back then the Palestinians were not writing books, recording history, or administrating the government.

Thanks for confirming, no schools. Care to try hospitals. I say palestinians did not build hospitals hence they came to Christians and Jews to save themselves from blindness and disease.


----------



## theliq

elektra said:


> Palestine in the late 1800's  was in ruins. No "Palestinians" building schools or hospitals. In fact the population of Arabs was small, I guess 20k, give or take.
> 
> Jews were a small part of the population, they did not recover much after napoleon's army massacred them.
> 
> The only people in the entire world who cared were the Christians. We dumped a lot of money into Isreal, giving the Zionists a place to start.
> 
> Got to remember Sir Moses Montefoire. He literally broke open the door.
> 
> Palestinians today are Arabs the Arabs did not want. Immigrants.


Dopey you guessed wrong...Again...over 400,000 Palestinians in Palestine......only 11,000 Jews**,18,000 Christians Armenian,Copts and others,your summation and knowledge is SHIT POOR.

** Mainly in Jerusalem.


----------



## elektra

theliq said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine in the late 1800's  was in ruins. No "Palestinians" building schools or hospitals. In fact the population of Arabs was small, I guess 20k, give or take.
> 
> Jews were a small part of the population, they did not recover much after napoleon's army massacred them.
> 
> The only people in the entire world who cared were the Christians. We dumped a lot of money into Isreal, giving the Zionists a place to start.
> 
> Got to remember Sir Moses Montefoire. He literally broke open the door.
> 
> Palestinians today are Arabs the Arabs did not want. Immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> Dopey you guessed wrong...Again...over 400,000 Palestinians in Palestine......only 11,000 Jews**,18,000 Christians Armenian,Copts and others,your summation and knowledge is SHIT POOR.
> 
> ** Mainly in Jerusalem.
Click to expand...

You left out the year you are speaking of? Come on, do I have to pull teeth here!


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> "For me, they all.belong anywhere and everywhere they choose to live."
> 
> Even when they evict the people living in a place?





 Like the arab muslims have done since the 7C in every land they have stolen. Then they and their stooges complain when that land is reclaimed and the invaders kicked out.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Millions of non-Jews were ethnically cleansed you idiot.







 Hardly as the best estimates put the numbers at barely 50,000. The rest were told to move by the arab league if they did not want to be in the war zone.


----------



## MJB12741

theliq said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine in the late 1800's  was in ruins. No "Palestinians" building schools or hospitals. In fact the population of Arabs was small, I guess 20k, give or take.
> 
> Jews were a small part of the population, they did not recover much after napoleon's army massacred them.
> 
> The only people in the entire world who cared were the Christians. We dumped a lot of money into Isreal, giving the Zionists a place to start.
> 
> Got to remember Sir Moses Montefoire. He literally broke open the door.
> 
> Palestinians today are Arabs the Arabs did not want. Immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as the Jews turned the wasteland into a thriving metropoulos, here came hords of Palestinians to claim it's their land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another very silly comment.....During the period you mention....Palestine was exporting Goods to Europe,Wheat,Fruit etc.,get your facts right........Israel's economy today is a basket case........but beg harder like you have for the past 60 years and the US people will bundle you a few more $$$$$$$$$$$,which without their 60 billion you would be living in mud-huts................as you would know.
Click to expand...


Eh, Theliq.  We already know you are not exactly among the brightest of the human species but to state "Israel's economy today is a basket case" is a prime example of Palestinian mentality.  Just goes to prove one need not necessarily have to be a Palestinian to have a Palestinian mentality.  Keep up the good work for Israel.

Israel 8217 s Economy Is Booming Sorry Boycotters John Kerry FrontPage Magazine


----------



## montelatici

Jan. 13, 2015 | 4:56 AM
"The Israeli economy is stuck. Since 2008 the captains of the ship of state have tended to begin every speech by saying, “Israel came out of the crisis in better shape and is growing faster than any other Western nation,” but that hasn’t been true since the end of 2012........Per capita growth, the number that should interest the public, nearly stopped. Operation Protective Edge halted growth for a full quarter, curbing per capita growth for all of 2014 to just 0.7%, about half the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development average. The Bank of Israel forecasts slightly faster growth in 2015, possibly approaching the average again, but the growth engine Israel had been riding has stalled."



 Advertisement


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## Art__Allm

MJB12741 said:


> Let the truth be known to all.



The truth is that Palestinians (especially Christians, 30% of expelled Palestinians were Christians) are the descendants of people who lived in this region 2000 years ago.
Shlomo Sand wrote a book about it.

 Palestinians have more Hebrew blood than the white European Jews who do not have any  maternal oriental ancestry at all.

And according to the Jewish scientist Eran Elhaik, the male ancestors of European Jews stem from South Russia and North Caucasus (former Khazaria).


----------



## montelatici

Preaching to the choir with me, but wait tell the looney Zionists start responding.


----------



## Phoenall

Art__Allm said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that Palestinians (especially Christians, 30% of expelled Palestinians were Christians) are the descendants of people who lived in this region 2000 years ago.
> Shlomo Sand wrote a book about it.
> 
> Palestinians have more Hebrew blood than the white European Jews who do not have any  maternal oriental ancestry at all.
> 
> And according to the Jewish scientist Eran Elhaik, the male ancestors of European Jews stem from South Russia and North Caucasus (former Khazaria).
Click to expand...





 Not according to DNA tests carried out that shows the Europeans Jews have a 95% match with the Jews from the M.E. At the same time they show less of a match with the arab muslims as low as 80%, when the arab muslims have a 85% match with dogs, monkeys and bananas


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Preaching to the choir with me, but wait tell the looney Zionists start responding.






 Define in your own words Zionism ?


----------



## MJB12741

Art__Allm said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that Palestinians (especially Christians, 30% of expelled Palestinians were Christians) are the descendants of people who lived in this region 2000 years ago.
> Shlomo Sand wrote a book about it.
> 
> Palestinians have more Hebrew blood than the white European Jews who do not have any  maternal oriental ancestry at all.
> 
> And according to the Jewish scientist Eran Elhaik, the male ancestors of European Jews stem from South Russia and North Caucasus (former Khazaria).
Click to expand...




Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Preaching to the choir with me, but wait tell the looney Zionists start responding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define in your own words Zionism ?[/QUOTE
> 
> Looks like the Art has suddenly disappeared.  Damn it.  I needed another laugh.
Click to expand...


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> Art__Allm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that Palestinians (especially Christians, 30% of expelled Palestinians were Christians) are the descendants of people who lived in this region 2000 years ago.
> Shlomo Sand wrote a book about it.
> 
> Palestinians have more Hebrew blood than the white European Jews who do not have any  maternal oriental ancestry at all.
> 
> And according to the Jewish scientist Eran Elhaik, the male ancestors of European Jews stem from South Russia and North Caucasus (former Khazaria).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Preaching to the choir with me, but wait tell the looney Zionists start responding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define in your own words Zionism ?
> 
> Looks like the Art has suddenly disappeared.  Damn it.  I needed another laugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## MJB12741

Looks like Art has suddenly disappeared. Damn it. I needed another laugh.


----------



## montelatici

You are the one that provides the laughs, knucklehead.


----------



## Art__Allm

Phoenall said:


> Art__Allm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that Palestinians (especially Christians, 30% of expelled Palestinians were Christians) are the descendants of people who lived in this region 2000 years ago.
> Shlomo Sand wrote a book about it.
> 
> Palestinians have more Hebrew blood than the white European Jews who do not have any  maternal oriental ancestry at all.
> 
> And according to the Jewish scientist Eran Elhaik, the male ancestors of European Jews stem from South Russia and North Caucasus (former Khazaria).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to DNA tests carried out that shows the Europeans Jews have a 95% match with the Jews from the M.E. At the same time they show less of a match with the arab muslims as low as 80%, when the arab muslims have a 85% match with dogs, monkeys and bananas
Click to expand...



Do you really understand the results of the DNA-Tests and the scientific lingo? 

Jews are a mosaic of different races and people, like any other religious group.

A Reassessment of the Jewish DNA Evidence

And if you take two examples of genetic mosaics you can always find similar pieces in them

Can you get my drift?


----------



## Phoenall

Art__Allm said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art__Allm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that Palestinians (especially Christians, 30% of expelled Palestinians were Christians) are the descendants of people who lived in this region 2000 years ago.
> Shlomo Sand wrote a book about it.
> 
> Palestinians have more Hebrew blood than the white European Jews who do not have any  maternal oriental ancestry at all.
> 
> And according to the Jewish scientist Eran Elhaik, the male ancestors of European Jews stem from South Russia and North Caucasus (former Khazaria).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to DNA tests carried out that shows the Europeans Jews have a 95% match with the Jews from the M.E. At the same time they show less of a match with the arab muslims as low as 80%, when the arab muslims have a 85% match with dogs, monkeys and bananas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really understand the results of the DNA-Tests and the scientific lingo?
> 
> Jews are a mosaic of different races and people, like any other religious group.
> 
> A Reassessment of the Jewish DNA Evidence
> 
> And if you take two examples of genetic mosaics you can always find similar pieces in them
> 
> Can you get my drift?
Click to expand...





 Yes I do understand the results that show the true picture. And how they relate to the whole situation in Palestine. The fact that European and Ethiopian Jews share 95% of their Mitochondrial DNA with Jews from Palestine and the rest of the M.E. shows that they are very closely related. Then when the Mitochondrial DNA of arab muslims is tested for a match and the match comes in lower than the match for dogs, monkees and bananas it should set alarm bells ringing. These show that the arab muslims have no real ties to the land and are recent invaders that have never mixed with the true indigenous inhabitants of palestine


----------



## Challenger

Art__Allm said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art__Allm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that Palestinians (especially Christians, 30% of expelled Palestinians were Christians) are the descendants of people who lived in this region 2000 years ago.
> Shlomo Sand wrote a book about it.
> 
> Palestinians have more Hebrew blood than the white European Jews who do not have any  maternal oriental ancestry at all.
> 
> And according to the Jewish scientist Eran Elhaik, the male ancestors of European Jews stem from South Russia and North Caucasus (former Khazaria).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to DNA tests carried out that shows the Europeans Jews have a 95% match with the Jews from the M.E. At the same time they show less of a match with the arab muslims as low as 80%, when the arab muslims have a 85% match with dogs, monkeys and bananas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really understand the results of the DNA-Tests and the scientific lingo?
> 
> Jews are a mosaic of different races and people, like any other religious group.
> 
> A Reassessment of the Jewish DNA Evidence
> 
> And if you take two examples of genetic mosaics you can always find similar pieces in them
> 
> Can you get my drift?
Click to expand...


Phoney only "gets drifts" that support his world view, or rather what his controllers tell him his world view should be. You'll get used to him.


----------



## MJB12741

Phoenall said:


> Art__Allm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art__Allm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that Palestinians (especially Christians, 30% of expelled Palestinians were Christians) are the descendants of people who lived in this region 2000 years ago.
> Shlomo Sand wrote a book about it.
> 
> Palestinians have more Hebrew blood than the white European Jews who do not have any  maternal oriental ancestry at all.
> 
> And according to the Jewish scientist Eran Elhaik, the male ancestors of European Jews stem from South Russia and North Caucasus (former Khazaria).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to DNA tests carried out that shows the Europeans Jews have a 95% match with the Jews from the M.E. At the same time they show less of a match with the arab muslims as low as 80%, when the arab muslims have a 85% match with dogs, monkeys and bananas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really understand the results of the DNA-Tests and the scientific lingo?
> 
> Jews are a mosaic of different races and people, like any other religious group.
> 
> A Reassessment of the Jewish DNA Evidence
> 
> And if you take two examples of genetic mosaics you can always find similar pieces in them
> 
> Can you get my drift?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do understand the results that show the true picture. And how they relate to the whole situation in Palestine. The fact that European and Ethiopian Jews share 95% of their Mitochondrial DNA with Jews from Palestine and the rest of the M.E. shows that they are very closely related. Then when the Mitochondrial DNA of arab muslims is tested for a match and the match comes in lower than the match for dogs, monkees and bananas it should set alarm bells ringing. These show that the arab muslims have no real ties to the land and are recent invaders that have never mixed with the true indigenous inhabitants of palestine
Click to expand...


True.  Among the indigenous Palestinians were JEWS.  Not a land theiving Muslim Palestinian among them.


----------



## Challenger

MJB12741 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art__Allm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art__Allm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that Palestinians (especially Christians, 30% of expelled Palestinians were Christians) are the descendants of people who lived in this region 2000 years ago.
> Shlomo Sand wrote a book about it.
> 
> Palestinians have more Hebrew blood than the white European Jews who do not have any  maternal oriental ancestry at all.
> 
> And according to the Jewish scientist Eran Elhaik, the male ancestors of European Jews stem from South Russia and North Caucasus (former Khazaria).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to DNA tests carried out that shows the Europeans Jews have a 95% match with the Jews from the M.E. At the same time they show less of a match with the arab muslims as low as 80%, when the arab muslims have a 85% match with dogs, monkeys and bananas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really understand the results of the DNA-Tests and the scientific lingo?
> 
> Jews are a mosaic of different races and people, like any other religious group.
> 
> A Reassessment of the Jewish DNA Evidence
> 
> And if you take two examples of genetic mosaics you can always find similar pieces in them
> 
> Can you get my drift?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do understand the results that show the true picture. And how they relate to the whole situation in Palestine. The fact that European and Ethiopian Jews share 95% of their Mitochondrial DNA with Jews from Palestine and the rest of the M.E. shows that they are very closely related. Then when the Mitochondrial DNA of arab muslims is tested for a match and the match comes in lower than the match for dogs, monkees and bananas it should set alarm bells ringing. These show that the arab muslims have no real ties to the land and are recent invaders that have never mixed with the true indigenous inhabitants of palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  Among the indigenous Palestinians were JEWS.  Not a land theiving Muslim Palestinian among them.
Click to expand...


Absolutely right. There were indeed Jewish Palestinians, and when the Arabs drove out the Greco-Roman elites, many Christian and Jewish Palestinians converted to Islam and became Muslim Palestinians. So yes, there were never any land thieving Muslim Palestinians among them, correct.


----------



## MJB12741

Challenger said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art__Allm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art__Allm said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that Palestinians (especially Christians, 30% of expelled Palestinians were Christians) are the descendants of people who lived in this region 2000 years ago.
> Shlomo Sand wrote a book about it.
> 
> Palestinians have more Hebrew blood than the white European Jews who do not have any  maternal oriental ancestry at all.
> 
> And according to the Jewish scientist Eran Elhaik, the male ancestors of European Jews stem from South Russia and North Caucasus (former Khazaria).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to DNA tests carried out that shows the Europeans Jews have a 95% match with the Jews from the M.E. At the same time they show less of a match with the arab muslims as low as 80%, when the arab muslims have a 85% match with dogs, monkeys and bananas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really understand the results of the DNA-Tests and the scientific lingo?
> 
> Jews are a mosaic of different races and people, like any other religious group.
> 
> A Reassessment of the Jewish DNA Evidence
> 
> And if you take two examples of genetic mosaics you can always find similar pieces in them
> 
> Can you get my drift?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do understand the results that show the true picture. And how they relate to the whole situation in Palestine. The fact that European and Ethiopian Jews share 95% of their Mitochondrial DNA with Jews from Palestine and the rest of the M.E. shows that they are very closely related. Then when the Mitochondrial DNA of arab muslims is tested for a match and the match comes in lower than the match for dogs, monkees and bananas it should set alarm bells ringing. These show that the arab muslims have no real ties to the land and are recent invaders that have never mixed with the true indigenous inhabitants of palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  Among the indigenous Palestinians were JEWS.  Not a land theiving Muslim Palestinian among them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely right. There were indeed Jewish Palestinians, and when the Arabs drove out the Greco-Roman elites, many Christian and Jewish Palestinians converted to Islam and became Muslim Palestinians. So yes, there were never any land thieving Muslim Palestinians among them, correct.
Click to expand...


So what should Israel do about all of the land theiving Muslim Palestinians who have been occupying the land for generations without ever having any titles or deeds to the land they stole?


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art__Allm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art__Allm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that Palestinians (especially Christians, 30% of expelled Palestinians were Christians) are the descendants of people who lived in this region 2000 years ago.
> Shlomo Sand wrote a book about it.
> 
> Palestinians have more Hebrew blood than the white European Jews who do not have any  maternal oriental ancestry at all.
> 
> And according to the Jewish scientist Eran Elhaik, the male ancestors of European Jews stem from South Russia and North Caucasus (former Khazaria).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to DNA tests carried out that shows the Europeans Jews have a 95% match with the Jews from the M.E. At the same time they show less of a match with the arab muslims as low as 80%, when the arab muslims have a 85% match with dogs, monkeys and bananas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really understand the results of the DNA-Tests and the scientific lingo?
> 
> Jews are a mosaic of different races and people, like any other religious group.
> 
> A Reassessment of the Jewish DNA Evidence
> 
> And if you take two examples of genetic mosaics you can always find similar pieces in them
> 
> Can you get my drift?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do understand the results that show the true picture. And how they relate to the whole situation in Palestine. The fact that European and Ethiopian Jews share 95% of their Mitochondrial DNA with Jews from Palestine and the rest of the M.E. shows that they are very closely related. Then when the Mitochondrial DNA of arab muslims is tested for a match and the match comes in lower than the match for dogs, monkees and bananas it should set alarm bells ringing. These show that the arab muslims have no real ties to the land and are recent invaders that have never mixed with the true indigenous inhabitants of palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  Among the indigenous Palestinians were JEWS.  Not a land theiving Muslim Palestinian among them.
Click to expand...


There were a "handful" of Arab Jews.  Jews that had not converted to Christianity early on or when it became the state religion (Christianity) of the Romans or to Islam after the Byzantines were defeated and Palestine became ruled by Muslims.  Or back to Christianity during the rule of the Europeans of Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem period (which lasted more than a century) or back to Islam after Saladin.  The regular people, the masses stayed pretty much the same, only the leadership changed.  That is, until the European Jews migrated to Palestine in great numbers, took the land and evicted the local people.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art__Allm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to DNA tests carried out that shows the Europeans Jews have a 95% match with the Jews from the M.E. At the same time they show less of a match with the arab muslims as low as 80%, when the arab muslims have a 85% match with dogs, monkeys and bananas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really understand the results of the DNA-Tests and the scientific lingo?
> 
> Jews are a mosaic of different races and people, like any other religious group.
> 
> A Reassessment of the Jewish DNA Evidence
> 
> And if you take two examples of genetic mosaics you can always find similar pieces in them
> 
> Can you get my drift?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do understand the results that show the true picture. And how they relate to the whole situation in Palestine. The fact that European and Ethiopian Jews share 95% of their Mitochondrial DNA with Jews from Palestine and the rest of the M.E. shows that they are very closely related. Then when the Mitochondrial DNA of arab muslims is tested for a match and the match comes in lower than the match for dogs, monkees and bananas it should set alarm bells ringing. These show that the arab muslims have no real ties to the land and are recent invaders that have never mixed with the true indigenous inhabitants of palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  Among the indigenous Palestinians were JEWS.  Not a land theiving Muslim Palestinian among them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely right. There were indeed Jewish Palestinians, and when the Arabs drove out the Greco-Roman elites, many Christian and Jewish Palestinians converted to Islam and became Muslim Palestinians. So yes, there were never any land thieving Muslim Palestinians among them, correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what should Israel do about all of the land theiving Muslim Palestinians who have been occupying the land for generations without ever having any titles or deeds to the land they stole?
Click to expand...



The Christians and Muslims  had deeds and titles to the land, as was confirmed by the land records which were used to determine ownership in prior to the UN partition. Jews only owned 5% of the land the Christians and Muslims owned more than 85% of the land.  


This information is available at the Berman Jewish Policy Archive hosted by NYU and Wagner University via the link below.  But you knew that, you just want entertain us being the clown you are.  Thanks for the laughs MB, you never disappoint.


A Survey of Palestine Volume 2 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Art__Allm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art__Allm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that Palestinians (especially Christians, 30% of expelled Palestinians were Christians) are the descendants of people who lived in this region 2000 years ago.
> Shlomo Sand wrote a book about it.
> 
> Palestinians have more Hebrew blood than the white European Jews who do not have any  maternal oriental ancestry at all.
> 
> And according to the Jewish scientist Eran Elhaik, the male ancestors of European Jews stem from South Russia and North Caucasus (former Khazaria).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to DNA tests carried out that shows the Europeans Jews have a 95% match with the Jews from the M.E. At the same time they show less of a match with the arab muslims as low as 80%, when the arab muslims have a 85% match with dogs, monkeys and bananas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really understand the results of the DNA-Tests and the scientific lingo?
> 
> Jews are a mosaic of different races and people, like any other religious group.
> 
> A Reassessment of the Jewish DNA Evidence
> 
> And if you take two examples of genetic mosaics you can always find similar pieces in them
> 
> Can you get my drift?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Phoney only "gets drifts" that support his world view, or rather what his controllers tell him his world view should be. You'll get used to him.
Click to expand...





 No controllers here sunshine just me. Now how many enablers, controllers, imams, clerics and shieks are telling you what to post every day. Or do you get a list on a Friday afternoon for the whole week, one sure fire way to find out is to post the UK mosque news on a Friday evening to see if you can refute it before it gets to the USA


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art__Allm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art__Allm said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that Palestinians (especially Christians, 30% of expelled Palestinians were Christians) are the descendants of people who lived in this region 2000 years ago.
> Shlomo Sand wrote a book about it.
> 
> Palestinians have more Hebrew blood than the white European Jews who do not have any  maternal oriental ancestry at all.
> 
> And according to the Jewish scientist Eran Elhaik, the male ancestors of European Jews stem from South Russia and North Caucasus (former Khazaria).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to DNA tests carried out that shows the Europeans Jews have a 95% match with the Jews from the M.E. At the same time they show less of a match with the arab muslims as low as 80%, when the arab muslims have a 85% match with dogs, monkeys and bananas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really understand the results of the DNA-Tests and the scientific lingo?
> 
> Jews are a mosaic of different races and people, like any other religious group.
> 
> A Reassessment of the Jewish DNA Evidence
> 
> And if you take two examples of genetic mosaics you can always find similar pieces in them
> 
> Can you get my drift?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do understand the results that show the true picture. And how they relate to the whole situation in Palestine. The fact that European and Ethiopian Jews share 95% of their Mitochondrial DNA with Jews from Palestine and the rest of the M.E. shows that they are very closely related. Then when the Mitochondrial DNA of arab muslims is tested for a match and the match comes in lower than the match for dogs, monkees and bananas it should set alarm bells ringing. These show that the arab muslims have no real ties to the land and are recent invaders that have never mixed with the true indigenous inhabitants of palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  Among the indigenous Palestinians were JEWS.  Not a land theiving Muslim Palestinian among them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely right. There were indeed Jewish Palestinians, and when the Arabs drove out the Greco-Roman elites, many Christian and Jewish Palestinians converted to Islam and became Muslim Palestinians. So yes, there were never any land thieving Muslim Palestinians among them, correct.
Click to expand...





 And 22 years later the thieving muslims were licked out of Palestine  completely leaving the Jews who had lived there for 3,500 to stay behind. Some muslims converted to Christianity and were allowed to stay. So since 1099 the arab muslims have failed to own and control Palestine. And no DNA match to the Sephardic Jews in evidence less than 1000 years later by the arab muslims claiming they had lived there from 700 years before mohamed was born.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art__Allm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art__Allm said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that Palestinians (especially Christians, 30% of expelled Palestinians were Christians) are the descendants of people who lived in this region 2000 years ago.
> Shlomo Sand wrote a book about it.
> 
> Palestinians have more Hebrew blood than the white European Jews who do not have any  maternal oriental ancestry at all.
> 
> And according to the Jewish scientist Eran Elhaik, the male ancestors of European Jews stem from South Russia and North Caucasus (former Khazaria).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to DNA tests carried out that shows the Europeans Jews have a 95% match with the Jews from the M.E. At the same time they show less of a match with the arab muslims as low as 80%, when the arab muslims have a 85% match with dogs, monkeys and bananas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really understand the results of the DNA-Tests and the scientific lingo?
> 
> Jews are a mosaic of different races and people, like any other religious group.
> 
> A Reassessment of the Jewish DNA Evidence
> 
> And if you take two examples of genetic mosaics you can always find similar pieces in them
> 
> Can you get my drift?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do understand the results that show the true picture. And how they relate to the whole situation in Palestine. The fact that European and Ethiopian Jews share 95% of their Mitochondrial DNA with Jews from Palestine and the rest of the M.E. shows that they are very closely related. Then when the Mitochondrial DNA of arab muslims is tested for a match and the match comes in lower than the match for dogs, monkees and bananas it should set alarm bells ringing. These show that the arab muslims have no real ties to the land and are recent invaders that have never mixed with the true indigenous inhabitants of palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  Among the indigenous Palestinians were JEWS.  Not a land theiving Muslim Palestinian among them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were a "handful" of Arab Jews.  Jews that had not converted to Christianity early on or when it became the state religion (Christianity) of the Romans or to Islam after the Byzantines were defeated and Palestine became ruled by Muslims.  Or back to Christianity during the rule of the Europeans of Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem period (which lasted more than a century) or back to Islam after Saladin.  The regular people, the masses stayed pretty much the same, only the leadership changed.  That is, until the European Jews migrated to Palestine in great numbers, took the land and evicted the local people.
Click to expand...





 The land had been granted to them by the legal owners, and it was the arab muslims that were the invaders. Even your book written by committee says this to be the case as it details the illegal migration of arab muslims to Palestine looking for work when the crops failed in Syria and Egypt. The Jews had been Jews from before the Roman invasion and did as Maimonides did when he faked his conversion to islam and practised Judaism in secret.


----------



## Challenger

MJB12741 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art__Allm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to DNA tests carried out that shows the Europeans Jews have a 95% match with the Jews from the M.E. At the same time they show less of a match with the arab muslims as low as 80%, when the arab muslims have a 85% match with dogs, monkeys and bananas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really understand the results of the DNA-Tests and the scientific lingo?
> 
> Jews are a mosaic of different races and people, like any other religious group.
> 
> A Reassessment of the Jewish DNA Evidence
> 
> And if you take two examples of genetic mosaics you can always find similar pieces in them
> 
> Can you get my drift?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do understand the results that show the true picture. And how they relate to the whole situation in Palestine. The fact that European and Ethiopian Jews share 95% of their Mitochondrial DNA with Jews from Palestine and the rest of the M.E. shows that they are very closely related. Then when the Mitochondrial DNA of arab muslims is tested for a match and the match comes in lower than the match for dogs, monkees and bananas it should set alarm bells ringing. These show that the arab muslims have no real ties to the land and are recent invaders that have never mixed with the true indigenous inhabitants of palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  Among the indigenous Palestinians were JEWS.  Not a land theiving Muslim Palestinian among them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely right. There were indeed Jewish Palestinians, and when the Arabs drove out the Greco-Roman elites, many Christian and Jewish Palestinians converted to Islam and became Muslim Palestinians. So yes, there were never any land thieving Muslim Palestinians among them, correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what should Israel do about all of the land theiving Muslim Palestinians who have been occupying the land for generations without ever having any titles or deeds to the land they stole?
Click to expand...


You reall must read posts more carefully, " There *never were* any land thieving Muslim Palestinians.."


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art__Allm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to DNA tests carried out that shows the Europeans Jews have a 95% match with the Jews from the M.E. At the same time they show less of a match with the arab muslims as low as 80%, when the arab muslims have a 85% match with dogs, monkeys and bananas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really understand the results of the DNA-Tests and the scientific lingo?
> 
> Jews are a mosaic of different races and people, like any other religious group.
> 
> A Reassessment of the Jewish DNA Evidence
> 
> And if you take two examples of genetic mosaics you can always find similar pieces in them
> 
> Can you get my drift?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do understand the results that show the true picture. And how they relate to the whole situation in Palestine. The fact that European and Ethiopian Jews share 95% of their Mitochondrial DNA with Jews from Palestine and the rest of the M.E. shows that they are very closely related. Then when the Mitochondrial DNA of arab muslims is tested for a match and the match comes in lower than the match for dogs, monkees and bananas it should set alarm bells ringing. These show that the arab muslims have no real ties to the land and are recent invaders that have never mixed with the true indigenous inhabitants of palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  Among the indigenous Palestinians were JEWS.  Not a land theiving Muslim Palestinian among them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were a "handful" of Arab Jews.  Jews that had not converted to Christianity early on or when it became the state religion (Christianity) of the Romans or to Islam after the Byzantines were defeated and Palestine became ruled by Muslims.  Or back to Christianity during the rule of the Europeans of Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem period (which lasted more than a century) or back to Islam after Saladin.  The regular people, the masses stayed pretty much the same, only the leadership changed.  That is, until the European Jews migrated to Palestine in great numbers, took the land and evicted the local people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The land had been granted to them by the legal owners, and it was the arab muslims that were the invaders. Even your book written by committee says this to be the case as it details the illegal migration of arab muslims to Palestine looking for work when the crops failed in Syria and Egypt. The Jews had been Jews from before the Roman invasion and did as Maimonides did when he faked his conversion to islam and practised Judaism in secret.
Click to expand...


What utter drivel, more baloney from Phoney


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art__Allm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really understand the results of the DNA-Tests and the scientific lingo?
> 
> Jews are a mosaic of different races and people, like any other religious group.
> 
> A Reassessment of the Jewish DNA Evidence
> 
> And if you take two examples of genetic mosaics you can always find similar pieces in them
> 
> Can you get my drift?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do understand the results that show the true picture. And how they relate to the whole situation in Palestine. The fact that European and Ethiopian Jews share 95% of their Mitochondrial DNA with Jews from Palestine and the rest of the M.E. shows that they are very closely related. Then when the Mitochondrial DNA of arab muslims is tested for a match and the match comes in lower than the match for dogs, monkees and bananas it should set alarm bells ringing. These show that the arab muslims have no real ties to the land and are recent invaders that have never mixed with the true indigenous inhabitants of palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  Among the indigenous Palestinians were JEWS.  Not a land theiving Muslim Palestinian among them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely right. There were indeed Jewish Palestinians, and when the Arabs drove out the Greco-Roman elites, many Christian and Jewish Palestinians converted to Islam and became Muslim Palestinians. So yes, there were never any land thieving Muslim Palestinians among them, correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what should Israel do about all of the land theiving Muslim Palestinians who have been occupying the land for generations without ever having any titles or deeds to the land they stole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Christians and Muslims  had deeds and titles to the land, as was confirmed by the land records which were used to determine ownership in prior to the UN partition. Jews only owned 5% of the land the Christians and Muslims owned more than 85% of the land.
> 
> 
> This information is available at the Berman Jewish Policy Archive hosted by NYU and Wagner University via the link below.  But you knew that, you just want entertain us being the clown you are.  Thanks for the laughs MB, you never disappoint.
> 
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Volume 2 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner
> 
> 
> View attachment 36673 View attachment 36673
Click to expand...






 Copyright owner = Publisher

 Which is not the committee that collected the details.

 And on the inside of the books we find this




" I n response to the demand that the memoranda


prepared by the Government of Palestine in

December and January last for the information

of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry

should be made available to the public a limited

number of this Survey has been reprinted for

sale.* The opportunity has been taken to amend

 
or delete a number of statements or figures

 
which, as given in the original memoranda, were

 
either incorrect or liable to misinterpretation.*

The Committee has been informed of the corrections

made and has been supplied with the

amended text as presented in these volumes.

April, 1946."


 Still want to claim that this is an unabridged, unaltered source document Abdul. Or are you ready to admit you have been using false information to push your ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA  



Another aspect of your source is outlined from page 208 titled ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION and it has this to say about the arab muslims.


There has, however, been considerable illegal immigration


of a temporary nature by Arabs from neighbouring territories in

search of employment during the war years. With the détérioration

of the Allied position in North Africa in 1942, Palestine

became an arsenal for both offence and defence. Airfields, defences

and roads had to be rapidly constructed and there arose a demand

for labour exceeding the local supply.

61. As a matter of emergency, official arrangements were made,

in October 1942, to bring labourers from Syria and the Lebanon

under the auspices of the Army. To facilitate entry it was agreed

that the labourers should be brought in compact groups by trucks

and train; nominal rolls stating details of identity were accepted

as collective travel documents, each labourer carrying an identity

card. Under this arrangement 3,800 labourers were admitted.

Of this number it is known that 713 deserted; 828 were officially

repatriated; and 178 remained in employment at 31st December,

1945. The balance (2081) must be presumed to have been discharged


in Palestine and either returned to their countries of

origin of their own volition or remained in Palestine illegally.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art__Allm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really understand the results of the DNA-Tests and the scientific lingo?
> 
> Jews are a mosaic of different races and people, like any other religious group.
> 
> A Reassessment of the Jewish DNA Evidence
> 
> And if you take two examples of genetic mosaics you can always find similar pieces in them
> 
> Can you get my drift?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do understand the results that show the true picture. And how they relate to the whole situation in Palestine. The fact that European and Ethiopian Jews share 95% of their Mitochondrial DNA with Jews from Palestine and the rest of the M.E. shows that they are very closely related. Then when the Mitochondrial DNA of arab muslims is tested for a match and the match comes in lower than the match for dogs, monkees and bananas it should set alarm bells ringing. These show that the arab muslims have no real ties to the land and are recent invaders that have never mixed with the true indigenous inhabitants of palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  Among the indigenous Palestinians were JEWS.  Not a land theiving Muslim Palestinian among them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely right. There were indeed Jewish Palestinians, and when the Arabs drove out the Greco-Roman elites, many Christian and Jewish Palestinians converted to Islam and became Muslim Palestinians. So yes, there were never any land thieving Muslim Palestinians among them, correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what should Israel do about all of the land theiving Muslim Palestinians who have been occupying the land for generations without ever having any titles or deeds to the land they stole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You reall must read posts more carefully, " There *never were* any land thieving Muslim Palestinians.."
Click to expand...





 Correct because there was never any muslim Palestinians until Arafat the bent stole the name to give his cause a name.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art__Allm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really understand the results of the DNA-Tests and the scientific lingo?
> 
> Jews are a mosaic of different races and people, like any other religious group.
> 
> A Reassessment of the Jewish DNA Evidence
> 
> And if you take two examples of genetic mosaics you can always find similar pieces in them
> 
> Can you get my drift?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do understand the results that show the true picture. And how they relate to the whole situation in Palestine. The fact that European and Ethiopian Jews share 95% of their Mitochondrial DNA with Jews from Palestine and the rest of the M.E. shows that they are very closely related. Then when the Mitochondrial DNA of arab muslims is tested for a match and the match comes in lower than the match for dogs, monkees and bananas it should set alarm bells ringing. These show that the arab muslims have no real ties to the land and are recent invaders that have never mixed with the true indigenous inhabitants of palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  Among the indigenous Palestinians were JEWS.  Not a land theiving Muslim Palestinian among them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were a "handful" of Arab Jews.  Jews that had not converted to Christianity early on or when it became the state religion (Christianity) of the Romans or to Islam after the Byzantines were defeated and Palestine became ruled by Muslims.  Or back to Christianity during the rule of the Europeans of Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem period (which lasted more than a century) or back to Islam after Saladin.  The regular people, the masses stayed pretty much the same, only the leadership changed.  That is, until the European Jews migrated to Palestine in great numbers, took the land and evicted the local people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The land had been granted to them by the legal owners, and it was the arab muslims that were the invaders. Even your book written by committee says this to be the case as it details the illegal migration of arab muslims to Palestine looking for work when the crops failed in Syria and Egypt. The Jews had been Jews from before the Roman invasion and did as Maimonides did when he faked his conversion to islam and practised Judaism in secret.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What utter drivel, more baloney from Phoney
Click to expand...




 Look it all up if you like, it is detailed in every history book that is UNBIASED


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art__Allm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to DNA tests carried out that shows the Europeans Jews have a 95% match with the Jews from the M.E. At the same time they show less of a match with the arab muslims as low as 80%, when the arab muslims have a 85% match with dogs, monkeys and bananas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really understand the results of the DNA-Tests and the scientific lingo?
> 
> Jews are a mosaic of different races and people, like any other religious group.
> 
> A Reassessment of the Jewish DNA Evidence
> 
> And if you take two examples of genetic mosaics you can always find similar pieces in them
> 
> Can you get my drift?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do understand the results that show the true picture. And how they relate to the whole situation in Palestine. The fact that European and Ethiopian Jews share 95% of their Mitochondrial DNA with Jews from Palestine and the rest of the M.E. shows that they are very closely related. Then when the Mitochondrial DNA of arab muslims is tested for a match and the match comes in lower than the match for dogs, monkees and bananas it should set alarm bells ringing. These show that the arab muslims have no real ties to the land and are recent invaders that have never mixed with the true indigenous inhabitants of palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  Among the indigenous Palestinians were JEWS.  Not a land theiving Muslim Palestinian among them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were a "handful" of Arab Jews.  Jews that had not converted to Christianity early on or when it became the state religion (Christianity) of the Romans or to Islam after the Byzantines were defeated and Palestine became ruled by Muslims.  Or back to Christianity during the rule of the Europeans of Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem period (which lasted more than a century) or back to Islam after Saladin.  The regular people, the masses stayed pretty much the same, only the leadership changed.  That is, until the European Jews migrated to Palestine in great numbers, took the land and evicted the local people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The land had been granted to them by the legal owners, and it was the arab muslims that were the invaders. Even your book written by committee says this to be the case as it details the illegal migration of arab muslims to Palestine looking for work when the crops failed in Syria and Egypt. The Jews had been Jews from before the Roman invasion and did as Maimonides did when he faked his conversion to islam and practised Judaism in secret.
Click to expand...



You must mean the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry who determined that Jews owned less than 5% of the land prior to partition, while the non-Jews owned more than 85% of the land.  The committee was appointed by the U.S. and Great Britain with the following Terms of Reference.  Note: this is part of Yale University's* source *documents on Palestine and part of the Avalon Project:

Avalon Project - Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry - Preface

Isn't it odd that these documents 

"We were appointed by the Governments of the United States and of the United Kingdom, as a joint body of American and British membership, with the following Terms of Reference:

1. To examine political, economic and social conditions in Palestine as they bear upon the problem of Jewish immigration and settlement therein and the well-being of the peoples now living therein.

2. To examine the position of the Jews in those countries in Europe where they have been the victims of Nazi and Fascist persecution, and the practical measures taken or contemplated to be taken in those countries to enable them to live free from discrimination and oppression and to make estimates of those who wish or will be impelled by their conditions to migrate to Palestine or other countries outside Europe.

3. To hear the views of competent witnesses and to consult representative Arabs and Jews on the problems of Palestine as such problems are affected by conditions subject to examination under paragraphs 1 and 2 above and by other relevant facts and circumstances, and to make recommendations to His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States for ad interim handling of these problems as well as for their permanent solution.

4. To make such other recommendations to His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States as may be necessary to meet the immediate needs arising from conditions subject to examination under paragraph 2 above, by remedial action in the European countries in question or by the provision of facilities for emigration to and settlement in countries outside Europe.

The Governments urged upon us the need for the utmost expedition in dealing with the subjects committed to us for investigation, and requested to be furnished with our Report within one hundred and twenty days of the inception of our Inquiry."

Avalon Project - Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry - Preface


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do understand the results that show the true picture. And how they relate to the whole situation in Palestine. The fact that European and Ethiopian Jews share 95% of their Mitochondrial DNA with Jews from Palestine and the rest of the M.E. shows that they are very closely related. Then when the Mitochondrial DNA of arab muslims is tested for a match and the match comes in lower than the match for dogs, monkees and bananas it should set alarm bells ringing. These show that the arab muslims have no real ties to the land and are recent invaders that have never mixed with the true indigenous inhabitants of palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.  Among the indigenous Palestinians were JEWS.  Not a land theiving Muslim Palestinian among them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely right. There were indeed Jewish Palestinians, and when the Arabs drove out the Greco-Roman elites, many Christian and Jewish Palestinians converted to Islam and became Muslim Palestinians. So yes, there were never any land thieving Muslim Palestinians among them, correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what should Israel do about all of the land theiving Muslim Palestinians who have been occupying the land for generations without ever having any titles or deeds to the land they stole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You reall must read posts more carefully, " There *never were* any land thieving Muslim Palestinians.."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct because there was never any muslim Palestinians until Arafat the bent stole the name to give his cause a name.
Click to expand...


As usual you make a fool of yourself every time you post.  In 1922 the Palestinians were calling themselves the people of Palestinian as per their correspondence with the Government of Great Britain:

To wit:


*CORRESPONDENCE *​*WITH THE
PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
AND THE 
ZIONIST ORGANISATION.​*​*Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
JUNE, 1922.​**
*​We, therefore, hold that the proposed constitution is wholly unsatisfactory, because:—




_(a) _In the preamble to the Palestine Order in Council "the declaration of November 2nd, 1917, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People" is made a basis for this Order; *the People of Palestine *cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion.​
* 


*​- See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art__Allm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really understand the results of the DNA-Tests and the scientific lingo?
> 
> Jews are a mosaic of different races and people, like any other religious group.
> 
> A Reassessment of the Jewish DNA Evidence
> 
> And if you take two examples of genetic mosaics you can always find similar pieces in them
> 
> Can you get my drift?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do understand the results that show the true picture. And how they relate to the whole situation in Palestine. The fact that European and Ethiopian Jews share 95% of their Mitochondrial DNA with Jews from Palestine and the rest of the M.E. shows that they are very closely related. Then when the Mitochondrial DNA of arab muslims is tested for a match and the match comes in lower than the match for dogs, monkees and bananas it should set alarm bells ringing. These show that the arab muslims have no real ties to the land and are recent invaders that have never mixed with the true indigenous inhabitants of palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  Among the indigenous Palestinians were JEWS.  Not a land theiving Muslim Palestinian among them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were a "handful" of Arab Jews.  Jews that had not converted to Christianity early on or when it became the state religion (Christianity) of the Romans or to Islam after the Byzantines were defeated and Palestine became ruled by Muslims.  Or back to Christianity during the rule of the Europeans of Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem period (which lasted more than a century) or back to Islam after Saladin.  The regular people, the masses stayed pretty much the same, only the leadership changed.  That is, until the European Jews migrated to Palestine in great numbers, took the land and evicted the local people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The land had been granted to them by the legal owners, and it was the arab muslims that were the invaders. Even your book written by committee says this to be the case as it details the illegal migration of arab muslims to Palestine looking for work when the crops failed in Syria and Egypt. The Jews had been Jews from before the Roman invasion and did as Maimonides did when he faked his conversion to islam and practised Judaism in secret.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You must mean the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry who determined that Jews owned less than 5% of the land prior to partition, while the non-Jews owned more than 85% of the land.  The committee was appointed by the U.S. and Great Britain with the following Terms of Reference.  Note: this is part of Yale University's* source *documents on Palestine and part of the Avalon Project:
> 
> Avalon Project - Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry - Preface
> 
> Isn't it odd that these documents
> 
> "We were appointed by the Governments of the United States and of the United Kingdom, as a joint body of American and British membership, with the following Terms of Reference:
> 
> 1. To examine political, economic and social conditions in Palestine as they bear upon the problem of Jewish immigration and settlement therein and the well-being of the peoples now living therein.
> 
> 2. To examine the position of the Jews in those countries in Europe where they have been the victims of Nazi and Fascist persecution, and the practical measures taken or contemplated to be taken in those countries to enable them to live free from discrimination and oppression and to make estimates of those who wish or will be impelled by their conditions to migrate to Palestine or other countries outside Europe.
> 
> 3. To hear the views of competent witnesses and to consult representative Arabs and Jews on the problems of Palestine as such problems are affected by conditions subject to examination under paragraphs 1 and 2 above and by other relevant facts and circumstances, and to make recommendations to His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States for ad interim handling of these problems as well as for their permanent solution.
> 
> 4. To make such other recommendations to His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States as may be necessary to meet the immediate needs arising from conditions subject to examination under paragraph 2 above, by remedial action in the European countries in question or by the provision of facilities for emigration to and settlement in countries outside Europe.
> 
> The Governments urged upon us the need for the utmost expedition in dealing with the subjects committed to us for investigation, and requested to be furnished with our Report within one hundred and twenty days of the inception of our Inquiry."
> 
> Avalon Project - Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry - Preface
Click to expand...





 Read your cut and paste again and tell me what these two countries were doing trying to take over Palestine for themselves, and to stop all Jewish immigration contrary to CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW ?


----------



## montelatici

What was contrary to your fictitious customary international law?  The people of Palestine did not want to be evicted from their homeland by the migrating European Jews.  That's why they didn't want Jewish immigration to their homeland.  Nothing to do with any international law. People have the right to resist invasion and eventual eviction.  Every one knew that the European Jews were planning a takeover.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art__Allm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to DNA tests carried out that shows the Europeans Jews have a 95% match with the Jews from the M.E. At the same time they show less of a match with the arab muslims as low as 80%, when the arab muslims have a 85% match with dogs, monkeys and bananas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really understand the results of the DNA-Tests and the scientific lingo?
> 
> Jews are a mosaic of different races and people, like any other religious group.
> 
> A Reassessment of the Jewish DNA Evidence
> 
> And if you take two examples of genetic mosaics you can always find similar pieces in them
> 
> Can you get my drift?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do understand the results that show the true picture. And how they relate to the whole situation in Palestine. The fact that European and Ethiopian Jews share 95% of their Mitochondrial DNA with Jews from Palestine and the rest of the M.E. shows that they are very closely related. Then when the Mitochondrial DNA of arab muslims is tested for a match and the match comes in lower than the match for dogs, monkees and bananas it should set alarm bells ringing. These show that the arab muslims have no real ties to the land and are recent invaders that have never mixed with the true indigenous inhabitants of palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  Among the indigenous Palestinians were JEWS.  Not a land theiving Muslim Palestinian among them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were a "handful" of Arab Jews.  Jews that had not converted to Christianity early on or when it became the state religion (Christianity) of the Romans or to Islam after the Byzantines were defeated and Palestine became ruled by Muslims.  Or back to Christianity during the rule of the Europeans of Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem period (which lasted more than a century) or back to Islam after Saladin.  The regular people, the masses stayed pretty much the same, only the leadership changed.  That is, until the European Jews migrated to Palestine in great numbers, took the land and evicted the local people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The land had been granted to them by the legal owners, and it was the arab muslims that were the invaders. Even your book written by committee says this to be the case as it details the illegal migration of arab muslims to Palestine looking for work when the crops failed in Syria and Egypt. The Jews had been Jews from before the Roman invasion and did as Maimonides did when he faked his conversion to islam and practised Judaism in secret.
Click to expand...

*The land had been granted to them by the legal owners,​*
Who were the legal owners and where is the treaty ceding that land to the Jews?


----------



## montelatici

The Jews owned less than 5% of the land anyway, It doesn't matter. More than 85% of the land was owned by the Christians and Muslims as late as 1946.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> What was contrary to your fictitious customary international law?  The people of Palestine did not want to be evicted from their homeland by the migrating European Jews.  That's why they didn't want Jewish immigration to their homeland.  Nothing to do with any international law. People have the right to resist invasion and eventual eviction.  Every one knew that the European Jews were planning a takeover.






 Their homeland was in Syria where they came from, as your link states quite clearly. They had no say in the matter because they had never owned more than 0.8% of the land, and that was about to be taken from them by the first group to declare independence under the Mandate for Palestine.  It had everything to do with International law, as it passed inbto Customay International law that the land of Palestine was for the Jews to resurrect their National Home. The non Jews were invited to stay as full citizens on the proviso they did not engage in any violence. That lasted about 10 seconds and so they were evicted under International law ( the other option was to execute them on the spot ). Yes everyone is allowed to oppose invasion including the Jews who were given Palestinian citizenship under the LoN treaty while they where still out of the area. As your link showed the arab muslims migrated illegally to Palestine in their thousands when the crops failed in Syria and Egypt.
 Just as everyone knows that the muslims are hell bent on world domination because it is a command of their religion. Just as it is also a command to KILL THE JEWS


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art__Allm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really understand the results of the DNA-Tests and the scientific lingo?
> 
> Jews are a mosaic of different races and people, like any other religious group.
> 
> A Reassessment of the Jewish DNA Evidence
> 
> And if you take two examples of genetic mosaics you can always find similar pieces in them
> 
> Can you get my drift?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do understand the results that show the true picture. And how they relate to the whole situation in Palestine. The fact that European and Ethiopian Jews share 95% of their Mitochondrial DNA with Jews from Palestine and the rest of the M.E. shows that they are very closely related. Then when the Mitochondrial DNA of arab muslims is tested for a match and the match comes in lower than the match for dogs, monkees and bananas it should set alarm bells ringing. These show that the arab muslims have no real ties to the land and are recent invaders that have never mixed with the true indigenous inhabitants of palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  Among the indigenous Palestinians were JEWS.  Not a land theiving Muslim Palestinian among them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were a "handful" of Arab Jews.  Jews that had not converted to Christianity early on or when it became the state religion (Christianity) of the Romans or to Islam after the Byzantines were defeated and Palestine became ruled by Muslims.  Or back to Christianity during the rule of the Europeans of Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem period (which lasted more than a century) or back to Islam after Saladin.  The regular people, the masses stayed pretty much the same, only the leadership changed.  That is, until the European Jews migrated to Palestine in great numbers, took the land and evicted the local people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The land had been granted to them by the legal owners, and it was the arab muslims that were the invaders. Even your book written by committee says this to be the case as it details the illegal migration of arab muslims to Palestine looking for work when the crops failed in Syria and Egypt. The Jews had been Jews from before the Roman invasion and did as Maimonides did when he faked his conversion to islam and practised Judaism in secret.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The land had been granted to them by the legal owners,*​
> Who were the legal owners and where is the treaty ceding that land to the Jews?
Click to expand...





 The LoN who made two treaties  The treaty of Sevres that paved the way and set the ball in motion. And then the treaty of Lausanne that put the icing on the cake. Then the Mandate for Palestine set out in clear words that Palestine was for the Jews to RESURECT THE JEWISH NATIONAL HOME


*The Council of the League of Nations*

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

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

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and

Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and

Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and

Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations;

Confirming the said mandate, defines its terms as follows:


 This is not to be confused with the British Mandate which is a different beast altogether.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> The Jews owned less than 5% of the land anyway, It doesn't matter. More than 85% of the land was owned by the Christians and Muslims as late as 1946.






 Wrong the majority of the land was owned by the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE, as the absentee Ottoman land owners lost it in 1919 when they lost the war. They were allowed to sell it on and the Jews under various groups bought it. The arab muslims declined as it meant paying taxes and facing conscription.

 Read your own links that detail all this, so you cant say it is propaganda without saying the parts you use are also propaganda.


----------



## RoccoR

et al,

I thought this story was interesting:

FOX News
*Palestinian leader Abbas vouches to work for peace but skirts issue of Hamas*
Published February 10, 2015  Associated Press

STOCKHOLM –  Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas says he will work to revive peace talks with Israel but skirted questions on how to end the conflict or tackle violence by the Islamic militant group Hamas.

Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking has been on hold since the last round of U.S.-brokered talks collapsed a year ago, partly hampered by the gaps between Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Palestinian elections are long overdue, strained by the geographic and political split between Abbas and Hamas. In a jab at Hamas, Abbas said Tuesday that Palestinians must be able to decide "who should lead them and if they accept violence or not."​
Who should lead them?  Great Question.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> et al,
> 
> I thought this story was interesting:
> 
> FOX News
> *Palestinian leader Abbas vouches to work for peace but skirts issue of Hamas*
> Published February 10, 2015  Associated Press
> 
> STOCKHOLM –  Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas says he will work to revive peace talks with Israel but skirted questions on how to end the conflict or tackle violence by the Islamic militant group Hamas.
> 
> Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking has been on hold since the last round of U.S.-brokered talks collapsed a year ago, partly hampered by the gaps between Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
> 
> Palestinian elections are long overdue, strained by the geographic and political split between Abbas and Hamas. In a jab at Hamas, Abbas said Tuesday that Palestinians must be able to decide "who should lead them and if they accept violence or not."​
> Who should lead them?  Great Question.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R


The US fomented a coup against Palestine's last elected government. There have not been elections since. You can't blame the Palestinians for that.

Israel* never *stops its violence against the Palestinians no matter what they do or don't do. Why should the Palestinians stop theirs?


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> What was contrary to your fictitious customary international law?  The people of Palestine did not want to be evicted from their homeland by the migrating European Jews.  That's why they didn't want Jewish immigration to their homeland.  Nothing to do with any international law. People have the right to resist invasion and eventual eviction.  Every one knew that the European Jews were planning a takeover.



OMG!  You mean the Palestinian people didn't want to be evicted from their homeland of Israel?   I didn't know that.  Amazing what we can learn here.  So please tell us when did Israel's ancient land become this Palestinian land that Israel is now evicting them from?


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews owned less than 5% of the land anyway, It doesn't matter. More than 85% of the land was owned by the Christians and Muslims as late as 1946.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong the majority of the land was owned by the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE, as the absentee Ottoman land owners lost it in 1919 when they lost the war. They were allowed to sell it on and the Jews under various groups bought it. The arab muslims declined as it meant paying taxes and facing conscription.
> 
> Read your own links that detail all this, so you cant say it is propaganda without saying the parts you use are also propaganda.
Click to expand...


Quit making things up.  You just blather nonsense that you invent.

The facts are below in black and white.  Jews owned less than 5% of the land as of the 1st of April 1943.  No amount of blathering bullshit changes the facts. Jews owned 1,514,217 Dunums while non-Jews owned 24,670,455 Dunums.  Form the Survey of Palestine Vol. 2 published by the U.S. Department of State (as Publication No. 2536) in the U.S. Available for download from various academic institution's source document archives including:

The Berman Jewish Policy Archive at NYU/Wagner Universities.

A Survey of Palestine Volume 2 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner

or direct access to the text at:

Yale University's Avalon project.

Avalon Project - Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was contrary to your fictitious customary international law?  The people of Palestine did not want to be evicted from their homeland by the migrating European Jews.  That's why they didn't want Jewish immigration to their homeland.  Nothing to do with any international law. People have the right to resist invasion and eventual eviction.  Every one knew that the European Jews were planning a takeover.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!  You mean the Palestinian people didn't want to be evicted from their homeland of Israel?   I didn't know that.  Amazing what we can learn here.  So please tell us when did Israel's ancient land become this Palestinian land that Israel is now evicting them from?
Click to expand...


Their homeland of Palestine had been  their homeland for over 2000 years  The European Jews had no connection to Palestine.  They were Europeans, from another continent.  Learn some geography.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was contrary to your fictitious customary international law?  The people of Palestine did not want to be evicted from their homeland by the migrating European Jews.  That's why they didn't want Jewish immigration to their homeland.  Nothing to do with any international law. People have the right to resist invasion and eventual eviction.  Every one knew that the European Jews were planning a takeover.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!  You mean the Palestinian people didn't want to be evicted from their homeland of Israel?   I didn't know that.  Amazing what we can learn here.  So please tell us when did Israel's ancient land become this Palestinian land that Israel is now evicting them from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their homeland of Palestine had been  their homeland for over 2000 years  The European Jews had no connection to Palestine.  They were Europeans, from another continent.  Learn some geography.
Click to expand...

Tell that to Moses. And,Joshua said he saw neither hide nor hair of any Palestinians but if he had, he was under orders to slaughter the critters.


----------



## montelatici

Orders to slaughter the Caanites, Samaritans  and other people already  living in the area?  What religion of peace is that?


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> Orders to slaughter the Caanites, Samaritans  and other people already  living in the area?  What religion of peace is that?


I read it somewhere. Those were the old days.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> et al,
> 
> I thought this story was interesting:
> 
> FOX News
> *Palestinian leader Abbas vouches to work for peace but skirts issue of Hamas*
> Published February 10, 2015  Associated Press
> 
> STOCKHOLM –  Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas says he will work to revive peace talks with Israel but skirted questions on how to end the conflict or tackle violence by the Islamic militant group Hamas.
> 
> Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking has been on hold since the last round of U.S.-brokered talks collapsed a year ago, partly hampered by the gaps between Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
> 
> Palestinian elections are long overdue, strained by the geographic and political split between Abbas and Hamas. In a jab at Hamas, Abbas said Tuesday that Palestinians must be able to decide "who should lead them and if they accept violence or not."​
> Who should lead them?  Great Question.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> The US fomented a coup against Palestine's last elected government. There have not been elections since. You can't blame the Palestinians for that.
> 
> Israel* never *stops its violence against the Palestinians no matter what they do or don't do. Why should the Palestinians stop theirs?
Click to expand...




 The Palestinian violence against the Jews has been ongoing since Mohamed wiped out the tribe at Medina, so once again when did Israel start the violence ?  or was it the muslims way back in the 7C


----------



## Yarddog

MJB12741 said:


> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine




Youll never see that question on Jeopardy


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Orders to slaughter the Caanites, Samaritans  and other people already  living in the area?  What religion of peace is that?






 Which was fairly common back then 4,500 years ago.  Now the people you call Palestinians did not exist 1400 years ago until Mohamed invented them. Then they went on the rampage and stole the land of millions of indigenous peoples across the M.E and Africa. They fought wars and mass murdered people to gain what is now Palestine then promptly lost it a bare 22 years later. They never recovered ownership or control of the land ever again . So how in any intelligent persons book can the arab muslims claim that Palestine is their homeland when they have not been there for 1000 years and the ones there now are recent illegal immigrants chasing work when the crops failed in Syria and Egypt.

 Try reading your own links sometime Abdul it is all in there about the illegal arab muslim immigration and land theft by your hero's.


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do understand the results that show the true picture. And how they relate to the whole situation in Palestine. The fact that European and Ethiopian Jews share 95% of their Mitochondrial DNA with Jews from Palestine and the rest of the M.E. shows that they are very closely related. Then when the Mitochondrial DNA of arab muslims is tested for a match and the match comes in lower than the match for dogs, monkees and bananas it should set alarm bells ringing. These show that the arab muslims have no real ties to the land and are recent invaders that have never mixed with the true indigenous inhabitants of palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.  Among the indigenous Palestinians were JEWS.  Not a land theiving Muslim Palestinian among them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were a "handful" of Arab Jews.  Jews that had not converted to Christianity early on or when it became the state religion (Christianity) of the Romans or to Islam after the Byzantines were defeated and Palestine became ruled by Muslims.  Or back to Christianity during the rule of the Europeans of Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem period (which lasted more than a century) or back to Islam after Saladin.  The regular people, the masses stayed pretty much the same, only the leadership changed.  That is, until the European Jews migrated to Palestine in great numbers, took the land and evicted the local people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The land had been granted to them by the legal owners, and it was the arab muslims that were the invaders. Even your book written by committee says this to be the case as it details the illegal migration of arab muslims to Palestine looking for work when the crops failed in Syria and Egypt. The Jews had been Jews from before the Roman invasion and did as Maimonides did when he faked his conversion to islam and practised Judaism in secret.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What utter drivel, more baloney from Phoney
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look it all up if you like, it is detailed in every history book that is UNBIASED
Click to expand...


Oh, please, stop, my ribs won't take any more.


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do understand the results that show the true picture. And how they relate to the whole situation in Palestine. The fact that European and Ethiopian Jews share 95% of their Mitochondrial DNA with Jews from Palestine and the rest of the M.E. shows that they are very closely related. Then when the Mitochondrial DNA of arab muslims is tested for a match and the match comes in lower than the match for dogs, monkees and bananas it should set alarm bells ringing. These show that the arab muslims have no real ties to the land and are recent invaders that have never mixed with the true indigenous inhabitants of palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.  Among the indigenous Palestinians were JEWS.  Not a land theiving Muslim Palestinian among them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely right. There were indeed Jewish Palestinians, and when the Arabs drove out the Greco-Roman elites, many Christian and Jewish Palestinians converted to Islam and became Muslim Palestinians. So yes, there were never any land thieving Muslim Palestinians among them, correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what should Israel do about all of the land theiving Muslim Palestinians who have been occupying the land for generations without ever having any titles or deeds to the land they stole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really must read posts more carefully, " There *never were* any land thieving Muslim Palestinians.."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct because there was never any muslim Palestinians until Arafat the bent stole the name to give his cause a name.
Click to expand...


You too, need to read posts more carefully; but then again that's never been an issue for you, you just write down what your Hasbara controllers tell you to write.


----------



## aris2chat

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do understand the results that show the true picture. And how they relate to the whole situation in Palestine. The fact that European and Ethiopian Jews share 95% of their Mitochondrial DNA with Jews from Palestine and the rest of the M.E. shows that they are very closely related. Then when the Mitochondrial DNA of arab muslims is tested for a match and the match comes in lower than the match for dogs, monkees and bananas it should set alarm bells ringing. These show that the arab muslims have no real ties to the land and are recent invaders that have never mixed with the true indigenous inhabitants of palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.  Among the indigenous Palestinians were JEWS.  Not a land theiving Muslim Palestinian among them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were a "handful" of Arab Jews.  Jews that had not converted to Christianity early on or when it became the state religion (Christianity) of the Romans or to Islam after the Byzantines were defeated and Palestine became ruled by Muslims.  Or back to Christianity during the rule of the Europeans of Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem period (which lasted more than a century) or back to Islam after Saladin.  The regular people, the masses stayed pretty much the same, only the leadership changed.  That is, until the European Jews migrated to Palestine in great numbers, took the land and evicted the local people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The land had been granted to them by the legal owners, and it was the arab muslims that were the invaders. Even your book written by committee says this to be the case as it details the illegal migration of arab muslims to Palestine looking for work when the crops failed in Syria and Egypt. The Jews had been Jews from before the Roman invasion and did as Maimonides did when he faked his conversion to islam and practised Judaism in secret.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What utter drivel, more baloney from Phoney
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look it all up if you like, it is detailed in every history book that is UNBIASED
Click to expand...


 Advertisement

Harry Ostrer - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Einstein Hosts Conference on Jewish Genetic Research Albert Einstein College of Medicine


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> True.  Among the indigenous Palestinians were JEWS.  Not a land theiving Muslim Palestinian among them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were a "handful" of Arab Jews.  Jews that had not converted to Christianity early on or when it became the state religion (Christianity) of the Romans or to Islam after the Byzantines were defeated and Palestine became ruled by Muslims.  Or back to Christianity during the rule of the Europeans of Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem period (which lasted more than a century) or back to Islam after Saladin.  The regular people, the masses stayed pretty much the same, only the leadership changed.  That is, until the European Jews migrated to Palestine in great numbers, took the land and evicted the local people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The land had been granted to them by the legal owners, and it was the arab muslims that were the invaders. Even your book written by committee says this to be the case as it details the illegal migration of arab muslims to Palestine looking for work when the crops failed in Syria and Egypt. The Jews had been Jews from before the Roman invasion and did as Maimonides did when he faked his conversion to islam and practised Judaism in secret.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What utter drivel, more baloney from Phoney
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look it all up if you like, it is detailed in every history book that is UNBIASED
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, please, stop, my ribs won't take any more.
Click to expand...






 Well, with you ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA PARASITES it is either cry or laugh, I bet the laughter is hysterical


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Orders to slaughter the Caanites, Samaritans  and other people already  living in the area?  What religion of peace is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which was fairly common back then 4,500 years ago.  Now the people you call Palestinians did not exist 1400 years ago until Mohamed invented them. Then they went on the rampage and stole the land of millions of indigenous peoples across the M.E and Africa. They fought wars and mass murdered people to gain what is now Palestine then promptly lost it a bare 22 years later. They never recovered ownership or control of the land ever again . So how in any intelligent persons book can the arab muslims claim that Palestine is their homeland when they have not been there for 1000 years and the ones there now are recent illegal immigrants chasing work when the crops failed in Syria and Egypt.
> 
> Try reading your own links sometime Abdul it is all in there about the illegal arab muslim immigration and land theft by your hero's.
Click to expand...


The only recent immigrants who migrated  to Palestine in great numbers are the European Jews, as source documents record, the Muslim and Christians are basically the descendants of the same people tha were living there before Roman rule.  Some converted to the Roman religions, some converted to Christianity, some converted to Islam over the thousands of years of their presence in the area. As is clearly stated from Government records is that of the 414,456 migrants to Israel between 1920 and 1946, 376,415 were Jews, or about 90% of the migrants.


----------



## montelatici

Phoney asks posters to "look up" material he make


Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Orders to slaughter the Caanites, Samaritans  and other people already  living in the area?  What religion of peace is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which was fairly common back then 4,500 years ago.  Now the people you call Palestinians did not exist 1400 years ago until Mohamed invented them. Then they went on the rampage and stole the land of millions of indigenous peoples across the M.E and Africa. They fought wars and mass murdered people to gain what is now Palestine then promptly lost it a bare 22 years later. They never recovered ownership or control of the land ever again . So how in any intelligent persons book can the arab muslims claim that Palestine is their homeland when they have not been there for 1000 years and the ones there now are recent illegal immigrants chasing work when the crops failed in Syria and Egypt.
> 
> Try reading your own links sometime Abdul it is all in there about the illegal arab muslim immigration and land theft by your hero's.
Click to expand...


Try providing a link for once rather than making things up.  The Christians and Muslims owned over 95% of the land and the Jews less than 5% prior to partition, as you well know.  It is documented and I have provided links to the academic and governmental archives that hosts this data..


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Orders to slaughter the Caanites, Samaritans  and other people already  living in the area?  What religion of peace is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which was fairly common back then 4,500 years ago.  Now the people you call Palestinians did not exist 1400 years ago until Mohamed invented them. Then they went on the rampage and stole the land of millions of indigenous peoples across the M.E and Africa. They fought wars and mass murdered people to gain what is now Palestine then promptly lost it a bare 22 years later. They never recovered ownership or control of the land ever again . So how in any intelligent persons book can the arab muslims claim that Palestine is their homeland when they have not been there for 1000 years and the ones there now are recent illegal immigrants chasing work when the crops failed in Syria and Egypt.
> 
> Try reading your own links sometime Abdul it is all in there about the illegal arab muslim immigration and land theft by your hero's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only recent immigrants who migrated  to Palestine in great numbers are the European Jews, as source documents record, the Muslim and Christians are basically the descendants of the same people tha were living there before Roman rule.  Some converted to the Roman religions, some converted to Christianity, some converted to Islam over the thousands of years of their presence in the area. As is clearly stated from Government records is that of the 414,456 migrants to Israel between 1920 and 1946, 376,415 were Jews, or about 90% of the migrants.
> 
> View attachment 36701
Click to expand...





 Try reading your own link from page 208 and see what another member of the committee had to say about arab muslim illegal immigration. If you cant post all the relevant facts then it shows you are cherry picking just those facts that meet with your ISLAMONAZI BRAINWASHING


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoney asks posters to "look up" material he make
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Orders to slaughter the Caanites, Samaritans  and other people already  living in the area?  What religion of peace is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which was fairly common back then 4,500 years ago.  Now the people you call Palestinians did not exist 1400 years ago until Mohamed invented them. Then they went on the rampage and stole the land of millions of indigenous peoples across the M.E and Africa. They fought wars and mass murdered people to gain what is now Palestine then promptly lost it a bare 22 years later. They never recovered ownership or control of the land ever again . So how in any intelligent persons book can the arab muslims claim that Palestine is their homeland when they have not been there for 1000 years and the ones there now are recent illegal immigrants chasing work when the crops failed in Syria and Egypt.
> 
> Try reading your own links sometime Abdul it is all in there about the illegal arab muslim immigration and land theft by your hero's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try providing a link for once rather than making things up.  The Christians and Muslims owned over 95% of the land and the Jews less than 5% prior to partition, as you well know.  It is documented and I have provided links to the academic and governmental archives that hosts this data..
Click to expand...





 Only in as much as the LoN allowed them to until the Mandate ended and the land was handed over to the various factions. Your figure of 95% IS YET TO BE PROVEN CONCLUSIVELY, and is in dispute. So find another source that corroborates your claims or stop making them until you do.

 And stop trying to hide the facts behind your double talk when you know the arab muslims owned 0.8% of Palestine to the Jews 5% the rest was owned by absentee Ottoman landlords who rented it to the Jews


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Orders to slaughter the Caanites, Samaritans  and other people already  living in the area?  What religion of peace is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which was fairly common back then 4,500 years ago.  Now the people you call Palestinians did not exist 1400 years ago until Mohamed invented them. Then they went on the rampage and stole the land of millions of indigenous peoples across the M.E and Africa. They fought wars and mass murdered people to gain what is now Palestine then promptly lost it a bare 22 years later. They never recovered ownership or control of the land ever again . So how in any intelligent persons book can the arab muslims claim that Palestine is their homeland when they have not been there for 1000 years and the ones there now are recent illegal immigrants chasing work when the crops failed in Syria and Egypt.
> 
> Try reading your own links sometime Abdul it is all in there about the illegal arab muslim immigration and land theft by your hero's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only recent immigrants who migrated  to Palestine in great numbers are the European Jews, as source documents record, the Muslim and Christians are basically the descendants of the same people tha were living there before Roman rule.  Some converted to the Roman religions, some converted to Christianity, some converted to Islam over the thousands of years of their presence in the area. As is clearly stated from Government records is that of the 414,456 migrants to Israel between 1920 and 1946, 376,415 were Jews, or about 90% of the migrants.
> 
> View attachment 36701
Click to expand...






 Look at your own link again from page 208 and see what it says.


----------



## montelatici

This is page 208 (which is in Vol. 1). What does it say about "Arab muslim illegal immigration" that changes the documented numbers summarized in Vol. 2? I see I have caught you in another lie.  Why don't you give up.


----------



## Challenger

montelatici said:


> ...Why don't you give up.



He can't. He has to pay his bills somehow as a shill for is Zionist Hasbarat masters...


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> This is page 208 (which is in Vol. 1). What does it say about "Arab muslim illegal immigration" that changes the documented numbers summarized in Vol. 2? I see I have caught you in another lie.  Why don't you give up.
> 
> View attachment 36702






 Read further, or refer to the reply I gave on another post that details the illegal immigration of arab muslims


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Why don't you give up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He can't. He has to pay his bills somehow as a shill for is Zionist Hasbarat masters...
Click to expand...




 I have no problems paying my bills being the recipient of a rather large pension that I paid into for 32 years, and I paid additional contributions so it would not have a shortfall. Many people working don't get the wages I get, or the benefits of being over 60.............


----------



## montelatici

Come on, give it up you said page 208, I gave you page 208.  The tables in volume 2 show the immigration numbers from 1920-1946.  90% of the migrants were Jews. You are basically a liar.


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Why don't you give up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He can't. He has to pay his bills somehow as a shill for is Zionist Hasbarat masters...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problems paying my bills being the recipient of a rather large pension that I paid into for 32 years, and I paid additional contributions so it would not have a shortfall. Many people working don't get the wages I get, or the benefits of being over 60.............
Click to expand...


Finally, that explains it...why you post like a12 year old petulant brat...it's the senility setting in.  I'll make allowances from now on.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is page 208 (which is in Vol. 1). What does it say about "Arab muslim illegal immigration" that changes the documented numbers summarized in Vol. 2? I see I have caught you in another lie.  Why don't you give up.
> 
> View attachment 36702
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read further, or refer to the reply I gave on another post that details the illegal immigration of arab muslims
Click to expand...


I read this on page 212:

"


----------



## montelatici

Poor, poor Phoney.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Come on, give it up you said page 208, I gave you page 208.  The tables in volume 2 show the immigration numbers from 1920-1946.  90% of the migrants were Jews. You are basically a liar.






 English is definitely not your first language is it, I said from page 208 and then I gave you the salient parts that show the committee changed the rules to hide the illegal immigration of thousands of arab muslims into Palestine.


 You are basically a PROPAGANDIST AND LIAR paid by the locaql mosque to write your LIES and PROPAGANDA


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Why don't you give up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He can't. He has to pay his bills somehow as a shill for is Zionist Hasbarat masters...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problems paying my bills being the recipient of a rather large pension that I paid into for 32 years, and I paid additional contributions so it would not have a shortfall. Many people working don't get the wages I get, or the benefits of being over 60.............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finally, that explains it...why you post like a12 year old petulant brat...it's the senility setting in.  I'll make allowances from now on.
Click to expand...




 No senility setting still as sharp as ever, that sharp that I can spot a neo Marxist plant a mile off. And you have just proven that is what you are by employing the rules in your book of dirty tricks.   Rule 13 when losing any argument start bringing the opponents mental faculties into question, this way you will save the day and come out on top. 

 YOU LOST and now the board see's you for what you are.................


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is page 208 (which is in Vol. 1). What does it say about "Arab muslim illegal immigration" that changes the documented numbers summarized in Vol. 2? I see I have caught you in another lie.  Why don't you give up.
> 
> View attachment 36702
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read further, or refer to the reply I gave on another post that details the illegal immigration of arab muslims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read this on page 212:
> 
> "View attachment 36704View attachment 36704
Click to expand...





 Did you also see this


60. There has, however, *been considerable illegal immigration

 
of a temporary nature by Arabs from neighbouring territories in

 
search of employment during the war years.* With the détérioration

of the Allied position in North Africa in 1942, Palestine

became an arsenal for both offence and defence. Airfields, defences

and roads had to be rapidly constructed and there arose a demand

for labour exceeding the local supply.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Poor, poor Phoney.







 More like poor poor abdul


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Why don't you give up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He can't. He has to pay his bills somehow as a shill for is Zionist Hasbarat masters...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problems paying my bills being the recipient of a rather large pension that I paid into for 32 years, and I paid additional contributions so it would not have a shortfall. Many people working don't get the wages I get, or the benefits of being over 60.............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finally, that explains it...why you post like a12 year old petulant brat...it's the senility setting in.  I'll make allowances from now on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No senility setting still as sharp as ever, that sharp that I can spot a neo Marxist plant a mile off. And you have just proven that is what you are by employing the rules in your book of dirty tricks.   Rule 13 when losing any argument start bringing the opponents mental faculties into question, this way you will save the day and come out on top.
> 
> YOU LOST and now the board see's you for what you are.................
Click to expand...


Who did you get to type that for you gramps? Rule 13 is "Nothing is Sacred" Urban Dictionary Rules Of The Internet


----------



## montelatici

*I think that resolves the issue and the statistical data provided in volume 2. confirms the fact that 90% of the immigration to Palestine was Jewish:




 *


----------



## theliq

montelatici said:


> View attachment 36705
> 
> *I think that resolves the issue and the statistical data provided in volume 2. confirms the fact that 90% of the immigration to Palestine was Jewish:
> 
> 
> View attachment 36706 *


Excellent Monti,these Zionist fools live in a Terrorist Zionist Mantra Bubble............Truth,Facts and Reality are words not in their Lexicon.......But Bullshit is of course.steve


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Why don't you give up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He can't. He has to pay his bills somehow as a shill for is Zionist Hasbarat masters...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problems paying my bills being the recipient of a rather large pension that I paid into for 32 years, and I paid additional contributions so it would not have a shortfall. Many people working don't get the wages I get, or the benefits of being over 60.............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finally, that explains it...why you post like a12 year old petulant brat...it's the senility setting in.  I'll make allowances from now on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No senility setting still as sharp as ever, that sharp that I can spot a neo Marxist plant a mile off. And you have just proven that is what you are by employing the rules in your book of dirty tricks.   Rule 13 when losing any argument start bringing the opponents mental faculties into question, this way you will save the day and come out on top.
> 
> YOU LOST and now the board see's you for what you are.................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who did you get to type that for you gramps? Rule 13 is "Nothing is Sacred" Urban Dictionary Rules Of The Internet
Click to expand...





 Don't like being put down by someone who has been there, done that and still wears the T shirt


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> View attachment 36705
> 
> *I think that resolves the issue and the statistical data provided in volume 2. confirms the fact that 90% of the immigration to Palestine was Jewish:
> 
> 
> View attachment 36706 *






 Only for that 26 year period, what about the illegal immigration in the 50 years prior to this or the 40 years after


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 36705
> 
> *I think that resolves the issue and the statistical data provided in volume 2. confirms the fact that 90% of the immigration to Palestine was Jewish:
> 
> 
> View attachment 36706 *
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent Monti,these Zionist fools live in a Terrorist Zionist Mantra Bubble............Truth,Facts and Reality are words not in their Lexicon.......But Bullshit is of course.steve
Click to expand...





 What truth. facts and reality when you use a tiny time frame for your reference. Try using the full time frame of Jewish immigration to Palestine starting in the 1850's and going up to the 1980's and see who comes out on top.


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> He can't. He has to pay his bills somehow as a shill for is Zionist Hasbarat masters...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problems paying my bills being the recipient of a rather large pension that I paid into for 32 years, and I paid additional contributions so it would not have a shortfall. Many people working don't get the wages I get, or the benefits of being over 60.............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finally, that explains it...why you post like a12 year old petulant brat...it's the senility setting in.  I'll make allowances from now on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No senility setting still as sharp as ever, that sharp that I can spot a neo Marxist plant a mile off. And you have just proven that is what you are by employing the rules in your book of dirty tricks.   Rule 13 when losing any argument start bringing the opponents mental faculties into question, this way you will save the day and come out on top.
> 
> YOU LOST and now the board see's you for what you are.................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who did you get to type that for you gramps? Rule 13 is "Nothing is Sacred" Urban Dictionary Rules Of The Internet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't like being put down by someone who has been there, done that and still wears the T shirt
Click to expand...


Aah, you been dreaming again gramps?


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 36705
> 
> *I think that resolves the issue and the statistical data provided in volume 2. confirms the fact that 90% of the immigration to Palestine was Jewish:
> 
> 
> View attachment 36706 *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only for that 26 year period, what about the illegal immigration in the 50 years prior to this or the 40 years after
Click to expand...


You mean prior to 1850, when there were only a handful of Jews in Palestine or after partition when there was no immigration at all with the IDF controlling the borders?  But that is fully 

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

The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. *Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. Most of them were animated by religious motives; they came to pray and to die in the Holy Land, and to be buried in its soil. After the persecutions in Russia forty years ago, the movement of the Jews to Palestine assumed larger proportions. Jewish agricultural colonies were founded."
*
No mention of non-Jewish migration between 1850 and 1920 at all. Only Jewish migration.  I wonder why?
*
*Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921


----------



## Challenger

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 36705
> 
> *I think that resolves the issue and the statistical data provided in volume 2. confirms the fact that 90% of the immigration to Palestine was Jewish:
> 
> 
> View attachment 36706 *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only for that 26 year period, what about the illegal immigration in the 50 years prior to this or the 40 years after
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean prior to 1850, when there were only a handful of Jews in Palestine or after partition when there was no immigration at all with the IDF controlling the borders?  But that is fully
> 
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. *Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. Most of them were animated by religious motives; they came to pray and to die in the Holy Land, and to be buried in its soil. After the persecutions in Russia forty years ago, the movement of the Jews to Palestine assumed larger proportions. Jewish agricultural colonies were founded."
> *
> No mention of non-Jewish migration between 1850 and 1920 at all. Only Jewish migration.  I wonder why?
> 
> Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
Click to expand...


I admire your tenacity. You've proved your point time after time providing primary and secondary sources in many different threads, and all they can do is vent their hatred at you or rely on discredited BS based on Peters and Deschowitz, much respect. Keep up the good work.


----------



## montelatici

It's hard work, but somebody has to do it. LOL


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problems paying my bills being the recipient of a rather large pension that I paid into for 32 years, and I paid additional contributions so it would not have a shortfall. Many people working don't get the wages I get, or the benefits of being over 60.............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, that explains it...why you post like a12 year old petulant brat...it's the senility setting in.  I'll make allowances from now on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No senility setting still as sharp as ever, that sharp that I can spot a neo Marxist plant a mile off. And you have just proven that is what you are by employing the rules in your book of dirty tricks.   Rule 13 when losing any argument start bringing the opponents mental faculties into question, this way you will save the day and come out on top.
> 
> YOU LOST and now the board see's you for what you are.................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who did you get to type that for you gramps? Rule 13 is "Nothing is Sacred" Urban Dictionary Rules Of The Internet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't like being put down by someone who has been there, done that and still wears the T shirt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aah, you been dreaming again gramps?
Click to expand...




 Not at all, you little kids don't know the first thing about life, which is why you make so many stupid mistakes.


----------



## montelatici

You are probably the poster that posts the most invented bullshit of all, except maybe Ruddy.  Talk about mistakes.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Leila Khaled *

**


----------



## 50_RiaL

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 36705
> 
> *I think that resolves the issue and the statistical data provided in volume 2. confirms the fact that 90% of the immigration to Palestine was Jewish:
> 
> 
> View attachment 36706 *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only for that 26 year period, what about the illegal immigration in the 50 years prior to this or the 40 years after
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean prior to 1850, when there were only a handful of Jews in Palestine or after partition when there was no immigration at all with the IDF controlling the borders?  But that is fully
> 
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. *Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. Most of them were animated by religious motives; they came to pray and to die in the Holy Land, and to be buried in its soil. After the persecutions in Russia forty years ago, the movement of the Jews to Palestine assumed larger proportions. Jewish agricultural colonies were founded."
> *
> No mention of non-Jewish migration between 1850 and 1920 at all. Only Jewish migration.  I wonder why?
> 
> Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
Click to expand...


Hate to rain on your parade there, bud -- but your boys in the UK call the Arabs, occupiers: "A number of them [i.e. Jews] ... had clung throughout the centuries of Moslem occupation to what had once been their national soil ..." -- The Palestine Royal Commission Report (p.7), July 1937.

While the folks over at Wiki' call them invaders: "In 629 Palestine was invaded by Arabs from the Hejaz." (Demographic history of Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia)


----------



## 50_RiaL

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was contrary to your fictitious customary international law?  The people of Palestine did not want to be evicted from their homeland by the migrating European Jews.  That's why they didn't want Jewish immigration to their homeland.  Nothing to do with any international law. People have the right to resist invasion and eventual eviction.  Every one knew that the European Jews were planning a takeover.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!  You mean the Palestinian people didn't want to be evicted from their homeland of Israel?   I didn't know that.  Amazing what we can learn here.  So please tell us when did Israel's ancient land become this Palestinian land that Israel is now evicting them from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their homeland of Palestine had been  their homeland for over 2000 years  The European Jews had no connection to Palestine.  They were Europeans, from another continent.  Learn some geography.
Click to expand...


Roman historian Cassius Dio (164-c.235) says otherwise: "At Jerusalem, Hadrian founded a city in place of the one which had been razed to the ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina, and on the site of the temple ... he raised a new temple to Jupiter.
This brought on a war of no slight importance nor of brief duration, for the JEWS [emphasis mine] deemed it intolerable that foreign races should be settled in THEIR[emphasis mine] city and foreign religious rites planted there." (From Cassius Dio, Roman history 69.12.1-14). 

Nope, no mention of any "Palestinians."


----------



## 50_RiaL

montelatici said:


> Orders to slaughter the Caanites, Samaritans  and other people already  living in the area?  What religion of peace is that?



Baloney, where'd you get this piece of information from?


----------



## 50_RiaL

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> True.  Among the indigenous Palestinians were JEWS.  Not a land theiving Muslim Palestinian among them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely right. There were indeed Jewish Palestinians, and when the Arabs drove out the Greco-Roman elites, many Christian and Jewish Palestinians converted to Islam and became Muslim Palestinians. So yes, there were never any land thieving Muslim Palestinians among them, correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what should Israel do about all of the land theiving Muslim Palestinians who have been occupying the land for generations without ever having any titles or deeds to the land they stole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You reall must read posts more carefully, " There *never were* any land thieving Muslim Palestinians.."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct because there was never any muslim Palestinians until Arafat the bent stole the name to give his cause a name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual you make a fool of yourself every time you post.  In 1922 the Palestinians were calling themselves the people of Palestinian as per their correspondence with the Government of Great Britain:
> 
> To wit:
> 
> 
> *CORRESPONDENCE
> WITH THE
> PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
> AND THE
> ZIONIST ORGANISATION.*
> 
> *Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
> JUNE, 1922.
> 
> *​We, therefore, hold that the proposed constitution is wholly unsatisfactory, because:—
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _(a) _In the preamble to the Palestine Order in Council "the declaration of November 2nd, 1917, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People" is made a basis for this Order; *the People of Palestine *cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion.​
> 
> *
> 
> *​- See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
Click to expand...


The Arabs were calling themselves, "the People of Palestine," not "the people of Palestinian" as you misstated.

Both Arabs and Jews living in Palestine were referred by the Brits as Palestinian:

"From the first, the junior posts were filled by Palestinians, Arab and Jew." -- The Palestine Royal Commission Report (p.43).

In the same PRC report (p.4) the Holy Land is referred as "Jewish Palestine."

Interesting, that the Arab political representation during the British Mandate period, was called the Arab Higher Committee, and not the "Palestinian" Higher Committee.


----------



## 50_RiaL

theliq said:


> 50_RiaL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 50_RiaL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were only a handful of Jews in Palestine prior to the arrival of the land thieving European Jews. Why do you constantly lie?
> 
> 
> 
> Source documentation:
> *
> "AN INTERIM REPORT ON THE CIVIL ADMINISTRATION OF PALESTINE, during the period 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921."*​
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years.* Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.* - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?  There's has been a Jewish majority in Jerusalem since the 1840s.
> 
> Many of those Arab squatters crossed the Sinai from Egypt into the Holy Land to escape Mehmmet Ali's forced labor details beginning in 1829.
> 
> "[E]very Palestinian in Gaza and all over Palestine can prove their Arab roots, whether they be in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, or anywhere else ... half of my family is Egyptian ... [t]here are over 30 families in the Gaza Strip with the surname Al-Masri, 'Egyptian.'  Brothers, half of the Palestinians are Egyptian, and the other half are Saudi." -- Fathi Hamad, Hamas minister of the interior and of national security, March 23, 2012.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot,all Palestinians are Semitic Peoples.....Some Jews are NOT......All other Arabs are NOT....you need educating in Geography,Demographics,and Jewish and Palestinian History..........or then why bother with a Zionist Drone like you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pipe down, puss.  Who's gonna know better, some ball-liqer in cyberspace or a Hamas senior official?  For there to be true peace, those Arab squatters' got to go where they came from -- be it the Arabian peninsula, Egypt or the Maghreb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh......You are suffering from a non  ability of Geography from whence people came from but keep trying......you will find the place eventually,maybe not because your holy book..The Zionist Terrorist Mantra is only 100 years old.Moron
Click to expand...


Meathead, Zionism is way older than 100 years. check out these paleo-Zionists:

"By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof.
For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion.
How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning.
If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy." -- Psalm 137: 1-6


----------



## 50_RiaL

An 1852 contemporary view on the Jews and Arabs in Palestine

From Remarks on the present condition and future prospects of the Jews in Palestine, by Arthur George Harper Hollingsworth, 1852:

The population in Palestine is composed of Arabs, who roam about the plains, or lurk in the mountain fastnesses as robbers and strangers, having no settled home, and without any fixed attachment to the land. In many of the ruined cities and villages there exists also, a limited number of Christian families, uncivilized, and not knowing correctly from what race they derive their origin. Poor, and without influence, they tremblingly hold their miserable possessions from year to year, without security, and without wealth,* in a land which they confess is not their own. ...*

 The Arab and Christian populations diminish every year. Poverty, distress, insecurity, robbery, and disease continue to weaken the inhabitants of this fine country. Ruins fall upon ruins; solitudes increase in the deserted vallies. The land mourneth for its inhabitants. ...

 Amongst the scattered and feeble population of this once happy country, is found, however, an increasing number of poor Jews; some of their most learned men reside in the holy cities of Jerusalem, Hebron, and Tiberias. Their synagogues are still in existence. Jews frequently arrive in Palestine from every nation in Europe, and remain there for many years'; and others die with the satisfaction of mingling their remains with their forefathers’ dust, which fills every valley, and is found in every cave.

 This Jewish population is poor beyond any adequate word ; it is degraded in its social and political condition, to a state of misery, so great, that it possesses no rights. It can shew no wealth even if possessed of it, because to display riches would secure robbery from the Mahometan population, the Turkish officials, or the Bedouin Arab. These Jews live chiefly on alm, collected from the nation in all parts of the world. There is no people more charitable, though that charity is generally exclusive, than the Jew. This money is precarious in .its amount, frequently tardy in its arrival, always uncertain when it may be received, lost sometimes in its passage, and accompanied ever by the degradation of receiving a distant and unsettled charity, supporting a wretchedly impoverished and famishing people. No advancement is made by the Jew of Palestine, in trafficking, in commerce, in farming, in the possession of settled houses or lands. There alone, where he ought to be first, he is last; and where in all other countries a Jew thrives and increases in wealth, in that one he is spiritless from oppression, and without energy, because without hope of Protection. He creeps along that soil, where his forefathers proudly strode in the fulncss of a wonderful prosperity, as an alien, an outcast, a creature less than a dog, and below the oppressed Christian beggar in his own ancestral plains and cities. No harvest ripens for his hand, for he cannot tell whether he will be permitted to gather it. Land occupied by a Jew is exposed to robbery and waste. A most peevish jealousy exists against the landed prosperity, or commercial wealth, or trading advancement of the Jew. Hindrances exist to the settlement of a British Christian in that country, but a thousand petty obstructions are created to prevent the establishment of a Jew on waste land, or to the purchase and rental of land by a Jew. “

...Agricultural pursuits are attended with much hazard, for, in the vicinity of the Jordan there are many Arabs, who support themselves chiefly by plunder. ...What security exists, that a Jewish _ emigrant settling in Palestine, could receive a fair remuneration for his capital and labour? None whatever. He might toil, but his harvests would be reaped by others; the Arab robber can rush in and carry off his flocks and herds. If he appeals for redress to the nearest Pasha, the taint of his Jewish blood fills the air, and darkens the brows of his oppressors ; if he turns to his neighbour Christian, he encounters prejudice and spite ; if he claims a Turkish guard, he is insolently repulsed and scorned. How can he bring his capital into such a country, when that fugitive possession flies from places where the sword is drawn to snatch it from the owner’s hands and not protect it ?

 ,,,Now, how is this poor, despised, and powerless child of Abraham to obtain redress, or make his voice heard at the Sublime Porte? The more numerous the cases of oppression, (and they are many), the more clamorous their appeals for justice, the more unwillingly will the government of the Sultan,—partly from inherent and increasing weakness, partly from disinclination,—act on the side of the Jew. *They despise them as an execrated race ; they hate them as the literal descendants of the original possessors of the country.* ...


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Leila Khaled *
> 
> **






 TWO PSYCHOPATHIC TERRORIST MURDERING SCUM TOGETHER


----------



## MJB12741

50_RiaL said:


> An 1852 contemporary view on the Jews and Arabs in Palestine
> 
> From Remarks on the present condition and future prospects of the Jews in Palestine, by Arthur George Harper Hollingsworth, 1852:
> 
> The population in Palestine is composed of Arabs, who roam about the plains, or lurk in the mountain fastnesses as robbers and strangers, having no settled home, and without any fixed attachment to the land. In many of the ruined cities and villages there exists also, a limited number of Christian families, uncivilized, and not knowing correctly from what race they derive their origin. Poor, and without influence, they tremblingly hold their miserable possessions from year to year, without security, and without wealth,* in a land which they confess is not their own. ...*
> 
> The Arab and Christian populations diminish every year. Poverty, distress, insecurity, robbery, and disease continue to weaken the inhabitants of this fine country. Ruins fall upon ruins; solitudes increase in the deserted vallies. The land mourneth for its inhabitants. ...
> 
> Amongst the scattered and feeble population of this once happy country, is found, however, an increasing number of poor Jews; some of their most learned men reside in the holy cities of Jerusalem, Hebron, and Tiberias. Their synagogues are still in existence. Jews frequently arrive in Palestine from every nation in Europe, and remain there for many years'; and others die with the satisfaction of mingling their remains with their forefathers’ dust, which fills every valley, and is found in every cave.
> 
> This Jewish population is poor beyond any adequate word ; it is degraded in its social and political condition, to a state of misery, so great, that it possesses no rights. It can shew no wealth even if possessed of it, because to display riches would secure robbery from the Mahometan population, the Turkish officials, or the Bedouin Arab. These Jews live chiefly on alm, collected from the nation in all parts of the world. There is no people more charitable, though that charity is generally exclusive, than the Jew. This money is precarious in .its amount, frequently tardy in its arrival, always uncertain when it may be received, lost sometimes in its passage, and accompanied ever by the degradation of receiving a distant and unsettled charity, supporting a wretchedly impoverished and famishing people. No advancement is made by the Jew of Palestine, in trafficking, in commerce, in farming, in the possession of settled houses or lands. There alone, where he ought to be first, he is last; and where in all other countries a Jew thrives and increases in wealth, in that one he is spiritless from oppression, and without energy, because without hope of Protection. He creeps along that soil, where his forefathers proudly strode in the fulncss of a wonderful prosperity, as an alien, an outcast, a creature less than a dog, and below the oppressed Christian beggar in his own ancestral plains and cities. No harvest ripens for his hand, for he cannot tell whether he will be permitted to gather it. Land occupied by a Jew is exposed to robbery and waste. A most peevish jealousy exists against the landed prosperity, or commercial wealth, or trading advancement of the Jew. Hindrances exist to the settlement of a British Christian in that country, but a thousand petty obstructions are created to prevent the establishment of a Jew on waste land, or to the purchase and rental of land by a Jew. “
> 
> ...Agricultural pursuits are attended with much hazard, for, in the vicinity of the Jordan there are many Arabs, who support themselves chiefly by plunder. ...What security exists, that a Jewish _ emigrant settling in Palestine, could receive a fair remuneration for his capital and labour? None whatever. He might toil, but his harvests would be reaped by others; the Arab robber can rush in and carry off his flocks and herds. If he appeals for redress to the nearest Pasha, the taint of his Jewish blood fills the air, and darkens the brows of his oppressors ; if he turns to his neighbour Christian, he encounters prejudice and spite ; if he claims a Turkish guard, he is insolently repulsed and scorned. How can he bring his capital into such a country, when that fugitive possession flies from places where the sword is drawn to snatch it from the owner’s hands and not protect it ?
> 
> ,,,Now, how is this poor, despised, and powerless child of Abraham to obtain redress, or make his voice heard at the Sublime Porte? The more numerous the cases of oppression, (and they are many), the more clamorous their appeals for justice, the more unwillingly will the government of the Sultan,—partly from inherent and increasing weakness, partly from disinclination,—act on the side of the Jew. *They despise them as an execrated race ; they hate them as the literal descendants of the original possessors of the country.* ...


----------



## MJB12741

50_RiaL said:


> An 1852 contemporary view on the Jews and Arabs in Palestine
> 
> From Remarks on the present condition and future prospects of the Jews in Palestine, by Arthur George Harper Hollingsworth, 1852:
> 
> The population in Palestine is composed of Arabs, who roam about the plains, or lurk in the mountain fastnesses as robbers and strangers, having no settled home, and without any fixed attachment to the land. In many of the ruined cities and villages there exists also, a limited number of Christian families, uncivilized, and not knowing correctly from what race they derive their origin. Poor, and without influence, they tremblingly hold their miserable possessions from year to year, without security, and without wealth,* in a land which they confess is not their own. ...*
> 
> The Arab and Christian populations diminish every year. Poverty, distress, insecurity, robbery, and disease continue to weaken the inhabitants of this fine country. Ruins fall upon ruins; solitudes increase in the deserted vallies. The land mourneth for its inhabitants. ...
> 
> Amongst the scattered and feeble population of this once happy country, is found, however, an increasing number of poor Jews; some of their most learned men reside in the holy cities of Jerusalem, Hebron, and Tiberias. Their synagogues are still in existence. Jews frequently arrive in Palestine from every nation in Europe, and remain there for many years'; and others die with the satisfaction of mingling their remains with their forefathers’ dust, which fills every valley, and is found in every cave.
> 
> This Jewish population is poor beyond any adequate word ; it is degraded in its social and political condition, to a state of misery, so great, that it possesses no rights. It can shew no wealth even if possessed of it, because to display riches would secure robbery from the Mahometan population, the Turkish officials, or the Bedouin Arab. These Jews live chiefly on alm, collected from the nation in all parts of the world. There is no people more charitable, though that charity is generally exclusive, than the Jew. This money is precarious in .its amount, frequently tardy in its arrival, always uncertain when it may be received, lost sometimes in its passage, and accompanied ever by the degradation of receiving a distant and unsettled charity, supporting a wretchedly impoverished and famishing people. No advancement is made by the Jew of Palestine, in trafficking, in commerce, in farming, in the possession of settled houses or lands. There alone, where he ought to be first, he is last; and where in all other countries a Jew thrives and increases in wealth, in that one he is spiritless from oppression, and without energy, because without hope of Protection. He creeps along that soil, where his forefathers proudly strode in the fulncss of a wonderful prosperity, as an alien, an outcast, a creature less than a dog, and below the oppressed Christian beggar in his own ancestral plains and cities. No harvest ripens for his hand, for he cannot tell whether he will be permitted to gather it. Land occupied by a Jew is exposed to robbery and waste. A most peevish jealousy exists against the landed prosperity, or commercial wealth, or trading advancement of the Jew. Hindrances exist to the settlement of a British Christian in that country, but a thousand petty obstructions are created to prevent the establishment of a Jew on waste land, or to the purchase and rental of land by a Jew. “
> 
> ...Agricultural pursuits are attended with much hazard, for, in the vicinity of the Jordan there are many Arabs, who support themselves chiefly by plunder. ...What security exists, that a Jewish _ emigrant settling in Palestine, could receive a fair remuneration for his capital and labour? None whatever. He might toil, but his harvests would be reaped by others; the Arab robber can rush in and carry off his flocks and herds. If he appeals for redress to the nearest Pasha, the taint of his Jewish blood fills the air, and darkens the brows of his oppressors ; if he turns to his neighbour Christian, he encounters prejudice and spite ; if he claims a Turkish guard, he is insolently repulsed and scorned. How can he bring his capital into such a country, when that fugitive possession flies from places where the sword is drawn to snatch it from the owner’s hands and not protect it ?
> 
> ,,,Now, how is this poor, despised, and powerless child of Abraham to obtain redress, or make his voice heard at the Sublime Porte? The more numerous the cases of oppression, (and they are many), the more clamorous their appeals for justice, the more unwillingly will the government of the Sultan,—partly from inherent and increasing weakness, partly from disinclination,—act on the side of the Jew. *They despise them as an execrated race ; they hate them as the literal descendants of the original possessors of the country.* ...



How long shall Israel continue to allow the Palestinian land theives to remain in Israel?  Problem is that no surrounding Arab country, who know the Palestinians best, will grant them a right of return back to their indigenous homelands.


----------



## montelatici

No one wanted the Jews in Europe or the U.S., so the West landed them in Palestine where their presence has caused major conflict since their arrival.  The real question is when will the demographics become so overwhelming that the West begins treating Israel as apartheid South Africa was treated, and forced to become a democracy?

By the way, instead of posting an unverifiable travel log, why don't we see what Palestine was really like in the 1800s.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Leila Khaled *
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TWO PSYCHOPATHIC TERRORIST MURDERING SCUM TOGETHER
Click to expand...

Oh really?

How many people has Leila Khaled  killed?


----------



## Hossfly

*Who are the Palestinians?  Here's is a current example.* MJB12741


Before Deah Barakat is beatified by the Pope, some tweets have been published that show his attitude toward Jews and others. Then there's the donations to..........who?

*ChapelHillShooting Victim’s Anti-Semitic, Anti-Zionist, Pro-Terrorist Tweets*

*
Editor’s note: We obviously don’t support the taking of any life but we also don’t support the lionization of the dead. While many of the obituaries of Dean Bhakarat have focused on his alleged charitable endeavors, we thought we’d give you a deeper dive.

The official motive of the shooting of three Muslim-Americans in North Carolina was a dispute over a parking spot but the left-wing and Arab media are calling the killings a hate crime. 

We really have no idea what actually happened between the suspect and the three Muslim-Americans. It’s equally possible that Deah Barakat’s hatred of whites could have provoked the incident as Craig Stephen Hicks avowed dislike of religion.

One of the Chapel Hill shooting victim’s tweets reveal anti-Semitic, anti-white, anti-Israel, and anti-Zionist views.

Deah Barakat tweeted over 8,000 times. Some of them are about sports. Many of them are hateful.





Barakat retweeted anti-Semitic cartoons often.



He retweeted and backed 9-11 conspiracy theories and compared the treatment of the Palestinians to that of Jews during the Holocaust.




BREAKING ChapelHillShooting Victim s Anti-Semitic Anti-Zionist Pro-Terrorist Tweets - GotNews
Sally*


----------



## montelatici

What is antisemitic about the cartoon?  Don't Israelis kill Palestinian children by the 100s on a regular basis?


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> What is antisemitic about the cartoon?  Don't Israelis kill Palestinian children by the 100s on a regular basis?


Not that I'm aware of. It said anti-Semitic tweets. Open the link and read his tweets.


----------



## montelatici

Hossfly said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is antisemitic about the cartoon?  Don't Israelis kill Palestinian children by the 100s on a regular basis?
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I'm aware of. It said anti-Semitic tweets. Open the link and read his tweets.
Click to expand...


How many Palestinian children were killed by the Israelis just this summer?  A few hundred at least.

*Gaza: Nearly 300 Palestinian children killed, says UN*

*Gaza Nearly 300 Palestinian children killed says UN - Telegraph*


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is antisemitic about the cartoon?  Don't Israelis kill Palestinian children by the 100s on a regular basis?
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I'm aware of. It said anti-Semitic tweets. Open the link and read his tweets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many Palestinian children were killed by the Israelis just this summer?  A few hundred at least.
> 
> *Gaza: Nearly 300 Palestinian children killed, says UN*
> 
> *Gaza Nearly 300 Palestinian children killed says UN - Telegraph*
Click to expand...

The UM says nearly 300. Who am I to argue with that august body? What does that have to do with the tweets and the cartoon?


----------



## montelatici

Just the fact that Israeli Jews are killing Christian and Muslim Palestinians by the hundreds on a regular basis.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> Just the fact that Israeli Jews are killing Christian and Muslim Palestinians by the hundreds on a regular basis.


They should not fire rockets, drive cars into crowds and stop the knife attacks.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Leila Khaled *
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TWO PSYCHOPATHIC TERRORIST MURDERING SCUM TOGETHER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> How many people has Leila Khaled  killed?
Click to expand...





 How many has she enabled to kill by her incitement to terrorism ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> What is antisemitic about the cartoon?  Don't Israelis kill Palestinian children by the 100s on a regular basis?





 No they kill terrorists on a regular basis. So if the terrorists use the children as human shields then it is them who killed the children under INTERNATIONAL LAW.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is antisemitic about the cartoon?  Don't Israelis kill Palestinian children by the 100s on a regular basis?
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I'm aware of. It said anti-Semitic tweets. Open the link and read his tweets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many Palestinian children were killed by the Israelis just this summer?  A few hundred at least.
> 
> *Gaza: Nearly 300 Palestinian children killed, says UN*
> 
> *Gaza Nearly 300 Palestinian children killed says UN - Telegraph*
Click to expand...





 And when you read the UN charter and the Geneva conventions you find that it is the Palestinians that are to blame for those 300 children getting killed. The sooner the UN admit this in open session the sooner the Palestinians will be dragged before the ICJ on charges of genocide, mass murder, war crimes, crimes against humanity and breaches of humanitarian law.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Just the fact that Israeli Jews are killing Christian and Muslim Palestinians by the hundreds on a regular basis.







 No the Palestinians are killing them by using them as human shields, which is why hamas does not want fatah to take it to the ICJ.   keep telling to read and understand the Geneva conventions and how they apply to the Palestinians attacks on jews.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Leila Khaled *
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TWO PSYCHOPATHIC TERRORIST MURDERING SCUM TOGETHER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> How many people has Leila Khaled  killed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many has she enabled to kill by her incitement to terrorism ?
Click to expand...

I don't know. Do you have some stats with links?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just the fact that Israeli Jews are killing Christian and Muslim Palestinians by the hundreds on a regular basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No the Palestinians are killing them by using them as human shields, which is why hamas does not want fatah to take it to the ICJ.   keep telling to read and understand the Geneva conventions and how they apply to the Palestinians attacks on jews.
Click to expand...

Israel shovels that same shit every time it bombs the crap out of civilians.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just the fact that Israeli Jews are killing Christian and Muslim Palestinians by the hundreds on a regular basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No the Palestinians are killing them by using them as human shields, which is why hamas does not want fatah to take it to the ICJ.   keep telling to read and understand the Geneva conventions and how they apply to the Palestinians attacks on jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel shovels that same shit every time it bombs the crap out of civilians.
Click to expand...


Well golly gee.  Do you think maybe the Palestinian terrorists shouldn't have children around when & where they attack Israeli's?


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just the fact that Israeli Jews are killing Christian and Muslim Palestinians by the hundreds on a regular basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No the Palestinians are killing them by using them as human shields, which is why hamas does not want fatah to take it to the ICJ.   keep telling to read and understand the Geneva conventions and how they apply to the Palestinians attacks on jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel shovels that same shit every time it bombs the crap out of civilians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well golly gee.  Do you think maybe the Palestinian terrorists shouldn't have children around when & where they attack Israeli's?
Click to expand...

Do you think Israeli terrorists shouldn't have children around when they attack Palestinians?


----------



## elektra

Palestinians, are Arabs who the Arabs do not want.


----------



## montelatici

elektra said:


> Palestinians, are Arabs who the Arabs do not want.



The Nazis claimed the same thing about the Jews.  They felt that the the Jews were Europeans that the Europeans did not want. Are you a Nazi?


----------



## elektra

montelatici said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians, are Arabs who the Arabs do not want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Nazis claimed the same thing about the Jews.  They felt that the the Jews were Europeans that the Europeans did not want. Are you a Nazi?
Click to expand...

Liar, the Nazis never claimed Jews were Jews not wanted by jews. 

But, it is true that a Palestinian in Saudi arabia, kuwait, etc. Is considered inferior .. it is true that a Palestinian in Jordan must live in a refugee camp, never becoming a part of Jordan. 

A Palestinian is the least wanted person on the Arabian Peninsula, most of all, his Arab brothers forsake the Palestinians.


----------



## MaryL

This is like the proverbial rock between the hard place,  Palestine  or Israel.  I say, ISREAL.


----------



## elektra

Palestinians, ethnically are Jews.


----------



## aris2chat

elektra said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians, are Arabs who the Arabs do not want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Nazis claimed the same thing about the Jews.  They felt that the the Jews were Europeans that the Europeans did not want. Are you a Nazi?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar, the Nazis never claimed Jews were Jews not wanted by jews.
> 
> But, it is true that a Palestinian in Saudi arabia, kuwait, etc. Is considered inferior .. it is true that a Palestinian in Jordan must live in a refugee camp, never becoming a part of Jordan.
> 
> A Palestinian is the least wanted person on the Arabian Peninsula, most of all, his Arab brothers forsake the Palestinians.
Click to expand...


58 camps and 1.5 million palestinian refugees.  Some have taken citizenship.  Jordan offer to all the palestinian, then black september.  Many, mostly fighter, were kicked out of jordan.


----------



## elektra

aris2chat said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians, are Arabs who the Arabs do not want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Nazis claimed the same thing about the Jews.  They felt that the the Jews were Europeans that the Europeans did not want. Are you a Nazi?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar, the Nazis never claimed Jews were Jews not wanted by jews.
> 
> But, it is true that a Palestinian in Saudi arabia, kuwait, etc. Is considered inferior .. it is true that a Palestinian in Jordan must live in a refugee camp, never becoming a part of Jordan.
> 
> A Palestinian is the least wanted person on the Arabian Peninsula, most of all, his Arab brothers forsake the Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 58 camps and 1.5 million palestinian refugees.  Some have taken citizenship.  Jordan offer to all the palestinian, then black september.  Many, mostly fighter, were kicked out of jordan.
Click to expand...

How many were kicked out and where did they go?


----------



## Mindful




----------



## MJB12741

elektra said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians, are Arabs who the Arabs do not want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Nazis claimed the same thing about the Jews.  They felt that the the Jews were Europeans that the Europeans did not want. Are you a Nazi?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar, the Nazis never claimed Jews were Jews not wanted by jews.
> 
> But, it is true that a Palestinian in Saudi arabia, kuwait, etc. Is considered inferior .. it is true that a Palestinian in Jordan must live in a refugee camp, never becoming a part of Jordan.
> 
> A Palestinian is the least wanted person on the Arabian Peninsula, most of all, his Arab brothers forsake the Palestinians.
Click to expand...



So true.  What the Arab countries have done to their Palestinians is hard to forgive.  They massacred them by the tens of thousands & left tens of thousands others as refugees.  And has anyone ever heard a Palestinian or Palestinian supporter complaint about it?  But they sure come out of the closet when Israel makes peace offerings to them, builds a security fence & concedes land to them.  It's called Palestinian mentality.


----------



## aris2chat

elektra said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians, are Arabs who the Arabs do not want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Nazis claimed the same thing about the Jews.  They felt that the the Jews were Europeans that the Europeans did not want. Are you a Nazi?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar, the Nazis never claimed Jews were Jews not wanted by jews.
> 
> But, it is true that a Palestinian in Saudi arabia, kuwait, etc. Is considered inferior .. it is true that a Palestinian in Jordan must live in a refugee camp, never becoming a part of Jordan.
> 
> A Palestinian is the least wanted person on the Arabian Peninsula, most of all, his Arab brothers forsake the Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 58 camps and 1.5 million palestinian refugees.  Some have taken citizenship.  Jordan offer to all the palestinian, then black september.  Many, mostly fighter, were kicked out of jordan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many were kicked out and where did they go?
Click to expand...

 
Between half and three quarter of a million left and became refugees.  Arabs told them to leave to make way for the armies to defeat Israel.  They went to Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Egypt.  Conditions in the camps are poor.  Most of the countries have let only a handful become citizens.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Leila Khaled *
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TWO PSYCHOPATHIC TERRORIST MURDERING SCUM TOGETHER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> How many people has Leila Khaled  killed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many has she enabled to kill by her incitement to terrorism ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know. Do you have some stats with links?
Click to expand...





 I can tell you that the person she is with was the cause of over 1,000 deaths while he was in prison


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Leila Khaled *
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TWO PSYCHOPATHIC TERRORIST MURDERING SCUM TOGETHER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> How many people has Leila Khaled  killed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many has she enabled to kill by her incitement to terrorism ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know. Do you have some stats with links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you that the person she is with was the cause of over 1,000 deaths while he was in prison
Click to expand...

While he was in prison?

WOW!


----------



## montelatici

MaryL said:


> This is like the proverbial rock between the hard place,  Palestine  or Israel.  I say, ISREAL.



Isreal?  But, I stand with the Christians, and they are Palestinians.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians, are Arabs who the Arabs do not want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Nazis claimed the same thing about the Jews.  They felt that the the Jews were Europeans that the Europeans did not want. Are you a Nazi?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar, the Nazis never claimed Jews were Jews not wanted by jews.
> 
> But, it is true that a Palestinian in Saudi arabia, kuwait, etc. Is considered inferior .. it is true that a Palestinian in Jordan must live in a refugee camp, never becoming a part of Jordan.
> 
> A Palestinian is the least wanted person on the Arabian Peninsula, most of all, his Arab brothers forsake the Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So true.  What the Arab countries have done to their Palestinians is hard to forgive.  They massacred them by the tens of thousands & left tens of thousands others as refugees.  And has anyone ever heard a Palestinian or Palestinian supporter complaint about it?  But they sure come out of the closet when Israel makes peace offerings to them, builds a security fence & concedes land to them.  It's called Palestinian mentality.
Click to expand...


This clown is of the type that would steal from you and believe he was generous if he returned 10% of what he stole.


----------



## MJB12741

aris2chat said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians, are Arabs who the Arabs do not want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Nazis claimed the same thing about the Jews.  They felt that the the Jews were Europeans that the Europeans did not want. Are you a Nazi?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar, the Nazis never claimed Jews were Jews not wanted by jews.
> 
> But, it is true that a Palestinian in Saudi arabia, kuwait, etc. Is considered inferior .. it is true that a Palestinian in Jordan must live in a refugee camp, never becoming a part of Jordan.
> 
> A Palestinian is the least wanted person on the Arabian Peninsula, most of all, his Arab brothers forsake the Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 58 camps and 1.5 million palestinian refugees.  Some have taken citizenship.  Jordan offer to all the palestinian, then black september.  Many, mostly fighter, were kicked out of jordan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many were kicked out and where did they go?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Between half and three quarter of a million left and became refugees.  Arabs told them to leave to make way for the armies to defeat Israel.  They went to Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Egypt.  Conditions in the camps are poor.  Most of the countries have let only a handful become citizens.
Click to expand...


And even today no Arab countries will grant their Palestinians in Israel a right of return back to their indigenous homelands.


----------



## montelatici

As all source documentation confirms, the Jews went from Europe and removed the indigenous Christians and Muslims from Palestine.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> As all source documentation confirms, the Jews went from Europe and removed the indigenous Christians and Muslims from Palestine.


Things change. Shit happens. By 2035 the Arab Palestinians will have been absorbed into the neighboring countries.


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *MaryL *
> This is like the proverbial rock between the hard place, Palestine or Israel. I say, *ISREAL*.



It is indeed, Mary... but not for long.


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *Hossfly*
> Things change. Shit happens. By 2035 the Arab Palestinians will have been absorbed into the neighboring countries.



Haven't we heard this line before, Hoss?

A Ben Gurion fella talking about old people dying and young people forgetting?


----------



## Hossfly

José_LA said:


> Originally posted by *Hossfly*
> Things change. Shit happens. By 2035 the Arab Palestinians will have been absorbed into the neighboring countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't we heard this line before, Hoss?
> 
> A Ben Gurion fella talking about old people dying and young people forgetting?
Click to expand...

Biggest thing is they won't last that long with sanctions and blockades unless they make peace.


----------



## montelatici

What sanctions?  You mean Israeli oppression.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> What sanctions?  You mean Israeli oppression.


Weapons and war materials are sanctioned. Try selling them some.


----------



## montelatici

They are not UN sanctions.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> They are not UN sanctions.


Nope, they're Israeli sanctions and they weigh more than The United Muslims whores nest sanctions. More teeth.


----------



## montelatici

They are not called sanctions.  It is called occupation.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> They are not called sanctions.  It is called occupation.


What ever. It works though.


----------



## montelatici

Certainly, for a while.  The ANC had a hell of time getting weapons.  But, eventually, they won.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> Certainly, for a while.  The ANC had a hell of time getting weapons.  But, eventually, they won.


Just for the record, who is going to kick Israel's butt?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> TWO PSYCHOPATHIC TERRORIST MURDERING SCUM TOGETHER
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> How many people has Leila Khaled  killed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many has she enabled to kill by her incitement to terrorism ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know. Do you have some stats with links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you that the person she is with was the cause of over 1,000 deaths while he was in prison
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While he was in prison?
> 
> WOW!
Click to expand...





 Yes and after he was released and became president of South Africa he oversaw the murder of even more people and did nothing about it.  You need to read the history of his life and his violent manner.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Certainly, for a while.  The ANC had a hell of time getting weapons.  But, eventually, they won.






 Tires were free, and petrol was cheap.  Look it up his favourite method was called NECKLACING and he had it done to anyone suspected of working for the whites.


----------



## Mindful

Pals are Jihadist now.

Palestinian camp in Lebanon named as one corner of jihadist death triangle


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> How many people has Leila Khaled  killed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many has she enabled to kill by her incitement to terrorism ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know. Do you have some stats with links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you that the person she is with was the cause of over 1,000 deaths while he was in prison
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While he was in prison?
> 
> WOW!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and after he was released and became president of South Africa he oversaw the murder of even more people and did nothing about it.  You need to read the history of his life and his violent manner.
Click to expand...

Speaking of violence, how about those thousands of children that Israel has killed?


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> They are not called sanctions.  It is called occupation.



Are you referring to the Palestinian occupation in Israel?  If so, I too am against it.


----------



## aris2chat

Mindful said:


> Pals are Jihadist now.
> 
> Palestinian camp in Lebanon named as one corner of jihadist death triangle



sadly too true


----------



## Mindful

aris2chat said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pals are Jihadist now.
> 
> Palestinian camp in Lebanon named as one corner of jihadist death triangle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sadly too true
Click to expand...


They're amongst us  in Europe. It's like the Plague; a creeping sickness.

Probably been going on for years, under our noses.


----------



## montelatici

Isn't that what Hitler said about the Jews?


----------



## Mindful

montelatici said:


> Isn't that what Hitler said about the Jews?



Where are you going with all this repetitious nonsense?


----------



## montelatici

Mindful said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that what Hitler said about the Jews?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where are you going with all this repetitious nonsense?
Click to expand...


Just pointing out that you are repeating what the Nazis said about the Jews.  You just replace Muslim for Jew.


----------



## Mindful

montelatici said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that what Hitler said about the Jews?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where are you going with all this repetitious nonsense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just pointing out that you are repeating what the Nazis said about the Jews.  You just replace Muslim for Jew.
Click to expand...


Yawn.......


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many has she enabled to kill by her incitement to terrorism ?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know. Do you have some stats with links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you that the person she is with was the cause of over 1,000 deaths while he was in prison
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While he was in prison?
> 
> WOW!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and after he was released and became president of South Africa he oversaw the murder of even more people and did nothing about it.  You need to read the history of his life and his violent manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of violence, how about those thousands of children that Israel has killed?
Click to expand...





 mHave you read and understood the Geneva conventions and the Rules of War to see who actually killed those children ?


----------



## fanger

Mindful said:


> They're amongst us  in Europe. It's like the Plague; a creeping sickness.
> 
> Probably been going on for years, under our noses.


The jews have been expelled from how many countries now? 
the Palestinians only from one, their homland


----------



## Hossfly

fanger said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're amongst us  in Europe. It's like the Plague; a creeping sickness.
> 
> Probably been going on for years, under our noses.
> 
> 
> 
> The jews have been expelled from how many countries now?
> the Palestinians only from one, their homland
Click to expand...

If Jews were expelled from all countries or all Jews immigrated to Israel today, how long do you think it would take for all those countries to beg for them to come back? What do you think would be the reason?


----------



## fanger

What do you think was the reason?


----------



## Mindful

fanger said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're amongst us  in Europe. It's like the Plague; a creeping sickness.
> 
> Probably been going on for years, under our noses.
> 
> 
> 
> The jews have been expelled from how many countries now?
> the Palestinians only from one, their homland
Click to expand...


Oh you mean Saudi Arabia.


----------



## fanger

Palestine


----------



## MJB12741

fanger said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're amongst us  in Europe. It's like the Plague; a creeping sickness.
> 
> Probably been going on for years, under our noses.
> 
> 
> 
> The jews have been expelled from how many countries now?
> the Palestinians only from one, their homland
Click to expand...


Huh?  The Palestinians have been expelled, massacred & left as refugees by nearly all surrounding Arab countries, who know the Palestinians best.  Golly gee, why is that?


----------



## montelatici

Outside of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, those great democratic nations, what surrounding Arab countries have expelled the Palestinians?


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

There are very few democratic Arab Countries East of the Sinai or down the Nile.

Democracy is not the only form of government.



montelatici said:


> Outside of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, those great democratic nations, what surrounding Arab countries have expelled the Palestinians?


*(REFERENCE)*

The Conflict of 1970

The partnership with the Palestinians desired by King Hussein fell apart in September, 1970. The pervasive and chaotic presence of armed Palestinian _fedayeen _groups who expected immunity from Jordan’s laws was leading to a state of virtual anarchy throughout the Kingdom. Moderate Palestinian leaders were unable to reign in extremist elements, who ambushed the king’s motorcade twice and perpetrated a series of spectacular hijackings. Forced to respond decisively in order to preserve his country from anarchy, King Hussein ordered the army into action.

The situation prompted different reactions throughout the Arab world. While most leaders privately expressed sympathy with the position of King Hussein, many took a public stance in favor of the _fedayeen _in order to embellish their credentials as “Arab nationalists.” The conflict reached a crisis point in September when some 200 Syrian tanks, camouflaged rather unconvincingly as Palestinian Liberation Army tanks, crossed into Jordan. The Syrians were bereft of air cover, however, and Jordanian aircraft forced a Syrian retreat within three days. In a brief yet intense campaign ending in July 1971, the Jordanian army put an end to the chaotic actions of these Palestiniansguerrillas in Amman.​Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon

The youth who play football on the small streets and narrow alleys of Bourj El Barajneh represent an entire generation of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon who live in a day-to-day low intensity war. This is a war waged against Palestinian refugees by the government of Lebanon. It is not waged through military campaigns and guerrilla battles as in the Lebanese civil war, but through policies and laws which are slowly choking the life from Lebanon’s Palestinian refugee camp.​
A Clear Sign of Egypt's Distaste for HAMAS

Since Morsi's overthrow, much of the Sisi government has since treated Hamas, which was founded as an offshoot of the Brotherhood, with similar distaste. The view from Cairo, said Elgindy, has since been “characterized by much of the Egyptian intelligentsia and media, as well as senior authorities,” treating Hamas “as being a criminal organization linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.​
*(COMMENT)*

The reputation of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) and the Fedayeen of Fatah, is not what you might think it is in other Arab Countries.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Maha Yakoub*


----------



## Phoenall

fanger said:


> What do you think was the reason?






 SIMPLE it was all down to religious differences as taught by the Roman Catholic pope. Up until only recently they were still teaching the Catholics that the Jews crucified Jesus. The muslims are still teaching children hatred of the Jews to the point they are commanded to KILL THE JEWS. Couple that with the fact the Jews are better at just about everything than anyone else and you get jealousy striding into the equation.

 What is your reason for hating the Jews............and the real reason not your excuse ?


----------



## Phoenall

fanger said:


> Palestine





 Never was their homeland it was the Jews homeland even before the muslims were invented


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Outside of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, those great democratic nations, what surrounding Arab countries have expelled the Palestinians?






 Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Iran have all expelled Palestinians in the last 66 years. The only country that hasn't is Israel which has a million or so Palestinians as Jewish citizens


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Maha Yakoub*





 JUST ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA and LIES


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Maha Yakoub*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JUST ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA and LIES
Click to expand...

I think she is a Christian born in Israel.


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Maha Yakoub*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JUST ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA and LIES
Click to expand...


Priceless! Well done PF Tinmore, phoney is owned! Hasn't even bothered to look at the clip before denouncing a simple Arabic lesson as "JUST ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA and LIES" what a tosser.


----------



## MJB12741

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Outside of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, those great democratic nations, what surrounding Arab countries have expelled the Palestinians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Iran have all expelled Palestinians in the last 66 years. The only country that hasn't is Israel which has a million or so Palestinians as Jewish citizens
Click to expand...


So true.  Shame on Israel for not treating Palestinians like the surrounding Arab countries do.


----------



## MJB12741

Who Are The Palestinians?  Even oversees, Palestinians will be Palestinians.  

Suspected Copenhagen gunman Petty criminal to cold-blooded killer - Yahoo News


----------



## aris2chat

fanger said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're amongst us  in Europe. It's like the Plague; a creeping sickness.
> 
> Probably been going on for years, under our noses.
> 
> 
> 
> The jews have been expelled from how many countries now?
> the Palestinians only from one, their homland
Click to expand...


Palestinians have been expelled from Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, Egypt, Syria and Iraq.

those who became refugee for the most part left at arab insistence and then forced to live in camps by those same states with less rights, over population and poor sanitation.
arabs that stayed and became Israeli citizens have a higher standard of living and more rights than most arabs in the region.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Maha Yakoub*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JUST ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA and LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Priceless! Well done PF Tinmore, phoney is owned! Hasn't even bothered to look at the clip before denouncing a simple Arabic lesson as "JUST ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA and LIES" what a tosser.
Click to expand...





Because that is all team Palestine ever post, and you are one of the biggest offenders.

 BUT DO TELL WHY SHE IS WEARING THE SYMBOL OF ALL PALESTINIAN TERRORISTS AROUND HER NECK


----------



## Dogmaphobe

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Maha Yakoub*




Looking at her surroundings, one can only conclude that those Palestinians live in real comfort!


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Outside of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, those great democratic nations, what surrounding Arab countries have expelled the Palestinians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Iran have all expelled Palestinians in the last 66 years. The only country that hasn't is Israel which has a million or so Palestinians as Jewish citizens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So true.  Shame on Israel for not treating Palestinians like the surrounding Arab countries do.
Click to expand...


What treatment is that?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Outside of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, those great democratic nations, what surrounding Arab countries have expelled the Palestinians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Iran have all expelled Palestinians in the last 66 years. The only country that hasn't is Israel which has a million or so Palestinians as Jewish citizens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So true.  Shame on Israel for not treating Palestinians like the surrounding Arab countries do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What treatment is that?
Click to expand...





 As the terrorist scum they are of course. Any other nation would have flattened gaza by now for what they have tried to do to Israeli children. In fact Jordan did just that one September as an object lesson and team Palestine have stayed silent on it ever since.


----------



## montelatici

aris2chat said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're amongst us  in Europe. It's like the Plague; a creeping sickness.
> 
> Probably been going on for years, under our noses.
> 
> 
> 
> The jews have been expelled from how many countries now?
> the Palestinians only from one, their homland
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestinians have been expelled from Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, Egypt, Syria and Iraq.
> 
> those who became refugee for the most part left at arab insistence and then forced to live in camps by those same states with less rights, over population and poor sanitation.
> arabs that stayed and became Israeli citizens have a higher standard of living and more rights than most arabs in the region.
Click to expand...


When were they expelled from those countries?  In fact, only Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have expelled the Palestinians. They are forced to live in camps because the Jews from Europe expelled them from their lands in Palestine. The non-Jews "that stayed" were the non-Jews the Europeans were unable to expel before the cease fire.  It had nothing to do with them staying.


----------



## Mindful

montelatici said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're amongst us  in Europe. It's like the Plague; a creeping sickness.
> 
> Probably been going on for years, under our noses.
> 
> 
> 
> The jews have been expelled from how many countries now?
> the Palestinians only from one, their homland
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestinians have been expelled from Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, Egypt, Syria and Iraq.
> 
> those who became refugee for the most part left at arab insistence and then forced to live in camps by those same states with less rights, over population and poor sanitation.
> arabs that stayed and became Israeli citizens have a higher standard of living and more rights than most arabs in the region.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When were they expelled from those countries?  In fact, only Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have expelled the Palestinians. They are forced to live in camps because the Jews from Europe expelled them from their lands in Palestine. The non-Jews "that stayed" were the non-Jews the Europeans were unable to expel before the cease fire.  It had nothing to do with them staying.
Click to expand...


Yawn....


----------



## Mindful

“Of David. Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle; he is my steadfast love and my fortress, my stronghold and my deliverer, my shield and he in whom I take refuge, who subdues peoples under me.” (Psalm 144:1-2)

Archaeological excavations in Netiv Haasarah have uncovered a Persian era military installation. Netiv Haasarah is a town in the “Gaza envelope” with a population of about 700. The dig, being headed by Dr. Yael Abadi Rice, found a fortified town and a military tower, from approximately 2,100 years ago. This time period was when the Second Temple was standing in Jerusalem.

“It seems this was a military outpost”, Dr. Rice told _Tazpit News Agency_. “Besides for the army stationed there, people were sent there to work the area on the road from Ashkelon to Gaza.”

The outpost had the military tower as well as residential buildings and warehouses. The tower, built of limestone and mud bricks, was found with a partially preserved staircase. Inside the warehouses, archeologists were surprised to find intact pottery and stone utensils, as well as oil and wine jars.

Read more at 2nd Temple Military Outpost Discovered- Israel News


----------



## P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Maha Yakoub*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JUST ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA and LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think she is a Christian born in Israel.
Click to expand...


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're amongst us  in Europe. It's like the Plague; a creeping sickness.
> 
> Probably been going on for years, under our noses.
> 
> 
> 
> The jews have been expelled from how many countries now?
> the Palestinians only from one, their homland
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestinians have been expelled from Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, Egypt, Syria and Iraq.
> 
> those who became refugee for the most part left at arab insistence and then forced to live in camps by those same states with less rights, over population and poor sanitation.
> arabs that stayed and became Israeli citizens have a higher standard of living and more rights than most arabs in the region.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When were they expelled from those countries?  In fact, only Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have expelled the Palestinians. They are forced to live in camps because the Jews from Europe expelled them from their lands in Palestine. The non-Jews "that stayed" were the non-Jews the Europeans were unable to expel before the cease fire.  It had nothing to do with them staying.
Click to expand...





 Jordan expelled the Palestinian PLO shortly after black September, and took away the Jordanian citizenship of all Palestinians in the west bank and the camps shortly after.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Maha Yakoub*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JUST ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA and LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think she is a Christian born in Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Did you spot the LIES then as it was the arab league that invaded that part of Palestine, so they destroyed the village and evicted the Christians.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Maha Yakoub*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JUST ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA and LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think she is a Christian born in Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you spot the LIES then as it was the arab league that invaded that part of Palestine, so they destroyed the village and evicted the Christians.
Click to expand...

Who is "they?"


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Maha Yakoub*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JUST ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA and LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think she is a Christian born in Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you spot the LIES then as it was the arab league that invaded that part of Palestine, so they destroyed the village and evicted the Christians.
Click to expand...


I sure did spot your lies.  You are a pathological liar, Phoeny.


----------



## Mindful

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Maha Yakoub*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JUST ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA and LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think she is a Christian born in Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you spot the LIES then as it was the arab league that invaded that part of Palestine, so they destroyed the village and evicted the Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I sure did spot your lies.  You are a pathological liar, Phoeny.
Click to expand...


You know him personally, do you? Outside of cyberspace?


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're amongst us  in Europe. It's like the Plague; a creeping sickness.
> 
> Probably been going on for years, under our noses.
> 
> 
> 
> The jews have been expelled from how many countries now?
> the Palestinians only from one, their homland
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestinians have been expelled from Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, Egypt, Syria and Iraq.
> 
> those who became refugee for the most part left at arab insistence and then forced to live in camps by those same states with less rights, over population and poor sanitation.
> arabs that stayed and became Israeli citizens have a higher standard of living and more rights than most arabs in the region.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When were they expelled from those countries?  In fact, only Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have expelled the Palestinians. They are forced to live in camps because the Jews from Europe expelled them from their lands in Palestine. The non-Jews "that stayed" were the non-Jews the Europeans were unable to expel before the cease fire.  It had nothing to do with them staying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan expelled the Palestinian PLO shortly after black September, and took away the Jordanian citizenship of all Palestinians in the west bank and the camps shortly after.
Click to expand...


No, you are making it up, as usual.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Maha Yakoub*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JUST ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA and LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think she is a Christian born in Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you spot the LIES then as it was the arab league that invaded that part of Palestine, so they destroyed the village and evicted the Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is "they?"
Click to expand...





 Why the ones that invaded Palestine from foreign countries, the arab muslims


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Maha Yakoub*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JUST ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA and LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think she is a Christian born in Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you spot the LIES then as it was the arab league that invaded that part of Palestine, so they destroyed the village and evicted the Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I sure did spot your lies.  You are a pathological liar, Phoeny.
Click to expand...




 You never do when they are ISLAMONAZI ones, then claim that the evidence proving it is flawed and Zionist lies. Proving to everyone that you are an ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDIST


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're amongst us  in Europe. It's like the Plague; a creeping sickness.
> 
> Probably been going on for years, under our noses.
> 
> 
> 
> The jews have been expelled from how many countries now?
> the Palestinians only from one, their homland
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestinians have been expelled from Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, Egypt, Syria and Iraq.
> 
> those who became refugee for the most part left at arab insistence and then forced to live in camps by those same states with less rights, over population and poor sanitation.
> arabs that stayed and became Israeli citizens have a higher standard of living and more rights than most arabs in the region.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When were they expelled from those countries?  In fact, only Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have expelled the Palestinians. They are forced to live in camps because the Jews from Europe expelled them from their lands in Palestine. The non-Jews "that stayed" were the non-Jews the Europeans were unable to expel before the cease fire.  It had nothing to do with them staying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan expelled the Palestinian PLO shortly after black September, and took away the Jordanian citizenship of all Palestinians in the west bank and the camps shortly after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you are making it up, as usual.
Click to expand...





 You are praying that there is no evidence to prove this, guess allah has forsaken you again and left loads of evidence

Black September in Jordan - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 Armed conflict ended with the expulsion of the PLO leadership and thousands of Palestinian fighters to Lebanon.

Jordan Expels the PLO in 1970

 Within 10 months the PLO were driven out of Jordan completely, and re-established themselves in Lebanon, a choice that led to eventual disaster for Lebanon.


Why Jordan Doesn t Want More Palestinians

 A series of measures taken by the Jordanian authorities over the past three years serve as an indicator of Amman's increased concern over the Palestinian "threat." These measures include revoking the citizenship of many Palestinians and forcibly deporting others who are fleeing from Syria.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> JUST ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA and LIES
> 
> 
> 
> I think she is a Christian born in Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you spot the LIES then as it was the arab league that invaded that part of Palestine, so they destroyed the village and evicted the Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is "they?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the ones that invaded Palestine from foreign countries, the arab muslims
Click to expand...

So, are you saying that the invading Arab armies destroyed Palestinian villages?

Do you have some links to that?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think she is a Christian born in Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you spot the LIES then as it was the arab league that invaded that part of Palestine, so they destroyed the village and evicted the Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is "they?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the ones that invaded Palestine from foreign countries, the arab muslims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, are you saying that the invading Arab armies destroyed Palestinian villages?
> 
> Do you have some links to that?
Click to expand...





 Do you have links to say they didn't ?


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> JUST ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA and LIES
> 
> 
> 
> I think she is a Christian born in Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you spot the LIES then as it was the arab league that invaded that part of Palestine, so they destroyed the village and evicted the Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I sure did spot your lies.  You are a pathological liar, Phoeny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never do when they are ISLAMONAZI ones, then claim that the evidence proving it is flawed and Zionist lies. Proving to everyone that you are an ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDIST
Click to expand...


As you have discovered, all my links are to neutral official archives or Jewish archives.  The facts are bothersome to someone that has only been fed propaganda.  I feel your pain.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think she is a Christian born in Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you spot the LIES then as it was the arab league that invaded that part of Palestine, so they destroyed the village and evicted the Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I sure did spot your lies.  You are a pathological liar, Phoeny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never do when they are ISLAMONAZI ones, then claim that the evidence proving it is flawed and Zionist lies. Proving to everyone that you are an ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDIST
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you have discovered, all my links are to neutral official archives or Jewish archives.  The facts are bothersome to someone that has only been fed propaganda.  I feel your pain.
Click to expand...


Yes Monte.  You slay those Zionists with your wisdom & unbiased documented facts.  Do you think maybe that is why they love you & can't wait for more of your posts to make them laugh?


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you spot the LIES then as it was the arab league that invaded that part of Palestine, so they destroyed the village and evicted the Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I sure did spot your lies.  You are a pathological liar, Phoeny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never do when they are ISLAMONAZI ones, then claim that the evidence proving it is flawed and Zionist lies. Proving to everyone that you are an ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDIST
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you have discovered, all my links are to neutral official archives or Jewish archives.  The facts are bothersome to someone that has only been fed propaganda.  I feel your pain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Monte.  You slay those Zionists with your wisdom & unbiased documented facts.  Do you think maybe that is why they love you & can't wait for more of your posts to make them laugh?
Click to expand...


Even I find your posts funny & I despise those Zionists for their damn treatment of Palestinians with peace offerings, a security fence & land concessions to pour fuel on this endless conflict.  Wnat peace?  Nutandyahoo has to go.


----------



## Muhammed

[/QUOTE]What are 


MJB12741 said:


> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine


Call me Captain Obvious, but I'd say that Palestinians are people from Palestine.

Dare to correct me if you think I'm wrong, you SADFIs.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you spot the LIES then as it was the arab league that invaded that part of Palestine, so they destroyed the village and evicted the Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I sure did spot your lies.  You are a pathological liar, Phoeny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never do when they are ISLAMONAZI ones, then claim that the evidence proving it is flawed and Zionist lies. Proving to everyone that you are an ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDIST
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you have discovered, all my links are to neutral official archives or Jewish archives.  The facts are bothersome to someone that has only been fed propaganda.  I feel your pain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Monte.  You slay those Zionists with your wisdom & unbiased documented facts.  Do you think maybe that is why they love you & can't wait for more of your posts to make them laugh?
Click to expand...


You are sure that "I make them laugh"?   The lady doth protest too much, methinks.


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you spot the LIES then as it was the arab league that invaded that part of Palestine, so they destroyed the village and evicted the Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is "they?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the ones that invaded Palestine from foreign countries, the arab muslims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, are you saying that the invading Arab armies destroyed Palestinian villages?
> 
> Do you have some links to that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have links to say they didn't ?
Click to expand...

Phoenall,you made the claim,so where is the proof...LOL you are amusing sometimes..steve


----------



## theliq

MJB12741 said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you spot the LIES then as it was the arab league that invaded that part of Palestine, so they destroyed the village and evicted the Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I sure did spot your lies.  You are a pathological liar, Phoeny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never do when they are ISLAMONAZI ones, then claim that the evidence proving it is flawed and Zionist lies. Proving to everyone that you are an ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDIST
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you have discovered, all my links are to neutral official archives or Jewish archives.  The facts are bothersome to someone that has only been fed propaganda.  I feel your pain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Monte.  You slay those Zionists with your wisdom & unbiased documented facts.  Do you think maybe that is why they love you & can't wait for more of your posts to make them laugh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even I find your posts funny & I despise those Zionists for their damn treatment of Palestinians with peace offerings, a security fence & land concessions to pour fuel on this endless conflict.  Wnat peace?  Nutandyahoo has to go.
Click to expand...

Not so Funny that you mention Fuel.....because that is exactly what 3 Israeli cowards did to a Palestinian boy..poured it down his throat and all over him ...then set him alight and MURDERED HIM...did they get arrested,did they have their homes razed,are they in prison........Me thinks NO IS THE ANSWER......would you like to comment..steve


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're amongst us  in Europe. It's like the Plague; a creeping sickness.
> 
> Probably been going on for years, under our noses.
> 
> 
> 
> The jews have been expelled from how many countries now?
> the Palestinians only from one, their homland
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Jews were expelled from all countries or all Jews immigrated to Israel today, how long do you think it would take for all those countries to beg for them to come back? What do you think would be the reason?
Click to expand...

Trouble was Hoss...No one did in the past and would they in the future??????....just sayin steve


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're amongst us  in Europe. It's like the Plague; a creeping sickness.
> 
> Probably been going on for years, under our noses.
> 
> 
> 
> The jews have been expelled from how many countries now?
> the Palestinians only from one, their homland
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Jews were expelled from all countries or all Jews immigrated to Israel today, how long do you think it would take for all those countries to beg for them to come back? What do you think would be the reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trouble was Hoss...No one did in the past and would they in the future??????....just sayin steve
Click to expand...

We'll find out if lots of Jews go home to Israel.


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're amongst us  in Europe. It's like the Plague; a creeping sickness.
> 
> Probably been going on for years, under our noses.
> 
> 
> 
> The jews have been expelled from how many countries now?
> the Palestinians only from one, their homland
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Jews were expelled from all countries or all Jews immigrated to Israel today, how long do you think it would take for all those countries to beg for them to come back? What do you think would be the reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trouble was Hoss...No one did in the past and would they in the future??????....just sayin steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We'll find out if lots of Jews go home to Israel.
Click to expand...

I don't think they need to..........if only Peace could be achieved with the Palestinians.....everything would be all good for Israel and Jewish folk in general....what others really do not like is Zionism.....they treat it rightly as fundamentalism which it is......and we have enough of that these days with Isis all the other nutters...steve


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're amongst us  in Europe. It's like the Plague; a creeping sickness.
> 
> Probably been going on for years, under our noses.
> 
> 
> 
> The jews have been expelled from how many countries now?
> the Palestinians only from one, their homland
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Jews were expelled from all countries or all Jews immigrated to Israel today, how long do you think it would take for all those countries to beg for them to come back? What do you think would be the reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trouble was Hoss...No one did in the past and would they in the future??????....just sayin steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We'll find out if lots of Jews go home to Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think they need to..........if only Peace could be achieved with the Palestinians.....everything would be all good for Israel and Jewish folk in general....what others really do not like is Zionism.....they treat it rightly as fundamentalism which it is......and we have enough of that these days with Isis all the other nutters...steve
Click to expand...

Why do people hate Zionism?  Zionism is a state of mind and not a tangible thing. People don't hate Zionism. People hate Jews. People in Europe don't hate Zionism. People in Europe hate Jews. Period.


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The jews have been expelled from how many countries now?
> the Palestinians only from one, their homland
> 
> 
> 
> If Jews were expelled from all countries or all Jews immigrated to Israel today, how long do you think it would take for all those countries to beg for them to come back? What do you think would be the reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trouble was Hoss...No one did in the past and would they in the future??????....just sayin steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We'll find out if lots of Jews go home to Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think they need to..........if only Peace could be achieved with the Palestinians.....everything would be all good for Israel and Jewish folk in general....what others really do not like is Zionism.....they treat it rightly as fundamentalism which it is......and we have enough of that these days with Isis all the other nutters...steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do people hate Zionism?  Zionism is a state of mind and not a tangible thing. People don't hate Zionism. People hate Jews. People in Europe don't hate Zionism. People in Europe hate Jews. Period.
Click to expand...

Rubbish people hate Zionist Terrorists NOT JEWS ..............steve


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Jews were expelled from all countries or all Jews immigrated to Israel today, how long do you think it would take for all those countries to beg for them to come back? What do you think would be the reason?
> 
> 
> 
> Trouble was Hoss...No one did in the past and would they in the future??????....just sayin steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We'll find out if lots of Jews go home to Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think they need to..........if only Peace could be achieved with the Palestinians.....everything would be all good for Israel and Jewish folk in general....what others really do not like is Zionism.....they treat it rightly as fundamentalism which it is......and we have enough of that these days with Isis all the other nutters...steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do people hate Zionism?  Zionism is a state of mind and not a tangible thing. People don't hate Zionism. People hate Jews. People in Europe don't hate Zionism. People in Europe hate Jews. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rubbish people hate Zionist Terrorists NOT JEWS ..............steve
Click to expand...


----------



## RoshanNair

I got drunk and high with a self-proclaimed "Palestinian" at a new year's party. Bozo whooped my ass at beer pong like four rounds as well.

Maybe if more Israelis do the same, peace will ensue!!


----------



## Challenger

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The jews have been expelled from how many countries now?
> the Palestinians only from one, their homland
> 
> 
> 
> If Jews were expelled from all countries or all Jews immigrated to Israel today, how long do you think it would take for all those countries to beg for them to come back? What do you think would be the reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trouble was Hoss...No one did in the past and would they in the future??????....just sayin steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We'll find out if lots of Jews go home to Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think they need to..........if only Peace could be achieved with the Palestinians.....everything would be all good for Israel and Jewish folk in general....what others really do not like is Zionism.....they treat it rightly as fundamentalism which it is......and we have enough of that these days with Isis all the other nutters...steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do people hate Zionism?  Zionism is a state of mind and not a tangible thing. People don't hate Zionism. People hate Jews. People in Europe don't hate Zionism. People in Europe hate Jews. Period.
Click to expand...


Why did people hate Nazism or Communism? They too were intangible "states of mind"...or did they just hate Germans and Russians?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think she is a Christian born in Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you spot the LIES then as it was the arab league that invaded that part of Palestine, so they destroyed the village and evicted the Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I sure did spot your lies.  You are a pathological liar, Phoeny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never do when they are ISLAMONAZI ones, then claim that the evidence proving it is flawed and Zionist lies. Proving to everyone that you are an ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDIST
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you have discovered, all my links are to neutral official archives or Jewish archives.  The facts are bothersome to someone that has only been fed propaganda.  I feel your pain.
Click to expand...





 WRONG AGAIN ABDUL  they may in archives but that does not make them neutral, the one you push the most is far from neutral as you have been told. Even Winston Churchill condemned them as ANTI SEMITIC and LIES


----------



## Phoenall

What are


MJB12741 said:


> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine


Call me Captain Obvious, but I'd say that Palestinians are people from Palestine.

Dare to correct me if you think I'm wrong, you SADFIs.[/QUOTE]



 So does this mean people from the badlands are bads, people from the Gobi desert are Gobi's   Both like Palestine a name for a place that has no borders or boundaries


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you spot the LIES then as it was the arab league that invaded that part of Palestine, so they destroyed the village and evicted the Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I sure did spot your lies.  You are a pathological liar, Phoeny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never do when they are ISLAMONAZI ones, then claim that the evidence proving it is flawed and Zionist lies. Proving to everyone that you are an ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDIST
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you have discovered, all my links are to neutral official archives or Jewish archives.  The facts are bothersome to someone that has only been fed propaganda.  I feel your pain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Monte.  You slay those Zionists with your wisdom & unbiased documented facts.  Do you think maybe that is why they love you & can't wait for more of your posts to make them laugh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are sure that "I make them laugh"?   The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Click to expand...





 NAH! we find your antics hilariously comical, more so when you try and deny what and who you are


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you spot the LIES then as it was the arab league that invaded that part of Palestine, so they destroyed the village and evicted the Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I sure did spot your lies.  You are a pathological liar, Phoeny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never do when they are ISLAMONAZI ones, then claim that the evidence proving it is flawed and Zionist lies. Proving to everyone that you are an ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDIST
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you have discovered, all my links are to neutral official archives or Jewish archives.  The facts are bothersome to someone that has only been fed propaganda.  I feel your pain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG AGAIN ABDUL  they may in archives but that does not make them neutral, the one you push the most is far from neutral as you have been told. Even Winston Churchill condemned them as ANTI SEMITIC and LIES
Click to expand...

Churchill  was a Cnut if you looked at his history......and a creature of his colonial time........when he went for elections after the WW2 the Brits wanted nothing to do with the Racist...So your quotes from a person like him ....Means nought.and I mean NOUGHT.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Jews were expelled from all countries or all Jews immigrated to Israel today, how long do you think it would take for all those countries to beg for them to come back? What do you think would be the reason?
> 
> 
> 
> Trouble was Hoss...No one did in the past and would they in the future??????....just sayin steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We'll find out if lots of Jews go home to Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think they need to..........if only Peace could be achieved with the Palestinians.....everything would be all good for Israel and Jewish folk in general....what others really do not like is Zionism.....they treat it rightly as fundamentalism which it is......and we have enough of that these days with Isis all the other nutters...steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do people hate Zionism?  Zionism is a state of mind and not a tangible thing. People don't hate Zionism. People hate Jews. People in Europe don't hate Zionism. People in Europe hate Jews. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did people hate Nazism or Communism? They too were intangible "states of mind"...or did they just hate Germans and Russians?
Click to expand...




 For the same reason people hate islam, they are all psychopathic mass murdering cults that pass themselves off as the saviours of mankind


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you spot the LIES then as it was the arab league that invaded that part of Palestine, so they destroyed the village and evicted the Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I sure did spot your lies.  You are a pathological liar, Phoeny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never do when they are ISLAMONAZI ones, then claim that the evidence proving it is flawed and Zionist lies. Proving to everyone that you are an ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDIST
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you have discovered, all my links are to neutral official archives or Jewish archives.  The facts are bothersome to someone that has only been fed propaganda.  I feel your pain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG AGAIN ABDUL  they may in archives but that does not make them neutral, the one you push the most is far from neutral as you have been told. Even Winston Churchill condemned them as ANTI SEMITIC and LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Churchill  was a Cnut if you looked at his history......and a creature of his colonial time........when he went for elections after the WW2 the Brits wanted nothing to do with the Racist...So your quotes from a person like him ....Means nought.and I mean NOUGHT.
Click to expand...




 He still ended up as prime Minister after the war and he still told the truth about Palestine. That is why muslims hated him, and it seems still do


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trouble was Hoss...No one did in the past and would they in the future??????....just sayin steve
> 
> 
> 
> We'll find out if lots of Jews go home to Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think they need to..........if only Peace could be achieved with the Palestinians.....everything would be all good for Israel and Jewish folk in general....what others really do not like is Zionism.....they treat it rightly as fundamentalism which it is......and we have enough of that these days with Isis all the other nutters...steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do people hate Zionism?  Zionism is a state of mind and not a tangible thing. People don't hate Zionism. People hate Jews. People in Europe don't hate Zionism. People in Europe hate Jews. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did people hate Nazism or Communism? They too were intangible "states of mind"...or did they just hate Germans and Russians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the same reason people hate islam, they are all psychopathic mass murdering cults that pass themselves off as the saviours of mankind
Click to expand...

Churchill was an Anti Semite,and had no hesitation on using GAS on what he perceived were lower raced peoples.......in WW1 he deliberately sent Australian,New Zealand and Canadians to a certain DEATH....plus all those British Servicemen......he was an idiot really who used these Deaths to Grandiase himself.................................................................he lived a life of privelige sic,born with a silver spoon in his mouth,a complete Dunce during his formative years and then joined the Military,where he was hopeless,where ever he was stationed from India,Afghanistan etc,.Not a friend of Jews,Arabs,Muslims,Hindus, etc...just the privelige sic classes


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I sure did spot your lies.  You are a pathological liar, Phoeny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never do when they are ISLAMONAZI ones, then claim that the evidence proving it is flawed and Zionist lies. Proving to everyone that you are an ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDIST
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you have discovered, all my links are to neutral official archives or Jewish archives.  The facts are bothersome to someone that has only been fed propaganda.  I feel your pain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG AGAIN ABDUL  they may in archives but that does not make them neutral, the one you push the most is far from neutral as you have been told. Even Winston Churchill condemned them as ANTI SEMITIC and LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Churchill  was a Cnut if you looked at his history......and a creature of his colonial time........when he went for elections after the WW2 the Brits wanted nothing to do with the Racist...So your quotes from a person like him ....Means nought.and I mean NOUGHT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He still ended up as prime Minister after the war and he still told the truth about Palestine. That is why muslims hated him, and it seems still do
Click to expand...

He was a Tosser,Phoenall and Australians+NZealanders refused to serve him or any British commander.......We had our own,and the only troops that did......because we knew better.


----------



## Mindful

Are you still dumb enough to believe they just want a little sliver of land in Israel?


----------



## montelatici

Bad choices have consequences.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you spot the LIES then as it was the arab league that invaded that part of Palestine, so they destroyed the village and evicted the Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I sure did spot your lies.  You are a pathological liar, Phoeny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never do when they are ISLAMONAZI ones, then claim that the evidence proving it is flawed and Zionist lies. Proving to everyone that you are an ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDIST
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you have discovered, all my links are to neutral official archives or Jewish archives.  The facts are bothersome to someone that has only been fed propaganda.  I feel your pain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG AGAIN ABDUL  they may in archives but that does not make them neutral, the one you push the most is far from neutral as you have been told. Even Winston Churchill condemned them as ANTI SEMITIC and LIES
Click to expand...


The Survey, specifically, is in the archives of the UN, because it was were used to justify the giving more than 50% of Palestine to the Zionists, so yes, it is not neutral, it is pro-Zionist.  Unfortunately for you ZioNazis, even a pro-Zionist survey has to be based on some fact. Just imagine if the Survey had been prepared by neutrals.

Get it through your thick skull, Zionists don't have a leg to stand on, with respect to their invasion/colonization of Palestine and the resultant expulsion of the indigenous people of the Christian and Muslim faiths. It's as simple as that.  The sooner the Jews begin serious negotiations and enfranchise the non-Jews they now have control over, the sooner peace will come and disaster averted.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

By 1922,  the Ottoman Empire is collapsed.  The Treaty of Sevres (ToS) has been made, the Palestine Order in Council has been published and the Mandate (formulated by the Principal Allied Powers and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations and approved); assigned to Great Britain.  Turkey has agreed, in accordance with the provisions of Article 132, ToS, to accept any decisions which may be taken in relation to the questions dealt with in SECTION VII --- SYRIA, MESOPOTAMIA, PALESTINE; with respect to the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, under Article 95, ToS.

In 1947, the UN General Assembly adopts a Partition Plan and the Steps Preparatory for Independence.  In 1948, the Israel declares independence.



montelatici said:


> The Survey, specifically, is in the archives of the UN, because it was were used to justify the giving more than 50% of Palestine to the Zionists, so yes, it is not neutral, it is pro-Zionist.  Unfortunately for you ZioNazis, even a pro-Zionist survey has to be based on some fact. Just imagine if the Survey had been prepared by neutrals.
> 
> Get it through your thick skull, Zionists don't have a leg to stand on, with respect to their invasion/colonization of Palestine and the resultant expulsion of the indigenous people of the Christian and Muslim faiths. It's as simple as that.  The sooner the Jews begin serious negotiations and enfranchise the non-Jews they now have control over, the sooner peace will come and disaster averted.


*(QUESTION)*

OK --- Specifically what laws did Israel violate?


What Arab Rights have been violated?

NOTE:  Just list them, specifically; you don't have to defend them.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

What laws has Israel broken?  It would take hours, but let's just look at two.




Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.




Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.



The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.



Besides being victims of ethnic cleansing and genocide (read the definition of genocide before claiming that since the Palestinians have increased in number genocide doesn't apply). 

To start, the Mandatory/LoN/UN did not safeguard the civil, political and economic interests of the Muslims and Christians, did not provide for the creation of a national independent Government for the Muslims and Christians in accordance with paragraph 4, Article 22, of the Covenant of the League of Nations, did not provide religious equality to the Christians and Muslim.


----------



## Muhammed

Phoenall said:


> What are
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> Call me Captain Obvious, but I'd say that Palestinians are people from Palestine.
> 
> Dare to correct me if you think I'm wrong, you SADFIs.
Click to expand...




So does this mean people from the badlands are bads, people from the Gobi desert are Gobi's   Both like Palestine a name for a place that has no borders or boundaries[/QUOTE]
No


----------



## Muhammed

Mindful said:


> Are you still dumb enough to believe they just want a little sliver of land in Israel?


Fuck Israel.


----------



## Hossfly

Muhammed said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still dumb enough to believe they just want a little sliver of land in Israel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck Israel.
Click to expand...

You wish.


----------



## Muhammed

Hossfly said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still dumb enough to believe they just want a little sliver of land in Israel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wish.
Click to expand...

Yo mama's ass.


----------



## montelatici

The borders of Palestine were very clear as per the League of Nations.  And the non-Jewish people living within those well-defined borders were called (and called themselves) Palestinians.  The European colonizers in Palestine called themselves Zionists.

"Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between latitude 30° N. and 33° N., Longitude 34° 30 E. and 35° 30' E.

On the south it is bounded by Egyptian and Saudi Arabian territory, on the east by Trans-Jordan, on the north by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and the Lebanon, and on the west by the Mediterranean.

The boundaries are described as follows:--



_South._--From a point west of Rafa on the Mediterranean to a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba.

_East._--From a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba up the centre of the Wadi Araba, the Dead Sea, and the River Jordan, to the junction of the latter with the River Yarmuk, thence up the centre of the River Yarmuk to the Syrian frontier.

_North._--The northern boundary was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Stated briefly, the boundary runs from Ras el Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to Metulla and across the upper Jordan valley to Banias, thence to Jisr Banat Yaqub, thence along the Jordan to the Lake of Tiberias on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line.

_West._--The Mediterranean Sea."

- See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations 31 December 1932


----------



## Mindful

Muhammed said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still dumb enough to believe they just want a little sliver of land in Israel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck Israel.
Click to expand...


Fuck you.


----------



## Hossfly

Muhammed said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still dumb enough to believe they just want a little sliver of land in Israel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo mama's ass.
Click to expand...

My mama's dead you illegitimate cocksucker. Drop it.


----------



## Hossfly

Muhammed said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still dumb enough to believe they just want a little sliver of land in Israel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo mama's ass.
Click to expand...

My mama's dead you illegitimate cocksucker. Drop it.


----------



## Muhammed

Hossfly said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still dumb enough to believe they just want a little sliver of land in Israel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo mama's ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My mama's dead you illegitimate cocksucker. Drop it.
Click to expand...

Yo mama cansuck my .....


----------



## Mindful

Hossfly said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still dumb enough to believe they just want a little sliver of land in Israel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo mama's ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My mama's dead you illegitimate cocksucker. Drop it.
Click to expand...


Don't take that low life seriously. He doesn't deserve the honour.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you spot the LIES then as it was the arab league that invaded that part of Palestine, so they destroyed the village and evicted the Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I sure did spot your lies.  You are a pathological liar, Phoeny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never do when they are ISLAMONAZI ones, then claim that the evidence proving it is flawed and Zionist lies. Proving to everyone that you are an ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDIST
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you have discovered, all my links are to neutral official archives or Jewish archives.  The facts are bothersome to someone that has only been fed propaganda.  I feel your pain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG AGAIN ABDUL  they may in archives but that does not make them neutral, the one you push the most is far from neutral as you have been told. Even Winston Churchill condemned them as ANTI SEMITIC and LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Survey, specifically, is in the archives of the UN, because it was were used to justify the giving more than 50% of Palestine to the Zionists, so yes, it is not neutral, it is pro-Zionist.  Unfortunately for you ZioNazis, even a pro-Zionist survey has to be based on some fact. Just imagine if the Survey had been prepared by neutrals.
> 
> Get it through your thick skull, Zionists don't have a leg to stand on, with respect to their invasion/colonization of Palestine and the resultant expulsion of the indigenous people of the Christian and Muslim faiths. It's as simple as that.  The sooner the Jews begin serious negotiations and enfranchise the non-Jews they now have control over, the sooner peace will come and disaster averted.
Click to expand...





 Get it right the ISLAMONAZIS got 78% of Palestine leaving the Jews with 22% that the ISLAMONAZIS did not want.

 Maybe this will help you under stand that the Jews were the ones who worked the land and not the arab muslims

 CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Jerusalem (After 1291)
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Jerusalem After 1291 

"...Present condition of the City: (1907 edition)

Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. The total population is estimated at 66,000. *The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures:
Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000;* Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the Nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly Half the present population...""

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Growth of Jerusalem 1838-Present

....... Jews Muslims Christians Total
1838 6,000 5,000 3,000 14,000
*1844 7,120 5,760 3,390 16,270 ..... ..The First Official Ottoman Census *
1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030 .... .....Second """"""""""
1905 40,000 8,000 10,900 58,900 ....... Third/last, detailed in CathEncyc above
1948 99,320 36,680 31,300 167,300
1990 353,200 124,200 14,000 491,400
1992 385,000 150,000 15,000 550,000

http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> The borders of Palestine were very clear as per the League of Nations.  And the non-Jewish people living within those well-defined borders were called (and called themselves) Palestinians.  The European colonizers in Palestine called themselves Zionists.
> 
> "Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between latitude 30° N. and 33° N., Longitude 34° 30 E. and 35° 30' E.
> 
> On the south it is bounded by Egyptian and Saudi Arabian territory, on the east by Trans-Jordan, on the north by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and the Lebanon, and on the west by the Mediterranean.
> 
> The boundaries are described as follows:--
> 
> 
> 
> _South._--From a point west of Rafa on the Mediterranean to a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba.
> 
> _East._--From a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba up the centre of the Wadi Araba, the Dead Sea, and the River Jordan, to the junction of the latter with the River Yarmuk, thence up the centre of the River Yarmuk to the Syrian frontier.
> 
> _North._--The northern boundary was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Stated briefly, the boundary runs from Ras el Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to Metulla and across the upper Jordan valley to Banias, thence to Jisr Banat Yaqub, thence along the Jordan to the Lake of Tiberias on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line.
> 
> _West._--The Mediterranean Sea."
> 
> - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations 31 December 1932






 That was 12 years after the original MANDATE so not valid for when the LoN made their promise based on this source document


*Original letter[edit]*
October 24, 1915.
I have received your letter of the 29th Shawal, 1333, with much pleasure and your expression of friendliness and sincerity have given me the greatest satisfaction. I regret that you should have received from my last letter the impression that I regarded the question of limits and boundaries with coldness and hesitation; such was not the case, but it appeared to me that the time had not yet come when that question could be discussed in a conclusive manner.

I have realised, however, from your last letter that you regard this question as one of vital and urgent importance. I have, therefore, lost no time in informing the Government of Great Britain of the contents of your letter, and it is with great pleasure that I communicate to you on their behalf the following statement, which I am confident you will receive with satisfaction. The two districts of Mersina and Alexandretta and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama.and Aleppo cannot be said to be purely Arab, and should be excluded from the limits demanded. With the above modification, and without prejudice to our existing treaties with Arab chiefs, we accept those limits. As for those regions lying within those frontiers wherein Great Britain is free to act without detriment to the interests of her ally, France, I am empowered in the name of the Government of Great Britain to give the following assurances and make the following assurances and make the following reply to your letter: Subject to the above modifications, Great Britain is prepared to recognise and support the independence of the Arabs in all the regions within the limits demanded by the Sherif of Mecca. Great Britain will guarantee the Holy Places against all external aggression and will recognise their inviolability. When the situation admits, Great Britain will give to the Arabs her advice and will assist them to establish what may appear to be the most suitable forms of government those various territories. On the other hand, it is understood that the Arabs have decided to seek the advice and guidance of Great Britain only, and that such European advisers and officials as may be required for the formation of a sound form of administration will be British. With regard to the vilayets of Bagdad and Basra, the Arabs will recognise that the established position and interests of Great Britain necessitate special administrative arrangements in order to secure these territories from foreign aggression to promote the welfare of the local populations and to safeguard our mutual economic interests. I am convinced that this declaration will assure you beyond all possible doubt of the sympathy of Great Britain towards the aspirations of her friends the Arabs and will result in a firm and lasting alliance, the immediate results of which will be the expulsion of the Turks from the Arab countries and the freeing of the Arab peoples from the Turkish yoke, which for so many years has pressed heavily upon them. I have confined myself in this letter to the more vital and important questions, and if there are any other matters dealt with in your letters which I have omitted to mention, we may discuss them at some convenient date in the future. It was with very great relief and satisfaction that I heard of the safe arrival of the Holy Carpet and the accompanying offerings which, thanks to the clearness of your directions and the excellence of your arrangements, were landed without trouble or mishap in spite of the dangers and difficulties occasioned by the present sad war. May God soon bring a lasting peace and freedom of all peoples. I am sending this letter by the hand of your trusted and excellent messenger, Sheikh Mohammed ibn Arif ibn Uraifan, and he will inform you of the various matters of interest, but of less vital importance, which I have not mentioned in this letter.
(Compliments).
(Signed): A. HENRY MCMAHON.




 And here is the map to go with the letter


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I sure did spot your lies.  You are a pathological liar, Phoeny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never do when they are ISLAMONAZI ones, then claim that the evidence proving it is flawed and Zionist lies. Proving to everyone that you are an ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDIST
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you have discovered, all my links are to neutral official archives or Jewish archives.  The facts are bothersome to someone that has only been fed propaganda.  I feel your pain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG AGAIN ABDUL  they may in archives but that does not make them neutral, the one you push the most is far from neutral as you have been told. Even Winston Churchill condemned them as ANTI SEMITIC and LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Survey, specifically, is in the archives of the UN, because it was were used to justify the giving more than 50% of Palestine to the Zionists, so yes, it is not neutral, it is pro-Zionist.  Unfortunately for you ZioNazis, even a pro-Zionist survey has to be based on some fact. Just imagine if the Survey had been prepared by neutrals.
> 
> Get it through your thick skull, Zionists don't have a leg to stand on, with respect to their invasion/colonization of Palestine and the resultant expulsion of the indigenous people of the Christian and Muslim faiths. It's as simple as that.  The sooner the Jews begin serious negotiations and enfranchise the non-Jews they now have control over, the sooner peace will come and disaster averted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get it right the ISLAMONAZIS got 78% of Palestine leaving the Jews with 22% that the ISLAMONAZIS did not want.
> 
> Maybe this will help you under stand that the Jews were the ones who worked the land and not the arab muslims
> 
> CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Jerusalem (After 1291)
> CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Jerusalem After 1291
> 
> "...Present condition of the City: (1907 edition)
> 
> Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. The total population is estimated at 66,000. *The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures:
> Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000;* Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the Nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly Half the present population...""
> 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> 
> Growth of Jerusalem 1838-Present
> 
> ....... Jews Muslims Christians Total
> 1838 6,000 5,000 3,000 14,000
> *1844 7,120 5,760 3,390 16,270 ..... ..The First Official Ottoman Census *
> 1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030 .... .....Second """"""""""
> 1905 40,000 8,000 10,900 58,900 ....... Third/last, detailed in CathEncyc above
> 1948 99,320 36,680 31,300 167,300
> 1990 353,200 124,200 14,000 491,400
> 1992 385,000 150,000 15,000 550,000
> 
> http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm
Click to expand...



Well, a Christian Zionist magazine is certainly source documentation.  But now the facts in the Mandatory's first Report to the League of Nations:

*AN INTERIM REPORT ON THE CIVIL ADMINISTRATION OF PALESTINE, during the period 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921.  *​
"There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. *Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems.* A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. *Some 77,000 of the population are Christians*, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.

*The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000*. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. *Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. *In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. Most of them were animated by religious motives; they came to pray and to die in the Holy Land, and to be buried in its soil. After the persecutions in Russia forty years ago, the movement of the Jews to Palestine assumed larger proportions. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The borders of Palestine were very clear as per the League of Nations.  And the non-Jewish people living within those well-defined borders were called (and called themselves) Palestinians.  The European colonizers in Palestine called themselves Zionists.
> 
> "Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between latitude 30° N. and 33° N., Longitude 34° 30 E. and 35° 30' E.
> 
> On the south it is bounded by Egyptian and Saudi Arabian territory, on the east by Trans-Jordan, on the north by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and the Lebanon, and on the west by the Mediterranean.
> 
> The boundaries are described as follows:--
> 
> 
> 
> _South._--From a point west of Rafa on the Mediterranean to a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba.
> 
> _East._--From a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba up the centre of the Wadi Araba, the Dead Sea, and the River Jordan, to the junction of the latter with the River Yarmuk, thence up the centre of the River Yarmuk to the Syrian frontier.
> 
> _North._--The northern boundary was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Stated briefly, the boundary runs from Ras el Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to Metulla and across the upper Jordan valley to Banias, thence to Jisr Banat Yaqub, thence along the Jordan to the Lake of Tiberias on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line.
> 
> _West._--The Mediterranean Sea."
> 
> - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations 31 December 1932
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was 12 years after the original MANDATE so not valid for when the LoN made their promise based on this source document
> 
> 
> *Original letter[edit]*
> October 24, 1915.
> I have received your letter of the 29th Shawal, 1333, with much pleasure and your expression of friendliness and sincerity have given me the greatest satisfaction. I regret that you should have received from my last letter the impression that I regarded the question of limits and boundaries with coldness and hesitation; such was not the case, but it appeared to me that the time had not yet come when that question could be discussed in a conclusive manner.
> 
> I have realised, however, from your last letter that you regard this question as one of vital and urgent importance. I have, therefore, lost no time in informing the Government of Great Britain of the contents of your letter, and it is with great pleasure that I communicate to you on their behalf the following statement, which I am confident you will receive with satisfaction. The two districts of Mersina and Alexandretta and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama.and Aleppo cannot be said to be purely Arab, and should be excluded from the limits demanded. With the above modification, and without prejudice to our existing treaties with Arab chiefs, we accept those limits. As for those regions lying within those frontiers wherein Great Britain is free to act without detriment to the interests of her ally, France, I am empowered in the name of the Government of Great Britain to give the following assurances and make the following assurances and make the following reply to your letter: Subject to the above modifications, Great Britain is prepared to recognise and support the independence of the Arabs in all the regions within the limits demanded by the Sherif of Mecca. Great Britain will guarantee the Holy Places against all external aggression and will recognise their inviolability. When the situation admits, Great Britain will give to the Arabs her advice and will assist them to establish what may appear to be the most suitable forms of government those various territories. On the other hand, it is understood that the Arabs have decided to seek the advice and guidance of Great Britain only, and that such European advisers and officials as may be required for the formation of a sound form of administration will be British. With regard to the vilayets of Bagdad and Basra, the Arabs will recognise that the established position and interests of Great Britain necessitate special administrative arrangements in order to secure these territories from foreign aggression to promote the welfare of the local populations and to safeguard our mutual economic interests. I am convinced that this declaration will assure you beyond all possible doubt of the sympathy of Great Britain towards the aspirations of her friends the Arabs and will result in a firm and lasting alliance, the immediate results of which will be the expulsion of the Turks from the Arab countries and the freeing of the Arab peoples from the Turkish yoke, which for so many years has pressed heavily upon them. I have confined myself in this letter to the more vital and important questions, and if there are any other matters dealt with in your letters which I have omitted to mention, we may discuss them at some convenient date in the future. It was with very great relief and satisfaction that I heard of the safe arrival of the Holy Carpet and the accompanying offerings which, thanks to the clearness of your directions and the excellence of your arrangements, were landed without trouble or mishap in spite of the dangers and difficulties occasioned by the present sad war. May God soon bring a lasting peace and freedom of all peoples. I am sending this letter by the hand of your trusted and excellent messenger, Sheikh Mohammed ibn Arif ibn Uraifan, and he will inform you of the various matters of interest, but of less vital importance, which I have not mentioned in this letter.
> (Compliments).
> (Signed): A. HENRY MCMAHON.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here is the map to go with the letter
Click to expand...


_"That was 12 years after the original MANDATE so not valid for when the LoN made their promise based on this source document"
_
No, it is the definition the borders of Palestine (not Trans-Jordania) as per the Mandate. They never changed.


----------



## ChrisL

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The borders of Palestine were very clear as per the League of Nations.  And the non-Jewish people living within those well-defined borders were called (and called themselves) Palestinians.  The European colonizers in Palestine called themselves Zionists.
> 
> "Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between latitude 30° N. and 33° N., Longitude 34° 30 E. and 35° 30' E.
> 
> On the south it is bounded by Egyptian and Saudi Arabian territory, on the east by Trans-Jordan, on the north by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and the Lebanon, and on the west by the Mediterranean.
> 
> The boundaries are described as follows:--
> 
> 
> 
> _South._--From a point west of Rafa on the Mediterranean to a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba.
> 
> _East._--From a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba up the centre of the Wadi Araba, the Dead Sea, and the River Jordan, to the junction of the latter with the River Yarmuk, thence up the centre of the River Yarmuk to the Syrian frontier.
> 
> _North._--The northern boundary was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Stated briefly, the boundary runs from Ras el Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to Metulla and across the upper Jordan valley to Banias, thence to Jisr Banat Yaqub, thence along the Jordan to the Lake of Tiberias on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line.
> 
> _West._--The Mediterranean Sea."
> 
> - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations 31 December 1932
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was 12 years after the original MANDATE so not valid for when the LoN made their promise based on this source document
> 
> 
> *Original letter[edit]*
> October 24, 1915.
> I have received your letter of the 29th Shawal, 1333, with much pleasure and your expression of friendliness and sincerity have given me the greatest satisfaction. I regret that you should have received from my last letter the impression that I regarded the question of limits and boundaries with coldness and hesitation; such was not the case, but it appeared to me that the time had not yet come when that question could be discussed in a conclusive manner.
> 
> I have realised, however, from your last letter that you regard this question as one of vital and urgent importance. I have, therefore, lost no time in informing the Government of Great Britain of the contents of your letter, and it is with great pleasure that I communicate to you on their behalf the following statement, which I am confident you will receive with satisfaction. The two districts of Mersina and Alexandretta and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama.and Aleppo cannot be said to be purely Arab, and should be excluded from the limits demanded. With the above modification, and without prejudice to our existing treaties with Arab chiefs, we accept those limits. As for those regions lying within those frontiers wherein Great Britain is free to act without detriment to the interests of her ally, France, I am empowered in the name of the Government of Great Britain to give the following assurances and make the following assurances and make the following reply to your letter: Subject to the above modifications, Great Britain is prepared to recognise and support the independence of the Arabs in all the regions within the limits demanded by the Sherif of Mecca. Great Britain will guarantee the Holy Places against all external aggression and will recognise their inviolability. When the situation admits, Great Britain will give to the Arabs her advice and will assist them to establish what may appear to be the most suitable forms of government those various territories. On the other hand, it is understood that the Arabs have decided to seek the advice and guidance of Great Britain only, and that such European advisers and officials as may be required for the formation of a sound form of administration will be British. With regard to the vilayets of Bagdad and Basra, the Arabs will recognise that the established position and interests of Great Britain necessitate special administrative arrangements in order to secure these territories from foreign aggression to promote the welfare of the local populations and to safeguard our mutual economic interests. I am convinced that this declaration will assure you beyond all possible doubt of the sympathy of Great Britain towards the aspirations of her friends the Arabs and will result in a firm and lasting alliance, the immediate results of which will be the expulsion of the Turks from the Arab countries and the freeing of the Arab peoples from the Turkish yoke, which for so many years has pressed heavily upon them. I have confined myself in this letter to the more vital and important questions, and if there are any other matters dealt with in your letters which I have omitted to mention, we may discuss them at some convenient date in the future. It was with very great relief and satisfaction that I heard of the safe arrival of the Holy Carpet and the accompanying offerings which, thanks to the clearness of your directions and the excellence of your arrangements, were landed without trouble or mishap in spite of the dangers and difficulties occasioned by the present sad war. May God soon bring a lasting peace and freedom of all peoples. I am sending this letter by the hand of your trusted and excellent messenger, Sheikh Mohammed ibn Arif ibn Uraifan, and he will inform you of the various matters of interest, but of less vital importance, which I have not mentioned in this letter.
> (Compliments).
> (Signed): A. HENRY MCMAHON.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here is the map to go with the letter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"That was 12 years after the original MANDATE so not valid for when the LoN made their promise based on this source document"
> _
> No, it is definition the borders of Palestine (not Trans-Jordania) as per the Mandate. They never changed.
Click to expand...


Thanks be to Israel for containing that scourge so it doesn't effect the rest of the civilized world. 

Also, no one cares about your stupid maps.  Israel is not going anywhere, nor should they.  THEY are our allies.  Palestine is not.  They are a country of uncivilized killers run by various terror cells.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I sure did spot your lies.  You are a pathological liar, Phoeny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never do when they are ISLAMONAZI ones, then claim that the evidence proving it is flawed and Zionist lies. Proving to everyone that you are an ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDIST
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you have discovered, all my links are to neutral official archives or Jewish archives.  The facts are bothersome to someone that has only been fed propaganda.  I feel your pain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG AGAIN ABDUL  they may in archives but that does not make them neutral, the one you push the most is far from neutral as you have been told. Even Winston Churchill condemned them as ANTI SEMITIC and LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Survey, specifically, is in the archives of the UN, because it was were used to justify the giving more than 50% of Palestine to the Zionists, so yes, it is not neutral, it is pro-Zionist.  Unfortunately for you ZioNazis, even a pro-Zionist survey has to be based on some fact. Just imagine if the Survey had been prepared by neutrals.
> 
> Get it through your thick skull, Zionists don't have a leg to stand on, with respect to their invasion/colonization of Palestine and the resultant expulsion of the indigenous people of the Christian and Muslim faiths. It's as simple as that.  The sooner the Jews begin serious negotiations and enfranchise the non-Jews they now have control over, the sooner peace will come and disaster averted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get it right the ISLAMONAZIS got 78% of Palestine leaving the Jews with 22% that the ISLAMONAZIS did not want.
> 
> Maybe this will help you under stand that the Jews were the ones who worked the land and not the arab muslims
> 
> CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Jerusalem (After 1291)
> CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Jerusalem After 1291
> 
> "...Present condition of the City: (1907 edition)
> 
> Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. The total population is estimated at 66,000. *The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures:
> Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000;* Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the Nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly Half the present population...""
> 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> 
> Growth of Jerusalem 1838-Present
> 
> ....... Jews Muslims Christians Total
> 1838 6,000 5,000 3,000 14,000
> *1844 7,120 5,760 3,390 16,270 ..... ..The First Official Ottoman Census *
> 1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030 .... .....Second """"""""""
> 1905 40,000 8,000 10,900 58,900 ....... Third/last, detailed in CathEncyc above
> 1948 99,320 36,680 31,300 167,300
> 1990 353,200 124,200 14,000 491,400
> 1992 385,000 150,000 15,000 550,000
> 
> http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm
Click to expand...


Now you refer to Christian Zionist magazines for your back-up.  Oh dear.


----------



## ChrisL

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The borders of Palestine were very clear as per the League of Nations.  And the non-Jewish people living within those well-defined borders were called (and called themselves) Palestinians.  The European colonizers in Palestine called themselves Zionists.
> 
> "Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between latitude 30° N. and 33° N., Longitude 34° 30 E. and 35° 30' E.
> 
> On the south it is bounded by Egyptian and Saudi Arabian territory, on the east by Trans-Jordan, on the north by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and the Lebanon, and on the west by the Mediterranean.
> 
> The boundaries are described as follows:--
> 
> 
> 
> _South._--From a point west of Rafa on the Mediterranean to a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba.
> 
> _East._--From a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba up the centre of the Wadi Araba, the Dead Sea, and the River Jordan, to the junction of the latter with the River Yarmuk, thence up the centre of the River Yarmuk to the Syrian frontier.
> 
> _North._--The northern boundary was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Stated briefly, the boundary runs from Ras el Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to Metulla and across the upper Jordan valley to Banias, thence to Jisr Banat Yaqub, thence along the Jordan to the Lake of Tiberias on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line.
> 
> _West._--The Mediterranean Sea."
> 
> - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations 31 December 1932
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was 12 years after the original MANDATE so not valid for when the LoN made their promise based on this source document
> 
> 
> *Original letter[edit]*
> October 24, 1915.
> I have received your letter of the 29th Shawal, 1333, with much pleasure and your expression of friendliness and sincerity have given me the greatest satisfaction. I regret that you should have received from my last letter the impression that I regarded the question of limits and boundaries with coldness and hesitation; such was not the case, but it appeared to me that the time had not yet come when that question could be discussed in a conclusive manner.
> 
> I have realised, however, from your last letter that you regard this question as one of vital and urgent importance. I have, therefore, lost no time in informing the Government of Great Britain of the contents of your letter, and it is with great pleasure that I communicate to you on their behalf the following statement, which I am confident you will receive with satisfaction. The two districts of Mersina and Alexandretta and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama.and Aleppo cannot be said to be purely Arab, and should be excluded from the limits demanded. With the above modification, and without prejudice to our existing treaties with Arab chiefs, we accept those limits. As for those regions lying within those frontiers wherein Great Britain is free to act without detriment to the interests of her ally, France, I am empowered in the name of the Government of Great Britain to give the following assurances and make the following assurances and make the following reply to your letter: Subject to the above modifications, Great Britain is prepared to recognise and support the independence of the Arabs in all the regions within the limits demanded by the Sherif of Mecca. Great Britain will guarantee the Holy Places against all external aggression and will recognise their inviolability. When the situation admits, Great Britain will give to the Arabs her advice and will assist them to establish what may appear to be the most suitable forms of government those various territories. On the other hand, it is understood that the Arabs have decided to seek the advice and guidance of Great Britain only, and that such European advisers and officials as may be required for the formation of a sound form of administration will be British. With regard to the vilayets of Bagdad and Basra, the Arabs will recognise that the established position and interests of Great Britain necessitate special administrative arrangements in order to secure these territories from foreign aggression to promote the welfare of the local populations and to safeguard our mutual economic interests. I am convinced that this declaration will assure you beyond all possible doubt of the sympathy of Great Britain towards the aspirations of her friends the Arabs and will result in a firm and lasting alliance, the immediate results of which will be the expulsion of the Turks from the Arab countries and the freeing of the Arab peoples from the Turkish yoke, which for so many years has pressed heavily upon them. I have confined myself in this letter to the more vital and important questions, and if there are any other matters dealt with in your letters which I have omitted to mention, we may discuss them at some convenient date in the future. It was with very great relief and satisfaction that I heard of the safe arrival of the Holy Carpet and the accompanying offerings which, thanks to the clearness of your directions and the excellence of your arrangements, were landed without trouble or mishap in spite of the dangers and difficulties occasioned by the present sad war. May God soon bring a lasting peace and freedom of all peoples. I am sending this letter by the hand of your trusted and excellent messenger, Sheikh Mohammed ibn Arif ibn Uraifan, and he will inform you of the various matters of interest, but of less vital importance, which I have not mentioned in this letter.
> (Compliments).
> (Signed): A. HENRY MCMAHON.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here is the map to go with the letter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"That was 12 years after the original MANDATE so not valid for when the LoN made their promise based on this source document"
> _
> No, it is the definition the borders of Palestine (not Trans-Jordania) as per the Mandate. They never changed.
Click to expand...


The "Palestinians" were nothing but nomadic peoples.  They had no defined territory ever.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

Well, I don't think so.



montelatici said:


> What laws has Israel broken?  It would take hours, but let's just look at two.
> 
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.
> 
> Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
> 
> 
> The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
> 
> Besides being victims of ethnic cleansing and genocide (read the definition of genocide before claiming that since the Palestinians have increased in number genocide doesn't apply).



*(COMMENT)*

With the exception of the ICJ, the specific laws cited where not yet in effect.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) was established in June 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations and began work in April 1946.
The International Court of Justice acts as a world court. The Court has a dual jurisdiction : it decides, in accordance with international law, disputes of a legal nature that are submitted to it by States (jurisdiction in contentious cases); and it gives advisory opinions on legal questions at the request of the organs of the United Nations or specialized agencies authorized to make such a request (advisory jurisdiction).​Israel declared Independence in May 1948
Israel was admitted to the UN May 1949
Armistice Agreements mid-1949
The Geneva Convention VI went into force October 1950
The Rome Statutes of the International Criminal Court (July 2002)​


montelatici said:


> To start, the Mandatory/LoN/UN did not safeguard the civil, political and economic interests of the Muslims and Christians, did not provide for the creation of a national independent Government for the Muslims and Christians in accordance with paragraph 4, Article 22, of the Covenant of the League of Nations, did not provide religious equality to the Christians and Muslim.


*(OBSERVATION)*

The Covenant of the League of Nations: 

Article 22.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In every case of Mandate, the Mandatory shall render to the Council an annual report in reference to the territory committed to its charge.

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

A permanent Commission shall be constituted to receive and examine the annual reports of the Mandatories and to advise the Council on all matters relating to the observance of the mandates.​
*(COMMENT)*

The Article 22/4 of the LoN Covenant, does not say anything along the line: "creation of a national independent Government for the Muslims and Christians."    It does mention the provisional recognition of independent nations; but with no specificity.

The LoN Covenant did not stipulate any safeguards relative to the civil, political and economic interests of the Muslims and Christians.  However, the Preamble and  Article 2 of the Mandate for Palestine, does stipulate  "safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."  However it does stipulate that "The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home."  

Having said that, it is very consistent with the Trustee System "to promote the political, economic, social, and educational advancement of the inhabitants of the trust territories, and their progressive development towards self-government or independence," during benevolent administration.

Again, I fail to find anything that could be considered a violation of the LoN Covenant or the UN Charter; as you have indicated.

*(COMMENT) --- Spirit and Intent*

Relative to the specific allegation, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.  The term "genocide" did not exist before 1944. It is a very specific term, referring to violent crimes committed against groups with the intent to destroy the existence of the group; or the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race.


(a)  Killing members of the group;

(b)  Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c)  Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d)  Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e)  Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. 
The State of Israel has no policy or criminal intent to destroy or to cripple permanently the Arab Palestinian. The State of Israel does not perform acts that are directed against Arab Palestinians or a program of destruction only because they belong to the group of Arab Palestinians.  (Defining genocide: the Nürnberg Charter --- Encyclopedia Britannica).

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Well, I don't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What laws has Israel broken?  It would take hours, but let's just look at two.
> 
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.
> 
> Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
> 
> 
> The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
> Besides being victims of ethnic cleansing and genocide (read the definition of genocide before claiming that since the Palestinians have increased in number genocide doesn't apply).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> With the exception of the ICJ, the specific laws cited where not yet in effect.
> 
> The International Court of Justice (ICJ) was established in June 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations and began work in April 1946.
> The International Court of Justice acts as a world court. The Court has a dual jurisdiction : it decides, in accordance with international law, disputes of a legal nature that are submitted to it by States (jurisdiction in contentious cases); and it gives advisory opinions on legal questions at the request of the organs of the United Nations or specialized agencies authorized to make such a request (advisory jurisdiction).​Israel declared Independence in May 1948
> Israel was admitted to the UN May 1949
> Armistice Agreements mid-1949
> The Geneva Convention VI went into force October 1950
> The Rome Statutes of the International Criminal Court (July 2002)​
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> To start, the Mandatory/LoN/UN did not safeguard the civil, political and economic interests of the Muslims and Christians, did not provide for the creation of a national independent Government for the Muslims and Christians in accordance with paragraph 4, Article 22, of the Covenant of the League of Nations, did not provide religious equality to the Christians and Muslim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> The Covenant of the League of Nations:
> 
> Article 22.
> 
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war [*World War I*] have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilization and that securities for the formance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.
> 
> The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.
> 
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
> 
> Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade
> and commerce of other Members of the League.
> 
> There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilization, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above-mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population.
> 
> In every case of Mandate, the Mandatory shall render to the Council an annual report in reference to the territory committed to its charge.
> 
> The degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.
> 
> A permanent Commission shall be constituted to receive and examine the annual reports of the Mandatories and to advise the Council on all matters relating to the observance of the mandates.​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Article 22/4 of the LoN Covenant, does not say anything along the line: "creation of a national independent Government for the Muslims and Christians."    It does mention the provisional recognition of independent nations; but with no specificity.
> 
> The LoN Covenant did not stipulate any safeguards relative to the civil, political and economic interests of the Muslims and Christians.  However, the Preamble and  Article 2 of the Mandate for Palestine, does stipulate  "safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."  However it does stipulate that "The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home."
> 
> Having said that, it is very consistent with the Trustee System "to promote the political, economic, social, and educational advancement of the inhabitants of the trust territories, and their progressive development towards self-government or independence," during benevolent administration.
> 
> Again, I fail to find anything that could be considered a violation of the LoN Covenant or the UN Charter; as you have indicated.
> 
> *(COMMENT) --- Spirit and Intent*
> 
> Relative to the specific allegation, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.  The term "genocide" did not exist before 1944. It is a very specific term, referring to violent crimes committed against groups with the intent to destroy the existence of the group; or the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race.
> 
> 
> (a)  Killing members of the group;
> 
> (b)  Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
> 
> (c)  Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
> 
> (d)  Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
> 
> (e)  Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
> The State of Israel has no policy or criminal intent to destroy or to cripple permanently the Arab Palestinian. The State of Israel does not perform acts that are directed against Arab Palestinians or a program of destruction only because they belong to the group of Arab Palestinians.  (Defining genocide: the Nürnberg Charter --- Encyclopedia Britannica).
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Rocco, Rocco. Your response attempts to utilize loopholes that don't exist, in an attempt expunge the "crimes" of both the LoN/UN/British and Israel.  You know full well that the crimes have been committed and are acting as any good defense lawyer would however, without debunking all of your response, let's just remember that:

1. Israel is transferring population to the Occupied Territories as we speak. So the Convention applies.
2. Israel does have a policy of crippling and destroying the Christians and Muslims of Palestine.  Whether the intent is to cripple and destroy permanently or not, has no bearing.  

and, no one can deny that Israel is: 

Killing members of the group;

(Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(i.e. withholding Palestinian taxes, blockading Gaza, etc.)

As far as the UN/LoN it is clear that placing a part of the Christian and Muslim population under Jewish rule was a violation of the Mandate. They even made it clear that there was no such intent in the 1922 White Paper:

*"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine.* They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of* the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.'* In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

The Avalon Project British White Paper of June 1922


----------



## Hossfly

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Well, I don't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What laws has Israel broken?  It would take hours, but let's just look at two.
> 
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.
> 
> Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
> 
> 
> The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
> Besides being victims of ethnic cleansing and genocide (read the definition of genocide before claiming that since the Palestinians have increased in number genocide doesn't apply).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> With the exception of the ICJ, the specific laws cited where not yet in effect.
> 
> The International Court of Justice (ICJ) was established in June 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations and began work in April 1946.
> The International Court of Justice acts as a world court. The Court has a dual jurisdiction : it decides, in accordance with international law, disputes of a legal nature that are submitted to it by States (jurisdiction in contentious cases); and it gives advisory opinions on legal questions at the request of the organs of the United Nations or specialized agencies authorized to make such a request (advisory jurisdiction).​Israel declared Independence in May 1948
> Israel was admitted to the UN May 1949
> Armistice Agreements mid-1949
> The Geneva Convention VI went into force October 1950
> The Rome Statutes of the International Criminal Court (July 2002)​
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> To start, the Mandatory/LoN/UN did not safeguard the civil, political and economic interests of the Muslims and Christians, did not provide for the creation of a national independent Government for the Muslims and Christians in accordance with paragraph 4, Article 22, of the Covenant of the League of Nations, did not provide religious equality to the Christians and Muslim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> The Covenant of the League of Nations:
> 
> Article 22.
> 
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war [*World War I*] have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilization and that securities for the formance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.
> 
> The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.
> 
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
> 
> Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade
> and commerce of other Members of the League.
> 
> There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilization, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above-mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population.
> 
> In every case of Mandate, the Mandatory shall render to the Council an annual report in reference to the territory committed to its charge.
> 
> The degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.
> 
> A permanent Commission shall be constituted to receive and examine the annual reports of the Mandatories and to advise the Council on all matters relating to the observance of the mandates.​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Article 22/4 of the LoN Covenant, does not say anything along the line: "creation of a national independent Government for the Muslims and Christians."    It does mention the provisional recognition of independent nations; but with no specificity.
> 
> The LoN Covenant did not stipulate any safeguards relative to the civil, political and economic interests of the Muslims and Christians.  However, the Preamble and  Article 2 of the Mandate for Palestine, does stipulate  "safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."  However it does stipulate that "The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home."
> 
> Having said that, it is very consistent with the Trustee System "to promote the political, economic, social, and educational advancement of the inhabitants of the trust territories, and their progressive development towards self-government or independence," during benevolent administration.
> 
> Again, I fail to find anything that could be considered a violation of the LoN Covenant or the UN Charter; as you have indicated.
> 
> *(COMMENT) --- Spirit and Intent*
> 
> Relative to the specific allegation, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.  The term "genocide" did not exist before 1944. It is a very specific term, referring to violent crimes committed against groups with the intent to destroy the existence of the group; or the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race.
> 
> 
> (a)  Killing members of the group;
> 
> (b)  Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
> 
> (c)  Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
> 
> (d)  Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
> 
> (e)  Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
> The State of Israel has no policy or criminal intent to destroy or to cripple permanently the Arab Palestinian. The State of Israel does not perform acts that are directed against Arab Palestinians or a program of destruction only because they belong to the group of Arab Palestinians.  (Defining genocide: the Nürnberg Charter --- Encyclopedia Britannica).
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

RoccoR , when you're trying to instruct a one-cell organism, it might be a good idea to use charts, graphs and a slide projector. Monte was raised on PacMan.


----------



## montelatici

The dunce in the peanut gallery speaks. Why don't leave this discussion to the adults, you are out of your element.


----------



## Muhammed

ChrisL said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The borders of Palestine were very clear as per the League of Nations.  And the non-Jewish people living within those well-defined borders were called (and called themselves) Palestinians.  The European colonizers in Palestine called themselves Zionists.
> 
> "Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between latitude 30° N. and 33° N., Longitude 34° 30 E. and 35° 30' E.
> 
> On the south it is bounded by Egyptian and Saudi Arabian territory, on the east by Trans-Jordan, on the north by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and the Lebanon, and on the west by the Mediterranean.
> 
> The boundaries are described as follows:--
> 
> 
> 
> _South._--From a point west of Rafa on the Mediterranean to a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba.
> 
> _East._--From a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba up the centre of the Wadi Araba, the Dead Sea, and the River Jordan, to the junction of the latter with the River Yarmuk, thence up the centre of the River Yarmuk to the Syrian frontier.
> 
> _North._--The northern boundary was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Stated briefly, the boundary runs from Ras el Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to Metulla and across the upper Jordan valley to Banias, thence to Jisr Banat Yaqub, thence along the Jordan to the Lake of Tiberias on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line.
> 
> _West._--The Mediterranean Sea."
> 
> - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations 31 December 1932
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was 12 years after the original MANDATE so not valid for when the LoN made their promise based on this source document
> 
> 
> *Original letter[edit]*
> October 24, 1915.
> I have received your letter of the 29th Shawal, 1333, with much pleasure and your expression of friendliness and sincerity have given me the greatest satisfaction. I regret that you should have received from my last letter the impression that I regarded the question of limits and boundaries with coldness and hesitation; such was not the case, but it appeared to me that the time had not yet come when that question could be discussed in a conclusive manner.
> 
> I have realised, however, from your last letter that you regard this question as one of vital and urgent importance. I have, therefore, lost no time in informing the Government of Great Britain of the contents of your letter, and it is with great pleasure that I communicate to you on their behalf the following statement, which I am confident you will receive with satisfaction. The two districts of Mersina and Alexandretta and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama.and Aleppo cannot be said to be purely Arab, and should be excluded from the limits demanded. With the above modification, and without prejudice to our existing treaties with Arab chiefs, we accept those limits. As for those regions lying within those frontiers wherein Great Britain is free to act without detriment to the interests of her ally, France, I am empowered in the name of the Government of Great Britain to give the following assurances and make the following assurances and make the following reply to your letter: Subject to the above modifications, Great Britain is prepared to recognise and support the independence of the Arabs in all the regions within the limits demanded by the Sherif of Mecca. Great Britain will guarantee the Holy Places against all external aggression and will recognise their inviolability. When the situation admits, Great Britain will give to the Arabs her advice and will assist them to establish what may appear to be the most suitable forms of government those various territories. On the other hand, it is understood that the Arabs have decided to seek the advice and guidance of Great Britain only, and that such European advisers and officials as may be required for the formation of a sound form of administration will be British. With regard to the vilayets of Bagdad and Basra, the Arabs will recognise that the established position and interests of Great Britain necessitate special administrative arrangements in order to secure these territories from foreign aggression to promote the welfare of the local populations and to safeguard our mutual economic interests. I am convinced that this declaration will assure you beyond all possible doubt of the sympathy of Great Britain towards the aspirations of her friends the Arabs and will result in a firm and lasting alliance, the immediate results of which will be the expulsion of the Turks from the Arab countries and the freeing of the Arab peoples from the Turkish yoke, which for so many years has pressed heavily upon them. I have confined myself in this letter to the more vital and important questions, and if there are any other matters dealt with in your letters which I have omitted to mention, we may discuss them at some convenient date in the future. It was with very great relief and satisfaction that I heard of the safe arrival of the Holy Carpet and the accompanying offerings which, thanks to the clearness of your directions and the excellence of your arrangements, were landed without trouble or mishap in spite of the dangers and difficulties occasioned by the present sad war. May God soon bring a lasting peace and freedom of all peoples. I am sending this letter by the hand of your trusted and excellent messenger, Sheikh Mohammed ibn Arif ibn Uraifan, and he will inform you of the various matters of interest, but of less vital importance, which I have not mentioned in this letter.
> (Compliments).
> (Signed): A. HENRY MCMAHON.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here is the map to go with the letter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"That was 12 years after the original MANDATE so not valid for when the LoN made their promise based on this source document"
> _
> No, it is the definition the borders of Palestine (not Trans-Jordania) as per the Mandate. They never changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "Palestinians" were nothing but nomadic peoples.  They had no defined territory ever.
Click to expand...

Yes they did ChrisL. It's called Palestine for a reason.


----------



## Kondor3

Muhammed said:


> ...It's called Palestine for a reason.


Correction.

It *WAS* called Palestine.

Today, it's called Israel.

Along with a handful of slivers of remaining Muslim-controlled land-parcels known collectively as Residual or _Rump_ Palestine.


----------



## Muhammed

Kondor3 said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...It's called Palestine for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Correction.
> 
> It *WAS* called Palestine.
> 
> Today, it's called Israel.
> 
> Along with a handful of slivers of remaining Muslim-controlled land-parcels known collectively as Residual or _Rump_ Palestine.
Click to expand...

Are you too ignorant to comprehend the difference between Israel and Palestine?


----------



## Kondor3

Muhammed said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...It's called Palestine for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Correction.
> 
> It *WAS* called Palestine.
> 
> Today, it's called Israel.
> 
> Along with a handful of slivers of remaining Muslim-controlled land-parcels known collectively as Residual or _Rump_ Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you too ignorant to comprehend the difference between Israel and Palestine?
Click to expand...

Nope.

Palestine is the past.

Israel is the present and the future.

Hope that helps.


----------



## montelatici

Well, I guess that's how the supporters of Israel have to think.  But, looking at the dynamics neutrally,  it doesn't look good for a Jew ruled enclave for the long term.  If the Jews compromise, then there is a chance that a secular democratic state with equal rights for all the people currently in Palestine (including Israel) might actually be successful.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici, et al,

Some how we switched gears.  I was presenting an opinion on the suggestion that the Jewish Immigration to Israel was an "invasion from Europe" and that it was a colonial project (obviously unsponsored).  But I can switch gears.



montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Well, I don't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What laws has Israel broken?  It would take hours, but let's just look at two.
> 
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.
> 
> Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
> 
> 
> The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
> Besides being victims of ethnic cleansing and genocide (read the definition of genocide before claiming that since the Palestinians have increased in number genocide doesn't apply).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> With the exception of the ICJ, the specific laws cited where not yet in effect.
> 
> The International Court of Justice (ICJ) was established in June 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations and began work in April 1946.
> The International Court of Justice acts as a world court. The Court has a dual jurisdiction : it decides, in accordance with international law, disputes of a legal nature that are submitted to it by States (jurisdiction in contentious cases); and it gives advisory opinions on legal questions at the request of the organs of the United Nations or specialized agencies authorized to make such a request (advisory jurisdiction).​Israel declared Independence in May 1948
> Israel was admitted to the UN May 1949
> Armistice Agreements mid-1949
> The Geneva Convention VI went into force October 1950
> The Rome Statutes of the International Criminal Court (July 2002)​
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> To start, the Mandatory/LoN/UN did not safeguard the civil, political and economic interests of the Muslims and Christians, did not provide for the creation of a national independent Government for the Muslims and Christians in accordance with paragraph 4, Article 22, of the Covenant of the League of Nations, did not provide religious equality to the Christians and Muslim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> The Covenant of the League of Nations:
> 
> Article 22.
> 
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war [*World War I*] have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilization and that securities for the formance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.
> 
> The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.
> 
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
> 
> Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade
> and commerce of other Members of the League.
> 
> There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilization, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above-mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population.
> 
> In every case of Mandate, the Mandatory shall render to the Council an annual report in reference to the territory committed to its charge.
> 
> The degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.
> 
> A permanent Commission shall be constituted to receive and examine the annual reports of the Mandatories and to advise the Council on all matters relating to the observance of the mandates.​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Article 22/4 of the LoN Covenant, does not say anything along the line: "creation of a national independent Government for the Muslims and Christians."    It does mention the provisional recognition of independent nations; but with no specificity.
> 
> The LoN Covenant did not stipulate any safeguards relative to the civil, political and economic interests of the Muslims and Christians.  However, the Preamble and  Article 2 of the Mandate for Palestine, does stipulate  "safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."  However it does stipulate that "The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home."
> 
> Having said that, it is very consistent with the Trustee System "to promote the political, economic, social, and educational advancement of the inhabitants of the trust territories, and their progressive development towards self-government or independence," during benevolent administration.
> 
> Again, I fail to find anything that could be considered a violation of the LoN Covenant or the UN Charter; as you have indicated.
> 
> *(COMMENT) --- Spirit and Intent*
> 
> Relative to the specific allegation, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.  The term "genocide" did not exist before 1944. It is a very specific term, referring to violent crimes committed against groups with the intent to destroy the existence of the group; or the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race.
> 
> 
> (a)  Killing members of the group;
> 
> (b)  Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
> 
> (c)  Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
> 
> (d)  Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
> 
> (e)  Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
> The State of Israel has no policy or criminal intent to destroy or to cripple permanently the Arab Palestinian. The State of Israel does not perform acts that are directed against Arab Palestinians or a program of destruction only because they belong to the group of Arab Palestinians.  (Defining genocide: the Nürnberg Charter --- Encyclopedia Britannica).
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rocco, Rocco. Your response attempts to utilize loopholes that don't exist, in an attempt expunge the "crimes" of both the LoN/UN/British and Israel.  You know full well that the crimes have been committed and are acting as any good defense lawyer would however, without debunking all of your response, let's just remember that:
> 
> 1. Israel is transferring population to the Occupied Territories as we speak. So the Convention applies.
> 2. Israel does have a policy of crippling and destroying the Christians and Muslims of Palestine.  Whether the intent is to cripple and destroy permanently or not, has no bearing.
> 
> and, no one can deny that Israel is:
> 
> Killing members of the group;
> 
> (Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
> 
> Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
> 
> (i.e. withholding Palestinian taxes, blockading Gaza, etc.)
> 
> As far as the UN/LoN it is clear that placing a part of the Christian and Muslim population under Jewish rule was a violation of the Mandate. They even made it clear that there was no such intent in the 1922 White Paper:
> 
> *"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine.* They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of* the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.'* In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."
> 
> The Avalon Project British White Paper of June 1922
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)
*
I deny that Israel has a program to eradicate the Arab Palestinian.  While a number of Arab Palestinians have been killed, it is nothing even approximating the scope, magnitude and numbers to raise the casualties of the Jihadist and Belligerent Occupation as a program of "Genocide."

Israel has no program or plan to Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part of the Arab Palestinian people.  For each and every security countermeasure put in place, there was a legitimate reason for the containment measure.

Israel is exercising its negotiate rights under the Oslo Accords concerning the settlements.  The settlement issue is subject to the Permanent Status of Negotiations.  It is not a Geneva Convention matter.

 As far as the UN/LoN it is clear that placing a part of the Christian and Muslim population under Jewish rule was a violation of the Mandate. They even made it clear that there was no such intent in the 1922 White Paper:  Nothing in the Charter, the Covenant, or the mandate even addresses this issue.  And while it is true that in 1933, the Mandatory did not envision making the entire landscape of the Palestine territory under Mandate the Jewish National Home, (which never happened anyway), nothing prevented the UN as the trustee, from Partitioning the territory.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## ChrisL

Kondor3 said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...It's called Palestine for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Correction.
> 
> It *WAS* called Palestine.
> 
> Today, it's called Israel.
> 
> Along with a handful of slivers of remaining Muslim-controlled land-parcels known collectively as Residual or _Rump_ Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you too ignorant to comprehend the difference between Israel and Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Palestine is the past.
> 
> Israel is the present and the future.
> 
> Hope that helps.
Click to expand...


I've met a few Israelis.  Good people.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never do when they are ISLAMONAZI ones, then claim that the evidence proving it is flawed and Zionist lies. Proving to everyone that you are an ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDIST
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you have discovered, all my links are to neutral official archives or Jewish archives.  The facts are bothersome to someone that has only been fed propaganda.  I feel your pain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG AGAIN ABDUL  they may in archives but that does not make them neutral, the one you push the most is far from neutral as you have been told. Even Winston Churchill condemned them as ANTI SEMITIC and LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Survey, specifically, is in the archives of the UN, because it was were used to justify the giving more than 50% of Palestine to the Zionists, so yes, it is not neutral, it is pro-Zionist.  Unfortunately for you ZioNazis, even a pro-Zionist survey has to be based on some fact. Just imagine if the Survey had been prepared by neutrals.
> 
> Get it through your thick skull, Zionists don't have a leg to stand on, with respect to their invasion/colonization of Palestine and the resultant expulsion of the indigenous people of the Christian and Muslim faiths. It's as simple as that.  The sooner the Jews begin serious negotiations and enfranchise the non-Jews they now have control over, the sooner peace will come and disaster averted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get it right the ISLAMONAZIS got 78% of Palestine leaving the Jews with 22% that the ISLAMONAZIS did not want.
> 
> Maybe this will help you under stand that the Jews were the ones who worked the land and not the arab muslims
> 
> CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Jerusalem (After 1291)
> CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Jerusalem After 1291
> 
> "...Present condition of the City: (1907 edition)
> 
> Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. The total population is estimated at 66,000. *The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures:
> Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000;* Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the Nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly Half the present population...""
> 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> 
> Growth of Jerusalem 1838-Present
> 
> ....... Jews Muslims Christians Total
> 1838 6,000 5,000 3,000 14,000
> *1844 7,120 5,760 3,390 16,270 ..... ..The First Official Ottoman Census *
> 1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030 .... .....Second """"""""""
> 1905 40,000 8,000 10,900 58,900 ....... Third/last, detailed in CathEncyc above
> 1948 99,320 36,680 31,300 167,300
> 1990 353,200 124,200 14,000 491,400
> 1992 385,000 150,000 15,000 550,000
> 
> http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, a Christian Zionist magazine is certainly source documentation.  But now the facts in the Mandatory's first Report to the League of Nations:
> 
> *AN INTERIM REPORT ON THE CIVIL ADMINISTRATION OF PALESTINE, during the period 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921.  *​
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. *Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems.* A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. *Some 77,000 of the population are Christians*, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> *The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000*. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. *Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. *In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. Most of them were animated by religious motives; they came to pray and to die in the Holy Land, and to be buried in its soil. After the persecutions in Russia forty years ago, the movement of the Jews to Palestine assumed larger proportions. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
Click to expand...





 Which has been proven to be ANTI SEMITIC LIES


----------



## Muhammed

USS Liberty


----------



## Muhammed

Israel is the most powerful racist entity on the planet. More racist than the KKK or Black Panthers. Israel is not an ally of the USA. Israel has never been and never will be an ally of the USA.


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you have discovered, all my links are to neutral official archives or Jewish archives.  The facts are bothersome to someone that has only been fed propaganda.  I feel your pain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG AGAIN ABDUL  they may in archives but that does not make them neutral, the one you push the most is far from neutral as you have been told. Even Winston Churchill condemned them as ANTI SEMITIC and LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Survey, specifically, is in the archives of the UN, because it was were used to justify the giving more than 50% of Palestine to the Zionists, so yes, it is not neutral, it is pro-Zionist.  Unfortunately for you ZioNazis, even a pro-Zionist survey has to be based on some fact. Just imagine if the Survey had been prepared by neutrals.
> 
> Get it through your thick skull, Zionists don't have a leg to stand on, with respect to their invasion/colonization of Palestine and the resultant expulsion of the indigenous people of the Christian and Muslim faiths. It's as simple as that.  The sooner the Jews begin serious negotiations and enfranchise the non-Jews they now have control over, the sooner peace will come and disaster averted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get it right the ISLAMONAZIS got 78% of Palestine leaving the Jews with 22% that the ISLAMONAZIS did not want.
> 
> Maybe this will help you under stand that the Jews were the ones who worked the land and not the arab muslims
> 
> CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Jerusalem (After 1291)
> CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Jerusalem After 1291
> 
> "...Present condition of the City: (1907 edition)
> 
> Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. The total population is estimated at 66,000. *The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures:
> Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000;* Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the Nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly Half the present population...""
> 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> 
> Growth of Jerusalem 1838-Present
> 
> ....... Jews Muslims Christians Total
> 1838 6,000 5,000 3,000 14,000
> *1844 7,120 5,760 3,390 16,270 ..... ..The First Official Ottoman Census *
> 1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030 .... .....Second """"""""""
> 1905 40,000 8,000 10,900 58,900 ....... Third/last, detailed in CathEncyc above
> 1948 99,320 36,680 31,300 167,300
> 1990 353,200 124,200 14,000 491,400
> 1992 385,000 150,000 15,000 550,000
> 
> http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, a Christian Zionist magazine is certainly source documentation.  But now the facts in the Mandatory's first Report to the League of Nations:
> 
> *AN INTERIM REPORT ON THE CIVIL ADMINISTRATION OF PALESTINE, during the period 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921.  *​
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. *Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems.* A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. *Some 77,000 of the population are Christians*, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> *The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000*. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. *Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. *In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. Most of them were animated by religious motives; they came to pray and to die in the Holy Land, and to be buried in its soil. After the persecutions in Russia forty years ago, the movement of the Jews to Palestine assumed larger proportions. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which has been proven to be ANTI SEMITIC LIES
Click to expand...

You Jews are a funny lot,mind you most of you are not even Semitic anyway....but you have this term called Anti-Semitic and it's all bullshit,as no other ethnic group have such a term.

If I ever got called a Fcucking Big Nosed Drongo Anglo Australian........I think who gives a fcuk...I couldn't give a Shit

But if the same was said to a Jewish person.....O blimey it's all this Anti-Semitism nonsense.......methinks you hide,Stand Tall and Enjoy your Jewishness.....think who gives a fcuk and don't give a Shit..just sayin........


----------



## Muhammed

ChrisL said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...It's called Palestine for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Correction.
> 
> It *WAS* called Palestine.
> 
> Today, it's called Israel.
> 
> Along with a handful of slivers of remaining Muslim-controlled land-parcels known collectively as Residual or _Rump_ Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you too ignorant to comprehend the difference between Israel and Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Palestine is the past.
> 
> Israel is the present and the future.
> 
> Hope that helps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've met a few Israelis.  Good people.
Click to expand...

And I've dated a few hot Arab girls from Palistine. So often that I can actually speak Arabic. I could never read or write Arabic script, but I can carry on a conversation in Arabic.


----------



## RoshanNair

Muhammed said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...It's called Palestine for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Correction.
> 
> It *WAS* called Palestine.
> 
> Today, it's called Israel.
> 
> Along with a handful of slivers of remaining Muslim-controlled land-parcels known collectively as Residual or _Rump_ Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you too ignorant to comprehend the difference between Israel and Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Palestine is the past.
> 
> Israel is the present and the future.
> 
> Hope that helps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've met a few Israelis.  Good people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I've dated a few hot Arab girls from Palistine. So often that I can actually speak Arabic. I could never read or write Arabic script, but I can carry on a conversation in Arabic.
Click to expand...


How do they feel about your choice for an avatar? Any fatwas on your head, Mo?


----------



## Kondor3

Muhammed said:


> Israel is the most powerful racist entity on the planet. More racist than the KKK or Black Panthers. Israel is not an ally of the USA. Israel has never been and never will be an ally of the USA.


Israel is 'racist'?

So-called 'native' Palestinians (Muslim-Arabs) are a polyglut of peoples from the land itself and the surrounding lands - more of a genetic ghoulash than many other parts of the world - so, I'm not sure that we can call the Palestinians a 'race'.

But Israel is, indeed, in the process of establishing and consolidating a National Home for the Jews - adherents (and the descendants of adherents) of Judaism in its diverse branches and offshoots - including true Semitic Jews, Russian Jews, European Jews, Ethiopian Jews, Egyptian and Berber Jews, and related regions and sources.

Rather than a 'race' of Jews, we are looking at the Jewish Religion, in the process of a Reconquista of the Holy Land - akin to the Spanish Reconquista, which lasted for centuries, and which corrected a long-standing and invasive Muslim presence in Spain, which ended in the reunification of that land, ending the Muslim foothold in Western Europe.

In the case of the Jews, in our present age, this means that they are pushing-out those who stand in their way; allowing non-Jews (Muslims and Christians) to remain in-place so long as they do not actively resist this Reconquista, but firmly pushing-out those who do.

The last 66+ years (since 1948) have been all about this process, and are symmetrical with the expulsion of over 1,000,000 Jews from Muslim-dominated countries in the period 1948-1975, in which Jewish citizens of those countries were uprooted and ejected, or otherwise pressured to leave, simply because of their religious confession.

This is no different, and, in the case of the Jews, they have no place else to go, as a People - and their adversaries pose an existential threat directed towards them, unlike the peaceful Jews expelled by their Muslim countrymen in other regions.

And, given the second-class citizenship status of non-Muslims in several nearby Muslim-dominated countries, and the history of Dhimmitude with which Islam has lorded it over Unbelievers throughout the long centuries, this pushing-out and pressuring of non-Jews, to quit the land, and to pack up and leave, is as much payback as it is something new.

I don't think the Jews of Israel are 'racist' - merely insistent upon Israel becoming primarily a place for Jews of all races.

Hell, the home base of Islam - Arabia - and its cities of Mecca and Medina - are not exactly welcoming of non-Muslims, and that's right next-door to Israel.

As to Israel being an ally of the US or not...

I think Israel is a better ally than any of the other regional powers could ever be...

There are flaws in the relationship, and, every so often, one of us or the other screws-over its counterpart, in some minor way or another, but, given the diversity and differences of interests and priorities and motives, it's a genuine alliance, on a par with those of several of our European allies.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you have discovered, all my links are to neutral official archives or Jewish archives.  The facts are bothersome to someone that has only been fed propaganda.  I feel your pain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG AGAIN ABDUL  they may in archives but that does not make them neutral, the one you push the most is far from neutral as you have been told. Even Winston Churchill condemned them as ANTI SEMITIC and LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Survey, specifically, is in the archives of the UN, because it was were used to justify the giving more than 50% of Palestine to the Zionists, so yes, it is not neutral, it is pro-Zionist.  Unfortunately for you ZioNazis, even a pro-Zionist survey has to be based on some fact. Just imagine if the Survey had been prepared by neutrals.
> 
> Get it through your thick skull, Zionists don't have a leg to stand on, with respect to their invasion/colonization of Palestine and the resultant expulsion of the indigenous people of the Christian and Muslim faiths. It's as simple as that.  The sooner the Jews begin serious negotiations and enfranchise the non-Jews they now have control over, the sooner peace will come and disaster averted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get it right the ISLAMONAZIS got 78% of Palestine leaving the Jews with 22% that the ISLAMONAZIS did not want.
> 
> Maybe this will help you under stand that the Jews were the ones who worked the land and not the arab muslims
> 
> CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Jerusalem (After 1291)
> CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Jerusalem After 1291
> 
> "...Present condition of the City: (1907 edition)
> 
> Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. The total population is estimated at 66,000. *The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures:
> Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000;* Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the Nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly Half the present population...""
> 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> 
> Growth of Jerusalem 1838-Present
> 
> ....... Jews Muslims Christians Total
> 1838 6,000 5,000 3,000 14,000
> *1844 7,120 5,760 3,390 16,270 ..... ..The First Official Ottoman Census *
> 1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030 .... .....Second """"""""""
> 1905 40,000 8,000 10,900 58,900 ....... Third/last, detailed in CathEncyc above
> 1948 99,320 36,680 31,300 167,300
> 1990 353,200 124,200 14,000 491,400
> 1992 385,000 150,000 15,000 550,000
> 
> http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, a Christian Zionist magazine is certainly source documentation.  But now the facts in the Mandatory's first Report to the League of Nations:
> 
> *AN INTERIM REPORT ON THE CIVIL ADMINISTRATION OF PALESTINE, during the period 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921.  *​
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. *Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems.* A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. *Some 77,000 of the population are Christians*, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> *The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000*. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. *Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. *In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. Most of them were animated by religious motives; they came to pray and to die in the Holy Land, and to be buried in its soil. After the persecutions in Russia forty years ago, the movement of the Jews to Palestine assumed larger proportions. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which has been proven to be ANTI SEMITIC LIES
Click to expand...


No, they are the facts as reported to the League of Nations by the Mandatory.  You can whine and stamp your feet all you want Phoney, but those are the facts. Unfortunately you have been fed propaganda all your life and have never thought to do some proper research on your own, of source documents.


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is the most powerful racist entity on the planet. More racist than the KKK or Black Panthers. Israel is not an ally of the USA. Israel has never been and never will be an ally of the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is 'racist'?
> 
> So-called 'native' Palestinians (Muslim-Arabs) are a polyglut of peoples from the land itself and the surrounding lands - more of a genetic ghoulash than many other parts of the world - so, I'm not sure that we can call the Palestinians a 'race'.
> 
> But Israel is, indeed, in the process of establishing and consolidating a National Home for the Jews - adherents (and the descendants of adherents) of Judaism in its diverse branches and offshoots - including true Semitic Jews, Russian Jews, European Jews, Ethiopian Jews, Egyptian and Berber Jews, and related regions and sources.
> 
> Rather than a 'race' of Jews, we are looking at the Jewish Religion, in the process of a Reconquista of the Holy Land - akin to the Spanish Reconquista, which lasted for centuries, and which corrected a long-standing and invasive Muslim presence in Spain, which ended in the reunification of that land, ending the Muslim foothold in Western Europe.
> 
> In the case of the Jews, in our present age, this means that they are pushing-out those who stand in their way; allowing non-Jews (Muslims and Christians) to remain in-place so long as they do not actively resist this Reconquista, but firmly pushing-out those who do.
> 
> The last 66+ years (since 1948) have been all about this process, and are symmetrical with the expulsion of over 1,000,000 Jews from Muslim-dominated countries in the period 1948-1975, in which Jewish citizens of those countries were uprooted and ejected, or otherwise pressured to leave, simply because of their religious confession.
> 
> This is no different, and, in the case of the Jews, they have no place else to go, as a People - and their adversaries pose an existential threat directed towards them, unlike the peaceful Jews expelled by their Muslim countrymen in other regions.
> 
> And, given the second-class citizenship status of non-Muslims in several nearby Muslim-dominated countries, and the history of Dhimmitude with which Islam has lorded it over Unbelievers throughout the long centuries, this pushing-out and pressuring of non-Jews, to quit the land, and to pack up and leave, is as much payback as it is something new.
> 
> I don't think the Jews of Israel are 'racist' - merely insistent upon Israel becoming primarily a place for Jews of all races.
> 
> Hell, the home base of Islam - Arabia - and its cities of Mecca and Medina - are not exactly welcoming of non-Muslims, and that's right next-door to Israel.
> 
> As to Israel being an ally of the US or not...
> 
> I think Israel is a better ally than any of the other regional powers could ever be...
> 
> There are flaws in the relationship, and, every so often, one of us or the other screws-over its counterpart, in some minor way or another, but, given the diversity and differences of interests and priorities and motives, it's a genuine alliance, on a par with those of several of our European allies.
Click to expand...


_"So-called 'native' Palestinians (Muslim-Arabs) are a polyglut of peoples from the land itself and the surrounding lands - more of a genetic ghoulash than many other parts of the world - so, I'm not sure that we can call the Palestinians a 'race'."_

I am afraid you have the false impression that racial discrimination or  "racism", as a legal term, refers only to race.

*International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination*

*Adopted and opened for signature and ratification by General Assembly resolution 2106 (XX) of 21 December 1965*​*entry into force 4 January 1969, in accordance with Article 19*​
"_*Article 1*_

1. In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on* race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin *which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is the most powerful racist entity on the planet. More racist than the KKK or Black Panthers. Israel is not an ally of the USA. Israel has never been and never will be an ally of the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is 'racist'?
> 
> So-called 'native' Palestinians (Muslim-Arabs) are a polyglut of peoples from the land itself and the surrounding lands - more of a genetic ghoulash than many other parts of the world - so, I'm not sure that we can call the Palestinians a 'race'.
> 
> But Israel is, indeed, in the process of establishing and consolidating a National Home for the Jews - adherents (and the descendants of adherents) of Judaism in its diverse branches and offshoots - including true Semitic Jews, Russian Jews, European Jews, Ethiopian Jews, Egyptian and Berber Jews, and related regions and sources.
> 
> Rather than a 'race' of Jews, we are looking at the Jewish Religion, in the process of a Reconquista of the Holy Land - akin to the Spanish Reconquista, which lasted for centuries, and which corrected a long-standing and invasive Muslim presence in Spain, which ended in the reunification of that land, ending the Muslim foothold in Western Europe.
> 
> In the case of the Jews, in our present age, this means that they are pushing-out those who stand in their way; allowing non-Jews (Muslims and Christians) to remain in-place so long as they do not actively resist this Reconquista, but firmly pushing-out those who do.
> 
> The last 66+ years (since 1948) have been all about this process, and are symmetrical with the expulsion of over 1,000,000 Jews from Muslim-dominated countries in the period 1948-1975, in which Jewish citizens of those countries were uprooted and ejected, or otherwise pressured to leave, simply because of their religious confession.
> 
> This is no different, and, in the case of the Jews, they have no place else to go, as a People - and their adversaries pose an existential threat directed towards them, unlike the peaceful Jews expelled by their Muslim countrymen in other regions.
> 
> And, given the second-class citizenship status of non-Muslims in several nearby Muslim-dominated countries, and the history of Dhimmitude with which Islam has lorded it over Unbelievers throughout the long centuries, this pushing-out and pressuring of non-Jews, to quit the land, and to pack up and leave, is as much payback as it is something new.
> 
> I don't think the Jews of Israel are 'racist' - merely insistent upon Israel becoming primarily a place for Jews of all races.
> 
> Hell, the home base of Islam - Arabia - and its cities of Mecca and Medina - are not exactly welcoming of non-Muslims, and that's right next-door to Israel.
> 
> As to Israel being an ally of the US or not...
> 
> I think Israel is a better ally than any of the other regional powers could ever be...
> 
> There are flaws in the relationship, and, every so often, one of us or the other screws-over its counterpart, in some minor way or another, but, given the diversity and differences of interests and priorities and motives, it's a genuine alliance, on a par with those of several of our European allies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"So-called 'native' Palestinians (Muslim-Arabs) are a polyglut of peoples from the land itself and the surrounding lands - more of a genetic ghoulash than many other parts of the world - so, I'm not sure that we can call the Palestinians a 'race'."_
> 
> I am afraid you have the false impression that racial discrimination or  "racism", as a legal term, refers only to race.
> 
> *International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination*
> 
> *Adopted and opened for signature and ratification by General Assembly resolution 2106 (XX) of 21 December 1965*
> *entry into force 4 January 1969, in accordance with Article 19*​
> "_*Article 1*_
> 
> 1. In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on* race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin *which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.
> 
> International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
Click to expand...

Good thing for the Israelis, then, that they are not discriminating based upon race, color, descent or national or ethnic origin - merely religious confession and political alignment.


----------



## Muhammed

If you feel a need to spell the word "color" with a "u" randomly put in there, you are too much of an elitist scumbag to be an American.


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is the most powerful racist entity on the planet. More racist than the KKK or Black Panthers. Israel is not an ally of the USA. Israel has never been and never will be an ally of the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is 'racist'?
> 
> So-called 'native' Palestinians (Muslim-Arabs) are a polyglut of peoples from the land itself and the surrounding lands - more of a genetic ghoulash than many other parts of the world - so, I'm not sure that we can call the Palestinians a 'race'.
> 
> But Israel is, indeed, in the process of establishing and consolidating a National Home for the Jews - adherents (and the descendants of adherents) of Judaism in its diverse branches and offshoots - including true Semitic Jews, Russian Jews, European Jews, Ethiopian Jews, Egyptian and Berber Jews, and related regions and sources.
> 
> Rather than a 'race' of Jews, we are looking at the Jewish Religion, in the process of a Reconquista of the Holy Land - akin to the Spanish Reconquista, which lasted for centuries, and which corrected a long-standing and invasive Muslim presence in Spain, which ended in the reunification of that land, ending the Muslim foothold in Western Europe.
> 
> In the case of the Jews, in our present age, this means that they are pushing-out those who stand in their way; allowing non-Jews (Muslims and Christians) to remain in-place so long as they do not actively resist this Reconquista, but firmly pushing-out those who do.
> 
> The last 66+ years (since 1948) have been all about this process, and are symmetrical with the expulsion of over 1,000,000 Jews from Muslim-dominated countries in the period 1948-1975, in which Jewish citizens of those countries were uprooted and ejected, or otherwise pressured to leave, simply because of their religious confession.
> 
> This is no different, and, in the case of the Jews, they have no place else to go, as a People - and their adversaries pose an existential threat directed towards them, unlike the peaceful Jews expelled by their Muslim countrymen in other regions.
> 
> And, given the second-class citizenship status of non-Muslims in several nearby Muslim-dominated countries, and the history of Dhimmitude with which Islam has lorded it over Unbelievers throughout the long centuries, this pushing-out and pressuring of non-Jews, to quit the land, and to pack up and leave, is as much payback as it is something new.
> 
> I don't think the Jews of Israel are 'racist' - merely insistent upon Israel becoming primarily a place for Jews of all races.
> 
> Hell, the home base of Islam - Arabia - and its cities of Mecca and Medina - are not exactly welcoming of non-Muslims, and that's right next-door to Israel.
> 
> As to Israel being an ally of the US or not...
> 
> I think Israel is a better ally than any of the other regional powers could ever be...
> 
> There are flaws in the relationship, and, every so often, one of us or the other screws-over its counterpart, in some minor way or another, but, given the diversity and differences of interests and priorities and motives, it's a genuine alliance, on a par with those of several of our European allies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"So-called 'native' Palestinians (Muslim-Arabs) are a polyglut of peoples from the land itself and the surrounding lands - more of a genetic ghoulash than many other parts of the world - so, I'm not sure that we can call the Palestinians a 'race'."_
> 
> I am afraid you have the false impression that racial discrimination or  "racism", as a legal term, refers only to race.
> 
> *International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination*
> 
> *Adopted and opened for signature and ratification by General Assembly resolution 2106 (XX) of 21 December 1965*
> *entry into force 4 January 1969, in accordance with Article 19*​
> "_*Article 1*_
> 
> 1. In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on* race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin *which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.
> 
> International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good thing for the Israelis, then, that they are not discriminating based upon race, color, descent or national or ethnic origin - merely religious confession and political alignment.
Click to expand...



No,they are discriminating on ethnic origin, since it doesn't matter what religion a Palestinian follows to be discriminated against by the Jews. Nice try.  But, that is what all you bozos fall back on.  Trying to find loopholes to justify Jewish atrocities against, misbehavior and oppression of non-Jews.


----------



## Muhammed

RoshanNair said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correction.
> 
> It *WAS* called Palestine.
> 
> Today, it's called Israel.
> 
> Along with a handful of slivers of remaining Muslim-controlled land-parcels known collectively as Residual or _Rump_ Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you too ignorant to comprehend the difference between Israel and Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Palestine is the past.
> 
> Israel is the present and the future.
> 
> Hope that helps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've met a few Israelis.  Good people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I've dated a few hot Arab girls from Palistine. So often that I can actually speak Arabic. I could never read or write Arabic script, but I can carry on a conversation in Arabic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do they feel about your choice for an avatar? Any fatwas on your head, Mo?
Click to expand...


----------



## Muhammed

Holy fuck!

 I can't believe how many fuckwads defend the Israelis in this forum.


----------



## Hossfly

Muhammed said:


> Holy fuck!
> 
> I can't believe how many fuckwads defend the Israelis in this forum.


----------



## Kondor3

Muhammed said:


> Holy fuck!
> 
> I can't believe how many fuckwads defend the Israelis in this forum.


Most folks online here, defending Israel, are good and honorable folk, although, I'll grant you, there is the occasional phukkwad to be seen on that side.

We are consoled, however, by the highly accurate perception that there are vastly *more* phukkwads inhabiting the *other *side of the fence... losers, mostly.

Oh, and, whiny-bitches, too... sorry... forgot those... my bad.

Oh, and, Arab butt-buddies, Muslim ass-kissers, and Militant Islam apologists, fifth-columnists, and propaganda shills, akin to Tokyo Rose, Lord Haw-Haw, and such.

I keep forgetting them, too... I've gotta write this stuff down someplace... sorry.


----------



## Muhammed

RoshanNair said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correction.
> 
> It *WAS* called Palestine.
> 
> Today, it's called Israel.
> 
> Along with a handful of slivers of remaining Muslim-controlled land-parcels known collectively as Residual or _Rump_ Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you too ignorant to comprehend the difference between Israel and Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Palestine is the past.
> 
> Israel is the present and the future.
> 
> Hope that helps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've met a few Israelis.  Good people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I've dated a few hot Arab girls from Palistine. So often that I can actually speak Arabic. I could never read or write Arabic script, but I can carry on a conversation in Arabic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do they feel about your choice for an avatar? Any fatwas on your head, Mo?
Click to expand...

They probably would not approve.


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy fuck!
> 
> I can't believe how many fuckwads defend the Israelis in this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> Most folks online here, defending Israel, are good and honorable folk, although, I'll grant you, there is the occasional phukkwad to be seen on that side.
> 
> We are consoled, however, by the highly accurate perception that there are vastly *more* phukkwads inhabiting the *other *side of the fence... losers, mostly.
> 
> Oh, and, whiny-bitches, too... sorry... forgot those... my bad.
> 
> Oh, and, Arab butt-buddies, Muslim ass-kissers, and Militant Islam apologists, fifth-columnists, and propaganda shills, akin to Tokyo Rose, Lord Haw-Haw, and such.
> 
> I keep forgetting them, too... I've gotta write this stuff down someplace... sorry.
Click to expand...


The fifth-columnists are the Zionist butt buddies, propagandists and Jew ass-kissers whose first loyalty is to Israel rather than to the U.S.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy fuck!
> 
> I can't believe how many fuckwads defend the Israelis in this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> Most folks online here, defending Israel, are good and honorable folk, although, I'll grant you, there is the occasional phukkwad to be seen on that side.
> 
> We are consoled, however, by the highly accurate perception that there are vastly *more* phukkwads inhabiting the *other *side of the fence... losers, mostly.
> 
> Oh, and, whiny-bitches, too... sorry... forgot those... my bad.
> 
> Oh, and, Arab butt-buddies, Muslim ass-kissers, and Militant Islam apologists, fifth-columnists, and propaganda shills, akin to Tokyo Rose, Lord Haw-Haw, and such.
> 
> I keep forgetting them, too... I've gotta write this stuff down someplace... sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fifth-columnists are the Zionist butt buddies, propagandists and Jew ass-kissers whose first loyalty is to Israel rather than to the U.S.
Click to expand...

Copy-catting is not an attractive form of communication...


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy fuck!
> 
> I can't believe how many fuckwads defend the Israelis in this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> Most folks online here, defending Israel, are good and honorable folk, although, I'll grant you, there is the occasional phukkwad to be seen on that side.
> 
> We are consoled, however, by the highly accurate perception that there are vastly *more* phukkwads inhabiting the *other *side of the fence... losers, mostly.
> 
> Oh, and, whiny-bitches, too... sorry... forgot those... my bad.
> 
> Oh, and, Arab butt-buddies, Muslim ass-kissers, and Militant Islam apologists, fifth-columnists, and propaganda shills, akin to Tokyo Rose, Lord Haw-Haw, and such.
> 
> I keep forgetting them, too... I've gotta write this stuff down someplace... sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fifth-columnists are the Zionist butt buddies, propagandists and Jew ass-kissers whose first loyalty is to Israel rather than to the U.S.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Copy-catting is not an attractive form of communication...
Click to expand...


You are absolutely right, I regret using disgusting language in response to disgusting language.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy fuck!
> 
> I can't believe how many fuckwads defend the Israelis in this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> Most folks online here, defending Israel, are good and honorable folk, although, I'll grant you, there is the occasional phukkwad to be seen on that side.
> 
> We are consoled, however, by the highly accurate perception that there are vastly *more* phukkwads inhabiting the *other *side of the fence... losers, mostly.
> 
> Oh, and, whiny-bitches, too... sorry... forgot those... my bad.
> 
> Oh, and, Arab butt-buddies, Muslim ass-kissers, and Militant Islam apologists, fifth-columnists, and propaganda shills, akin to Tokyo Rose, Lord Haw-Haw, and such.
> 
> I keep forgetting them, too... I've gotta write this stuff down someplace... sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fifth-columnists are the Zionist butt buddies, propagandists and Jew ass-kissers whose first loyalty is to Israel rather than to the U.S.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Copy-catting is not an attractive form of communication...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are absolutely right, I regret using disgusting language in response to disgusting language.
Click to expand...

There... now don't you feel all comfy-cozy warm and fuzzy and superior again?


----------



## montelatici

I am superior, you have known that for as long as I have been posting.  There is no "feel" about it, just a fact.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> I am superior, you have known that for as long as I have been posting.  There is no "feel" about it, just a fact.


You're a twit. The only thing 'superior' about you is the degree to which you whine like an old woman.


----------



## ChrisL

montelatici said:


> I am superior, you have known that for as long as I have been posting.  There is no "feel" about it, just a fact.



That seems to be the consensus amongst Muslims.  That they are superior.  That is because a lot of them are bigots and hate other religions.  It is specifically stated in your holy book to hate Jews and Christians and that they are second-class citizens, no?


----------



## Challenger

Kondor3 said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy fuck!
> 
> I can't believe how many fuckwads defend the Israelis in this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> Most folks online here, defending Israel, are good and honorable folk, although, I'll grant you, there is the occasional phukkwad to be seen on that side.
> 
> We are consoled, however, by the highly accurate perception that there are vastly *more* phukkwads inhabiting the *other *side of the fence... losers, mostly.
> 
> Oh, and, whiny-bitches, too... sorry... forgot those... my bad.
> 
> Oh, and, Arab butt-buddies, Muslim ass-kissers, and Militant Islam apologists, fifth-columnists, and propaganda shills, akin to Tokyo Rose, Lord Haw-Haw, and such.
> 
> I keep forgetting them, too... I've gotta write this stuff down someplace... sorry.
Click to expand...


Senility creeping up on you too, eh? Just like your chum Phoney.


----------



## Challenger

Kondor3 said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy fuck!
> 
> I can't believe how many fuckwads defend the Israelis in this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> Most folks online here, defending Israel, are good and honorable folk, although, I'll grant you, there is the occasional phukkwad to be seen on that side.
> 
> We are consoled, however, by the highly accurate perception that there are vastly *more* phukkwads inhabiting the *other *side of the fence... losers, mostly.
> 
> Oh, and, whiny-bitches, too... sorry... forgot those... my bad.
> 
> Oh, and, Arab butt-buddies, Muslim ass-kissers, and Militant Islam apologists, fifth-columnists, and propaganda shills, akin to Tokyo Rose, Lord Haw-Haw, and such.
> 
> I keep forgetting them, too... I've gotta write this stuff down someplace... sorry.
Click to expand...


Senility creeping up on you too, eh? Just like your chum Phoney.


----------



## Mindful

Challenger said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy fuck!
> 
> I can't believe how many fuckwads defend the Israelis in this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> Most folks online here, defending Israel, are good and honorable folk, although, I'll grant you, there is the occasional phukkwad to be seen on that side.
> 
> We are consoled, however, by the highly accurate perception that there are vastly *more* phukkwads inhabiting the *other *side of the fence... losers, mostly.
> 
> Oh, and, whiny-bitches, too... sorry... forgot those... my bad.
> 
> Oh, and, Arab butt-buddies, Muslim ass-kissers, and Militant Islam apologists, fifth-columnists, and propaganda shills, akin to Tokyo Rose, Lord Haw-Haw, and such.
> 
> I keep forgetting them, too... I've gotta write this stuff down someplace... sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Senility creeping up on you too, eh? Just like your chum Phoney.
Click to expand...


Is that the best you can do, regarding insults?


----------



## Kondor3

Challenger said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy fuck!
> 
> I can't believe how many fuckwads defend the Israelis in this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> Most folks online here, defending Israel, are good and honorable folk, although, I'll grant you, there is the occasional phukkwad to be seen on that side.
> 
> We are consoled, however, by the highly accurate perception that there are vastly *more* phukkwads inhabiting the *other *side of the fence... losers, mostly.
> 
> Oh, and, whiny-bitches, too... sorry... forgot those... my bad.
> 
> Oh, and, Arab butt-buddies, Muslim ass-kissers, and Militant Islam apologists, fifth-columnists, and propaganda shills, akin to Tokyo Rose, Lord Haw-Haw, and such.
> 
> I keep forgetting them, too... I've gotta write this stuff down someplace... sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Senility creeping up on you too, eh? Just like your chum Phoney.
Click to expand...

Do you *really* believe that I '_forgo_t' any of that, 'as advertised' in that post? It's my guess (and hope) that you're teasing...


----------



## Kondor3

Challenger said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy fuck!
> 
> I can't believe how many fuckwads defend the Israelis in this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> Most folks online here, defending Israel, are good and honorable folk, although, I'll grant you, there is the occasional phukkwad to be seen on that side.
> 
> We are consoled, however, by the highly accurate perception that there are vastly *more* phukkwads inhabiting the *other *side of the fence... losers, mostly.
> 
> Oh, and, whiny-bitches, too... sorry... forgot those... my bad.
> 
> Oh, and, Arab butt-buddies, Muslim ass-kissers, and Militant Islam apologists, fifth-columnists, and propaganda shills, akin to Tokyo Rose, Lord Haw-Haw, and such.
> 
> I keep forgetting them, too... I've gotta write this stuff down someplace... sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Senility creeping up on you too, eh? Just like your chum Phoney.
Click to expand...

Two posts in a row, saying the same thing? 'Stuttering' is not a good 'look' for you...


----------



## Mindful

Kondor3 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy fuck!
> 
> I can't believe how many fuckwads defend the Israelis in this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> Most folks online here, defending Israel, are good and honorable folk, although, I'll grant you, there is the occasional phukkwad to be seen on that side.
> 
> We are consoled, however, by the highly accurate perception that there are vastly *more* phukkwads inhabiting the *other *side of the fence... losers, mostly.
> 
> Oh, and, whiny-bitches, too... sorry... forgot those... my bad.
> 
> Oh, and, Arab butt-buddies, Muslim ass-kissers, and Militant Islam apologists, fifth-columnists, and propaganda shills, akin to Tokyo Rose, Lord Haw-Haw, and such.
> 
> I keep forgetting them, too... I've gotta write this stuff down someplace... sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Senility creeping up on you too, eh? Just like your chum Phoney.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two posts in a row, saying the same thing? 'Stuttering' is not a good 'look' for you...
Click to expand...


When they get to the personal, it means they have no argument.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Dr. Rania Masri*

**


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Dr. Rania Masri*
> 
> **


Why don't you give us the Cliff's Notes on this, Tinny, then let the reader decide for him-or-herself, whether they want to listen to the entire half-hour -long video?

You might actually get more folks to take the time to view your stuff, if you take the time to summarize, rather than just dumping it out there like tossing out the trash.

That will also tell us that *YOU* took the time to view it, and found it worthwhile, rather than just spamming the board with one-sided commentary...

If we see no evidence that *YOU* took the time - to view it or to summarize it for others - why should anyone *ELSE* bother looking at it?

Marketing, old boy... marketing.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Well, I don't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What laws has Israel broken?  It would take hours, but let's just look at two.
> 
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.
> 
> Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
> 
> 
> The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
> Besides being victims of ethnic cleansing and genocide (read the definition of genocide before claiming that since the Palestinians have increased in number genocide doesn't apply).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> With the exception of the ICJ, the specific laws cited where not yet in effect.
> 
> The International Court of Justice (ICJ) was established in June 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations and began work in April 1946.
> The International Court of Justice acts as a world court. The Court has a dual jurisdiction : it decides, in accordance with international law, disputes of a legal nature that are submitted to it by States (jurisdiction in contentious cases); and it gives advisory opinions on legal questions at the request of the organs of the United Nations or specialized agencies authorized to make such a request (advisory jurisdiction).​Israel declared Independence in May 1948
> Israel was admitted to the UN May 1949
> Armistice Agreements mid-1949
> The Geneva Convention VI went into force October 1950
> The Rome Statutes of the International Criminal Court (July 2002)​
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> To start, the Mandatory/LoN/UN did not safeguard the civil, political and economic interests of the Muslims and Christians, did not provide for the creation of a national independent Government for the Muslims and Christians in accordance with paragraph 4, Article 22, of the Covenant of the League of Nations, did not provide religious equality to the Christians and Muslim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> The Covenant of the League of Nations:
> 
> Article 22.
> 
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war [*World War I*] have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilization and that securities for the formance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.
> 
> The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.
> 
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
> 
> Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade
> and commerce of other Members of the League.
> 
> There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilization, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above-mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population.
> 
> In every case of Mandate, the Mandatory shall render to the Council an annual report in reference to the territory committed to its charge.
> 
> The degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.
> 
> A permanent Commission shall be constituted to receive and examine the annual reports of the Mandatories and to advise the Council on all matters relating to the observance of the mandates.​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Article 22/4 of the LoN Covenant, does not say anything along the line: "creation of a national independent Government for the Muslims and Christians."    It does mention the provisional recognition of independent nations; but with no specificity.
> 
> The LoN Covenant did not stipulate any safeguards relative to the civil, political and economic interests of the Muslims and Christians.  However, the Preamble and  Article 2 of the Mandate for Palestine, does stipulate  "safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."  However it does stipulate that "The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home."
> 
> Having said that, it is very consistent with the Trustee System "to promote the political, economic, social, and educational advancement of the inhabitants of the trust territories, and their progressive development towards self-government or independence," during benevolent administration.
> 
> Again, I fail to find anything that could be considered a violation of the LoN Covenant or the UN Charter; as you have indicated.
> 
> *(COMMENT) --- Spirit and Intent*
> 
> Relative to the specific allegation, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.  The term "genocide" did not exist before 1944. It is a very specific term, referring to violent crimes committed against groups with the intent to destroy the existence of the group; or the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race.
> 
> 
> (a)  Killing members of the group;
> 
> (b)  Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
> 
> (c)  Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
> 
> (d)  Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
> 
> (e)  Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
> The State of Israel has no policy or criminal intent to destroy or to cripple permanently the Arab Palestinian. The State of Israel does not perform acts that are directed against Arab Palestinians or a program of destruction only because they belong to the group of Arab Palestinians.  (Defining genocide: the Nürnberg Charter --- Encyclopedia Britannica).
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rocco, Rocco. Your response attempts to utilize loopholes that don't exist, in an attempt expunge the "crimes" of both the LoN/UN/British and Israel.  You know full well that the crimes have been committed and are acting as any good defense lawyer would however, without debunking all of your response, let's just remember that:
> 
> 1. Israel is transferring population to the Occupied Territories as we speak. So the Convention applies.
> 2. Israel does have a policy of crippling and destroying the Christians and Muslims of Palestine.  Whether the intent is to cripple and destroy permanently or not, has no bearing.
> 
> and, no one can deny that Israel is:
> 
> Killing members of the group;
> 
> (Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
> 
> Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
> 
> (i.e. withholding Palestinian taxes, blockading Gaza, etc.)
> 
> As far as the UN/LoN it is clear that placing a part of the Christian and Muslim population under Jewish rule was a violation of the Mandate. They even made it clear that there was no such intent in the 1922 White Paper:
> 
> *"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine.* They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of* the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.'* In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."
> 
> The Avalon Project British White Paper of June 1922
Click to expand...





 This was nipped in the bud by the formation of trans Jordan thus making Palestine primarily arab muslim, with a small part being Jewish


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> The dunce in the peanut gallery speaks. Why don't leave this discussion to the adults, you are out of your element.





 You have never been in your element Abdul, everything is so far above your level


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Dr. Rania Masri*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you give us the Cliff's Notes on this, Tinny, then let the reader decide for him-or-herself, whether they want to listen to the entire half-hour -long video?
> 
> You might actually get more folks to take the time to view your stuff, if you take the time to summarize, rather than just dumping it out there like tossing out the trash.
> 
> That will also tell us that *YOU* took the time to view it, and found it worthwhile, rather than just spamming the board with one-sided commentary...
> 
> If we see no evidence that *YOU* took the time - to view it or to summarize it for others - why should anyone *ELSE* bother looking at it?
> 
> Marketing, old boy... marketing.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't watch it anyway.

I post for people who want to learn something. If that is not you then...well...that is your choice.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Dr. Rania Masri*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you give us the Cliff's Notes on this, Tinny, then let the reader decide for him-or-herself, whether they want to listen to the entire half-hour -long video?
> 
> You might actually get more folks to take the time to view your stuff, if you take the time to summarize, rather than just dumping it out there like tossing out the trash.
> 
> That will also tell us that *YOU* took the time to view it, and found it worthwhile, rather than just spamming the board with one-sided commentary...
> 
> If we see no evidence that *YOU* took the time - to view it or to summarize it for others - why should anyone *ELSE* bother looking at it?
> 
> Marketing, old boy... marketing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn't watch it anyway.
> 
> I post for people who want to learn something. If that is not you then...well...that is your choice.
Click to expand...

You really don't understand the value of summarization, as an appetizer or enticement for the vast numbers of fence-sitters, who won't bother without out it, but who might be enticed into actually viewing it, given a short, concise, appealing summary?

Apparently not.

And, given that you show no evidence that you've actually viewed it and analyzed it yourself, why should anyone else bother, if you haven't?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Dr. Rania Masri*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you give us the Cliff's Notes on this, Tinny, then let the reader decide for him-or-herself, whether they want to listen to the entire half-hour -long video?
> 
> You might actually get more folks to take the time to view your stuff, if you take the time to summarize, rather than just dumping it out there like tossing out the trash.
> 
> That will also tell us that *YOU* took the time to view it, and found it worthwhile, rather than just spamming the board with one-sided commentary...
> 
> If we see no evidence that *YOU* took the time - to view it or to summarize it for others - why should anyone *ELSE* bother looking at it?
> 
> Marketing, old boy... marketing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn't watch it anyway.
> 
> I post for people who want to learn something. If that is not you then...well...that is your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really don't understand the value of summarization, as an appetizer or enticement for the vast numbers of fence-sitters, who won't bother without out it, but who might be enticed into actually viewing it, given a short, concise, appealing summary?
> 
> Apparently not.
> 
> And, given that you show no evidence that you've actually viewed it and analyzed it yourself, why should anyone else bother, if you haven't?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. If it is not Israeli propaganda, you won't look at it.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> ...It doesn't matter. If it is not Israeli propaganda, you won't look at it.


Tinny, it doesn't matter if you get *ME* to look at it...

From your perspective, what matters is that you get *OTHERS* to look at it...

But, if you're too lazy to consider the value of Marketing, and how to increase the appeal of your materials, well...

You're doing the Israeli side of the debate a *huge* favor, by ignoring the Marketing aspects of such presentations...

Your call... *your loss... our gain*... so be it.


----------



## Challenger

Kondor3 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy fuck!
> 
> I can't believe how many fuckwads defend the Israelis in this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> Most folks online here, defending Israel, are good and honorable folk, although, I'll grant you, there is the occasional phukkwad to be seen on that side.
> 
> We are consoled, however, by the highly accurate perception that there are vastly *more* phukkwads inhabiting the *other *side of the fence... losers, mostly.
> 
> Oh, and, whiny-bitches, too... sorry... forgot those... my bad.
> 
> Oh, and, Arab butt-buddies, Muslim ass-kissers, and Militant Islam apologists, fifth-columnists, and propaganda shills, akin to Tokyo Rose, Lord Haw-Haw, and such.
> 
> I keep forgetting them, too... I've gotta write this stuff down someplace... sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Senility creeping up on you too, eh? Just like your chum Phoney.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two posts in a row, saying the same thing? 'Stuttering' is not a good 'look' for you...
Click to expand...


Is that what you call it? I blame the forum software


----------



## Kondor3

Challenger said:


> ...Is that what you call it? I blame the forum software


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Dr. Rania Masri*
> 
> **



Who Are The Palestinians?

http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/al-aqsa_martyrs_brigade.jpg


----------



## Challenger

Mindful said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy fuck!
> 
> I can't believe how many fuckwads defend the Israelis in this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> Most folks online here, defending Israel, are good and honorable folk, although, I'll grant you, there is the occasional phukkwad to be seen on that side.
> 
> We are consoled, however, by the highly accurate perception that there are vastly *more* phukkwads inhabiting the *other *side of the fence... losers, mostly.
> 
> Oh, and, whiny-bitches, too... sorry... forgot those... my bad.
> 
> Oh, and, Arab butt-buddies, Muslim ass-kissers, and Militant Islam apologists, fifth-columnists, and propaganda shills, akin to Tokyo Rose, Lord Haw-Haw, and such.
> 
> I keep forgetting them, too... I've gotta write this stuff down someplace... sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Senility creeping up on you too, eh? Just like your chum Phoney.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that the best you can do, regarding insults?
Click to expand...


Oh no, I can do lots better, why, are you looking for inspiration and tips on how it's done? Don't know why you're a prime practicioner of the art, in a bitchy air-head sort of way.


----------



## Mindful

Challenger said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy fuck!
> 
> I can't believe how many fuckwads defend the Israelis in this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> Most folks online here, defending Israel, are good and honorable folk, although, I'll grant you, there is the occasional phukkwad to be seen on that side.
> 
> We are consoled, however, by the highly accurate perception that there are vastly *more* phukkwads inhabiting the *other *side of the fence... losers, mostly.
> 
> Oh, and, whiny-bitches, too... sorry... forgot those... my bad.
> 
> Oh, and, Arab butt-buddies, Muslim ass-kissers, and Militant Islam apologists, fifth-columnists, and propaganda shills, akin to Tokyo Rose, Lord Haw-Haw, and such.
> 
> I keep forgetting them, too... I've gotta write this stuff down someplace... sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Senility creeping up on you too, eh? Just like your chum Phoney.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that the best you can do, regarding insults?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh no, I can do lots better, why, are you looking for inspiration and tips on how it's done? Don't know why you're a prime practicioner of the art, in a bitchy air-head sort of way.
Click to expand...



So you  have not the slightest interest in the topic?


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Dr. Rania Masri*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you give us the Cliff's Notes on this, Tinny, then let the reader decide for him-or-herself, whether they want to listen to the entire half-hour -long video?
> 
> You might actually get more folks to take the time to view your stuff, if you take the time to summarize, rather than just dumping it out there like tossing out the trash.
> 
> That will also tell us that *YOU* took the time to view it, and found it worthwhile, rather than just spamming the board with one-sided commentary...
> 
> If we see no evidence that *YOU* took the time - to view it or to summarize it for others - why should anyone *ELSE* bother looking at it?
> 
> Marketing, old boy... marketing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn't watch it anyway.
> 
> I post for people who want to learn something. If that is not you then...well...that is your choice.
Click to expand...


I too post for people who want to learn something.  Specifically, the truth.  Okay by you?

Category Terrorist attacks attributed to Palestinian militant groups - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## theliq

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Dr. Rania Masri*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you give us the Cliff's Notes on this, Tinny, then let the reader decide for him-or-herself, whether they want to listen to the entire half-hour -long video?
> 
> You might actually get more folks to take the time to view your stuff, if you take the time to summarize, rather than just dumping it out there like tossing out the trash.
> 
> That will also tell us that *YOU* took the time to view it, and found it worthwhile, rather than just spamming the board with one-sided commentary...
> 
> If we see no evidence that *YOU* took the time - to view it or to summarize it for others - why should anyone *ELSE* bother looking at it?
> 
> Marketing, old boy... marketing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn't watch it anyway.
> 
> I post for people who want to learn something. If that is not you then...well...that is your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I too post for people who want to learn something.  Specifically, the truth.  Okay by you?
> 
> Category Terrorist attacks attributed to Palestinian militant groups - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

No You Do NOT..........only pro-Zionist Propaganda....get REAL,when you are talking to me.thanks steve


----------



## MJB12741

theliq said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Dr. Rania Masri*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you give us the Cliff's Notes on this, Tinny, then let the reader decide for him-or-herself, whether they want to listen to the entire half-hour -long video?
> 
> You might actually get more folks to take the time to view your stuff, if you take the time to summarize, rather than just dumping it out there like tossing out the trash.
> 
> That will also tell us that *YOU* took the time to view it, and found it worthwhile, rather than just spamming the board with one-sided commentary...
> 
> If we see no evidence that *YOU* took the time - to view it or to summarize it for others - why should anyone *ELSE* bother looking at it?
> 
> Marketing, old boy... marketing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn't watch it anyway.
> 
> I post for people who want to learn something. If that is not you then...well...that is your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I too post for people who want to learn something.  Specifically, the truth.  Okay by you?
> 
> Category Terrorist attacks attributed to Palestinian militant groups - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No You Do NOT..........only pro-Zionist Propaganda....get REAL,when you are talking to me.thanks steve
Click to expand...


Is this "pro Zionist propaganda"?


9 Israelis on Olympic Team Killed with 4Arab Captors as Police Fight Band ThatDisrupted Munich Games


----------



## montelatici

Is this pro-Palestinian propaganda?

The children killed in Gaza during 50 days of conflict - Telegraph

"In all, at least 521 have been killed since the onset of Israel’s offensive on July 8..."


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Is this pro-Palestinian propaganda?
> 
> The children killed in Gaza during 50 days of conflict - Telegraph
> 
> "In all, at least 521 have been killed since the onset of Israel’s offensive on July 8..."






 Now then Abdul would you care to explain what the Geneva conventions have to say about using civilian areas to engage in war from, and why the side that uses the civilian areas is held fully responsible for any civilian deaths.

 So who killed those 521 children according to International law


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> Is this pro-Palestinian propaganda?
> 
> The children killed in Gaza during 50 days of conflict - Telegraph
> 
> "In all, at least 521 have been killed since the onset of Israel’s offensive on July 8..."


Yes it is pro-Palestinian hasbera. Hamas is responsible for those deaths and will pay for them.


----------



## montelatici

The Daily Torygraph is now left-wing and pro-Palestine? LOL.  Do you know anything about anything?  The Daily Telegraph is a right-wing newspaper in the UK, that usually unquestionably supports Israel.  What an idiot you are.  That's why I picked the Telegraph, to get exactly the response I got form you, which shows what a brain washed moron you are.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> The Daily Torygraph is now left-wing and pro-Palestine? LOL.  Do you know anything about anything?  The Daily Telegraph is a right-wing newspaper in the UK, that usually unquestionably supports Israel.  What an idiot you are.  That's why I picked the Telegraph, to get exactly the response I got form you, which shows what a brain washed moron you are.


How in hell does the Daily Telegraph have more knowledge than the UN Council of Human Rights? UNCHR has already accused Hamas for those deaths. And the Telegraph ain't my paper. Try the Washington Times.


----------



## montelatici

The UNCHR has not accused Hamas, it has accused Israel.  Why do you lie all the damn time.


----------



## MJB12741

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this pro-Palestinian propaganda?
> 
> The children killed in Gaza during 50 days of conflict - Telegraph
> 
> "In all, at least 521 have been killed since the onset of Israel’s offensive on July 8..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now then Abdul would you care to explain what the Geneva conventions have to say about using civilian areas to engage in war from, and why the side that uses the civilian areas is held fully responsible for any civilian deaths.
> 
> So who killed those 521 children according to International law
Click to expand...


Oh Monte, what are we to do with you & your nonsense?  You see, it's not too bright to bring your children into a war zone.  But then, Palestinians will be Palestinians.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> The UNCHR has not accused Hamas, it has accused Israel.  Why do you lie all the damn time.


I thought it was UNCHR. My mistake. It was the Security Council. Question for Monte:Why don't chickens piss?


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this pro-Palestinian propaganda?
> 
> The children killed in Gaza during 50 days of conflict - Telegraph
> 
> "In all, at least 521 have been killed since the onset of Israel’s offensive on July 8..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now then Abdul would you care to explain what the Geneva conventions have to say about using civilian areas to engage in war from, and why the side that uses the civilian areas is held fully responsible for any civilian deaths.
> 
> So who killed those 521 children according to International law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Monte, what are we to do with you & your nonsense?  You see, it's not too bright to bring your children into a war zone.  But then, Palestinians will be Palestinians.
Click to expand...


Kind of like the Polish Jews bringing their children to the Warsaw ghetto, not too bright.  But then, Jews will be Jews.


----------



## montelatici

Hossfly said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UNCHR has not accused Hamas, it has accused Israel.  Why do you lie all the damn time.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it was UNCHR. My mistake. It was the Security Council. Question for Monte:Why don't chickens piss?
Click to expand...


UN Security council did no such thing you lying p.o.s.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UNCHR has not accused Hamas, it has accused Israel.  Why do you lie all the damn time.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it was UNCHR. My mistake. It was the Security Council. Question for Monte:Why don't chickens piss?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> UN Security council did no such thing you lying p.o.s.
Click to expand...

Hey, you're right! The UM, a terrorist sympathizing shithole on the Hudson River calling itself, United Nations, is always quick to blame Israel for all the Hamas caused deaths.


----------



## montelatici

I don't know wht the UM is, but:

"The International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague has opened an inquiry to ascertain whether war crimes were committed against Palestinians when Israel bombed Gaza last year killing at least 2,000."

Court launches inquiry into Israeli war crimes The Times


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> I don't know wht the UM is, but:
> 
> "The International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague has opened an inquiry to ascertain whether war crimes were committed against Palestinians when Israel bombed Gaza last year killing at least 2,000."
> 
> Court launches inquiry into Israeli war crimes The Times


UM = United Muslims and the ICC is just as corrupt as the UM.


----------



## montelatici

Every organization is corrupt except Israel.  Cognitive dissonance at its best.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Every organization is corrupt except Israel.  Cognitive dissonance at its best.



Hey monte, did you hear the one about "Israel is stealing 'Palestinian' land"?


----------



## montelatici

How about this one Otto. 

 Why did the Zionist cross the road?


----------



## LOki

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that the "Palestinian" nation of Israel was attacked on the very day of its birth, by hostile Arab/Islamic nations surrounding it--and those hostile foreign nations sponsored traitors within the Arab/Islamic population of Israel.

It occurs to me that these Arab/Islamic Israelis ("Palestinians") actually belonged (briefly) to a nation in somewhere between May 14th and May 15th, 1948. They belonged to a nation that asserted a commitment to _"foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; ... be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; ... ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture;..."_

Yet these "Palestinians" chose to fight with the forces of hostile invading nations, against their own newly formed nation (i.e. Israel)--and then they lost. They could have fought with their own countrymen in defense of their nation, but they chose otherwise. It's pretty self evident why Israel wanted nothing to do with those back-stabbing shit-birds.

You cannot deny that Jewish "Palestinians" (Israelis) stood up as the valid sovereign organization on the eve that Great Britain abandoned its administrative control of the region. You cannot claim that Arab/Islamic "Palestinians" stood up as a valid sovereign organization. And you cannot deny that (aided by foriegn nations) certain Arab/Islamic Israelis went beyond contesting the legitimacy of Israeli soveriegnty, but went all the more farther by embracing the invaders of their own lands--traitors to their nation and traitors to themselves.

Considering the behavior of the progeny of those traitors, I'm entirely unsurprised that Israelis are unwelcoming to them, and I am wholly surprised at the restraint Israel has exercised in not obliterating them from the planet in the manner that they have clearly been so capable of doing.

I think these "Palestinians" have been barred from citizenship in the surrounding Arab/Islamic nations because the citizens of those nations weren't too keen on patriating the traitors to Israel that they sponsored in 1948 (after all, traitors ARE traitors regardless of which side they sell out to); and they sensibly maintain that same position of disdain for the trouble-making posterity of those traitors.

If I'm not wrong about this, it seems apparent to me that the right thing for these Palestinians to do is accept that their forebears lost for them any claim to a homeland in Israel when they turned against their countrymen and lost; and (in light of their behavior since) they should accept with gratitude any accommodations they get now. One of those accommodations really ought to be the possibility of patriation by the sponsor nations of their treason.


----------



## montelatici

You are quite wrong.  The Israelis had started ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims in 1947 well before the departure of the British.  The Arab troops that intervened in 1948 were attempting to prevent the Jews from continuing and finalizing the ethnic cleansing/genocide of the Christians and Muslims.  There is so much propaganda on the Zionist side promulgated to Americans, it is no wonder that Americans have the point of view they have.

While not source documentation this British Forces in Palestine website, which is a neutral site,  relates what actually happened:

 "By the end of 1947........Jews were pursuing their 'facts on the ground' policy by attacking and destroying Arab villages and ejecting the inhabitants."

"The British are criticized for not actively defending the Arab villages but there were insufficient troops and the US had refused assistance in the form of troops or other support* (many US and other factions, including British, were actively supporting the Zionist takeover and had powerful backing).* General Stockwell had specific orders that troops should only be used for defence. He was in liaison with both Arabs and Zionists and knew how strong the Haganah were (contrary to myth) and that the Palestinian Arabs, though they had plenty of courage, were badly organized, equipped and trained so stood no chance against the Zionists. Consequently, the Haganah was quickly able to occupy territory way beyond that designated by the UN."

Who was there - British Forces in Palestine


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> I don't know wht the UM is, but:
> 
> "The International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague has opened an inquiry to ascertain whether war crimes were committed against Palestinians when Israel bombed Gaza last year killing at least 2,000."
> 
> Court launches inquiry into Israeli war crimes The Times






Only problem is that the ICC will also look at the Palestinians war crimes and take action against them. Because Israel is not a


montelatici said:


> You are quite wrong.  The Israelis had started ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims in 1947 well before the departure of the British.  The Arab troops that intervened in 1948 were attempting to prevent the Jews from continuing and finalizing the ethnic cleansing/genocide of the Christians and Muslims.  There is so much propaganda on the Zionist side promulgated to Americans, it is no wonder that Americans have the point of view they have.
> 
> While not source documentation this British Forces in Palestine website, which is a neutral site,  relates what actually happened:
> 
> "By the end of 1947........Jews were pursuing their 'facts on the ground' policy by attacking and destroying Arab villages and ejecting the inhabitants."
> 
> "The British are criticized for not actively defending the Arab villages but there were insufficient troops and the US had refused assistance in the form of troops or other support* (many US and other factions, including British, were actively supporting the Zionist takeover and had powerful backing).* General Stockwell had specific orders that troops should only be used for defence. He was in liaison with both Arabs and Zionists and knew how strong the Haganah were (contrary to myth) and that the Palestinian Arabs, though they had plenty of courage, were badly organized, equipped and trained so stood no chance against the Zionists. Consequently, the Haganah was quickly able to occupy territory way beyond that designated by the UN."
> 
> Who was there - British Forces in Palestine





While the arab muslims started ethnically cleansing Jews and Christians way back in 627 C.E. and are still doing it today. In fact in 1929 the NAZI grand mufti organised a massacre of Jews in Jenin and Jerusalem, Then in 1931 another massacre of the Jews took place. Both these events led to the indigenous Jews forming militias to defend against arab muslim violence, terrorism and murder. So when did the real ethnic cleansing take place Abdul, and who was behind it all.


 And if as you state the Jews were very thin on the ground then the report of the British army and the aggression faced from the civilians points to it being arab muslims now doesn't it


----------



## LOki

montelatici said:


> You are quite wrong.


Oh? Then demonstrate, because what you've offered fails to address my point.



montelatici said:


> The Israelis had started ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims in 1947 well before the departure of the British.


I won't dispute this. Not because I agree with you, but rather, it's entirely beside the point.




montelatici said:


> The Arab troops that intervened in 1948 were attempting to prevent the Jews from continuing and finalizing the ethnic cleansing/genocide of the Christians and Muslims.


The only relevant point you've made here is that the Arab troops invaded Israel...their rationale for doing so is inconsequential to the point--making the rest of your post irrelevant.

I'm not a social justice warrior, and I'm not making a social justice point. I find the reaching back into antiquity for the first cause rationalizations that validate the brutality those rock-chucking retards inflict upon each other (and all of us too) to be tedious and unproductive. Mostly because it's all full if lies. Hence, _that_ narrative is not something I'm going to give weight to.

P.S. It's worth making note of the observation that the countries sending troops into Israel out of concern for "ethnic cleansing" were not sufficiently concerned with the welfare of the folks they were allegedly protecting to patriate them into their own country after their invasion failed.


----------



## montelatici

No, in 627 AD, the 'Arab Muslims" (who were mostly former Christian converts to Islam)  as you call massacred the Christians (there were no Jews in Jerusalem at the time as they were not allowed in by the Christian Byzantines) and they permitted Jews, previously excluded by the Christian Byzantines back into Jerusalem. 

Jews, from then, lived with the Muslims as a minority in Jerusalem until  the First Crusade when Christian knights from Europe capture Jerusalem after seven weeks of siege and massacred the city's Muslim and Jewish population on July 14, 1099.

As to your other nonsensical point the website makes it clear in the text who the aggressor was.  I don't think Arabs were attacking Arab villages.


"*By the end of 1947........Jews were pursuing their 'facts on the ground' policy by attacking and destroying Arab villages and ejecting the inhabitants."*

*"The British are criticized for not actively defending the Arab villages* but there were insufficient troops and the US had refused assistance in the form of troops or other support* (many US and other factions, including British, were actively supporting the Zionist takeover and had powerful backing).* General Stockwell had specific orders that troops should only be used for defence. He was in liaison with both Arabs and Zionists and knew how strong the Haganah were (contrary to myth) and that the Palestinian Arabs, though they had plenty of courage, were badly organized, equipped and trained so stood no chance against the Zionists. Consequently, the Haganah was quickly able to occupy territory way beyond that designated by the UN."

Who was there - British Forces in Palestine


----------



## montelatici

LOki said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are quite wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? Then demonstrate, because what you've offered fails to address my point.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Israelis had started ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims in 1947 well before the departure of the British.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I won't dispute this. Not because I agree with you, but rather, it's entirely beside the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab troops that intervened in 1948 were attempting to prevent the Jews from continuing and finalizing the ethnic cleansing/genocide of the Christians and Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only relevant point you've made here is that the Arab troops invaded Israel...their rational for doing so is inconsequential to the point--making the rest of your post irrelevant.
> 
> I'm not a social justice warrior, and I'm not making a social justice point. I find the reaching back into antiquity for the first cause rationalizations that validate the brutality those rock-chucking retards inflict upon each other (and all of us too) to be tedious and unproductive. Mostly because it's all full if lies. Hence, _that_ narrative is not something I'm going to give weight to.
Click to expand...


No, the only relevant point is that the Europeans began ethnically cleansing the Christians and Muslims from their homes well before the British left or the creation of Israel, making the creation of  an Arab state within the borders set forth by the partition plan impossible.


----------



## LOki

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are quite wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? Then demonstrate, because what you've offered fails to address my point.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Israelis had started ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims in 1947 well before the departure of the British.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I won't dispute this. Not because I agree with you, but rather, it's entirely beside the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab troops that intervened in 1948 were attempting to prevent the Jews from continuing and finalizing the ethnic cleansing/genocide of the Christians and Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only relevant point you've made here is that the Arab troops invaded Israel...their rational for doing so is inconsequential to the point--making the rest of your post irrelevant.
> 
> I'm not a social justice warrior, and I'm not making a social justice point. I find the reaching back into antiquity for the first cause rationalizations that validate the brutality those rock-chucking retards inflict upon each other (and all of us too) to be tedious and unproductive. Mostly because it's all full if lies. Hence, _that_ narrative is not something I'm going to give weight to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the only relevant point is that the Europeans began ethnically cleansing the Christians and Muslims from their homes well before the British left or the creation of Israel, making the creation of  an Arab state within the borders set forth by the partition plan impossible.
Click to expand...

Like I said, this line of rationalization is tedious and unproductive. It carries no weight and is irrelevant to the point I presented.


----------



## montelatici

LOki said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are quite wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? Then demonstrate, because what you've offered fails to address my point.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Israelis had started ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims in 1947 well before the departure of the British.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I won't dispute this. Not because I agree with you, but rather, it's entirely beside the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab troops that intervened in 1948 were attempting to prevent the Jews from continuing and finalizing the ethnic cleansing/genocide of the Christians and Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only relevant point you've made here is that the Arab troops invaded Israel...their rational for doing so is inconsequential to the point--making the rest of your post irrelevant.
> 
> I'm not a social justice warrior, and I'm not making a social justice point. I find the reaching back into antiquity for the first cause rationalizations that validate the brutality those rock-chucking retards inflict upon each other (and all of us too) to be tedious and unproductive. Mostly because it's all full if lies. Hence, _that_ narrative is not something I'm going to give weight to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the only relevant point is that the Europeans began ethnically cleansing the Christians and Muslims from their homes well before the British left or the creation of Israel, making the creation of  an Arab state within the borders set forth by the partition plan impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, this line of rationalization is tedious and unproductive. It carries no weight and is irrelevant to the point I presented.
Click to expand...


What carries no weight is the line you presented, because it has no basis in fact. Run along and leave this to the adults.


----------



## LOki

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are quite wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? Then demonstrate, because what you've offered fails to address my point.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Israelis had started ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims in 1947 well before the departure of the British.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I won't dispute this. Not because I agree with you, but rather, it's entirely beside the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab troops that intervened in 1948 were attempting to prevent the Jews from continuing and finalizing the ethnic cleansing/genocide of the Christians and Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only relevant point you've made here is that the Arab troops invaded Israel...their rational for doing so is inconsequential to the point--making the rest of your post irrelevant.
> 
> I'm not a social justice warrior, and I'm not making a social justice point. I find the reaching back into antiquity for the first cause rationalizations that validate the brutality those rock-chucking retards inflict upon each other (and all of us too) to be tedious and unproductive. Mostly because it's all full if lies. Hence, _that_ narrative is not something I'm going to give weight to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the only relevant point is that the Europeans began ethnically cleansing the Christians and Muslims from their homes well before the British left or the creation of Israel, making the creation of  an Arab state within the borders set forth by the partition plan impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, this line of rationalization is tedious and unproductive. It carries no weight and is irrelevant to the point I presented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What carries no weight is the line you presented, because it has no basis in fact. Run along and leave this to the adults.
Click to expand...

Really? So, the British never abandoned administration of Palestine then, eh? 

Israeli sovereignty was never established in 1948?

No Arab nations invaded Israel?

That's an example of your "adult" discussion?

That kind of denial of reality is for retards. You can have it.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> No, in 627 AD, the 'Arab Muslims" (who were mostly former Christian converts to Islam)  as you call massacred the Christians (there were no Jews in Jerusalem at the time as they were not allowed in by the Christian Byzantines) and they permitted Jews, previously excluded by the Christian Byzantines back into Jerusalem.
> 
> Jews, from then, lived with the Muslims as a minority in Jerusalem until  the First Crusade when Christian knights from Europe capture Jerusalem after seven weeks of siege and massacred the city's Muslim and Jewish population on July 14, 1099.
> 
> As to your other nonsensical point the website makes it clear in the text who the aggressor was.  I don't think Arabs were attacking Arab villages.
> 
> 
> "*By the end of 1947........Jews were pursuing their 'facts on the ground' policy by attacking and destroying Arab villages and ejecting the inhabitants."*
> 
> *"The British are criticized for not actively defending the Arab villages* but there were insufficient troops and the US had refused assistance in the form of troops or other support* (many US and other factions, including British, were actively supporting the Zionist takeover and had powerful backing).* General Stockwell had specific orders that troops should only be used for defence. He was in liaison with both Arabs and Zionists and knew how strong the Haganah were (contrary to myth) and that the Palestinian Arabs, though they had plenty of courage, were badly organized, equipped and trained so stood no chance against the Zionists. Consequently, the Haganah was quickly able to occupy territory way beyond that designated by the UN."
> 
> Who was there - British Forces in Palestine






 So you are now saying that Mohamed and his followers were all converts from Christianity and took over all of Saudi Arabia starting with Medina and Mecca. You do realise that the Jews were not in Palestine don't you, and were in Arabia when Mohamed and his 5,000 strong horde of arab muslim psychopaths wiped them out.

Get it right Abdul the site only deals with a small period of time, which happens to coincide with civil unrest in Palestine brought about by arab nationalism. The leaders of the surrounding lands whipped up trouble and set the ball rolling, as your other link stated the British faced aggression from the arab muslims in Palestine. Cant have been the Jews as there were none there according to you.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are quite wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? Then demonstrate, because what you've offered fails to address my point.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Israelis had started ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims in 1947 well before the departure of the British.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I won't dispute this. Not because I agree with you, but rather, it's entirely beside the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab troops that intervened in 1948 were attempting to prevent the Jews from continuing and finalizing the ethnic cleansing/genocide of the Christians and Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only relevant point you've made here is that the Arab troops invaded Israel...their rational for doing so is inconsequential to the point--making the rest of your post irrelevant.
> 
> I'm not a social justice warrior, and I'm not making a social justice point. I find the reaching back into antiquity for the first cause rationalizations that validate the brutality those rock-chucking retards inflict upon each other (and all of us too) to be tedious and unproductive. Mostly because it's all full if lies. Hence, _that_ narrative is not something I'm going to give weight to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the only relevant point is that the Europeans began ethnically cleansing the Christians and Muslims from their homes well before the British left or the creation of Israel, making the creation of  an Arab state within the borders set forth by the partition plan impossible.
Click to expand...




 Nope as the arab muslims were enemies of Israel and so had no place there. Just as the Italians and Germans had no place in the UK or US during WW2, so they were evicted or incarcerated as enemies.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are quite wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? Then demonstrate, because what you've offered fails to address my point.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Israelis had started ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims in 1947 well before the departure of the British.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I won't dispute this. Not because I agree with you, but rather, it's entirely beside the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab troops that intervened in 1948 were attempting to prevent the Jews from continuing and finalizing the ethnic cleansing/genocide of the Christians and Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only relevant point you've made here is that the Arab troops invaded Israel...their rational for doing so is inconsequential to the point--making the rest of your post irrelevant.
> 
> I'm not a social justice warrior, and I'm not making a social justice point. I find the reaching back into antiquity for the first cause rationalizations that validate the brutality those rock-chucking retards inflict upon each other (and all of us too) to be tedious and unproductive. Mostly because it's all full if lies. Hence, _that_ narrative is not something I'm going to give weight to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the only relevant point is that the Europeans began ethnically cleansing the Christians and Muslims from their homes well before the British left or the creation of Israel, making the creation of  an Arab state within the borders set forth by the partition plan impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, this line of rationalization is tedious and unproductive. It carries no weight and is irrelevant to the point I presented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What carries no weight is the line you presented, because it has no basis in fact. Run along and leave this to the adults.
Click to expand...





 When one on your side turns up will you let the board know ?


----------



## LOki

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are quite wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? Then demonstrate, because what you've offered fails to address my point.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Israelis had started ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims in 1947 well before the departure of the British.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I won't dispute this. Not because I agree with you, but rather, it's entirely beside the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab troops that intervened in 1948 were attempting to prevent the Jews from continuing and finalizing the ethnic cleansing/genocide of the Christians and Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only relevant point you've made here is that the Arab troops invaded Israel...their rational for doing so is inconsequential to the point--making the rest of your post irrelevant.
> 
> I'm not a social justice warrior, and I'm not making a social justice point. I find the reaching back into antiquity for the first cause rationalizations that validate the brutality those rock-chucking retards inflict upon each other (and all of us too) to be tedious and unproductive. Mostly because it's all full if lies. Hence, _that_ narrative is not something I'm going to give weight to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the only relevant point is that the Europeans began ethnically cleansing the Christians and Muslims from their homes well before the British left or the creation of Israel, making the creation of  an Arab state within the borders set forth by the partition plan impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, this line of rationalization is tedious and unproductive. It carries no weight and is irrelevant to the point I presented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What carries no weight is the line you presented, because it has no basis in fact. Run along and leave this to the adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When one on your side turns up will you let the board know ?
Click to expand...

Seriously.

When faced with conclusions drawn from patently verifiable facts of reality, montelatici petulantly stamps her little pink bootie into the 6,000 year old dust of her flat earth, and angrily shakes her chubby little fist at her geocentric cosmology, and sanctimoniously declares in her squishy voice that those facts are not real.

All that retard wants to engage in is a rock chucking conflict over who chucked the first rock in the retarded rock chucking conflict in the middle east.

We all know how "adult" and productive _that_ behavior has proven to be.


----------



## montelatici

LOki said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? Then demonstrate, because what you've offered fails to address my point.
> 
> I won't dispute this. Not because I agree with you, but rather, it's entirely beside the point.
> 
> 
> The only relevant point you've made here is that the Arab troops invaded Israel...their rational for doing so is inconsequential to the point--making the rest of your post irrelevant.
> 
> I'm not a social justice warrior, and I'm not making a social justice point. I find the reaching back into antiquity for the first cause rationalizations that validate the brutality those rock-chucking retards inflict upon each other (and all of us too) to be tedious and unproductive. Mostly because it's all full if lies. Hence, _that_ narrative is not something I'm going to give weight to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the only relevant point is that the Europeans began ethnically cleansing the Christians and Muslims from their homes well before the British left or the creation of Israel, making the creation of  an Arab state within the borders set forth by the partition plan impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, this line of rationalization is tedious and unproductive. It carries no weight and is irrelevant to the point I presented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What carries no weight is the line you presented, because it has no basis in fact. Run along and leave this to the adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When one on your side turns up will you let the board know ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> When faced with conclusions drawn from patently verifiable facts of reality, montelatici petulantly stamps her little pink bootie into the 6,000 year old dust of her flat earth, and angrily shakes her chubby little fist at her geocentric cosmology, and sanctimoniously declares in her squishy voice that those facts are not real.
> 
> All that retard wants to engage in is a rock chucking conflict over who chucked the first rock in the retarded rock chucking conflict in the middle east.
> 
> We all know how "adult" and productive _that_ behavior has proven to be.
Click to expand...


The only patently verifiable fact, that is not subject to any interpretation,  is that Europeans went to another continent colonized an area and ethnically cleansed most of the indigenous people living in that area.


----------



## LOki

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the only relevant point is that the Europeans began ethnically cleansing the Christians and Muslims from their homes well before the British left or the creation of Israel, making the creation of  an Arab state within the borders set forth by the partition plan impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, this line of rationalization is tedious and unproductive. It carries no weight and is irrelevant to the point I presented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What carries no weight is the line you presented, because it has no basis in fact. Run along and leave this to the adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When one on your side turns up will you let the board know ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> When faced with conclusions drawn from patently verifiable facts of reality, montelatici petulantly stamps her little pink bootie into the 6,000 year old dust of her flat earth, and angrily shakes her chubby little fist at her geocentric cosmology, and sanctimoniously declares in her squishy voice that those facts are not real.
> 
> All that retard wants to engage in is a rock chucking conflict over who chucked the first rock in the retarded rock chucking conflict in the middle east.
> 
> We all know how "adult" and productive _that_ behavior has proven to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only patently verifiable fact, that is not subject to any interpretation,  is that Europeans went to another continent colonized an area and ethnically cleansed most of the indigenous people living in that area.
Click to expand...

I have no interest in your dopey crusade little SJW. Take your mawkish outrage at another entirely unrelated subject to your homeopathic, pony-kin, drum circle where it can get traction with other bong-smoke militants.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the only relevant point is that the Europeans began ethnically cleansing the Christians and Muslims from their homes well before the British left or the creation of Israel, making the creation of  an Arab state within the borders set forth by the partition plan impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, this line of rationalization is tedious and unproductive. It carries no weight and is irrelevant to the point I presented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What carries no weight is the line you presented, because it has no basis in fact. Run along and leave this to the adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When one on your side turns up will you let the board know ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> When faced with conclusions drawn from patently verifiable facts of reality, montelatici petulantly stamps her little pink bootie into the 6,000 year old dust of her flat earth, and angrily shakes her chubby little fist at her geocentric cosmology, and sanctimoniously declares in her squishy voice that those facts are not real.
> 
> All that retard wants to engage in is a rock chucking conflict over who chucked the first rock in the retarded rock chucking conflict in the middle east.
> 
> We all know how "adult" and productive _that_ behavior has proven to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only patently verifiable fact, that is not subject to any interpretation,  is that Europeans went to another continent colonized an area and ethnically cleansed most of the indigenous people living in that area.
Click to expand...




montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the only relevant point is that the Europeans began ethnically cleansing the Christians and Muslims from their homes well before the British left or the creation of Israel, making the creation of  an Arab state within the borders set forth by the partition plan impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, this line of rationalization is tedious and unproductive. It carries no weight and is irrelevant to the point I presented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What carries no weight is the line you presented, because it has no basis in fact. Run along and leave this to the adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When one on your side turns up will you let the board know ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> When faced with conclusions drawn from patently verifiable facts of reality, montelatici petulantly stamps her little pink bootie into the 6,000 year old dust of her flat earth, and angrily shakes her chubby little fist at her geocentric cosmology, and sanctimoniously declares in her squishy voice that those facts are not real.
> 
> All that retard wants to engage in is a rock chucking conflict over who chucked the first rock in the retarded rock chucking conflict in the middle east.
> 
> We all know how "adult" and productive _that_ behavior has proven to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only patently verifiable fact, that is not subject to any interpretation,  is that Europeans went to another continent colonized an area and ethnically cleansed most of the indigenous people living in that area.
Click to expand...

I see Tinmore thanked your post. Because you and Tinny and a gaggle of other losers keep repeating the same Palestinian talking points over and over and over and over...........................


----------



## montelatici

LOki said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, this line of rationalization is tedious and unproductive. It carries no weight and is irrelevant to the point I presented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What carries no weight is the line you presented, because it has no basis in fact. Run along and leave this to the adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When one on your side turns up will you let the board know ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> When faced with conclusions drawn from patently verifiable facts of reality, montelatici petulantly stamps her little pink bootie into the 6,000 year old dust of her flat earth, and angrily shakes her chubby little fist at her geocentric cosmology, and sanctimoniously declares in her squishy voice that those facts are not real.
> 
> All that retard wants to engage in is a rock chucking conflict over who chucked the first rock in the retarded rock chucking conflict in the middle east.
> 
> We all know how "adult" and productive _that_ behavior has proven to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only patently verifiable fact, that is not subject to any interpretation,  is that Europeans went to another continent colonized an area and ethnically cleansed most of the indigenous people living in that area.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no interest in your dopey crusade little SJW. Take your mawkish outrage at another entirely unrelated subject to your homeopathic, pony-kin, drum circle where it can get traction with other bong-smoke militants.
Click to expand...


I see you have no answer to the basic fact, which is, if Europeans had not facilitated the colonization of another continent by Europeans of a particular religion, the current problem between colonizer and colonized in Palestine would not exist.  

As far as your characterization of me. leave it at home.  You couldn't be more deluded.


----------



## LOki

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What carries no weight is the line you presented, because it has no basis in fact. Run along and leave this to the adults.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When one on your side turns up will you let the board know ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> When faced with conclusions drawn from patently verifiable facts of reality, montelatici petulantly stamps her little pink bootie into the 6,000 year old dust of her flat earth, and angrily shakes her chubby little fist at her geocentric cosmology, and sanctimoniously declares in her squishy voice that those facts are not real.
> 
> All that retard wants to engage in is a rock chucking conflict over who chucked the first rock in the retarded rock chucking conflict in the middle east.
> 
> We all know how "adult" and productive _that_ behavior has proven to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only patently verifiable fact, that is not subject to any interpretation,  is that Europeans went to another continent colonized an area and ethnically cleansed most of the indigenous people living in that area.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no interest in your dopey crusade little SJW. Take your mawkish outrage at another entirely unrelated subject to your homeopathic, pony-kin, drum circle where it can get traction with other bong-smoke militants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you have no answer to the basic fact, which is, if Europeans had not facilitated the colonization of another continent by Europeans of a particular religion, the current problem between colonizer and colonized in Palestine would not exist.
> 
> As far as your characterization of me. leave it at home.  You couldn't be more deluded.
Click to expand...

Little Pumpkin, there's just no reason for me to answer to your fact regarding European colonization... your "fact" is simply not relevant to the point I made.

It is literally irrelevant to the situation. Israel was a recognized nation, it was invaded, certain Israelis sided with the invaders, and the invaders lost. Those are facts not in dispute.

I refuse to be drawn into your retarded rationalizations regarding who chucked the first rock at whom so many generations in the past. Such stories from both sides are full of lies, and the lies weigh equally against each other. Peddle your dopey crusade to someone who will share in your mawkish outrage--I'm not a buyer.

But if you want to dispute the conclusions drawn from the indisputable facts presented, I'm an eager audience. But if you're just going to catalog all the crimes you perceive that were committed against your preferred people, then I'm telling you now I will not be persuaded by such bullshit emotional manipulations.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hossfly said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, this line of rationalization is tedious and unproductive. It carries no weight and is irrelevant to the point I presented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What carries no weight is the line you presented, because it has no basis in fact. Run along and leave this to the adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When one on your side turns up will you let the board know ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> When faced with conclusions drawn from patently verifiable facts of reality, montelatici petulantly stamps her little pink bootie into the 6,000 year old dust of her flat earth, and angrily shakes her chubby little fist at her geocentric cosmology, and sanctimoniously declares in her squishy voice that those facts are not real.
> 
> All that retard wants to engage in is a rock chucking conflict over who chucked the first rock in the retarded rock chucking conflict in the middle east.
> 
> We all know how "adult" and productive _that_ behavior has proven to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only patently verifiable fact, that is not subject to any interpretation,  is that Europeans went to another continent colonized an area and ethnically cleansed most of the indigenous people living in that area.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, this line of rationalization is tedious and unproductive. It carries no weight and is irrelevant to the point I presented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What carries no weight is the line you presented, because it has no basis in fact. Run along and leave this to the adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When one on your side turns up will you let the board know ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> When faced with conclusions drawn from patently verifiable facts of reality, montelatici petulantly stamps her little pink bootie into the 6,000 year old dust of her flat earth, and angrily shakes her chubby little fist at her geocentric cosmology, and sanctimoniously declares in her squishy voice that those facts are not real.
> 
> All that retard wants to engage in is a rock chucking conflict over who chucked the first rock in the retarded rock chucking conflict in the middle east.
> 
> We all know how "adult" and productive _that_ behavior has proven to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only patently verifiable fact, that is not subject to any interpretation,  is that Europeans went to another continent colonized an area and ethnically cleansed most of the indigenous people living in that area.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see Tinmore thanked your post. Because you and Tinny and a gaggle of other losers keep repeating the same Palestinian talking points over and over and over and over...........................
Click to expand...

That is because "patently verifiable fact" is historically correct.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the only relevant point is that the Europeans began ethnically cleansing the Christians and Muslims from their homes well before the British left or the creation of Israel, making the creation of  an Arab state within the borders set forth by the partition plan impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, this line of rationalization is tedious and unproductive. It carries no weight and is irrelevant to the point I presented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What carries no weight is the line you presented, because it has no basis in fact. Run along and leave this to the adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When one on your side turns up will you let the board know ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> When faced with conclusions drawn from patently verifiable facts of reality, montelatici petulantly stamps her little pink bootie into the 6,000 year old dust of her flat earth, and angrily shakes her chubby little fist at her geocentric cosmology, and sanctimoniously declares in her squishy voice that those facts are not real.
> 
> All that retard wants to engage in is a rock chucking conflict over who chucked the first rock in the retarded rock chucking conflict in the middle east.
> 
> We all know how "adult" and productive _that_ behavior has proven to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only patently verifiable fact, that is not subject to any interpretation,  is that Europeans went to another continent colonized an area and ethnically cleansed most of the indigenous people living in that area.
Click to expand...

Here's what really happened. After Israel legally declared independence , 5 Arab nations tried to destroy the new country and expel the Jewish residents. Problem is, the Jews were stronger than the Arabs thought, and they ended up expelling those who tried to expel them. You reap what you sow.


----------



## montelatici

No, Arab nations attempted to stop the ethnic cleansing of Christians and Muslims.  And, the invading  Europeans had more military might and were successful in ethnically cleansing the Christians and Muslims.


----------



## montelatici

LOki said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> When one on your side turns up will you let the board know ?
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> When faced with conclusions drawn from patently verifiable facts of reality, montelatici petulantly stamps her little pink bootie into the 6,000 year old dust of her flat earth, and angrily shakes her chubby little fist at her geocentric cosmology, and sanctimoniously declares in her squishy voice that those facts are not real.
> 
> All that retard wants to engage in is a rock chucking conflict over who chucked the first rock in the retarded rock chucking conflict in the middle east.
> 
> We all know how "adult" and productive _that_ behavior has proven to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only patently verifiable fact, that is not subject to any interpretation,  is that Europeans went to another continent colonized an area and ethnically cleansed most of the indigenous people living in that area.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no interest in your dopey crusade little SJW. Take your mawkish outrage at another entirely unrelated subject to your homeopathic, pony-kin, drum circle where it can get traction with other bong-smoke militants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you have no answer to the basic fact, which is, if Europeans had not facilitated the colonization of another continent by Europeans of a particular religion, the current problem between colonizer and colonized in Palestine would not exist.
> 
> As far as your characterization of me. leave it at home.  You couldn't be more deluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Little Pumpkin, there's just no reason for me to answer to your fact regarding European colonization... your "fact" is simply not relevant to the point I made.
> 
> It is literally irrelevant to the situation. Israel was a recognized nation, it was invaded, certain Israelis sided with the invaders, and the invaders lost. Those are facts not in dispute.
> 
> I refuse to be drawn into your retarded rationalizations regarding who chucked the first rock at whom so many generations in the past. Such stories from both sides are full of lies, and the lies weigh equally against each other. Peddle your dopey crusade to someone who will share in your mawkish outrage--I'm not a buyer.
> 
> But if you want to dispute the conclusions drawn from the indisputable facts presented, I'm an eager audience. But if you're just going to catalog all the crimes you perceive that were committed against your preferred people, then I'm telling you now I will not be persuaded by such bullshit emotional manipulations.
Click to expand...


The indisputable fact is that Europeans went to another continent, expelled the people living there and created a nation.


----------



## LOki

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> When faced with conclusions drawn from patently verifiable facts of reality, montelatici petulantly stamps her little pink bootie into the 6,000 year old dust of her flat earth, and angrily shakes her chubby little fist at her geocentric cosmology, and sanctimoniously declares in her squishy voice that those facts are not real.
> 
> All that retard wants to engage in is a rock chucking conflict over who chucked the first rock in the retarded rock chucking conflict in the middle east.
> 
> We all know how "adult" and productive _that_ behavior has proven to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only patently verifiable fact, that is not subject to any interpretation,  is that Europeans went to another continent colonized an area and ethnically cleansed most of the indigenous people living in that area.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no interest in your dopey crusade little SJW. Take your mawkish outrage at another entirely unrelated subject to your homeopathic, pony-kin, drum circle where it can get traction with other bong-smoke militants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you have no answer to the basic fact, which is, if Europeans had not facilitated the colonization of another continent by Europeans of a particular religion, the current problem between colonizer and colonized in Palestine would not exist.
> 
> As far as your characterization of me. leave it at home.  You couldn't be more deluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Little Pumpkin, there's just no reason for me to answer to your fact regarding European colonization... your "fact" is simply not relevant to the point I made.
> 
> It is literally irrelevant to the situation. Israel was a recognized nation, it was invaded, certain Israelis sided with the invaders, and the invaders lost. Those are facts not in dispute.
> 
> I refuse to be drawn into your retarded rationalizations regarding who chucked the first rock at whom so many generations in the past. Such stories from both sides are full of lies, and the lies weigh equally against each other. Peddle your dopey crusade to someone who will share in your mawkish outrage--I'm not a buyer.
> 
> But if you want to dispute the conclusions drawn from the indisputable facts presented, I'm an eager audience. But if you're just going to catalog all the crimes you perceive that were committed against your preferred people, then I'm telling you now I will not be persuaded by such bullshit emotional manipulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indisputable fact is that Europeans went to another continent, expelled the people living there and created a nation.
Click to expand...

and....


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the only relevant point is that the Europeans began ethnically cleansing the Christians and Muslims from their homes well before the British left or the creation of Israel, making the creation of  an Arab state within the borders set forth by the partition plan impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, this line of rationalization is tedious and unproductive. It carries no weight and is irrelevant to the point I presented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What carries no weight is the line you presented, because it has no basis in fact. Run along and leave this to the adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When one on your side turns up will you let the board know ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> When faced with conclusions drawn from patently verifiable facts of reality, montelatici petulantly stamps her little pink bootie into the 6,000 year old dust of her flat earth, and angrily shakes her chubby little fist at her geocentric cosmology, and sanctimoniously declares in her squishy voice that those facts are not real.
> 
> All that retard wants to engage in is a rock chucking conflict over who chucked the first rock in the retarded rock chucking conflict in the middle east.
> 
> We all know how "adult" and productive _that_ behavior has proven to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only patently verifiable fact, that is not subject to any interpretation,  is that Europeans went to another continent colonized an area and ethnically cleansed most of the indigenous people living in that area.
Click to expand...






 Then how come they are still there, unlike the Jews and Christians who were truly ethnically cleansed from all arab lands. The facts show that you are just a LIAR as the Palestinians are multiplying faster than fleas on a rat. It is the Christians that are showing the signs of being ethnically cleansed as their numbers have dropped by 90% and all the indications are that the Palestinians are the ones doing the cleansing. It is the same lament from the arab muslims to cover up their excessive behaviour and atrocities, so they lie and twist the truth to meet their POV


----------



## Phoenall

LOki said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only patently verifiable fact, that is not subject to any interpretation,  is that Europeans went to another continent colonized an area and ethnically cleansed most of the indigenous people living in that area.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no interest in your dopey crusade little SJW. Take your mawkish outrage at another entirely unrelated subject to your homeopathic, pony-kin, drum circle where it can get traction with other bong-smoke militants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you have no answer to the basic fact, which is, if Europeans had not facilitated the colonization of another continent by Europeans of a particular religion, the current problem between colonizer and colonized in Palestine would not exist.
> 
> As far as your characterization of me. leave it at home.  You couldn't be more deluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Little Pumpkin, there's just no reason for me to answer to your fact regarding European colonization... your "fact" is simply not relevant to the point I made.
> 
> It is literally irrelevant to the situation. Israel was a recognized nation, it was invaded, certain Israelis sided with the invaders, and the invaders lost. Those are facts not in dispute.
> 
> I refuse to be drawn into your retarded rationalizations regarding who chucked the first rock at whom so many generations in the past. Such stories from both sides are full of lies, and the lies weigh equally against each other. Peddle your dopey crusade to someone who will share in your mawkish outrage--I'm not a buyer.
> 
> But if you want to dispute the conclusions drawn from the indisputable facts presented, I'm an eager audience. But if you're just going to catalog all the crimes you perceive that were committed against your preferred people, then I'm telling you now I will not be persuaded by such bullshit emotional manipulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indisputable fact is that Europeans went to another continent, expelled the people living there and created a nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and....
Click to expand...





 No and it is just another Islamic blood libel and lie


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> When faced with conclusions drawn from patently verifiable facts of reality, montelatici petulantly stamps her little pink bootie into the 6,000 year old dust of her flat earth, and angrily shakes her chubby little fist at her geocentric cosmology, and sanctimoniously declares in her squishy voice that those facts are not real.
> 
> All that retard wants to engage in is a rock chucking conflict over who chucked the first rock in the retarded rock chucking conflict in the middle east.
> 
> We all know how "adult" and productive _that_ behavior has proven to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only patently verifiable fact, that is not subject to any interpretation,  is that Europeans went to another continent colonized an area and ethnically cleansed most of the indigenous people living in that area.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no interest in your dopey crusade little SJW. Take your mawkish outrage at another entirely unrelated subject to your homeopathic, pony-kin, drum circle where it can get traction with other bong-smoke militants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you have no answer to the basic fact, which is, if Europeans had not facilitated the colonization of another continent by Europeans of a particular religion, the current problem between colonizer and colonized in Palestine would not exist.
> 
> As far as your characterization of me. leave it at home.  You couldn't be more deluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Little Pumpkin, there's just no reason for me to answer to your fact regarding European colonization... your "fact" is simply not relevant to the point I made.
> 
> It is literally irrelevant to the situation. Israel was a recognized nation, it was invaded, certain Israelis sided with the invaders, and the invaders lost. Those are facts not in dispute.
> 
> I refuse to be drawn into your retarded rationalizations regarding who chucked the first rock at whom so many generations in the past. Such stories from both sides are full of lies, and the lies weigh equally against each other. Peddle your dopey crusade to someone who will share in your mawkish outrage--I'm not a buyer.
> 
> But if you want to dispute the conclusions drawn from the indisputable facts presented, I'm an eager audience. But if you're just going to catalog all the crimes you perceive that were committed against your preferred people, then I'm telling you now I will not be persuaded by such bullshit emotional manipulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indisputable fact is that Europeans went to another continent, expelled the people living there and created a nation.
Click to expand...



LMAO.  Right on Monti.  You have a very fine brain.  You see, it's a clear case of ethnic cleansing.  In 1948 there were approximately 1.2 million Palestinisn living in Israel.  And now there are only around 6 million of them left.  

Population Statistics - Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - ProCon.org


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## ChrisL

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> When faced with conclusions drawn from patently verifiable facts of reality, montelatici petulantly stamps her little pink bootie into the 6,000 year old dust of her flat earth, and angrily shakes her chubby little fist at her geocentric cosmology, and sanctimoniously declares in her squishy voice that those facts are not real.
> 
> All that retard wants to engage in is a rock chucking conflict over who chucked the first rock in the retarded rock chucking conflict in the middle east.
> 
> We all know how "adult" and productive _that_ behavior has proven to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only patently verifiable fact, that is not subject to any interpretation,  is that Europeans went to another continent colonized an area and ethnically cleansed most of the indigenous people living in that area.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no interest in your dopey crusade little SJW. Take your mawkish outrage at another entirely unrelated subject to your homeopathic, pony-kin, drum circle where it can get traction with other bong-smoke militants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you have no answer to the basic fact, which is, if Europeans had not facilitated the colonization of another continent by Europeans of a particular religion, the current problem between colonizer and colonized in Palestine would not exist.
> 
> As far as your characterization of me. leave it at home.  You couldn't be more deluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Little Pumpkin, there's just no reason for me to answer to your fact regarding European colonization... your "fact" is simply not relevant to the point I made.
> 
> It is literally irrelevant to the situation. Israel was a recognized nation, it was invaded, certain Israelis sided with the invaders, and the invaders lost. Those are facts not in dispute.
> 
> I refuse to be drawn into your retarded rationalizations regarding who chucked the first rock at whom so many generations in the past. Such stories from both sides are full of lies, and the lies weigh equally against each other. Peddle your dopey crusade to someone who will share in your mawkish outrage--I'm not a buyer.
> 
> But if you want to dispute the conclusions drawn from the indisputable facts presented, I'm an eager audience. But if you're just going to catalog all the crimes you perceive that were committed against your preferred people, then I'm telling you now I will not be persuaded by such bullshit emotional manipulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indisputable fact is that Europeans went to another continent, expelled the people living there and created a nation.
Click to expand...


Ancient history.  The fact is that MOST lands were taken over by one group or another.


----------



## montelatici

50 years or so is not the definition of ancient.  The fact is that when lands are taken over by colonizers, the colonizers must achieve demographic advantage, or else eventually they are either forced to blend in or are forced to leave.  Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> 50 years or so is not the definition of ancient.  The fact is that when lands are taken over by colonizers, the colonizers must achieve demographic advantage, or else eventually they are either forced to blend in or are forced to leave.  Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.


.........Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.........."Palestine".........Fixed that for ya.


----------



## ChrisL

Hossfly said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50 years or so is not the definition of ancient.  The fact is that when lands are taken over by colonizers, the colonizers must achieve demographic advantage, or else eventually they are either forced to blend in or are forced to leave.  Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.
> 
> 
> 
> .........Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.........."Palestine".........Fixed that for ya.
Click to expand...


  Palestine, of course!


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> 50 years or so is not the definition of ancient.  The fact is that when lands are taken over by colonizers, the colonizers must achieve demographic advantage, or else eventually they are either forced to blend in or are forced to leave.  Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.






Only if the aggressors can evict them, and now that the Palestinians have signed the UN charter they are held by it. This means that Israel is accepted by them as THE JEWISH STATE as declared in the UN charter.   You really are silly Haniya to think you can put one over on an intelligent non muslim


----------



## Phoenall

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50 years or so is not the definition of ancient.  The fact is that when lands are taken over by colonizers, the colonizers must achieve demographic advantage, or else eventually they are either forced to blend in or are forced to leave.  Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if the aggressors can evict them, and now that the Palestinians have signed the UN charter they are held by it. This means that Israel is accepted by them as THE JEWISH STATE as declared in the UN charter.   You really are silly Haniya to think you can put one over on an intelligent non muslim
Click to expand...


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> No, Arab nations attempted to stop the ethnic cleansing of Christians and Muslims.  And, the invading  Europeans had more military might and were successful in ethnically cleansing the Christians and Muslims.


5 Arab nations attacked Israel from all sides. They started the war with Israel you propagandist liar.
And Israel did not even have close to the military might if all those countries combined. 
It's incredible how full if shit you are Monti. You take Palestinian propaganda to a new level.


----------



## montelatici

Hossfly said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50 years or so is not the definition of ancient.  The fact is that when lands are taken over by colonizers, the colonizers must achieve demographic advantage, or else eventually they are either forced to blend in or are forced to leave.  Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.
> 
> 
> 
> .........Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.........."Palestine".........Fixed that for ya.
Click to expand...


Well, yes, you are right, the European colonizers of Palestine will end up in the same position as the European colonizers of Algeria, Rhodesia, and South Africa.  Thanks.


----------



## aris2chat

Mindful said:


> Chew on this.



actually maybe not

Archaeologist Believes Jesus Was Born in a Different Bethlehem


----------



## Hossfly

aris2chat said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chew on this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually maybe not
> 
> Archaeologist Believes Jesus Was Born in a Different Bethlehem
Click to expand...


Interesting article. Have you ever heard that even though Mary was pregnant, Joseph took her with him to Bethlehem in order to pay his yearly taxes? I understand that taxes were collected in August every year. If so, which Bethlehem would have been the one to go pay taxes? It would seem to be the closest one to his home. aris2chat


----------



## ChrisL

montelatici said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50 years or so is not the definition of ancient.  The fact is that when lands are taken over by colonizers, the colonizers must achieve demographic advantage, or else eventually they are either forced to blend in or are forced to leave.  Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.
> 
> 
> 
> .........Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.........."Palestine".........Fixed that for ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yes, you are right, the European colonizers of Palestine will end up in the same position as the European colonizers of Algeria, Rhodesia, and South Africa.  Thanks.
Click to expand...


Your hatred for the Jews is quite palpable.  Did your imam teach you how to be a bigot, or did you read it in your holy book?


----------



## montelatici

ChrisL said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50 years or so is not the definition of ancient.  The fact is that when lands are taken over by colonizers, the colonizers must achieve demographic advantage, or else eventually they are either forced to blend in or are forced to leave.  Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.
> 
> 
> 
> .........Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.........."Palestine".........Fixed that for ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yes, you are right, the European colonizers of Palestine will end up in the same position as the European colonizers of Algeria, Rhodesia, and South Africa.  Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your hatred for the Jews is quite palpable.  Did your imam teach you how to be a bigot, or did you read it in your holy book?
Click to expand...


How does my statement, in any way, demonstrate "hatred of the Jews"?


----------



## Hossfly

Hossfly said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chew on this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually maybe not
> 
> Archaeologist Believes Jesus Was Born in a Different Bethlehem
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting article. Have you ever heard that even though Mary was pregnant, Joseph took her with him to Bethlehem in order to pay his yearly taxes? I understand that taxes were collected in August every year. If so, which Bethlehem would have been the one to go pay taxes? It would seem to be the closest one to his home. aris2chat
Click to expand...

Plus I have read somewhere that the tax records for that tax year are intact and still available for viewing and that Joseph's name and payment is listed. aris2chat


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50 years or so is not the definition of ancient.  The fact is that when lands are taken over by colonizers, the colonizers must achieve demographic advantage, or else eventually they are either forced to blend in or are forced to leave.  Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.
> 
> 
> 
> .........Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.........."Palestine".........Fixed that for ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yes, you are right, the European colonizers of Palestine will end up in the same position as the European colonizers of Algeria, Rhodesia, and South Africa.  Thanks.
Click to expand...


What happened to the European colonizers of America?


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50 years or so is not the definition of ancient.  The fact is that when lands are taken over by colonizers, the colonizers must achieve demographic advantage, or else eventually they are either forced to blend in or are forced to leave.  Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.
> 
> 
> 
> .........Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.........."Palestine".........Fixed that for ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yes, you are right, the European colonizers of Palestine will end up in the same position as the European colonizers of Algeria, Rhodesia, and South Africa.  Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What happened to the European colonizers of America?
Click to expand...


They were able to eliminate the local people as a demographic threat from North to South America.


----------



## P F Tinmore

ChrisL said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only patently verifiable fact, that is not subject to any interpretation,  is that Europeans went to another continent colonized an area and ethnically cleansed most of the indigenous people living in that area.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no interest in your dopey crusade little SJW. Take your mawkish outrage at another entirely unrelated subject to your homeopathic, pony-kin, drum circle where it can get traction with other bong-smoke militants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you have no answer to the basic fact, which is, if Europeans had not facilitated the colonization of another continent by Europeans of a particular religion, the current problem between colonizer and colonized in Palestine would not exist.
> 
> As far as your characterization of me. leave it at home.  You couldn't be more deluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Little Pumpkin, there's just no reason for me to answer to your fact regarding European colonization... your "fact" is simply not relevant to the point I made.
> 
> It is literally irrelevant to the situation. Israel was a recognized nation, it was invaded, certain Israelis sided with the invaders, and the invaders lost. Those are facts not in dispute.
> 
> I refuse to be drawn into your retarded rationalizations regarding who chucked the first rock at whom so many generations in the past. Such stories from both sides are full of lies, and the lies weigh equally against each other. Peddle your dopey crusade to someone who will share in your mawkish outrage--I'm not a buyer.
> 
> But if you want to dispute the conclusions drawn from the indisputable facts presented, I'm an eager audience. But if you're just going to catalog all the crimes you perceive that were committed against your preferred people, then I'm telling you now I will not be persuaded by such bullshit emotional manipulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indisputable fact is that Europeans went to another continent, expelled the people living there and created a nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ancient history.  The fact is that MOST lands were taken over by one group or another.
Click to expand...

That is true. However, about a hundred years ago or so conquest became illegal.

Israel came in late in that game.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50 years or so is not the definition of ancient.  The fact is that when lands are taken over by colonizers, the colonizers must achieve demographic advantage, or else eventually they are either forced to blend in or are forced to leave.  Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.
> 
> 
> 
> .........Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.........."Palestine".........Fixed that for ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yes, you are right, the European colonizers of Palestine will end up in the same position as the European colonizers of Algeria, Rhodesia, and South Africa.  Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What happened to the European colonizers of America?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were able to eliminate the local people as a demographic threat from North to South America.
Click to expand...

Which us exactly what Israel will do, for as long as they are threatened by them.


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50 years or so is not the definition of ancient.  The fact is that when lands are taken over by colonizers, the colonizers must achieve demographic advantage, or else eventually they are either forced to blend in or are forced to leave.  Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.
> 
> 
> 
> .........Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.........."Palestine".........Fixed that for ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yes, you are right, the European colonizers of Palestine will end up in the same position as the European colonizers of Algeria, Rhodesia, and South Africa.  Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What happened to the European colonizers of America?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were able to eliminate the local people as a demographic threat from North to South America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which us exactly what Israel will do, for as long as they are threatened by them.
Click to expand...


Well, there are many millions to eliminate a population many times larger than the Jewish population in the general area..  It did not prove feasible in Algeria, Rhodesia or South Africa. Maybe the Jews will be able to to eliminate those millions, maybe not.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I think you need to be more specific than that.



P F Tinmore said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no interest in your dopey crusade little SJW. Take your mawkish outrage at another entirely unrelated subject to your homeopathic, pony-kin, drum circle where it can get traction with other bong-smoke militants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you have no answer to the basic fact, which is, if Europeans had not facilitated the colonization of another continent by Europeans of a particular religion, the current problem between colonizer and colonized in Palestine would not exist.
> 
> As far as your characterization of me. leave it at home.  You couldn't be more deluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Little Pumpkin, there's just no reason for me to answer to your fact regarding European colonization... your "fact" is simply not relevant to the point I made.
> 
> It is literally irrelevant to the situation. Israel was a recognized nation, it was invaded, certain Israelis sided with the invaders, and the invaders lost. Those are facts not in dispute.
> 
> I refuse to be drawn into your retarded rationalizations regarding who chucked the first rock at whom so many generations in the past. Such stories from both sides are full of lies, and the lies weigh equally against each other. Peddle your dopey crusade to someone who will share in your mawkish outrage--I'm not a buyer.
> 
> But if you want to dispute the conclusions drawn from the indisputable facts presented, I'm an eager audience. But if you're just going to catalog all the crimes you perceive that were committed against your preferred people, then I'm telling you now I will not be persuaded by such bullshit emotional manipulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indisputable fact is that Europeans went to another continent, expelled the people living there and created a nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ancient history.  The fact is that MOST lands were taken over by one group or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is true. However, about a hundred years ago or so conquest became illegal.
> 
> Israel came in late in that game.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

What has Israeli taken by conquest? 

What the law actually says is:



_Article 5 A/RES/3314(XXIX)_
14 December 1974


1. No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression.

2. A war of aggression is a crime against international peace. Aggression gives rise to international responsibility.

3. No territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful.

This is basically a restatement of UN Charter, Article 2's proscriptions which has been interpreted as to mean that it prohibits the acquisition of territory by war; and of UN Security Council Resolution 242, which states "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war."

However, the West Bank and Gaza Strip were territories in which the parties to the conflict have entered into Peace Treaties.  Israel did not take any territory from the Palestinians by either war or aggression.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## ChrisL

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I think you need to be more specific than that.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you have no answer to the basic fact, which is, if Europeans had not facilitated the colonization of another continent by Europeans of a particular religion, the current problem between colonizer and colonized in Palestine would not exist.
> 
> As far as your characterization of me. leave it at home.  You couldn't be more deluded.
> 
> 
> 
> Little Pumpkin, there's just no reason for me to answer to your fact regarding European colonization... your "fact" is simply not relevant to the point I made.
> 
> It is literally irrelevant to the situation. Israel was a recognized nation, it was invaded, certain Israelis sided with the invaders, and the invaders lost. Those are facts not in dispute.
> 
> I refuse to be drawn into your retarded rationalizations regarding who chucked the first rock at whom so many generations in the past. Such stories from both sides are full of lies, and the lies weigh equally against each other. Peddle your dopey crusade to someone who will share in your mawkish outrage--I'm not a buyer.
> 
> But if you want to dispute the conclusions drawn from the indisputable facts presented, I'm an eager audience. But if you're just going to catalog all the crimes you perceive that were committed against your preferred people, then I'm telling you now I will not be persuaded by such bullshit emotional manipulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indisputable fact is that Europeans went to another continent, expelled the people living there and created a nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ancient history.  The fact is that MOST lands were taken over by one group or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is true. However, about a hundred years ago or so conquest became illegal.
> 
> Israel came in late in that game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What has Israeli taken by conquest?
> 
> What the law actually says is:
> 
> 
> 
> _Article 5 A/RES/3314(XXIX)_
> 14 December 1974
> 
> 
> 1. No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression.
> 
> 2. A war of aggression is a crime against international peace. Aggression gives rise to international responsibility.
> 
> 3. No territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful.
> This is basically a restatement of UN Charter, Article 2's proscriptions which has been interpreted as to mean that it prohibits the acquisition of territory by war; and of UN Security Council Resolution 242, which states "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war."
> 
> However, the West Bank and Gaza Strip were territories in which the parties to the conflict have entered into Peace Treaties.  Israel did not take any territory from the Palestinians by either war or aggression.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Yes, and let's be honest.  The only reason why there is a Palestine is because of the Arabs who hated the idea of sharing ANY of their land with the hated Jews.  Palestine was specifically designed to be a thorn in the side of Israel, I think that much is clear.


----------



## montelatici

How did the European settlers take the land from the Christians and Muslims Rocco?


----------



## ChrisL

montelatici said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50 years or so is not the definition of ancient.  The fact is that when lands are taken over by colonizers, the colonizers must achieve demographic advantage, or else eventually they are either forced to blend in or are forced to leave.  Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.
> 
> 
> 
> .........Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.........."Palestine".........Fixed that for ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yes, you are right, the European colonizers of Palestine will end up in the same position as the European colonizers of Algeria, Rhodesia, and South Africa.  Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your hatred for the Jews is quite palpable.  Did your imam teach you how to be a bigot, or did you read it in your holy book?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does my statement, in any way, demonstrate "hatred of the Jews"?
Click to expand...


I've read plenty of your posts on here.  You are a Muslim who hates Jews and Christians, just as your holy book tells you too.


----------



## montelatici

ChrisL said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I think you need to be more specific than that.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Little Pumpkin, there's just no reason for me to answer to your fact regarding European colonization... your "fact" is simply not relevant to the point I made.
> 
> It is literally irrelevant to the situation. Israel was a recognized nation, it was invaded, certain Israelis sided with the invaders, and the invaders lost. Those are facts not in dispute.
> 
> I refuse to be drawn into your retarded rationalizations regarding who chucked the first rock at whom so many generations in the past. Such stories from both sides are full of lies, and the lies weigh equally against each other. Peddle your dopey crusade to someone who will share in your mawkish outrage--I'm not a buyer.
> 
> But if you want to dispute the conclusions drawn from the indisputable facts presented, I'm an eager audience. But if you're just going to catalog all the crimes you perceive that were committed against your preferred people, then I'm telling you now I will not be persuaded by such bullshit emotional manipulations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The indisputable fact is that Europeans went to another continent, expelled the people living there and created a nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ancient history.  The fact is that MOST lands were taken over by one group or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is true. However, about a hundred years ago or so conquest became illegal.
> 
> Israel came in late in that game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What has Israeli taken by conquest?
> 
> What the law actually says is:
> 
> 
> 
> _Article 5 A/RES/3314(XXIX)_
> 14 December 1974
> 
> 
> 1. No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression.
> 
> 2. A war of aggression is a crime against international peace. Aggression gives rise to international responsibility.
> 
> 3. No territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful.
> This is basically a restatement of UN Charter, Article 2's proscriptions which has been interpreted as to mean that it prohibits the acquisition of territory by war; and of UN Security Council Resolution 242, which states "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war."
> 
> However, the West Bank and Gaza Strip were territories in which the parties to the conflict have entered into Peace Treaties.  Israel did not take any territory from the Palestinians by either war or aggression.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and let's be honest.  The only reason why there is a Palestine is because of the Arabs who hated the idea of sharing ANY of their land with the hated Jews.  Palestine was specifically designed to be a thorn in the side of Israel, I think that much is clear.
Click to expand...


The Europeans were just people from Europe to the Palestinian Muslims and Christians.  They could have been Lutherans, it would not have made a difference.  The Christians and Muslims did not want o be ruled by Europeans, that's all.


----------



## montelatici

ChrisL said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50 years or so is not the definition of ancient.  The fact is that when lands are taken over by colonizers, the colonizers must achieve demographic advantage, or else eventually they are either forced to blend in or are forced to leave.  Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.
> 
> 
> 
> .........Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.........."Palestine".........Fixed that for ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yes, you are right, the European colonizers of Palestine will end up in the same position as the European colonizers of Algeria, Rhodesia, and South Africa.  Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your hatred for the Jews is quite palpable.  Did your imam teach you how to be a bigot, or did you read it in your holy book?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does my statement, in any way, demonstrate "hatred of the Jews"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've read plenty of your posts on here.  You are a Muslim who hates Jews and Christians, just as your holy book tells you too.
Click to expand...


I am a Roman Catholic that hates no people of any particular religion.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

European settlers did not take ANY LAND.



montelatici said:


> How did the European settlers take the land from the Christians and Muslims Rocco?


*(COMMENT)*

The Jewish immigrants under the Mandate, completed the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as adopted by the General Assembly; --- and exercising their right to self determination ---establishong the State of Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> .........Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.........."Palestine".........Fixed that for ya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes, you are right, the European colonizers of Palestine will end up in the same position as the European colonizers of Algeria, Rhodesia, and South Africa.  Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What happened to the European colonizers of America?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were able to eliminate the local people as a demographic threat from North to South America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which us exactly what Israel will do, for as long as they are threatened by them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, there are many millions to eliminate a population many times larger than the Jewish population in the general area..  It did not prove feasible in Algeria, Rhodesia or South Africa. Maybe the Jews will be able to to eliminate those millions, maybe not.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about eliminating?


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> European settlers did not take ANY LAND.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the European settlers take the land from the Christians and Muslims Rocco?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Jewish immigrants under the Mandate, completed the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as adopted by the General Assembly; --- and exercising their right to self determination.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


But, they came from another continent and did evict the local inhabitants through violent conquest.  They certainly have a right to self determination, but not at the expense of the people already living in the area on another continent.  It's like saying the Treaty of Tordesillas had any legal validity.


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes, you are right, the European colonizers of Palestine will end up in the same position as the European colonizers of Algeria, Rhodesia, and South Africa.  Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What happened to the European colonizers of America?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were able to eliminate the local people as a demographic threat from North to South America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which us exactly what Israel will do, for as long as they are threatened by them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, there are many millions to eliminate a population many times larger than the Jewish population in the general area..  It did not prove feasible in Algeria, Rhodesia or South Africa. Maybe the Jews will be able to to eliminate those millions, maybe not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said anything about eliminating?
Click to expand...


I think you are forgetting what you wrote.

I wrote:

_They were able to eliminate the local people as a demographic threat from North to South America._

You wrote: 

*Which us exactly what Israel will do, for as long as they are threatened by them.*


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

Their point of departure is of no consequence.



montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> European settlers did not take ANY LAND.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the European settlers take the land from the Christians and Muslims Rocco?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Jewish immigrants under the Mandate, completed the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as adopted by the General Assembly; --- and exercising their right to self determination.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, they came from another continent and did evict the local inhabitants through violent conquest.  They certainly have a right to self determination, but not at the expense of the people already living in the area on another continent.  It's like saying the Treaty of Tordesillas had any legal validity.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The same body that wrote all the other international laws, determined the solution.  It was a basic objective in the original Mandate.  It fulfilled the goal of establishing a Jewish National Home.

The Arab Palestinian rejected participation in the process that ultimately created the conditions that allowed the establishment of the State of Israel.

The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that they embraced --- Jihad and Armed Struggle --- was the means of solving international disputes they chose; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States. 

The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happened to the European colonizers of America?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were able to eliminate the local people as a demographic threat from North to South America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which us exactly what Israel will do, for as long as they are threatened by them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, there are many millions to eliminate a population many times larger than the Jewish population in the general area..  It did not prove feasible in Algeria, Rhodesia or South Africa. Maybe the Jews will be able to to eliminate those millions, maybe not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said anything about eliminating?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are forgetting what you wrote.
> 
> I wrote:
> 
> _They were able to eliminate the local people as a demographic threat from North to South America._
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> *Which us exactly what Israel will do, for as long as they are threatened by them.*
Click to expand...


Oh, eliminate as a threat. I thought you meant eliminate as in kill. Never mind then


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Their point of departure is of no consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> European settlers did not take ANY LAND.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the European settlers take the land from the Christians and Muslims Rocco?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Jewish immigrants under the Mandate, completed the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as adopted by the General Assembly; --- and exercising their right to self determination.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, they came from another continent and did evict the local inhabitants through violent conquest.  They certainly have a right to self determination, but not at the expense of the people already living in the area on another continent.  It's like saying the Treaty of Tordesillas had any legal validity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The same body that wrote all the other international laws, determined the solution.  It was a basic objective in the original Mandate.  It fulfilled the goal of establishing a Jewish National Home.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian rejected participation in the process that ultimately created the conditions that allowed the establishment of the State of Israel.
> 
> The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that embraced Jihad and Armed Struggle as the means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


The Christians and Muslims of Palestine simply resisted eviction and/or death perpetrated by the Europeans.  The Europeans began attacking and evicting them well before partition.  There was nothing friendly about it.  The Europeans wanted to evict 45% of the population that was Christian and Muslim in the area assigned to the Zionist Organization,  before partition, and they were successful through violent conquest.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Their point of departure is of no consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> European settlers did not take ANY LAND.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the European settlers take the land from the Christians and Muslims Rocco?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Jewish immigrants under the Mandate, completed the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as adopted by the General Assembly; --- and exercising their right to self determination.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, they came from another continent and did evict the local inhabitants through violent conquest.  They certainly have a right to self determination, but not at the expense of the people already living in the area on another continent.  It's like saying the Treaty of Tordesillas had any legal validity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The same body that wrote all the other international laws, determined the solution.  It was a basic objective in the original Mandate.  It fulfilled the goal of establishing a Jewish National Home.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian rejected participation in the process that ultimately created the conditions that allowed the establishment of the State of Israel.
> 
> The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that they embraced --- Jihad and Armed Struggle --- was the means of solving international disputes they chose; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Where in the treaties or in the mandate did anyone call for an exclusive Jewish state?

Israel is in Palestine. Where is the international dispute?


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Their point of departure is of no consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> European settlers did not take ANY LAND.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the European settlers take the land from the Christians and Muslims Rocco?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Jewish immigrants under the Mandate, completed the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as adopted by the General Assembly; --- and exercising their right to self determination.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, they came from another continent and did evict the local inhabitants through violent conquest.  They certainly have a right to self determination, but not at the expense of the people already living in the area on another continent.  It's like saying the Treaty of Tordesillas had any legal validity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The same body that wrote all the other international laws, determined the solution.  It was a basic objective in the original Mandate.  It fulfilled the goal of establishing a Jewish National Home.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian rejected participation in the process that ultimately created the conditions that allowed the establishment of the State of Israel.
> 
> The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that they embraced --- Jihad and Armed Struggle --- was the means of solving international disputes they chose; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the treaties or in the mandate did anyone call for an exclusive Jewish state?
> 
> Israel is in Palestine. Where is the international dispute?
Click to expand...

Tinmore, you're pissin' me off.


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were able to eliminate the local people as a demographic threat from North to South America.
> 
> 
> 
> Which us exactly what Israel will do, for as long as they are threatened by them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, there are many millions to eliminate a population many times larger than the Jewish population in the general area..  It did not prove feasible in Algeria, Rhodesia or South Africa. Maybe the Jews will be able to to eliminate those millions, maybe not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said anything about eliminating?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are forgetting what you wrote.
> 
> I wrote:
> 
> _They were able to eliminate the local people as a demographic threat from North to South America._
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> *Which us exactly what Israel will do, for as long as they are threatened by them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, eliminate as a threat. I thought you meant eliminate as in kill. Never mind then
Click to expand...


The Christian Palestinians may leave eventually, as they have the means and the support of Christians throughout the world, but the Muslim Palestinians will not and they will resist until,, and if, they are literally eliminated.  That the same situation the French in Algeria found themselves in, and Algeria was a part of France.  The colons immigration and their birthrate was not sufficient to overcome the local demographics and by 1962 after over a hundred  years the French had to leave.  Had they negotiated and compromised earlier, perhaps they could have remained.  You know the story in Rhodesia and South Africa.


----------



## Kondor3

Don't ya'll just love it, how Monty tries to portray Palestinian Christians as lumped-in with Palestinian Muslims?


montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which us exactly what Israel will do, for as long as they are threatened by them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there are many millions to eliminate a population many times larger than the Jewish population in the general area..  It did not prove feasible in Algeria, Rhodesia or South Africa. Maybe the Jews will be able to to eliminate those millions, maybe not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said anything about eliminating?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are forgetting what you wrote.
> 
> I wrote:
> 
> _They were able to eliminate the local people as a demographic threat from North to South America._
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> *Which us exactly what Israel will do, for as long as they are threatened by them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, eliminate as a threat. I thought you meant eliminate as in kill. Never mind then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Christian Palestinians may leave eventually, as they have the means and the support of Christians throughout the world, but the Muslim Palestinians will not and they will resist until,, and if, they are literally eliminated.  That the same situation the French in Algeria found themselves in, and Algeria was a part of France.  The colons immigration and their birthrate was not sufficient to overcome the local demographics and by 1962 after over a hundred  years the French had to leave.  Had they negotiated and compromised earlier, perhaps they could have remained.  You know the story in Rhodesia and South Africa.
Click to expand...

They will resist until they've been evicted, anyway...


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes, I've seen this before.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Their point of departure is of no consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> European settlers did not take ANY LAND.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the European settlers take the land from the Christians and Muslims Rocco?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Jewish immigrants under the Mandate, completed the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as adopted by the General Assembly; --- and exercising their right to self determination.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, they came from another continent and did evict the local inhabitants through violent conquest.  They certainly have a right to self determination, but not at the expense of the people already living in the area on another continent.  It's like saying the Treaty of Tordesillas had any legal validity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The same body that wrote all the other international laws, determined the solution.  It was a basic objective in the original Mandate.  It fulfilled the goal of establishing a Jewish National Home.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian rejected participation in the process that ultimately created the conditions that allowed the establishment of the State of Israel.
> 
> The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that they embraced --- Jihad and Armed Struggle --- was the means of solving international disputes they chose; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the treaties or in the mandate did anyone call for an exclusive Jewish state?
> 
> Israel is in Palestine. Where is the international dispute?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Nothing until the UNSCOP Recommendation adopted by the General Assembly calls for an exclusive state.  However, nothing prohibited it either; as a possible solution.

Israel is in the territory former under the Mandate for Palestine.

The UN says:  4. _Affirms its determination_ to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;  *67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations*

The international dispute is as previously stated.

The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that they embraced --- Jihad and Armed Struggle --- was the means of solving international disputes they chose; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> Don't ya'll just love it, how Monty tries to portray Palestinian Christians as lumped-in with Palestinian Muslims?
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there are many millions to eliminate a population many times larger than the Jewish population in the general area..  It did not prove feasible in Algeria, Rhodesia or South Africa. Maybe the Jews will be able to to eliminate those millions, maybe not.
> 
> 
> 
> Who said anything about eliminating?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are forgetting what you wrote.
> 
> I wrote:
> 
> _They were able to eliminate the local people as a demographic threat from North to South America._
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> *Which us exactly what Israel will do, for as long as they are threatened by them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, eliminate as a threat. I thought you meant eliminate as in kill. Never mind then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Christian Palestinians may leave eventually, as they have the means and the support of Christians throughout the world, but the Muslim Palestinians will not and they will resist until,, and if, they are literally eliminated.  That the same situation the French in Algeria found themselves in, and Algeria was a part of France.  The colons immigration and their birthrate was not sufficient to overcome the local demographics and by 1962 after over a hundred  years the French had to leave.  Had they negotiated and compromised earlier, perhaps they could have remained.  You know the story in Rhodesia and South Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They will resist until they've been evicted, anyway...
Click to expand...


If the Israeli Jews manage to eliminate and/or evict the non-Jews and maintain a Jewish demographic advantage for the long term, then it will become like the Americas, Australia etc.  But, it will be difficult given the fact that within and around the Jewish state the non-Jews outnumber the Jews more than the non-whites outnumbered the whites in South Africa, and Rhodesia or the the non-Europeans in Algeria.  But, anything is possible..

As far as the Christian Palestinians they lump themselves in, they do have that right.


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, I've seen this before.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Their point of departure is of no consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> European settlers did not take ANY LAND.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the European settlers take the land from the Christians and Muslims Rocco?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Jewish immigrants under the Mandate, completed the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as adopted by the General Assembly; --- and exercising their right to self determination.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, they came from another continent and did evict the local inhabitants through violent conquest.  They certainly have a right to self determination, but not at the expense of the people already living in the area on another continent.  It's like saying the Treaty of Tordesillas had any legal validity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The same body that wrote all the other international laws, determined the solution.  It was a basic objective in the original Mandate.  It fulfilled the goal of establishing a Jewish National Home.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian rejected participation in the process that ultimately created the conditions that allowed the establishment of the State of Israel.
> 
> The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that they embraced --- Jihad and Armed Struggle --- was the means of solving international disputes they chose; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the treaties or in the mandate did anyone call for an exclusive Jewish state?
> 
> Israel is in Palestine. Where is the international dispute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Nothing until the UNSCOP Recommendation adopted by the General Assembly calls for an exclusive state.  However, nothing prohibited it either; as a possible solution.
> 
> Israel is in the territory former under the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> The UN says:  4. _Affirms its determination_ to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;  *67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations*
> 
> The international dispute is as previously stated.
> 
> The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that they embraced --- Jihad and Armed Struggle --- was the means of solving international disputes they chose; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


The only fact Rocco, is that the indigenous Christians and Muslims resisted the imposition of foreign rule.  It was not a Jihad, it was simply local people resisting European colonization.  Your use of the word Jihad, demonstrates that you are simply a partisan.  Just partisan BS.


----------



## theliq

Kondor3 said:


> Don't ya'll just love it, how Monty tries to portray Palestinian Christians as lumped-in with Palestinian Muslims?
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there are many millions to eliminate a population many times larger than the Jewish population in the general area..  It did not prove feasible in Algeria, Rhodesia or South Africa. Maybe the Jews will be able to to eliminate those millions, maybe not.
> 
> 
> 
> Who said anything about eliminating?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are forgetting what you wrote.
> 
> I wrote:
> 
> _They were able to eliminate the local people as a demographic threat from North to South America._
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> *Which us exactly what Israel will do, for as long as they are threatened by them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, eliminate as a threat. I thought you meant eliminate as in kill. Never mind then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Christian Palestinians may leave eventually, as they have the means and the support of Christians throughout the world, but the Muslim Palestinians will not and they will resist until,, and if, they are literally eliminated.  That the same situation the French in Algeria found themselves in, and Algeria was a part of France.  The colons immigration and their birthrate was not sufficient to overcome the local demographics and by 1962 after over a hundred  years the French had to leave.  Had they negotiated and compromised earlier, perhaps they could have remained.  You know the story in Rhodesia and South Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They will resist until they've been evicted, anyway...
Click to expand...

Kondor they will always support the Palestinian cause...steve Christian or not.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> ...the indigenous Christians and Muslims resisted the imposition of foreign rule...


_*Classified Advertisement in the Tel-Aviv TImes, January 1, 1950...*_

"For Sale

10,000 Palestinian-owned Enfield rifles

Never fired, and only dropped once.

Interested parties may apply at the Ministry of Defence"

======================================================

The lesson of the _Great Arab Skeddadle of 1948_?

"_He who pees his pants, then runs away, lives to regret it, for many a day._"


----------



## theliq

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, I've seen this before.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Their point of departure is of no consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> European settlers did not take ANY LAND.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Jewish immigrants under the Mandate, completed the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as adopted by the General Assembly; --- and exercising their right to self determination.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, they came from another continent and did evict the local inhabitants through violent conquest.  They certainly have a right to self determination, but not at the expense of the people already living in the area on another continent.  It's like saying the Treaty of Tordesillas had any legal validity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The same body that wrote all the other international laws, determined the solution.  It was a basic objective in the original Mandate.  It fulfilled the goal of establishing a Jewish National Home.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian rejected participation in the process that ultimately created the conditions that allowed the establishment of the State of Israel.
> 
> The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that they embraced --- Jihad and Armed Struggle --- was the means of solving international disputes they chose; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the treaties or in the mandate did anyone call for an exclusive Jewish state?
> 
> Israel is in Palestine. Where is the international dispute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Nothing until the UNSCOP Recommendation adopted by the General Assembly calls for an exclusive state.  However, nothing prohibited it either; as a possible solution.
> 
> Israel is in the territory former under the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> The UN says:  4. _Affirms its determination_ to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;  *67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations*
> 
> The international dispute is as previously stated.
> 
> The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that they embraced --- Jihad and Armed Struggle --- was the means of solving international disputes they chose; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only fact Rocco, is that the indigenous Christians and Muslims resisted the imposition of foreign rule.  It was not a Jihad, it was simply local people resisting European colonization.  Your use of the word Jihad, demonstrates that you are simply a partisan.  Just partisan BS.
Click to expand...

Moreover to your comment Monti,ISIS,were formed out of the residue of disenfranchised people after Saddam was overthrown,the Americans and the Puppet Government the Americans put in,must be rueing the day they disenfranchise these people........America may be good at winning battles but bloody useless at winning Wars and leaving area's of combat they are in or have been in chaos and political basket cases........and in this instance we ended up with ISIS................well done America.. NOT  steve


----------



## theliq

Kondor3 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...the indigenous Christians and Muslims resisted the imposition of foreign rule...
> 
> 
> 
> _*Classified Advertisement in the Tel-Aviv TImes, January 1, 1950...*_
> 
> "For Sale
> 
> 10,000 Palestinian-owned Enfield rifles
> 
> Never fired, and only dropped once.
> 
> Interested parties may apply at the Ministry of Defence"
> 
> ======================================================
> 
> The lesson of the Great Arab Skeddadle of 1948?
> 
> "_He who pees his pants, then runs away, lives to regret it, for many a day._"
Click to expand...

Poor Taste Kondie........Naughty..steve...just sayin


----------



## montelatici

theliq said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't ya'll just love it, how Monty tries to portray Palestinian Christians as lumped-in with Palestinian Muslims?
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said anything about eliminating?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are forgetting what you wrote.
> 
> I wrote:
> 
> _They were able to eliminate the local people as a demographic threat from North to South America._
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> *Which us exactly what Israel will do, for as long as they are threatened by them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, eliminate as a threat. I thought you meant eliminate as in kill. Never mind then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Christian Palestinians may leave eventually, as they have the means and the support of Christians throughout the world, but the Muslim Palestinians will not and they will resist until,, and if, they are literally eliminated.  That the same situation the French in Algeria found themselves in, and Algeria was a part of France.  The colons immigration and their birthrate was not sufficient to overcome the local demographics and by 1962 after over a hundred  years the French had to leave.  Had they negotiated and compromised earlier, perhaps they could have remained.  You know the story in Rhodesia and South Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They will resist until they've been evicted, anyway...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kondor they will always support the Palestinian cause...steve Christian or not.
Click to expand...


Well, do you support the oppression of the non-Jews in Palestine?  Is it ok with you?  Most of us neutrals see millions of people being oppressed.  We would like to see that change.  Am I missing something?


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Their point of departure is of no consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> European settlers did not take ANY LAND.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the European settlers take the land from the Christians and Muslims Rocco?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Jewish immigrants under the Mandate, completed the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as adopted by the General Assembly; --- and exercising their right to self determination.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, they came from another continent and did evict the local inhabitants through violent conquest.  They certainly have a right to self determination, but not at the expense of the people already living in the area on another continent.  It's like saying the Treaty of Tordesillas had any legal validity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The same body that wrote all the other international laws, determined the solution.  It was a basic objective in the original Mandate.  It fulfilled the goal of establishing a Jewish National Home.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian rejected participation in the process that ultimately created the conditions that allowed the establishment of the State of Israel.
> 
> The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that they embraced --- Jihad and Armed Struggle --- was the means of solving international disputes they chose; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the treaties or in the mandate did anyone call for an exclusive Jewish state?
> 
> Israel is in Palestine. Where is the international dispute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tinmore, you're pissin' me off.
Click to expand...

Really Hoss.....totally uncalled for...steve


----------



## Kondor3

theliq said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...the indigenous Christians and Muslims resisted the imposition of foreign rule...
> 
> 
> 
> _*Classified Advertisement in the Tel-Aviv TImes, January 1, 1950...*_
> 
> "For Sale
> 
> 10,000 Palestinian-owned Enfield rifles
> 
> Never fired, and only dropped once.
> 
> Interested parties may apply at the Ministry of Defence"
> 
> ======================================================
> 
> The lesson of the Great Arab Skeddadle of 1948?
> 
> "_He who pees his pants, then runs away, lives to regret it, for many a day._"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Poor Taste Kondie........Naughty..steve...just sayin
Click to expand...

Indeed...


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't ya'll just love it, how Monty tries to portray Palestinian Christians as lumped-in with Palestinian Muslims?
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are forgetting what you wrote.
> 
> I wrote:
> 
> _They were able to eliminate the local people as a demographic threat from North to South America._
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> *Which us exactly what Israel will do, for as long as they are threatened by them.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, eliminate as a threat. I thought you meant eliminate as in kill. Never mind then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Christian Palestinians may leave eventually, as they have the means and the support of Christians throughout the world, but the Muslim Palestinians will not and they will resist until,, and if, they are literally eliminated.  That the same situation the French in Algeria found themselves in, and Algeria was a part of France.  The colons immigration and their birthrate was not sufficient to overcome the local demographics and by 1962 after over a hundred  years the French had to leave.  Had they negotiated and compromised earlier, perhaps they could have remained.  You know the story in Rhodesia and South Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They will resist until they've been evicted, anyway...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kondor they will always support the Palestinian cause...steve Christian or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, do you support the oppression of the non-Jews in Palestine?  Is it ok with you?  Most of us neutrals see millions of people being oppressed.  We would like to see that change.  Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Neutral?

Hell, Monty, and here I was beginning to think that you had no sense of humour...


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...the indigenous Christians and Muslims resisted the imposition of foreign rule...
> 
> 
> 
> _*Classified Advertisement in the Tel-Aviv TImes, January 1, 1950...*_
> 
> "For Sale
> 
> 10,000 Palestinian-owned Enfield rifles
> 
> Never fired, and only dropped once.
> 
> Interested parties may apply at the Ministry of Defence"
> 
> ======================================================
> 
> The lesson of the _Great Arab Skeddadle of 1948_?
> 
> "_He who pees his pants, then runs away, lives to regret it, for many a day._"
Click to expand...


Yes, the Europeans were better armed, better trained and better killers.  They were better at violent conquest.  So what?  The defeated people are still resisting.  That's the point.


----------



## theliq

montelatici said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't ya'll just love it, how Monty tries to portray Palestinian Christians as lumped-in with Palestinian Muslims?
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are forgetting what you wrote.
> 
> I wrote:
> 
> _They were able to eliminate the local people as a demographic threat from North to South America._
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> *Which us exactly what Israel will do, for as long as they are threatened by them.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, eliminate as a threat. I thought you meant eliminate as in kill. Never mind then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Christian Palestinians may leave eventually, as they have the means and the support of Christians throughout the world, but the Muslim Palestinians will not and they will resist until,, and if, they are literally eliminated.  That the same situation the French in Algeria found themselves in, and Algeria was a part of France.  The colons immigration and their birthrate was not sufficient to overcome the local demographics and by 1962 after over a hundred  years the French had to leave.  Had they negotiated and compromised earlier, perhaps they could have remained.  You know the story in Rhodesia and South Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They will resist until they've been evicted, anyway...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kondor they will always support the Palestinian cause...steve Christian or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, do you support the oppression of the non-Jews in Palestine?  Is it ok with you?  Most of us neutrals see millions of people being oppressed.  We would like to see that change.  Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm missing something here......I don't believe ANYONE SHOULD BE OPPRESSED..steve


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, I've seen this before.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Their point of departure is of no consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> European settlers did not take ANY LAND.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the European settlers take the land from the Christians and Muslims Rocco?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Jewish immigrants under the Mandate, completed the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as adopted by the General Assembly; --- and exercising their right to self determination.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, they came from another continent and did evict the local inhabitants through violent conquest.  They certainly have a right to self determination, but not at the expense of the people already living in the area on another continent.  It's like saying the Treaty of Tordesillas had any legal validity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The same body that wrote all the other international laws, determined the solution.  It was a basic objective in the original Mandate.  It fulfilled the goal of establishing a Jewish National Home.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian rejected participation in the process that ultimately created the conditions that allowed the establishment of the State of Israel.
> 
> The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that they embraced --- Jihad and Armed Struggle --- was the means of solving international disputes they chose; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the treaties or in the mandate did anyone call for an exclusive Jewish state?
> 
> Israel is in Palestine. Where is the international dispute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Nothing until the UNSCOP Recommendation adopted by the General Assembly calls for an exclusive state.  However, nothing prohibited it either; as a possible solution.
> 
> Israel is in the territory former under the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> The UN says:  4. _Affirms its determination_ to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;  *67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations*
> 
> The international dispute is as previously stated.
> 
> The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that they embraced --- Jihad and Armed Struggle --- was the means of solving international disputes they chose; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

WOW, the UN contradicts itself in several places in this resolution.

A RES 67 19 of 4 December 2012

And you have not shown me where this applies to I/P.

A RES 25 2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations - UN Documents Gathering a body of global agreements


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Their point of departure is of no consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> European settlers did not take ANY LAND.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the European settlers take the land from the Christians and Muslims Rocco?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Jewish immigrants under the Mandate, completed the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as adopted by the General Assembly; --- and exercising their right to self determination.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, they came from another continent and did evict the local inhabitants through violent conquest.  They certainly have a right to self determination, but not at the expense of the people already living in the area on another continent.  It's like saying the Treaty of Tordesillas had any legal validity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The same body that wrote all the other international laws, determined the solution.  It was a basic objective in the original Mandate.  It fulfilled the goal of establishing a Jewish National Home.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian rejected participation in the process that ultimately created the conditions that allowed the establishment of the State of Israel.
> 
> The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that they embraced --- Jihad and Armed Struggle --- was the means of solving international disputes they chose; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the treaties or in the mandate did anyone call for an exclusive Jewish state?
> 
> Israel is in Palestine. Where is the international dispute?
Click to expand...

Israel is in Palestine? Where do you come up with this garbage? 
Show me a legit map showing Israel inside of Palestine.


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't ya'll just love it, how Monty tries to portray Palestinian Christians as lumped-in with Palestinian Muslims?
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, eliminate as a threat. I thought you meant eliminate as in kill. Never mind then
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Christian Palestinians may leave eventually, as they have the means and the support of Christians throughout the world, but the Muslim Palestinians will not and they will resist until,, and if, they are literally eliminated.  That the same situation the French in Algeria found themselves in, and Algeria was a part of France.  The colons immigration and their birthrate was not sufficient to overcome the local demographics and by 1962 after over a hundred  years the French had to leave.  Had they negotiated and compromised earlier, perhaps they could have remained.  You know the story in Rhodesia and South Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They will resist until they've been evicted, anyway...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kondor they will always support the Palestinian cause...steve Christian or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, do you support the oppression of the non-Jews in Palestine?  Is it ok with you?  Most of us neutrals see millions of people being oppressed.  We would like to see that change.  Am I missing something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neutral?
> 
> Hell, Monty, and here I was beginning to think that you had no sense of humour...
Click to expand...


Of course.  A neutral that looks at the dynamic from a neitral point of view.  Much like many viewed Apartheid South Africa.  Of course, there were racists like yourself that supported Apartheid, as you support Israeli oppression and occupation.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, I've seen this before.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Their point of departure is of no consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> European settlers did not take ANY LAND.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Jewish immigrants under the Mandate, completed the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as adopted by the General Assembly; --- and exercising their right to self determination.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, they came from another continent and did evict the local inhabitants through violent conquest.  They certainly have a right to self determination, but not at the expense of the people already living in the area on another continent.  It's like saying the Treaty of Tordesillas had any legal validity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The same body that wrote all the other international laws, determined the solution.  It was a basic objective in the original Mandate.  It fulfilled the goal of establishing a Jewish National Home.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian rejected participation in the process that ultimately created the conditions that allowed the establishment of the State of Israel.
> 
> The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that they embraced --- Jihad and Armed Struggle --- was the means of solving international disputes they chose; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the treaties or in the mandate did anyone call for an exclusive Jewish state?
> 
> Israel is in Palestine. Where is the international dispute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Nothing until the UNSCOP Recommendation adopted by the General Assembly calls for an exclusive state.  However, nothing prohibited it either; as a possible solution.
> 
> Israel is in the territory former under the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> The UN says:  4. _Affirms its determination_ to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;  *67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations*
> 
> The international dispute is as previously stated.
> 
> The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that they embraced --- Jihad and Armed Struggle --- was the means of solving international disputes they chose; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW, the UN contradicts itself in several places in this resolution.
> 
> A RES 67 19 of 4 December 2012
> 
> And you have not shown me where this applies to I/P.
> 
> A RES 25 2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations - UN Documents Gathering a body of global agreements
Click to expand...


Did you miss the part where Rocco clearly showed you where the dispute is?


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Their point of departure is of no consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> European settlers did not take ANY LAND.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the European settlers take the land from the Christians and Muslims Rocco?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Jewish immigrants under the Mandate, completed the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as adopted by the General Assembly; --- and exercising their right to self determination.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, they came from another continent and did evict the local inhabitants through violent conquest.  They certainly have a right to self determination, but not at the expense of the people already living in the area on another continent.  It's like saying the Treaty of Tordesillas had any legal validity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The same body that wrote all the other international laws, determined the solution.  It was a basic objective in the original Mandate.  It fulfilled the goal of establishing a Jewish National Home.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian rejected participation in the process that ultimately created the conditions that allowed the establishment of the State of Israel.
> 
> The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that they embraced --- Jihad and Armed Struggle --- was the means of solving international disputes they chose; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the treaties or in the mandate did anyone call for an exclusive Jewish state?
> 
> Israel is in Palestine. Where is the international dispute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is in Palestine? Where do you come up with this garbage?
> Show me a legit map showing Israel inside of Palestine.
Click to expand...


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...the indigenous Christians and Muslims resisted the imposition of foreign rule...
> 
> 
> 
> _*Classified Advertisement in the Tel-Aviv TImes, January 1, 1950...*_
> 
> "For Sale
> 
> 10,000 Palestinian-owned Enfield rifles
> 
> Never fired, and only dropped once.
> 
> Interested parties may apply at the Ministry of Defence"
> 
> ======================================================
> 
> The lesson of the _Great Arab Skeddadle of 1948_?
> 
> "_He who pees his pants, then runs away, lives to regret it, for many a day._"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the Europeans were better armed, better trained and better killers.  They were better at violent conquest.  So what?  The defeated people are still resisting.  That's the point.
Click to expand...

Or, alternatively, the defeated people haven't got the sense God gave an ant, to pack up and leave, while they can, rather than engage in pointless further bloodshed...


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Their point of departure is of no consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> European settlers did not take ANY LAND.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the European settlers take the land from the Christians and Muslims Rocco?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Jewish immigrants under the Mandate, completed the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as adopted by the General Assembly; --- and exercising their right to self determination.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, they came from another continent and did evict the local inhabitants through violent conquest.  They certainly have a right to self determination, but not at the expense of the people already living in the area on another continent.  It's like saying the Treaty of Tordesillas had any legal validity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The same body that wrote all the other international laws, determined the solution.  It was a basic objective in the original Mandate.  It fulfilled the goal of establishing a Jewish National Home.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian rejected participation in the process that ultimately created the conditions that allowed the establishment of the State of Israel.
> 
> The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that they embraced --- Jihad and Armed Struggle --- was the means of solving international disputes they chose; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the treaties or in the mandate did anyone call for an exclusive Jewish state?
> 
> Israel is in Palestine. Where is the international dispute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is in Palestine? Where do you come up with this garbage?
> Show me a legit map showing Israel inside of Palestine.
Click to expand...

There are no legitimate maps. (At least not in the "west") They are all political. Even the UN map of Israel has a disclaimer on legitimacy.


----------



## P F Tinmore

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Their point of departure is of no consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> European settlers did not take ANY LAND.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Jewish immigrants under the Mandate, completed the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as adopted by the General Assembly; --- and exercising their right to self determination.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, they came from another continent and did evict the local inhabitants through violent conquest.  They certainly have a right to self determination, but not at the expense of the people already living in the area on another continent.  It's like saying the Treaty of Tordesillas had any legal validity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The same body that wrote all the other international laws, determined the solution.  It was a basic objective in the original Mandate.  It fulfilled the goal of establishing a Jewish National Home.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian rejected participation in the process that ultimately created the conditions that allowed the establishment of the State of Israel.
> 
> The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that they embraced --- Jihad and Armed Struggle --- was the means of solving international disputes they chose; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the treaties or in the mandate did anyone call for an exclusive Jewish state?
> 
> Israel is in Palestine. Where is the international dispute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is in Palestine? Where do you come up with this garbage?
> Show me a legit map showing Israel inside of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Look up "International Boundaries" in the legend then find them on the map.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Their point of departure is of no consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> European settlers did not take ANY LAND.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Jewish immigrants under the Mandate, completed the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as adopted by the General Assembly; --- and exercising their right to self determination.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, they came from another continent and did evict the local inhabitants through violent conquest.  They certainly have a right to self determination, but not at the expense of the people already living in the area on another continent.  It's like saying the Treaty of Tordesillas had any legal validity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The same body that wrote all the other international laws, determined the solution.  It was a basic objective in the original Mandate.  It fulfilled the goal of establishing a Jewish National Home.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian rejected participation in the process that ultimately created the conditions that allowed the establishment of the State of Israel.
> 
> The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that they embraced --- Jihad and Armed Struggle --- was the means of solving international disputes they chose; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the treaties or in the mandate did anyone call for an exclusive Jewish state?
> 
> Israel is in Palestine. Where is the international dispute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is in Palestine? Where do you come up with this garbage?
> Show me a legit map showing Israel inside of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no legitimate maps. (At least not in the "west") They are all political. Even the UN map of Israel has a disclaimer on legitimacy.[/QUOTE
> Translation: i don't have a map to back up my lie so I come up with this ridiculous claim.
> 
> What UN map are you talking about? The map of Israel on the UN page clearly shows Israel inside her international borders. Yet I can never find Palestine inside her 'borders'
> 
> You're wrong. Again.
Click to expand...


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, I've seen this before.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Their point of departure is of no consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, they came from another continent and did evict the local inhabitants through violent conquest.  They certainly have a right to self determination, but not at the expense of the people already living in the area on another continent.  It's like saying the Treaty of Tordesillas had any legal validity.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The same body that wrote all the other international laws, determined the solution.  It was a basic objective in the original Mandate.  It fulfilled the goal of establishing a Jewish National Home.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian rejected participation in the process that ultimately created the conditions that allowed the establishment of the State of Israel.
> 
> The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that they embraced --- Jihad and Armed Struggle --- was the means of solving international disputes they chose; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the treaties or in the mandate did anyone call for an exclusive Jewish state?
> 
> Israel is in Palestine. Where is the international dispute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Nothing until the UNSCOP Recommendation adopted by the General Assembly calls for an exclusive state.  However, nothing prohibited it either; as a possible solution.
> 
> Israel is in the territory former under the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> The UN says:  4. _Affirms its determination_ to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;  *67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations*
> 
> The international dispute is as previously stated.
> 
> The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that they embraced --- Jihad and Armed Struggle --- was the means of solving international disputes they chose; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW, the UN contradicts itself in several places in this resolution.
> 
> A RES 67 19 of 4 December 2012
> 
> And you have not shown me where this applies to I/P.
> 
> A RES 25 2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations - UN Documents Gathering a body of global agreements
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you miss the part where Rocco clearly showed you where the dispute is?
Click to expand...

I didn't miss it. It is not there.


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Their point of departure is of no consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> European settlers did not take ANY LAND.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Jewish immigrants under the Mandate, completed the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as adopted by the General Assembly; --- and exercising their right to self determination.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, they came from another continent and did evict the local inhabitants through violent conquest.  They certainly have a right to self determination, but not at the expense of the people already living in the area on another continent.  It's like saying the Treaty of Tordesillas had any legal validity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The same body that wrote all the other international laws, determined the solution.  It was a basic objective in the original Mandate.  It fulfilled the goal of establishing a Jewish National Home.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian rejected participation in the process that ultimately created the conditions that allowed the establishment of the State of Israel.
> 
> The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that they embraced --- Jihad and Armed Struggle --- was the means of solving international disputes they chose; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the treaties or in the mandate did anyone call for an exclusive Jewish state?
> 
> Israel is in Palestine. Where is the international dispute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is in Palestine? Where do you come up with this garbage?
> Show me a legit map showing Israel inside of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Thats a map of the partition plan with proposed boundaries. Also, that is not a map of Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Their point of departure is of no consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, they came from another continent and did evict the local inhabitants through violent conquest.  They certainly have a right to self determination, but not at the expense of the people already living in the area on another continent.  It's like saying the Treaty of Tordesillas had any legal validity.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The same body that wrote all the other international laws, determined the solution.  It was a basic objective in the original Mandate.  It fulfilled the goal of establishing a Jewish National Home.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian rejected participation in the process that ultimately created the conditions that allowed the establishment of the State of Israel.
> 
> The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that they embraced --- Jihad and Armed Struggle --- was the means of solving international disputes they chose; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the treaties or in the mandate did anyone call for an exclusive Jewish state?
> 
> Israel is in Palestine. Where is the international dispute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is in Palestine? Where do you come up with this garbage?
> Show me a legit map showing Israel inside of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no legitimate maps. (At least not in the "west") They are all political. Even the UN map of Israel has a disclaimer on legitimacy.[/QUOTE
> Translation: i don't have a map to back up my lie so I come up with this ridiculous claim.
> 
> What UN map are you talking about? The map of Israel on the UN page clearly shows Israel inside her international borders. Yet I can never find Palestine inside her 'borders'
> 
> You're wrong. Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...







Look at the disclaimer on the bottom.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Their point of departure is of no consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, they came from another continent and did evict the local inhabitants through violent conquest.  They certainly have a right to self determination, but not at the expense of the people already living in the area on another continent.  It's like saying the Treaty of Tordesillas had any legal validity.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The same body that wrote all the other international laws, determined the solution.  It was a basic objective in the original Mandate.  It fulfilled the goal of establishing a Jewish National Home.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian rejected participation in the process that ultimately created the conditions that allowed the establishment of the State of Israel.
> 
> The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that they embraced --- Jihad and Armed Struggle --- was the means of solving international disputes they chose; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the treaties or in the mandate did anyone call for an exclusive Jewish state?
> 
> Israel is in Palestine. Where is the international dispute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is in Palestine? Where do you come up with this garbage?
> Show me a legit map showing Israel inside of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look up "International Boundaries" in the legend then find them on the map.
Click to expand...

That is a map with PROPOSED borders.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Their point of departure is of no consequence.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The same body that wrote all the other international laws, determined the solution.  It was a basic objective in the original Mandate.  It fulfilled the goal of establishing a Jewish National Home.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian rejected participation in the process that ultimately created the conditions that allowed the establishment of the State of Israel.
> 
> The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that they embraced --- Jihad and Armed Struggle --- was the means of solving international disputes they chose; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the treaties or in the mandate did anyone call for an exclusive Jewish state?
> 
> Israel is in Palestine. Where is the international dispute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is in Palestine? Where do you come up with this garbage?
> Show me a legit map showing Israel inside of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no legitimate maps. (At least not in the "west") They are all political. Even the UN map of Israel has a disclaimer on legitimacy.[/QUOTE
> Translation: i don't have a map to back up my lie so I come up with this ridiculous claim.
> 
> What UN map are you talking about? The map of Israel on the UN page clearly shows Israel inside her international borders. Yet I can never find Palestine inside her 'borders'
> 
> You're wrong. Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the disclaimer on the bottom.
Click to expand...

What does the disclaimer have to do with anything?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, I've seen this before.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Their point of departure is of no consequence.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The same body that wrote all the other international laws, determined the solution.  It was a basic objective in the original Mandate.  It fulfilled the goal of establishing a Jewish National Home.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian rejected participation in the process that ultimately created the conditions that allowed the establishment of the State of Israel.
> 
> The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that they embraced --- Jihad and Armed Struggle --- was the means of solving international disputes they chose; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the treaties or in the mandate did anyone call for an exclusive Jewish state?
> 
> Israel is in Palestine. Where is the international dispute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Nothing until the UNSCOP Recommendation adopted by the General Assembly calls for an exclusive state.  However, nothing prohibited it either; as a possible solution.
> 
> Israel is in the territory former under the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> The UN says:  4. _Affirms its determination_ to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;  *67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations*
> 
> The international dispute is as previously stated.
> 
> The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that they embraced --- Jihad and Armed Struggle --- was the means of solving international disputes they chose; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW, the UN contradicts itself in several places in this resolution.
> 
> A RES 67 19 of 4 December 2012
> 
> And you have not shown me where this applies to I/P.
> 
> A RES 25 2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations - UN Documents Gathering a body of global agreements
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you miss the part where Rocco clearly showed you where the dispute is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't miss it. It is not there.
Click to expand...

Open your eyes


----------



## montelatici

Well, it was the map for the UN partition.  I don't know what more you want.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> Well, it was the map for the UN partition.  I don't know what more you want.


I asked Tinmore for something that doesn't exist .


----------



## montelatici




----------



## P F Tinmore

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't ya'll just love it, how Monty tries to portray Palestinian Christians as lumped-in with Palestinian Muslims?
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said anything about eliminating?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are forgetting what you wrote.
> 
> I wrote:
> 
> _They were able to eliminate the local people as a demographic threat from North to South America._
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> *Which us exactly what Israel will do, for as long as they are threatened by them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, eliminate as a threat. I thought you meant eliminate as in kill. Never mind then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Christian Palestinians may leave eventually, as they have the means and the support of Christians throughout the world, but the Muslim Palestinians will not and they will resist until,, and if, they are literally eliminated.  That the same situation the French in Algeria found themselves in, and Algeria was a part of France.  The colons immigration and their birthrate was not sufficient to overcome the local demographics and by 1962 after over a hundred  years the French had to leave.  Had they negotiated and compromised earlier, perhaps they could have remained.  You know the story in Rhodesia and South Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They will resist until they've been evicted, anyway...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Israeli Jews manage to eliminate and/or evict the non-Jews and maintain a Jewish demographic advantage for the long term, then it will become like the Americas, Australia etc.  But, it will be difficult given the fact that within and around the Jewish state the non-Jews outnumber the Jews more than the non-whites outnumbered the whites in South Africa, and Rhodesia or the the non-Europeans in Algeria.  But, anything is possible..
> 
> As far as the Christian Palestinians they lump themselves in, they do have that right.
Click to expand...

Great post, thanks.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Their point of departure is of no consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, they came from another continent and did evict the local inhabitants through violent conquest.  They certainly have a right to self determination, but not at the expense of the people already living in the area on another continent.  It's like saying the Treaty of Tordesillas had any legal validity.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The same body that wrote all the other international laws, determined the solution.  It was a basic objective in the original Mandate.  It fulfilled the goal of establishing a Jewish National Home.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian rejected participation in the process that ultimately created the conditions that allowed the establishment of the State of Israel.
> 
> The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that they embraced --- Jihad and Armed Struggle --- was the means of solving international disputes they chose; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the treaties or in the mandate did anyone call for an exclusive Jewish state?
> 
> Israel is in Palestine. Where is the international dispute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is in Palestine? Where do you come up with this garbage?
> Show me a legit map showing Israel inside of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats a map of the partition plan with proposed boundaries. Also, that is not a map of Israel.
Click to expand...

The international boundaries are not proposed. Only the partition lines are proposed.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, I've seen this before.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the treaties or in the mandate did anyone call for an exclusive Jewish state?
> 
> Israel is in Palestine. Where is the international dispute?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Nothing until the UNSCOP Recommendation adopted by the General Assembly calls for an exclusive state.  However, nothing prohibited it either; as a possible solution.
> 
> Israel is in the territory former under the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> The UN says:  4. _Affirms its determination_ to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;  *67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations*
> 
> The international dispute is as previously stated.
> 
> The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that they embraced --- Jihad and Armed Struggle --- was the means of solving international disputes they chose; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW, the UN contradicts itself in several places in this resolution.
> 
> A RES 67 19 of 4 December 2012
> 
> And you have not shown me where this applies to I/P.
> 
> A RES 25 2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations - UN Documents Gathering a body of global agreements
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you miss the part where Rocco clearly showed you where the dispute is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't miss it. It is not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Open your eyes
Click to expand...

Then quote the passage.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Their point of departure is of no consequence.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The same body that wrote all the other international laws, determined the solution.  It was a basic objective in the original Mandate.  It fulfilled the goal of establishing a Jewish National Home.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian rejected participation in the process that ultimately created the conditions that allowed the establishment of the State of Israel.
> 
> The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that they embraced --- Jihad and Armed Struggle --- was the means of solving international disputes they chose; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the treaties or in the mandate did anyone call for an exclusive Jewish state?
> 
> Israel is in Palestine. Where is the international dispute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is in Palestine? Where do you come up with this garbage?
> Show me a legit map showing Israel inside of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats a map of the partition plan with proposed boundaries. Also, that is not a map of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The international boundaries are not proposed. Only the partition lines are proposed.
Click to expand...

Palestine does not have international boundaries. 
If it did, then why can't you come up with a map that doesn't say partition plan?


----------



## aris2chat

ChrisL said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I think you need to be more specific than that.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Little Pumpkin, there's just no reason for me to answer to your fact regarding European colonization... your "fact" is simply not relevant to the point I made.
> 
> It is literally irrelevant to the situation. Israel was a recognized nation, it was invaded, certain Israelis sided with the invaders, and the invaders lost. Those are facts not in dispute.
> 
> I refuse to be drawn into your retarded rationalizations regarding who chucked the first rock at whom so many generations in the past. Such stories from both sides are full of lies, and the lies weigh equally against each other. Peddle your dopey crusade to someone who will share in your mawkish outrage--I'm not a buyer.
> 
> But if you want to dispute the conclusions drawn from the indisputable facts presented, I'm an eager audience. But if you're just going to catalog all the crimes you perceive that were committed against your preferred people, then I'm telling you now I will not be persuaded by such bullshit emotional manipulations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The indisputable fact is that Europeans went to another continent, expelled the people living there and created a nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ancient history.  The fact is that MOST lands were taken over by one group or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is true. However, about a hundred years ago or so conquest became illegal.
> 
> Israel came in late in that game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What has Israeli taken by conquest?
> 
> What the law actually says is:
> 
> 
> 
> _Article 5 A/RES/3314(XXIX)_
> 14 December 1974
> 
> 
> 1. No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression.
> 
> 2. A war of aggression is a crime against international peace. Aggression gives rise to international responsibility.
> 
> 3. No territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful.
> This is basically a restatement of UN Charter, Article 2's proscriptions which has been interpreted as to mean that it prohibits the acquisition of territory by war; and of UN Security Council Resolution 242, which states "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war."
> 
> However, the West Bank and Gaza Strip were territories in which the parties to the conflict have entered into Peace Treaties.  Israel did not take any territory from the Palestinians by either war or aggression.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and let's be honest.  The only reason why there is a Palestine is because of the Arabs who hated the idea of sharing ANY of their land with the hated Jews.  Palestine was specifically designed to be a thorn in the side of Israel, I think that much is clear.
Click to expand...


first they say they do and then they don't, then they say they will and then they won't

they deny the chance for a palestine, pay for war after war against Israel, try to make peace and then give up on the process because of hamas...............


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it was the map for the UN partition.  I don't know what more you want.
> 
> 
> 
> I asked Tinmore for something that doesn't exist .
Click to expand...


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Their point of departure is of no consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> European settlers did not take ANY LAND.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Jewish immigrants under the Mandate, completed the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as adopted by the General Assembly; --- and exercising their right to self determination.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, they came from another continent and did evict the local inhabitants through violent conquest.  They certainly have a right to self determination, but not at the expense of the people already living in the area on another continent.  It's like saying the Treaty of Tordesillas had any legal validity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The same body that wrote all the other international laws, determined the solution.  It was a basic objective in the original Mandate.  It fulfilled the goal of establishing a Jewish National Home.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian rejected participation in the process that ultimately created the conditions that allowed the establishment of the State of Israel.
> 
> The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that they embraced --- Jihad and Armed Struggle --- was the means of solving international disputes they chose; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the treaties or in the mandate did anyone call for an exclusive Jewish state?
> 
> Israel is in Palestine. Where is the international dispute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tinmore, you're pissin' me off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really Hoss.....totally uncalled for...steve
Click to expand...

No it's not.Tinmore has been corrected on this a hundred times and he still persists.


----------



## aris2chat

You know the movement is in trouble when 90% of the gazans want to leave because of hamas.  They should have tried to make peace when they had the chance.


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it was the map for the UN partition.  I don't know what more you want.
> 
> 
> 
> I asked Tinmore for something that doesn't exist .
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

That's what I thought. You got nothing as usual


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50 years or so is not the definition of ancient.  The fact is that when lands are taken over by colonizers, the colonizers must achieve demographic advantage, or else eventually they are either forced to blend in or are forced to leave.  Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.
> 
> 
> 
> .........Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.........."Palestine".........Fixed that for ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yes, you are right, the European colonizers of Palestine will end up in the same position as the European colonizers of Algeria, Rhodesia, and South Africa.  Thanks.
Click to expand...





 You wish, but when even your own brothers are against you what chance do the Palestinians have. If they win the day the other Islamic nations will destroy them in a very short time.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

No, I don't think that is correct.



P F Tinmore said:


> The international boundaries are not proposed. Only the partition lines are proposed.


*(COMMENT)*

First, it is a moot point because the later conflicts, ending with a Peace Treaty, set the international boundaries.

Second --- the Partition Plan [GA/RES/181(II)] set the boundaries initially:

Part I --- Section A:  3. Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in part III of this plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in parts II and III below.
Part I --- Section B:  3. On its arrival in Palestine the Commission shall proceed to carry out measures for the establishment of the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem in accordance with the general lines of the recommendations of the General Assembly on the partition of Palestine. Nevertheless, the boundaries as described in part II of this plan are to be modified in such a way that village areas as a rule will not be divided by state boundaries unless pressing reasons make that necessary.
Part II --- Section A -- B -- Boundaries for:  The Arab State, The Jewish State
End Note 5/ The *boundary lines* described in part II are indicated in Annex A. The base map used in marking and describing this boundary is "Palestine 1:250000" published by the Survey of Palestine, 1946.



P F Tinmore said:


> WOW, the UN contradicts itself in several places in this resolution.
> 
> A RES 67 19 of 4 December 2012
> 
> And you have not shown me where this applies to I/P.
> 
> A RES 25 2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations - UN Documents Gathering a body of global agreements


*(COMMENT)*

The applicability of Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970, by which it affirmed, _inter alia_, the duty of *every State* to promote through joint and separate action the realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, is noted and applied in the Status of Palestine in the United Nations (A/67/L.28
26 November 2012) and the companion resolution --- A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012.

Contradictions noted in the Resolution [URL='http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/a06f2943c226015c85256c40005d359c/19862d03c564fa2c85257acb004ee69b?OpenDocument']A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012[/URL] are subjective _(reading more into it than is actually there)_.  

"Sixty-five years ago on this day, the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 181, which partitioned the land of historic Palestine into two states and became the birth certificate for Israel," Abbas told the 193-nation assembly after receiving a standing ovation.

"The General Assembly is called upon today to issue a birth certificate of the reality of the State of Palestine," he said.
 .......................................................................................................................................... --- Palestinian President _Mahmoud Abbas_​ 
The 193-nation U.N. General Assembly on Thursday overwhelmingly approved the de facto recognition of a sovereign Palestinian state after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called on the world body to issue its long overdue "birth certificate."
.......................................................................................................................................... --- Reuters Palestinians win implicit U.N. recognition of sovereign state​It is accepted as the essential key --- documenting the recognition.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> No, I don't think that is correct.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The international boundaries are not proposed. Only the partition lines are proposed.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, it is a moot point because the later conflicts, ending with a Peace Treaty, set the international boundaries.
> 
> Second --- the Partition Plan [GA/RES/181(II)] set the boundaries initially:
> 
> Part I --- Section A:  3. Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in part III of this plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in parts II and III below.
> Part I --- Section B:  3. On its arrival in Palestine the Commission shall proceed to carry out measures for the establishment of the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem in accordance with the general lines of the recommendations of the General Assembly on the partition of Palestine. Nevertheless, the boundaries as described in part II of this plan are to be modified in such a way that village areas as a rule will not be divided by state boundaries unless pressing reasons make that necessary.
> Part II --- Section A -- B -- Boundaries for:  The Arab State, The Jewish State
> End Note 5/ The *boundary lines* described in part II are indicated in Annex A. The base map used in marking and describing this boundary is "Palestine 1:250000" published by the Survey of Palestine, 1946.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, the UN contradicts itself in several places in this resolution.
> 
> A RES 67 19 of 4 December 2012
> 
> And you have not shown me where this applies to I/P.
> 
> A RES 25 2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations - UN Documents Gathering a body of global agreements
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The applicability of Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970, by which it affirmed, _inter alia_, the duty of *every State* to promote through joint and separate action the realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, is noted and applied in the Status of Palestine in the United Nations (A/67/L.28
> 26 November 2012) and the companion resolution --- A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012.
> 
> Contradictions noted in the Resolution A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 are subjective _(reading more into it than is actually there)_.
> 
> "Sixty-five years ago on this day, the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 181, which partitioned the land of historic Palestine into two states and became the birth certificate for Israel," Abbas told the 193-nation assembly after receiving a standing ovation.
> 
> "The General Assembly is called upon today to issue a birth certificate of the reality of the State of Palestine," he said.
> .......................................................................................................................................... --- Palestinian President _Mahmoud Abbas_​
> The 193-nation U.N. General Assembly on Thursday overwhelmingly approved the de facto recognition of a sovereign Palestinian state after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called on the world body to issue its long overdue "birth certificate."
> .......................................................................................................................................... --- Reuters Palestinians win implicit U.N. recognition of sovereign state​It is accepted as the essential key --- documenting the recognition.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Are you still pimping resolution 181. The resolution flopped and never happened.


The 193-nation U.N. General Assembly on Thursday overwhelmingly approved the* de facto recognition* of a sovereign Palestinian state after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called on the world body to issue its long overdue "birth certificate."​
This changes nothing. It was merely a political move.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I understand that you do not approve of the recognition for the State of Palestine.  But, you are not the sole representative of the Palestinian people.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> No, I don't think that is correct.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The international boundaries are not proposed. Only the partition lines are proposed.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, it is a moot point because the later conflicts, ending with a Peace Treaty, set the international boundaries.
> 
> Second --- the Partition Plan [GA/RES/181(II)] set the boundaries initially:
> 
> Part I --- Section A:  3. Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in part III of this plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in parts II and III below.
> Part I --- Section B:  3. On its arrival in Palestine the Commission shall proceed to carry out measures for the establishment of the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem in accordance with the general lines of the recommendations of the General Assembly on the partition of Palestine. Nevertheless, the boundaries as described in part II of this plan are to be modified in such a way that village areas as a rule will not be divided by state boundaries unless pressing reasons make that necessary.
> Part II --- Section A -- B -- Boundaries for:  The Arab State, The Jewish State
> End Note 5/ The *boundary lines* described in part II are indicated in Annex A. The base map used in marking and describing this boundary is "Palestine 1:250000" published by the Survey of Palestine, 1946.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, the UN contradicts itself in several places in this resolution.
> 
> A RES 67 19 of 4 December 2012
> 
> And you have not shown me where this applies to I/P.
> 
> A RES 25 2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations - UN Documents Gathering a body of global agreements
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The applicability of Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970, by which it affirmed, _inter alia_, the duty of *every State* to promote through joint and separate action the realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, is noted and applied in the Status of Palestine in the United Nations (A/67/L.28
> 26 November 2012) and the companion resolution --- A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012.
> 
> Contradictions noted in the Resolution A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 are subjective _(reading more into it than is actually there)_.
> 
> "Sixty-five years ago on this day, the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 181, which partitioned the land of historic Palestine into two states and became the birth certificate for Israel," Abbas told the 193-nation assembly after receiving a standing ovation.
> 
> "The General Assembly is called upon today to issue a birth certificate of the reality of the State of Palestine," he said.
> .......................................................................................................................................... --- Palestinian President _Mahmoud Abbas_​
> The 193-nation U.N. General Assembly on Thursday overwhelmingly approved the de facto recognition of a sovereign Palestinian state after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called on the world body to issue its long overdue "birth certificate."
> .......................................................................................................................................... --- Reuters Palestinians win implicit U.N. recognition of sovereign state​It is accepted as the essential key --- documenting the recognition.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you still pimping resolution 181. The resolution flopped and never happened.
> 
> The 193-nation U.N. General Assembly on Thursday overwhelmingly approved the* de facto recognition* of a sovereign Palestinian state after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called on the world body to issue its long overdue "birth certificate."​
> This changes nothing. It was merely a political move.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

1988:  Despite the historical injustice done to the Palestinian Arab people in its displacement and in being deprived of the right to self-determination following the adoption of General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 1947, which partitioned Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish State, that resolution nevertheless continues to attach conditions to international legitimacy that guarantee the Palestinian Arab people the right to sovereignty and national independence.  Palestinian Declaration of Independence

_1988:  Recalling _its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, in which, _inter alia_, it called for the establishment of an Arab State and a Jewish State in Palestine,
UN Acknowledgement of Palestinian Declaration of Independence

1999:  The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.  Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the  Secretary-General

_2012:  Recalling_ its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,  UN _Decides_ to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations​
It seems that both the UN and the Palestinians acknowledge the international legitimacy of the Partition Plan, Resolution 181(II).  You may not agree, but it "happened" and is both recognized and legitimate.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50 years or so is not the definition of ancient.  The fact is that when lands are taken over by colonizers, the colonizers must achieve demographic advantage, or else eventually they are either forced to blend in or are forced to leave.  Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.
> 
> 
> 
> .........Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.........."Palestine".........Fixed that for ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yes, you are right, the European colonizers of Palestine will end up in the same position as the European colonizers of Algeria, Rhodesia, and South Africa.  Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your hatred for the Jews is quite palpable.  Did your imam teach you how to be a bigot, or did you read it in your holy book?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does my statement, in any way, demonstrate "hatred of the Jews"?
Click to expand...




 If you don't know then ask your wife to explain it to you


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50 years or so is not the definition of ancient.  The fact is that when lands are taken over by colonizers, the colonizers must achieve demographic advantage, or else eventually they are either forced to blend in or are forced to leave.  Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.
> 
> 
> 
> .........Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.........."Palestine".........Fixed that for ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yes, you are right, the European colonizers of Palestine will end up in the same position as the European colonizers of Algeria, Rhodesia, and South Africa.  Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What happened to the European colonizers of America?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were able to eliminate the local people as a demographic threat from North to South America.
Click to expand...




 So there are no First Nation people left alive in the whole world.   Want to try this one again


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no interest in your dopey crusade little SJW. Take your mawkish outrage at another entirely unrelated subject to your homeopathic, pony-kin, drum circle where it can get traction with other bong-smoke militants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you have no answer to the basic fact, which is, if Europeans had not facilitated the colonization of another continent by Europeans of a particular religion, the current problem between colonizer and colonized in Palestine would not exist.
> 
> As far as your characterization of me. leave it at home.  You couldn't be more deluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Little Pumpkin, there's just no reason for me to answer to your fact regarding European colonization... your "fact" is simply not relevant to the point I made.
> 
> It is literally irrelevant to the situation. Israel was a recognized nation, it was invaded, certain Israelis sided with the invaders, and the invaders lost. Those are facts not in dispute.
> 
> I refuse to be drawn into your retarded rationalizations regarding who chucked the first rock at whom so many generations in the past. Such stories from both sides are full of lies, and the lies weigh equally against each other. Peddle your dopey crusade to someone who will share in your mawkish outrage--I'm not a buyer.
> 
> But if you want to dispute the conclusions drawn from the indisputable facts presented, I'm an eager audience. But if you're just going to catalog all the crimes you perceive that were committed against your preferred people, then I'm telling you now I will not be persuaded by such bullshit emotional manipulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indisputable fact is that Europeans went to another continent, expelled the people living there and created a nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ancient history.  The fact is that MOST lands were taken over by one group or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is true. However, about a hundred years ago or so conquest became illegal.
> 
> Israel came in late in that game.
Click to expand...





 Wrong again as it was not illegal until 1945, and the arab muslims ignored the law in regards to invasion. The UN should have sent troops in then and sent the arab muslims packing back to their own lands.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> .........Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.........."Palestine".........Fixed that for ya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes, you are right, the European colonizers of Palestine will end up in the same position as the European colonizers of Algeria, Rhodesia, and South Africa.  Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What happened to the European colonizers of America?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were able to eliminate the local people as a demographic threat from North to South America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which us exactly what Israel will do, for as long as they are threatened by them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, there are many millions to eliminate a population many times larger than the Jewish population in the general area..  It did not prove feasible in Algeria, Rhodesia or South Africa. Maybe the Jews will be able to to eliminate those millions, maybe not.
Click to expand...





 They did not have the weapons or technology that Israel has, and the arab muslims have always had the same demographic numbers and not been able to do anything with them.   They lost in 1948 and have no chance of gaining any advantage now.


----------



## ChrisL

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes, you are right, the European colonizers of Palestine will end up in the same position as the European colonizers of Algeria, Rhodesia, and South Africa.  Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What happened to the European colonizers of America?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were able to eliminate the local people as a demographic threat from North to South America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which us exactly what Israel will do, for as long as they are threatened by them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, there are many millions to eliminate a population many times larger than the Jewish population in the general area..  It did not prove feasible in Algeria, Rhodesia or South Africa. Maybe the Jews will be able to to eliminate those millions, maybe not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did not have the weapons or technology that Israel has, and the arab muslims have always had the same demographic numbers and not been able to do anything with them.   They lost in 1948 and have no chance of gaining any advantage now.
Click to expand...


The United States and others would never allow that to happen.  Of course, we would help Israel.


----------



## MJB12741

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you have no answer to the basic fact, which is, if Europeans had not facilitated the colonization of another continent by Europeans of a particular religion, the current problem between colonizer and colonized in Palestine would not exist.
> 
> As far as your characterization of me. leave it at home.  You couldn't be more deluded.
> 
> 
> 
> Little Pumpkin, there's just no reason for me to answer to your fact regarding European colonization... your "fact" is simply not relevant to the point I made.
> 
> It is literally irrelevant to the situation. Israel was a recognized nation, it was invaded, certain Israelis sided with the invaders, and the invaders lost. Those are facts not in dispute.
> 
> I refuse to be drawn into your retarded rationalizations regarding who chucked the first rock at whom so many generations in the past. Such stories from both sides are full of lies, and the lies weigh equally against each other. Peddle your dopey crusade to someone who will share in your mawkish outrage--I'm not a buyer.
> 
> But if you want to dispute the conclusions drawn from the indisputable facts presented, I'm an eager audience. But if you're just going to catalog all the crimes you perceive that were committed against your preferred people, then I'm telling you now I will not be persuaded by such bullshit emotional manipulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indisputable fact is that Europeans went to another continent, expelled the people living there and created a nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ancient history.  The fact is that MOST lands were taken over by one group or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is true. However, about a hundred years ago or so conquest became illegal.
> 
> Israel came in late in that game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again as it was not illegal until 1945, and the arab muslims ignored the law in regards to invasion. The UN should have sent troops in then and sent the arab muslims packing back to their own lands.
Click to expand...


Israel was established as a national Jewish homeland ehtically & legally by a vote of the then member nations of the UN.  All Muslim lands are stolen lands conqured by force whereby the indigenous populations were forced to convert,leave or be killed.


----------



## montelatici

"As is well known, the Arabs made no attempt to impose their faith on their new subjects, and at first in fact discouraged conversions on the part of non-Arabs."


BBC - Religions - Islam Early rise of Islam 632-700


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> "As is well known, the Arabs made no attempt to impose their faith on their new subjects, and at first in fact discouraged conversions on the part of non-Arabs."
> 
> 
> BBC - Religions - Islam
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "As is well known, the Arabs made no attempt to impose their faith on their new subjects, and at first in fact discouraged conversions on the part of non-Arabs."
> 
> 
> [URL='http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/earlyrise_1.shtml']BBC - Religions - Islam Early rise of Islam 632-700
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Early rise of Islam 632-700 [/URL]
Click to expand...


Non Arab Muslims sure did.


----------



## Mindful

montelatici said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50 years or so is not the definition of ancient.  The fact is that when lands are taken over by colonizers, the colonizers must achieve demographic advantage, or else eventually they are either forced to blend in or are forced to leave.  Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.
> 
> 
> 
> .........Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.........."Palestine".........Fixed that for ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yes, you are right, the European colonizers of Palestine will end up in the same position as the European colonizers of Algeria, Rhodesia, and South Africa.  Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your hatred for the Jews is quite palpable.  Did your imam teach you how to be a bigot, or did you read it in your holy book?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does my statement, in any way, demonstrate "hatred of the Jews"?
Click to expand...



That tactic is so old.


----------



## MJB12741

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I understand that you do not approve of the recognition for the State of Palestine.  But, you are not the sole representative of the Palestinian people.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> No, I don't think that is correct.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The international boundaries are not proposed. Only the partition lines are proposed.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, it is a moot point because the later conflicts, ending with a Peace Treaty, set the international boundaries.
> 
> Second --- the Partition Plan [GA/RES/181(II)] set the boundaries initially:
> 
> Part I --- Section A:  3. Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in part III of this plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in parts II and III below.
> Part I --- Section B:  3. On its arrival in Palestine the Commission shall proceed to carry out measures for the establishment of the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem in accordance with the general lines of the recommendations of the General Assembly on the partition of Palestine. Nevertheless, the boundaries as described in part II of this plan are to be modified in such a way that village areas as a rule will not be divided by state boundaries unless pressing reasons make that necessary.
> Part II --- Section A -- B -- Boundaries for:  The Arab State, The Jewish State
> End Note 5/ The *boundary lines* described in part II are indicated in Annex A. The base map used in marking and describing this boundary is "Palestine 1:250000" published by the Survey of Palestine, 1946.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, the UN contradicts itself in several places in this resolution.
> 
> A RES 67 19 of 4 December 2012
> 
> And you have not shown me where this applies to I/P.
> 
> A RES 25 2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations - UN Documents Gathering a body of global agreements
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The applicability of Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970, by which it affirmed, _inter alia_, the duty of *every State* to promote through joint and separate action the realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, is noted and applied in the Status of Palestine in the United Nations (A/67/L.28
> 26 November 2012) and the companion resolution --- A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012.
> 
> Contradictions noted in the Resolution A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 are subjective _(reading more into it than is actually there)_.
> 
> "Sixty-five years ago on this day, the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 181, which partitioned the land of historic Palestine into two states and became the birth certificate for Israel," Abbas told the 193-nation assembly after receiving a standing ovation.
> 
> "The General Assembly is called upon today to issue a birth certificate of the reality of the State of Palestine," he said.
> .......................................................................................................................................... --- Palestinian President _Mahmoud Abbas_​
> The 193-nation U.N. General Assembly on Thursday overwhelmingly approved the de facto recognition of a sovereign Palestinian state after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called on the world body to issue its long overdue "birth certificate."
> .......................................................................................................................................... --- Reuters Palestinians win implicit U.N. recognition of sovereign state​It is accepted as the essential key --- documenting the recognition.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you still pimping resolution 181. The resolution flopped and never happened.
> 
> The 193-nation U.N. General Assembly on Thursday overwhelmingly approved the* de facto recognition* of a sovereign Palestinian state after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called on the world body to issue its long overdue "birth certificate."​
> This changes nothing. It was merely a political move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 1988:  Despite the historical injustice done to the Palestinian Arab people in its displacement and in being deprived of the right to self-determination following the adoption of General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 1947, which partitioned Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish State, that resolution nevertheless continues to attach conditions to international legitimacy that guarantee the Palestinian Arab people the right to sovereignty and national independence.  Palestinian Declaration of Independence
> 
> _1988:  Recalling _its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, in which, _inter alia_, it called for the establishment of an Arab State and a Jewish State in Palestine,
> UN Acknowledgement of Palestinian Declaration of Independence
> 
> 1999:  The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.  Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the  Secretary-General
> 
> _2012:  Recalling_ its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,  UN _Decides_ to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations​
> It seems that both the UN and the Palestinians acknowledge the international legitimacy of the Partition Plan, Resolution 181(II).  You may not agree, but it "happened" and is both recognized and legitimate.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


181.  The original shovel to start digging a hole for the Palestinians.  And to this day the Palestinians still have not learned the first law of the hole.  When you're already in one --- Stop digging.


----------



## ChrisL

I can't understand why some people sympathize with those savage terrorists.  They are a people who have been taught to do nothing but spread hatred and violence.  What ELSE do they do?


----------



## ChrisL

You know what?  I can name MANY great contributions that the Israelis have given to the world.  I can't name really ONE from the palestinians, aside from hatred and terror.


----------



## RoccoR

ChrisL,  et al,

There is no single right answer to this.  It is a summation of a number of different factors that alter the attraction to terrorism and criminal political behaviors.



ChrisL said:


> I can't understand why some people sympathize with those savage terrorists.  They are a people who have been taught to do nothing but spread hatred and violence.  What ELSE do they do?


(*OBSERVATIONs)*

Resolution adopted by the General Assembly: Resolution A/RES/2/110 (II) (1947).  Measures to be taken against propaganda and the inciters of a new war:

1.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_Condemns_ all forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression;

2.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_Requests_ the Government of each Member to take appropriate steps within its constitutional limits:

To promote, by all means of publicity and propaganda available to them, friendly relations among nations based upon the Purposes and Principles of the Charter;


To encourage the dissemination of all information designed to give expression to the undoubted desire of all peoples for peace;
Resolution adopted by the General Assembly:  Resolution A/RES/60/288 (2006). The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy 

I. Measures to address the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism 

4. To continue to work to adopt such measures as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with our respective obligations under international law to prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts and prevent such conduct;​
*(COMMENT)*

The single most recurring observation you can make along these lines is the "glorification" of the criminal act themselves.  This is done on three levels: the Religious Level _(as Martyrs' -- 70 Virgins as compensation)_, and the Political Recognition Level _(Public Acknowledgement of the Heroic act)_; and the phenomenon of violent crime motivated by a craving for notoriety or self-glorification.  

The message to incite young people to rally is essentially the same, whether it barbaric and deviant nature of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), or indeed the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) --- the objective is to replenish the terrorist group so it can continue spreading destruction and devastation.

Example:

“Izzat Risheq, a senior Hamas official, praised the stabbing attack.​
Speaking from Qatar, he described it as “a natural response to the crimes of the occupation and terrorism against the Palestinian people”.”

Risheq was not the only Hamas official to condone the attack:

“The event was deemed a “natural response to Israeli terrorism,” by Hamas Spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri, who issued an official statement as events unfolded in Tel Aviv. 

The incident, the statement said, was a response to ongoing “Israeli crimes” against the Palestinian people. “

End of Example

It is the nature of the environment and generation of being  told --- Jihad is the solution.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> ChrisL,  et al,
> 
> There is no single right answer to this.  It is a summation of a number of different factors that alter the attraction to terrorism and criminal political behaviors.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't understand why some people sympathize with those savage terrorists.  They are a people who have been taught to do nothing but spread hatred and violence.  What ELSE do they do?
> 
> 
> 
> (*OBSERVATIONs)*
> 
> Resolution adopted by the General Assembly: Resolution A/RES/2/110 (II) (1947).  Measures to be taken against propaganda and the inciters of a new war:
> 
> 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Condemns_ all forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression;
> 
> 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Requests_ the Government of each Member to take appropriate steps within its constitutional limits:
> 
> To promote, by all means of publicity and propaganda available to them, friendly relations among nations based upon the Purposes and Principles of the Charter;
> 
> 
> To encourage the dissemination of all information designed to give expression to the undoubted desire of all peoples for peace;
> Resolution adopted by the General Assembly:  Resolution A/RES/60/288 (2006). The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy
> 
> I. Measures to address the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism
> 
> 4. To continue to work to adopt such measures as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with our respective obligations under international law to prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts and prevent such conduct;​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The single most recurring observation you can make along these lines is the "glorification" of the criminal act themselves.  This is done on three levels: the Religious Level _(as Martyrs' -- 70 Virgins as compensation)_, and the Political Recognition Level _(Public Acknowledgement of the Heroic act)_; and the phenomenon of violent crime motivated by a craving for notoriety or self-glorification.
> 
> The message to incite young people to rally is essentially the same, whether it barbaric and deviant nature of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), or indeed the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) --- the objective is to replenish the terrorist group so it can continue spreading destruction and devastation.
> 
> Example:
> 
> “Izzat Risheq, a senior Hamas official, praised the stabbing attack.​
> Speaking from Qatar, he described it as “a natural response to the crimes of the occupation and terrorism against the Palestinian people”.”
> 
> Risheq was not the only Hamas official to condone the attack:
> 
> “The event was deemed a “natural response to Israeli terrorism,” by Hamas Spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri, who issued an official statement as events unfolded in Tel Aviv.
> 
> The incident, the statement said, was a response to ongoing “Israeli crimes” against the Palestinian people. “
> 
> End of Example
> 
> It is the nature of the environment and generation of being  told --- Jihad is the solution.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Example:

“Izzat Risheq, a senior Hamas official, praised the stabbing attack.

Speaking from Qatar, he described it as “a natural response to the crimes of the occupation and terrorism against the Palestinian people”.”

Risheq was not the only Hamas official to condone the attack:

“The event was deemed a “natural response to Israeli terrorism,” by Hamas Spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri, who issued an official statement as events unfolded in Tel Aviv.

The incident, the statement said, was a response to ongoing “Israeli crimes” against the Palestinian people. “

End of Example​
What part of this is not true?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL,  et al,
> 
> There is no single right answer to this.  It is a summation of a number of different factors that alter the attraction to terrorism and criminal political behaviors.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't understand why some people sympathize with those savage terrorists.  They are a people who have been taught to do nothing but spread hatred and violence.  What ELSE do they do?
> 
> 
> 
> (*OBSERVATIONs)*
> 
> Resolution adopted by the General Assembly: Resolution A/RES/2/110 (II) (1947).  Measures to be taken against propaganda and the inciters of a new war:
> 
> 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Condemns_ all forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression;
> 
> 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Requests_ the Government of each Member to take appropriate steps within its constitutional limits:
> 
> To promote, by all means of publicity and propaganda available to them, friendly relations among nations based upon the Purposes and Principles of the Charter;
> 
> 
> To encourage the dissemination of all information designed to give expression to the undoubted desire of all peoples for peace;
> Resolution adopted by the General Assembly:  Resolution A/RES/60/288 (2006). The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy
> 
> I. Measures to address the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism
> 
> 4. To continue to work to adopt such measures as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with our respective obligations under international law to prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts and prevent such conduct;​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The single most recurring observation you can make along these lines is the "glorification" of the criminal act themselves.  This is done on three levels: the Religious Level _(as Martyrs' -- 70 Virgins as compensation)_, and the Political Recognition Level _(Public Acknowledgement of the Heroic act)_; and the phenomenon of violent crime motivated by a craving for notoriety or self-glorification.
> 
> The message to incite young people to rally is essentially the same, whether it barbaric and deviant nature of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), or indeed the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) --- the objective is to replenish the terrorist group so it can continue spreading destruction and devastation.
> 
> Example:
> 
> “Izzat Risheq, a senior Hamas official, praised the stabbing attack.​
> Speaking from Qatar, he described it as “a natural response to the crimes of the occupation and terrorism against the Palestinian people”.”
> 
> Risheq was not the only Hamas official to condone the attack:
> 
> “The event was deemed a “natural response to Israeli terrorism,” by Hamas Spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri, who issued an official statement as events unfolded in Tel Aviv.
> 
> The incident, the statement said, was a response to ongoing “Israeli crimes” against the Palestinian people. “
> 
> End of Example
> 
> It is the nature of the environment and generation of being  told --- Jihad is the solution.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Example:
> 
> “Izzat Risheq, a senior Hamas official, praised the stabbing attack.
> 
> Speaking from Qatar, he described it as “a natural response to the crimes of the occupation and terrorism against the Palestinian people”.”
> 
> Risheq was not the only Hamas official to condone the attack:
> 
> “The event was deemed a “natural response to Israeli terrorism,” by Hamas Spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri, who issued an official statement as events unfolded in Tel Aviv.
> 
> The incident, the statement said, was a response to ongoing “Israeli crimes” against the Palestinian people. “
> 
> End of Example​
> What part of this is not true?
Click to expand...





 If you need to ask then you have been brainwashed


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL,  et al,
> 
> There is no single right answer to this.  It is a summation of a number of different factors that alter the attraction to terrorism and criminal political behaviors.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't understand why some people sympathize with those savage terrorists.  They are a people who have been taught to do nothing but spread hatred and violence.  What ELSE do they do?
> 
> 
> 
> (*OBSERVATIONs)*
> 
> Resolution adopted by the General Assembly: Resolution A/RES/2/110 (II) (1947).  Measures to be taken against propaganda and the inciters of a new war:
> 
> 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Condemns_ all forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression;
> 
> 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Requests_ the Government of each Member to take appropriate steps within its constitutional limits:
> 
> To promote, by all means of publicity and propaganda available to them, friendly relations among nations based upon the Purposes and Principles of the Charter;
> 
> 
> To encourage the dissemination of all information designed to give expression to the undoubted desire of all peoples for peace;
> Resolution adopted by the General Assembly:  Resolution A/RES/60/288 (2006). The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy
> 
> I. Measures to address the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism
> 
> 4. To continue to work to adopt such measures as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with our respective obligations under international law to prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts and prevent such conduct;​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The single most recurring observation you can make along these lines is the "glorification" of the criminal act themselves.  This is done on three levels: the Religious Level _(as Martyrs' -- 70 Virgins as compensation)_, and the Political Recognition Level _(Public Acknowledgement of the Heroic act)_; and the phenomenon of violent crime motivated by a craving for notoriety or self-glorification.
> 
> The message to incite young people to rally is essentially the same, whether it barbaric and deviant nature of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), or indeed the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) --- the objective is to replenish the terrorist group so it can continue spreading destruction and devastation.
> 
> Example:
> 
> “Izzat Risheq, a senior Hamas official, praised the stabbing attack.​
> Speaking from Qatar, he described it as “a natural response to the crimes of the occupation and terrorism against the Palestinian people”.”
> 
> Risheq was not the only Hamas official to condone the attack:
> 
> “The event was deemed a “natural response to Israeli terrorism,” by Hamas Spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri, who issued an official statement as events unfolded in Tel Aviv.
> 
> The incident, the statement said, was a response to ongoing “Israeli crimes” against the Palestinian people. “
> 
> End of Example
> 
> It is the nature of the environment and generation of being  told --- Jihad is the solution.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Example:
> 
> “Izzat Risheq, a senior Hamas official, praised the stabbing attack.
> 
> Speaking from Qatar, he described it as “a natural response to the crimes of the occupation and terrorism against the Palestinian people”.”
> 
> Risheq was not the only Hamas official to condone the attack:
> 
> “The event was deemed a “natural response to Israeli terrorism,” by Hamas Spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri, who issued an official statement as events unfolded in Tel Aviv.
> 
> The incident, the statement said, was a response to ongoing “Israeli crimes” against the Palestinian people. “
> 
> End of Example​
> What part of this is not true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you need to ask then you have been brainwashed
Click to expand...

You don't refute anything.

Understandable.


----------



## montelatici

ChrisL said:


> You know what?  I can name MANY great contributions that the Israelis have given to the world.  I can't name really ONE from the palestinians, aside from hatred and terror.



There were not many Jewish contributions while they were holed up in places like the Warsaw Ghetto.


----------



## montelatici

ChrisL said:


> I can't understand why some people sympathize with those savage terrorists.  They are a people who have been taught to do nothing but spread hatred and violence.  What ELSE do they do?



I don't understand why some people, mostly Americans, support savage Israeli Jewish terrorists who go on child killing sprees ever year or two, killing 500 children just this past summer.   Israeli Jews have been taught to do nothing but hate and periodically murder by the thousands, the people they stole the land from. Luckily most of the world supports Palestine. especially the people of the EU.

*PRESS RELEASE - 12 February 2015*
"EU releases €212 million to support the Palestinian people"

"The European Union has released the first tranche of its 2015 financial support to the Palestinian Authority and to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), totalling €212 million. This new funding will help provide vital basic services such as education, healthcare and social services to the Palestinian people."

EU releases 212 million to support the Palestinian people - European Commission


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL,  et al,
> 
> There is no single right answer to this.  It is a summation of a number of different factors that alter the attraction to terrorism and criminal political behaviors.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't understand why some people sympathize with those savage terrorists.  They are a people who have been taught to do nothing but spread hatred and violence.  What ELSE do they do?
> 
> 
> 
> (*OBSERVATIONs)*
> 
> Resolution adopted by the General Assembly: Resolution A/RES/2/110 (II) (1947).  Measures to be taken against propaganda and the inciters of a new war:
> 
> 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Condemns_ all forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression;
> 
> 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Requests_ the Government of each Member to take appropriate steps within its constitutional limits:
> 
> To promote, by all means of publicity and propaganda available to them, friendly relations among nations based upon the Purposes and Principles of the Charter;
> 
> 
> To encourage the dissemination of all information designed to give expression to the undoubted desire of all peoples for peace;
> Resolution adopted by the General Assembly:  Resolution A/RES/60/288 (2006). The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy
> 
> I. Measures to address the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism
> 
> 4. To continue to work to adopt such measures as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with our respective obligations under international law to prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts and prevent such conduct;​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The single most recurring observation you can make along these lines is the "glorification" of the criminal act themselves.  This is done on three levels: the Religious Level _(as Martyrs' -- 70 Virgins as compensation)_, and the Political Recognition Level _(Public Acknowledgement of the Heroic act)_; and the phenomenon of violent crime motivated by a craving for notoriety or self-glorification.
> 
> The message to incite young people to rally is essentially the same, whether it barbaric and deviant nature of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), or indeed the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) --- the objective is to replenish the terrorist group so it can continue spreading destruction and devastation.
> 
> Example:
> 
> “Izzat Risheq, a senior Hamas official, praised the stabbing attack.​
> Speaking from Qatar, he described it as “a natural response to the crimes of the occupation and terrorism against the Palestinian people”.”
> 
> Risheq was not the only Hamas official to condone the attack:
> 
> “The event was deemed a “natural response to Israeli terrorism,” by Hamas Spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri, who issued an official statement as events unfolded in Tel Aviv.
> 
> The incident, the statement said, was a response to ongoing “Israeli crimes” against the Palestinian people. “
> 
> End of Example
> 
> It is the nature of the environment and generation of being  told --- Jihad is the solution.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Example:
> 
> “Izzat Risheq, a senior Hamas official, praised the stabbing attack.
> 
> Speaking from Qatar, he described it as “a natural response to the crimes of the occupation and terrorism against the Palestinian people”.”
> 
> Risheq was not the only Hamas official to condone the attack:
> 
> “The event was deemed a “natural response to Israeli terrorism,” by Hamas Spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri, who issued an official statement as events unfolded in Tel Aviv.
> 
> The incident, the statement said, was a response to ongoing “Israeli crimes” against the Palestinian people. “
> 
> End of Example​
> What part of this is not true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you need to ask then you have been brainwashed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't refute anything.
> 
> Understandable.
Click to expand...





Try again...............................


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what?  I can name MANY great contributions that the Israelis have given to the world.  I can't name really ONE from the palestinians, aside from hatred and terror.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were not many Jewish contributions while they were holed up in places like the Warsaw Ghetto.
Click to expand...





 That was your hero's that did that wasn't it Haniya, and they still managed to make world shattering advances while they were German slaves.  What has the whole of islam which in 1 million times more numerous that the world of Judea had to offer mankind. The best they managed was a convert who won the Nobel prize before he converted and a schoolgirl shot by terrorists.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't understand why some people sympathize with those savage terrorists.  They are a people who have been taught to do nothing but spread hatred and violence.  What ELSE do they do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand why some people, mostly Americans, support savage Israeli Jewish terrorists who go on child killing sprees ever year or two, killing 500 children just this past summer.   Israeli Jews have been taught to do nothing but hate and periodically murder by the thousands, the people they stole the land from. Luckily most of the world supports Palestine. especially the people of the EU.
> 
> *PRESS RELEASE - 12 February 2015*
> "EU releases €212 million to support the Palestinian people"
> 
> "The European Union has released the first tranche of its 2015 financial support to the Palestinian Authority and to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), totalling €212 million. This new funding will help provide vital basic services such as education, healthcare and social services to the Palestinian people."
> 
> EU releases 212 million to support the Palestinian people - European Commission
Click to expand...




 Because the Jews don't go on child killing sprees do they, and they have been taught to hate by the very people who want to wipe them out and who have been trying to steal their land for the last 100 years. A pity very few people support the psychopathic Palestinians or we would have another 10 million dead in a genocide.

 We will wait and see what happens to that money, and whether the US courts end up taking it to pay the damages or not. But I do believe that the EU will renege on that very shortly as the people are facing austerity and don't see why stinking muslims should get their hard earned money.


----------



## ChrisL

montelatici said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't understand why some people sympathize with those savage terrorists.  They are a people who have been taught to do nothing but spread hatred and violence.  What ELSE do they do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand why some people, mostly Americans, support savage Israeli Jewish terrorists who go on child killing sprees ever year or two, killing 500 children just this past summer.   Israeli Jews have been taught to do nothing but hate and periodically murder by the thousands, the people they stole the land from. Luckily most of the world supports Palestine. especially the people of the EU.
> 
> *PRESS RELEASE - 12 February 2015*
> "EU releases €212 million to support the Palestinian people"
> 
> "The European Union has released the first tranche of its 2015 financial support to the Palestinian Authority and to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), totalling €212 million. This new funding will help provide vital basic services such as education, healthcare and social services to the Palestinian people."
> 
> EU releases 212 million to support the Palestinian people - European Commission
Click to expand...


It's simple, the palestians bring up their children to be terrorists too.  The ugly savages are not only horrible people, but horrible parents as well.


----------



## ChrisL

montelatici said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what?  I can name MANY great contributions that the Israelis have given to the world.  I can't name really ONE from the palestinians, aside from hatred and terror.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were not many Jewish contributions while they were holed up in places like the Warsaw Ghetto.
Click to expand...


They made tons of contributions before, after and during.  There are many books and writings, art work, etc.  Unlike your Muslims who spread nothing but hate and terror.


----------



## MJB12741

ChrisL said:


> You know what?  I can name MANY great contributions that the Israelis have given to the world.  I can't name really ONE from the palestinians, aside from hatred and terror.



I once had a thread on this board titled Palestinian Contributions to Peace, Mankind & Civilization.  Ended with over 7000 replies & not a single Palestinian contribution to the above mentioned. Unbelievable but true.


----------



## ChrisL

MJB12741 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what?  I can name MANY great contributions that the Israelis have given to the world.  I can't name really ONE from the palestinians, aside from hatred and terror.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I once had a thread on this board titled Palestinian Contributions to Peace, Mankind & Civilization.  Ended with over 7000 replies & not a single Palestinian contribution to the above mentioned. Unbelievable but true.
Click to expand...


Hate and terror.    Those are their contributions to the world.


----------



## docmauser1

montelatici said:


> "EU releases €212 million to support the Palestinian people"


About a monthly operating cost of running an aircraft carrier. Cheap, mucho cheap. Don't palistanians feel undervalued?


----------



## MJB12741

ChrisL said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what?  I can name MANY great contributions that the Israelis have given to the world.  I can't name really ONE from the palestinians, aside from hatred and terror.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I once had a thread on this board titled Palestinian Contributions to Peace, Mankind & Civilization.  Ended with over 7000 replies & not a single Palestinian contribution to the above mentioned. Unbelievable but true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hate and terror.    Those are their contributions to the world.
Click to expand...


Who were those people who stooped so low as to massacre an entire athletic team at the world Olympics in Munich?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Rula Jebreal*

**


----------



## ChrisL

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Rula Jebreal*
> 
> **



Sorry, their actions speak for themselves.  Also, their lack of any kind of positive contributions to the world.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Rula Jebreal*
> 
> **




*Who Are The Palestinians?

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=49*


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Rula Jebreal*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Who Are The Palestinians?
> 
> http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=49*
Click to expand...



What else do you have?


----------



## MaryL

MJB12741 said:


> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine


Palestine was created by the brits. and wasn't any more or less real than Israel. So?


----------



## MJB12741

Aw, b


P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Rula Jebreal*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Who Are The Palestinians?
> 
> http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=49*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What else do you have?[/QUOTE
> 
> Aw, bless you for asking.  Would like to learn more from me on who are the Palestinians?  Please advise.
> 
> Arab-Palestinian Terrorist Groups
Click to expand...


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Rula Jebreal*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Who Are The Palestinians?
> 
> http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=49*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What else do you have?
Click to expand...


Aw bless you for asking.  Would you like to learn more from me on who are the Palestinians?

Arab-Palestinian Terrorist Groups


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Rula Jebreal*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Who Are The Palestinians?
> 
> http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=49*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What else do you have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aw bless you for asking.  Would you like to learn more from me on who are the Palestinians?
> 
> Arab-Palestinian Terrorist Groups
Click to expand...

I don't buy into Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign, sorry.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Rula Jebreal*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Who Are The Palestinians?
> 
> http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=49*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What else do you have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aw bless you for asking.  Would you like to learn more from me on who are the Palestinians?
> 
> Arab-Palestinian Terrorist Groups
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy into Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign, sorry.
Click to expand...


Darn!  Too much to handle, eh Tinmore.  Here, try again.

List of Palestinian organizations designated as terrorist - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Rula Jebreal*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Who Are The Palestinians?
> 
> http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=49*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What else do you have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aw bless you for asking.  Would you like to learn more from me on who are the Palestinians?
> 
> Arab-Palestinian Terrorist Groups
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy into Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign, sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Darn!  Too much to handle, eh Tinmore.  Here, try again.
> 
> List of Palestinian organizations designated as terrorist - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Arab-Palestinian Terrorist Groups


----------



## P F Tinmore

WOW, all that name calling.

What else you got?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*CULTURESHOC*

**


----------



## docmauser1

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians? *CULTURESHOC*
> **


There's no crap like toob crap, isn't it?


----------



## Phoenall

MaryL said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was created by the brits. and wasn't any more or less real than Israel. So?
Click to expand...




 Wrong Palestine was created by the Romans and is just as real as the gobi desert.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Rula Jebreal*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Who Are The Palestinians?
> 
> http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=49*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What else do you have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aw bless you for asking.  Would you like to learn more from me on who are the Palestinians?
> 
> Arab-Palestinian Terrorist Groups
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy into Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign, sorry.
Click to expand...





 How about the rest of the world that sees the Palestinians as terrorist murderers then ?

 What will you say when the ICJ says they are terrorists guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity on a scale never before seen ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> WOW, all that name calling.
> 
> What else you got?





 You just cant handle the truth can you when it comes to the reality that is the Palestinians. Even their own fellow arab muslims say they are terrorists and you ignore it.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *CULTURESHOC*
> 
> **






 Just islamonazi propaganda init !


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Rula Jebreal*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Who Are The Palestinians?
> 
> http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=49*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What else do you have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aw bless you for asking.  Would you like to learn more from me on who are the Palestinians?
> 
> Arab-Palestinian Terrorist Groups
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy into Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign, sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the rest of the world that sees the Palestinians as terrorist murderers then ?
> 
> What will you say when the ICJ says they are terrorists guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity on a scale never before seen ?
Click to expand...

Not true. The term is only used by Israel and a handful of toadies.

2. _Reaffirms_ the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means,* particularly armed struggle;*

 3. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the *Palestinian people* and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;

A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Who Are The Palestinians?
> 
> http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=49*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What else do you have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aw bless you for asking.  Would you like to learn more from me on who are the Palestinians?
> 
> Arab-Palestinian Terrorist Groups
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy into Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign, sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the rest of the world that sees the Palestinians as terrorist murderers then ?
> 
> What will you say when the ICJ says they are terrorists guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity on a scale never before seen ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true. The term is only used by Israel and a handful of toadies.
> 
> 2. _Reaffirms_ the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means,* particularly armed struggle;*
> 
> 3. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the *Palestinian people* and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
> 
> A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​
Click to expand...





 Does not say they can target children inside Israel from a land they say is not under occupation. So this means they are terrorists as detailed by their fellow arab muslims . And you forget since 1988 the Palestinians have had independence, national unity and liberation from foreign domination and occupation in gaza and the west bank. They just refuse to accept the consequences of their terrorism.

 As I said what will you say and do when the ICJ passes judgement on the people of Palestine and declares them terrorists and guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Because that is why fatah has instigated the ICJ proceedings to gain control of gaza and then remove the remaining hamas leaders when the majority are facing jail for their crimes.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What else do you have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aw bless you for asking.  Would you like to learn more from me on who are the Palestinians?
> 
> Arab-Palestinian Terrorist Groups
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy into Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign, sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the rest of the world that sees the Palestinians as terrorist murderers then ?
> 
> What will you say when the ICJ says they are terrorists guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity on a scale never before seen ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true. The term is only used by Israel and a handful of toadies.
> 
> 2. _Reaffirms_ the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means,* particularly armed struggle;*
> 
> 3. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the *Palestinian people* and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
> 
> A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does not say they can target children inside Israel from a land they say is not under occupation. So this means they are terrorists as detailed by their fellow arab muslims . And you forget since 1988 the Palestinians have had independence, national unity and liberation from foreign domination and occupation in gaza and the west bank. They just refuse to accept the consequences of their terrorism.
> 
> As I said what will you say and do when the ICJ passes judgement on the people of Palestine and declares them terrorists and guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Because that is why fatah has instigated the ICJ proceedings to gain control of gaza and then remove the remaining hamas leaders when the majority are facing jail for their crimes.
Click to expand...

The safety of children is the responsibility of their parents.

I have seen no evidence showing that Israel does not occupy Palestine.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Palestinians are Israel's 'native indians.' Just as indians are the USA's.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Delta4Embassy said:


> Palestinians are Israel's 'native indians.' Just as indians are the USA's.


The only difference is that when America was conquered it was not illegal to do so.

When Israel conquered Palestine it was.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

P F Tinmore said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians are Israel's 'native indians.' Just as indians are the USA's.
> 
> 
> 
> The only difference is that when America was conquered it was not illegal to do so.
> 
> When Israel conquered Palestine it was.
Click to expand...


America telling itself it's legal doesn't mean being legal is also being moral. Not every legal act is also moral.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aw bless you for asking.  Would you like to learn more from me on who are the Palestinians?
> 
> Arab-Palestinian Terrorist Groups
> 
> 
> 
> I don't buy into Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign, sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the rest of the world that sees the Palestinians as terrorist murderers then ?
> 
> What will you say when the ICJ says they are terrorists guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity on a scale never before seen ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true. The term is only used by Israel and a handful of toadies.
> 
> 2. _Reaffirms_ the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means,* particularly armed struggle;*
> 
> 3. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the *Palestinian people* and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
> 
> A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does not say they can target children inside Israel from a land they say is not under occupation. So this means they are terrorists as detailed by their fellow arab muslims . And you forget since 1988 the Palestinians have had independence, national unity and liberation from foreign domination and occupation in gaza and the west bank. They just refuse to accept the consequences of their terrorism.
> 
> As I said what will you say and do when the ICJ passes judgement on the people of Palestine and declares them terrorists and guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Because that is why fatah has instigated the ICJ proceedings to gain control of gaza and then remove the remaining hamas leaders when the majority are facing jail for their crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The safety of children is the responsibility of their parents.
> 
> I have seen no evidence showing that Israel does not occupy Palestine.
Click to expand...





 So you admit that you ignore all the links posted that show the Palestinians to be liars and terrorists, and that they admit to this in public.

 Pick the bones out of this report then    Hamas says Gaza not occupied UN disagrees - Opinion - Jerusalem Post


Hamas co-founder Mahmoud Zahar confirmed Tuesday there is no Israeli occupation of Gaza, according to a report published by Ma’an, a Bethlehem- based Palestinian news agency.

Zahar was casting doubt on whether Hamas would organize anti-Israel marches in Gaza in conjunction with similar protests that the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority would organize in the West Bank.

“Against whom could we demonstrate in the Gaza Strip? When Gaza was occupied, that model was applicable,” Zahar said.

The radical Islamist organization has merely recognized the obvious: that after Israel in 2005 dismantled its military administration in Gaza, forcibly evicted all Israeli residents and withdrew every last soldier, Israel no longer occupies the territory by any legal definition or other sense of the term.

Whatever external control Israel – and Egypt - may exercise, everyone in Gaza knows that Hamas rules the territory with an iron fist.

THE HAMAS statement follows growing recognition among international lawyers that the UN’s resistance to holding Palestinians responsible for territory they control is outdated.

Four-and-a-half years after seizing power in Gaza, Hamas runs its own police, courts, jails, schools, media and social services, noted Abraham Bell and Dov Shefi, two international legal experts, in a 2010 research paper for the University of San Diego law school.


Hamas regulates business activities, banks and land registries. It levies taxes, controls its own borders and even imposes a dress code. In sum, wrote Bell and Shefi, Hamas operates “a functioning and fully independent local civil government, buttressed by armed forces.”

Similarly, in an article published in the American University International Law Review, Elizabeth Samson concluded that under the Geneva Conventions and international judicial precedents, Gaza can no longer be considered occupied because Israel, despite its ability to exercise certain powers over the area, no longer exercises “effective control,” the litmus test for what qualifies as occupation.

So even experts in International law are saying that gaza is not occupied so the UN res you use does not apply to them. And even the Geneva conventions say that gaza is not occupied. This leaves you with a major problem as it points to hamas being a terrorist group and you are defending the mass murder of children


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians are Israel's 'native indians.' Just as indians are the USA's.
> 
> 
> 
> The only difference is that when America was conquered it was not illegal to do so.
> 
> When Israel conquered Palestine it was.
Click to expand...






 When did Israel conquer Palestine then, as in 1967 it was Egypt and Jordan, Palestine did not exist until 1988 under International law


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians are Israel's 'native indians.' Just as indians are the USA's.
> 
> 
> 
> The only difference is that when America was conquered it was not illegal to do so.
> 
> When Israel conquered Palestine it was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did Israel conquer Palestine then, as in 1967 it was Egypt and Jordan, Palestine did not exist until 1988 under International law
Click to expand...

You always post things that are not true.

The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the *Palestinians formed a nation*, and that *Palestine was a State*, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; *there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity*. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I've seen this citation before.  Remember, that this Resolution was written at a time when the West Bank was still sovereign Jordanian Territory, a decade before the Hostile Arab Palestinians declared independence;
and still 15 years before the Oslo Accords were agreed upon.



P F Tinmore said:


> Not true. The term is only used by Israel and a handful of toadies.
> 
> 2. _Reaffirms_ the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means,* particularly armed struggle;*
> 
> 3. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the *Palestinian people* and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
> 
> A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​


*(COMMENT)*

First, let me say that there are plenty of people that believe as you --- and the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) believes.




			
				EXCERPTS from the Story By [/SIZE said:
			
		

> KHALED ABU TOAMEH 12/03/2012]
> Osama Hamdan says Palestinian state without an armed struggle against Israel is an illusion, won't add anything for Palestinians.
> 
> “The PLO has paid a heavy political price for this representation because it relinquished its claim to the lands of 1948,” Hamdan said. “Therefore, the real achievement lies in the liberation of the land, the return of the refugees and achieving steadfastness on the land. These are the achievements which the people respect and appreciate.”
> 
> He also reiterated Hamas’s commitment to the armed struggle against Israel. He said that his movement would continue to seek the “liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea.”
> *SOURCE:* Jerusalem Post  --- Middle East --- Hamas: State needs armed struggle with Israel


​

By the same token, there are many that do not hold to the concept of "armed Struggle" and that the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States should take precedence over Resolution 33/24.
*
Abbas: Palestinians don't need armed struggle - …*

Abbas: Palestinians don't need armed struggle ... "The UN Human Rights Council ... Your comment must be approved by a moderator before being published on ...  By JPOST.COM STAFF \03/17/2013​
But no matter how you believe, the UN Security Council has in "_Affirming once more_ that the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem," through S/RES/465 (1980).   And that leave consequences for the HoAP in application of Carte blanche "jihad and armed struggle" for the territory of the State of Israel (proper) as well as the territories occupied since 1967.  In fact, most experts would agree on the applicability of international humanitarian law (IHL), and occupation law to the territories occupied since 1967.  The Article 68 GCIV, as well as some other additional protocols come into play. 

*NOTE: * There is a difference between where the UN has given its blessing to armed struggle by all available means, and where the HoAP _(Islamic Resistance Movement and the Palestine Liberation Organizations)_ apply that policy.

The HoAP apply that policy to the “liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea.”  It is a policy that there is no legitimacy to any territory for the Independence of Israel.

Then, there is the UN application of the unrestricted _(by all available means)_ armed struggle to territories occupied since 1967.
​​From a practical standpoint, there is a question as to whether there is a _de facto_ war between the State of Palestine and the State of Israel; or, if it is actually a war between two sovereign states with an Occupation component.  Occupation is often characterized by the continuation or resumption of hostilities between the occupying forces _(Israel/IDF)_ on the one hand and the armed forces _(Unity Government --- Jihadist and Fedayeen)_ of the occupied territory; or other affiliated HoAP the unity government on the other. Force might also be used by the occupying power within the framework of its obligation to restore and maintain public order in the occupied territory; to protect the sovereignty of Israel from incursion by the HoAP to "liberate Palestine" _(form the river to the sea)_; and the maintenance of international peace and security by containing and quarantining HoAP from spreading further harm.

But make no mistake, that A/RES/33/24 does not prohibit Israel from exercising countermeasure under  the convention against HoAP intent on during harm or causing death.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians are Israel's 'native indians.' Just as indians are the USA's.
> 
> 
> 
> The only difference is that when America was conquered it was not illegal to do so.
> 
> When Israel conquered Palestine it was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did Israel conquer Palestine then, as in 1967 it was Egypt and Jordan, Palestine did not exist until 1988 under International law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You always post things that are not true.
> 
> The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the *Palestinians formed a nation*, and that *Palestine was a State*, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; *there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity*. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​
Click to expand...





 Then you will be able to produce the name of its leader, its de facto capital city, its currency, its passports and its officials signature on the treaty. What you are talking about is the citizenship order that was enacted to give the people of Palestine a legal identity when travelling, so the Mandate power became the protector in deed and name. There was never a Palestinian nation until 1988 when they applied to the UN and it was granted. Before this time it was a place on the map that had no borders and no infrastructure


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> But make no mistake, that A/RES/33/24 does not prohibit Israel from exercising countermeasure under the convention against HoAP intent on during harm or causing death.



*4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease* in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

5. Immediate steps shall be taken, *in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations,* in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration​
Where do these resolutions conflict?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But make no mistake, that A/RES/33/24 does not prohibit Israel from exercising countermeasure under the convention against HoAP intent on during harm or causing death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease* in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
> 
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, *in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations,* in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration​
> Where do these resolutions conflict?
Click to expand...





 As soon as terrorism is used and excused by people claiming these resolutions cover it. The fact that the Palestinians have independence and are self governing. It does not mean that Israel has to accept their violence and attacks just because they are not capable of any humanity or self governance.
 But as you have been told time and time again the above does not apply because the land occupied by Israel was Jordanian and did not become independent until 1988


----------



## Phoenall

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But make no mistake, that A/RES/33/24 does not prohibit Israel from exercising countermeasure under the convention against HoAP intent on during harm or causing death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease* in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
> 
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, *in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations,* in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration​
> Where do these resolutions conflict?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as terrorism is used and excused by people claiming these resolutions cover it. The fact that the Palestinians have independence and are self governing. It does not mean that Israel has to accept their violence and attacks just because they are not capable of any humanity or self governance.
> But as you have been told time and time again the above does not apply because the land occupied by Israel was Jordanian and did not become independent until 1988
Click to expand...


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Nidaa Badwan, Gaza*

*




*

**
**


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aw bless you for asking.  Would you like to learn more from me on who are the Palestinians?
> 
> Arab-Palestinian Terrorist Groups
> 
> 
> 
> I don't buy into Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign, sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the rest of the world that sees the Palestinians as terrorist murderers then ?
> 
> What will you say when the ICJ says they are terrorists guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity on a scale never before seen ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true. The term is only used by Israel and a handful of toadies.
> 
> 2. _Reaffirms_ the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means,* particularly armed struggle;*
> 
> 3. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the *Palestinian people* and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
> 
> A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does not say they can target children inside Israel from a land they say is not under occupation. So this means they are terrorists as detailed by their fellow arab muslims . And you forget since 1988 the Palestinians have had independence, national unity and liberation from foreign domination and occupation in gaza and the west bank. They just refuse to accept the consequences of their terrorism.
> 
> As I said what will you say and do when the ICJ passes judgement on the people of Palestine and declares them terrorists and guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Because that is why fatah has instigated the ICJ proceedings to gain control of gaza and then remove the remaining hamas leaders when the majority are facing jail for their crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The safety of children is the responsibility of their parents.
> 
> Yahoo!  Tinmore finally gets it.  "THE SAFETY OF THE CHILDREN IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THEIR PARENTS."  And who said he is an imbecile?
> 
> Child suicide bombers in the Israeli Palestinian conflict - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't buy into Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign, sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the rest of the world that sees the Palestinians as terrorist murderers then ?
> 
> What will you say when the ICJ says they are terrorists guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity on a scale never before seen ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true. The term is only used by Israel and a handful of toadies.
> 
> 2. _Reaffirms_ the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means,* particularly armed struggle;*
> 
> 3. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the *Palestinian people* and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
> 
> A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does not say they can target children inside Israel from a land they say is not under occupation. So this means they are terrorists as detailed by their fellow arab muslims . And you forget since 1988 the Palestinians have had independence, national unity and liberation from foreign domination and occupation in gaza and the west bank. They just refuse to accept the consequences of their terrorism.
> 
> As I said what will you say and do when the ICJ passes judgement on the people of Palestine and declares them terrorists and guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Because that is why fatah has instigated the ICJ proceedings to gain control of gaza and then remove the remaining hamas leaders when the majority are facing jail for their crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The safety of children is the responsibility of their parents.
> 
> Yahoo!  Tinmore finally gets it.  "THE SAFETY OF THE CHILDREN IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THEIR PARENTS."  And who said he is an imbecile?
> 
> Child suicide bombers in the Israeli Palestinian conflict - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I don't think that the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960) is directly applicable to Israel and the general Palestine situation.  I believe that the self-determination exercised (1948) by the Jewish People pursuant to the directions of the UN set the conditions.  I also think that the conditions were altered in 1988 by the Palestinian exercise of self-determination.

A 1960 Resolution cannot be retroactively applied to a 1948 action.   

I also think that the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the territories occupied since 1967 will not end the conflict.  That the Jihadist and Fedayeen have made it abundantly clear that they intend to continue the struggle until all of Palestine (river to sea) is liberated from Israeli sovereignty.  That a withdrawal under the decolonization concept of Resolution 1514 (XV) presupposes that once the designated area is granted sovereignty, that hostilities would come to an end.  The Arab Palestinians declared independence in 1988, and there is no sign that the hostilities will be abated.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But make no mistake, that A/RES/33/24 does not prohibit Israel from exercising countermeasure under the convention against HoAP intent on during harm or causing death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease* in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
> 
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, *in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations,* in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration​
> Where do these resolutions conflict?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The government of the State of Palestine is a coalition type of arrangement that claims to unite The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) with the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) element Fatah Movement through a negotiated reconciliation process; forming a partnership.  Both Movements (the Islamic Resistance and Fatah) have politically telegraphed their intentions to utilize Jihad and the armed resistance as the method for the liberation of Palestine.  Giving rise to UNSC Resolution 1368 _(Recognizing the inherent right of individual or collective self defense in accordance with the Charter --- and authority to combat by all means threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts)_.

The conflict between the various resolutions is this.

Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (General Assembly Resolution A/RES/25/2625) stipulates that:  "Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States."  Clearly, this is diametrically opposed to The universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples (General Assembly Resolution A/RES/33/24) which stipulates the exact opposite:  legitimizing armed struggle by all available means --- or --- the unrestrained use of force.    The principle line of thought is to continue to strengthen and make best possible use of the capacities of the United Nations in areas such as conflict prevention, negotiation, mediation, conciliation, judicial settlement, rule of law, peacekeeping and peace building , in order to contribute to the successful prevention and peaceful resolution of prolonged unresolved conflicts. We recognize that the peaceful resolution of such conflicts would contribute to strengthening the global fight against terrorism.

The very idea of allowing or giving justification to the Arab Palestinians for the use of unrestrained armed struggle is simply not in keeping with the intent of the Charter: --- "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered." 

General Assembly Resolution  110 (II). Measures to be taken against propaganda and the inciters of a new war ---- "_Condemns_ all forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression;"
UN Security Council Resolution 1373.   Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists; ---- "all States shall: (a) Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;"
General Assembly Resolution 49/60. Measures to eliminate international terrorism ---- "Convinced also that the suppression of acts of international terrorism, including those in which States are directly or indirectly involved, is an essential element for the maintenance of international peace and security,"
General Assembly Resolution 51/210. Measures to eliminate international terrorism ---- "Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed;"
There can be no justification for terrorism by the Hostile Arab Palestinian.  Whether that be the kidnapping and murder of unarmed teenagers, the indiscriminate launching of thousands of rockets and mortars from populated areas, or the hijackings, suicide bombings and ambushes of civilians in Israel; and elsewhere.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aw bless you for asking.  Would you like to learn more from me on who are the Palestinians?
> 
> Arab-Palestinian Terrorist Groups
> 
> 
> 
> I don't buy into Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign, sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the rest of the world that sees the Palestinians as terrorist murderers then ?
> 
> What will you say when the ICJ says they are terrorists guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity on a scale never before seen ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true. The term is only used by Israel and a handful of toadies.
> 
> 2. _Reaffirms_ the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means,* particularly armed struggle;*
> 
> 3. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the *Palestinian people* and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
> 
> A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does not say they can target children inside Israel from a land they say is not under occupation. So this means they are terrorists as detailed by their fellow arab muslims . And you forget since 1988 the Palestinians have had independence, national unity and liberation from foreign domination and occupation in gaza and the west bank. They just refuse to accept the consequences of their terrorism.
> 
> As I said what will you say and do when the ICJ passes judgement on the people of Palestine and declares them terrorists and guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Because that is why fatah has instigated the ICJ proceedings to gain control of gaza and then remove the remaining hamas leaders when the majority are facing jail for their crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The safety of children is the responsibility of their parents.
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Tinmore finally gets it. "THE SAFETY OF THE CHILDREN IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THEIR PARENTS." And who said he is an imbecile?
> 
> Child suicide bombers in the Israeli Palestinian conflict - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> By the same token, there are many that do not hold to the concept of "armed Struggle" and that the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States should take precedence over Resolution 33/24.



Where do they disagree?


----------



## MJB12741

In the words of PFTinmore,  "THE SAFETY OF THE CHILDREN IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THEIR PARENTS." And who said he is an imbecile?

Child suicide bombers in the Israeli Palestinian conflict - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I don't think that the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960) is directly applicable to Israel and the general Palestine situation.  I believe that the self-determination exercised (1948) by the Jewish People pursuant to the directions of the UN set the conditions.  I also think that the conditions were altered in 1988 by the Palestinian exercise of self-determination.
> 
> A 1960 Resolution cannot be retroactively applied to a 1948 action.
> 
> I also think that the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the territories occupied since 1967 will not end the conflict.  That the Jihadist and Fedayeen have made it abundantly clear that they intend to continue the struggle until all of Palestine (river to sea) is liberated from Israeli sovereignty.  That a withdrawal under the decolonization concept of Resolution 1514 (XV) presupposes that once the designated area is granted sovereignty, that hostilities would come to an end.  The Arab Palestinians declared independence in 1988, and there is no sign that the hostilities will be abated.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But make no mistake, that A/RES/33/24 does not prohibit Israel from exercising countermeasure under the convention against HoAP intent on during harm or causing death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease* in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
> 
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, *in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations,* in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration​
> Where do these resolutions conflict?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The government of the State of Palestine is a coalition type of arrangement that claims to unite The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) with the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) element Fatah Movement through a negotiated reconciliation process; forming a partnership.  Both Movements (the Islamic Resistance and Fatah) have politically telegraphed their intentions to utilize Jihad and the armed resistance as the method for the liberation of Palestine.  Giving rise to UNSC Resolution 1368 _(Recognizing the inherent right of individual or collective self defense in accordance with the Charter --- and authority to combat by all means threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts)_.
> 
> The conflict between the various resolutions is this.
> 
> Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (General Assembly Resolution A/RES/25/2625) stipulates that:  "Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States."  Clearly, this is diametrically opposed to The universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples (General Assembly Resolution A/RES/33/24) which stipulates the exact opposite:  legitimizing armed struggle by all available means --- or --- the unrestrained use of force.    The principle line of thought is to continue to strengthen and make best possible use of the capacities of the United Nations in areas such as conflict prevention, negotiation, mediation, conciliation, judicial settlement, rule of law, peacekeeping and peace building , in order to contribute to the successful prevention and peaceful resolution of prolonged unresolved conflicts. We recognize that the peaceful resolution of such conflicts would contribute to strengthening the global fight against terrorism.
> 
> The very idea of allowing or giving justification to the Arab Palestinians for the use of unrestrained armed struggle is simply not in keeping with the intent of the Charter: --- "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered."
> 
> General Assembly Resolution  110 (II). Measures to be taken against propaganda and the inciters of a new war ---- "_Condemns_ all forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression;"
> UN Security Council Resolution 1373.   Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists; ---- "all States shall: (a) Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;"
> General Assembly Resolution 49/60. Measures to eliminate international terrorism ---- "Convinced also that the suppression of acts of international terrorism, including those in which States are directly or indirectly involved, is an essential element for the maintenance of international peace and security,"
> General Assembly Resolution 51/210. Measures to eliminate international terrorism ---- "Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed;"
> There can be no justification for terrorism by the Hostile Arab Palestinian.  Whether that be the kidnapping and murder of unarmed teenagers, the indiscriminate launching of thousands of rockets and mortars from populated areas, or the hijackings, suicide bombings and ambushes of civilians in Israel; and elsewhere.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

This is confusing to you because of cognitive dissonance.

That is where the facts conflict with your beliefs.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Nidaa Badwan, Gaza*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> **
> **






Nope an illegal immigrant that should not be in Israel.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I don't think that the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960) is directly applicable to Israel and the general Palestine situation.  I believe that the self-determination exercised (1948) by the Jewish People pursuant to the directions of the UN set the conditions.  I also think that the conditions were altered in 1988 by the Palestinian exercise of self-determination.
> 
> A 1960 Resolution cannot be retroactively applied to a 1948 action.
> 
> I also think that the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the territories occupied since 1967 will not end the conflict.  That the Jihadist and Fedayeen have made it abundantly clear that they intend to continue the struggle until all of Palestine (river to sea) is liberated from Israeli sovereignty.  That a withdrawal under the decolonization concept of Resolution 1514 (XV) presupposes that once the designated area is granted sovereignty, that hostilities would come to an end.  The Arab Palestinians declared independence in 1988, and there is no sign that the hostilities will be abated.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But make no mistake, that A/RES/33/24 does not prohibit Israel from exercising countermeasure under the convention against HoAP intent on during harm or causing death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease* in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
> 
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, *in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations,* in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration​
> Where do these resolutions conflict?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The government of the State of Palestine is a coalition type of arrangement that claims to unite The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) with the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) element Fatah Movement through a negotiated reconciliation process; forming a partnership.  Both Movements (the Islamic Resistance and Fatah) have politically telegraphed their intentions to utilize Jihad and the armed resistance as the method for the liberation of Palestine.  Giving rise to UNSC Resolution 1368 _(Recognizing the inherent right of individual or collective self defense in accordance with the Charter --- and authority to combat by all means threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts)_.
> 
> The conflict between the various resolutions is this.
> 
> Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (General Assembly Resolution A/RES/25/2625) stipulates that:  "Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States."  Clearly, this is diametrically opposed to The universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples (General Assembly Resolution A/RES/33/24) which stipulates the exact opposite:  legitimizing armed struggle by all available means --- or --- the unrestrained use of force.    The principle line of thought is to continue to strengthen and make best possible use of the capacities of the United Nations in areas such as conflict prevention, negotiation, mediation, conciliation, judicial settlement, rule of law, peacekeeping and peace building , in order to contribute to the successful prevention and peaceful resolution of prolonged unresolved conflicts. We recognize that the peaceful resolution of such conflicts would contribute to strengthening the global fight against terrorism.
> 
> The very idea of allowing or giving justification to the Arab Palestinians for the use of unrestrained armed struggle is simply not in keeping with the intent of the Charter: --- "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered."
> 
> General Assembly Resolution  110 (II). Measures to be taken against propaganda and the inciters of a new war ---- "_Condemns_ all forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression;"
> UN Security Council Resolution 1373.   Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists; ---- "all States shall: (a) Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;"
> General Assembly Resolution 49/60. Measures to eliminate international terrorism ---- "Convinced also that the suppression of acts of international terrorism, including those in which States are directly or indirectly involved, is an essential element for the maintenance of international peace and security,"
> General Assembly Resolution 51/210. Measures to eliminate international terrorism ---- "Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed;"
> There can be no justification for terrorism by the Hostile Arab Palestinian.  Whether that be the kidnapping and murder of unarmed teenagers, the indiscriminate launching of thousands of rockets and mortars from populated areas, or the hijackings, suicide bombings and ambushes of civilians in Israel; and elsewhere.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is confusing to you because of cognitive dissonance.
> 
> That is where the facts conflict with your beliefs.
Click to expand...





 Wrong it is were your beliefs conflict with the truth and reality of what is a simple problem. The Palestinians did not exist before 1988 and as such are not covered by those resolutions. Also those resolutions are not legally binding and as such have no force in law. So they are just paper exercises for the benefit of those like yourself who use every dirty trick in the book to demonise the Jews.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> I don't think that the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960) is directly applicable to Israel and the general Palestine situation. I believe that the self-determination exercised (1948) by the Jewish People pursuant to the directions of the UN set the conditions. I also think that the conditions were altered in 1988 by the Palestinian exercise of self-determination.
> 
> A 1960 Resolution cannot be retroactively applied to a 1948 action.



Colonization is not just a one time event. It is an ongoing condition. If that condition existed in 1960, the resolution applies. If the condition exists in 2015, the resolution applies.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960) is directly applicable to Israel and the general Palestine situation. I believe that the self-determination exercised (1948) by the Jewish People pursuant to the directions of the UN set the conditions. I also think that the conditions were altered in 1988 by the Palestinian exercise of self-determination.
> 
> A 1960 Resolution cannot be retroactively applied to a 1948 action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colonization is not just a one time event. It is an ongoing condition. If that condition existed in 1960, the resolution applies. If the condition exists in 2015, the resolution applies.
Click to expand...





 It existed in 635 C.E. as well when the arab muslims started their colonisation, so it must apply to them even more. So tell them to get out of Israel, Judea and Samaria to make room for the original inhabitants.

 But it is only your belief that the Jews colonised their own land stolen by the arab muslims, who then lost it for good in 1099. The truth is the legal owners gave the land to the Jews for their National home and the squatters did not like that.


----------



## MJB12741

Who Are The Palestinians?

Gaza Palestinian Rockets Unlawfully Targeted Israeli Civilians Human Rights Watch


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960) is directly applicable to Israel and the general Palestine situation. I believe that the self-determination exercised (1948) by the Jewish People pursuant to the directions of the UN set the conditions. I also think that the conditions were altered in 1988 by the Palestinian exercise of self-determination.
> 
> A 1960 Resolution cannot be retroactively applied to a 1948 action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colonization is not just a one time event. It is an ongoing condition. If that condition existed in 1960, the resolution applies. If the condition exists in 2015, the resolution applies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It existed in 635 C.E. as well when the arab muslims started their colonisation, so it must apply to them even more. So tell them to get out of Israel, Judea and Samaria to make room for the original inhabitants.
> 
> But it is only your belief that the Jews colonised their own land stolen by the arab muslims, who then lost it for good in 1099. The truth is the legal owners gave the land to the Jews for their National home and the squatters did not like that.
Click to expand...

The truth is the legal owners gave the land to the Jews...

Not true, again. International law, the Treaty of Lausanne, and the mandate gave Palestine to the Palestinians.


----------



## MJB12741

Palestinians --- So much for Pali supporters to be proud of.

https://commentisfreewatch.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/al-aqsa_martyrs_brigade.jpg


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960) is directly applicable to Israel and the general Palestine situation. I believe that the self-determination exercised (1948) by the Jewish People pursuant to the directions of the UN set the conditions. I also think that the conditions were altered in 1988 by the Palestinian exercise of self-determination.
> 
> A 1960 Resolution cannot be retroactively applied to a 1948 action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colonization is not just a one time event. It is an ongoing condition. If that condition existed in 1960, the resolution applies. If the condition exists in 2015, the resolution applies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It existed in 635 C.E. as well when the arab muslims started their colonisation, so it must apply to them even more. So tell them to get out of Israel, Judea and Samaria to make room for the original inhabitants.
> 
> But it is only your belief that the Jews colonised their own land stolen by the arab muslims, who then lost it for good in 1099. The truth is the legal owners gave the land to the Jews for their National home and the squatters did not like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The truth is the legal owners gave the land to the Jews...
> 
> Not true, again. International law, the Treaty of Lausanne, and the mandate gave Palestine to the Palestinians.
Click to expand...







 LINKS ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960) is directly applicable to Israel and the general Palestine situation. I believe that the self-determination exercised (1948) by the Jewish People pursuant to the directions of the UN set the conditions. I also think that the conditions were altered in 1988 by the Palestinian exercise of self-determination.
> 
> A 1960 Resolution cannot be retroactively applied to a 1948 action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colonization is not just a one time event. It is an ongoing condition. If that condition existed in 1960, the resolution applies. If the condition exists in 2015, the resolution applies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It existed in 635 C.E. as well when the arab muslims started their colonisation, so it must apply to them even more. So tell them to get out of Israel, Judea and Samaria to make room for the original inhabitants.
> 
> But it is only your belief that the Jews colonised their own land stolen by the arab muslims, who then lost it for good in 1099. The truth is the legal owners gave the land to the Jews for their National home and the squatters did not like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The truth is the legal owners gave the land to the Jews...
> 
> Not true, again. International law, the Treaty of Lausanne, and the mandate gave Palestine to the Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LINKS ?
Click to expand...

In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.

Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory.

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
--------------------------------
SECTION II .
NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.

Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive
------------------------------
3._Q. What measures have been taken to bring the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will safeguard the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion? What are the effects of these measures?_

_A._ The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, provides for the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence. 

Mandate for Palestine - Report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations 31 December 1925 
----------------------------------
The first Palestine Citizenship Order was enacted by Britain on 24 July 1925; it was the first official enactment that outlined the legal definition of a Palestinian. Its first article defined a Palestinian as a "Turkish subject habitually resident in the territory of Palestine." It defined the territorial criteria for citizenship, and appeared to be nondiscriminatory legislation, which provided granting of citizenship to an applicant, irrespective of their race, religion or language.

History of Palestinian nationality - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

This is nonsense.



P F Tinmore said:


> Not true, again. International law, the Treaty of Lausanne, and the mandate gave Palestine to the Palestinians.


*(COMMENT)*

During the 1920's, there was no international law applicable to the situation.

The Treaty of Lausanne (1924) makes no mention of either Palestine or Palestinians.  Nothing in the Treaty of Lausanne changes anything concerning the outline of the Middle East situation or the stipulations made under the Treaty of Sevres.

However six years earlier, the signing abroad the Battleship HMS Agamemnon, the Armistice of Mudros brought to an end the participation of the Ottoman Empire in World War I --- effectively—if not legally—marking the dissolution of the empire.  Under the terms of the armistice, the Ottomans surrendered their remaining garrisons in Hejaz, Yemen, *Syria,* Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica to the Allied Powers.  The Treaty of Sevres (1920) made the surrender of the territory and relinquished sovereignty to the Allied Powers.​


			
				SECTION XIII --- Treaty of Sevres said:
			
		

> *GENERAL PROVISIONS.
> ARTICLE 132*.
> 
> Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.
> 
> Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.



The Article 22(8) Covenant, sets the degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.  The Mandate for Palestine was created by the Allied Powers for the Mandate and subject to the Council of the League of Nations (_The consent of the Council of the League of Nations is required for any modification of the terms of this mandate.)_.  The Mandate does not pass-on sovereignty as a directive to any other entity.

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Once again, this is being misapplied.



P F Tinmore said:


> In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.
> 
> Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> --------------------------------
> SECTION II .
> NATIONALITY.
> ARTICLE 30.
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.
> 
> Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive
> ------------------------------
> 3._Q. What measures have been taken to bring the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will safeguard the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion? What are the effects of these measures?_
> 
> _A._ The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, provides for the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence.
> 
> Mandate for Palestine - Report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations 31 December 1925
> ----------------------------------
> The first Palestine Citizenship Order was enacted by Britain on 24 July 1925; it was the first official enactment that outlined the legal definition of a Palestinian. Its first article defined a Palestinian as a "Turkish subject habitually resident in the territory of Palestine." It defined the territorial criteria for citizenship, and appeared to be nondiscriminatory legislation, which provided granting of citizenship to an applicant, irrespective of their race, religion or language.
> 
> History of Palestinian nationality - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


*(COMMENT)*

The 1925 Palestine Citizenship Order establishes the directive for the application.

The Treaty of Lausanne (Section II, Article 30) has no being on the control of sovereignty.  To suggest that this somehow transfers sovereignty of the territory under the Mandate to the Arab Palestinian is pure nonsense.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960) is directly applicable to Israel and the general Palestine situation. I believe that the self-determination exercised (1948) by the Jewish People pursuant to the directions of the UN set the conditions. I also think that the conditions were altered in 1988 by the Palestinian exercise of self-determination.
> 
> A 1960 Resolution cannot be retroactively applied to a 1948 action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colonization is not just a one time event. It is an ongoing condition. If that condition existed in 1960, the resolution applies. If the condition exists in 2015, the resolution applies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It existed in 635 C.E. as well when the arab muslims started their colonisation, so it must apply to them even more. So tell them to get out of Israel, Judea and Samaria to make room for the original inhabitants.
> 
> But it is only your belief that the Jews colonised their own land stolen by the arab muslims, who then lost it for good in 1099. The truth is the legal owners gave the land to the Jews for their National home and the squatters did not like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The truth is the legal owners gave the land to the Jews...
> 
> Not true, again. International law, the Treaty of Lausanne, and the mandate gave Palestine to the Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LINKS ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.
> 
> Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> --------------------------------
> SECTION II .
> NATIONALITY.
> ARTICLE 30.
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.
> 
> Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive
> ------------------------------
> 3._Q. What measures have been taken to bring the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will safeguard the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion? What are the effects of these measures?_
> 
> _A._ The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, provides for the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence.
> 
> Mandate for Palestine - Report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations 31 December 1925
> ----------------------------------
> The first Palestine Citizenship Order was enacted by Britain on 24 July 1925; it was the first official enactment that outlined the legal definition of a Palestinian. Its first article defined a Palestinian as a "Turkish subject habitually resident in the territory of Palestine." It defined the territorial criteria for citizenship, and appeared to be nondiscriminatory legislation, which provided granting of citizenship to an applicant, irrespective of their race, religion or language.
> 
> History of Palestinian nationality - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...






 What year did that become International law, and a link proving it.

 What you are quoting is not International law and the state that took control was Britain, plus no state was actually dissolved as none existed there prior to 1948.


So no actual links to support your claims as the treaty of Lausanne does not mention Palestine once on purpose, because it was never a nation in its own right.   The Mandate for Palestine ( as opposed to the British Mandate ) clearly states

The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate


*ARTICLE 1.*
The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate.

*ART. 2.*
The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

*ART. 3.*
The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy.

*ART. 4.*
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.

The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

*ART. 5.*
The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.

*ART. 6.*
The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

*ART. 7.*
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.



 Not once does it mention the nation of Palestine or the arab muslims, but it does mention the fact that in INTERNATIONAL LAW the Jews would receive the 22% of Palestine remaining as their NATIONAL HOME and that any Jew that migrated to Palestine would be automatically granted protected Palestinian citizenship under the British mandate.

 This is how you produce evidence of your claims, not some site that upholds your own POV.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true, again. International law, the Treaty of Lausanne, and the mandate gave Palestine to the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> During the 1920's, there was no international law applicable to the situation.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne (1924) makes no mention of either Palestine or Palestinians.  Nothing in the Treaty of Lausanne changes anything concerning the outline of the Middle East situation or the stipulations made under the Treaty of Sevres.
> 
> However six years earlier, the signing abroad the Battleship HMS Agamemnon, the Armistice of Mudros brought to an end the participation of the Ottoman Empire in World War I --- effectively—if not legally—marking the dissolution of the empire.  Under the terms of the armistice, the Ottomans surrendered their remaining garrisons in Hejaz, Yemen, *Syria,* Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica to the Allied Powers.  The Treaty of Sevres (1920) made the surrender of the territory and relinquished sovereignty to the Allied Powers.​
> 
> 
> 
> SECTION XIII --- Treaty of Sevres said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *GENERAL PROVISIONS.
> ARTICLE 132*.
> 
> Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.
> 
> Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Article 22(8) Covenant, sets the degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.  The Mandate for Palestine was created by the Allied Powers for the Mandate and subject to the Council of the League of Nations (_The consent of the Council of the League of Nations is required for any modification of the terms of this mandate.)_.  The Mandate does not pass-on sovereignty as a directive to any other entity.
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The Treaty of Sevres was never ratified. Why did you quote it?

The LoN Covenant and its mandate system are very much misunderstood. I think this is by design. The focus of the mandate system was to bring the people to independence. It was the people who were considered the sovereigns. The right to Palestinian independence and sovereignty is even stated in subsequent UN resolutions.

...independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.

See more at: League of Nations covenant - Peace Treaty of Versailles Peace Conference text Non-UN document 28 April 1919 ​
The Mandate for Palestine was not Palestine. It was a temporarily assigned administration that held Palestine in trust. It had no land or borders. When the Mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there.

Britain left Palestine without creating an independent state or a Jewish homeland. Its mandate was a complete flop.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Colonization is not just a one time event. It is an ongoing condition. If that condition existed in 1960, the resolution applies. If the condition exists in 2015, the resolution applies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It existed in 635 C.E. as well when the arab muslims started their colonisation, so it must apply to them even more. So tell them to get out of Israel, Judea and Samaria to make room for the original inhabitants.
> 
> But it is only your belief that the Jews colonised their own land stolen by the arab muslims, who then lost it for good in 1099. The truth is the legal owners gave the land to the Jews for their National home and the squatters did not like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The truth is the legal owners gave the land to the Jews...
> 
> Not true, again. International law, the Treaty of Lausanne, and the mandate gave Palestine to the Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LINKS ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.
> 
> Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> --------------------------------
> SECTION II .
> NATIONALITY.
> ARTICLE 30.
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.
> 
> Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive
> ------------------------------
> 3._Q. What measures have been taken to bring the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will safeguard the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion? What are the effects of these measures?_
> 
> _A._ The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, provides for the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence.
> 
> Mandate for Palestine - Report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations 31 December 1925
> ----------------------------------
> The first Palestine Citizenship Order was enacted by Britain on 24 July 1925; it was the first official enactment that outlined the legal definition of a Palestinian. Its first article defined a Palestinian as a "Turkish subject habitually resident in the territory of Palestine." It defined the territorial criteria for citizenship, and appeared to be nondiscriminatory legislation, which provided granting of citizenship to an applicant, irrespective of their race, religion or language.
> 
> History of Palestinian nationality - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What year did that become International law, and a link proving it.
> 
> What you are quoting is not International law and the state that took control was Britain, plus no state was actually dissolved as none existed there prior to 1948.
> 
> 
> So no actual links to support your claims as the treaty of Lausanne does not mention Palestine once on purpose, because it was never a nation in its own right.   The Mandate for Palestine ( as opposed to the British Mandate ) clearly states
> 
> The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 1.*
> The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate.
> 
> *ART. 2.*
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.
> 
> *ART. 3.*
> The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy.
> 
> *ART. 4.*
> An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
> 
> The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
> 
> *ART. 5.*
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.
> 
> *ART. 6.*
> The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.
> 
> *ART. 7.*
> The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> Not once does it mention the nation of Palestine or the arab muslims, but it does mention the fact that in INTERNATIONAL LAW the Jews would receive the 22% of Palestine remaining as their NATIONAL HOME and that any Jew that migrated to Palestine would be automatically granted protected Palestinian citizenship under the British mandate.
> 
> This is how you produce evidence of your claims, not some site that upholds your own POV.
Click to expand...

And the Mandate left Palestine without accomplishing it goals.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This is not very accurate.



P F Tinmore said:


> The Treaty of Sevres was never ratified. Why did you quote it?


*(COMMENT)*

Because for four years, the tenants cited in the Treaty of Sevres (1920) were the guide used.  Between the Treaty of Sevres (1920) and the Treaty of Lausanne (1924) the Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine were created on the basis of the San Remo Convention which came first.  At the time the decisions were made on the issues surrounding the territory subject to the mandate the only signed Treaty was the 1920 version at Sevres.  The Treaty of Lausanne was not even contemplated yet.  _(Incidentally, the Arab Higher Committee during this same period, refused to establish an Arab Agency.  The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people.) _



P F Tinmore said:


> The LoN Covenant and its mandate system are very much misunderstood. I think this is by design. The focus of the mandate system was to bring the people to independence. It was the people who were considered the sovereigns. The right to Palestinian independence and sovereignty is even stated in subsequent UN resolutions.
> 
> ...independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.
> 
> See more at: League of Nations covenant - Peace Treaty of Versailles Peace Conference text Non-UN document 28 April 1919 ​


*(COMMENT)*

The provisional recognition cited in the Article 22(4) of the Covenant was both vague and non-specific.  It could have applied to any one of a number of communities (territories) that were once under the Ottoman/Turkish Empire_ (Lebanon, Syria, Mesopotamia, Trans-Jordan, Iraq)_.  In 1919, it was not necessarily pertaining to Palestine which had not yet been determined by the Principal Allied Powers; as stipulated in Part III, Section VII (SYRIA, MESOPOTAMIA, PALESTINE) of the Treaty of Sevres spoke directly to the territory of Palestine.



P F Tinmore said:


> The Mandate for Palestine was not Palestine. It was a temporarily assigned administration that held Palestine in trust. It had no land or borders. When the Mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there.


*(COMMENT)*

Palestine was not subject to a distinct territory until the Allied Powers determine the boundaries.  And that distinctive territory was subject to the Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine.  When the Mandate was terminated, the territory was remanded to the International Trusteeship System (Article 77a, UN Charter), with a new successor government appointed. 



P F Tinmore said:


> Britain left Palestine without creating an independent state or a Jewish homeland. Its mandate was a complete flop.


*(COMMENT)*

The Mandatory believed that His Majesty’s government did not have the power or authority, under the terms of the Mandate, to award the country either to the Arabs or to the Jews, or even to partition it between them.   The Mandatory and His Majesty’s government then ask the United Nations to consider the circumstances and the situation, and to recommend a settlement of the problem. The Mandatory and His Majesty’s government did not intend to recommend any particular solution.

The Arab Community _(the Arab Higher Committee)_ refused to cooperate at all with the UK _(as the Mandatory)_ or the Palestine Commission _(the successor government)_ having refused to establish a Arab Agency _(counterpart to the Jewish Agency) _or to participate in the development of a solution.  On the termination of the Mandate, and in coordination with the UN Palestine Commission, the State of Israel was declared.   

If the allegation has any merit, it is the fault of the Arab Community and Leadership; which presented the Mandatory with an irreconcilable differences aimed at both the Allied Powers and the UN.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Once again, this is being misapplied.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.
> 
> Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> --------------------------------
> SECTION II .
> NATIONALITY.
> ARTICLE 30.
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.
> 
> Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive
> ------------------------------
> 3._Q. What measures have been taken to bring the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will safeguard the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion? What are the effects of these measures?_
> 
> _A._ The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, provides for the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence.
> 
> Mandate for Palestine - Report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations 31 December 1925
> ----------------------------------
> The first Palestine Citizenship Order was enacted by Britain on 24 July 1925; it was the first official enactment that outlined the legal definition of a Palestinian. Its first article defined a Palestinian as a "Turkish subject habitually resident in the territory of Palestine." It defined the territorial criteria for citizenship, and appeared to be nondiscriminatory legislation, which provided granting of citizenship to an applicant, irrespective of their race, religion or language.
> 
> History of Palestinian nationality - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The 1925 Palestine Citizenship Order establishes the directive for the application.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne (Section II, Article 30) has no being on the control of sovereignty.  To suggest that this somehow transfers sovereignty of the territory under the Mandate to the Arab Palestinian is pure nonsense.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is not very accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Treaty of Sevres was never ratified. Why did you quote it?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Because for four years, the tenants cited in the Treaty of Sevres (1920) were the guide used.  Between the Treaty of Sevres (1920) and the Treaty of Lausanne (1924) the Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine were created on the basis of the San Remo Convention which came first.  At the time the decisions were made on the issues surrounding the territory subject to the mandate the only signed Treaty was the 1920 version at Sevres.  The Treaty of Lausanne was not even contemplated yet.  _(Incidentally, the Arab Higher Committee during this same period, refused to establish an Arab Agency.  The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people.) _
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The LoN Covenant and its mandate system are very much misunderstood. I think this is by design. The focus of the mandate system was to bring the people to independence. It was the people who were considered the sovereigns. The right to Palestinian independence and sovereignty is even stated in subsequent UN resolutions.
> 
> ...independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.
> 
> See more at: League of Nations covenant - Peace Treaty of Versailles Peace Conference text Non-UN document 28 April 1919 ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The provisional recognition cited in the Article 22(4) of the Covenant was both vague and non-specific.  It could have applied to any one of a number of communities (territories) that were once under the Ottoman/Turkish Empire_ (Lebanon, Syria, Mesopotamia, Trans-Jordan, Iraq)_.  In 1919, it was not necessarily pertaining to Palestine which had not yet been determined by the Principal Allied Powers; as stipulated in Part III, Section VII (SYRIA, MESOPOTAMIA, PALESTINE) of the Treaty of Sevres spoke directly to the territory of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate for Palestine was not Palestine. It was a temporarily assigned administration that held Palestine in trust. It had no land or borders. When the Mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Palestine was not subject to a distinct territory until the Allied Powers determine the boundaries.  And that distinctive territory was subject to the Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine.  When the Mandate was terminated, the territory was remanded to the International Trusteeship System (Article 77a, UN Charter), with a new successor government appointed.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain left Palestine without creating an independent state or a Jewish homeland. Its mandate was a complete flop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Mandatory believed that His Majesty’s government did not have the power or authority, under the terms of the Mandate, to award the country either to the Arabs or to the Jews, or even to partition it between them.   The Mandatory and His Majesty’s government then ask the United Nations to consider the circumstances and the situation, and to recommend a settlement of the problem. The Mandatory and His Majesty’s government did not intend to recommend any particular solution.
> 
> The Arab Community _(the Arab Higher Committee)_ refused to cooperate at all with the UK _(as the Mandatory)_ or the Palestine Commission _(the successor government)_ having refused to establish a Arab Agency _(counterpart to the Jewish Agency) _or to participate in the development of a solution.  On the termination of the Mandate, and in coordination with the UN Palestine Commission, the State of Israel was declared.
> 
> If the allegation has any merit, it is the fault of the Arab Community and Leadership; which presented the Mandatory with an irreconcilable differences aimed at both the Allied Powers and the UN.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Oh stop it.  It's like saying that the Native Americans lost their land because they could not sign their signatures on treaties.  You are a ridiculous person.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960) is directly applicable to Israel and the general Palestine situation. I believe that the self-determination exercised (1948) by the Jewish People pursuant to the directions of the UN set the conditions. I also think that the conditions were altered in 1988 by the Palestinian exercise of self-determination.
> 
> A 1960 Resolution cannot be retroactively applied to a 1948 action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colonization is not just a one time event. It is an ongoing condition. If that condition existed in 1960, the resolution applies. If the condition exists in 2015, the resolution applies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It existed in 635 C.E. as well when the arab muslims started their colonisation, so it must apply to them even more. So tell them to get out of Israel, Judea and Samaria to make room for the original inhabitants.
> 
> But it is only your belief that the Jews colonised their own land stolen by the arab muslims, who then lost it for good in 1099. The truth is the legal owners gave the land to the Jews for their National home and the squatters did not like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The truth is the legal owners gave the land to the Jews...
> 
> Not true, again. International law, the Treaty of Lausanne, and the mandate gave Palestine to the Palestinians.
Click to expand...


Completely false. I have already showed you links that prove that Palestine had nothing to do with the Treaty of Lausanne.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is not very accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Treaty of Sevres was never ratified. Why did you quote it?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Because for four years, the tenants cited in the Treaty of Sevres (1920) were the guide used.  Between the Treaty of Sevres (1920) and the Treaty of Lausanne (1924) the Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine were created on the basis of the San Remo Convention which came first.  At the time the decisions were made on the issues surrounding the territory subject to the mandate the only signed Treaty was the 1920 version at Sevres.  The Treaty of Lausanne was not even contemplated yet.  _(Incidentally, the Arab Higher Committee during this same period, refused to establish an Arab Agency.  The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people.)_
Click to expand...


Here again, the Treaty of Sevres was never ratified. The exceptions for Palestine in The Treaty of Sevres were not in the Treaty of Lausanne that was ratified.

The Arab Agency was part of the colonial scheme. The Arabs wanted no part of colonialism.


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The LoN Covenant and its mandate system are very much misunderstood. I think this is by design. The focus of the mandate system was to bring the people to independence. It was the people who were considered the sovereigns. The right to Palestinian independence and sovereignty is even stated in subsequent UN resolutions.
> 
> ...independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.
> 
> See more at: League of Nations covenant - Peace Treaty of Versailles Peace Conference text Non-UN document 28 April 1919 ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The provisional recognition cited in the Article 22(4) of the Covenant was both vague and non-specific.  It could have applied to any one of a number of communities (territories) that were once under the Ottoman/Turkish Empire_ (Lebanon, Syria, Mesopotamia, Trans-Jordan, Iraq)_.  In 1919, it was not necessarily pertaining to Palestine which had not yet been determined by the Principal Allied Powers; as stipulated in Part III, Section VII (SYRIA, MESOPOTAMIA, PALESTINE) of the Treaty of Sevres spoke directly to the territory of Palestine.
Click to expand...

Again, The treaty of Sevres was never ratified. It is meaningless.


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate for Palestine was not Palestine. It was a temporarily assigned administration that held Palestine in trust. It had no land or borders. When the Mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Palestine was not subject to a distinct territory until the Allied Powers determine the boundaries.  And that distinctive territory was subject to the Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine.
Click to expand...

Palestine's international boundaries were defined by 1922.

What is your point?


> When the Mandate was terminated, the territory was remanded to the International Trusteeship System (Article 77a, UN Charter), with a new successor government appointed.


You have posted where this was said but you have posted nothing to show that it actually happened.


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain left Palestine without creating an independent state or a Jewish homeland. Its mandate was a complete flop.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Mandatory believed that His Majesty’s government did not have the power or authority, under the terms of the Mandate, to award the country either to the Arabs or to the Jews, or even to partition it between them.   The Mandatory and His Majesty’s government then ask the United Nations to consider the circumstances and the situation, and to recommend a settlement of the problem. The Mandatory and His Majesty’s government did not intend to recommend any particular solution.
Click to expand...

Indeed, the mandate had no authority over land or borders.


> The Arab Community _(the Arab Higher Committee)_ refused to cooperate at all with the UK _(as the Mandatory)_ or the Palestine Commission _(the successor government)_ having refused to establish a Arab Agency _(counterpart to the Jewish Agency) _or to participate in the development of a solution.  On the termination of the Mandate, and in coordination with the UN Palestine Commission, the State of Israel was declared.
> 
> If the allegation has any merit, it is the fault of the Arab Community and Leadership; which presented the Mandatory with an irreconcilable differences aimed at both the Allied Powers and the UN.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R


The irreconcilable differences were imposed by the British. The Arabs wanted nothing to do with them.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is not very accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Treaty of Sevres was never ratified. Why did you quote it?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Because for four years, the tenants cited in the Treaty of Sevres (1920) were the guide used.  Between the Treaty of Sevres (1920) and the Treaty of Lausanne (1924) the Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine were created on the basis of the San Remo Convention which came first.  At the time the decisions were made on the issues surrounding the territory subject to the mandate the only signed Treaty was the 1920 version at Sevres.  The Treaty of Lausanne was not even contemplated yet.  _(Incidentally, the Arab Higher Committee during this same period, refused to establish an Arab Agency.  The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people.)_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here again, the Treaty of Sevres was never ratified. The exceptions for Palestine in The Treaty of Sevres were not in the Treaty of Lausanne that was ratified.
> 
> The Arab Agency was part of the colonial scheme. The Arabs wanted no part of colonialism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The LoN Covenant and its mandate system are very much misunderstood. I think this is by design. The focus of the mandate system was to bring the people to independence. It was the people who were considered the sovereigns. The right to Palestinian independence and sovereignty is even stated in subsequent UN resolutions.
> 
> ...independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.
> 
> See more at: League of Nations covenant - Peace Treaty of Versailles Peace Conference text Non-UN document 28 April 1919 ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The provisional recognition cited in the Article 22(4) of the Covenant was both vague and non-specific.  It could have applied to any one of a number of communities (territories) that were once under the Ottoman/Turkish Empire_ (Lebanon, Syria, Mesopotamia, Trans-Jordan, Iraq)_.  In 1919, it was not necessarily pertaining to Palestine which had not yet been determined by the Principal Allied Powers; as stipulated in Part III, Section VII (SYRIA, MESOPOTAMIA, PALESTINE) of the Treaty of Sevres spoke directly to the territory of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, The treaty of Sevres was never ratified. It is meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate for Palestine was not Palestine. It was a temporarily assigned administration that held Palestine in trust. It had no land or borders. When the Mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Palestine was not subject to a distinct territory until the Allied Powers determine the boundaries.  And that distinctive territory was subject to the Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine's international boundaries were defined by 1922.
> 
> What is your point?
> 
> 
> 
> When the Mandate was terminated, the territory was remanded to the International Trusteeship System (Article 77a, UN Charter), with a new successor government appointed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have posted where this was said but you have posted nothing to show that it actually happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain left Palestine without creating an independent state or a Jewish homeland. Its mandate was a complete flop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Mandatory believed that His Majesty’s government did not have the power or authority, under the terms of the Mandate, to award the country either to the Arabs or to the Jews, or even to partition it between them.   The Mandatory and His Majesty’s government then ask the United Nations to consider the circumstances and the situation, and to recommend a settlement of the problem. The Mandatory and His Majesty’s government did not intend to recommend any particular solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, the mandate had no authority over land or borders.
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Community _(the Arab Higher Committee)_ refused to cooperate at all with the UK _(as the Mandatory)_ or the Palestine Commission _(the successor government)_ having refused to establish a Arab Agency _(counterpart to the Jewish Agency) _or to participate in the development of a solution.  On the termination of the Mandate, and in coordination with the UN Palestine Commission, the State of Israel was declared.
> 
> If the allegation has any merit, it is the fault of the Arab Community and Leadership; which presented the Mandatory with an irreconcilable differences aimed at both the Allied Powers and the UN.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The irreconcilable differences were imposed by the British. The Arabs wanted nothing to do with them.
Click to expand...

Please show me how where Palestine's borders were defined in 1922..


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is not very accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Treaty of Sevres was never ratified. Why did you quote it?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Because for four years, the tenants cited in the Treaty of Sevres (1920) were the guide used.  Between the Treaty of Sevres (1920) and the Treaty of Lausanne (1924) the Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine were created on the basis of the San Remo Convention which came first.  At the time the decisions were made on the issues surrounding the territory subject to the mandate the only signed Treaty was the 1920 version at Sevres.  The Treaty of Lausanne was not even contemplated yet.  _(Incidentally, the Arab Higher Committee during this same period, refused to establish an Arab Agency.  The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people.)_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here again, the Treaty of Sevres was never ratified. The exceptions for Palestine in The Treaty of Sevres were not in the Treaty of Lausanne that was ratified.
> 
> The Arab Agency was part of the colonial scheme. The Arabs wanted no part of colonialism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The LoN Covenant and its mandate system are very much misunderstood. I think this is by design. The focus of the mandate system was to bring the people to independence. It was the people who were considered the sovereigns. The right to Palestinian independence and sovereignty is even stated in subsequent UN resolutions.
> 
> ...independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.
> 
> See more at: League of Nations covenant - Peace Treaty of Versailles Peace Conference text Non-UN document 28 April 1919 ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The provisional recognition cited in the Article 22(4) of the Covenant was both vague and non-specific.  It could have applied to any one of a number of communities (territories) that were once under the Ottoman/Turkish Empire_ (Lebanon, Syria, Mesopotamia, Trans-Jordan, Iraq)_.  In 1919, it was not necessarily pertaining to Palestine which had not yet been determined by the Principal Allied Powers; as stipulated in Part III, Section VII (SYRIA, MESOPOTAMIA, PALESTINE) of the Treaty of Sevres spoke directly to the territory of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, The treaty of Sevres was never ratified. It is meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate for Palestine was not Palestine. It was a temporarily assigned administration that held Palestine in trust. It had no land or borders. When the Mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Palestine was not subject to a distinct territory until the Allied Powers determine the boundaries.  And that distinctive territory was subject to the Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine's international boundaries were defined by 1922.
> 
> What is your point?
> 
> 
> 
> When the Mandate was terminated, the territory was remanded to the International Trusteeship System (Article 77a, UN Charter), with a new successor government appointed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have posted where this was said but you have posted nothing to show that it actually happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain left Palestine without creating an independent state or a Jewish homeland. Its mandate was a complete flop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Mandatory believed that His Majesty’s government did not have the power or authority, under the terms of the Mandate, to award the country either to the Arabs or to the Jews, or even to partition it between them.   The Mandatory and His Majesty’s government then ask the United Nations to consider the circumstances and the situation, and to recommend a settlement of the problem. The Mandatory and His Majesty’s government did not intend to recommend any particular solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, the mandate had no authority over land or borders.
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Community _(the Arab Higher Committee)_ refused to cooperate at all with the UK _(as the Mandatory)_ or the Palestine Commission _(the successor government)_ having refused to establish a Arab Agency _(counterpart to the Jewish Agency) _or to participate in the development of a solution.  On the termination of the Mandate, and in coordination with the UN Palestine Commission, the State of Israel was declared.
> 
> If the allegation has any merit, it is the fault of the Arab Community and Leadership; which presented the Mandatory with an irreconcilable differences aimed at both the Allied Powers and the UN.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The irreconcilable differences were imposed by the British. The Arabs wanted nothing to do with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please show me how where Palestine's borders were defined in 1922..
Click to expand...

Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed a resolution by which it approved a proposal submitted by Britain to exclude Trans-Jordan from the scope of Palestine’s territory.9 Ultimately, the border between Palestine and Trans-Jordan was fixed as suggested by Britain.

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is not very accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Treaty of Sevres was never ratified. Why did you quote it?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Because for four years, the tenants cited in the Treaty of Sevres (1920) were the guide used.  Between the Treaty of Sevres (1920) and the Treaty of Lausanne (1924) the Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine were created on the basis of the San Remo Convention which came first.  At the time the decisions were made on the issues surrounding the territory subject to the mandate the only signed Treaty was the 1920 version at Sevres.  The Treaty of Lausanne was not even contemplated yet.  _(Incidentally, the Arab Higher Committee during this same period, refused to establish an Arab Agency.  The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people.)_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here again, the Treaty of Sevres was never ratified. The exceptions for Palestine in The Treaty of Sevres were not in the Treaty of Lausanne that was ratified.
> 
> The Arab Agency was part of the colonial scheme. The Arabs wanted no part of colonialism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The LoN Covenant and its mandate system are very much misunderstood. I think this is by design. The focus of the mandate system was to bring the people to independence. It was the people who were considered the sovereigns. The right to Palestinian independence and sovereignty is even stated in subsequent UN resolutions.
> 
> ...independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.
> 
> See more at: League of Nations covenant - Peace Treaty of Versailles Peace Conference text Non-UN document 28 April 1919 ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The provisional recognition cited in the Article 22(4) of the Covenant was both vague and non-specific.  It could have applied to any one of a number of communities (territories) that were once under the Ottoman/Turkish Empire_ (Lebanon, Syria, Mesopotamia, Trans-Jordan, Iraq)_.  In 1919, it was not necessarily pertaining to Palestine which had not yet been determined by the Principal Allied Powers; as stipulated in Part III, Section VII (SYRIA, MESOPOTAMIA, PALESTINE) of the Treaty of Sevres spoke directly to the territory of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, The treaty of Sevres was never ratified. It is meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate for Palestine was not Palestine. It was a temporarily assigned administration that held Palestine in trust. It had no land or borders. When the Mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Palestine was not subject to a distinct territory until the Allied Powers determine the boundaries.  And that distinctive territory was subject to the Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine's international boundaries were defined by 1922.
> 
> What is your point?
> 
> 
> 
> When the Mandate was terminated, the territory was remanded to the International Trusteeship System (Article 77a, UN Charter), with a new successor government appointed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have posted where this was said but you have posted nothing to show that it actually happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain left Palestine without creating an independent state or a Jewish homeland. Its mandate was a complete flop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Mandatory believed that His Majesty’s government did not have the power or authority, under the terms of the Mandate, to award the country either to the Arabs or to the Jews, or even to partition it between them.   The Mandatory and His Majesty’s government then ask the United Nations to consider the circumstances and the situation, and to recommend a settlement of the problem. The Mandatory and His Majesty’s government did not intend to recommend any particular solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, the mandate had no authority over land or borders.
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Community _(the Arab Higher Committee)_ refused to cooperate at all with the UK _(as the Mandatory)_ or the Palestine Commission _(the successor government)_ having refused to establish a Arab Agency _(counterpart to the Jewish Agency) _or to participate in the development of a solution.  On the termination of the Mandate, and in coordination with the UN Palestine Commission, the State of Israel was declared.
> 
> If the allegation has any merit, it is the fault of the Arab Community and Leadership; which presented the Mandatory with an irreconcilable differences aimed at both the Allied Powers and the UN.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The irreconcilable differences were imposed by the British. The Arabs wanted nothing to do with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please show me how where Palestine's borders were defined in 1922..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed a resolution by which it approved a proposal submitted by Britain to exclude Trans-Jordan from the scope of Palestine’s territory.9 Ultimately, the border between Palestine and Trans-Jordan was fixed as suggested by Britain.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
Click to expand...


No mention of internation boundaries.

Also, you said border*S*


----------



## aris2chat

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is not very accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Treaty of Sevres was never ratified. Why did you quote it?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Because for four years, the tenants cited in the Treaty of Sevres (1920) were the guide used.  Between the Treaty of Sevres (1920) and the Treaty of Lausanne (1924) the Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine were created on the basis of the San Remo Convention which came first.  At the time the decisions were made on the issues surrounding the territory subject to the mandate the only signed Treaty was the 1920 version at Sevres.  The Treaty of Lausanne was not even contemplated yet.  _(Incidentally, the Arab Higher Committee during this same period, refused to establish an Arab Agency.  The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people.)_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here again, the Treaty of Sevres was never ratified. The exceptions for Palestine in The Treaty of Sevres were not in the Treaty of Lausanne that was ratified.
> 
> The Arab Agency was part of the colonial scheme. The Arabs wanted no part of colonialism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The LoN Covenant and its mandate system are very much misunderstood. I think this is by design. The focus of the mandate system was to bring the people to independence. It was the people who were considered the sovereigns. The right to Palestinian independence and sovereignty is even stated in subsequent UN resolutions.
> 
> ...independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.
> 
> See more at: League of Nations covenant - Peace Treaty of Versailles Peace Conference text Non-UN document 28 April 1919 ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The provisional recognition cited in the Article 22(4) of the Covenant was both vague and non-specific.  It could have applied to any one of a number of communities (territories) that were once under the Ottoman/Turkish Empire_ (Lebanon, Syria, Mesopotamia, Trans-Jordan, Iraq)_.  In 1919, it was not necessarily pertaining to Palestine which had not yet been determined by the Principal Allied Powers; as stipulated in Part III, Section VII (SYRIA, MESOPOTAMIA, PALESTINE) of the Treaty of Sevres spoke directly to the territory of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, The treaty of Sevres was never ratified. It is meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate for Palestine was not Palestine. It was a temporarily assigned administration that held Palestine in trust. It had no land or borders. When the Mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Palestine was not subject to a distinct territory until the Allied Powers determine the boundaries.  And that distinctive territory was subject to the Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine's international boundaries were defined by 1922.
> 
> What is your point?
> 
> 
> 
> When the Mandate was terminated, the territory was remanded to the International Trusteeship System (Article 77a, UN Charter), with a new successor government appointed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have posted where this was said but you have posted nothing to show that it actually happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain left Palestine without creating an independent state or a Jewish homeland. Its mandate was a complete flop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Mandatory believed that His Majesty’s government did not have the power or authority, under the terms of the Mandate, to award the country either to the Arabs or to the Jews, or even to partition it between them.   The Mandatory and His Majesty’s government then ask the United Nations to consider the circumstances and the situation, and to recommend a settlement of the problem. The Mandatory and His Majesty’s government did not intend to recommend any particular solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, the mandate had no authority over land or borders.
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Community _(the Arab Higher Committee)_ refused to cooperate at all with the UK _(as the Mandatory)_ or the Palestine Commission _(the successor government)_ having refused to establish a Arab Agency _(counterpart to the Jewish Agency) _or to participate in the development of a solution.  On the termination of the Mandate, and in coordination with the UN Palestine Commission, the State of Israel was declared.
> 
> If the allegation has any merit, it is the fault of the Arab Community and Leadership; which presented the Mandatory with an irreconcilable differences aimed at both the Allied Powers and the UN.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The irreconcilable differences were imposed by the British. The Arabs wanted nothing to do with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please show me how where Palestine's borders were defined in 1922..
Click to expand...

 
Instead of thinking of "palestine" as having a drawn line for a border, think more in terms of the Levant, a valley, plains, highlands, desert, etc.  When does one end and another begin?  It was a region, not a title of a place defined by a coast, river or fence.
It is a bit like saying near east or middle east.  We know what we are talking about without having a think black line on a map


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true, again. International law, the Treaty of Lausanne, and the mandate gave Palestine to the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> During the 1920's, there was no international law applicable to the situation.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne (1924) makes no mention of either Palestine or Palestinians.  Nothing in the Treaty of Lausanne changes anything concerning the outline of the Middle East situation or the stipulations made under the Treaty of Sevres.
> 
> However six years earlier, the signing abroad the Battleship HMS Agamemnon, the Armistice of Mudros brought to an end the participation of the Ottoman Empire in World War I --- effectively—if not legally—marking the dissolution of the empire.  Under the terms of the armistice, the Ottomans surrendered their remaining garrisons in Hejaz, Yemen, *Syria,* Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica to the Allied Powers.  The Treaty of Sevres (1920) made the surrender of the territory and relinquished sovereignty to the Allied Powers.​
> 
> 
> 
> SECTION XIII --- Treaty of Sevres said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *GENERAL PROVISIONS.
> ARTICLE 132*.
> 
> Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.
> 
> Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Article 22(8) Covenant, sets the degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.  The Mandate for Palestine was created by the Allied Powers for the Mandate and subject to the Council of the League of Nations (_The consent of the Council of the League of Nations is required for any modification of the terms of this mandate.)_.  The Mandate does not pass-on sovereignty as a directive to any other entity.
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Treaty of Sevres was never ratified. Why did you quote it?
> 
> The LoN Covenant and its mandate system are very much misunderstood. I think this is by design. The focus of the mandate system was to bring the people to independence. It was the people who were considered the sovereigns. The right to Palestinian independence and sovereignty is even stated in subsequent UN resolutions.
> 
> ...independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.
> 
> See more at: League of Nations covenant - Peace Treaty of Versailles Peace Conference text Non-UN document 28 April 1919 ​
> The Mandate for Palestine was not Palestine. It was a temporarily assigned administration that held Palestine in trust. It had no land or borders. When the Mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there.
> 
> Britain left Palestine without creating an independent state or a Jewish homeland. Its mandate was a complete flop.
Click to expand...






 Because it was the basis of the treaty of Lausanne and was accepted as part of that treaty making it very relevant

 The Mandate spelt out the rules and in the case of the 22% OF PALESTINE LEFT  it clearly states it was for the RESURECTED NATIONAL OF THE JEWS.

Stop putting 2015 laws in place for things that happened 100 years ago. the  facts remain that at no time were the arab muslims offered any part of the 22% of Palestine having already received the other 78%.  You mix up two mandates in your attempt at demonising the Jews. The mandate for Palestine was the legal document drawn up by the LoN that set in stone the facts, the British mandate was the rules by which the British had to work. The mandate for Palestine set out the borders of the British mandate and told the world what was to happen in respect of the Jewish national home. Yes the British mandate was a flop because they appeased the arab muslims all the time and ran roughshod over the Jews when they should have been helping the Jews to set up their land. Britain did everything it could to destroy the Jews and the dream so yes their mandate was a flop, by the LoN Mandate for Palestine did succeed and the Jews did get their homeland and have had to fight every second of every day to keep it safe.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It existed in 635 C.E. as well when the arab muslims started their colonisation, so it must apply to them even more. So tell them to get out of Israel, Judea and Samaria to make room for the original inhabitants.
> 
> But it is only your belief that the Jews colonised their own land stolen by the arab muslims, who then lost it for good in 1099. The truth is the legal owners gave the land to the Jews for their National home and the squatters did not like that.
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is the legal owners gave the land to the Jews...
> 
> Not true, again. International law, the Treaty of Lausanne, and the mandate gave Palestine to the Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LINKS ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.
> 
> Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> --------------------------------
> SECTION II .
> NATIONALITY.
> ARTICLE 30.
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.
> 
> Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive
> ------------------------------
> 3._Q. What measures have been taken to bring the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will safeguard the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion? What are the effects of these measures?_
> 
> _A._ The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, provides for the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence.
> 
> Mandate for Palestine - Report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations 31 December 1925
> ----------------------------------
> The first Palestine Citizenship Order was enacted by Britain on 24 July 1925; it was the first official enactment that outlined the legal definition of a Palestinian. Its first article defined a Palestinian as a "Turkish subject habitually resident in the territory of Palestine." It defined the territorial criteria for citizenship, and appeared to be nondiscriminatory legislation, which provided granting of citizenship to an applicant, irrespective of their race, religion or language.
> 
> History of Palestinian nationality - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What year did that become International law, and a link proving it.
> 
> What you are quoting is not International law and the state that took control was Britain, plus no state was actually dissolved as none existed there prior to 1948.
> 
> 
> So no actual links to support your claims as the treaty of Lausanne does not mention Palestine once on purpose, because it was never a nation in its own right.   The Mandate for Palestine ( as opposed to the British Mandate ) clearly states
> 
> The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 1.*
> The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate.
> 
> *ART. 2.*
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.
> 
> *ART. 3.*
> The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy.
> 
> *ART. 4.*
> An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
> 
> The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
> 
> *ART. 5.*
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.
> 
> *ART. 6.*
> The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.
> 
> *ART. 7.*
> The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> Not once does it mention the nation of Palestine or the arab muslims, but it does mention the fact that in INTERNATIONAL LAW the Jews would receive the 22% of Palestine remaining as their NATIONAL HOME and that any Jew that migrated to Palestine would be automatically granted protected Palestinian citizenship under the British mandate.
> 
> This is how you produce evidence of your claims, not some site that upholds your own POV.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the Mandate left Palestine without accomplishing it goals.
Click to expand...





 The mandate was in place until 1949 when it signed of on the final nation, the UN did not have the authority to partition Palestine but did so because they were and are NAZI ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATERS.

 You confuse the British with the Mandate when they are totally different aspects of reality. The Mandate was a legal concept put in place by the LoN between 1919 and 1923, the British administered the mandate and gave it up when they found they could no longer appease the arab muslims. The mandate was still in place even though the failed administrators had thrown in the towel.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is not very accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Treaty of Sevres was never ratified. Why did you quote it?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Because for four years, the tenants cited in the Treaty of Sevres (1920) were the guide used.  Between the Treaty of Sevres (1920) and the Treaty of Lausanne (1924) the Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine were created on the basis of the San Remo Convention which came first.  At the time the decisions were made on the issues surrounding the territory subject to the mandate the only signed Treaty was the 1920 version at Sevres.  The Treaty of Lausanne was not even contemplated yet.  _(Incidentally, the Arab Higher Committee during this same period, refused to establish an Arab Agency.  The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people.)_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here again, the Treaty of Sevres was never ratified. The exceptions for Palestine in The Treaty of Sevres were not in the Treaty of Lausanne that was ratified.
> 
> The Arab Agency was part of the colonial scheme. The Arabs wanted no part of colonialism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The LoN Covenant and its mandate system are very much misunderstood. I think this is by design. The focus of the mandate system was to bring the people to independence. It was the people who were considered the sovereigns. The right to Palestinian independence and sovereignty is even stated in subsequent UN resolutions.
> 
> ...independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.
> 
> See more at: League of Nations covenant - Peace Treaty of Versailles Peace Conference text Non-UN document 28 April 1919 ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The provisional recognition cited in the Article 22(4) of the Covenant was both vague and non-specific.  It could have applied to any one of a number of communities (territories) that were once under the Ottoman/Turkish Empire_ (Lebanon, Syria, Mesopotamia, Trans-Jordan, Iraq)_.  In 1919, it was not necessarily pertaining to Palestine which had not yet been determined by the Principal Allied Powers; as stipulated in Part III, Section VII (SYRIA, MESOPOTAMIA, PALESTINE) of the Treaty of Sevres spoke directly to the territory of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, The treaty of Sevres was never ratified. It is meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate for Palestine was not Palestine. It was a temporarily assigned administration that held Palestine in trust. It had no land or borders. When the Mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Palestine was not subject to a distinct territory until the Allied Powers determine the boundaries.  And that distinctive territory was subject to the Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine's international boundaries were defined by 1922.
> 
> What is your point?
> 
> 
> 
> When the Mandate was terminated, the territory was remanded to the International Trusteeship System (Article 77a, UN Charter), with a new successor government appointed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have posted where this was said but you have posted nothing to show that it actually happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain left Palestine without creating an independent state or a Jewish homeland. Its mandate was a complete flop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Mandatory believed that His Majesty’s government did not have the power or authority, under the terms of the Mandate, to award the country either to the Arabs or to the Jews, or even to partition it between them.   The Mandatory and His Majesty’s government then ask the United Nations to consider the circumstances and the situation, and to recommend a settlement of the problem. The Mandatory and His Majesty’s government did not intend to recommend any particular solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, the mandate had no authority over land or borders.
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Community _(the Arab Higher Committee)_ refused to cooperate at all with the UK _(as the Mandatory)_ or the Palestine Commission _(the successor government)_ having refused to establish a Arab Agency _(counterpart to the Jewish Agency) _or to participate in the development of a solution.  On the termination of the Mandate, and in coordination with the UN Palestine Commission, the State of Israel was declared.
> 
> If the allegation has any merit, it is the fault of the Arab Community and Leadership; which presented the Mandatory with an irreconcilable differences aimed at both the Allied Powers and the UN.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The irreconcilable differences were imposed by the British. The Arabs wanted nothing to do with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please show me how where Palestine's borders were defined in 1922..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed a resolution by which it approved a proposal submitted by Britain to exclude Trans-Jordan from the scope of Palestine’s territory.9 Ultimately, the border between Palestine and Trans-Jordan was fixed as suggested by Britain.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
Click to expand...






 But trans Jordan was never removed from the auspices of the Mandate for Palestine was it, that is until 1949 when it was finally signed of as a fully fledged independent nation.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

Let's see if I can clean this up for you; so you don't have to interpret anything.



P F Tinmore said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Treaty of Sevres was never ratified. Why did you quote it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, The treaty of Sevres was never ratified. It is meaningless.
> 
> Palestine's international boundaries were defined by 1922.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*


Clarifying the Treaty of Sevres (1920)
The importance of the Treaty of Sevres (1920) --- and before the Treaty of Lausanne (1924) --- rests in an obscure and little known agreement [04/25/1920  Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine mandates - San Remo conference - Resolution (Non-UN document)]
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 which stated in part that:  "The terms of the mandates in respect of the above territories _(Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine)_ will be formulated by the Principal Allied Powers and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval.  *Turkey hereby undertakes*, in accordance with the provisions of *Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres]* to *accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection*."

The Treaty itself did not have to be ratified in connection with the Mandates pertaining to Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine; because those aspects where agreed to in the 1920 agreement.   And that is why the Treaty of Lausanne is silent on the issue of Palestine.  The Ottoman/Turkish Empire had already agreed to accept the decision of the Allied Powers in those territories --- four years earlier.  While it is true that the Treaty of Sevres was not ratified, it was signed and it was subordinated to the San Remo Convention --- as you can see.​

Clarifying the Boundaries of Palestine
EXTENSION OF CONTROL TO CERTAIN AREAS SOUTH OF BEERSHEBA. DELIMITATION OF THE
FRONTIER BETWEEN SYRIA ON THE ONE HAND AND PALESTINE AND TRANS-JORDAN ON THE OTHER.
Report to the Permanent Mandate Commission

"With regard to the two villages in the north of Palestine, Mr. Moody explained that the frontier between Syria, on the one hand, and Palestine and Trans-Jordan, on the other, was defined in the Franco-British Convention of 1920, but had not been delimited until 1931."​
End of Year Report December 1932

Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between latitude 30° N. and 33° N., Longitude 34° 30 E. and 35° 30' E.

On the south it is bounded by Egyptian and Saudi Arabian territory, on the east by Trans-Jordan, on the north by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and the Lebanon, and on the west by the Mediterranean.

The boundaries are described as follows:--

_South._--From a point west of Rafa on the Mediterranean to a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba.
_East._--From a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba up the centre of the Wadi Araba, the Dead Sea, and the River Jordan, to the junction of the latter with the River Yarmuk, thence up the centre of the River Yarmuk to the Syrian frontier.
_North._--The northern boundary was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Stated briefly, the boundary runs from Ras el Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to Metulla and across the upper Jordan valley to Banias, thence to Jisr Banat Yaqub, thence along the Jordan to the Lake of Tiberias on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line.
_West._--The Mediterranean Sea.
The relationship of Trans-Jordan and the Mandate for Palestine --- REPORT BY HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT ON THE ADMINISTRATION UNDER MANDATE OF PALESTINE. 

2. His Britannic Majesty is the Mandatory for Transjordan to which the terms of the mandate for Palestine, with the exception of the provisions dealing with the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people, are applicable. The declaration of His Majesty's Government with regard to its Mandatory obligations in Transjordan, made to the Council of League of Nations in September, 1922, (Cmd. 1785) was in the following terms:--

"In the application of the Mandate to Transjordan, the action which in Palestine is taken by the Administration of the latter country, will be taken by the Administration of Transjordan under the general supervision of the Mandatory.

"His Majesty's Government accept full responsibility as Mandatory for Transjordan, and undertake that such provision as may be made for the administration of that country in accordance with Article 25 of the Mandate shall be in no way inconsistent with those provisions of the Mandate which are not by this resolution declared inapplicable."​
X.--TRANS-JORDANIA.  Interim Report of Civil Administration July 1921

Included in the area of the Palestine Mandate is the territory of Trans-Jordania. It is bounded on the north by the frontier of Syria, placed under the mandate of France; on the south by the kingdom of the Hejaz; and on the west by the line of the Jordan and the Dead Sea; while on the east it stretches into the desert and ends--the boundary is not yet defined--where Mesopotamia begins.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## ChrisL

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Let's see if I can clean this up for you; so you don't have to interpret anything.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Treaty of Sevres was never ratified. Why did you quote it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, The treaty of Sevres was never ratified. It is meaningless.
> 
> Palestine's international boundaries were defined by 1922.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 
> Clarifying the Treaty of Sevres (1920)
> The importance of the Treaty of Sevres (1920) --- and before the Treaty of Lausanne (1924) --- rests in an obscure and little known agreement [04/25/1920  Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine mandates - San Remo conference - Resolution (Non-UN document)]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which stated in part that:  "The terms of the mandates in respect of the above territories _(Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine)_ will be formulated by the Principal Allied Powers and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval.  *Turkey hereby undertakes*, in accordance with the provisions of *Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres]* to *accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection*."
> 
> The Treaty itself did not have to be ratified in connection with the Mandates pertaining to Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine; because those aspects where agreed to in the 1920 agreement.   And that is why the Treaty of Lausanne is silent on the issue of Palestine.  The Ottoman/Turkish Empire had already agreed to accept the decision of the Allied Powers in those territories --- four years earlier.  While it is true that the Treaty of Sevres was not ratified, it was signed and it was subordinated to the San Remo Convention --- as you can see.​
> 
> Clarifying the Boundaries of Palestine
> EXTENSION OF CONTROL TO CERTAIN AREAS SOUTH OF BEERSHEBA. DELIMITATION OF THE
> FRONTIER BETWEEN SYRIA ON THE ONE HAND AND PALESTINE AND TRANS-JORDAN ON THE OTHER.
> Report to the Permanent Mandate Commission
> 
> "With regard to the two villages in the north of Palestine, Mr. Moody explained that the frontier between Syria, on the one hand, and Palestine and Trans-Jordan, on the other, was defined in the Franco-British Convention of 1920, but had not been delimited until 1931."​
> End of Year Report December 1932
> 
> Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between latitude 30° N. and 33° N., Longitude 34° 30 E. and 35° 30' E.
> 
> On the south it is bounded by Egyptian and Saudi Arabian territory, on the east by Trans-Jordan, on the north by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and the Lebanon, and on the west by the Mediterranean.
> 
> The boundaries are described as follows:--
> 
> _South._--From a point west of Rafa on the Mediterranean to a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba.
> _East._--From a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba up the centre of the Wadi Araba, the Dead Sea, and the River Jordan, to the junction of the latter with the River Yarmuk, thence up the centre of the River Yarmuk to the Syrian frontier.
> _North._--The northern boundary was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Stated briefly, the boundary runs from Ras el Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to Metulla and across the upper Jordan valley to Banias, thence to Jisr Banat Yaqub, thence along the Jordan to the Lake of Tiberias on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line.
> _West._--The Mediterranean Sea.
> The relationship of Trans-Jordan and the Mandate for Palestine --- REPORT BY HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT ON THE ADMINISTRATION UNDER MANDATE OF PALESTINE.
> 
> 2. His Britannic Majesty is the Mandatory for Transjordan to which the terms of the mandate for Palestine, with the exception of the provisions dealing with the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people, are applicable. The declaration of His Majesty's Government with regard to its Mandatory obligations in Transjordan, made to the Council of League of Nations in September, 1922, (Cmd. 1785) was in the following terms:--
> 
> "In the application of the Mandate to Transjordan, the action which in Palestine is taken by the Administration of the latter country, will be taken by the Administration of Transjordan under the general supervision of the Mandatory.
> 
> "His Majesty's Government accept full responsibility as Mandatory for Transjordan, and undertake that such provision as may be made for the administration of that country in accordance with Article 25 of the Mandate shall be in no way inconsistent with those provisions of the Mandate which are not by this resolution declared inapplicable."​
> X.--TRANS-JORDANIA.  Interim Report of Civil Administration July 1921
> 
> Included in the area of the Palestine Mandate is the territory of Trans-Jordania. It is bounded on the north by the frontier of Syria, placed under the mandate of France; on the south by the kingdom of the Hejaz; and on the west by the line of the Jordan and the Dead Sea; while on the east it stretches into the desert and ends--the boundary is not yet defined--where Mesopotamia begins.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


It's funny how he never addresses the excellent points in your posts.  He just keeps on with believing Islam is somehow "good."  Good Lord.


----------



## MJB12741

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Let's see if I can clean this up for you; so you don't have to interpret anything.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Treaty of Sevres was never ratified. Why did you quote it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, The treaty of Sevres was never ratified. It is meaningless.
> 
> Palestine's international boundaries were defined by 1922.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 
> Clarifying the Treaty of Sevres (1920)
> The importance of the Treaty of Sevres (1920) --- and before the Treaty of Lausanne (1924) --- rests in an obscure and little known agreement [04/25/1920  Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine mandates - San Remo conference - Resolution (Non-UN document)]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which stated in part that:  "The terms of the mandates in respect of the above territories _(Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine)_ will be formulated by the Principal Allied Powers and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval.  *Turkey hereby undertakes*, in accordance with the provisions of *Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres]* to *accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection*."
> 
> The Treaty itself did not have to be ratified in connection with the Mandates pertaining to Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine; because those aspects where agreed to in the 1920 agreement.   And that is why the Treaty of Lausanne is silent on the issue of Palestine.  The Ottoman/Turkish Empire had already agreed to accept the decision of the Allied Powers in those territories --- four years earlier.  While it is true that the Treaty of Sevres was not ratified, it was signed and it was subordinated to the San Remo Convention --- as you can see.​
> 
> Clarifying the Boundaries of Palestine
> EXTENSION OF CONTROL TO CERTAIN AREAS SOUTH OF BEERSHEBA. DELIMITATION OF THE
> FRONTIER BETWEEN SYRIA ON THE ONE HAND AND PALESTINE AND TRANS-JORDAN ON THE OTHER.
> Report to the Permanent Mandate Commission
> 
> "With regard to the two villages in the north of Palestine, Mr. Moody explained that the frontier between Syria, on the one hand, and Palestine and Trans-Jordan, on the other, was defined in the Franco-British Convention of 1920, but had not been delimited until 1931."​
> End of Year Report December 1932
> 
> Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between latitude 30° N. and 33° N., Longitude 34° 30 E. and 35° 30' E.
> 
> On the south it is bounded by Egyptian and Saudi Arabian territory, on the east by Trans-Jordan, on the north by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and the Lebanon, and on the west by the Mediterranean.
> 
> The boundaries are described as follows:--
> 
> _South._--From a point west of Rafa on the Mediterranean to a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba.
> _East._--From a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba up the centre of the Wadi Araba, the Dead Sea, and the River Jordan, to the junction of the latter with the River Yarmuk, thence up the centre of the River Yarmuk to the Syrian frontier.
> _North._--The northern boundary was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Stated briefly, the boundary runs from Ras el Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to Metulla and across the upper Jordan valley to Banias, thence to Jisr Banat Yaqub, thence along the Jordan to the Lake of Tiberias on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line.
> _West._--The Mediterranean Sea.
> The relationship of Trans-Jordan and the Mandate for Palestine --- REPORT BY HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT ON THE ADMINISTRATION UNDER MANDATE OF PALESTINE.
> 
> 2. His Britannic Majesty is the Mandatory for Transjordan to which the terms of the mandate for Palestine, with the exception of the provisions dealing with the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people, are applicable. The declaration of His Majesty's Government with regard to its Mandatory obligations in Transjordan, made to the Council of League of Nations in September, 1922, (Cmd. 1785) was in the following terms:--
> 
> "In the application of the Mandate to Transjordan, the action which in Palestine is taken by the Administration of the latter country, will be taken by the Administration of Transjordan under the general supervision of the Mandatory.
> 
> "His Majesty's Government accept full responsibility as Mandatory for Transjordan, and undertake that such provision as may be made for the administration of that country in accordance with Article 25 of the Mandate shall be in no way inconsistent with those provisions of the Mandate which are not by this resolution declared inapplicable."​
> X.--TRANS-JORDANIA.  Interim Report of Civil Administration July 1921
> 
> Included in the area of the Palestine Mandate is the territory of Trans-Jordania. It is bounded on the north by the frontier of Syria, placed under the mandate of France; on the south by the kingdom of the Hejaz; and on the west by the line of the Jordan and the Dead Sea; while on the east it stretches into the desert and ends--the boundary is not yet defined--where Mesopotamia begins.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Problem is if we confuse him with documented facts, we may lose him on this board.  Do we want to miss all the laughs he gives us?


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Let's see if I can clean this up for you; so you don't have to interpret anything.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Treaty of Sevres was never ratified. Why did you quote it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, The treaty of Sevres was never ratified. It is meaningless.
> 
> Palestine's international boundaries were defined by 1922.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 
> Clarifying the Treaty of Sevres (1920)
> The importance of the Treaty of Sevres (1920) --- and before the Treaty of Lausanne (1924) --- rests in an obscure and little known agreement [04/25/1920  Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine mandates - San Remo conference - Resolution (Non-UN document)]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which stated in part that:  "The terms of the mandates in respect of the above territories _(Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine)_ will be formulated by the Principal Allied Powers and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval.  *Turkey hereby undertakes*, in accordance with the provisions of *Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres]* to *accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection*."
> 
> The Treaty itself did not have to be ratified in connection with the Mandates pertaining to Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine; because those aspects where agreed to in the 1920 agreement.   And that is why the Treaty of Lausanne is silent on the issue of Palestine.  The Ottoman/Turkish Empire had already agreed to accept the decision of the Allied Powers in those territories --- four years earlier.  While it is true that the Treaty of Sevres was not ratified, it was signed and it was subordinated to the San Remo Convention --- as you can see.​
> 
> Clarifying the Boundaries of Palestine
> EXTENSION OF CONTROL TO CERTAIN AREAS SOUTH OF BEERSHEBA. DELIMITATION OF THE
> FRONTIER BETWEEN SYRIA ON THE ONE HAND AND PALESTINE AND TRANS-JORDAN ON THE OTHER.
> Report to the Permanent Mandate Commission
> 
> "With regard to the two villages in the north of Palestine, Mr. Moody explained that the frontier between Syria, on the one hand, and Palestine and Trans-Jordan, on the other, was defined in the Franco-British Convention of 1920, but had not been delimited until 1931."​
> End of Year Report December 1932
> 
> Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between latitude 30° N. and 33° N., Longitude 34° 30 E. and 35° 30' E.
> 
> On the south it is bounded by Egyptian and Saudi Arabian territory, on the east by Trans-Jordan, on the north by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and the Lebanon, and on the west by the Mediterranean.
> 
> The boundaries are described as follows:--
> 
> _South._--From a point west of Rafa on the Mediterranean to a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba.
> _East._--From a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba up the centre of the Wadi Araba, the Dead Sea, and the River Jordan, to the junction of the latter with the River Yarmuk, thence up the centre of the River Yarmuk to the Syrian frontier.
> _North._--The northern boundary was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Stated briefly, the boundary runs from Ras el Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to Metulla and across the upper Jordan valley to Banias, thence to Jisr Banat Yaqub, thence along the Jordan to the Lake of Tiberias on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line.
> _West._--The Mediterranean Sea.
> The relationship of Trans-Jordan and the Mandate for Palestine --- REPORT BY HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT ON THE ADMINISTRATION UNDER MANDATE OF PALESTINE.
> 
> 2. His Britannic Majesty is the Mandatory for Transjordan to which the terms of the mandate for Palestine, with the exception of the provisions dealing with the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people, are applicable. The declaration of His Majesty's Government with regard to its Mandatory obligations in Transjordan, made to the Council of League of Nations in September, 1922, (Cmd. 1785) was in the following terms:--
> 
> "In the application of the Mandate to Transjordan, the action which in Palestine is taken by the Administration of the latter country, will be taken by the Administration of Transjordan under the general supervision of the Mandatory.
> 
> "His Majesty's Government accept full responsibility as Mandatory for Transjordan, and undertake that such provision as may be made for the administration of that country in accordance with Article 25 of the Mandate shall be in no way inconsistent with those provisions of the Mandate which are not by this resolution declared inapplicable."​
> X.--TRANS-JORDANIA.  Interim Report of Civil Administration July 1921
> 
> Included in the area of the Palestine Mandate is the territory of Trans-Jordania. It is bounded on the north by the frontier of Syria, placed under the mandate of France; on the south by the kingdom of the Hejaz; and on the west by the line of the Jordan and the Dead Sea; while on the east it stretches into the desert and ends--the boundary is not yet defined--where Mesopotamia begins.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Problem is if we confuse him with documented facts, we may lose him on this board.  Do we want to miss all the laughs he gives us?
Click to expand...


You provide us with the best laughs, ignoring source documentation while not realizing that Rocco is making the Palestinian's point.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

Interesting!



montelatici said:


> You provide us with the best laughs, ignoring source documentation while not realizing that Rocco is making the Palestinian's point.


*(QUESTION)*

Just what point do you think I'm making?

What is the "Palestinian's point?"

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

The point is that Europeans organized the colonization of Palestine by Europeans at the expense of the people living in Palestine.  All your recent posts regarding the subject confirm that fact.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

Yes, I've heard this claim many times.



montelatici said:


> The point is that Europeans organized the colonization of Palestine by Europeans at the expense of the people living in Palestine.  All your recent posts regarding the subject confirm that fact.


*(QUESTIONS)*

Who maintained the government control of the territory?  _(HINT:  It was not the Arab Palestinian.)_
What territory (expense) was taken from the Arab Palestinian?  _(HINT:  None, the territory transferred from the Ottoman/Turk Empire to the Allied Powers.)_
Who's territory was colonized?  _(HINT:  Sovereign territory which transferred from the Ottoman/Turk Empire to the Allied Powers.)_ 
Who was the colonial power?  _(HINT:  There was not one.  None of the Allied Powers engaged in Colonialism for their own benefit; in which indigenous populations are directly ruled or displaced as a original intent of the Allied Powers.  Displacement was a direct result of the indigenous population (twice the size of the Jewish Settlers) posing a direct threat to regional peace.)_

*(COMMENT)*

The  Arab Palestinian has been a disruptive influence and a force opposed to the maintenance of international and regional --- peace and security.  The Arab Palestinian was not in the practice of demonstrating tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors.  The Arab Palestinian did not demonstrate the fulfillment in good faith of the obligation and duty to refrain in their relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.  The Arab Palestinian at no time,  performed their duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## The Irish Ram

The people that Hamas represents, that are squatting on Israeli territory, are the offspring of the Muslims that were living and working side by side with the Jews and thriving in Israel when Egypt told them to get out before Egypt invaded Israel.  Expecting Egypt to win, they left.  Egypt lost, refused to take the refugees in, and instead used them as a ploy to expand their border further into Israeli territory.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Yes, I've heard this claim many times.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that Europeans organized the colonization of Palestine by Europeans at the expense of the people living in Palestine.  All your recent posts regarding the subject confirm that fact.
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> Who maintained the government control of the territory?  _(HINT:  It was not the Arab Palestinian.)_
> What territory (expense) was taken from the Arab Palestinian?  _(HINT:  None, the territory transferred from the Ottoman/Turk Empire to the Allied Powers.)_
> Who's territory was colonized?  _(HINT:  Sovereign territory which transferred from the Ottoman/Turk Empire to the Allied Powers.)_
> Who was the colonial power?  _(HINT:  There was not one.  None of the Allied Powers engaged in Colonialism for their own benefit; in which indigenous populations are directly ruled or displaced as a original intent of the Allied Powers.  Displacement was a direct result of the indigenous population (twice the size of the Jewish Settlers) posing a direct threat to regional peace.)_
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The  Arab Palestinian has been a disruptive influence and a force opposed to the maintenance of international and regional --- peace and security.  The Arab Palestinian was not in the practice of demonstrating tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors.  The Arab Palestinian did not demonstrate the fulfillment in good faith of the obligation and duty to refrain in their relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.  The Arab Palestinian at no time,  performed their duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Rocco, you have babbled on about this many times. However, UN resolutions state that the Palestinians: Have the right to self determination without external interference. Have the right to independence and sovereignty. Have the right to territorial integrity. The UN also states that these rights predate the resolutions.

At what time did the Palestinians obtain these rights?

Under what circumstances were these rights obtained?


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Gaza's Lively Palestinian Women *

**


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Yes, I've heard this claim many times.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that Europeans organized the colonization of Palestine by Europeans at the expense of the people living in Palestine.  All your recent posts regarding the subject confirm that fact.
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> Who maintained the government control of the territory?  _(HINT:  It was not the Arab Palestinian.)_
> What territory (expense) was taken from the Arab Palestinian?  _(HINT:  None, the territory transferred from the Ottoman/Turk Empire to the Allied Powers.)_
> Who's territory was colonized?  _(HINT:  Sovereign territory which transferred from the Ottoman/Turk Empire to the Allied Powers.)_
> Who was the colonial power?  _(HINT:  There was not one.  None of the Allied Powers engaged in Colonialism for their own benefit; in which indigenous populations are directly ruled or displaced as a original intent of the Allied Powers.  Displacement was a direct result of the indigenous population (twice the size of the Jewish Settlers) posing a direct threat to regional peace.)_
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The  Arab Palestinian has been a disruptive influence and a force opposed to the maintenance of international and regional --- peace and security.  The Arab Palestinian was not in the practice of demonstrating tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors.  The Arab Palestinian did not demonstrate the fulfillment in good faith of the obligation and duty to refrain in their relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.  The Arab Palestinian at no time,  performed their duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco, you have babbled on about this many times. However, *UN resolutions state that the Palestinians: Have the right to self determination without external interference. Have the right to independence and sovereignty*. Have the right to territorial integrity. The UN also states that these rights predate the resolutions.
> 
> At what time did the Palestinians obtain these rights?
> 
> Under what circumstances were these rights obtained?
Click to expand...


So ?


----------



## ChrisL

P F Tinmore said:


> *Gaza's Lively Palestinian Women *
> 
> **



Ba-ha-ha!  More propaganda from Tinmore.  They should think about such things before they behave like savages.


----------



## ChrisL

P F Tinmore said:


> *Gaza's Lively Palestinian Women *
> 
> **



I really got a kick out of the sound track.  Lol.  That's funny.


----------



## ChrisL

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Let's see if I can clean this up for you; so you don't have to interpret anything.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Treaty of Sevres was never ratified. Why did you quote it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, The treaty of Sevres was never ratified. It is meaningless.
> 
> Palestine's international boundaries were defined by 1922.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 
> Clarifying the Treaty of Sevres (1920)
> The importance of the Treaty of Sevres (1920) --- and before the Treaty of Lausanne (1924) --- rests in an obscure and little known agreement [04/25/1920  Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine mandates - San Remo conference - Resolution (Non-UN document)]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which stated in part that:  "The terms of the mandates in respect of the above territories _(Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine)_ will be formulated by the Principal Allied Powers and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval.  *Turkey hereby undertakes*, in accordance with the provisions of *Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres]* to *accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection*."
> 
> The Treaty itself did not have to be ratified in connection with the Mandates pertaining to Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine; because those aspects where agreed to in the 1920 agreement.   And that is why the Treaty of Lausanne is silent on the issue of Palestine.  The Ottoman/Turkish Empire had already agreed to accept the decision of the Allied Powers in those territories --- four years earlier.  While it is true that the Treaty of Sevres was not ratified, it was signed and it was subordinated to the San Remo Convention --- as you can see.​
> 
> Clarifying the Boundaries of Palestine
> EXTENSION OF CONTROL TO CERTAIN AREAS SOUTH OF BEERSHEBA. DELIMITATION OF THE
> FRONTIER BETWEEN SYRIA ON THE ONE HAND AND PALESTINE AND TRANS-JORDAN ON THE OTHER.
> Report to the Permanent Mandate Commission
> 
> "With regard to the two villages in the north of Palestine, Mr. Moody explained that the frontier between Syria, on the one hand, and Palestine and Trans-Jordan, on the other, was defined in the Franco-British Convention of 1920, but had not been delimited until 1931."​
> End of Year Report December 1932
> 
> Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between latitude 30° N. and 33° N., Longitude 34° 30 E. and 35° 30' E.
> 
> On the south it is bounded by Egyptian and Saudi Arabian territory, on the east by Trans-Jordan, on the north by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and the Lebanon, and on the west by the Mediterranean.
> 
> The boundaries are described as follows:--
> 
> _South._--From a point west of Rafa on the Mediterranean to a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba.
> _East._--From a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba up the centre of the Wadi Araba, the Dead Sea, and the River Jordan, to the junction of the latter with the River Yarmuk, thence up the centre of the River Yarmuk to the Syrian frontier.
> _North._--The northern boundary was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Stated briefly, the boundary runs from Ras el Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to Metulla and across the upper Jordan valley to Banias, thence to Jisr Banat Yaqub, thence along the Jordan to the Lake of Tiberias on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line.
> _West._--The Mediterranean Sea.
> The relationship of Trans-Jordan and the Mandate for Palestine --- REPORT BY HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT ON THE ADMINISTRATION UNDER MANDATE OF PALESTINE.
> 
> 2. His Britannic Majesty is the Mandatory for Transjordan to which the terms of the mandate for Palestine, with the exception of the provisions dealing with the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people, are applicable. The declaration of His Majesty's Government with regard to its Mandatory obligations in Transjordan, made to the Council of League of Nations in September, 1922, (Cmd. 1785) was in the following terms:--
> 
> "In the application of the Mandate to Transjordan, the action which in Palestine is taken by the Administration of the latter country, will be taken by the Administration of Transjordan under the general supervision of the Mandatory.
> 
> "His Majesty's Government accept full responsibility as Mandatory for Transjordan, and undertake that such provision as may be made for the administration of that country in accordance with Article 25 of the Mandate shall be in no way inconsistent with those provisions of the Mandate which are not by this resolution declared inapplicable."​
> X.--TRANS-JORDANIA.  Interim Report of Civil Administration July 1921
> 
> Included in the area of the Palestine Mandate is the territory of Trans-Jordania. It is bounded on the north by the frontier of Syria, placed under the mandate of France; on the south by the kingdom of the Hejaz; and on the west by the line of the Jordan and the Dead Sea; while on the east it stretches into the desert and ends--the boundary is not yet defined--where Mesopotamia begins.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Problem is if we confuse him with documented facts, we may lose him on this board.  Do we want to miss all the laughs he gives us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You provide us with the best laughs, ignoring source documentation while not realizing that Rocco is making the Palestinian's point.
Click to expand...


  The other poster is right.  You are good for a laugh!


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

There is a great difference between:

Having a right.
The ability to exercise that right.



P F Tinmore said:


> Rocco, you have babbled on about this many times. However, UN resolutions state that the Palestinians: Have the right to self determination without external interference. Have the right to independence and sovereignty. Have the right to territorial integrity. The UN also states that these rights predate the resolutions.
> 
> At what time did the Palestinians obtain these rights?
> 
> Under what circumstances were these rights obtained?


*(REFERENCES)*

Relative to your question, there are several historical references one should consider:

1919 League of Nations Covenant
Article 15 --- Clause 8:  If the dispute between the parties is claimed by one of them, and is found by the Council, to arise out of a matter which by international law is solely within the domestic jurisdiction of that party, the Council shall so report, and shall make no recommendation as to its settlement.​
1945 UN Charter:
Chapter I --- Article 1, Clause 2:  2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
Chapter I --- Article 2, Clause 1:  1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
Chapter I --- Article 2, Clause 4:  4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Chapter IX --- Article 55:  With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote: 
a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development; 
b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation; and 
c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.​
1960 General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV). Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
√  based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,
√  the important role of the United Nations in assisting the movement for independence in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories
2.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.​
1974 General Assembly Resolution 3236 (XXIX). Question of Palestine
1. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
(_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;
(_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​
1981 General Assembly Resolution 36/103. Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States
_Conscious_ of the imperative need for all foreign forces engaged in military occupation, intervention or interference to be completely withdrawn to their own territories, so that people under colonial domination, foreign occupation or racist regimes may freely and fully exercise their right to self-determination, so as to enable people of all States to administer their own affairs and determine their own political, economic and social system without external interference or control,​
1994 General Assembly Resolution 49/148. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination
1. Reaffirms that the universal realization of the right of all peoples, including those under colonial, foreign and alien domination, to self-determination is a fundamental condition for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights and for the preservation and promotion of such rights;
2. Declares its firm opposition to acts of foreign military intervention, aggression and occupation, since these have resulted in the suppression of the right of peoples to self-determination and other human rights in certain parts of the world;​
1996 General Assembly Resolution 50/172. Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes
1. Reiterates that, by virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right, freely and without external interference, to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and that every State has the duty to respect that right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter;​
*(COMMENT)*

The acquisition of the various "rights" _(self-determination without external interference; national independence and sovereignty)_ is a story of an evolutionary process that started in the early 20th Century; emphasis on the word "started."  The Allied Powers and the Council LoN, became concerned over time at the continuation of acts by foreign
powers of intervention and occupation.   And intervention and occupation threatened to suppress, the growth of nations through the right to self-determination for a number of sovereign peoples and nations.  The LoN and it successor, the UN, began to articulate the concept more solidly as time moved on --- with the first linkage of the two sets of "rights" coming together in the 1960 Resolution on Independence to Colonial Countries  [RES/1514 (XV)].  By 1981, the UN had linked three concepts together which relate the rights of:  self-determination without external interference; independence and sovereignty; and Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference.  As you can see, the right of "non-intervention/intervention" came first (1919).  Then, came the right of "self-determination" (1945 and 1960).  Until the Resolution on Decolonization, the "principle" and concept" of self-determination was very vague; even today, the Palestinian does not know what it means.  But it did not become a "right" of self-determination until 1960.

2012 General Assembly Resolution 66/17. Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine
1. _Reaffirms_ the *necessity of achieving a peaceful settlement *of the question of Palestine, the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict, in all its aspects, and of intensifying all efforts towards that end, and stresses in this regard the urgency of salvaging the prospects for realizing the *two-State solution of Israel and Palestine, living side by side* in peace and security within recognized borders, based on the pre-1967 borders;​Again Paragraph 6 of the Declaration on Colonial Independence sets forth another fundamental principle to self-determination: "Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations." The final paragraph reiterates "the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity."  As much as the Palestinian may not like it, the prevailing winds are towards a peaceful settlement, as opposed to Jihad and Armed Struggle, and the recognition of Israeli sovereign rights.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Let's see if I can clean this up for you; so you don't have to interpret anything.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Treaty of Sevres was never ratified. Why did you quote it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, The treaty of Sevres was never ratified. It is meaningless.
> 
> Palestine's international boundaries were defined by 1922.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 
> Clarifying the Treaty of Sevres (1920)
> The importance of the Treaty of Sevres (1920) --- and before the Treaty of Lausanne (1924) --- rests in an obscure and little known agreement [04/25/1920  Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine mandates - San Remo conference - Resolution (Non-UN document)]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which stated in part that:  "The terms of the mandates in respect of the above territories _(Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine)_ will be formulated by the Principal Allied Powers and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval.  *Turkey hereby undertakes*, in accordance with the provisions of *Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres]* to *accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection*."
> 
> The Treaty itself did not have to be ratified in connection with the Mandates pertaining to Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine; because those aspects where agreed to in the 1920 agreement.   And that is why the Treaty of Lausanne is silent on the issue of Palestine.  The Ottoman/Turkish Empire had already agreed to accept the decision of the Allied Powers in those territories --- four years earlier.  While it is true that the Treaty of Sevres was not ratified, it was signed and it was subordinated to the San Remo Convention --- as you can see.​
> 
> Clarifying the Boundaries of Palestine
> EXTENSION OF CONTROL TO CERTAIN AREAS SOUTH OF BEERSHEBA. DELIMITATION OF THE
> FRONTIER BETWEEN SYRIA ON THE ONE HAND AND PALESTINE AND TRANS-JORDAN ON THE OTHER.
> Report to the Permanent Mandate Commission
> 
> "With regard to the two villages in the north of Palestine, Mr. Moody explained that the frontier between Syria, on the one hand, and Palestine and Trans-Jordan, on the other, was defined in the Franco-British Convention of 1920, but had not been delimited until 1931."​
> End of Year Report December 1932
> 
> Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between latitude 30° N. and 33° N., Longitude 34° 30 E. and 35° 30' E.
> 
> On the south it is bounded by Egyptian and Saudi Arabian territory, on the east by Trans-Jordan, on the north by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and the Lebanon, and on the west by the Mediterranean.
> 
> The boundaries are described as follows:--
> 
> _South._--From a point west of Rafa on the Mediterranean to a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba.
> _East._--From a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba up the centre of the Wadi Araba, the Dead Sea, and the River Jordan, to the junction of the latter with the River Yarmuk, thence up the centre of the River Yarmuk to the Syrian frontier.
> _North._--The northern boundary was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Stated briefly, the boundary runs from Ras el Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to Metulla and across the upper Jordan valley to Banias, thence to Jisr Banat Yaqub, thence along the Jordan to the Lake of Tiberias on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line.
> _West._--The Mediterranean Sea.
> The relationship of Trans-Jordan and the Mandate for Palestine --- REPORT BY HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT ON THE ADMINISTRATION UNDER MANDATE OF PALESTINE.
> 
> 2. His Britannic Majesty is the Mandatory for Transjordan to which the terms of the mandate for Palestine, with the exception of the provisions dealing with the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people, are applicable. The declaration of His Majesty's Government with regard to its Mandatory obligations in Transjordan, made to the Council of League of Nations in September, 1922, (Cmd. 1785) was in the following terms:--
> 
> "In the application of the Mandate to Transjordan, the action which in Palestine is taken by the Administration of the latter country, will be taken by the Administration of Transjordan under the general supervision of the Mandatory.
> 
> "His Majesty's Government accept full responsibility as Mandatory for Transjordan, and undertake that such provision as may be made for the administration of that country in accordance with Article 25 of the Mandate shall be in no way inconsistent with those provisions of the Mandate which are not by this resolution declared inapplicable."​
> X.--TRANS-JORDANIA.  Interim Report of Civil Administration July 1921
> 
> Included in the area of the Palestine Mandate is the territory of Trans-Jordania. It is bounded on the north by the frontier of Syria, placed under the mandate of France; on the south by the kingdom of the Hejaz; and on the west by the line of the Jordan and the Dead Sea; while on the east it stretches into the desert and ends--the boundary is not yet defined--where Mesopotamia begins.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Problem is if we confuse him with documented facts, we may lose him on this board.  Do we want to miss all the laughs he gives us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You provide us with the best laughs, ignoring source documentation while not realizing that Rocco is making the Palestinian's point.
Click to expand...





 Do you mean edited and abridged pamphlets sold as fiction, you know those "source" documents you provide written by a committee and then edited and reworked by a publishing house.   As opposed to actual treaties and minutes of meetings


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> The point is that Europeans organized the colonization of Palestine by Europeans at the expense of the people living in Palestine.  All your recent posts regarding the subject confirm that fact.





 And you would be wrong once again on this as the original invitees were Ottoman muslims who wanted to colonise Palestine with the Jews because the arab muslims refused.   Do you feel idiotic yet Abdul after getting your history so wrong. Whats the saying about muslims getting 3 chances, well the Ottomans tried to colonise Palestine with arab muslims 3 times and each time the arab muslims went back to Syria or Egypt.


----------



## Mindful

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Their point of departure is of no consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> European settlers did not take ANY LAND.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the European settlers take the land from the Christians and Muslims Rocco?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Jewish immigrants under the Mandate, completed the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as adopted by the General Assembly; --- and exercising their right to self determination.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, they came from another continent and did evict the local inhabitants through violent conquest.  They certainly have a right to self determination, but not at the expense of the people already living in the area on another continent.  It's like saying the Treaty of Tordesillas had any legal validity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The same body that wrote all the other international laws, determined the solution.  It was a basic objective in the original Mandate.  It fulfilled the goal of establishing a Jewish National Home.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian rejected participation in the process that ultimately created the conditions that allowed the establishment of the State of Israel.
> 
> The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that they embraced --- Jihad and Armed Struggle --- was the means of solving international disputes they chose; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the treaties or in the mandate did anyone call for an exclusive Jewish state?
> 
> Israel is in Palestine. Where is the international dispute?
Click to expand...


Pray tell me where Jordan is?


----------



## Greeneyedlady

east of Israel. Look at a map.


----------



## Mindful

Greeneyedlady said:


> east of Israel. Look at a map.



I'm looking. Are you always this  dim?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> There is a great difference between:
> 
> Having a right.
> The ability to exercise that right.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, you have babbled on about this many times. However, UN resolutions state that the Palestinians: Have the right to self determination without external interference. Have the right to independence and sovereignty. Have the right to territorial integrity. The UN also states that these rights predate the resolutions.
> 
> At what time did the Palestinians obtain these rights?
> 
> Under what circumstances were these rights obtained?
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCES)*
> 
> Relative to your question, there are several historical references one should consider:
> 
> 1919 League of Nations Covenant
> Article 15 --- Clause 8:  If the dispute between the parties is claimed by one of them, and is found by the Council, to arise out of a matter which by international law is solely within the domestic jurisdiction of that party, the Council shall so report, and shall make no recommendation as to its settlement.​
> 1945 UN Charter:
> Chapter I --- Article 1, Clause 2:  2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
> Chapter I --- Article 2, Clause 1:  1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
> Chapter I --- Article 2, Clause 4:  4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
> Chapter IX --- Article 55:  With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
> a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
> b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation; and
> c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.​
> 1960 General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV). Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
> √  based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,
> √  the important role of the United Nations in assisting the movement for independence in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories
> 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.​
> 1974 General Assembly Resolution 3236 (XXIX). Question of Palestine
> 1. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
> (_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> (_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​
> 1981 General Assembly Resolution 36/103. Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States
> _Conscious_ of the imperative need for all foreign forces engaged in military occupation, intervention or interference to be completely withdrawn to their own territories, so that people under colonial domination, foreign occupation or racist regimes may freely and fully exercise their right to self-determination, so as to enable people of all States to administer their own affairs and determine their own political, economic and social system without external interference or control,​
> 1994 General Assembly Resolution 49/148. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination
> 1. Reaffirms that the universal realization of the right of all peoples, including those under colonial, foreign and alien domination, to self-determination is a fundamental condition for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights and for the preservation and promotion of such rights;
> 2. Declares its firm opposition to acts of foreign military intervention, aggression and occupation, since these have resulted in the suppression of the right of peoples to self-determination and other human rights in certain parts of the world;​
> 1996 General Assembly Resolution 50/172. Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes
> 1. Reiterates that, by virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right, freely and without external interference, to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and that every State has the duty to respect that right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter;​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The acquisition of the various "rights" _(self-determination without external interference; national independence and sovereignty)_ is a story of an evolutionary process that started in the early 20th Century; emphasis on the word "started."  The Allied Powers and the Council LoN, became concerned over time at the continuation of acts by foreign
> powers of intervention and occupation.   And intervention and occupation threatened to suppress, the growth of nations through the right to self-determination for a number of sovereign peoples and nations.  The LoN and it successor, the UN, began to articulate the concept more solidly as time moved on --- with the first linkage of the two sets of "rights" coming together in the 1960 Resolution on Independence to Colonial Countries  [RES/1514 (XV)].  By 1981, the UN had linked three concepts together which relate the rights of:  self-determination without external interference; independence and sovereignty; and Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference.  As you can see, the right of "non-intervention/intervention" came first (1919).  Then, came the right of "self-determination" (1945 and 1960).  Until the Resolution on Decolonization, the "principle" and concept" of self-determination was very vague; even today, the Palestinian does not know what it means.  But it did not become a "right" of self-determination until 1960.
> 
> 2012 General Assembly Resolution 66/17. Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine
> 1. _Reaffirms_ the *necessity of achieving a peaceful settlement *of the question of Palestine, the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict, in all its aspects, and of intensifying all efforts towards that end, and stresses in this regard the urgency of salvaging the prospects for realizing the *two-State solution of Israel and Palestine, living side by side* in peace and security within recognized borders, based on the pre-1967 borders;​Again Paragraph 6 of the Declaration on Colonial Independence sets forth another fundamental principle to self-determination: "Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations." The final paragraph reiterates "the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity."  As much as the Palestinian may not like it, the prevailing winds are towards a peaceful settlement, as opposed to Jihad and Armed Struggle, and the recognition of Israeli sovereign rights.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Holy smokescreen, Batman, where exactly in all that did you answer these questions?

At what time did the Palestinians obtain these rights?

Under what circumstances were these rights obtained?

Again Paragraph 6 of the Declaration on Colonial Independence sets forth another fundamental principle to self-determination: *"Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations." *The final paragraph reiterates *"the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity."* As much as the Palestinian may not like it, the prevailing winds are towards a peaceful settlement, as opposed to Jihad and Armed Struggle, and the recognition of Israeli sovereign rights.​
This begs the questions:

What were Palestine's international borders at the time of this resolution? (1960)

What were Israel's international borders?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> There is a great difference between:
> 
> Having a right.
> The ability to exercise that right.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, you have babbled on about this many times. However, UN resolutions state that the Palestinians: Have the right to self determination without external interference. Have the right to independence and sovereignty. Have the right to territorial integrity. The UN also states that these rights predate the resolutions.
> 
> At what time did the Palestinians obtain these rights?
> 
> Under what circumstances were these rights obtained?
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCES)*
> 
> Relative to your question, there are several historical references one should consider:
> 
> 1919 League of Nations Covenant
> Article 15 --- Clause 8:  If the dispute between the parties is claimed by one of them, and is found by the Council, to arise out of a matter which by international law is solely within the domestic jurisdiction of that party, the Council shall so report, and shall make no recommendation as to its settlement.​
> 1945 UN Charter:
> Chapter I --- Article 1, Clause 2:  2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
> Chapter I --- Article 2, Clause 1:  1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
> Chapter I --- Article 2, Clause 4:  4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
> Chapter IX --- Article 55:  With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
> a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
> b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation; and
> c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.​
> 1960 General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV). Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
> √  based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,
> √  the important role of the United Nations in assisting the movement for independence in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories
> 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.​
> 1974 General Assembly Resolution 3236 (XXIX). Question of Palestine
> 1. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
> (_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> (_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​
> 1981 General Assembly Resolution 36/103. Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States
> _Conscious_ of the imperative need for all foreign forces engaged in military occupation, intervention or interference to be completely withdrawn to their own territories, so that people under colonial domination, foreign occupation or racist regimes may freely and fully exercise their right to self-determination, so as to enable people of all States to administer their own affairs and determine their own political, economic and social system without external interference or control,​
> 1994 General Assembly Resolution 49/148. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination
> 1. Reaffirms that the universal realization of the right of all peoples, including those under colonial, foreign and alien domination, to self-determination is a fundamental condition for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights and for the preservation and promotion of such rights;
> 2. Declares its firm opposition to acts of foreign military intervention, aggression and occupation, since these have resulted in the suppression of the right of peoples to self-determination and other human rights in certain parts of the world;​
> 1996 General Assembly Resolution 50/172. Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes
> 1. Reiterates that, by virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right, freely and without external interference, to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and that every State has the duty to respect that right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter;​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The acquisition of the various "rights" _(self-determination without external interference; national independence and sovereignty)_ is a story of an evolutionary process that started in the early 20th Century; emphasis on the word "started."  The Allied Powers and the Council LoN, became concerned over time at the continuation of acts by foreign
> powers of intervention and occupation.   And intervention and occupation threatened to suppress, the growth of nations through the right to self-determination for a number of sovereign peoples and nations.  The LoN and it successor, the UN, began to articulate the concept more solidly as time moved on --- with the first linkage of the two sets of "rights" coming together in the 1960 Resolution on Independence to Colonial Countries  [RES/1514 (XV)].  By 1981, the UN had linked three concepts together which relate the rights of:  self-determination without external interference; independence and sovereignty; and Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference.  As you can see, the right of "non-intervention/intervention" came first (1919).  Then, came the right of "self-determination" (1945 and 1960).  Until the Resolution on Decolonization, the "principle" and concept" of self-determination was very vague; even today, the Palestinian does not know what it means.  But it did not become a "right" of self-determination until 1960.
> 
> 2012 General Assembly Resolution 66/17. Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine
> 1. _Reaffirms_ the *necessity of achieving a peaceful settlement *of the question of Palestine, the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict, in all its aspects, and of intensifying all efforts towards that end, and stresses in this regard the urgency of salvaging the prospects for realizing the *two-State solution of Israel and Palestine, living side by side* in peace and security within recognized borders, based on the pre-1967 borders;​Again Paragraph 6 of the Declaration on Colonial Independence sets forth another fundamental principle to self-determination: "Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations." The final paragraph reiterates "the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity."  As much as the Palestinian may not like it, the prevailing winds are towards a peaceful settlement, as opposed to Jihad and Armed Struggle, and the recognition of Israeli sovereign rights.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy smokescreen, Batman, where exactly in all that did you answer these questions?
> 
> At what time did the Palestinians obtain these rights?
> 
> Under what circumstances were these rights obtained?
> 
> Again Paragraph 6 of the Declaration on Colonial Independence sets forth another fundamental principle to self-determination: *"Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations." *The final paragraph reiterates *"the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity."* As much as the Palestinian may not like it, the prevailing winds are towards a peaceful settlement, as opposed to Jihad and Armed Struggle, and the recognition of Israeli sovereign rights.​
> This begs the questions:
> 
> What were Palestine's international borders at the time of this resolution? (1960)
> 
> What were Israel's international borders?
Click to expand...






 1948 and they acted on them in 1949 when they agreed to go with Jordan and Egypt. It was not Israel that took those rights away from them but outside foreign (arab muslim) influences.

 Palestine the nation did not exist until 1988 so in 1960 it had no borders, Palestine the Mandate did have borders and they are set down in the Mandate for Palestine. Israel had no borders until it negotiated them with its neighbours as required by UN res 242. This same Resolution is legally binding on the Palestinians as they set it in their declaration of independence, so why are they refusing to negotiate the borders ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> There is a great difference between:
> 
> Having a right.
> The ability to exercise that right.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, you have babbled on about this many times. However, UN resolutions state that the Palestinians: Have the right to self determination without external interference. Have the right to independence and sovereignty. Have the right to territorial integrity. The UN also states that these rights predate the resolutions.
> 
> At what time did the Palestinians obtain these rights?
> 
> Under what circumstances were these rights obtained?
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCES)*
> 
> Relative to your question, there are several historical references one should consider:
> 
> 1919 League of Nations Covenant
> Article 15 --- Clause 8:  If the dispute between the parties is claimed by one of them, and is found by the Council, to arise out of a matter which by international law is solely within the domestic jurisdiction of that party, the Council shall so report, and shall make no recommendation as to its settlement.​
> 1945 UN Charter:
> Chapter I --- Article 1, Clause 2:  2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
> Chapter I --- Article 2, Clause 1:  1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
> Chapter I --- Article 2, Clause 4:  4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
> Chapter IX --- Article 55:  With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
> a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
> b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation; and
> c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.​
> 1960 General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV). Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
> √  based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,
> √  the important role of the United Nations in assisting the movement for independence in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories
> 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.​
> 1974 General Assembly Resolution 3236 (XXIX). Question of Palestine
> 1. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
> (_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> (_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​
> 1981 General Assembly Resolution 36/103. Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States
> _Conscious_ of the imperative need for all foreign forces engaged in military occupation, intervention or interference to be completely withdrawn to their own territories, so that people under colonial domination, foreign occupation or racist regimes may freely and fully exercise their right to self-determination, so as to enable people of all States to administer their own affairs and determine their own political, economic and social system without external interference or control,​
> 1994 General Assembly Resolution 49/148. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination
> 1. Reaffirms that the universal realization of the right of all peoples, including those under colonial, foreign and alien domination, to self-determination is a fundamental condition for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights and for the preservation and promotion of such rights;
> 2. Declares its firm opposition to acts of foreign military intervention, aggression and occupation, since these have resulted in the suppression of the right of peoples to self-determination and other human rights in certain parts of the world;​
> 1996 General Assembly Resolution 50/172. Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes
> 1. Reiterates that, by virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right, freely and without external interference, to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and that every State has the duty to respect that right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter;​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The acquisition of the various "rights" _(self-determination without external interference; national independence and sovereignty)_ is a story of an evolutionary process that started in the early 20th Century; emphasis on the word "started."  The Allied Powers and the Council LoN, became concerned over time at the continuation of acts by foreign
> powers of intervention and occupation.   And intervention and occupation threatened to suppress, the growth of nations through the right to self-determination for a number of sovereign peoples and nations.  The LoN and it successor, the UN, began to articulate the concept more solidly as time moved on --- with the first linkage of the two sets of "rights" coming together in the 1960 Resolution on Independence to Colonial Countries  [RES/1514 (XV)].  By 1981, the UN had linked three concepts together which relate the rights of:  self-determination without external interference; independence and sovereignty; and Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference.  As you can see, the right of "non-intervention/intervention" came first (1919).  Then, came the right of "self-determination" (1945 and 1960).  Until the Resolution on Decolonization, the "principle" and concept" of self-determination was very vague; even today, the Palestinian does not know what it means.  But it did not become a "right" of self-determination until 1960.
> 
> 2012 General Assembly Resolution 66/17. Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine
> 1. _Reaffirms_ the *necessity of achieving a peaceful settlement *of the question of Palestine, the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict, in all its aspects, and of intensifying all efforts towards that end, and stresses in this regard the urgency of salvaging the prospects for realizing the *two-State solution of Israel and Palestine, living side by side* in peace and security within recognized borders, based on the pre-1967 borders;​Again Paragraph 6 of the Declaration on Colonial Independence sets forth another fundamental principle to self-determination: "Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations." The final paragraph reiterates "the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity."  As much as the Palestinian may not like it, the prevailing winds are towards a peaceful settlement, as opposed to Jihad and Armed Struggle, and the recognition of Israeli sovereign rights.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy smokescreen, Batman, where exactly in all that did you answer these questions?
> 
> At what time did the Palestinians obtain these rights?
> 
> Under what circumstances were these rights obtained?
> 
> Again Paragraph 6 of the Declaration on Colonial Independence sets forth another fundamental principle to self-determination: *"Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations." *The final paragraph reiterates *"the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity."* As much as the Palestinian may not like it, the prevailing winds are towards a peaceful settlement, as opposed to Jihad and Armed Struggle, and the recognition of Israeli sovereign rights.​
> This begs the questions:
> 
> What were Palestine's international borders at the time of this resolution? (1960)
> 
> What were Israel's international borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1948 and they acted on them in 1949 when they agreed to go with Jordan and Egypt. It was not Israel that took those rights away from them but outside foreign (arab muslim) influences.
> 
> Palestine the nation did not exist until 1988 so in 1960 it had no borders, Palestine the Mandate did have borders and they are set down in the Mandate for Palestine. Israel had no borders until it negotiated them with its neighbours as required by UN res 242. This same Resolution is legally binding on the Palestinians as they set it in their declaration of independence, so why are they refusing to negotiate the borders ?
Click to expand...

When did they get the right to negotiate borders?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> There is a great difference between:
> 
> Having a right.
> The ability to exercise that right.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, you have babbled on about this many times. However, UN resolutions state that the Palestinians: Have the right to self determination without external interference. Have the right to independence and sovereignty. Have the right to territorial integrity. The UN also states that these rights predate the resolutions.
> 
> At what time did the Palestinians obtain these rights?
> 
> Under what circumstances were these rights obtained?
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCES)*
> 
> Relative to your question, there are several historical references one should consider:
> 
> 1919 League of Nations Covenant
> Article 15 --- Clause 8:  If the dispute between the parties is claimed by one of them, and is found by the Council, to arise out of a matter which by international law is solely within the domestic jurisdiction of that party, the Council shall so report, and shall make no recommendation as to its settlement.​
> 1945 UN Charter:
> Chapter I --- Article 1, Clause 2:  2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
> Chapter I --- Article 2, Clause 1:  1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
> Chapter I --- Article 2, Clause 4:  4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
> Chapter IX --- Article 55:  With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
> a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
> b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation; and
> c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.​
> 1960 General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV). Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
> √  based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,
> √  the important role of the United Nations in assisting the movement for independence in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories
> 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.​
> 1974 General Assembly Resolution 3236 (XXIX). Question of Palestine
> 1. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
> (_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> (_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​
> 1981 General Assembly Resolution 36/103. Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States
> _Conscious_ of the imperative need for all foreign forces engaged in military occupation, intervention or interference to be completely withdrawn to their own territories, so that people under colonial domination, foreign occupation or racist regimes may freely and fully exercise their right to self-determination, so as to enable people of all States to administer their own affairs and determine their own political, economic and social system without external interference or control,​
> 1994 General Assembly Resolution 49/148. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination
> 1. Reaffirms that the universal realization of the right of all peoples, including those under colonial, foreign and alien domination, to self-determination is a fundamental condition for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights and for the preservation and promotion of such rights;
> 2. Declares its firm opposition to acts of foreign military intervention, aggression and occupation, since these have resulted in the suppression of the right of peoples to self-determination and other human rights in certain parts of the world;​
> 1996 General Assembly Resolution 50/172. Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes
> 1. Reiterates that, by virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right, freely and without external interference, to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and that every State has the duty to respect that right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter;​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The acquisition of the various "rights" _(self-determination without external interference; national independence and sovereignty)_ is a story of an evolutionary process that started in the early 20th Century; emphasis on the word "started."  The Allied Powers and the Council LoN, became concerned over time at the continuation of acts by foreign
> powers of intervention and occupation.   And intervention and occupation threatened to suppress, the growth of nations through the right to self-determination for a number of sovereign peoples and nations.  The LoN and it successor, the UN, began to articulate the concept more solidly as time moved on --- with the first linkage of the two sets of "rights" coming together in the 1960 Resolution on Independence to Colonial Countries  [RES/1514 (XV)].  By 1981, the UN had linked three concepts together which relate the rights of:  self-determination without external interference; independence and sovereignty; and Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference.  As you can see, the right of "non-intervention/intervention" came first (1919).  Then, came the right of "self-determination" (1945 and 1960).  Until the Resolution on Decolonization, the "principle" and concept" of self-determination was very vague; even today, the Palestinian does not know what it means.  But it did not become a "right" of self-determination until 1960.
> 
> 2012 General Assembly Resolution 66/17. Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine
> 1. _Reaffirms_ the *necessity of achieving a peaceful settlement *of the question of Palestine, the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict, in all its aspects, and of intensifying all efforts towards that end, and stresses in this regard the urgency of salvaging the prospects for realizing the *two-State solution of Israel and Palestine, living side by side* in peace and security within recognized borders, based on the pre-1967 borders;​Again Paragraph 6 of the Declaration on Colonial Independence sets forth another fundamental principle to self-determination: "Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations." The final paragraph reiterates "the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity."  As much as the Palestinian may not like it, the prevailing winds are towards a peaceful settlement, as opposed to Jihad and Armed Struggle, and the recognition of Israeli sovereign rights.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy smokescreen, Batman, where exactly in all that did you answer these questions?
> 
> At what time did the Palestinians obtain these rights?
> 
> Under what circumstances were these rights obtained?
> 
> Again Paragraph 6 of the Declaration on Colonial Independence sets forth another fundamental principle to self-determination: *"Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations." *The final paragraph reiterates *"the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity."* As much as the Palestinian may not like it, the prevailing winds are towards a peaceful settlement, as opposed to Jihad and Armed Struggle, and the recognition of Israeli sovereign rights.​
> This begs the questions:
> 
> What were Palestine's international borders at the time of this resolution? (1960)
> 
> What were Israel's international borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1948 and they acted on them in 1949 when they agreed to go with Jordan and Egypt. It was not Israel that took those rights away from them but outside foreign (arab muslim) influences.
> 
> Palestine the nation did not exist until 1988 so in 1960 it had no borders, Palestine the Mandate did have borders and they are set down in the Mandate for Palestine. Israel had no borders until it negotiated them with its neighbours as required by UN res 242. This same Resolution is legally binding on the Palestinians as they set it in their declaration of independence, so why are they refusing to negotiate the borders ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did they get the right to negotiate borders?
Click to expand...




 1988 when they declared independence and agreed to be tied by UN res 242 on peace and mutual borders. They have refused to even meet unless non existent borders are first put in place and illegal demands met.


----------



## Greeneyedlady

There is no Palestine. It was a geographical region not a country.


----------



## Phoenall

Greeneyedlady said:


> There is no Palestine. It was a geographical region not a country.





 The arab muslim dregs of society gained nation status in 1988, but have done nothing worthwhile with it since.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Greeneyedlady said:


> There is no Palestine. It was a geographical region not a country.


Who told you that? Israel? 

The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law,* which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State,* though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Greeneyedlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Palestine. It was a geographical region not a country.
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you that? Israel?
> 
> The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law,* which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State,* though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​
Click to expand...


Try buying an airline ticket to Paestine & see what country you land in.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

The Palestinians did not have the right to negotiate anything until the PLO became the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated. (Seventh Arab League Summit Conference --- Resolution on Palestine --- Rabat, Morocco 28 October 1974)



P F Tinmore said:


> When did they get the right to negotiate borders?


*(COMMENT)*

In accordance with Article 77(1a) (1945), the trusteeship system shall apply to such territories now held under mandate; .  All functions of the United Nations relating to strategic areas, including the approval of the terms of the trusteeship agreements and of their alteration or amendment, shall be exercised by the Security Council IAW Article 88(1).  This set the conditions under which The Security Council later wrote S/RES/242 (1967).  The UNSC acted in the capacity of Trustee in the absence of a recognized Arab Palestinian voice.  Under Treaty Law (Vienna Convention), the Palestinians had no Article 1 competent authority to represent the Palestinians negotiating; nor did the Arab Palestinian have the prerequisite status as a "state" under Articles 6 and 7 with the Capacity of States to conclude treaties.  That did not happen until the UN _Acknowledged _the proclamation of the State of Palestine 

 by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988. 

IAW PART I --- Future constitution and government of Palestine --- Section B --- Steps Prepartory to Independence --- UN General Assembly Resolution 181(II) --- the UN Palestine Commission to progressively receive full responsibility for the administration of the Mandate in the period between the termination of the Mandate and the establishment of the State's independence.  This was announced in the UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT and the Resolution.

In 1947, the UN, as the parent authority of the International Trustee System, passed Resolution 181(II).   The UN Palestine Commission was to establish the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem in accordance with the general lines of the recommendations of the General Assembly on the partition of Palestine. Nevertheless, the boundaries as described in Part II (Boundaries) of this plan are to be modified in such a way that village areas as a rule will not be divided by state boundaries unless pressing reasons make that necessary.  "The text of this resolution was communicated by the Secretary-General on 9 January to the Government of the United Kingdom, as the Mandatory Power, to the Arab Higher Committee, and to the Jewish Agency for Palestine. The invitation extended by the resolution was promptly accepted by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, both of which designated representatives to assist the commission. The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:



“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”



No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee."
Thus, there was very little cooperation on the part of the Arab Palestinians in the Implementation Process.  At 4:06 P.M. on 17 May 1948 (PAL/169), the UN made an "Official Public Announcement," which said in part:  "The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented." 

On May 15, 1948 --- a combined invasion by Egypt, Jordan and Syria, together with expeditionary forces from Iraq, crossed their respective borders and engaged Israeli forces. This opens the external interference by the Arab Legion to disrupt and defy _(openly resist or refuse to abide by)_ the approved resolution and oppose the Jewish right of self-determination.   In 1949, the waring parties entered into to a series of Armistice Arrangements that remained until 1967.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Greeneyedlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Palestine. It was a geographical region not a country.
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you that? Israel?
> 
> The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law,* which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State,* though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​
Click to expand...




 And once again you LIE as the nationality law placed the onus on the mandate power to provide the Palestinians with an identity. That is why the passports are all BRITISH. You can try and cloud the issue as many times as you want the fact remains that Palestine did not become a nation until 1988. 

Unless you can produce the leader of Palestine, its capital city, its currency, its GDP, its religion and finally its legal standing on the world stage ?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

That is not what it means at all.  



P F Tinmore said:


> Greeneyedlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Palestine. It was a geographical region not a country.
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you that? Israel?
> 
> The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law,* which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State,* though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​
Click to expand...

*(REMEMBER)*

Press Release PAL/138 27 February 1948

"Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.

"After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.

"Where the sovereignty of Palestine lies at the present time is a disputed and perhaps academic legal question about which writers have expressed a number of different conclusions. Where the sovereignty of Palestine will lie after the 15th May, 1948, is perhaps also a question on which different views will be held, but so far as His Majesty's Government are aware, it is a question which it is unnecessary to answer in connection with any practical issues. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> That is not what it means at all.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greeneyedlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Palestine. It was a geographical region not a country.
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you that? Israel?
> 
> The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law,* which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State,* though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(REMEMBER)*
> 
> Press Release PAL/138 27 February 1948
> 
> "Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.
> 
> "After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.
> 
> "Where the sovereignty of Palestine lies at the present time is a disputed and perhaps academic legal question about which writers have expressed a number of different conclusions. Where the sovereignty of Palestine will lie after the 15th May, 1948, is perhaps also a question on which different views will be held, but so far as His Majesty's Government are aware, it is a question which it is unnecessary to answer in connection with any practical issues.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could answer these older questions before we proceed. That would add relevance to the current discussion.

At what time did the Palestinians obtain these rights?

Under what circumstances were these rights obtained?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> That is not what it means at all.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greeneyedlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Palestine. It was a geographical region not a country.
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you that? Israel?
> 
> The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law,* which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State,* though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(REMEMBER)*
> 
> Press Release PAL/138 27 February 1948
> 
> "Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.
> 
> "After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.
> 
> "Where the sovereignty of Palestine lies at the present time is a disputed and perhaps academic legal question about which writers have expressed a number of different conclusions. Where the sovereignty of Palestine will lie after the 15th May, 1948, is perhaps also a question on which different views will be held, but so far as His Majesty's Government are aware, it is a question which it is unnecessary to answer in connection with any practical issues.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you could answer these older questions before we proceed. That would add relevance to the current discussion.
> 
> At what time did the Palestinians obtain these rights?
> 
> Under what circumstances were these rights obtained?
Click to expand...





 1988 when they declared independence

 Under UN resolution 181 which they finally accepted.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,

The recognition of these right came gradually over time.  There is no one specific date in which all of these rights became "obtained."  It came over a period between 1919 and 1916; as  previously stated in Posting #2467.



P F Tinmore said:


> Perhaps you could answer these older questions before we proceed. That would add relevance to the current discussion.
> 
> At what time did the Palestinians obtain these rights?
> 
> Under what circumstances were these rights obtained?


*(COMMENT)*

You asked about four (4) discrete rights:

self determination
without external interference.
independence and sovereignty
territorial integrity
Relative to "without external interference:"
Came in 1919 with the concept on the Covenant that there is a difference between domestic disputes and international disputes; in which the  international community should remain silent on disputes having domestic jurisdiction.  Domestic jurisdiction is predicated on territorial integrity.  Thus, doesn't apply to the State of Palestine until 1988.  (See "territorial integrity" below and the ICJ note.​
Relative to "self-determination:"
Came with the 1945 and becomes internationally binding with the Charter; in a faceted concept:  (Reenforced in 1974 as an inalienable right.)

Right to choose freely its political, economic, social, and cultural systems.
Right of a people to constitute itself in a state or otherwise freely determine the form of its association with an existing state.
Relative to "independence and sovereignty."
Came in 1974 when "self-determination" --- "without external interference" --- and "national independence and sovereignty" are linked together.  Again not yet applicable to the State of Palestine until 1988.​
Relative to "territorial integrity:"
Comes in 1988:  “The principle of territorial integrity is an important part of the international legal order and is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, in particular in Article 2, paragraph 4”[1] (the prohibition of the use of force), as well as in other important texts, including those on self-determination. The concept includes the inviolability of the territory of the State, including territory under the effective control and possession of a State. The International Court has held that “the scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined to the sphere of relations between States.”

SOURCE:  International Court of Justice, _Accordance with international law of the unilateral Declaration of Independence of Kosovo_, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports (2010), para. 80 (page 437)...

While the concept is recognized in the UN Charter, the ICJ says:  "Thus, the scope of the *principle of territorial integrity* is confined to the sphere of relations between States."  So, this is not applicable to the Arab Palestinians until they declare independence as "The State of Palestine."​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Greeneyedlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Palestine. It was a geographical region not a country.
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you that? Israel?
> 
> The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law,* which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State,* though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​
Click to expand...

Palestine became a sovereign state in 1988..








*Palestine* (Arabic: فلسطين‎ _Filasṭīn_, _Falasṭīn_, _Filisṭīn_; Greek: Παλαιστίνη, _Palaistinē_; Latin: _Palaestina_; Hebrew: פלשתינה _Palestina_) *is a geographic region* in Western Asia between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. It is sometimes considered to include adjoining territories. The name was used by Ancient Greek writers, and was later used for the Roman province Syria Palaestina, the Byzantine Palaestina Prima and the Umayyad and Abbasid province of Jund Filastin. The region is also known as the Land of Israel (Hebrew: ארץ־ישראל _Eretz-Yisra'el_), the Holy Land or Promised Land, and historically has been known as the Southern portion of wider regional designations such as the Levant, Canaan, Syria and as-Sham


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,
> 
> The recognition of these right came gradually over time.  There is no one specific date in which all of these rights became "obtained."  It came over a period between 1919 and 1916; as  previously stated in Posting #2467.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you could answer these older questions before we proceed. That would add relevance to the current discussion.
> 
> At what time did the Palestinians obtain these rights?
> 
> Under what circumstances were these rights obtained?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You asked about four (4) discrete rights:
> 
> self determination
> without external interference.
> independence and sovereignty
> territorial integrity
> Relative to "without external interference:"
> Came in 1919 with the concept on the Covenant that there is a difference between domestic disputes and international disputes; in which the  international community should remain silent on disputes having domestic jurisdiction.  Domestic jurisdiction is predicated on territorial integrity.  Thus, doesn't apply to the State of Palestine until 1988.  (See "territorial integrity" below and the ICJ note.​
> Relative to "self-determination:"
> Came with the 1945 and becomes internationally binding with the Charter; in a faceted concept:  (Reenforced in 1974 as an inalienable right.)
> 
> Right to choose freely its political, economic, social, and cultural systems.
> Right of a people to constitute itself in a state or otherwise freely determine the form of its association with an existing state.
> Relative to "independence and sovereignty."
> Came in 1974 when "self-determination" --- "without external interference" --- and "national independence and sovereignty" are linked together.  Again not yet applicable to the State of Palestine until 1988.​
> Relative to "territorial integrity:"
> Comes in 1988:  “The principle of territorial integrity is an important part of the international legal order and is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, in particular in Article 2, paragraph 4”[1] (the prohibition of the use of force), as well as in other important texts, including those on self-determination. The concept includes the inviolability of the territory of the State, including territory under the effective control and possession of a State. The International Court has held that “the scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined to the sphere of relations between States.”
> 
> SOURCE:  International Court of Justice, _Accordance with international law of the unilateral Declaration of Independence of Kosovo_, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports (2010), para. 80 (page 437)...
> 
> While the concept is recognized in the UN Charter, the ICJ says:  "Thus, the scope of the *principle of territorial integrity* is confined to the sphere of relations between States."  So, this is not applicable to the Arab Palestinians until they declare independence as "The State of Palestine."​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Your post conflicts with UN resolutions.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

In what way?



P F Tinmore said:


> Your post conflicts with UN resolutions.


(COMMENT)

HOW?

v/r
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> That is not what it means at all.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greeneyedlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Palestine. It was a geographical region not a country.
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you that? Israel?
> 
> The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law,* which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State,* though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(REMEMBER)*
> 
> Press Release PAL/138 27 February 1948
> 
> "Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.
> 
> "After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.
> 
> "Where the sovereignty of Palestine lies at the present time is a disputed and perhaps academic legal question about which writers have expressed a number of different conclusions. Where the sovereignty of Palestine will lie after the 15th May, 1948, is perhaps also a question on which different views will be held, but so far as His Majesty's Government are aware, it is a question which it is unnecessary to answer in connection with any practical issues.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could answer these older questions before we proceed. That would add relevance to the current discussion.

At what time did the Palestinians obtain these rights?

Under what circumstances were these rights obtained?


RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> In what way?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post conflicts with UN resolutions.
> 
> 
> 
> (COMMENT)
> 
> HOW?
> 
> v/r
> R
Click to expand...

You are connecting rights to 1988 when that is past the time stated in UN resolutions.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> That is not what it means at all.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greeneyedlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Palestine. It was a geographical region not a country.
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you that? Israel?
> 
> The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law,* which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State,* though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(REMEMBER)*
> 
> Press Release PAL/138 27 February 1948
> 
> "Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.
> 
> "After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.
> 
> "Where the sovereignty of Palestine lies at the present time is a disputed and perhaps academic legal question about which writers have expressed a number of different conclusions. Where the sovereignty of Palestine will lie after the 15th May, 1948, is perhaps also a question on which different views will be held, but so far as His Majesty's Government are aware, it is a question which it is unnecessary to answer in connection with any practical issues.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you could answer these older questions before we proceed. That would add relevance to the current discussion.
> 
> At what time did the Palestinians obtain these rights?
> 
> Under what circumstances were these rights obtained?
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> In what way?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post conflicts with UN resolutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (COMMENT)
> 
> HOW?
> 
> v/r
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are connecting rights to 1988 when that is past the time stated in UN resolutions.
Click to expand...


The Palestinians deserve & need a state of their own with self determination far away from Israel's brutal treatment of peace offerings, a security fence & land concessions.  A place where they no longer have to suck off of Israel to provide for them.  Do you think maybe Mecca would be a nice place for a Palestinian State?


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,
> 
> The recognition of these right came gradually over time.  There is no one specific date in which all of these rights became "obtained."  It came over a period between 1919 and 1916; as  previously stated in Posting #2467.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you could answer these older questions before we proceed. That would add relevance to the current discussion.
> 
> At what time did the Palestinians obtain these rights?
> 
> Under what circumstances were these rights obtained?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You asked about four (4) discrete rights:
> 
> self determination
> without external interference.
> independence and sovereignty
> territorial integrity
> Relative to "without external interference:"
> Came in 1919 with the concept on the Covenant that there is a difference between domestic disputes and international disputes; in which the  international community should remain silent on disputes having domestic jurisdiction.  Domestic jurisdiction is predicated on territorial integrity.  Thus, doesn't apply to the State of Palestine until 1988.  (See "territorial integrity" below and the ICJ note.​
> Relative to "self-determination:"
> Came with the 1945 and becomes internationally binding with the Charter; in a faceted concept:  (Reenforced in 1974 as an inalienable right.)
> 
> Right to choose freely its political, economic, social, and cultural systems.
> Right of a people to constitute itself in a state or otherwise freely determine the form of its association with an existing state.
> Relative to "independence and sovereignty."
> Came in 1974 when "self-determination" --- "without external interference" --- and "national independence and sovereignty" are linked together.  Again not yet applicable to the State of Palestine until 1988.​
> Relative to "territorial integrity:"
> Comes in 1988:  “The principle of territorial integrity is an important part of the international legal order and is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, in particular in Article 2, paragraph 4”[1] (the prohibition of the use of force), as well as in other important texts, including those on self-determination. The concept includes the inviolability of the territory of the State, including territory under the effective control and possession of a State. The International Court has held that “the scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined to the sphere of relations between States.”
> 
> SOURCE:  International Court of Justice, _Accordance with international law of the unilateral Declaration of Independence of Kosovo_, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports (2010), para. 80 (page 437)...
> 
> While the concept is recognized in the UN Charter, the ICJ says:  "Thus, the scope of the *principle of territorial integrity* is confined to the sphere of relations between States."  So, this is not applicable to the Arab Palestinians until they declare independence as "The State of Palestine."​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your post conflicts with UN resolutions.
Click to expand...

Do you realize what you're doing, Tinmore? You're helping Rocco sharpen his wit while your wit is about as dull as a bowling ball. Lay on, MacDuff.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, good observation.



P F Tinmore said:


> You are connecting rights to 1988 when that is past the time stated in UN resolutions.


*(COMMENT)*

There are a couple reasons for that.

1.  Prior to 1988, and after 1950, the Palestinian People exercised their right of self-determination:

On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the *Palestinian Arabs* of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament *unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks* of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.

In General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), entitled “Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”, which reflects customary international law (Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, pp. 101-103, paras. 191-193), the General Assembly reiterated “[t]he principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State”. This resolution then enumerated various obligations incumbent upon States to refrain from violating the territorial integrity of other sovereign States. In the same vein, the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe of 1 August 1975 (the Helsinki Conference) stipulated that “[t]he participating States will respect the territorial integrity of each of the participating States” (Art. IV). *Thus, the scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined to the sphere of relations between States.  *The Palestinians did not declare independence as a "state" until 1988. 

Prior to 1974, there was no common voice speaking with legal competence and authority for the Palestinian People.
2.  The 1996 General Assembly Resolution 50/172. Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes --- mention the Palestinians only once:

Reaffirming also, in this context, the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
It is the 1997 General Assembly Resolution 51/190. Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources... which speaks directly to the Palestinian situation.  And it is guided by the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, affirming the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, and recalling Security Council resolutions, including:

UN Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 (sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence)
  √  At the time of this Resolution, Israel was the Occupying Power over Jordanian Sovereign territory.
UN Security Council Resolution  446 (1979) of 22 March 1979, (Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention)
  √  At the time and still today, the Palestinian Jihadist and Fedayeen argue the validity of the Geneva Convention, as it contains penalties for attacks on the Occupation Power.
  √  There is an argument to be made that Israel does not Occupy the Gaza Strip, or Areas "A" and "B" - West Bank, by the definition of Article 42 of the Hague Convention.
UN Security Council Resolutions 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980,
  √  _Deeply concerned_ over the practices of the Israeli authorities in implementing that settlement policy in the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem,
UN Security Council Resolutions 497 (1981) of 17 December 1981,
  √  _Decides_ that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void.

No representative of the Palestinian People had made a bid, on behalf of the Palestinian People, for Independence and Sovereignty through the right of self-determination without external influence prior to 1988.  And only UNSC Resolution 242, speaks to "sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence" issues --- but does not specifically apply them to the Arab Palestinian.

I am not sure which particular Resolution you had in mind when you say: "is past the time stated in UN resolutions."  But even UNSC 242 does not specifically grant the Palestinians any special recognition.  The Palestinians are not mentioned once. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

MJB12741,  et al,

Too funny!



MJB12741 said:


> The Palestinians deserve & need a state of their own with self determination far away from Israel's brutal treatment of peace offerings, a security fence & land concessions.  A place where they no longer have to suck off of Israel to provide for them.  Do you think maybe Mecca would be a nice place for a Palestinian State?


*(COMMENT)*

I don't think any Arab Nation wants to see an influx of Arab Palestinians.  By reputation, they bite the hand of anyone that feeds them.  Just ask the Hashemite Kingdom.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Yes, good observation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are connecting rights to 1988 when that is past the time stated in UN resolutions.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are a couple reasons for that.
> 
> 1.  Prior to 1988, and after 1950, the Palestinian People exercised their right of self-determination:
> 
> On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the *Palestinian Arabs* of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament *unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks* of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.
> 
> In General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), entitled “Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”, which reflects customary international law (Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, pp. 101-103, paras. 191-193), the General Assembly reiterated “[t]he principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State”. This resolution then enumerated various obligations incumbent upon States to refrain from violating the territorial integrity of other sovereign States. In the same vein, the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe of 1 August 1975 (the Helsinki Conference) stipulated that “[t]he participating States will respect the territorial integrity of each of the participating States” (Art. IV). *Thus, the scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined to the sphere of relations between States.  *The Palestinians did not declare independence as a "state" until 1988.
> 
> Prior to 1974, there was no common voice speaking with legal competence and authority for the Palestinian People.
> 2.  The 1996 General Assembly Resolution 50/172. Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes --- mention the Palestinians only once:
> 
> Reaffirming also, in this context, the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
> It is the 1997 General Assembly Resolution 51/190. Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources... which speaks directly to the Palestinian situation.  And it is guided by the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, affirming the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, and recalling Security Council resolutions, including:
> 
> UN Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 (sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence)
> √  At the time of this Resolution, Israel was the Occupying Power over Jordanian Sovereign territory.
> UN Security Council Resolution  446 (1979) of 22 March 1979, (Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention)
> √  At the time and still today, the Palestinian Jihadist and Fedayeen argue the validity of the Geneva Convention, as it contains penalties for attacks on the Occupation Power.
> √  There is an argument to be made that Israel does not Occupy the Gaza Strip, or Areas "A" and "B" - West Bank, by the definition of Article 42 of the Hague Convention.
> UN Security Council Resolutions 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980,
> √  _Deeply concerned_ over the practices of the Israeli authorities in implementing that settlement policy in the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem,
> UN Security Council Resolutions 497 (1981) of 17 December 1981,
> √  _Decides_ that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void.
> 
> No representative of the Palestinian People had made a bid, on behalf of the Palestinian People, for Independence and Sovereignty through the right of self-determination without external influence prior to 1988.  And only UNSC Resolution 242, speaks to "sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence" issues --- but does not specifically apply them to the Arab Palestinian.
> 
> I am not sure which particular Resolution you had in mind when you say: "is past the time stated in UN resolutions."  But even UNSC 242 does not specifically grant the Palestinians any special recognition.  The Palestinians are not mentioned once.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


"No representative of the Palestinian People had made a bid, on behalf of the Palestinian People, for Independence and Sovereignty through the right of self-determination without external influence prior to 1988."

As usual, Rocco, you either don't know what you are talking about, or you are a pathological liar.


*[Cmd. 1700.]
PALESTINE.*
CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE PALESTINE ARAB
DELEGATION AND THE ZIONIST ORGANISATION.​
No. 1.
*The Palestine Arab Delegation to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.*


HOTEL CECIL,
London, W.C.,
*February 21st, 1922.*
Sir,
We wish to express our thanks to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for his courtesy in allowing us to see the draft of a proposed Palestine Order in Council embodying a scheme of Government for Palestine, and to discuss the same *in our capacity of representatives of the Arab People of Palestine.*




We would, therefore, submit the following observations:—

Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.
If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist _con-dominium, _put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. *If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration.*

We, therefore, hold that the proposed constitution is wholly unsatisfactory, because:—




_(a) _In the preamble to the Palestine Order in Council "the declaration of November 2nd, 1917, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People" is made a basis for this Order; the People of Palestine cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion.
(b) In Articles 4-9 of the Order dealing with the manner of appointment of the High Commissioner and his powers, Palestine is considered as a colony of the lowest order, whereas according to paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, Palestine comes under Grade A, where "certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone."

(c) The Executive, dealt with in Articles 10-16, is in no way responsible to the Legislative Council.


_(d) _Articles 17-28 dealing with the Legislative Council prescribe that this Council "shall consist of 25 members in addition to the High Commissioner"—"who shall exercise a casting vote, in case of an equality of votes." This brings the total number of votes to 27. Of these, 10 shall be official members holding office under the High Commissioner, and two members shall be nominated by him. Thus the High Commissioner commands 14 out of the 27 votes. Of the 12 elected members there will probably be 10 or 11 that would represent the Arab majority, who would be unable to carry any measure against the official preponderance of votes.
It is thus apparent that too much power is given to a High Commissioner whom we will suppose is impartial. But when, as is the case with the present High Commissioner, he is a Zionist, _i.e. _a member of the organisation which is prompting the flood of alien Jew immigration into Palestine, whose officials as well as those members appointed by him must, naturally, carry out his policy, and when one or two of the 12 elected members will most probably be Zionists, then the Zionist policy of the Government will be carried out under a constitutional guise, whereas at present it is illegal, against the rights and wishes of the people, and maintained by force of arms alone.
Article 22 gives the High Commissioner the power at any time to prorogue or dissolve the Council, without the provision that he must call a new Council within a stated time.

Article 23 gives the High Commissioner the right to veto any measure passed by the Council.

We further submit in this connection that it is not in keeping with the constitutional spirit to place the Head of the Executive at the head of the Legislative and to introduce into this latter, as members, officials of the State. This invariably leads to the Executive becoming arbitrary since it is placed in the position of accused and judge at the same time.

We also notice with astonishment that 10 members constitute a _quorum. _This is less than half the total number of Members, and makes it possible for the 10 official members to carry on the work of legislation should circumstances, for any reason whatever, prevent the other members from being present. In which case the power of the Legislative Council becomes a mere shadow and not a reality.




(e) By the provisions of Articles 33, 46 and 67, Palestine is considered as a Crown Colony, and the High Commissioner as the Governor of a Colony or British possession with the rights of confirming sentences of death, of deporting any person without trial and without allowing that person the right of appeal against the order for deportation.
(f) The recognition of Hebrew as an official language of the State as in Article 80 is another proof of the desire to foster Zionist nationalism in Palestine, when only about 10 per cent, of the present Jewish inhabitants of the country speak that language. This innovation is wholly unwarranted and adds to the expenses of the State, which derives its main revenues from the Arab population.

_(g) _The High Commissioner by Article 81 is given the power to obstruct any appeal to the League of Nations.

_(h) _Lastly, we read in Article 83 that the High Commissioner may, after obtaining the approval of the Secretary of State, vary, annul or add to the provisions of this Order in Council. These powers of the High Commissioner render this Order in Council as if it had not been.

For these reasons we find that no useful purpose would be served by discussing in detail the draft of "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
The Delegation requests that the constitution for Palestine should—




(1) Safeguard the civil, political and economic interests of the People.
*(2) Provide for the creation of a national independent Government in accordance with the spirit of paragraph 4, Article 22, of the Covenant of the League of Nations.*

(3) Safeguard the legal rights of foreigners.

(4) Guarantee religious equality to all peoples.

(5) Guarantee the rights of minorities.

(6) Guarantee the rights of the Assisting Power.

The Delegation is quite confident that the justice of the British Government and its sense of fair play will make it consider the above remarks with a sympathetic mind, since the Delegation's chief object is to lay in Palestine the foundation of a stable Government that would command the respect of the inhabitants and guarantee peace and prosperity to all.
The Delegation would request, in conclusion, that the Secretary of State would be good enough to communicate to them his views on their remarks and the next step to be taken in the matter.



We have, &c.,

for THE PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION,

*MOUSSA KAZIM EL HUSSEINI, President.*

*SHIBLY JAMAL, *_Secretary._

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


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

With you, the word "liar" comes quite easy to use; and often out of context.



montelatici said:


> "No representative of the Palestinian People had made a bid, on behalf of the Palestinian People, for Independence and Sovereignty through the right of self-determination without external influence prior to 1988."
> 
> As usual, Rocco, you either don't know what you are talking about, or you are a pathological liar.
> 
> 
> *[Cmd. 1700.]
> PALESTINE.*
> CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE PALESTINE ARAB
> DELEGATION AND THE ZIONIST ORGANISATION.​
> ......
> 
> for THE PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION,
> 
> *MOUSSA KAZIM EL HUSSEINI, President.*
> 
> *SHIBLY JAMAL, *_Secretary._
> 
> - See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922


*(COMMENT)*

This trilateral correspondence does not constitute a bid for Independence and Sovereignty.  However, there is such a later announcement from "Husseini and Company" that is a flawed quasi-bid for independence.   The All-Palestine Government (APG) was established by the Arab League on 22 September 1948 during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War _(dissolved in 1959 by decree of Egyptian President Nasser)_.

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

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

28 September 1948


I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES
AHMED HILMI PASHA
PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​​The APG *President* - 1948 Hajj Amin al-Husseini _(former __Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Member of the Arab Higher Committee and in the same family line as Moussa Kasim al-Husseini)_  --- and --- APG *Prime Minister *- 1948 Ahmed Hilmi Pasha.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> With you, the word "liar" comes quite easy to use; and often out of context.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "No representative of the Palestinian People had made a bid, on behalf of the Palestinian People, for Independence and Sovereignty through the right of self-determination without external influence prior to 1988."
> 
> As usual, Rocco, you either don't know what you are talking about, or you are a pathological liar.
> 
> *[Cmd. 1700.]
> PALESTINE.*
> CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE PALESTINE ARAB
> DELEGATION AND THE ZIONIST ORGANISATION.​
> ......
> 
> for THE PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION,
> 
> *MOUSSA KAZIM EL HUSSEINI, President.*
> 
> *SHIBLY JAMAL, *_Secretary._
> 
> - See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This trilateral correspondence does not constitute a bid for Independence and Sovereignty.  However, there is such a later announcement from "Husseini and Company" that is a flawed quasi-bid for independence.   The All-Palestine Government (APG) was established by the Arab League on 22 September 1948 during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War _(dissolved in 1959 by decree of Egyptian President Nasser)_.
> 
> *PALESTINE PROGRESS REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS
> MEDIATOR ON PALESTINE*
> 
> *CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
> ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
> CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT*​
> 
> 28 September 1948
> 
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES
> AHMED HILMI PASHA
> PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​​The APG *President* - 1948 Hajj Amin al-Husseini _(former __Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Member of the Arab Higher Committee and in the family line as Moussa Kasim al-Husseini)_  --- and --- APG *Prime Minister *- 1948 Ahmed Hilmi Pasha.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Why do you call this a flawed quasi-bid for independence? It is considerably more legitimate than the foreigners declaring a state inside Palestine.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes, well --- when all is said and done, this is a manifestation of the actual Arab-Palestinian and Israeli dispute.



P F Tinmore said:


> Why do you call this a flawed quasi-bid for independence? It is considerably more legitimate than the foreigners declaring a state inside Palestine.


*(COMMENT)*

Whether we speak of the original complaint by the Arab Higher Committee, the view of the All-Palestine Government, or the political position of the various contemporary Arab Palestinian organizations that gave rise to the Jihadist and Fedayeen --- the:

Israeli position is that they established the State of Israeli by following the Steps Preparatory to Independence; and fully coordinated with the appropriate UN agencies.

The Arab Palestinian believe that the authority exercised by the Council to the League of Nations, the Allied Powers, and the successor organizations of the UN was and is ---  invalid.

The Arab Palestinian believes that the entirety of the territory formerly under the authority of the Mandate for Palestine is Arab, and that Arab are the only entity that can legitimately exercise government control and sovereignty over the territory.​But the Israeli Government successfully fought both a limited Civil War (_with the indigenous Arab population)_, and a War of Independence _(with the adjacent Arab States)_.  The successful defense of the right to self determination has never been accepted by the Arab Palestinian.  And that is the basis of the continuing conflict between the Arab and Israeli.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, well --- when all is said and done, this is a manifestation of the actual Arab-Palestinian and Israeli dispute.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you call this a flawed quasi-bid for independence? It is considerably more legitimate than the foreigners declaring a state inside Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Whether we speak of the original complaint by the Arab Higher Committee, the view of the All-Palestine Government, or the political position of the various contemporary Arab Palestinian organizations that gave rise to the Jihadist and Fedayeen --- the:
> 
> Israeli position is that they established the State of Israeli by following the Steps Preparatory to Independence; and fully coordinated with the appropriate UN agencies.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian believe that the authority exercised by the Council to the League of Nations, the Allied Powers, and the successor organizations of the UN was and is ---  invalid.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian believes that the entirety of the territory formerly under the authority of the Mandate for Palestine is Arab, and that Arab are the only entity that can legitimately exercise government control and sovereignty over the territory.​But the Israeli Government successfully fought both a limited Civil War (_with the indigenous Arab population)_, and a War of Independence _(with the adjacent Arab States)_.  The successful defense of the right to self determination has never been accepted by the Arab Palestinian.  And that is the basis of the continuing conflict between the Arab and Israeli.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

But the Israeli Government successfully fought both a limited Civil War (_with the indigenous Arab population)_, and a War of Independence _(with the adjacent Arab States)_.  The successful defense of the right to self determination has never been accepted by the Arab Palestinian.  And that is the basis of the continuing conflict between the Arab and Israeli.​
It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.

A war with the "indigenous Arab population" is a civil war? That's nuts.

BTW, you have never explained how foreigners get the right to self determination in another country.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I think you misunderstand the application.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the Israeli Government successfully fought both a limited Civil War (_with the indigenous Arab population)_, and a War of Independence _(with the adjacent Arab States)_.  The successful defense of the right to self determination has never been accepted by the Arab Palestinian.  And that is the basis of the continuing conflict between the Arab and Israeli.​
> 
> 
> 
> ​It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.
> 
> A war with the "indigenous Arab population" is a civil war? That's nuts.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The international restriction on the acquisition of territory by the use of force, does not apply to domestic and internal conflicts (civil wars).  The establishment of the Jewish State pursuant to the UN Steps Preparatory to Independence is not a use of force.  The intervention of the Arab States is an act of aggression and considered a form of "external interference" in the domestic affairs.

Consider:

The 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine was the first phase of the 1948 Palestine war.
Lashing Back - Israel’s 1947-1948 Civil War 
UN Partition Plan Facilitates Civil War​The idea that  "the war commenced upon the termination of the British Mandate of Palestine and the Israeli declaration of independence on 15 May 1948, following a period of civil war in 1947–1948" is not an isolated thought.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This is almost too simple.



P F Tinmore said:


> BTW, you have never explained how foreigners get the right to self determination in another country.


*(COMMENT)*

The right to self determination is universal.  It applies equally to every group.

The establishment of the Jewish State of Israel was predicated on General Assembly authorization in the execution of the Steps Preparatory to Independence.  The same authority that wrote the principles of self-determination established the authority for Israeli to exercise its self-determination and this same authority recognized the establishment of the state.

The Israelis were considered citizens of the Territory under Mandate.  They were not considered foreigners in another country.

The UN recognized the right of self-determination, set the Steps Preparatory to Independence, and helped coordinate the announcement.  It ultimately d_ecided_ to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is almost too simple.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, you have never explained how foreigners get the right to self determination in another country.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The right to self determination is universal.  It applies equally to every group.
> 
> The establishment of the Jewish State of Israel was predicated on General Assembly authorization in the execution of the Steps Preparatory to Independence.  The same authority that wrote the principles of self-determination established the authority for Israeli to exercise its self-determination and this same authority recognized the establishment of the state.
> 
> The Israelis were considered citizens of the Territory under Mandate.  They were not considered foreigners in another country.
> 
> The UN recognized the right of self-determination, set the Steps Preparatory to Independence, and helped coordinate the announcement.  It ultimately d_ecided_ to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


_"The right to self determination is universal. It applies equally to every group."_

But not at the expense of another group. Too simple.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I think you misunderstand the application.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the Israeli Government successfully fought both a limited Civil War (_with the indigenous Arab population)_, and a War of Independence _(with the adjacent Arab States)_.  The successful defense of the right to self determination has never been accepted by the Arab Palestinian.  And that is the basis of the continuing conflict between the Arab and Israeli.​
> 
> 
> 
> ​It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.
> 
> A war with the "indigenous Arab population" is a civil war? That's nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The international restriction on the acquisition of territory by the use of force, does not apply to domestic and internal conflicts (civil wars).  The establishment of the Jewish State pursuant to the UN Steps Preparatory to Independence is not a use of force.  The intervention of the Arab States is an act of aggression and considered a form of "external interference" in the domestic affairs.
> 
> Consider:
> 
> The 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine was the first phase of the 1948 Palestine war.
> Lashing Back - Israel’s 1947-1948 Civil War
> UN Partition Plan Facilitates Civil War​The idea that  "the war commenced upon the termination of the British Mandate of Palestine and the Israeli declaration of independence on 15 May 1948, following a period of civil war in 1947–1948" is not an isolated thought.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Fighting between the natives and foreign colonial settlers is not a civil war no matter how many times the liars say it.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is almost too simple.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, you have never explained how foreigners get the right to self determination in another country.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The right to self determination is universal.  It applies equally to every group.
> 
> The establishment of the Jewish State of Israel was predicated on General Assembly authorization in the execution of the Steps Preparatory to Independence.  The same authority that wrote the principles of self-determination established the authority for Israeli to exercise its self-determination and this same authority recognized the establishment of the state.
> 
> The Israelis were considered citizens of the Territory under Mandate.  They were not considered foreigners in another country.
> 
> The UN recognized the right of self-determination, set the Steps Preparatory to Independence, and helped coordinate the announcement.  It ultimately d_ecided_ to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

So the French have the self determination right to set up camp in Britain?


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al, 

This presumption results in a principle of _prima facie_ equal distribution for all distributable goods. A strict principle of equal distribution is not required, but it is morally necessary to justify impartially any unequal distribution. The burden of proof lies on the side of those who favor any form of unequal distribution.

Reaffirms that the universal realization of the right of all peoples, including those under colonial, foreign and alien domination, to
self-determination is a fundamental condition for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights and for the preservation and promotion of such
rights;  _*SOURCE:*_ General Assembly Resolution 49/148. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination​
However, it is not correct to suggest that that the "right of self-determination" automatically implies "not at the expense of another group."  That is a moral necessity, not articulated.  The mandate to establish a Jewish National Home was a variation on the concept of "affirmative action" for a minority group.



montelatici said:


> _
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The right to self determination is universal. It applies equally to every group."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> But not at the expense of another group. Too simple.


*(COMMENT)*

"Not at the expense of another group" is NOT represented in the stipulation of the Mandate.   The Mandate says: "being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights."  These are restricted limitations --- specifically articulated and targeted --- as they were understood in 1922:

Civil Rights:  In 1922, civil rights varied between countries.  Laws on discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, handicap, or national origin had not been written yet.   While the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) would not be written for another four decades (1966); and would not enter into force for another decade (1976); 1922 was the year the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH).
Religious Rights:  Which pertains to the freedom of religion or belief and to the rights of religious minorities. 
Other forms of rights had not yet been set to paper.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

The immigration and steps preparatory to independence were specifically established by the Allied Powers and League of Nations to apply affirmative action in the establishment of the Jewish National Home.



P F Tinmore said:


> So the French have the self determination right to set up camp in Britain?


*(COMMENT)*

If the French had a similar mandate in their favor for the UK _(by the Allied Powers and United Nations)_ and were able to successful defend their right to self-determination in a War for Independence, then yes.  But it is unlikely that the French will ever be evicted from France and forced to establish a new home -- a French National Home.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Yes, good observation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are connecting rights to 1988 when that is past the time stated in UN resolutions.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are a couple reasons for that.
> 
> 1.  Prior to 1988, and after 1950, the Palestinian People exercised their right of self-determination:
> 
> On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the *Palestinian Arabs* of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament *unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks* of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.
> 
> In General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), entitled “Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”, which reflects customary international law (Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, pp. 101-103, paras. 191-193), the General Assembly reiterated “[t]he principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State”. This resolution then enumerated various obligations incumbent upon States to refrain from violating the territorial integrity of other sovereign States. In the same vein, the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe of 1 August 1975 (the Helsinki Conference) stipulated that “[t]he participating States will respect the territorial integrity of each of the participating States” (Art. IV). *Thus, the scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined to the sphere of relations between States.  *The Palestinians did not declare independence as a "state" until 1988.
> 
> Prior to 1974, there was no common voice speaking with legal competence and authority for the Palestinian People.
> 2.  The 1996 General Assembly Resolution 50/172. Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes --- mention the Palestinians only once:
> 
> Reaffirming also, in this context, the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
> It is the 1997 General Assembly Resolution 51/190. Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources... which speaks directly to the Palestinian situation.  And it is guided by the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, affirming the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, and recalling Security Council resolutions, including:
> 
> UN Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 (sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence)
> √  At the time of this Resolution, Israel was the Occupying Power over Jordanian Sovereign territory.
> UN Security Council Resolution  446 (1979) of 22 March 1979, (Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention)
> √  At the time and still today, the Palestinian Jihadist and Fedayeen argue the validity of the Geneva Convention, as it contains penalties for attacks on the Occupation Power.
> √  There is an argument to be made that Israel does not Occupy the Gaza Strip, or Areas "A" and "B" - West Bank, by the definition of Article 42 of the Hague Convention.
> UN Security Council Resolutions 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980,
> √  _Deeply concerned_ over the practices of the Israeli authorities in implementing that settlement policy in the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem,
> UN Security Council Resolutions 497 (1981) of 17 December 1981,
> √  _Decides_ that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void.
> 
> No representative of the Palestinian People had made a bid, on behalf of the Palestinian People, for Independence and Sovereignty through the right of self-determination without external influence prior to 1988.  And only UNSC Resolution 242, speaks to "sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence" issues --- but does not specifically apply them to the Arab Palestinian.
> 
> I am not sure which particular Resolution you had in mind when you say: "is past the time stated in UN resolutions."  But even UNSC 242 does not specifically grant the Palestinians any special recognition.  The Palestinians are not mentioned once.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "No representative of the Palestinian People had made a bid, on behalf of the Palestinian People, for Independence and Sovereignty through the right of self-determination without external influence prior to 1988."
> 
> As usual, Rocco, you either don't know what you are talking about, or you are a pathological liar.
> 
> 
> *[Cmd. 1700.]
> PALESTINE.*
> CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE PALESTINE ARAB
> DELEGATION AND THE ZIONIST ORGANISATION.​
> No. 1.
> *The Palestine Arab Delegation to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.*
> 
> 
> HOTEL CECIL,
> London, W.C.,
> *February 21st, 1922.*
> Sir,
> We wish to express our thanks to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for his courtesy in allowing us to see the draft of a proposed Palestine Order in Council embodying a scheme of Government for Palestine, and to discuss the same *in our capacity of representatives of the Arab People of Palestine.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We would, therefore, submit the following observations:—
> 
> Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.
> If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist _con-dominium, _put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. *If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration.*
> 
> We, therefore, hold that the proposed constitution is wholly unsatisfactory, because:—
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _(a) _In the preamble to the Palestine Order in Council "the declaration of November 2nd, 1917, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People" is made a basis for this Order; the People of Palestine cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion.
> (b) In Articles 4-9 of the Order dealing with the manner of appointment of the High Commissioner and his powers, Palestine is considered as a colony of the lowest order, whereas according to paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, Palestine comes under Grade A, where "certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone."
> 
> (c) The Executive, dealt with in Articles 10-16, is in no way responsible to the Legislative Council.
> 
> 
> _(d) _Articles 17-28 dealing with the Legislative Council prescribe that this Council "shall consist of 25 members in addition to the High Commissioner"—"who shall exercise a casting vote, in case of an equality of votes." This brings the total number of votes to 27. Of these, 10 shall be official members holding office under the High Commissioner, and two members shall be nominated by him. Thus the High Commissioner commands 14 out of the 27 votes. Of the 12 elected members there will probably be 10 or 11 that would represent the Arab majority, who would be unable to carry any measure against the official preponderance of votes.
> It is thus apparent that too much power is given to a High Commissioner whom we will suppose is impartial. But when, as is the case with the present High Commissioner, he is a Zionist, _i.e. _a member of the organisation which is prompting the flood of alien Jew immigration into Palestine, whose officials as well as those members appointed by him must, naturally, carry out his policy, and when one or two of the 12 elected members will most probably be Zionists, then the Zionist policy of the Government will be carried out under a constitutional guise, whereas at present it is illegal, against the rights and wishes of the people, and maintained by force of arms alone.
> Article 22 gives the High Commissioner the power at any time to prorogue or dissolve the Council, without the provision that he must call a new Council within a stated time.
> 
> Article 23 gives the High Commissioner the right to veto any measure passed by the Council.
> 
> We further submit in this connection that it is not in keeping with the constitutional spirit to place the Head of the Executive at the head of the Legislative and to introduce into this latter, as members, officials of the State. This invariably leads to the Executive becoming arbitrary since it is placed in the position of accused and judge at the same time.
> 
> We also notice with astonishment that 10 members constitute a _quorum. _This is less than half the total number of Members, and makes it possible for the 10 official members to carry on the work of legislation should circumstances, for any reason whatever, prevent the other members from being present. In which case the power of the Legislative Council becomes a mere shadow and not a reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (e) By the provisions of Articles 33, 46 and 67, Palestine is considered as a Crown Colony, and the High Commissioner as the Governor of a Colony or British possession with the rights of confirming sentences of death, of deporting any person without trial and without allowing that person the right of appeal against the order for deportation.
> (f) The recognition of Hebrew as an official language of the State as in Article 80 is another proof of the desire to foster Zionist nationalism in Palestine, when only about 10 per cent, of the present Jewish inhabitants of the country speak that language. This innovation is wholly unwarranted and adds to the expenses of the State, which derives its main revenues from the Arab population.
> 
> _(g) _The High Commissioner by Article 81 is given the power to obstruct any appeal to the League of Nations.
> 
> _(h) _Lastly, we read in Article 83 that the High Commissioner may, after obtaining the approval of the Secretary of State, vary, annul or add to the provisions of this Order in Council. These powers of the High Commissioner render this Order in Council as if it had not been.
> 
> For these reasons we find that no useful purpose would be served by discussing in detail the draft of "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
> The Delegation requests that the constitution for Palestine should—
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (1) Safeguard the civil, political and economic interests of the People.
> *(2) Provide for the creation of a national independent Government in accordance with the spirit of paragraph 4, Article 22, of the Covenant of the League of Nations.*
> 
> (3) Safeguard the legal rights of foreigners.
> 
> (4) Guarantee religious equality to all peoples.
> 
> (5) Guarantee the rights of minorities.
> 
> (6) Guarantee the rights of the Assisting Power.
> 
> The Delegation is quite confident that the justice of the British Government and its sense of fair play will make it consider the above remarks with a sympathetic mind, since the Delegation's chief object is to lay in Palestine the foundation of a stable Government that would command the respect of the inhabitants and guarantee peace and prosperity to all.
> The Delegation would request, in conclusion, that the Secretary of State would be good enough to communicate to them his views on their remarks and the next step to be taken in the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> We have, &c.,
> 
> for THE PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION,
> 
> *MOUSSA KAZIM EL HUSSEINI, President.*
> 
> *SHIBLY JAMAL, *_Secretary._
> 
> - See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
Click to expand...



*As usual, Rocco, you either don't know what you are talking about, or you are a pathological liar.*

This just proves what a massive piece of trash you are. Rocco only posts facts backed up with plenty of documents. Out of all the posters here, it's incredibly unusual that you would call Rocco a liar.
If you can't handle the truth, then you shouldn't be here...


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, well --- when all is said and done, this is a manifestation of the actual Arab-Palestinian and Israeli dispute.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you call this a flawed quasi-bid for independence? It is considerably more legitimate than the foreigners declaring a state inside Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Whether we speak of the original complaint by the Arab Higher Committee, the view of the All-Palestine Government, or the political position of the various contemporary Arab Palestinian organizations that gave rise to the Jihadist and Fedayeen --- the:
> 
> Israeli position is that they established the State of Israeli by following the Steps Preparatory to Independence; and fully coordinated with the appropriate UN agencies.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian believe that the authority exercised by the Council to the League of Nations, the Allied Powers, and the successor organizations of the UN was and is ---  invalid.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian believes that the entirety of the territory formerly under the authority of the Mandate for Palestine is Arab, and that Arab are the only entity that can legitimately exercise government control and sovereignty over the territory.​But the Israeli Government successfully fought both a limited Civil War (_with the indigenous Arab population)_, and a War of Independence _(with the adjacent Arab States)_.  The successful defense of the right to self determination has never been accepted by the Arab Palestinian.  And that is the basis of the continuing conflict between the Arab and Israeli.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the Israeli Government successfully fought both a limited Civil War (_with the indigenous Arab population)_, and a War of Independence _(with the adjacent Arab States)_.  The successful defense of the right to self determination has never been accepted by the Arab Palestinian.  And that is the basis of the continuing conflict between the Arab and Israeli.​
> It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.
> 
> A war with the "indigenous Arab population" is a civil war? That's nuts.
> 
> *BTW, you have never explained how foreigners get the right to self determination in another country*.
Click to expand...



All he does is explain things to you.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

The Palestine Order in Council and the 1925 Citizenship Order established who were citizens and who were not.  Relative to the interpretation "civil war" --- that a "war between citizens of the same country" is a Civil War.



P F Tinmore said:


> Fighting between the natives and foreign colonial settlers is not a civil war no matter how many times the liars say it.


*(COMMENT)*

It is recognized that the Arab Palestinians are xenophobic; especially when considering the Jewish.  Relative to 

The General Assembly, by Resolution 52/111 of 12 December 1997, decided to convene a World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, *Xenophobia* and Related Intolerance no later than 2001.    

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I think you misunderstand the application.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the Israeli Government successfully fought both a limited Civil War (_with the indigenous Arab population)_, and a War of Independence _(with the adjacent Arab States)_.  The successful defense of the right to self determination has never been accepted by the Arab Palestinian.  And that is the basis of the continuing conflict between the Arab and Israeli.​
> 
> 
> 
> ​It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.
> 
> A war with the "indigenous Arab population" is a civil war? That's nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The international restriction on the acquisition of territory by the use of force, does not apply to domestic and internal conflicts (civil wars).  The establishment of the Jewish State pursuant to the UN Steps Preparatory to Independence is not a use of force.  The intervention of the Arab States is an act of aggression and considered a form of "external interference" in the domestic affairs.
> 
> Consider:
> 
> The 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine was the first phase of the 1948 Palestine war.
> Lashing Back - Israel’s 1947-1948 Civil War
> UN Partition Plan Facilitates Civil War​The idea that  "the war commenced upon the termination of the British Mandate of Palestine and the Israeli declaration of independence on 15 May 1948, following a period of civil war in 1947–1948" is not an isolated thought.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fighting between the natives and foreign colonial settlers is not a civil war no matter how many times the liars say it.
Click to expand...


No matter how hard you try Tinmore , you cannot change history or change the rules. It absolutely was a civil war.

The belligerents were Jewish residents of Mandatory Palestine plus European Zionists vs. Arab residents of Mandatory Palestine plus Arab militas from surrounding countries.
Every article calls it a civil war. Unless you have proof of otherwise. 


BTW, the word 'colonial' is part of the Palestinian propaganda campaign


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I think you misunderstand the application.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the Israeli Government successfully fought both a limited Civil War (_with the indigenous Arab population)_, and a War of Independence _(with the adjacent Arab States)_.  The successful defense of the right to self determination has never been accepted by the Arab Palestinian.  And that is the basis of the continuing conflict between the Arab and Israeli.​
> 
> 
> 
> ​It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.
> 
> A war with the "indigenous Arab population" is a civil war? That's nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The international restriction on the acquisition of territory by the use of force, does not apply to domestic and internal conflicts (civil wars).  The establishment of the Jewish State pursuant to the UN Steps Preparatory to Independence is not a use of force.  The intervention of the Arab States is an act of aggression and considered a form of "external interference" in the domestic affairs.
> 
> Consider:
> 
> The 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine was the first phase of the 1948 Palestine war.
> Lashing Back - Israel’s 1947-1948 Civil War
> UN Partition Plan Facilitates Civil War​The idea that  "the war commenced upon the termination of the British Mandate of Palestine and the Israeli declaration of independence on 15 May 1948, following a period of civil war in 1947–1948" is not an isolated thought.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fighting between the natives and foreign colonial settlers is not a civil war no matter how many times the liars say it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter how hard you try Tinmore , you cannot change history or change the rules. It absolutely was a civil war.
> 
> The belligerents were Jewish residents of Mandatory Palestine plus European Zionists vs. Arab residents of Mandatory Palestine plus Arab militas from surrounding countries.
> Every article calls it a civil war. Unless you have proof of otherwise.
> 
> 
> BTW, the word 'colonial' is part of the Palestinian propaganda campaign​
Click to expand...


When Churchill 1921 Colonial Secretary was, he demanded Meinertzhagen for the Middle East Department at (Palestine was not really a colony, so was under no formal jurisdiction of Churchill, but the creation of a Middle East Department was one of the power struggles, with which Churchill expanded its influence). His desk was right next to that of TE Lawrence. From this time a friendship with Harry-St. John Bridger Philby – British adviser to the late founder of Saudi Arabia, Ibn Saud and bird lovers as Meinertzhagen – which actually was considered a violent anti-Semite. Meinertzhagen was sort of a liaison officer of the War Department in the Colonial Office and was responsible for budget and logistics of the military government of Palestine. In June 1922, Churchill asked him to talk, because apparently information was passed from the *Ministry of the Zionist colonial office in London.* Meinertzhagen denied to have been the leak, but subsequently he was employed only with subordinate activities.

Richard Meinertzhagen World War II​
Hmmm, everyone says civil war.

Everyone says that:

The Arab countries attacked Israel. That is a lie.

The Arabs lost the 1948 war. That is a lie.

Salem Fayyad was the PM of Palestine. That is a lie.

Hamas took control of Gaza from the PA in 2007. That is a lie.

Why would I believe that foreign militias attacking Palestinian civilians be a "civil war?"


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> This presumption results in a principle of _prima facie_ equal distribution for all distributable goods. A strict principle of equal distribution is not required, but it is morally necessary to justify impartially any unequal distribution. The burden of proof lies on the side of those who favor any form of unequal distribution.
> 
> Reaffirms that the universal realization of the right of all peoples, including those under colonial, foreign and alien domination, to
> self-determination is a fundamental condition for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights and for the preservation and promotion of such
> rights;  _*SOURCE:*_ General Assembly Resolution 49/148. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination​
> However, it is not correct to suggest that that the "right of self-determination" automatically implies "not at the expense of another group."  That is a moral necessity, not articulated.  The mandate to establish a Jewish National Home was a variation on the concept of "affirmative action" for a minority group.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The right to self determination is universal. It applies equally to every group."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> But not at the expense of another group. Too simple.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> "Not at the expense of another group" is NOT represented in the stipulation of the Mandate.   The Mandate says: "being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights."  These are restricted limitations --- specifically articulated and targeted --- as they were understood in 1922:
> 
> Civil Rights:  In 1922, civil rights varied between countries.  Laws on discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, handicap, or national origin had not been written yet.   While the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) would not be written for another four decades (1966); and would not enter into force for another decade (1976); 1922 was the year the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH).
> Religious Rights:  Which pertains to the freedom of religion or belief and to the rights of religious minorities.
> Other forms of rights had not yet been set to paper.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

What are the purpose of rights when foreigners with guns can move in and take over the place?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I think you misunderstand the application.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the Israeli Government successfully fought both a limited Civil War (_with the indigenous Arab population)_, and a War of Independence _(with the adjacent Arab States)_.  The successful defense of the right to self determination has never been accepted by the Arab Palestinian.  And that is the basis of the continuing conflict between the Arab and Israeli.​
> 
> 
> 
> ​It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.
> 
> A war with the "indigenous Arab population" is a civil war? That's nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The international restriction on the acquisition of territory by the use of force, does not apply to domestic and internal conflicts (civil wars).  The establishment of the Jewish State pursuant to the UN Steps Preparatory to Independence is not a use of force.  The intervention of the Arab States is an act of aggression and considered a form of "external interference" in the domestic affairs.
> 
> Consider:
> 
> The 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine was the first phase of the 1948 Palestine war.
> Lashing Back - Israel’s 1947-1948 Civil War
> UN Partition Plan Facilitates Civil War​The idea that  "the war commenced upon the termination of the British Mandate of Palestine and the Israeli declaration of independence on 15 May 1948, following a period of civil war in 1947–1948" is not an isolated thought.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fighting between the natives and foreign colonial settlers is not a civil war no matter how many times the liars say it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter how hard you try Tinmore , you cannot change history or change the rules. It absolutely was a civil war.
> 
> The belligerents were Jewish residents of Mandatory Palestine plus European Zionists vs. Arab residents of Mandatory Palestine plus Arab militas from surrounding countries.
> Every article calls it a civil war. Unless you have proof of otherwise.
> 
> 
> BTW, the word 'colonial' is part of the Palestinian propaganda campaign​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When Churchill 1921 Colonial Secretary was, he demanded Meinertzhagen for the Middle East Department at (Palestine was not really a colony, so was under no formal jurisdiction of Churchill, but the creation of a Middle East Department was one of the power struggles, with which Churchill expanded its influence). His desk was right next to that of TE Lawrence. From this time a friendship with Harry-St. John Bridger Philby – British adviser to the late founder of Saudi Arabia, Ibn Saud and bird lovers as Meinertzhagen – which actually was considered a violent anti-Semite. Meinertzhagen was sort of a liaison officer of the War Department in the Colonial Office and was responsible for budget and logistics of the military government of Palestine. In June 1922, Churchill asked him to talk, because apparently information was passed from the *Ministry of the Zionist colonial office in London.* Meinertzhagen denied to have been the leak, but subsequently he was employed only with subordinate activities.
> 
> Richard Meinertzhagen World War II​
> Hmmm, everyone says civil war.
> 
> Everyone says that:
> 
> The Arab countries attacked Israel. That is a lie.
> 
> The Arabs lost the 1948 war. That is a lie.
> 
> Salem Fayyad was the PM of Palestine. That is a lie.
> 
> Hamas took control of Gaza from the PA in 2007. That is a lie.
> 
> Why would I believe that foreign militias attacking Palestinian civilians be a "civil war?"
Click to expand...


You're full of shit and you're unable to handle the truth. THAT is the root of the problem here. I have read several encyclopedias about the civil war. So according to you, everyone is lying but you, PF Tinmore are correct.

And yes, the Arabs did attack Israel in 1948. Only a fool woukd argue otherwise. They attacked Israeli forces IN Israel, therefore they attacked Israel.
It's not my fault you cannot accept that Israrl exists and it's not my fault that you cannot accept all the facts that Rocco has been giving you all this time. 
But you continue to try and debate issues that are not up for debate because the truth interferes with your agenda. Yet you never seem to have any evidence or links to back up your claims.

Just think about how stupid this statement is: 'Arab countries did not attack Israel in 1948'
Aside from the fact that I presented you with links that show otherwise, why would you say such a thing? Who did they attack then?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I think you misunderstand the application.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the Israeli Government successfully fought both a limited Civil War (_with the indigenous Arab population)_, and a War of Independence _(with the adjacent Arab States)_.  The successful defense of the right to self determination has never been accepted by the Arab Palestinian.  And that is the basis of the continuing conflict between the Arab and Israeli.​
> 
> 
> 
> ​It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.
> 
> A war with the "indigenous Arab population" is a civil war? That's nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The international restriction on the acquisition of territory by the use of force, does not apply to domestic and internal conflicts (civil wars).  The establishment of the Jewish State pursuant to the UN Steps Preparatory to Independence is not a use of force.  The intervention of the Arab States is an act of aggression and considered a form of "external interference" in the domestic affairs.
> 
> Consider:
> 
> The 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine was the first phase of the 1948 Palestine war.
> Lashing Back - Israel’s 1947-1948 Civil War
> UN Partition Plan Facilitates Civil War​The idea that  "the war commenced upon the termination of the British Mandate of Palestine and the Israeli declaration of independence on 15 May 1948, following a period of civil war in 1947–1948" is not an isolated thought.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fighting between the natives and foreign colonial settlers is not a civil war no matter how many times the liars say it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter how hard you try Tinmore , you cannot change history or change the rules. It absolutely was a civil war.
> 
> The belligerents were Jewish residents of Mandatory Palestine plus European Zionists vs. Arab residents of Mandatory Palestine plus Arab militas from surrounding countries.
> Every article calls it a civil war. Unless you have proof of otherwise.
> 
> 
> BTW, the word 'colonial' is part of the Palestinian propaganda campaign​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When Churchill 1921 Colonial Secretary was, he demanded Meinertzhagen for the Middle East Department at (Palestine was not really a colony, so was under no formal jurisdiction of Churchill, but the creation of a Middle East Department was one of the power struggles, with which Churchill expanded its influence). His desk was right next to that of TE Lawrence. From this time a friendship with Harry-St. John Bridger Philby – British adviser to the late founder of Saudi Arabia, Ibn Saud and bird lovers as Meinertzhagen – which actually was considered a violent anti-Semite. Meinertzhagen was sort of a liaison officer of the War Department in the Colonial Office and was responsible for budget and logistics of the military government of Palestine. In June 1922, Churchill asked him to talk, because apparently information was passed from the *Ministry of the Zionist colonial office in London.* Meinertzhagen denied to have been the leak, but subsequently he was employed only with subordinate activities.
> 
> Richard Meinertzhagen World War II​
> Hmmm, everyone says civil war.
> 
> Everyone says that:
> 
> The Arab countries attacked Israel. That is a lie.
> 
> The Arabs lost the 1948 war. That is a lie.
> 
> Salem Fayyad was the PM of Palestine. That is a lie.
> 
> Hamas took control of Gaza from the PA in 2007. That is a lie.
> 
> Why would I believe that foreign militias attacking Palestinian civilians be a "civil war?"
Click to expand...


As for your last question. That's not what happened at all. Actually, it was Arabs who commenced the hostitlies. And I already proved to you that both sides consisted of RESIDENTS of Mandatory Palestine. Both sides had foreigners fighting with them, but nonetheless it was a civil war. You have no proof to refute that.

Foreign militias attacking Palestinian civilians... LOL
Your propaganda has no limits Tinmore.


----------



## Mindful

Greeneyedlady said:


> There is no Palestine. It was a geographical region not a country.



Tell that to our resident revisionists.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,
> 
> The recognition of these right came gradually over time.  There is no one specific date in which all of these rights became "obtained."  It came over a period between 1919 and 1916; as  previously stated in Posting #2467.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you could answer these older questions before we proceed. That would add relevance to the current discussion.
> 
> At what time did the Palestinians obtain these rights?
> 
> Under what circumstances were these rights obtained?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You asked about four (4) discrete rights:
> 
> self determination
> without external interference.
> independence and sovereignty
> territorial integrity
> Relative to "without external interference:"
> Came in 1919 with the concept on the Covenant that there is a difference between domestic disputes and international disputes; in which the  international community should remain silent on disputes having domestic jurisdiction.  Domestic jurisdiction is predicated on territorial integrity.  Thus, doesn't apply to the State of Palestine until 1988.  (See "territorial integrity" below and the ICJ note.​
> Relative to "self-determination:"
> Came with the 1945 and becomes internationally binding with the Charter; in a faceted concept:  (Reenforced in 1974 as an inalienable right.)
> 
> Right to choose freely its political, economic, social, and cultural systems.
> Right of a people to constitute itself in a state or otherwise freely determine the form of its association with an existing state.
> Relative to "independence and sovereignty."
> Came in 1974 when "self-determination" --- "without external interference" --- and "national independence and sovereignty" are linked together.  Again not yet applicable to the State of Palestine until 1988.​
> Relative to "territorial integrity:"
> Comes in 1988:  “The principle of territorial integrity is an important part of the international legal order and is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, in particular in Article 2, paragraph 4”[1] (the prohibition of the use of force), as well as in other important texts, including those on self-determination. The concept includes the inviolability of the territory of the State, including territory under the effective control and possession of a State. The International Court has held that “the scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined to the sphere of relations between States.”
> 
> SOURCE:  International Court of Justice, _Accordance with international law of the unilateral Declaration of Independence of Kosovo_, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports (2010), para. 80 (page 437)...
> 
> While the concept is recognized in the UN Charter, the ICJ says:  "Thus, the scope of the *principle of territorial integrity* is confined to the sphere of relations between States."  So, this is not applicable to the Arab Palestinians until they declare independence as "The State of Palestine."​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your post conflicts with UN resolutions.
Click to expand...







 WRONG AGAIN as it is based around UN resolutions, which as you know are recommendations only and have no weight in law.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> That is not what it means at all.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greeneyedlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Palestine. It was a geographical region not a country.
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you that? Israel?
> 
> The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law,* which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State,* though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(REMEMBER)*
> 
> Press Release PAL/138 27 February 1948
> 
> "Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.
> 
> "After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.
> 
> "Where the sovereignty of Palestine lies at the present time is a disputed and perhaps academic legal question about which writers have expressed a number of different conclusions. Where the sovereignty of Palestine will lie after the 15th May, 1948, is perhaps also a question on which different views will be held, but so far as His Majesty's Government are aware, it is a question which it is unnecessary to answer in connection with any practical issues.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you could answer these older questions before we proceed. That would add relevance to the current discussion.
> 
> At what time did the Palestinians obtain these rights?
> 
> Under what circumstances were these rights obtained?
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> In what way?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post conflicts with UN resolutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (COMMENT)
> 
> HOW?
> 
> v/r
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are connecting rights to 1988 when that is past the time stated in UN resolutions.
Click to expand...






WRONG AGAIN as they did not meet with the criteria of the UN resolutions until they declared independence and agreed with the UN resolutions. Without this being in place the Palestinians did not exist as an entity in any UN resolution


----------



## Phoenall

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I think you misunderstand the application.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.
> 
> A war with the "indigenous Arab population" is a civil war? That's nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The international restriction on the acquisition of territory by the use of force, does not apply to domestic and internal conflicts (civil wars).  The establishment of the Jewish State pursuant to the UN Steps Preparatory to Independence is not a use of force.  The intervention of the Arab States is an act of aggression and considered a form of "external interference" in the domestic affairs.
> 
> Consider:
> 
> The 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine was the first phase of the 1948 Palestine war.
> Lashing Back - Israel’s 1947-1948 Civil War
> UN Partition Plan Facilitates Civil War​The idea that  "the war commenced upon the termination of the British Mandate of Palestine and the Israeli declaration of independence on 15 May 1948, following a period of civil war in 1947–1948" is not an isolated thought.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fighting between the natives and foreign colonial settlers is not a civil war no matter how many times the liars say it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter how hard you try Tinmore , you cannot change history or change the rules. It absolutely was a civil war.
> 
> The belligerents were Jewish residents of Mandatory Palestine plus European Zionists vs. Arab residents of Mandatory Palestine plus Arab militas from surrounding countries.
> Every article calls it a civil war. Unless you have proof of otherwise.
> 
> 
> BTW, the word 'colonial' is part of the Palestinian propaganda campaign​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When Churchill 1921 Colonial Secretary was, he demanded Meinertzhagen for the Middle East Department at (Palestine was not really a colony, so was under no formal jurisdiction of Churchill, but the creation of a Middle East Department was one of the power struggles, with which Churchill expanded its influence). His desk was right next to that of TE Lawrence. From this time a friendship with Harry-St. John Bridger Philby – British adviser to the late founder of Saudi Arabia, Ibn Saud and bird lovers as Meinertzhagen – which actually was considered a violent anti-Semite. Meinertzhagen was sort of a liaison officer of the War Department in the Colonial Office and was responsible for budget and logistics of the military government of Palestine. In June 1922, Churchill asked him to talk, because apparently information was passed from the *Ministry of the Zionist colonial office in London.* Meinertzhagen denied to have been the leak, but subsequently he was employed only with subordinate activities.
> 
> Richard Meinertzhagen World War II​
> Hmmm, everyone says civil war.
> 
> Everyone says that:
> 
> The Arab countries attacked Israel. That is a lie.
> 
> The Arabs lost the 1948 war. That is a lie.
> 
> Salem Fayyad was the PM of Palestine. That is a lie.
> 
> Hamas took control of Gaza from the PA in 2007. That is a lie.
> 
> Why would I believe that foreign militias attacking Palestinian civilians be a "civil war?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As for your last question. That's not what happened at all. Actually, it was Arabs who commenced the hostitlies. And I already proved to you that both sides consisted of RESIDENTS of Mandatory Palestine. Both sides had foreigners fighting with them, but nonetheless it was a civil war. You have no proof to refute that.
> 
> Foreign militias attacking Palestinian civilians... LOL
> Your propaganda has no limits Tinmore.
Click to expand...






 When it suits the islamonazi stooges the terms of the Mandate for Palestine are cast in stone, when it goes against their POV it does not exist. In this case the LoN mandate which entered into International law gives all the worlds Jews Palestinian citizenship making them indigenous to the area. To redress this balance after 1948 the UN gave the same rights to arab muslims in palestine


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Yes, good observation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are connecting rights to 1988 when that is past the time stated in UN resolutions.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are a couple reasons for that.
> 
> 1.  Prior to 1988, and after 1950, the Palestinian People exercised their right of self-determination:
> 
> On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the *Palestinian Arabs* of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament *unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks* of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.
> 
> In General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), entitled “Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”, which reflects customary international law (Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, pp. 101-103, paras. 191-193), the General Assembly reiterated “[t]he principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State”. This resolution then enumerated various obligations incumbent upon States to refrain from violating the territorial integrity of other sovereign States. In the same vein, the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe of 1 August 1975 (the Helsinki Conference) stipulated that “[t]he participating States will respect the territorial integrity of each of the participating States” (Art. IV). *Thus, the scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined to the sphere of relations between States.  *The Palestinians did not declare independence as a "state" until 1988.
> 
> Prior to 1974, there was no common voice speaking with legal competence and authority for the Palestinian People.
> 2.  The 1996 General Assembly Resolution 50/172. Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes --- mention the Palestinians only once:
> 
> Reaffirming also, in this context, the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
> It is the 1997 General Assembly Resolution 51/190. Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources... which speaks directly to the Palestinian situation.  And it is guided by the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, affirming the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, and recalling Security Council resolutions, including:
> 
> UN Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 (sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence)
> √  At the time of this Resolution, Israel was the Occupying Power over Jordanian Sovereign territory.
> UN Security Council Resolution  446 (1979) of 22 March 1979, (Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention)
> √  At the time and still today, the Palestinian Jihadist and Fedayeen argue the validity of the Geneva Convention, as it contains penalties for attacks on the Occupation Power.
> √  There is an argument to be made that Israel does not Occupy the Gaza Strip, or Areas "A" and "B" - West Bank, by the definition of Article 42 of the Hague Convention.
> UN Security Council Resolutions 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980,
> √  _Deeply concerned_ over the practices of the Israeli authorities in implementing that settlement policy in the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem,
> UN Security Council Resolutions 497 (1981) of 17 December 1981,
> √  _Decides_ that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void.
> 
> No representative of the Palestinian People had made a bid, on behalf of the Palestinian People, for Independence and Sovereignty through the right of self-determination without external influence prior to 1988.  And only UNSC Resolution 242, speaks to "sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence" issues --- but does not specifically apply them to the Arab Palestinian.
> 
> I am not sure which particular Resolution you had in mind when you say: "is past the time stated in UN resolutions."  But even UNSC 242 does not specifically grant the Palestinians any special recognition.  The Palestinians are not mentioned once.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "No representative of the Palestinian People had made a bid, on behalf of the Palestinian People, for Independence and Sovereignty through the right of self-determination without external influence prior to 1988."
> 
> As usual, Rocco, you either don't know what you are talking about, or you are a pathological liar.
> 
> 
> *[Cmd. 1700.]
> PALESTINE.*
> CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE PALESTINE ARAB
> DELEGATION AND THE ZIONIST ORGANISATION.​
> No. 1.
> *The Palestine Arab Delegation to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.*
> 
> 
> HOTEL CECIL,
> London, W.C.,
> *February 21st, 1922.*
> Sir,
> We wish to express our thanks to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for his courtesy in allowing us to see the draft of a proposed Palestine Order in Council embodying a scheme of Government for Palestine, and to discuss the same *in our capacity of representatives of the Arab People of Palestine.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We would, therefore, submit the following observations:—
> 
> Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.
> If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist _con-dominium, _put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. *If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration.*
> 
> We, therefore, hold that the proposed constitution is wholly unsatisfactory, because:—
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _(a) _In the preamble to the Palestine Order in Council "the declaration of November 2nd, 1917, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People" is made a basis for this Order; the People of Palestine cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion.
> (b) In Articles 4-9 of the Order dealing with the manner of appointment of the High Commissioner and his powers, Palestine is considered as a colony of the lowest order, whereas according to paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, Palestine comes under Grade A, where "certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone."
> 
> (c) The Executive, dealt with in Articles 10-16, is in no way responsible to the Legislative Council.
> 
> 
> _(d) _Articles 17-28 dealing with the Legislative Council prescribe that this Council "shall consist of 25 members in addition to the High Commissioner"—"who shall exercise a casting vote, in case of an equality of votes." This brings the total number of votes to 27. Of these, 10 shall be official members holding office under the High Commissioner, and two members shall be nominated by him. Thus the High Commissioner commands 14 out of the 27 votes. Of the 12 elected members there will probably be 10 or 11 that would represent the Arab majority, who would be unable to carry any measure against the official preponderance of votes.
> It is thus apparent that too much power is given to a High Commissioner whom we will suppose is impartial. But when, as is the case with the present High Commissioner, he is a Zionist, _i.e. _a member of the organisation which is prompting the flood of alien Jew immigration into Palestine, whose officials as well as those members appointed by him must, naturally, carry out his policy, and when one or two of the 12 elected members will most probably be Zionists, then the Zionist policy of the Government will be carried out under a constitutional guise, whereas at present it is illegal, against the rights and wishes of the people, and maintained by force of arms alone.
> Article 22 gives the High Commissioner the power at any time to prorogue or dissolve the Council, without the provision that he must call a new Council within a stated time.
> 
> Article 23 gives the High Commissioner the right to veto any measure passed by the Council.
> 
> We further submit in this connection that it is not in keeping with the constitutional spirit to place the Head of the Executive at the head of the Legislative and to introduce into this latter, as members, officials of the State. This invariably leads to the Executive becoming arbitrary since it is placed in the position of accused and judge at the same time.
> 
> We also notice with astonishment that 10 members constitute a _quorum. _This is less than half the total number of Members, and makes it possible for the 10 official members to carry on the work of legislation should circumstances, for any reason whatever, prevent the other members from being present. In which case the power of the Legislative Council becomes a mere shadow and not a reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (e) By the provisions of Articles 33, 46 and 67, Palestine is considered as a Crown Colony, and the High Commissioner as the Governor of a Colony or British possession with the rights of confirming sentences of death, of deporting any person without trial and without allowing that person the right of appeal against the order for deportation.
> (f) The recognition of Hebrew as an official language of the State as in Article 80 is another proof of the desire to foster Zionist nationalism in Palestine, when only about 10 per cent, of the present Jewish inhabitants of the country speak that language. This innovation is wholly unwarranted and adds to the expenses of the State, which derives its main revenues from the Arab population.
> 
> _(g) _The High Commissioner by Article 81 is given the power to obstruct any appeal to the League of Nations.
> 
> _(h) _Lastly, we read in Article 83 that the High Commissioner may, after obtaining the approval of the Secretary of State, vary, annul or add to the provisions of this Order in Council. These powers of the High Commissioner render this Order in Council as if it had not been.
> 
> For these reasons we find that no useful purpose would be served by discussing in detail the draft of "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
> The Delegation requests that the constitution for Palestine should—
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (1) Safeguard the civil, political and economic interests of the People.
> *(2) Provide for the creation of a national independent Government in accordance with the spirit of paragraph 4, Article 22, of the Covenant of the League of Nations.*
> 
> (3) Safeguard the legal rights of foreigners.
> 
> (4) Guarantee religious equality to all peoples.
> 
> (5) Guarantee the rights of minorities.
> 
> (6) Guarantee the rights of the Assisting Power.
> 
> The Delegation is quite confident that the justice of the British Government and its sense of fair play will make it consider the above remarks with a sympathetic mind, since the Delegation's chief object is to lay in Palestine the foundation of a stable Government that would command the respect of the inhabitants and guarantee peace and prosperity to all.
> The Delegation would request, in conclusion, that the Secretary of State would be good enough to communicate to them his views on their remarks and the next step to be taken in the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> We have, &c.,
> 
> for THE PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION,
> 
> *MOUSSA KAZIM EL HUSSEINI, President.*
> 
> *SHIBLY JAMAL, *_Secretary._
> 
> - See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
Click to expand...






 So this pan arab group from all M.E. nations took control of Palestine did it. Thus showing that you cant read and have a hard time understanding what "outside influence" means

 Now stop spewing LIAR at everyone that posts facts that go against your islamonazi beliefs and start looking at the evidence before your eyes. You even claim your own links are LIES when they show you are wrong.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> With you, the word "liar" comes quite easy to use; and often out of context.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "No representative of the Palestinian People had made a bid, on behalf of the Palestinian People, for Independence and Sovereignty through the right of self-determination without external influence prior to 1988."
> 
> As usual, Rocco, you either don't know what you are talking about, or you are a pathological liar.
> 
> *[Cmd. 1700.]
> PALESTINE.*
> CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE PALESTINE ARAB
> DELEGATION AND THE ZIONIST ORGANISATION.​
> ......
> 
> for THE PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION,
> 
> *MOUSSA KAZIM EL HUSSEINI, President.*
> 
> *SHIBLY JAMAL, *_Secretary._
> 
> - See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This trilateral correspondence does not constitute a bid for Independence and Sovereignty.  However, there is such a later announcement from "Husseini and Company" that is a flawed quasi-bid for independence.   The All-Palestine Government (APG) was established by the Arab League on 22 September 1948 during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War _(dissolved in 1959 by decree of Egyptian President Nasser)_.
> 
> *PALESTINE PROGRESS REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS
> MEDIATOR ON PALESTINE*
> 
> *CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
> ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
> CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT*​
> 
> 28 September 1948
> 
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES
> AHMED HILMI PASHA
> PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​​The APG *President* - 1948 Hajj Amin al-Husseini _(former __Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Member of the Arab Higher Committee and in the family line as Moussa Kasim al-Husseini)_  --- and --- APG *Prime Minister *- 1948 Ahmed Hilmi Pasha.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you call this a flawed quasi-bid for independence? It is considerably more legitimate than the foreigners declaring a state inside Palestine.
Click to expand...





 Because it was put forward by foreigners from other nations when they realised they were losing the war. Unless of course you want to tell the Jordanians that their state is not legitimate for the self same reasons


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, well --- when all is said and done, this is a manifestation of the actual Arab-Palestinian and Israeli dispute.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you call this a flawed quasi-bid for independence? It is considerably more legitimate than the foreigners declaring a state inside Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Whether we speak of the original complaint by the Arab Higher Committee, the view of the All-Palestine Government, or the political position of the various contemporary Arab Palestinian organizations that gave rise to the Jihadist and Fedayeen --- the:
> 
> Israeli position is that they established the State of Israeli by following the Steps Preparatory to Independence; and fully coordinated with the appropriate UN agencies.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian believe that the authority exercised by the Council to the League of Nations, the Allied Powers, and the successor organizations of the UN was and is ---  invalid.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian believes that the entirety of the territory formerly under the authority of the Mandate for Palestine is Arab, and that Arab are the only entity that can legitimately exercise government control and sovereignty over the territory.​But the Israeli Government successfully fought both a limited Civil War (_with the indigenous Arab population)_, and a War of Independence _(with the adjacent Arab States)_.  The successful defense of the right to self determination has never been accepted by the Arab Palestinian.  And that is the basis of the continuing conflict between the Arab and Israeli.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the Israeli Government successfully fought both a limited Civil War (_with the indigenous Arab population)_, and a War of Independence _(with the adjacent Arab States)_.  The successful defense of the right to self determination has never been accepted by the Arab Palestinian.  And that is the basis of the continuing conflict between the Arab and Israeli.​
> It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.
> 
> A war with the "indigenous Arab population" is a civil war? That's nuts.
> 
> BTW, you have never explained how foreigners get the right to self determination in another country.
Click to expand...






Simply because they were not foreigners but Palestinian citizens under International law. And don't forget that it was the arab muslims that declared civil war in 1929.


----------



## ChrisL

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I think you misunderstand the application.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.
> 
> A war with the "indigenous Arab population" is a civil war? That's nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The international restriction on the acquisition of territory by the use of force, does not apply to domestic and internal conflicts (civil wars).  The establishment of the Jewish State pursuant to the UN Steps Preparatory to Independence is not a use of force.  The intervention of the Arab States is an act of aggression and considered a form of "external interference" in the domestic affairs.
> 
> Consider:
> 
> The 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine was the first phase of the 1948 Palestine war.
> Lashing Back - Israel’s 1947-1948 Civil War
> UN Partition Plan Facilitates Civil War​The idea that  "the war commenced upon the termination of the British Mandate of Palestine and the Israeli declaration of independence on 15 May 1948, following a period of civil war in 1947–1948" is not an isolated thought.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fighting between the natives and foreign colonial settlers is not a civil war no matter how many times the liars say it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter how hard you try Tinmore , you cannot change history or change the rules. It absolutely was a civil war.
> 
> The belligerents were Jewish residents of Mandatory Palestine plus European Zionists vs. Arab residents of Mandatory Palestine plus Arab militas from surrounding countries.
> Every article calls it a civil war. Unless you have proof of otherwise.
> 
> 
> BTW, the word 'colonial' is part of the Palestinian propaganda campaign​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When Churchill 1921 Colonial Secretary was, he demanded Meinertzhagen for the Middle East Department at (Palestine was not really a colony, so was under no formal jurisdiction of Churchill, but the creation of a Middle East Department was one of the power struggles, with which Churchill expanded its influence). His desk was right next to that of TE Lawrence. From this time a friendship with Harry-St. John Bridger Philby – British adviser to the late founder of Saudi Arabia, Ibn Saud and bird lovers as Meinertzhagen – which actually was considered a violent anti-Semite. Meinertzhagen was sort of a liaison officer of the War Department in the Colonial Office and was responsible for budget and logistics of the military government of Palestine. In June 1922, Churchill asked him to talk, because apparently information was passed from the *Ministry of the Zionist colonial office in London.* Meinertzhagen denied to have been the leak, but subsequently he was employed only with subordinate activities.
> 
> Richard Meinertzhagen World War II​
> Hmmm, everyone says civil war.
> 
> Everyone says that:
> 
> The Arab countries attacked Israel. That is a lie.
> 
> The Arabs lost the 1948 war. That is a lie.
> 
> Salem Fayyad was the PM of Palestine. That is a lie.
> 
> Hamas took control of Gaza from the PA in 2007. That is a lie.
> 
> Why would I believe that foreign militias attacking Palestinian civilians be a "civil war?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're full of shit and you're unable to handle the truth. THAT is the root of the problem here. I have read several encyclopedias about the civil war. So according to you, everyone is lying but you, PF Tinmore are correct.
> 
> And yes, the Arabs did attack Israel in 1948. Only a fool woukd argue otherwise. They attacked Israeli forces IN Israel, therefore they attacked Israel.
> It's not my fault you cannot accept that Israrl exists and it's not my fault that you cannot accept all the facts that Rocco has been giving you all this time.
> But you continue to try and debate issues that are not up for debate because the truth interferes with your agenda. Yet you never seem to have any evidence or links to back up your claims.
> 
> Just think about how stupid this statement is: 'Arab countries did not attack Israel in 1948'
> Aside from the fact that I presented you with links that show otherwise, why would you say such a thing? Who did they attack then?
Click to expand...


These people are nothing but terrorist sympathizers.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, well --- when all is said and done, this is a manifestation of the actual Arab-Palestinian and Israeli dispute.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you call this a flawed quasi-bid for independence? It is considerably more legitimate than the foreigners declaring a state inside Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Whether we speak of the original complaint by the Arab Higher Committee, the view of the All-Palestine Government, or the political position of the various contemporary Arab Palestinian organizations that gave rise to the Jihadist and Fedayeen --- the:
> 
> Israeli position is that they established the State of Israeli by following the Steps Preparatory to Independence; and fully coordinated with the appropriate UN agencies.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian believe that the authority exercised by the Council to the League of Nations, the Allied Powers, and the successor organizations of the UN was and is ---  invalid.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian believes that the entirety of the territory formerly under the authority of the Mandate for Palestine is Arab, and that Arab are the only entity that can legitimately exercise government control and sovereignty over the territory.​But the Israeli Government successfully fought both a limited Civil War (_with the indigenous Arab population)_, and a War of Independence _(with the adjacent Arab States)_.  The successful defense of the right to self determination has never been accepted by the Arab Palestinian.  And that is the basis of the continuing conflict between the Arab and Israeli.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the Israeli Government successfully fought both a limited Civil War (_with the indigenous Arab population)_, and a War of Independence _(with the adjacent Arab States)_.  The successful defense of the right to self determination has never been accepted by the Arab Palestinian.  And that is the basis of the continuing conflict between the Arab and Israeli.​
> It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.
> 
> A war with the "indigenous Arab population" is a civil war? That's nuts.
> 
> BTW, you have never explained how foreigners get the right to self determination in another country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply because they were not foreigners but Palestinian citizens under International law. And don't forget that it was the arab muslims that declared civil war in 1929.
Click to expand...

That is not true. The immigration policies were imposed on Palestine at the point of a gun against their wishes and best interest. This was a violation of their inalienable right to self determination.

See:
Who Are The Palestinians Page 250 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, well --- when all is said and done, this is a manifestation of the actual Arab-Palestinian and Israeli dispute.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you call this a flawed quasi-bid for independence? It is considerably more legitimate than the foreigners declaring a state inside Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Whether we speak of the original complaint by the Arab Higher Committee, the view of the All-Palestine Government, or the political position of the various contemporary Arab Palestinian organizations that gave rise to the Jihadist and Fedayeen --- the:
> 
> Israeli position is that they established the State of Israeli by following the Steps Preparatory to Independence; and fully coordinated with the appropriate UN agencies.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian believe that the authority exercised by the Council to the League of Nations, the Allied Powers, and the successor organizations of the UN was and is ---  invalid.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian believes that the entirety of the territory formerly under the authority of the Mandate for Palestine is Arab, and that Arab are the only entity that can legitimately exercise government control and sovereignty over the territory.​But the Israeli Government successfully fought both a limited Civil War (_with the indigenous Arab population)_, and a War of Independence _(with the adjacent Arab States)_.  The successful defense of the right to self determination has never been accepted by the Arab Palestinian.  And that is the basis of the continuing conflict between the Arab and Israeli.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the Israeli Government successfully fought both a limited Civil War (_with the indigenous Arab population)_, and a War of Independence _(with the adjacent Arab States)_.  The successful defense of the right to self determination has never been accepted by the Arab Palestinian.  And that is the basis of the continuing conflict between the Arab and Israeli.​
> It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.
> 
> A war with the "indigenous Arab population" is a civil war? That's nuts.
> 
> BTW, you have never explained how foreigners get the right to self determination in another country.
Click to expand...


Talk about funny.  Tinmore says "It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force."  So tell us how all the Muslim countries were established whereby the indigenious populations were forced to convert, leave or be killed.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, well --- when all is said and done, this is a manifestation of the actual Arab-Palestinian and Israeli dispute.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you call this a flawed quasi-bid for independence? It is considerably more legitimate than the foreigners declaring a state inside Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Whether we speak of the original complaint by the Arab Higher Committee, the view of the All-Palestine Government, or the political position of the various contemporary Arab Palestinian organizations that gave rise to the Jihadist and Fedayeen --- the:
> 
> Israeli position is that they established the State of Israeli by following the Steps Preparatory to Independence; and fully coordinated with the appropriate UN agencies.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian believe that the authority exercised by the Council to the League of Nations, the Allied Powers, and the successor organizations of the UN was and is ---  invalid.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian believes that the entirety of the territory formerly under the authority of the Mandate for Palestine is Arab, and that Arab are the only entity that can legitimately exercise government control and sovereignty over the territory.​But the Israeli Government successfully fought both a limited Civil War (_with the indigenous Arab population)_, and a War of Independence _(with the adjacent Arab States)_.  The successful defense of the right to self determination has never been accepted by the Arab Palestinian.  And that is the basis of the continuing conflict between the Arab and Israeli.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the Israeli Government successfully fought both a limited Civil War (_with the indigenous Arab population)_, and a War of Independence _(with the adjacent Arab States)_.  The successful defense of the right to self determination has never been accepted by the Arab Palestinian.  And that is the basis of the continuing conflict between the Arab and Israeli.​
> It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.
> 
> A war with the "indigenous Arab population" is a civil war? That's nuts.
> 
> BTW, you have never explained how foreigners get the right to self determination in another country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply because they were not foreigners but Palestinian citizens under International law. And don't forget that it was the arab muslims that declared civil war in 1929.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not true. The immigration policies were imposed on Palestine at the point of a gun against their wishes and best interest. This was a violation of their inalienable right to self determination.
> 
> See:
> Who Are The Palestinians Page 250 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...






 Again you try to use 2015 laws in a 1920 situation, why not go back 2000 years and impose the same laws on the Romans giving Israel back to the Jews.

 Now how was it a violation of their inalieanable right to self determination when they allowed an illegal outside influence to decide their fate for them. On top of which the LoN had already given them their homelands in Syria, Iraq and Jordan.
 As for free determination aren't you trying to violate the Jews rights by making false claims about the laws extant at the time.


----------



## Phoenall

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, well --- when all is said and done, this is a manifestation of the actual Arab-Palestinian and Israeli dispute.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you call this a flawed quasi-bid for independence? It is considerably more legitimate than the foreigners declaring a state inside Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Whether we speak of the original complaint by the Arab Higher Committee, the view of the All-Palestine Government, or the political position of the various contemporary Arab Palestinian organizations that gave rise to the Jihadist and Fedayeen --- the:
> 
> Israeli position is that they established the State of Israeli by following the Steps Preparatory to Independence; and fully coordinated with the appropriate UN agencies.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian believe that the authority exercised by the Council to the League of Nations, the Allied Powers, and the successor organizations of the UN was and is ---  invalid.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian believes that the entirety of the territory formerly under the authority of the Mandate for Palestine is Arab, and that Arab are the only entity that can legitimately exercise government control and sovereignty over the territory.​But the Israeli Government successfully fought both a limited Civil War (_with the indigenous Arab population)_, and a War of Independence _(with the adjacent Arab States)_.  The successful defense of the right to self determination has never been accepted by the Arab Palestinian.  And that is the basis of the continuing conflict between the Arab and Israeli.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the Israeli Government successfully fought both a limited Civil War (_with the indigenous Arab population)_, and a War of Independence _(with the adjacent Arab States)_.  The successful defense of the right to self determination has never been accepted by the Arab Palestinian.  And that is the basis of the continuing conflict between the Arab and Israeli.​
> It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.
> 
> A war with the "indigenous Arab population" is a civil war? That's nuts.
> 
> BTW, you have never explained how foreigners get the right to self determination in another country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talk about funny.  Tinmore says "It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force."  So tell us how all the Muslim countries were established whereby the indigenious populations were forced to convert, leave or be killed.
Click to expand...





 And how the arab muslims hoped to acquire the land of Israel to use as another islamonazi cess pit.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, well --- when all is said and done, this is a manifestation of the actual Arab-Palestinian and Israeli dispute.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you call this a flawed quasi-bid for independence? It is considerably more legitimate than the foreigners declaring a state inside Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Whether we speak of the original complaint by the Arab Higher Committee, the view of the All-Palestine Government, or the political position of the various contemporary Arab Palestinian organizations that gave rise to the Jihadist and Fedayeen --- the:
> 
> Israeli position is that they established the State of Israeli by following the Steps Preparatory to Independence; and fully coordinated with the appropriate UN agencies.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian believe that the authority exercised by the Council to the League of Nations, the Allied Powers, and the successor organizations of the UN was and is ---  invalid.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian believes that the entirety of the territory formerly under the authority of the Mandate for Palestine is Arab, and that Arab are the only entity that can legitimately exercise government control and sovereignty over the territory.​But the Israeli Government successfully fought both a limited Civil War (_with the indigenous Arab population)_, and a War of Independence _(with the adjacent Arab States)_.  The successful defense of the right to self determination has never been accepted by the Arab Palestinian.  And that is the basis of the continuing conflict between the Arab and Israeli.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the Israeli Government successfully fought both a limited Civil War (_with the indigenous Arab population)_, and a War of Independence _(with the adjacent Arab States)_.  The successful defense of the right to self determination has never been accepted by the Arab Palestinian.  And that is the basis of the continuing conflict between the Arab and Israeli.​
> It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.
> 
> A war with the "indigenous Arab population" is a civil war? That's nuts.
> 
> BTW, you have never explained how foreigners get the right to self determination in another country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talk about funny.  Tinmore says "It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force."  So tell us how all the Muslim countries were established whereby the indigenious populations were forced to convert, leave or be killed.
Click to expand...


I don't think the Geneva Conventions were in place at the time.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Wow, this is one hell of a set of allegations.

Immigration policies were imposed on Palestine;
At the point of a gun against their wishes and best interest;
Violation of their inalienable right to self determination.



P F Tinmore said:


> That is not true. The immigration policies were imposed on Palestine at the point of a gun against their wishes and best interest. This was a violation of their inalienable right to self determination.
> See:
> Who Are The Palestinians Page 250 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


*(REFERENCE)
*
The correspondence between the Palestine Arab Delegation and the Secretary of State for the Colonies sets the time frame to 1922 _(over 90 years ago)_.
*
NOTE:  *In Paragraph #2, of Letter #2, from the Secretary of State (SoS) to the Palestinian Arab Delegation (PAD), the status of the PAD is questioned.

The SoS is not "in a position to negotiate officially with you _[meaning the PAD] _or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine, since no official machinery for representation has as yet been constituted."

*ANCILLARY NOTE*  (_The Political History of Palestine under British Administration_) :  Paragraph 22.  Later in 1923, a *third attempt was made to establish an institution* through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an *Arab Agency in Palestine* which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. *The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognized that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”.* The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognized the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.​*
(COMMENT)*

The Arab Palestinians of Palestine declined to formally establish a "Arab Agency" which the Mandatory could recognize as an authentic representative of the Palestinian Arab Population, and consultant to the Mandatory on matters pertaining to "immigration."

Allegation #1:  Immigration policies were imposed on Palestine; this is lacking the understanding that the Mandatory, on at least three (3) occasions, attempted to induce the PADs to form an Arab Agency that would be a consultant on matters such as immigration.  However, the Arab Palestinian Leadership declined.  Thus immigration policy was established without the benefit of PAD input.​
There was a belief of the Arab Palestinians that the *Balfour Declaration* implied a denial of the right of self-determination, and their fear that the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH) would mean an increase in Jewish immigration that would inevitably lead to subjugation through economic and political increase in pressure by the Jews.  The Jaffa Riots (May 1921) where due, in no small measure to the proliferation of this belief; and the implementation of immigration policy as stipulated by Articles 4 and 6 of the Mandate for Palestine.  

Allegation #2:  At the point of a gun against their wishes and best interest;  The Allied Powers stipulated that the Mandatory should be in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people.  Far from being at the point of a gun, the Mandatory proceeded IAW the directives given, absent advise from a recognizes Arab Palestinian authority.​
The Allied Powers, in Article 2 of the Mandate --- ordered the Mandatory to be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the JNH, and the development of self-governing institutions. 

Allegation #3:  Violation of their inalienable right to self determination... Whether one uses the Charter (Articles 1, 2, or 55); or the 1960 General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), or --- the 1974 General Assembly Resolution 3236 (XXIX) (See Posting #2467), it is imperative that all understand that the "right of self-determination" was never withheld or denied the Arab Palestinian.  "Self-determination" is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative *principle of action*, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril.... " _(Hurst Hannum,  Professor of International Law at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy of Tufts University, writing for the Princeton Encyclopedia)_.  But ignore the *principle of action* is exactly what the PAD did by declining to establish an Arab Agency.  In effect, the PAD did exercise the right to self determination by refusing to participate (negative action and zero participation). 

The "principle" of self-determination is mentioned only twice in the Charter of the United Nations, both times in the context of developing "friendly relations among nations" and in conjunction with the principle of "equal rights... of peoples." The reference to "peoples" clearly encompasses groups beyond states and includes at least non-self-governing territories "whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government."  ​It is mort important to understand that if a people(s) decline to participate in the developmental stages of self-governing institutions, as in the case of the Palestinian Arab Delegation or the Arab Higher Committee, then they forfeit the right to complain about the outcome. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## ChrisL

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Wow, this is one hell of a set of allegations.
> 
> Immigration policies were imposed on Palestine;
> At the point of a gun against their wishes and best interest;
> Violation of their inalienable right to self determination.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not true. The immigration policies were imposed on Palestine at the point of a gun against their wishes and best interest. This was a violation of their inalienable right to self determination.
> See:
> Who Are The Palestinians Page 250 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCE)
> *
> The correspondence between the Palestine Arab Delegation and the Secretary of State for the Colonies sets the time frame to 1922 _(over 90 years ago)_.
> *
> NOTE:  *In Paragraph #2, of Letter #2, from the Secretary of State (SoS) to the Palestinian Arab Delegation (PAD), the status of the PAD is questioned.
> 
> The SoS is not "in a position to negotiate officially with you _[meaning the PAD] _or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine, since no official machinery for representation has as yet been constituted."
> 
> *ANCILLARY NOTE*  (_The Political History of Palestine under British Administration_) :  Paragraph 22.  Later in 1923, a *third attempt was made to establish an institution* through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an *Arab Agency in Palestine* which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. *The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognized that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”.* The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognized the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.​*
> (COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinians of Palestine declined to formally establish a "Arab Agency" which the Mandatory could recognize as an authentic representative of the Palestinian Arab Population, and consultant to the Mandatory on matters pertaining to "immigration."
> 
> Allegation #1:  Immigration policies were imposed on Palestine; this is lacking the understanding that the Mandatory, on at least three (3) occasions, attempted to induce the PADs to form an Arab Agency that would be a consultant on matters such as immigration.  However, the Arab Palestinian Leadership declined.  Thus immigration policy was established without the benefit of PAD input.​
> There was a belief of the Arab Palestinians that the *Balfour Declaration* implied a denial of the right of self-determination, and their fear that the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH) would mean an increase in Jewish immigration that would inevitably lead to subjugation through economic and political increase in pressure by the Jews.  The Jaffa Riots (May 1921) where due, in no small measure to the proliferation of this belief; and the implementation of immigration policy as stipulated by Articles 4 and 6 of the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> Allegation #2:  At the point of a gun against their wishes and best interest;  The Allied Powers stipulated that the Mandatory should be in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people.  Far from being at the point of a gun, the Mandatory proceeded IAW the directives given, absent advise from a recognizes Arab Palestinian authority.​
> The Allied Powers, in Article 2 of the Mandate --- ordered the Mandatory to be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the JNH, and the development of self-governing institutions.
> 
> Allegation #3:  Violation of their inalienable right to self determination... Whether one uses the Charter (Articles 1, 2, or 55); or the 1960 General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), or --- the 1974 General Assembly Resolution 3236 (XXIX) (See Posting #2467), it is imperative that all understand that the "right of self-determination" was never withheld or denied the Arab Palestinian.  "Self-determination" is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative *principle of action*, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril.... " _(Hurst Hannum,  Professor of International Law at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy of Tufts University, writing for the Princeton Encyclopedia)_.  But ignore the *principle of action* is exactly what the PAD did by declining to establish an Arab Agency.  In effect, the PAD did exercise the right to self determination by refusing to participate (negative action and zero participation).
> 
> The "principle" of self-determination is mentioned only twice in the Charter of the United Nations, both times in the context of developing "friendly relations among nations" and in conjunction with the principle of "equal rights... of peoples." The reference to "peoples" clearly encompasses groups beyond states and includes at least non-self-governing territories "whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government." ​It is mort important to understand that if a people(s) decline to participate in the developmental stages of self-governing institutions, as in the case of the Palestinian Arab Delegation or the Arab Higher Committee, then they forfeit the right to complain about the outcome.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


You know, I don't think he even reads your posts.  If he did, he would have seen that the post immediately following the one he linked to negates the claims (which was a post from you BTW )  These people obviously have an agenda.  Something is not right with them.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, well --- when all is said and done, this is a manifestation of the actual Arab-Palestinian and Israeli dispute.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you call this a flawed quasi-bid for independence? It is considerably more legitimate than the foreigners declaring a state inside Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Whether we speak of the original complaint by the Arab Higher Committee, the view of the All-Palestine Government, or the political position of the various contemporary Arab Palestinian organizations that gave rise to the Jihadist and Fedayeen --- the:
> 
> Israeli position is that they established the State of Israeli by following the Steps Preparatory to Independence; and fully coordinated with the appropriate UN agencies.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian believe that the authority exercised by the Council to the League of Nations, the Allied Powers, and the successor organizations of the UN was and is ---  invalid.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian believes that the entirety of the territory formerly under the authority of the Mandate for Palestine is Arab, and that Arab are the only entity that can legitimately exercise government control and sovereignty over the territory.​But the Israeli Government successfully fought both a limited Civil War (_with the indigenous Arab population)_, and a War of Independence _(with the adjacent Arab States)_.  The successful defense of the right to self determination has never been accepted by the Arab Palestinian.  And that is the basis of the continuing conflict between the Arab and Israeli.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the Israeli Government successfully fought both a limited Civil War (_with the indigenous Arab population)_, and a War of Independence _(with the adjacent Arab States)_.  The successful defense of the right to self determination has never been accepted by the Arab Palestinian.  And that is the basis of the continuing conflict between the Arab and Israeli.​
> It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.
> 
> A war with the "indigenous Arab population" is a civil war? That's nuts.
> 
> BTW, you have never explained how foreigners get the right to self determination in another country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talk about funny.  Tinmore says "It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force."  So tell us how all the Muslim countries were established whereby the indigenious populations were forced to convert, leave or be killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think the Geneva Conventions were in place at the time.
Click to expand...





 First Geneva convention was in 1945 I believe, so anything before that date was covered by other international treaties. That is why your trick of trying to apply 2015 laws to a 1920 situation is a paper exercise and has no possibility of ever coming to fruition.


----------



## RoccoR

Phoenall,  et al,

Very Close.

*Treaty database : full texts, commentaries and State Parties*

First Geneva Convention, 1949
Second Geneva Convention, 1949
Third Geneva Convention, 1949
Fourth Geneva Convention, 1949
Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977
Protocol II additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977
Protocol III additional to the Geneva Conventions, 2005
v/r
R


Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, well --- when all is said and done, this is a manifestation of the actual Arab-Palestinian and Israeli dispute.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you call this a flawed quasi-bid for independence? It is considerably more legitimate than the foreigners declaring a state inside Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Whether we speak of the original complaint by the Arab Higher Committee, the view of the All-Palestine Government, or the political position of the various contemporary Arab Palestinian organizations that gave rise to the Jihadist and Fedayeen --- the:
> 
> Israeli position is that they established the State of Israeli by following the Steps Preparatory to Independence; and fully coordinated with the appropriate UN agencies.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian believe that the authority exercised by the Council to the League of Nations, the Allied Powers, and the successor organizations of the UN was and is ---  invalid.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian believes that the entirety of the territory formerly under the authority of the Mandate for Palestine is Arab, and that Arab are the only entity that can legitimately exercise government control and sovereignty over the territory.​But the Israeli Government successfully fought both a limited Civil War (_with the indigenous Arab population)_, and a War of Independence _(with the adjacent Arab States)_.  The successful defense of the right to self determination has never been accepted by the Arab Palestinian.  And that is the basis of the continuing conflict between the Arab and Israeli.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the Israeli Government successfully fought both a limited Civil War (_with the indigenous Arab population)_, and a War of Independence _(with the adjacent Arab States)_.  The successful defense of the right to self determination has never been accepted by the Arab Palestinian.  And that is the basis of the continuing conflict between the Arab and Israeli.​
> It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.
> 
> A war with the "indigenous Arab population" is a civil war? That's nuts.
> 
> BTW, you have never explained how foreigners get the right to self determination in another country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talk about funny.  Tinmore says "It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force."  So tell us how all the Muslim countries were established whereby the indigenious populations were forced to convert, leave or be killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think the Geneva Conventions were in place at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First Geneva convention was in 1945 I believe, so anything before that date was covered by other international treaties. That is why your trick of trying to apply 2015 laws to a 1920 situation is a paper exercise and has no possibility of ever coming to fruition.
Click to expand...


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Wow, this is one hell of a set of allegations.
> 
> Immigration policies were imposed on Palestine;
> At the point of a gun against their wishes and best interest;
> Violation of their inalienable right to self determination.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not true. The immigration policies were imposed on Palestine at the point of a gun against their wishes and best interest. This was a violation of their inalienable right to self determination.
> See:
> Who Are The Palestinians Page 250 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCE)
> *
> The correspondence between the Palestine Arab Delegation and the Secretary of State for the Colonies sets the time frame to 1922 _(over 90 years ago)_.
> *
> NOTE:  *In Paragraph #2, of Letter #2, from the Secretary of State (SoS) to the Palestinian Arab Delegation (PAD), the status of the PAD is questioned.
> 
> The SoS is not "in a position to negotiate officially with you _[meaning the PAD] _or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine, since no official machinery for representation has as yet been constituted."
> 
> *ANCILLARY NOTE*  (_The Political History of Palestine under British Administration_) :  Paragraph 22.  Later in 1923, a *third attempt was made to establish an institution* through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an *Arab Agency in Palestine* which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. *The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognized that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”.* The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognized the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.​*
> (COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinians of Palestine declined to formally establish a "Arab Agency" which the Mandatory could recognize as an authentic representative of the Palestinian Arab Population, and consultant to the Mandatory on matters pertaining to "immigration."
> 
> Allegation #1:  Immigration policies were imposed on Palestine; this is lacking the understanding that the Mandatory, on at least three (3) occasions, attempted to induce the PADs to form an Arab Agency that would be a consultant on matters such as immigration.  However, the Arab Palestinian Leadership declined.  Thus immigration policy was established without the benefit of PAD input.​
> There was a belief of the Arab Palestinians that the *Balfour Declaration* implied a denial of the right of self-determination, and their fear that the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH) would mean an increase in Jewish immigration that would inevitably lead to subjugation through economic and political increase in pressure by the Jews.  The Jaffa Riots (May 1921) where due, in no small measure to the proliferation of this belief; and the implementation of immigration policy as stipulated by Articles 4 and 6 of the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> Allegation #2:  At the point of a gun against their wishes and best interest;  The Allied Powers stipulated that the Mandatory should be in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people.  Far from being at the point of a gun, the Mandatory proceeded IAW the directives given, absent advise from a recognizes Arab Palestinian authority.​
> The Allied Powers, in Article 2 of the Mandate --- ordered the Mandatory to be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the JNH, and the development of self-governing institutions.
> 
> Allegation #3:  Violation of their inalienable right to self determination... Whether one uses the Charter (Articles 1, 2, or 55); or the 1960 General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), or --- the 1974 General Assembly Resolution 3236 (XXIX) (See Posting #2467), it is imperative that all understand that the "right of self-determination" was never withheld or denied the Arab Palestinian.  "Self-determination" is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative *principle of action*, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril.... " _(Hurst Hannum,  Professor of International Law at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy of Tufts University, writing for the Princeton Encyclopedia)_.  But ignore the *principle of action* is exactly what the PAD did by declining to establish an Arab Agency.  In effect, the PAD did exercise the right to self determination by refusing to participate (negative action and zero participation).
> 
> The "principle" of self-determination is mentioned only twice in the Charter of the United Nations, both times in the context of developing "friendly relations among nations" and in conjunction with the principle of "equal rights... of peoples." The reference to "peoples" clearly encompasses groups beyond states and includes at least non-self-governing territories "whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government." ​It is mort important to understand that if a people(s) decline to participate in the developmental stages of self-governing institutions, as in the case of the Palestinian Arab Delegation or the Arab Higher Committee, then they forfeit the right to complain about the outcome.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


As clearly stated, any obligation antecedent to the entry of a state as a member of the League of Nations that conflicted with the covenant of the LoN, was to abrogated by the entrant (UK) prior to joining the LoN. 




_(b) _The object aimed at by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations is "the well-being and development of the people" of the land. Alien Jews not in Palestine do not come within the scope of this aim, neither is their association with Palestine more close than that of Christians and Moslems all over the world. *Consequently the Jewish National Home policy is contrary to the spirit of the Covenant.*

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

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


----------



## montelatici

To claim that the alien settlement of Palestine by European Jews was not forced upon the Christians and Muslims by the point of a gun, is ludicrous.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

Remembering --- that the UK Colonial Office (UKCO) to the Palestine Arab Delegation (PAD) is not an official; statement of policy.  Again, remember as stated in Correspondence #2, Paragraph #2, Mr Churchill and the UKCO was "not in a position to negotiate officially with [the PAD] or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine, since no official machinery for representation has as yet been constituted."  The Arab Palestinian Leadership having rejected (more then once) the opportunity to establish an official conduit.

Also remember that the very same people that wrote the Covenant for the League of Nations, also wrote the Mandate.  There is nothing at all in Article 22 of the Covenant, that would suggest that Article 22 was in anyway dedicated exclusively to the opportunities of Arab Palestinians --- or --- predicated upon the claim that the granting an advantage to the Arab Palestinians.  The same authors of the 1919 Covenant, were also the principles at the 1920 San Remo Convention in which the framework for the Mandate of Palestine was agreed upon; and where the concept was hammered-out in regards to the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH).



montelatici said:


> As clearly stated, any obligation antecedent to the entry of a state as a member of the League of Nations that conflicted with the covenant of the LoN, was to abrogated by the entrant (UK) prior to joining the LoN.
> 
> _(b) _The object aimed at by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations is "the well-being and development of the people" of the land. Alien Jews not in Palestine do not come within the scope of this aim, neither is their association with Palestine more close than that of Christians and Moslems all over the world. *Consequently the Jewish National Home policy is contrary to the spirit of the Covenant.*
> 
> (c) Article XX of the Covenant reads: *"The Members of this League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings *_*inter se *_*which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, *and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
> *
> "In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."*
> 
> - See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922


*(COMMENT)*

The Covenant grants no special or unique application to the indigenous population of the territory under mandate.  In fact, Article 22, could be thought of as applying in general to any of the orphaned territories left in the wake of the post-War conditions.

Relative to Article 22/1 of the Covenant:
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant. 

In fact, of the Middle East Protectorates and Mandates, the following Arab countries were determined to stand-alone, with their independence and sovereignty.

Lebanon:  Independence:  22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
Syria:  Independence:  17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
Jordan:  Independence:  25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
Iraq:  Independence:  3 October 1932 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
Israel:  Independence:  14 May 1948 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
Kuwait:  Independence:  19 June 1961 (from UK)
Egypt:  Independence:  28 February 1922 (from UK)
Relative to Article 22/4 of the Covenant:
Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory. 
Nothing in this clause specifically applies to the Palestinian territory under Mandate.  It has a general application but on pinpoint specific application.  While in general one could say that the League of Nations gave Britain the Mandate to administer Palestine, which required her to implement the Balfour Declaration, and undertake a “sacred trust of civilisation” to advance the welfare of the all people and guide them to independence.   And here again, --- while the Jewish citizens under the Mandate of Palestine chose to follow the "Step Preparatory to Independence" as approved by the General Assembly; the Arab Palestinians turned this opportunity down at least three times.​
Relative to Article 22/8 of the Covenant:
The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council. 
One of the major objectives of the Mandate, as passed-down from the San Remo Convention, by the Principal Allied Powers to the Mandatory --- was the responsibility for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917,  in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.  ​I have heard, many times, that the Palestinians were not given the proper well-being care and development they had due to them.  That they were denied the right to self-determination, and that they were not dealt with fairly.  The is a form of negativism in which the under developed culture does not have the ability to stand on its own --- and who tends to be negative.  Of course, most cultures have periods or moments of whining, complaining, and displaying “the glass-is-half-empty” attitude now and again, but the continuation --- day after day, year after year, decade after decade --- of dwelling on the worst outcome of any given situation --- droning on and on about the unfairness of the world, then there is something more wrong with the culture than meets the eye.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Remembering --- that the UK Colonial Office (UKCO) to the Palestine Arab Delegation (PAD) is not an official; statement of policy.  Again, remember as stated in Correspondence #2, Paragraph #2, Mr Churchill and the UKCO was "not in a position to negotiate officially with [the PAD] or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine, since no official machinery for representation has as yet been constituted."  The Arab Palestinian Leadership having rejected (more then once) the opportunity to establish an official conduit.
> 
> Also remember that the very same people that wrote the Covenant for the League of Nations, also wrote the Mandate.  There is nothing at all in Article 22 of the Covenant, that would suggest that Article 22 was in anyway dedicated exclusively to the opportunities of Arab Palestinians --- or --- predicated upon the claim that the granting an advantage to the Arab Palestinians.  The same authors of the 1919 Covenant, were also the principles at the 1920 San Remo Convention in which the framework for the Mandate of Palestine was agreed upon; and where the concept was hammered-out in regards to the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH).
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As clearly stated, any obligation antecedent to the entry of a state as a member of the League of Nations that conflicted with the covenant of the LoN, was to abrogated by the entrant (UK) prior to joining the LoN.
> 
> _(b) _The object aimed at by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations is "the well-being and development of the people" of the land. Alien Jews not in Palestine do not come within the scope of this aim, neither is their association with Palestine more close than that of Christians and Moslems all over the world. *Consequently the Jewish National Home policy is contrary to the spirit of the Covenant.*
> 
> (c) Article XX of the Covenant reads: *"The Members of this League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings *_*inter se *_*which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, *and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
> *
> "In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."*
> 
> - See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Covenant grants no special or unique application to the indigenous population of the territory under mandate.  In fact, Article 22, could be thought of as applying in general to any of the orphaned territories left in the wake of the post-War conditions.
> 
> Relative to Article 22/1 of the Covenant:
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> In fact, of the Middle East Protectorates and Mandates, the following Arab countries were determined to stand-alone, with their independence and sovereignty.
> 
> Lebanon:  Independence:  22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Syria:  Independence:  17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Jordan:  Independence:  25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Iraq:  Independence:  3 October 1932 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Israel:  Independence:  14 May 1948 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Kuwait:  Independence:  19 June 1961 (from UK)
> Egypt:  Independence:  28 February 1922 (from UK)
> Relative to Article 22/4 of the Covenant:
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
> Nothing in this clause specifically applies to the Palestinian territory under Mandate.  It has a general application but on pinpoint specific application.  While in general one could say that the League of Nations gave Britain the Mandate to administer Palestine, which required her to implement the Balfour Declaration, and undertake a “sacred trust of civilisation” to advance the welfare of the all people and guide them to independence.   And here again, --- while the Jewish citizens under the Mandate of Palestine chose to follow the "Step Preparatory to Independence" as approved by the General Assembly; the Arab Palestinians turned this opportunity down at least three times.​
> Relative to Article 22/8 of the Covenant:
> The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.
> One of the major objectives of the Mandate, as passed-down from the San Remo Convention, by the Principal Allied Powers to the Mandatory --- was the responsibility for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917,  in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. ​I have heard, many times, that the Palestinians were not given the proper well-being care and development they had due to them.  That they were denied the right to self-determination, and that they were not dealt with fairly.  The is a form of negativism in which the under developed culture does not have the ability to stand on its own --- and who tends to be negative.  Of course, most cultures have periods or moments of whining, complaining, and displaying “the glass-is-half-empty” attitude now and again, but the continuation --- day after day, year after year, decade after decade --- of dwelling on the worst outcome of any given situation --- droning on and on about the unfairness of the world, then there is something more wrong with the culture than meets the eye.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Still does not change the fact that the Zionist colonial project was imposed on the Palestinians at the point of a gun denying them of their inalienable rights.


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Remembering --- that the UK Colonial Office (UKCO) to the Palestine Arab Delegation (PAD) is not an official; statement of policy.  Again, remember as stated in Correspondence #2, Paragraph #2, Mr Churchill and the UKCO was "not in a position to negotiate officially with [the PAD] or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine, since no official machinery for representation has as yet been constituted."  The Arab Palestinian Leadership having rejected (more then once) the opportunity to establish an official conduit.
> 
> Also remember that the very same people that wrote the Covenant for the League of Nations, also wrote the Mandate.  There is nothing at all in Article 22 of the Covenant, that would suggest that Article 22 was in anyway dedicated exclusively to the opportunities of Arab Palestinians --- or --- predicated upon the claim that the granting an advantage to the Arab Palestinians.  The same authors of the 1919 Covenant, were also the principles at the 1920 San Remo Convention in which the framework for the Mandate of Palestine was agreed upon; and where the concept was hammered-out in regards to the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH).
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As clearly stated, any obligation antecedent to the entry of a state as a member of the League of Nations that conflicted with the covenant of the LoN, was to abrogated by the entrant (UK) prior to joining the LoN.
> 
> _(b) _The object aimed at by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations is "the well-being and development of the people" of the land. Alien Jews not in Palestine do not come within the scope of this aim, neither is their association with Palestine more close than that of Christians and Moslems all over the world. *Consequently the Jewish National Home policy is contrary to the spirit of the Covenant.*
> 
> (c) Article XX of the Covenant reads: *"The Members of this League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings *_*inter se *_*which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, *and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
> *
> "In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."*
> 
> - See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Covenant grants no special or unique application to the indigenous population of the territory under mandate.  In fact, Article 22, could be thought of as applying in general to any of the orphaned territories left in the wake of the post-War conditions.
> 
> Relative to Article 22/1 of the Covenant:
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> In fact, of the Middle East Protectorates and Mandates, the following Arab countries were determined to stand-alone, with their independence and sovereignty.
> 
> Lebanon:  Independence:  22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Syria:  Independence:  17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Jordan:  Independence:  25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Iraq:  Independence:  3 October 1932 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Israel:  Independence:  14 May 1948 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Kuwait:  Independence:  19 June 1961 (from UK)
> Egypt:  Independence:  28 February 1922 (from UK)
> Relative to Article 22/4 of the Covenant:
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
> Nothing in this clause specifically applies to the Palestinian territory under Mandate.  It has a general application but on pinpoint specific application.  While in general one could say that the League of Nations gave Britain the Mandate to administer Palestine, which required her to implement the Balfour Declaration, and undertake a “sacred trust of civilisation” to advance the welfare of the all people and guide them to independence.   And here again, --- while the Jewish citizens under the Mandate of Palestine chose to follow the "Step Preparatory to Independence" as approved by the General Assembly; the Arab Palestinians turned this opportunity down at least three times.​
> Relative to Article 22/8 of the Covenant:
> The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.
> One of the major objectives of the Mandate, as passed-down from the San Remo Convention, by the Principal Allied Powers to the Mandatory --- was the responsibility for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917,  in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. ​I have heard, many times, that the Palestinians were not given the proper well-being care and development they had due to them.  That they were denied the right to self-determination, and that they were not dealt with fairly.  The is a form of negativism in which the under developed culture does not have the ability to stand on its own --- and who tends to be negative.  Of course, most cultures have periods or moments of whining, complaining, and displaying “the glass-is-half-empty” attitude now and again, but the continuation --- day after day, year after year, decade after decade --- of dwelling on the worst outcome of any given situation --- droning on and on about the unfairness of the world, then there is something more wrong with the culture than meets the eye.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...



It wouldn't matter if it were the British Virgin Islands.  If the British had a deal/treaty/agreement with the Gurkhas  to populate the BVIs with thousands Gurkhas and their extended families in order to create a Gurkha National home there, at the expense of the locals, they should, by the terms of the LoN Covenant, have extricated themselves out of that agreement.

There hasn't been any such campaign, validated by an International Organization, against any people that was planned and executed to replace an indigenous people living a continent away from Europe, with a  "favored" European people.  I don't think that anyone looking at it as a neutral could ever imagine that such a process, with all the opaque and sinister tactics combined with betrayal, used against the Christians and Muslims would be acceptable to any fair and neutral observer.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Remembering --- that the UK Colonial Office (UKCO) to the Palestine Arab Delegation (PAD) is not an official; statement of policy.  Again, remember as stated in Correspondence #2, Paragraph #2, Mr Churchill and the UKCO was "not in a position to negotiate officially with [the PAD] or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine, since no official machinery for representation has as yet been constituted."  The Arab Palestinian Leadership having rejected (more then once) the opportunity to establish an official conduit.
> 
> Also remember that the very same people that wrote the Covenant for the League of Nations, also wrote the Mandate.  There is nothing at all in Article 22 of the Covenant, that would suggest that Article 22 was in anyway dedicated exclusively to the opportunities of Arab Palestinians --- or --- predicated upon the claim that the granting an advantage to the Arab Palestinians.  The same authors of the 1919 Covenant, were also the principles at the 1920 San Remo Convention in which the framework for the Mandate of Palestine was agreed upon; and where the concept was hammered-out in regards to the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH).
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As clearly stated, any obligation antecedent to the entry of a state as a member of the League of Nations that conflicted with the covenant of the LoN, was to abrogated by the entrant (UK) prior to joining the LoN.
> 
> _(b) _The object aimed at by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations is "the well-being and development of the people" of the land. Alien Jews not in Palestine do not come within the scope of this aim, neither is their association with Palestine more close than that of Christians and Moslems all over the world. *Consequently the Jewish National Home policy is contrary to the spirit of the Covenant.*
> 
> (c) Article XX of the Covenant reads: *"The Members of this League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings *_*inter se *_*which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, *and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
> *
> "In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."*
> 
> - See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Covenant grants no special or unique application to the indigenous population of the territory under mandate.  In fact, Article 22, could be thought of as applying in general to any of the orphaned territories left in the wake of the post-War conditions.
> 
> Relative to Article 22/1 of the Covenant:
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> In fact, of the Middle East Protectorates and Mandates, the following Arab countries were determined to stand-alone, with their independence and sovereignty.
> 
> Lebanon:  Independence:  22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Syria:  Independence:  17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Jordan:  Independence:  25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Iraq:  Independence:  3 October 1932 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Israel:  Independence:  14 May 1948 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Kuwait:  Independence:  19 June 1961 (from UK)
> Egypt:  Independence:  28 February 1922 (from UK)
> Relative to Article 22/4 of the Covenant:
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
> Nothing in this clause specifically applies to the Palestinian territory under Mandate.  It has a general application but on pinpoint specific application.  While in general one could say that the League of Nations gave Britain the Mandate to administer Palestine, which required her to implement the Balfour Declaration, and undertake a “sacred trust of civilisation” to advance the welfare of the all people and guide them to independence.   And here again, --- while the Jewish citizens under the Mandate of Palestine chose to follow the "Step Preparatory to Independence" as approved by the General Assembly; the Arab Palestinians turned this opportunity down at least three times.​
> Relative to Article 22/8 of the Covenant:
> The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.
> One of the major objectives of the Mandate, as passed-down from the San Remo Convention, by the Principal Allied Powers to the Mandatory --- was the responsibility for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917,  in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.​I have heard, many times, that the Palestinians were not given the proper well-being care and development they had due to them.  That they were denied the right to self-determination, and that they were not dealt with fairly.  The is a form of negativism in which the under developed culture does not have the ability to stand on its own --- and who tends to be negative.  Of course, most cultures have periods or moments of whining, complaining, and displaying “the glass-is-half-empty” attitude now and again, but the continuation --- day after day, year after year, decade after decade --- of dwelling on the worst outcome of any given situation --- droning on and on about the unfairness of the world, then there is something more wrong with the culture than meets the eye.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still does not change the fact that the Zionist colonial project was imposed on the Palestinians at the point of a gun denying them of their inalienable rights.
Click to expand...

That is completely false. All of the aggression was started by the Arabs, like I have proved countless times. 

What really happened is that the Jews had their shit together and were able to legally declare independence. When this happened, the 'Palestinians' tried to follow by doing the same a few months after, but they failed at that. 
Too little too late.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Remembering --- that the UK Colonial Office (UKCO) to the Palestine Arab Delegation (PAD) is not an official; statement of policy.  Again, remember as stated in Correspondence #2, Paragraph #2, Mr Churchill and the UKCO was "not in a position to negotiate officially with [the PAD] or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine, since no official machinery for representation has as yet been constituted."  The Arab Palestinian Leadership having rejected (more then once) the opportunity to establish an official conduit.
> 
> Also remember that the very same people that wrote the Covenant for the League of Nations, also wrote the Mandate.  There is nothing at all in Article 22 of the Covenant, that would suggest that Article 22 was in anyway dedicated exclusively to the opportunities of Arab Palestinians --- or --- predicated upon the claim that the granting an advantage to the Arab Palestinians.  The same authors of the 1919 Covenant, were also the principles at the 1920 San Remo Convention in which the framework for the Mandate of Palestine was agreed upon; and where the concept was hammered-out in regards to the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH).
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As clearly stated, any obligation antecedent to the entry of a state as a member of the League of Nations that conflicted with the covenant of the LoN, was to abrogated by the entrant (UK) prior to joining the LoN.
> 
> _(b) _The object aimed at by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations is "the well-being and development of the people" of the land. Alien Jews not in Palestine do not come within the scope of this aim, neither is their association with Palestine more close than that of Christians and Moslems all over the world. *Consequently the Jewish National Home policy is contrary to the spirit of the Covenant.*
> 
> (c) Article XX of the Covenant reads: *"The Members of this League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings *_*inter se *_*which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, *and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
> *
> "In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."*
> 
> - See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Covenant grants no special or unique application to the indigenous population of the territory under mandate.  In fact, Article 22, could be thought of as applying in general to any of the orphaned territories left in the wake of the post-War conditions.
> 
> Relative to Article 22/1 of the Covenant:
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> In fact, of the Middle East Protectorates and Mandates, the following Arab countries were determined to stand-alone, with their independence and sovereignty.
> 
> Lebanon:  Independence:  22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Syria:  Independence:  17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Jordan:  Independence:  25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Iraq:  Independence:  3 October 1932 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Israel:  Independence:  14 May 1948 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Kuwait:  Independence:  19 June 1961 (from UK)
> Egypt:  Independence:  28 February 1922 (from UK)
> Relative to Article 22/4 of the Covenant:
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
> Nothing in this clause specifically applies to the Palestinian territory under Mandate.  It has a general application but on pinpoint specific application.  While in general one could say that the League of Nations gave Britain the Mandate to administer Palestine, which required her to implement the Balfour Declaration, and undertake a “sacred trust of civilisation” to advance the welfare of the all people and guide them to independence.   And here again, --- while the Jewish citizens under the Mandate of Palestine chose to follow the "Step Preparatory to Independence" as approved by the General Assembly; the Arab Palestinians turned this opportunity down at least three times.​
> Relative to Article 22/8 of the Covenant:
> The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.
> One of the major objectives of the Mandate, as passed-down from the San Remo Convention, by the Principal Allied Powers to the Mandatory --- was the responsibility for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917,  in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.​I have heard, many times, that the Palestinians were not given the proper well-being care and development they had due to them.  That they were denied the right to self-determination, and that they were not dealt with fairly.  The is a form of negativism in which the under developed culture does not have the ability to stand on its own --- and who tends to be negative.  Of course, most cultures have periods or moments of whining, complaining, and displaying “the glass-is-half-empty” attitude now and again, but the continuation --- day after day, year after year, decade after decade --- of dwelling on the worst outcome of any given situation --- droning on and on about the unfairness of the world, then there is something more wrong with the culture than meets the eye.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still does not change the fact that the Zionist colonial project was imposed on the Palestinians at the point of a gun denying them of their inalienable rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is completely false. All of the aggression was started by the Arabs, like I have proved countless times.
> 
> What really happened is that the Jews had their shit together and were able to legally declare independence. When this happened, the 'Palestinians' tried to follow by doing the same a few months after, but they failed at that.
> Too little too late.
Click to expand...

Bullshit!


----------



## montelatici

The Jews were European colonists that had a colonial power helping them create a new colony.  Of course they had the advantage.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Remembering --- that the UK Colonial Office (UKCO) to the Palestine Arab Delegation (PAD) is not an official; statement of policy.  Again, remember as stated in Correspondence #2, Paragraph #2, Mr Churchill and the UKCO was "not in a position to negotiate officially with [the PAD] or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine, since no official machinery for representation has as yet been constituted."  The Arab Palestinian Leadership having rejected (more then once) the opportunity to establish an official conduit.
> 
> Also remember that the very same people that wrote the Covenant for the League of Nations, also wrote the Mandate.  There is nothing at all in Article 22 of the Covenant, that would suggest that Article 22 was in anyway dedicated exclusively to the opportunities of Arab Palestinians --- or --- predicated upon the claim that the granting an advantage to the Arab Palestinians.  The same authors of the 1919 Covenant, were also the principles at the 1920 San Remo Convention in which the framework for the Mandate of Palestine was agreed upon; and where the concept was hammered-out in regards to the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH).
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As clearly stated, any obligation antecedent to the entry of a state as a member of the League of Nations that conflicted with the covenant of the LoN, was to abrogated by the entrant (UK) prior to joining the LoN.
> 
> _(b) _The object aimed at by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations is "the well-being and development of the people" of the land. Alien Jews not in Palestine do not come within the scope of this aim, neither is their association with Palestine more close than that of Christians and Moslems all over the world. *Consequently the Jewish National Home policy is contrary to the spirit of the Covenant.*
> 
> (c) Article XX of the Covenant reads: *"The Members of this League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings *_*inter se *_*which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, *and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
> *
> "In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."*
> 
> - See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Covenant grants no special or unique application to the indigenous population of the territory under mandate.  In fact, Article 22, could be thought of as applying in general to any of the orphaned territories left in the wake of the post-War conditions.
> 
> Relative to Article 22/1 of the Covenant:
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> In fact, of the Middle East Protectorates and Mandates, the following Arab countries were determined to stand-alone, with their independence and sovereignty.
> 
> Lebanon:  Independence:  22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Syria:  Independence:  17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Jordan:  Independence:  25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Iraq:  Independence:  3 October 1932 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Israel:  Independence:  14 May 1948 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Kuwait:  Independence:  19 June 1961 (from UK)
> Egypt:  Independence:  28 February 1922 (from UK)
> Relative to Article 22/4 of the Covenant:
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
> Nothing in this clause specifically applies to the Palestinian territory under Mandate.  It has a general application but on pinpoint specific application.  While in general one could say that the League of Nations gave Britain the Mandate to administer Palestine, which required her to implement the Balfour Declaration, and undertake a “sacred trust of civilisation” to advance the welfare of the all people and guide them to independence.   And here again, --- while the Jewish citizens under the Mandate of Palestine chose to follow the "Step Preparatory to Independence" as approved by the General Assembly; the Arab Palestinians turned this opportunity down at least three times.​
> Relative to Article 22/8 of the Covenant:
> The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.
> One of the major objectives of the Mandate, as passed-down from the San Remo Convention, by the Principal Allied Powers to the Mandatory --- was the responsibility for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917,  in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.​I have heard, many times, that the Palestinians were not given the proper well-being care and development they had due to them.  That they were denied the right to self-determination, and that they were not dealt with fairly.  The is a form of negativism in which the under developed culture does not have the ability to stand on its own --- and who tends to be negative.  Of course, most cultures have periods or moments of whining, complaining, and displaying “the glass-is-half-empty” attitude now and again, but the continuation --- day after day, year after year, decade after decade --- of dwelling on the worst outcome of any given situation --- droning on and on about the unfairness of the world, then there is something more wrong with the culture than meets the eye.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still does not change the fact that the Zionist colonial project was imposed on the Palestinians at the point of a gun denying them of their inalienable rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is completely false. All of the aggression was started by the Arabs, like I have proved countless times.
> 
> What really happened is that the Jews had their shit together and were able to legally declare independence. When this happened, the 'Palestinians' tried to follow by doing the same a few months after, but they failed at that.
> Too little too late.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit!
Click to expand...

What I said was not ny opinion, it was a fact.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> The Jews were European colonists that had a colonial power helping them create a new colony.  Of course they had the advantage.



How were the European Jews a colonial power ?? LOL

You propagandists love to picture the European Jews in a manner that suits your agenda. Problem is, the evidence says otherwise.
As I have proved countless times, it was the Arabs that started the hostilities with massacres and other attacks.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Remembering --- that the UK Colonial Office (UKCO) to the Palestine Arab Delegation (PAD) is not an official; statement of policy.  Again, remember as stated in Correspondence #2, Paragraph #2, Mr Churchill and the UKCO was "not in a position to negotiate officially with [the PAD] or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine, since no official machinery for representation has as yet been constituted."  The Arab Palestinian Leadership having rejected (more then once) the opportunity to establish an official conduit.
> 
> Also remember that the very same people that wrote the Covenant for the League of Nations, also wrote the Mandate.  There is nothing at all in Article 22 of the Covenant, that would suggest that Article 22 was in anyway dedicated exclusively to the opportunities of Arab Palestinians --- or --- predicated upon the claim that the granting an advantage to the Arab Palestinians.  The same authors of the 1919 Covenant, were also the principles at the 1920 San Remo Convention in which the framework for the Mandate of Palestine was agreed upon; and where the concept was hammered-out in regards to the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH).
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As clearly stated, any obligation antecedent to the entry of a state as a member of the League of Nations that conflicted with the covenant of the LoN, was to abrogated by the entrant (UK) prior to joining the LoN.
> 
> _(b) _The object aimed at by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations is "the well-being and development of the people" of the land. Alien Jews not in Palestine do not come within the scope of this aim, neither is their association with Palestine more close than that of Christians and Moslems all over the world. *Consequently the Jewish National Home policy is contrary to the spirit of the Covenant.*
> 
> (c) Article XX of the Covenant reads: *"The Members of this League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings *_*inter se *_*which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, *and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
> *
> "In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."*
> 
> - See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Covenant grants no special or unique application to the indigenous population of the territory under mandate.  In fact, Article 22, could be thought of as applying in general to any of the orphaned territories left in the wake of the post-War conditions.
> 
> Relative to Article 22/1 of the Covenant:
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> In fact, of the Middle East Protectorates and Mandates, the following Arab countries were determined to stand-alone, with their independence and sovereignty.
> 
> Lebanon:  Independence:  22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Syria:  Independence:  17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Jordan:  Independence:  25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Iraq:  Independence:  3 October 1932 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Israel:  Independence:  14 May 1948 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Kuwait:  Independence:  19 June 1961 (from UK)
> Egypt:  Independence:  28 February 1922 (from UK)
> Relative to Article 22/4 of the Covenant:
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
> Nothing in this clause specifically applies to the Palestinian territory under Mandate.  It has a general application but on pinpoint specific application.  While in general one could say that the League of Nations gave Britain the Mandate to administer Palestine, which required her to implement the Balfour Declaration, and undertake a “sacred trust of civilisation” to advance the welfare of the all people and guide them to independence.   And here again, --- while the Jewish citizens under the Mandate of Palestine chose to follow the "Step Preparatory to Independence" as approved by the General Assembly; the Arab Palestinians turned this opportunity down at least three times.​
> Relative to Article 22/8 of the Covenant:
> The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.
> One of the major objectives of the Mandate, as passed-down from the San Remo Convention, by the Principal Allied Powers to the Mandatory --- was the responsibility for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917,  in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.​I have heard, many times, that the Palestinians were not given the proper well-being care and development they had due to them.  That they were denied the right to self-determination, and that they were not dealt with fairly.  The is a form of negativism in which the under developed culture does not have the ability to stand on its own --- and who tends to be negative.  Of course, most cultures have periods or moments of whining, complaining, and displaying “the glass-is-half-empty” attitude now and again, but the continuation --- day after day, year after year, decade after decade --- of dwelling on the worst outcome of any given situation --- droning on and on about the unfairness of the world, then there is something more wrong with the culture than meets the eye.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still does not change the fact that the Zionist colonial project was imposed on the Palestinians at the point of a gun denying them of their inalienable rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is completely false. All of the aggression was started by the Arabs, like I have proved countless times.
> 
> What really happened is that the Jews had their shit together and were able to legally declare independence. When this happened, the 'Palestinians' tried to follow by doing the same a few months after, but they failed at that.
> Too little too late.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I said was not ny opinion, it was a fact.
Click to expand...

Pfffft, facts according to Israel.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Remembering --- that the UK Colonial Office (UKCO) to the Palestine Arab Delegation (PAD) is not an official; statement of policy.  Again, remember as stated in Correspondence #2, Paragraph #2, Mr Churchill and the UKCO was "not in a position to negotiate officially with [the PAD] or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine, since no official machinery for representation has as yet been constituted."  The Arab Palestinian Leadership having rejected (more then once) the opportunity to establish an official conduit.
> 
> Also remember that the very same people that wrote the Covenant for the League of Nations, also wrote the Mandate.  There is nothing at all in Article 22 of the Covenant, that would suggest that Article 22 was in anyway dedicated exclusively to the opportunities of Arab Palestinians --- or --- predicated upon the claim that the granting an advantage to the Arab Palestinians.  The same authors of the 1919 Covenant, were also the principles at the 1920 San Remo Convention in which the framework for the Mandate of Palestine was agreed upon; and where the concept was hammered-out in regards to the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH).
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Covenant grants no special or unique application to the indigenous population of the territory under mandate.  In fact, Article 22, could be thought of as applying in general to any of the orphaned territories left in the wake of the post-War conditions.
> 
> Relative to Article 22/1 of the Covenant:
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> In fact, of the Middle East Protectorates and Mandates, the following Arab countries were determined to stand-alone, with their independence and sovereignty.
> 
> Lebanon:  Independence:  22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Syria:  Independence:  17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Jordan:  Independence:  25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Iraq:  Independence:  3 October 1932 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Israel:  Independence:  14 May 1948 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Kuwait:  Independence:  19 June 1961 (from UK)
> Egypt:  Independence:  28 February 1922 (from UK)
> Relative to Article 22/4 of the Covenant:
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
> Nothing in this clause specifically applies to the Palestinian territory under Mandate.  It has a general application but on pinpoint specific application.  While in general one could say that the League of Nations gave Britain the Mandate to administer Palestine, which required her to implement the Balfour Declaration, and undertake a “sacred trust of civilisation” to advance the welfare of the all people and guide them to independence.   And here again, --- while the Jewish citizens under the Mandate of Palestine chose to follow the "Step Preparatory to Independence" as approved by the General Assembly; the Arab Palestinians turned this opportunity down at least three times.​
> Relative to Article 22/8 of the Covenant:
> The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.
> One of the major objectives of the Mandate, as passed-down from the San Remo Convention, by the Principal Allied Powers to the Mandatory --- was the responsibility for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917,  in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.​I have heard, many times, that the Palestinians were not given the proper well-being care and development they had due to them.  That they were denied the right to self-determination, and that they were not dealt with fairly.  The is a form of negativism in which the under developed culture does not have the ability to stand on its own --- and who tends to be negative.  Of course, most cultures have periods or moments of whining, complaining, and displaying “the glass-is-half-empty” attitude now and again, but the continuation --- day after day, year after year, decade after decade --- of dwelling on the worst outcome of any given situation --- droning on and on about the unfairness of the world, then there is something more wrong with the culture than meets the eye.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Still does not change the fact that the Zionist colonial project was imposed on the Palestinians at the point of a gun denying them of their inalienable rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is completely false. All of the aggression was started by the Arabs, like I have proved countless times.
> 
> What really happened is that the Jews had their shit together and were able to legally declare independence. When this happened, the 'Palestinians' tried to follow by doing the same a few months after, but they failed at that.
> Too little too late.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I said was not ny opinion, it was a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pfffft, facts according to Israel.
Click to expand...

No, facts according to history.


----------



## docmauser1

P F Tinmore said:


> Pfffft, facts according to Israel.


The palistanian jackass has been flogged to death.


----------



## Challenger

RoccoR said:


> I have heard, many times, that the Palestinians were not given the proper well-being care and development they had due to them. That they were denied the right to self-determination, and that they were not dealt with fairly. The is a form of negativism in which the under developed culture does not have the ability to stand on its own --- and who tends to be negative. Of course, most cultures have periods or moments of whining, complaining, and displaying “the glass-is-half-empty” attitude now and again, but the continuation --- day after day, year after year, decade after decade --- of dwelling on the worst outcome of any given situation --- droning on and on about the unfairness of the world, then there is something more wrong with the culture than meets the eye.



Hang on, doesn't this apply to the so called Jewish diaspora for centuries? A cry taken up by the Zionists in the 19th and 20th centuries? Isn't what's valid for Jewish people, equally valid for the disposessed and oppressed native population of Palestine?


----------



## Challenger

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still does not change the fact that the Zionist colonial project was imposed on the Palestinians at the point of a gun denying them of their inalienable rights.
> 
> 
> 
> That is completely false. All of the aggression was started by the Arabs, like I have proved countless times.
> 
> What really happened is that the Jews had their shit together and were able to legally declare independence. When this happened, the 'Palestinians' tried to follow by doing the same a few months after, but they failed at that.
> Too little too late.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I said was not ny opinion, it was a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pfffft, facts according to Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, facts according to history.
Click to expand...

Zionist history, perhaps.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Wow, this is one hell of a set of allegations.
> 
> Immigration policies were imposed on Palestine;
> At the point of a gun against their wishes and best interest;
> Violation of their inalienable right to self determination.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not true. The immigration policies were imposed on Palestine at the point of a gun against their wishes and best interest. This was a violation of their inalienable right to self determination.
> See:
> Who Are The Palestinians Page 250 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCE)
> *
> The correspondence between the Palestine Arab Delegation and the Secretary of State for the Colonies sets the time frame to 1922 _(over 90 years ago)_.
> *
> NOTE:  *In Paragraph #2, of Letter #2, from the Secretary of State (SoS) to the Palestinian Arab Delegation (PAD), the status of the PAD is questioned.
> 
> The SoS is not "in a position to negotiate officially with you _[meaning the PAD] _or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine, since no official machinery for representation has as yet been constituted."
> 
> *ANCILLARY NOTE*  (_The Political History of Palestine under British Administration_) :  Paragraph 22.  Later in 1923, a *third attempt was made to establish an institution* through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an *Arab Agency in Palestine* which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. *The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognized that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”.* The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognized the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.​*
> (COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinians of Palestine declined to formally establish a "Arab Agency" which the Mandatory could recognize as an authentic representative of the Palestinian Arab Population, and consultant to the Mandatory on matters pertaining to "immigration."
> 
> Allegation #1:  Immigration policies were imposed on Palestine; this is lacking the understanding that the Mandatory, on at least three (3) occasions, attempted to induce the PADs to form an Arab Agency that would be a consultant on matters such as immigration.  However, the Arab Palestinian Leadership declined.  Thus immigration policy was established without the benefit of PAD input.​
> There was a belief of the Arab Palestinians that the *Balfour Declaration* implied a denial of the right of self-determination, and their fear that the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH) would mean an increase in Jewish immigration that would inevitably lead to subjugation through economic and political increase in pressure by the Jews.  The Jaffa Riots (May 1921) where due, in no small measure to the proliferation of this belief; and the implementation of immigration policy as stipulated by Articles 4 and 6 of the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> Allegation #2:  At the point of a gun against their wishes and best interest;  The Allied Powers stipulated that the Mandatory should be in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people.  Far from being at the point of a gun, the Mandatory proceeded IAW the directives given, absent advise from a recognizes Arab Palestinian authority.​
> The Allied Powers, in Article 2 of the Mandate --- ordered the Mandatory to be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the JNH, and the development of self-governing institutions.
> 
> Allegation #3:  Violation of their inalienable right to self determination... Whether one uses the Charter (Articles 1, 2, or 55); or the 1960 General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), or --- the 1974 General Assembly Resolution 3236 (XXIX) (See Posting #2467), it is imperative that all understand that the "right of self-determination" was never withheld or denied the Arab Palestinian.  "Self-determination" is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative *principle of action*, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril.... " _(Hurst Hannum,  Professor of International Law at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy of Tufts University, writing for the Princeton Encyclopedia)_.  But ignore the *principle of action* is exactly what the PAD did by declining to establish an Arab Agency.  In effect, the PAD did exercise the right to self determination by refusing to participate (negative action and zero participation).
> 
> The "principle" of self-determination is mentioned only twice in the Charter of the United Nations, both times in the context of developing "friendly relations among nations" and in conjunction with the principle of "equal rights... of peoples." The reference to "peoples" clearly encompasses groups beyond states and includes at least non-self-governing territories "whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government."​It is mort important to understand that if a people(s) decline to participate in the developmental stages of self-governing institutions, as in the case of the Palestinian Arab Delegation or the Arab Higher Committee, then they forfeit the right to complain about the outcome.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As clearly stated, any obligation antecedent to the entry of a state as a member of the League of Nations that conflicted with the covenant of the LoN, was to abrogated by the entrant (UK) prior to joining the LoN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _(b) _The object aimed at by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations is "the well-being and development of the people" of the land. Alien Jews not in Palestine do not come within the scope of this aim, neither is their association with Palestine more close than that of Christians and Moslems all over the world. *Consequently the Jewish National Home policy is contrary to the spirit of the Covenant.*
> 
> (c) Article XX of the Covenant reads: *"The Members of this League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings *_*inter se *_*which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, *and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
> *
> "In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."*
> 
> - See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
Click to expand...





And it means nothing as the LoN did nothing with it. The mandate stood and stated that the Jews were to be given citizenship and to acquire ownership of the land for their NATIONAL HOME. It became International Law and as such must be obeyed.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> To claim that the alien settlement of Palestine by European Jews was not forced upon the Christians and Muslims by the point of a gun, is ludicrous.






 NOPE as they were given their own lands to colonise, which is what you islamoinazi illiterates do not take into consideration.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Remembering --- that the UK Colonial Office (UKCO) to the Palestine Arab Delegation (PAD) is not an official; statement of policy.  Again, remember as stated in Correspondence #2, Paragraph #2, Mr Churchill and the UKCO was "not in a position to negotiate officially with [the PAD] or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine, since no official machinery for representation has as yet been constituted."  The Arab Palestinian Leadership having rejected (more then once) the opportunity to establish an official conduit.
> 
> Also remember that the very same people that wrote the Covenant for the League of Nations, also wrote the Mandate.  There is nothing at all in Article 22 of the Covenant, that would suggest that Article 22 was in anyway dedicated exclusively to the opportunities of Arab Palestinians --- or --- predicated upon the claim that the granting an advantage to the Arab Palestinians.  The same authors of the 1919 Covenant, were also the principles at the 1920 San Remo Convention in which the framework for the Mandate of Palestine was agreed upon; and where the concept was hammered-out in regards to the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH).
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As clearly stated, any obligation antecedent to the entry of a state as a member of the League of Nations that conflicted with the covenant of the LoN, was to abrogated by the entrant (UK) prior to joining the LoN.
> 
> _(b) _The object aimed at by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations is "the well-being and development of the people" of the land. Alien Jews not in Palestine do not come within the scope of this aim, neither is their association with Palestine more close than that of Christians and Moslems all over the world. *Consequently the Jewish National Home policy is contrary to the spirit of the Covenant.*
> 
> (c) Article XX of the Covenant reads: *"The Members of this League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings *_*inter se *_*which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, *and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
> *
> "In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."*
> 
> - See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Covenant grants no special or unique application to the indigenous population of the territory under mandate.  In fact, Article 22, could be thought of as applying in general to any of the orphaned territories left in the wake of the post-War conditions.
> 
> Relative to Article 22/1 of the Covenant:
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> In fact, of the Middle East Protectorates and Mandates, the following Arab countries were determined to stand-alone, with their independence and sovereignty.
> 
> Lebanon:  Independence:  22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Syria:  Independence:  17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Jordan:  Independence:  25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Iraq:  Independence:  3 October 1932 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Israel:  Independence:  14 May 1948 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Kuwait:  Independence:  19 June 1961 (from UK)
> Egypt:  Independence:  28 February 1922 (from UK)
> Relative to Article 22/4 of the Covenant:
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
> Nothing in this clause specifically applies to the Palestinian territory under Mandate.  It has a general application but on pinpoint specific application.  While in general one could say that the League of Nations gave Britain the Mandate to administer Palestine, which required her to implement the Balfour Declaration, and undertake a “sacred trust of civilisation” to advance the welfare of the all people and guide them to independence.   And here again, --- while the Jewish citizens under the Mandate of Palestine chose to follow the "Step Preparatory to Independence" as approved by the General Assembly; the Arab Palestinians turned this opportunity down at least three times.​
> Relative to Article 22/8 of the Covenant:
> The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.
> One of the major objectives of the Mandate, as passed-down from the San Remo Convention, by the Principal Allied Powers to the Mandatory --- was the responsibility for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917,  in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.​I have heard, many times, that the Palestinians were not given the proper well-being care and development they had due to them.  That they were denied the right to self-determination, and that they were not dealt with fairly.  The is a form of negativism in which the under developed culture does not have the ability to stand on its own --- and who tends to be negative.  Of course, most cultures have periods or moments of whining, complaining, and displaying “the glass-is-half-empty” attitude now and again, but the continuation --- day after day, year after year, decade after decade --- of dwelling on the worst outcome of any given situation --- droning on and on about the unfairness of the world, then there is something more wrong with the culture than meets the eye.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still does not change the fact that the Zionist colonial project was imposed on the Palestinians at the point of a gun denying them of their inalienable rights.
Click to expand...






 What inalienable rights and when did they become law ?


----------



## toastman

Challenger said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is completely false. All of the aggression was started by the Arabs, like I have proved countless times.
> 
> What really happened is that the Jews had their shit together and were able to legally declare independence. When this happened, the 'Palestinians' tried to follow by doing the same a few months after, but they failed at that.
> Too little too late.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I said was not ny opinion, it was a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pfffft, facts according to Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, facts according to history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zionist history, perhaps.
Click to expand...

It's ok challenger, I don't expect you to accept the truth. I've seen your posts many times where you are simply unable to handle the truth. It's a known fact that pro Palestinians are allergic to it, so don't worry, you're not alone


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Remembering --- that the UK Colonial Office (UKCO) to the Palestine Arab Delegation (PAD) is not an official; statement of policy.  Again, remember as stated in Correspondence #2, Paragraph #2, Mr Churchill and the UKCO was "not in a position to negotiate officially with [the PAD] or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine, since no official machinery for representation has as yet been constituted."  The Arab Palestinian Leadership having rejected (more then once) the opportunity to establish an official conduit.
> 
> Also remember that the very same people that wrote the Covenant for the League of Nations, also wrote the Mandate.  There is nothing at all in Article 22 of the Covenant, that would suggest that Article 22 was in anyway dedicated exclusively to the opportunities of Arab Palestinians --- or --- predicated upon the claim that the granting an advantage to the Arab Palestinians.  The same authors of the 1919 Covenant, were also the principles at the 1920 San Remo Convention in which the framework for the Mandate of Palestine was agreed upon; and where the concept was hammered-out in regards to the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH).
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As clearly stated, any obligation antecedent to the entry of a state as a member of the League of Nations that conflicted with the covenant of the LoN, was to abrogated by the entrant (UK) prior to joining the LoN.
> 
> _(b) _The object aimed at by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations is "the well-being and development of the people" of the land. Alien Jews not in Palestine do not come within the scope of this aim, neither is their association with Palestine more close than that of Christians and Moslems all over the world. *Consequently the Jewish National Home policy is contrary to the spirit of the Covenant.*
> 
> (c) Article XX of the Covenant reads: *"The Members of this League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings *_*inter se *_*which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, *and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
> *
> "In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."*
> 
> - See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Covenant grants no special or unique application to the indigenous population of the territory under mandate.  In fact, Article 22, could be thought of as applying in general to any of the orphaned territories left in the wake of the post-War conditions.
> 
> Relative to Article 22/1 of the Covenant:
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> In fact, of the Middle East Protectorates and Mandates, the following Arab countries were determined to stand-alone, with their independence and sovereignty.
> 
> Lebanon:  Independence:  22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Syria:  Independence:  17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Jordan:  Independence:  25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Iraq:  Independence:  3 October 1932 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Israel:  Independence:  14 May 1948 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Kuwait:  Independence:  19 June 1961 (from UK)
> Egypt:  Independence:  28 February 1922 (from UK)
> Relative to Article 22/4 of the Covenant:
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
> Nothing in this clause specifically applies to the Palestinian territory under Mandate.  It has a general application but on pinpoint specific application.  While in general one could say that the League of Nations gave Britain the Mandate to administer Palestine, which required her to implement the Balfour Declaration, and undertake a “sacred trust of civilisation” to advance the welfare of the all people and guide them to independence.   And here again, --- while the Jewish citizens under the Mandate of Palestine chose to follow the "Step Preparatory to Independence" as approved by the General Assembly; the Arab Palestinians turned this opportunity down at least three times.​
> Relative to Article 22/8 of the Covenant:
> The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.
> One of the major objectives of the Mandate, as passed-down from the San Remo Convention, by the Principal Allied Powers to the Mandatory --- was the responsibility for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917,  in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.​I have heard, many times, that the Palestinians were not given the proper well-being care and development they had due to them.  That they were denied the right to self-determination, and that they were not dealt with fairly.  The is a form of negativism in which the under developed culture does not have the ability to stand on its own --- and who tends to be negative.  Of course, most cultures have periods or moments of whining, complaining, and displaying “the glass-is-half-empty” attitude now and again, but the continuation --- day after day, year after year, decade after decade --- of dwelling on the worst outcome of any given situation --- droning on and on about the unfairness of the world, then there is something more wrong with the culture than meets the eye.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't matter if it were the British Virgin Islands.  If the British had a deal/treaty/agreement with the Gurkhas  to populate the BVIs with thousands Gurkhas and their extended families in order to create a Gurkha National home there, at the expense of the locals, they should, by the terms of the LoN Covenant, have extricated themselves out of that agreement.
> 
> There hasn't been any such campaign, validated by an International Organization, against any people that was planned and executed to replace an indigenous people living a continent away from Europe, with a  "favored" European people.  I don't think that anyone looking at it as a neutral could ever imagine that such a process, with all the opaque and sinister tactics combined with betrayal, used against the Christians and Muslims would be acceptable to any fair and neutral observer.
Click to expand...





 And like a good little islamonazi stooge you deny the indigenous Jews of Palestine their rights to free determination and a homeland. So how about we make all muslims stateless and destined to wander the world for the next 2,000 years as unwanted pariahs ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> The Jews were European colonists that had a colonial power helping them create a new colony.  Of course they had the advantage.






 And as the demographics show you are talking shit. The majority of the Jews are indigenous, with less than 40% being immigrants under the rules of nationality as applied to arab and Jew alike


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> The Jews were European colonists that had a colonial power helping them create a new colony.  Of course they had the advantage.






 Make your mind up Abdul, you claim the arab muslims had the advantage of numbers. So which is it ?


----------



## Challenger

toastman said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit!
> 
> 
> 
> What I said was not ny opinion, it was a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pfffft, facts according to Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, facts according to history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zionist history, perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's ok challenger, I don't expect you to accept the truth. I've seen your posts many times where you are simply unable to handle the truth. It's a known fact that pro Palestinians are allergic to it, so don't worry, you're not alone
Click to expand...


There are many "truths",  all with their own preconceptions and biases, interpretations, feelings and fantasies. Accepting one "truth" blinds you to the possibilities in all the others and is intellectually lazy. I strive to obtain "The Truth" from amongst the web of lies and deceptions that are out there pretending to be "The Truth".

If you are comfortable with your version of the "truth", that's fine, but your mind is closed as a consequence. As the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." I and millions of others have found that Zionist Historiography and Hasbara has lied, again and again and again, so pardon my continuing skepticism about the stream of Hasbara I'm bombarded with from the Pro-Israelis here. So I'm glad I'm not alone, but thanks for your concern.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I said was not ny opinion, it was a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Pfffft, facts according to Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, facts according to history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zionist history, perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's ok challenger, I don't expect you to accept the truth. I've seen your posts many times where you are simply unable to handle the truth. It's a known fact that pro Palestinians are allergic to it, so don't worry, you're not alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many "truths",  all with their own preconceptions and biases, interpretations, feelings and fantasies. Accepting one "truth" blinds you to the possibilities in all the others and is intellectually lazy. I strive to obtain "The Truth" from amongst the web of lies and deceptions that are out there pretending to be "The Truth".
> 
> If you are comfortable with your version of the "truth", that's fine, but your mind is closed as a consequence. As the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." I and millions of others have found that Zionist Historiography and Hasbara has lied, again and again and again, so pardon my continuing skepticism about the stream of Hasbara I'm bombarded with from the Pro-Israelis here. So I'm glad I'm not alone, but thanks for your concern.
Click to expand...





 And by your use of the terms Zionist and hasbara you prove beyond reasonable doubt that your mind is closed to the truth. All you want to see is your warped version of reality and the arab muslims "truths" being peddled. You don't want to see Islamic sources saying that arab muslims were very thin on the ground in Palestine prior to the Ottoman's inviting Jews to migrate and settle. You don't want to see the original acceptance by arab muslims to the Jews taking Palestine as their homeland as back then it was worthless desert. You don't want to see the evidence of mass illegal immigration by arab muslims. You don't want to see the atrocities committed by arab muslims in Palestine against all non muslims. because to admit that these are truth and reality would mean your brainwashing was wrong.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Remembering --- that the UK Colonial Office (UKCO) to the Palestine Arab Delegation (PAD) is not an official; statement of policy.  Again, remember as stated in Correspondence #2, Paragraph #2, Mr Churchill and the UKCO was "not in a position to negotiate officially with [the PAD] or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine, since no official machinery for representation has as yet been constituted."  The Arab Palestinian Leadership having rejected (more then once) the opportunity to establish an official conduit.
> 
> Also remember that the very same people that wrote the Covenant for the League of Nations, also wrote the Mandate.  There is nothing at all in Article 22 of the Covenant, that would suggest that Article 22 was in anyway dedicated exclusively to the opportunities of Arab Palestinians --- or --- predicated upon the claim that the granting an advantage to the Arab Palestinians.  The same authors of the 1919 Covenant, were also the principles at the 1920 San Remo Convention in which the framework for the Mandate of Palestine was agreed upon; and where the concept was hammered-out in regards to the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH).
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As clearly stated, any obligation antecedent to the entry of a state as a member of the League of Nations that conflicted with the covenant of the LoN, was to abrogated by the entrant (UK) prior to joining the LoN.
> 
> _(b) _The object aimed at by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations is "the well-being and development of the people" of the land. Alien Jews not in Palestine do not come within the scope of this aim, neither is their association with Palestine more close than that of Christians and Moslems all over the world. *Consequently the Jewish National Home policy is contrary to the spirit of the Covenant.*
> 
> (c) Article XX of the Covenant reads: *"The Members of this League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings *_*inter se *_*which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, *and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
> *
> "In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."*
> 
> - See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Covenant grants no special or unique application to the indigenous population of the territory under mandate.  In fact, Article 22, could be thought of as applying in general to any of the orphaned territories left in the wake of the post-War conditions.
> 
> Relative to Article 22/1 of the Covenant:
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> In fact, of the Middle East Protectorates and Mandates, the following Arab countries were determined to stand-alone, with their independence and sovereignty.
> 
> Lebanon:  Independence:  22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Syria:  Independence:  17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Jordan:  Independence:  25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Iraq:  Independence:  3 October 1932 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Israel:  Independence:  14 May 1948 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Kuwait:  Independence:  19 June 1961 (from UK)
> Egypt:  Independence:  28 February 1922 (from UK)
> Relative to Article 22/4 of the Covenant:
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
> Nothing in this clause specifically applies to the Palestinian territory under Mandate.  It has a general application but on pinpoint specific application.  While in general one could say that the League of Nations gave Britain the Mandate to administer Palestine, which required her to implement the Balfour Declaration, and undertake a “sacred trust of civilisation” to advance the welfare of the all people and guide them to independence.   And here again, --- while the Jewish citizens under the Mandate of Palestine chose to follow the "Step Preparatory to Independence" as approved by the General Assembly; the Arab Palestinians turned this opportunity down at least three times.​
> Relative to Article 22/8 of the Covenant:
> The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.
> One of the major objectives of the Mandate, as passed-down from the San Remo Convention, by the Principal Allied Powers to the Mandatory --- was the responsibility for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917,  in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.​I have heard, many times, that the Palestinians were not given the proper well-being care and development they had due to them.  That they were denied the right to self-determination, and that they were not dealt with fairly.  The is a form of negativism in which the under developed culture does not have the ability to stand on its own --- and who tends to be negative.  Of course, most cultures have periods or moments of whining, complaining, and displaying “the glass-is-half-empty” attitude now and again, but the continuation --- day after day, year after year, decade after decade --- of dwelling on the worst outcome of any given situation --- droning on and on about the unfairness of the world, then there is something more wrong with the culture than meets the eye.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't matter if it were the British Virgin Islands.  If the British had a deal/treaty/agreement with the Gurkhas  to populate the BVIs with thousands Gurkhas and their extended families in order to create a Gurkha National home there, at the expense of the locals, they should, by the terms of the LoN Covenant, have extricated themselves out of that agreement.
> 
> There hasn't been any such campaign, validated by an International Organization, against any people that was planned and executed to replace an indigenous people living a continent away from Europe, with a  "favored" European people.  I don't think that anyone looking at it as a neutral could ever imagine that such a process, with all the opaque and sinister tactics combined with betrayal, used against the Christians and Muslims would be acceptable to any fair and neutral observer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And like a good little islamonazi stooge you deny the indigenous Jews of Palestine their rights to free determination and a homeland. So how about we make all muslims stateless and destined to wander the world for the next 2,000 years as unwanted pariahs ?
Click to expand...

*Not true.*

Even the PLO Charter specifically recognizes indigenous Jews as legitimate citizens of Palestine.


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pfffft, facts according to Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> No, facts according to history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zionist history, perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's ok challenger, I don't expect you to accept the truth. I've seen your posts many times where you are simply unable to handle the truth. It's a known fact that pro Palestinians are allergic to it, so don't worry, you're not alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many "truths",  all with their own preconceptions and biases, interpretations, feelings and fantasies. Accepting one "truth" blinds you to the possibilities in all the others and is intellectually lazy. I strive to obtain "The Truth" from amongst the web of lies and deceptions that are out there pretending to be "The Truth".
> 
> If you are comfortable with your version of the "truth", that's fine, but your mind is closed as a consequence. As the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." I and millions of others have found that Zionist Historiography and Hasbara has lied, again and again and again, so pardon my continuing skepticism about the stream of Hasbara I'm bombarded with from the Pro-Israelis here. So I'm glad I'm not alone, but thanks for your concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by your use of the terms Zionist and hasbara you prove beyond reasonable doubt that your mind is closed to the truth. All you want to see is your warped version of reality and the arab muslims "truths" being peddled. You don't want to see Islamic sources saying that arab muslims were very thin on the ground in Palestine prior to the Ottoman's inviting Jews to migrate and settle. You don't want to see the original acceptance by arab muslims to the Jews taking Palestine as their homeland as back then it was worthless desert. You don't want to see the evidence of mass illegal immigration by arab muslims. You don't want to see the atrocities committed by arab muslims in Palestine against all non muslims. because to admit that these are truth and reality would mean your brainwashing was wrong.
Click to expand...


Israelis and Jewish people use the terms Zionist and Hasbara all the time; the word "Hasbara" is an  Israeli word for goodness sake! I use the words for the purpose of clarity; being precise in defining what I'm talking about. I prefer to use the phrase "Jewish person" over the word "Jew" as I consider the word both derogatory and racist. I'm more than happy to look at any source but I'm allowed to be skeptical about any source's veracity and objectivity, as well as it's accuracy.

What source of yours says, "...that arab muslims were very thin on the ground in Palestine prior to the Ottoman's inviting Jews to migrate and settle"? I'll look at it.

What source of yours talks about, "acceptance by arab muslims to the Jews taking Palestine as their homeland as back then it was worthless desert."? I'll look at it as well.

What source of yours provides, "evidence of mass illegal immigration by arab muslims" ? I'll look at it.

What source of yours catalogues, "the atrocities committed by arab muslims in Palestine against all non muslims."? I'll look at that too, without fear and with an open mind.


----------



## MJB12741

Challenger said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I said was not ny opinion, it was a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Pfffft, facts according to Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, facts according to history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zionist history, perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's ok challenger, I don't expect you to accept the truth. I've seen your posts many times where you are simply unable to handle the truth. It's a known fact that pro Palestinians are allergic to it, so don't worry, you're not alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many "truths",  all with their own preconceptions and biases, interpretations, feelings and fantasies. Accepting one "truth" blinds you to the possibilities in all the others and is intellectually lazy. I strive to obtain "The Truth" from amongst the web of lies and deceptions that are out there pretending to be "The Truth".
> 
> If you are comfortable with your version of the "truth", that's fine, but your mind is closed as a consequence. As the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." I and millions of others have found that Zionist Historiography and Hasbara has lied, again and again and again, so pardon my continuing skepticism about the stream of Hasbara I'm bombarded with from the Pro-Israelis here. So I'm glad I'm not alone, but thanks for your concern.
Click to expand...


Here is one truth that no one can deny with any documentation to back up a denial.  Among the indigenous Palestinians were Jews.  And not a single Muslim Palestinian among them.  And the overwhelming majority of Muslim Palestinians are squatters on Israel's land for generations with no deeds or titles whatsoever to the land they stole.


----------



## ChrisL

Challenger said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I said was not ny opinion, it was a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Pfffft, facts according to Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, facts according to history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zionist history, perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's ok challenger, I don't expect you to accept the truth. I've seen your posts many times where you are simply unable to handle the truth. It's a known fact that pro Palestinians are allergic to it, so don't worry, you're not alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many "truths",  all with their own preconceptions and biases, interpretations, feelings and fantasies. Accepting one "truth" blinds you to the possibilities in all the others and is intellectually lazy. I strive to obtain "The Truth" from amongst the web of lies and deceptions that are out there pretending to be "The Truth".
> 
> If you are comfortable with your version of the "truth", that's fine, but your mind is closed as a consequence. As the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." I and millions of others have found that Zionist Historiography and Hasbara has lied, again and again and again, so pardon my continuing skepticism about the stream of Hasbara I'm bombarded with from the Pro-Israelis here. So I'm glad I'm not alone, but thanks for your concern.
Click to expand...


Well, you must be blind.  Israel has had nuclear weapons for years.  If they wanted to, they could wipe the Palestinians off the map.  They have the power to do so, but they have not.  They have tolerated a LOT from their "neighbors" over many, many, many years.  Obviously you are quite ignorant.


----------



## Kondor3

ChrisL said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pfffft, facts according to Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> No, facts according to history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zionist history, perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's ok challenger, I don't expect you to accept the truth. I've seen your posts many times where you are simply unable to handle the truth. It's a known fact that pro Palestinians are allergic to it, so don't worry, you're not alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many "truths",  all with their own preconceptions and biases, interpretations, feelings and fantasies. Accepting one "truth" blinds you to the possibilities in all the others and is intellectually lazy. I strive to obtain "The Truth" from amongst the web of lies and deceptions that are out there pretending to be "The Truth".
> 
> If you are comfortable with your version of the "truth", that's fine, but your mind is closed as a consequence. As the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." I and millions of others have found that Zionist Historiography and Hasbara has lied, again and again and again, so pardon my continuing skepticism about the stream of Hasbara I'm bombarded with from the Pro-Israelis here. So I'm glad I'm not alone, but thanks for your concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you must be blind.  Israel has had nuclear weapons for years.  If they wanted to, they could wipe the Palestinians off the map.  They have the power to do so, but they have not.  They have tolerated a LOT from their "neighbors" over many, many, many years.  Obviously you are quite ignorant.
Click to expand...

No, not ignorant, just partisan.


----------



## ChrisL

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Remembering --- that the UK Colonial Office (UKCO) to the Palestine Arab Delegation (PAD) is not an official; statement of policy.  Again, remember as stated in Correspondence #2, Paragraph #2, Mr Churchill and the UKCO was "not in a position to negotiate officially with [the PAD] or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine, since no official machinery for representation has as yet been constituted."  The Arab Palestinian Leadership having rejected (more then once) the opportunity to establish an official conduit.
> 
> Also remember that the very same people that wrote the Covenant for the League of Nations, also wrote the Mandate.  There is nothing at all in Article 22 of the Covenant, that would suggest that Article 22 was in anyway dedicated exclusively to the opportunities of Arab Palestinians --- or --- predicated upon the claim that the granting an advantage to the Arab Palestinians.  The same authors of the 1919 Covenant, were also the principles at the 1920 San Remo Convention in which the framework for the Mandate of Palestine was agreed upon; and where the concept was hammered-out in regards to the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH).
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As clearly stated, any obligation antecedent to the entry of a state as a member of the League of Nations that conflicted with the covenant of the LoN, was to abrogated by the entrant (UK) prior to joining the LoN.
> 
> _(b) _The object aimed at by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations is "the well-being and development of the people" of the land. Alien Jews not in Palestine do not come within the scope of this aim, neither is their association with Palestine more close than that of Christians and Moslems all over the world. *Consequently the Jewish National Home policy is contrary to the spirit of the Covenant.*
> 
> (c) Article XX of the Covenant reads: *"The Members of this League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings *_*inter se *_*which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, *and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
> *
> "In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."*
> 
> - See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Covenant grants no special or unique application to the indigenous population of the territory under mandate.  In fact, Article 22, could be thought of as applying in general to any of the orphaned territories left in the wake of the post-War conditions.
> 
> Relative to Article 22/1 of the Covenant:
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> In fact, of the Middle East Protectorates and Mandates, the following Arab countries were determined to stand-alone, with their independence and sovereignty.
> 
> Lebanon:  Independence:  22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Syria:  Independence:  17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Jordan:  Independence:  25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Iraq:  Independence:  3 October 1932 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Israel:  Independence:  14 May 1948 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Kuwait:  Independence:  19 June 1961 (from UK)
> Egypt:  Independence:  28 February 1922 (from UK)
> Relative to Article 22/4 of the Covenant:
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
> Nothing in this clause specifically applies to the Palestinian territory under Mandate.  It has a general application but on pinpoint specific application.  While in general one could say that the League of Nations gave Britain the Mandate to administer Palestine, which required her to implement the Balfour Declaration, and undertake a “sacred trust of civilisation” to advance the welfare of the all people and guide them to independence.   And here again, --- while the Jewish citizens under the Mandate of Palestine chose to follow the "Step Preparatory to Independence" as approved by the General Assembly; the Arab Palestinians turned this opportunity down at least three times.​
> Relative to Article 22/8 of the Covenant:
> The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.
> One of the major objectives of the Mandate, as passed-down from the San Remo Convention, by the Principal Allied Powers to the Mandatory --- was the responsibility for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917,  in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.​I have heard, many times, that the Palestinians were not given the proper well-being care and development they had due to them.  That they were denied the right to self-determination, and that they were not dealt with fairly.  The is a form of negativism in which the under developed culture does not have the ability to stand on its own --- and who tends to be negative.  Of course, most cultures have periods or moments of whining, complaining, and displaying “the glass-is-half-empty” attitude now and again, but the continuation --- day after day, year after year, decade after decade --- of dwelling on the worst outcome of any given situation --- droning on and on about the unfairness of the world, then there is something more wrong with the culture than meets the eye.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't matter if it were the British Virgin Islands.  If the British had a deal/treaty/agreement with the Gurkhas  to populate the BVIs with thousands Gurkhas and their extended families in order to create a Gurkha National home there, at the expense of the locals, they should, by the terms of the LoN Covenant, have extricated themselves out of that agreement.
> 
> There hasn't been any such campaign, validated by an International Organization, against any people that was planned and executed to replace an indigenous people living a continent away from Europe, with a  "favored" European people.  I don't think that anyone looking at it as a neutral could ever imagine that such a process, with all the opaque and sinister tactics combined with betrayal, used against the Christians and Muslims would be acceptable to any fair and neutral observer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And like a good little islamonazi stooge you deny the indigenous Jews of Palestine their rights to free determination and a homeland. So how about we make all muslims stateless and destined to wander the world for the next 2,000 years as unwanted pariahs ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Not true.*
> 
> Even the PLO Charter specifically recognizes indigenous Jews as legitimate citizens of Palestine.
Click to expand...


YOU are one of the most dishonest posters here and one of the most disgusting.  Jews are not respected as "citizens."  They are considered dhimmis.  Anyone who is not Muslim, is a second class citizen.


----------



## ChrisL

Kondor3 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, facts according to history.
> 
> 
> 
> Zionist history, perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's ok challenger, I don't expect you to accept the truth. I've seen your posts many times where you are simply unable to handle the truth. It's a known fact that pro Palestinians are allergic to it, so don't worry, you're not alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many "truths",  all with their own preconceptions and biases, interpretations, feelings and fantasies. Accepting one "truth" blinds you to the possibilities in all the others and is intellectually lazy. I strive to obtain "The Truth" from amongst the web of lies and deceptions that are out there pretending to be "The Truth".
> 
> If you are comfortable with your version of the "truth", that's fine, but your mind is closed as a consequence. As the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." I and millions of others have found that Zionist Historiography and Hasbara has lied, again and again and again, so pardon my continuing skepticism about the stream of Hasbara I'm bombarded with from the Pro-Israelis here. So I'm glad I'm not alone, but thanks for your concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you must be blind.  Israel has had nuclear weapons for years.  If they wanted to, they could wipe the Palestinians off the map.  They have the power to do so, but they have not.  They have tolerated a LOT from their "neighbors" over many, many, many years.  Obviously you are quite ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, not ignorant, just partisan.
Click to expand...


Or just liars.


----------



## P F Tinmore

ChrisL said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Remembering --- that the UK Colonial Office (UKCO) to the Palestine Arab Delegation (PAD) is not an official; statement of policy.  Again, remember as stated in Correspondence #2, Paragraph #2, Mr Churchill and the UKCO was "not in a position to negotiate officially with [the PAD] or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine, since no official machinery for representation has as yet been constituted."  The Arab Palestinian Leadership having rejected (more then once) the opportunity to establish an official conduit.
> 
> Also remember that the very same people that wrote the Covenant for the League of Nations, also wrote the Mandate.  There is nothing at all in Article 22 of the Covenant, that would suggest that Article 22 was in anyway dedicated exclusively to the opportunities of Arab Palestinians --- or --- predicated upon the claim that the granting an advantage to the Arab Palestinians.  The same authors of the 1919 Covenant, were also the principles at the 1920 San Remo Convention in which the framework for the Mandate of Palestine was agreed upon; and where the concept was hammered-out in regards to the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH).
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As clearly stated, any obligation antecedent to the entry of a state as a member of the League of Nations that conflicted with the covenant of the LoN, was to abrogated by the entrant (UK) prior to joining the LoN.
> 
> _(b) _The object aimed at by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations is "the well-being and development of the people" of the land. Alien Jews not in Palestine do not come within the scope of this aim, neither is their association with Palestine more close than that of Christians and Moslems all over the world. *Consequently the Jewish National Home policy is contrary to the spirit of the Covenant.*
> 
> (c) Article XX of the Covenant reads: *"The Members of this League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings *_*inter se *_*which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, *and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
> *
> "In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."*
> 
> - See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Covenant grants no special or unique application to the indigenous population of the territory under mandate.  In fact, Article 22, could be thought of as applying in general to any of the orphaned territories left in the wake of the post-War conditions.
> 
> Relative to Article 22/1 of the Covenant:
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> In fact, of the Middle East Protectorates and Mandates, the following Arab countries were determined to stand-alone, with their independence and sovereignty.
> 
> Lebanon:  Independence:  22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Syria:  Independence:  17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Jordan:  Independence:  25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Iraq:  Independence:  3 October 1932 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Israel:  Independence:  14 May 1948 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Kuwait:  Independence:  19 June 1961 (from UK)
> Egypt:  Independence:  28 February 1922 (from UK)
> Relative to Article 22/4 of the Covenant:
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
> Nothing in this clause specifically applies to the Palestinian territory under Mandate.  It has a general application but on pinpoint specific application.  While in general one could say that the League of Nations gave Britain the Mandate to administer Palestine, which required her to implement the Balfour Declaration, and undertake a “sacred trust of civilisation” to advance the welfare of the all people and guide them to independence.   And here again, --- while the Jewish citizens under the Mandate of Palestine chose to follow the "Step Preparatory to Independence" as approved by the General Assembly; the Arab Palestinians turned this opportunity down at least three times.​
> Relative to Article 22/8 of the Covenant:
> The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.
> One of the major objectives of the Mandate, as passed-down from the San Remo Convention, by the Principal Allied Powers to the Mandatory --- was the responsibility for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917,  in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.​I have heard, many times, that the Palestinians were not given the proper well-being care and development they had due to them.  That they were denied the right to self-determination, and that they were not dealt with fairly.  The is a form of negativism in which the under developed culture does not have the ability to stand on its own --- and who tends to be negative.  Of course, most cultures have periods or moments of whining, complaining, and displaying “the glass-is-half-empty” attitude now and again, but the continuation --- day after day, year after year, decade after decade --- of dwelling on the worst outcome of any given situation --- droning on and on about the unfairness of the world, then there is something more wrong with the culture than meets the eye.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't matter if it were the British Virgin Islands.  If the British had a deal/treaty/agreement with the Gurkhas  to populate the BVIs with thousands Gurkhas and their extended families in order to create a Gurkha National home there, at the expense of the locals, they should, by the terms of the LoN Covenant, have extricated themselves out of that agreement.
> 
> There hasn't been any such campaign, validated by an International Organization, against any people that was planned and executed to replace an indigenous people living a continent away from Europe, with a  "favored" European people.  I don't think that anyone looking at it as a neutral could ever imagine that such a process, with all the opaque and sinister tactics combined with betrayal, used against the Christians and Muslims would be acceptable to any fair and neutral observer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And like a good little islamonazi stooge you deny the indigenous Jews of Palestine their rights to free determination and a homeland. So how about we make all muslims stateless and destined to wander the world for the next 2,000 years as unwanted pariahs ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Not true.*
> 
> Even the PLO Charter specifically recognizes indigenous Jews as legitimate citizens of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU are one of the most dishonest posters here and one of the most disgusting.  Jews are not respected as "citizens."  They are considered dhimmis.  Anyone who is not Muslim, is a second class citizen.
Click to expand...


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pfffft, facts according to Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> No, facts according to history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zionist history, perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's ok challenger, I don't expect you to accept the truth. I've seen your posts many times where you are simply unable to handle the truth. It's a known fact that pro Palestinians are allergic to it, so don't worry, you're not alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many "truths",  all with their own preconceptions and biases, interpretations, feelings and fantasies. Accepting one "truth" blinds you to the possibilities in all the others and is intellectually lazy. I strive to obtain "The Truth" from amongst the web of lies and deceptions that are out there pretending to be "The Truth".
> 
> If you are comfortable with your version of the "truth", that's fine, but your mind is closed as a consequence. As the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." I and millions of others have found that Zionist Historiography and Hasbara has lied, again and again and again, so pardon my continuing skepticism about the stream of Hasbara I'm bombarded with from the Pro-Israelis here. So I'm glad I'm not alone, but thanks for your concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is one truth that no one can deny with any documentation to back up a denial.  Among the indigenous Palestinians were Jews.  And not a single Muslim Palestinian among them.  And the overwhelming majority of Muslim Palestinians are squatters on Israel's land for generations with no deeds or titles whatsoever to the land they stole.
Click to expand...


Facts are a bitch especially when source documentation is provided.  The people living in Palestine before the European invasion/settlement, were for the most part the same indigenous people that were there since people started living there.  That they converted from Judaism, the Roman religions or Christianity to Islam, does not make them any less indigenous you moron.  Your ridiculous assertion regarding Muslim Palestinians is like claiming the Christian Germans aren't indigenous to Germany because there were no Christians in Germany before the time of Christ.  

No, the overwhelming majority of squatters in Palestine are Jews.  There were only a handful of indigenous Jews in Palestine before the Europeans began their settlement/invasion:

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

The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. *Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. *In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. Most of them were animated by religious motives; they came to pray and to die in the Holy Land, and to be buried in its soil. - See more at: http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/349B02280A930813052565E90048ED1C#sthash.YJukwiXn.dpuf


----------



## docmauser1

montelatici said:


> ...


Yes-yes-yes, and palistanians were all saudi sheiks to own 99% of the mandate palestine.


----------



## Challenger

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, facts according to history.
> 
> 
> 
> Zionist history, perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's ok challenger, I don't expect you to accept the truth. I've seen your posts many times where you are simply unable to handle the truth. It's a known fact that pro Palestinians are allergic to it, so don't worry, you're not alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many "truths",  all with their own preconceptions and biases, interpretations, feelings and fantasies. Accepting one "truth" blinds you to the possibilities in all the others and is intellectually lazy. I strive to obtain "The Truth" from amongst the web of lies and deceptions that are out there pretending to be "The Truth".
> 
> If you are comfortable with your version of the "truth", that's fine, but your mind is closed as a consequence. As the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." I and millions of others have found that Zionist Historiography and Hasbara has lied, again and again and again, so pardon my continuing skepticism about the stream of Hasbara I'm bombarded with from the Pro-Israelis here. So I'm glad I'm not alone, but thanks for your concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is one truth that no one can deny with any documentation to back up a denial.  Among the indigenous Palestinians were Jews.  And not a single Muslim Palestinian among them.  And the overwhelming majority of Muslim Palestinians are squatters on Israel's land for generations with no deeds or titles whatsoever to the land they stole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts are a bitch especially when source documentation is provided.  The people living in Palestine before the European invasion/settlement, were for the most part the same indigenous people that were there since people started living there.  That they converted from Judaism, the Roman religions or Christianity to Islam, does not make them any less indigenous you moron.  Your ridiculous assertion regarding Muslim Palestinians is like claiming the Christian Germans aren't indigenous to Germany because there were no Christians in Germany before the time of Christ.
> 
> No, the overwhelming majority of squatters in Palestine are Jews.  There were only a handful of indigenous Jews in Palestine before the Europeans began their settlement/invasion:
> 
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. *Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems.* A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race.* Some 77,000 of the population are Christians*, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. *Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. *In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. Most of them were animated by religious motives; they came to pray and to die in the Holy Land, and to be buried in its soil. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
Click to expand...


Thanks for saving me the bother of looking it up.


----------



## Challenger

ChrisL said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pfffft, facts according to Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> No, facts according to history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zionist history, perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's ok challenger, I don't expect you to accept the truth. I've seen your posts many times where you are simply unable to handle the truth. It's a known fact that pro Palestinians are allergic to it, so don't worry, you're not alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many "truths",  all with their own preconceptions and biases, interpretations, feelings and fantasies. Accepting one "truth" blinds you to the possibilities in all the others and is intellectually lazy. I strive to obtain "The Truth" from amongst the web of lies and deceptions that are out there pretending to be "The Truth".
> 
> If you are comfortable with your version of the "truth", that's fine, but your mind is closed as a consequence. As the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." I and millions of others have found that Zionist Historiography and Hasbara has lied, again and again and again, so pardon my continuing skepticism about the stream of Hasbara I'm bombarded with from the Pro-Israelis here. So I'm glad I'm not alone, but thanks for your concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you must be blind.  Israel has had nuclear weapons for years.  If they wanted to, they could wipe the Palestinians off the map.  They have the power to do so, but they have not.  They have tolerated a LOT from their "neighbors" over many, many, many years.  Obviously you are quite ignorant.
Click to expand...


Well you must be really stupid. Nuclear War 101: Bang! the bombs goe off...lots of wanton death and destruction, vapourisation, etc.etc. Nice mushroom clouds of radioactive debris and dust tens of thousands of feet into the air, OK? still with me? 

What goes up, must come down, it's called "fallout" and radioactive fallout at that. On its way down it is carried over long distances, many miles. 

So....Israel nukes the West Bank and Gaza, job done....except for all that nasty radioactive fallout which is as likely to be carried East and North as it is to be carried South and West, thus leaving huge swathes of Israel uninhabitable and lots of Israelis "glowing in the dark" or growing two heads. 

Power is one thing, but even the most rabid Zionist isn't that stupid. No wait, I hear you cry....get a weather forcast and nuke them when the winds are blowing away from Israel.....OK good idea but for those pesky facts that have a tendency to get in the way of the best Zionist wet dreams, 

"Israel is located at the exact point where these four weather systems converge. This is why the country is subject to contradictory weather patterns (rainy or dry) as well as highly unpredictable shifts in the direction of prevailing winds. These unusual climatic conditions make it very difficult to predict weather conditions." What are Israel s prevailing winds

....bummer.


----------



## Challenger

Kondor3 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, facts according to history.
> 
> 
> 
> Zionist history, perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's ok challenger, I don't expect you to accept the truth. I've seen your posts many times where you are simply unable to handle the truth. It's a known fact that pro Palestinians are allergic to it, so don't worry, you're not alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many "truths",  all with their own preconceptions and biases, interpretations, feelings and fantasies. Accepting one "truth" blinds you to the possibilities in all the others and is intellectually lazy. I strive to obtain "The Truth" from amongst the web of lies and deceptions that are out there pretending to be "The Truth".
> 
> If you are comfortable with your version of the "truth", that's fine, but your mind is closed as a consequence. As the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." I and millions of others have found that Zionist Historiography and Hasbara has lied, again and again and again, so pardon my continuing skepticism about the stream of Hasbara I'm bombarded with from the Pro-Israelis here. So I'm glad I'm not alone, but thanks for your concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you must be blind.  Israel has had nuclear weapons for years.  If they wanted to, they could wipe the Palestinians off the map.  They have the power to do so, but they have not.  They have tolerated a LOT from their "neighbors" over many, many, many years.  Obviously you are quite ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, not ignorant, just partisan.
Click to expand...


Why, thank you for those kind words. sir.


----------



## ChrisL

P F Tinmore said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Remembering --- that the UK Colonial Office (UKCO) to the Palestine Arab Delegation (PAD) is not an official; statement of policy.  Again, remember as stated in Correspondence #2, Paragraph #2, Mr Churchill and the UKCO was "not in a position to negotiate officially with [the PAD] or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine, since no official machinery for representation has as yet been constituted."  The Arab Palestinian Leadership having rejected (more then once) the opportunity to establish an official conduit.
> 
> Also remember that the very same people that wrote the Covenant for the League of Nations, also wrote the Mandate.  There is nothing at all in Article 22 of the Covenant, that would suggest that Article 22 was in anyway dedicated exclusively to the opportunities of Arab Palestinians --- or --- predicated upon the claim that the granting an advantage to the Arab Palestinians.  The same authors of the 1919 Covenant, were also the principles at the 1920 San Remo Convention in which the framework for the Mandate of Palestine was agreed upon; and where the concept was hammered-out in regards to the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH).
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Covenant grants no special or unique application to the indigenous population of the territory under mandate.  In fact, Article 22, could be thought of as applying in general to any of the orphaned territories left in the wake of the post-War conditions.
> 
> Relative to Article 22/1 of the Covenant:
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> In fact, of the Middle East Protectorates and Mandates, the following Arab countries were determined to stand-alone, with their independence and sovereignty.
> 
> Lebanon:  Independence:  22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Syria:  Independence:  17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Jordan:  Independence:  25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Iraq:  Independence:  3 October 1932 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Israel:  Independence:  14 May 1948 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Kuwait:  Independence:  19 June 1961 (from UK)
> Egypt:  Independence:  28 February 1922 (from UK)
> Relative to Article 22/4 of the Covenant:
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
> Nothing in this clause specifically applies to the Palestinian territory under Mandate.  It has a general application but on pinpoint specific application.  While in general one could say that the League of Nations gave Britain the Mandate to administer Palestine, which required her to implement the Balfour Declaration, and undertake a “sacred trust of civilisation” to advance the welfare of the all people and guide them to independence.   And here again, --- while the Jewish citizens under the Mandate of Palestine chose to follow the "Step Preparatory to Independence" as approved by the General Assembly; the Arab Palestinians turned this opportunity down at least three times.​
> Relative to Article 22/8 of the Covenant:
> The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.
> One of the major objectives of the Mandate, as passed-down from the San Remo Convention, by the Principal Allied Powers to the Mandatory --- was the responsibility for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917,  in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.​I have heard, many times, that the Palestinians were not given the proper well-being care and development they had due to them.  That they were denied the right to self-determination, and that they were not dealt with fairly.  The is a form of negativism in which the under developed culture does not have the ability to stand on its own --- and who tends to be negative.  Of course, most cultures have periods or moments of whining, complaining, and displaying “the glass-is-half-empty” attitude now and again, but the continuation --- day after day, year after year, decade after decade --- of dwelling on the worst outcome of any given situation --- droning on and on about the unfairness of the world, then there is something more wrong with the culture than meets the eye.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't matter if it were the British Virgin Islands.  If the British had a deal/treaty/agreement with the Gurkhas  to populate the BVIs with thousands Gurkhas and their extended families in order to create a Gurkha National home there, at the expense of the locals, they should, by the terms of the LoN Covenant, have extricated themselves out of that agreement.
> 
> There hasn't been any such campaign, validated by an International Organization, against any people that was planned and executed to replace an indigenous people living a continent away from Europe, with a  "favored" European people.  I don't think that anyone looking at it as a neutral could ever imagine that such a process, with all the opaque and sinister tactics combined with betrayal, used against the Christians and Muslims would be acceptable to any fair and neutral observer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And like a good little islamonazi stooge you deny the indigenous Jews of Palestine their rights to free determination and a homeland. So how about we make all muslims stateless and destined to wander the world for the next 2,000 years as unwanted pariahs ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Not true.*
> 
> Even the PLO Charter specifically recognizes indigenous Jews as legitimate citizens of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU are one of the most dishonest posters here and one of the most disgusting.  Jews are not respected as "citizens."  They are considered dhimmis.  Anyone who is not Muslim, is a second class citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


So . . . here you are pretending to know about Muslims and their belief systems, but you don't know what a dhimmi is?  Figures.  

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=761

From its beginnings in the seventh century, Islam was spread by means of its practitioners' violent conquest of non-Muslim lands. For more than a millennium (from 638 to 1683), these conquests expanded Islam's empire over vast territories in Africa, Europe, and Asia. During that period, the conquered "infidels" (non-Muslims) -- who each possessed their own unique religion, culture, and language -- constituted a significant majority of the population of the newly Islamized lands. 

As early as the eighth century, a formal set of rules was created to govern the relationships between the conquering Muslims and the defeated infidels. The framework of these regulations is known as "dhimmitude," a term connoting the lowly legal and social status of Jews and Christians who are subjected to Islamic rule. _Dhimmi _was the name applied by the Arab-Muslim conquerors to the indigenous non-Muslim populations that surrendered by a treaty (dhimma) to Muslim domination. 

A non-Muslim community that is forced to accept dhimmitude is condemned to live in a system that will protect it from violent jihad on only one condition: if it is completely subservient to a Muslim master. In return for that subservience, the community is granted limited rights, although dhimmis could be capriciously subjected to such depredations as mass slavery, abductions, and deportations.

According to Dr. Mitchell G. Bard, director of the Jewish Virtual Library:

“Dhimmis were excluded from public office and armed service, and were forbidden to bear arms. They were not allowed to ride horses or camels, to build synagogues or churches taller than mosques, to construct houses higher than those of Muslims, or to drink wine in public. They were not allowed to pray or mourn in loud voices as that might offend the Muslims. The dhimmi had to show public deference toward Muslims, always yielding them the center of the road. The dhimmi was not allowed to give evidence in court against a Muslim, and his oath was unacceptable in an Islamic court. To defend himself the dhimmi would have to purchase Muslim witnesses at great expense. This left the dhimmi with little legal recourse when harmed by a Muslim. Dhimmis were also forced to wear distinctive clothing. In the ninth century, for example, Baghdad's Caliph al-Mutawakkil designated a yellow badge for Jews, setting a precedent that would be followed centuries later.”

Dhimmitude was abolished from the Islamic world during the 19th and 20th centuries under European military pressure, or by direct European colonization. But it has recently made a resurgence -- along with jihad itself -- as a consequence of the Islamic wars in Sudan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Algeria, and Israel. Moreover, non-Muslim minorities suffer severe discrimination in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, and countries that apply or recognize the shari’a law. Ultimately, dhimmitude is an outgrowth of the fact that Muslims consider themselves to be in a perpetual state of war with their non-Muslim neighbors.


----------



## ChrisL

Challenger said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, facts according to history.
> 
> 
> 
> Zionist history, perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's ok challenger, I don't expect you to accept the truth. I've seen your posts many times where you are simply unable to handle the truth. It's a known fact that pro Palestinians are allergic to it, so don't worry, you're not alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many "truths",  all with their own preconceptions and biases, interpretations, feelings and fantasies. Accepting one "truth" blinds you to the possibilities in all the others and is intellectually lazy. I strive to obtain "The Truth" from amongst the web of lies and deceptions that are out there pretending to be "The Truth".
> 
> If you are comfortable with your version of the "truth", that's fine, but your mind is closed as a consequence. As the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." I and millions of others have found that Zionist Historiography and Hasbara has lied, again and again and again, so pardon my continuing skepticism about the stream of Hasbara I'm bombarded with from the Pro-Israelis here. So I'm glad I'm not alone, but thanks for your concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you must be blind.  Israel has had nuclear weapons for years.  If they wanted to, they could wipe the Palestinians off the map.  They have the power to do so, but they have not.  They have tolerated a LOT from their "neighbors" over many, many, many years.  Obviously you are quite ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you must be really stupid. Nuclear War 101: Bang! the bombs goe off...lots of wanton death and destruction, vapourisation, etc.etc. Nice mushroom clouds of radioactive debris and dust tens of thousands of feet into the air, OK? still with me?
> 
> What goes up, must come down, it's called "fallout" and radioactive fallout at that. On its way down it is carried over long distances, many miles.
> 
> So....Israel nukes the West Bank and Gaza, job done....except for all that nasty radioactive fallout which is as likely to be carried East and North as it is to be carried South and West, thus leaving huge swathes of Israel uninhabitable and lots of Israelis "glowing in the dark" or growing two heads.
> 
> Power is one thing, but even the most rabid Zionist isn't that stupid. No wait, I hear you cry....get a weather forcast and nuke them when the winds are blowing away from Israel.....OK good idea but for those pesky facts that have a tendency to get in the way of the best Zionist wet dreams,
> 
> "Israel is located at the exact point where these four weather systems converge. This is why the country is subject to contradictory weather patterns (rainy or dry) as well as highly unpredictable shifts in the direction of prevailing winds. These unusual climatic conditions make it very difficult to predict weather conditions." What are Israel s prevailing winds
> 
> ....bummer.
Click to expand...


Ah, that wasn't the point at all.  The point is, Israel could wipe out Palestine with or without nuclear weapons.  If they are  as "evil" as you seem to think they are, they could capture, kill or enslave all of the Palestinians, but they have not.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Remembering --- that the UK Colonial Office (UKCO) to the Palestine Arab Delegation (PAD) is not an official; statement of policy.  Again, remember as stated in Correspondence #2, Paragraph #2, Mr Churchill and the UKCO was "not in a position to negotiate officially with [the PAD] or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine, since no official machinery for representation has as yet been constituted."  The Arab Palestinian Leadership having rejected (more then once) the opportunity to establish an official conduit.
> 
> Also remember that the very same people that wrote the Covenant for the League of Nations, also wrote the Mandate.  There is nothing at all in Article 22 of the Covenant, that would suggest that Article 22 was in anyway dedicated exclusively to the opportunities of Arab Palestinians --- or --- predicated upon the claim that the granting an advantage to the Arab Palestinians.  The same authors of the 1919 Covenant, were also the principles at the 1920 San Remo Convention in which the framework for the Mandate of Palestine was agreed upon; and where the concept was hammered-out in regards to the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH).
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As clearly stated, any obligation antecedent to the entry of a state as a member of the League of Nations that conflicted with the covenant of the LoN, was to abrogated by the entrant (UK) prior to joining the LoN.
> 
> _(b) _The object aimed at by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations is "the well-being and development of the people" of the land. Alien Jews not in Palestine do not come within the scope of this aim, neither is their association with Palestine more close than that of Christians and Moslems all over the world. *Consequently the Jewish National Home policy is contrary to the spirit of the Covenant.*
> 
> (c) Article XX of the Covenant reads: *"The Members of this League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings *_*inter se *_*which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, *and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
> *
> "In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."*
> 
> - See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Covenant grants no special or unique application to the indigenous population of the territory under mandate.  In fact, Article 22, could be thought of as applying in general to any of the orphaned territories left in the wake of the post-War conditions.
> 
> Relative to Article 22/1 of the Covenant:
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> In fact, of the Middle East Protectorates and Mandates, the following Arab countries were determined to stand-alone, with their independence and sovereignty.
> 
> Lebanon:  Independence:  22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Syria:  Independence:  17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Jordan:  Independence:  25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Iraq:  Independence:  3 October 1932 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Israel:  Independence:  14 May 1948 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Kuwait:  Independence:  19 June 1961 (from UK)
> Egypt:  Independence:  28 February 1922 (from UK)
> Relative to Article 22/4 of the Covenant:
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
> Nothing in this clause specifically applies to the Palestinian territory under Mandate.  It has a general application but on pinpoint specific application.  While in general one could say that the League of Nations gave Britain the Mandate to administer Palestine, which required her to implement the Balfour Declaration, and undertake a “sacred trust of civilisation” to advance the welfare of the all people and guide them to independence.   And here again, --- while the Jewish citizens under the Mandate of Palestine chose to follow the "Step Preparatory to Independence" as approved by the General Assembly; the Arab Palestinians turned this opportunity down at least three times.​
> Relative to Article 22/8 of the Covenant:
> The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.
> One of the major objectives of the Mandate, as passed-down from the San Remo Convention, by the Principal Allied Powers to the Mandatory --- was the responsibility for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917,  in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.​I have heard, many times, that the Palestinians were not given the proper well-being care and development they had due to them.  That they were denied the right to self-determination, and that they were not dealt with fairly.  The is a form of negativism in which the under developed culture does not have the ability to stand on its own --- and who tends to be negative.  Of course, most cultures have periods or moments of whining, complaining, and displaying “the glass-is-half-empty” attitude now and again, but the continuation --- day after day, year after year, decade after decade --- of dwelling on the worst outcome of any given situation --- droning on and on about the unfairness of the world, then there is something more wrong with the culture than meets the eye.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't matter if it were the British Virgin Islands.  If the British had a deal/treaty/agreement with the Gurkhas  to populate the BVIs with thousands Gurkhas and their extended families in order to create a Gurkha National home there, at the expense of the locals, they should, by the terms of the LoN Covenant, have extricated themselves out of that agreement.
> 
> There hasn't been any such campaign, validated by an International Organization, against any people that was planned and executed to replace an indigenous people living a continent away from Europe, with a  "favored" European people.  I don't think that anyone looking at it as a neutral could ever imagine that such a process, with all the opaque and sinister tactics combined with betrayal, used against the Christians and Muslims would be acceptable to any fair and neutral observer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And like a good little islamonazi stooge you deny the indigenous Jews of Palestine their rights to free determination and a homeland. So how about we make all muslims stateless and destined to wander the world for the next 2,000 years as unwanted pariahs ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Not true.*
> 
> Even the PLO Charter specifically recognizes indigenous Jews as legitimate citizens of Palestine.
Click to expand...






 What are the criteria again for these indigenous Jews, something along these lines

 Only Jews who lived in Palestine prior to the Zionist migration of 1850 will be classed as Palestinian citizens. So do you know any Jews over 165 years old. The charter goes on to say that their children and grand children are not covered and will not be seen as Palestinian citizens unless they lived in Palestine prior to the Zionist migration of 1850.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, facts according to history.
> 
> 
> 
> Zionist history, perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's ok challenger, I don't expect you to accept the truth. I've seen your posts many times where you are simply unable to handle the truth. It's a known fact that pro Palestinians are allergic to it, so don't worry, you're not alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many "truths",  all with their own preconceptions and biases, interpretations, feelings and fantasies. Accepting one "truth" blinds you to the possibilities in all the others and is intellectually lazy. I strive to obtain "The Truth" from amongst the web of lies and deceptions that are out there pretending to be "The Truth".
> 
> If you are comfortable with your version of the "truth", that's fine, but your mind is closed as a consequence. As the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." I and millions of others have found that Zionist Historiography and Hasbara has lied, again and again and again, so pardon my continuing skepticism about the stream of Hasbara I'm bombarded with from the Pro-Israelis here. So I'm glad I'm not alone, but thanks for your concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by your use of the terms Zionist and hasbara you prove beyond reasonable doubt that your mind is closed to the truth. All you want to see is your warped version of reality and the arab muslims "truths" being peddled. You don't want to see Islamic sources saying that arab muslims were very thin on the ground in Palestine prior to the Ottoman's inviting Jews to migrate and settle. You don't want to see the original acceptance by arab muslims to the Jews taking Palestine as their homeland as back then it was worthless desert. You don't want to see the evidence of mass illegal immigration by arab muslims. You don't want to see the atrocities committed by arab muslims in Palestine against all non muslims. because to admit that these are truth and reality would mean your brainwashing was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israelis and Jewish people use the terms Zionist and Hasbara all the time; the word "Hasbara" is an  Israeli word for goodness sake! I use the words for the purpose of clarity; being precise in defining what I'm talking about. I prefer to use the phrase "Jewish person" over the word "Jew" as I consider the word both derogatory and racist. I'm more than happy to look at any source but I'm allowed to be skeptical about any source's veracity and objectivity, as well as it's accuracy.
> 
> What source of yours says, "...that arab muslims were very thin on the ground in Palestine prior to the Ottoman's inviting Jews to migrate and settle"? I'll look at it.
> 
> What source of yours talks about, "acceptance by arab muslims to the Jews taking Palestine as their homeland as back then it was worthless desert."? I'll look at it as well.
> 
> What source of yours provides, "evidence of mass illegal immigration by arab muslims" ? I'll look at it.
> 
> What source of yours catalogues, "the atrocities committed by arab muslims in Palestine against all non muslims."? I'll look at that too, without fear and with an open mind.
Click to expand...





 No you use the terms in the same way the Germans spewed out **** and juden, or the way the arab muslims used Palestinian when referring to the Jews.
 You have still to give your personal definition of Zionist because you know it will show you as a RACIST POS


 Try the ottomans reports of Palestine prior to 1870 when they failed to get arab muslims to colonise the land and turn it into valuable arable farms. 3 times they tried and each time the arab muslims up sticks and left, the same arab muslims that later came back and tried to claim they had lived in Palestine for 3,000 years.

The Mcmahon letters

 The reports by Winston Churchill when he was foreign secretary

 The 1929 massacre of Jews in Hebron, the ethnic cleansing of Christians from gaza and the west bank since 2005 and the civil wars or 1930 and 1945


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Remembering --- that the UK Colonial Office (UKCO) to the Palestine Arab Delegation (PAD) is not an official; statement of policy.  Again, remember as stated in Correspondence #2, Paragraph #2, Mr Churchill and the UKCO was "not in a position to negotiate officially with [the PAD] or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine, since no official machinery for representation has as yet been constituted."  The Arab Palestinian Leadership having rejected (more then once) the opportunity to establish an official conduit.
> 
> Also remember that the very same people that wrote the Covenant for the League of Nations, also wrote the Mandate.  There is nothing at all in Article 22 of the Covenant, that would suggest that Article 22 was in anyway dedicated exclusively to the opportunities of Arab Palestinians --- or --- predicated upon the claim that the granting an advantage to the Arab Palestinians.  The same authors of the 1919 Covenant, were also the principles at the 1920 San Remo Convention in which the framework for the Mandate of Palestine was agreed upon; and where the concept was hammered-out in regards to the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH).
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Covenant grants no special or unique application to the indigenous population of the territory under mandate.  In fact, Article 22, could be thought of as applying in general to any of the orphaned territories left in the wake of the post-War conditions.
> 
> Relative to Article 22/1 of the Covenant:
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> In fact, of the Middle East Protectorates and Mandates, the following Arab countries were determined to stand-alone, with their independence and sovereignty.
> 
> Lebanon:  Independence:  22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Syria:  Independence:  17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Jordan:  Independence:  25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Iraq:  Independence:  3 October 1932 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Israel:  Independence:  14 May 1948 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Kuwait:  Independence:  19 June 1961 (from UK)
> Egypt:  Independence:  28 February 1922 (from UK)
> Relative to Article 22/4 of the Covenant:
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
> Nothing in this clause specifically applies to the Palestinian territory under Mandate.  It has a general application but on pinpoint specific application.  While in general one could say that the League of Nations gave Britain the Mandate to administer Palestine, which required her to implement the Balfour Declaration, and undertake a “sacred trust of civilisation” to advance the welfare of the all people and guide them to independence.   And here again, --- while the Jewish citizens under the Mandate of Palestine chose to follow the "Step Preparatory to Independence" as approved by the General Assembly; the Arab Palestinians turned this opportunity down at least three times.​
> Relative to Article 22/8 of the Covenant:
> The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.
> One of the major objectives of the Mandate, as passed-down from the San Remo Convention, by the Principal Allied Powers to the Mandatory --- was the responsibility for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917,  in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.​I have heard, many times, that the Palestinians were not given the proper well-being care and development they had due to them.  That they were denied the right to self-determination, and that they were not dealt with fairly.  The is a form of negativism in which the under developed culture does not have the ability to stand on its own --- and who tends to be negative.  Of course, most cultures have periods or moments of whining, complaining, and displaying “the glass-is-half-empty” attitude now and again, but the continuation --- day after day, year after year, decade after decade --- of dwelling on the worst outcome of any given situation --- droning on and on about the unfairness of the world, then there is something more wrong with the culture than meets the eye.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't matter if it were the British Virgin Islands.  If the British had a deal/treaty/agreement with the Gurkhas  to populate the BVIs with thousands Gurkhas and their extended families in order to create a Gurkha National home there, at the expense of the locals, they should, by the terms of the LoN Covenant, have extricated themselves out of that agreement.
> 
> There hasn't been any such campaign, validated by an International Organization, against any people that was planned and executed to replace an indigenous people living a continent away from Europe, with a  "favored" European people.  I don't think that anyone looking at it as a neutral could ever imagine that such a process, with all the opaque and sinister tactics combined with betrayal, used against the Christians and Muslims would be acceptable to any fair and neutral observer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And like a good little islamonazi stooge you deny the indigenous Jews of Palestine their rights to free determination and a homeland. So how about we make all muslims stateless and destined to wander the world for the next 2,000 years as unwanted pariahs ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Not true.*
> 
> Even the PLO Charter specifically recognizes indigenous Jews as legitimate citizens of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU are one of the most dishonest posters here and one of the most disgusting.  Jews are not respected as "citizens."  They are considered dhimmis.  Anyone who is not Muslim, is a second class citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...






 Try reading the Koran that states that non muslims are dogs, apes and pigs


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

There was never a case in which the Arab Palestinian attempted to use their right of self-determination, in an internationally accepted way, and was denied.



P F Tinmore said:


> Still does not change the fact that the Zionist colonial project was imposed on the Palestinians at the point of a gun denying them of their inalienable rights.


*(COMMENT)*

When, in the 1920s, the Palestinian Arab Delegation rejected _(by right of self-determination)_ the opportunity to establish a legitimate Arab institution _(not once, not twice, but three times)_ to represent the Arab Palestinian People to express their concerns on what is in their best interest, the Arab Palestinian was not denied.

When, in 1948, the UN inviting the Arab Higher Committee to appoint a representative “to be available to the Palestine Commission for such authoritative information and other assistance as the commission may require,” and rejected representation _(by right of self-determination)_, the Arab Palestinian was not denied.

When, in 1950, the Arab Palestinian join the Jordanian Parliament and voted _(by right of self-determination)_ to be annexed into the Hashemite Kingdom, the Arab Palestinian was not denied.

When, in 1970, Arab Palestinian extremist elements _(took a public stance in favor of the Fedayeen)_, who ambushed the King Hussein’s motorcade twice --- and --- perpetrated a series of spectacular hijackings; and attempted to take by force control of the Hashemite Kingdom, Arab Palestinian was not denied.  While they lost to King Hussein, who ordered the army into action and suppress the Palestinian guerrillas in Amman, there was no external interference to deny the Arab Palestinians _(through the right of self-determination)_ their opportunity make the coup d'état attempt.

When, in 1988, the Arab Palestinian gathered and declared Independence _(Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory)_ the Arab Palestinian was not denied.​
The Arab Palestinian was never denied their right.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, facts according to history.
> 
> 
> 
> Zionist history, perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's ok challenger, I don't expect you to accept the truth. I've seen your posts many times where you are simply unable to handle the truth. It's a known fact that pro Palestinians are allergic to it, so don't worry, you're not alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many "truths",  all with their own preconceptions and biases, interpretations, feelings and fantasies. Accepting one "truth" blinds you to the possibilities in all the others and is intellectually lazy. I strive to obtain "The Truth" from amongst the web of lies and deceptions that are out there pretending to be "The Truth".
> 
> If you are comfortable with your version of the "truth", that's fine, but your mind is closed as a consequence. As the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." I and millions of others have found that Zionist Historiography and Hasbara has lied, again and again and again, so pardon my continuing skepticism about the stream of Hasbara I'm bombarded with from the Pro-Israelis here. So I'm glad I'm not alone, but thanks for your concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is one truth that no one can deny with any documentation to back up a denial.  Among the indigenous Palestinians were Jews.  And not a single Muslim Palestinian among them.  And the overwhelming majority of Muslim Palestinians are squatters on Israel's land for generations with no deeds or titles whatsoever to the land they stole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts are a bitch especially when source documentation is provided.  The people living in Palestine before the European invasion/settlement, were for the most part the same indigenous people that were there since people started living there.  That they converted from Judaism, the Roman religions or Christianity to Islam, does not make them any less indigenous you moron.  Your ridiculous assertion regarding Muslim Palestinians is like claiming the Christian Germans aren't indigenous to Germany because there were no Christians in Germany before the time of Christ.
> 
> No, the overwhelming majority of squatters in Palestine are Jews.  There were only a handful of indigenous Jews in Palestine before the Europeans began their settlement/invasion:
> 
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. *Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems.* A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race.* Some 77,000 of the population are Christians*, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. *Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. *In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. Most of them were animated by religious motives; they came to pray and to die in the Holy Land, and to be buried in its soil. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
Click to expand...






 What about this source document then Abdul that says differently



CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Jerusalem (After 1291)
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Jerusalem After 1291 

"...Present condition of the City: (1907 edition)

Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. The total population is estimated at 66,000. *The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures:
Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000;* Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the Nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly Half the present population...""

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Growth of Jerusalem 1838-Present

....... Jews Muslims Christians Total
1838 6,000 5,000 3,000 14,000
*1844 7,120 5,760 3,390 16,270 ..... ..The First Official Ottoman Census *
1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030 .... .....Second """"""""""
1905 40,000 8,000 10,900 58,900 ....... Third/last, detailed in CathEncyc above
1948 99,320 36,680 31,300 167,300
1990 353,200 124,200 14,000 491,400
1992 385,000 150,000 15,000 550,000

http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm





 Just so you know and understand only ottoman citizens were counted, so any arab muslims over the 8,000 number must have been illegal immigrants.

 So 45,000 Jews and 8,000 muslims, 5 times more Jews in Jerusalem than muslims  and you still say that the Jews were non existent ?


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zionist history, perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> It's ok challenger, I don't expect you to accept the truth. I've seen your posts many times where you are simply unable to handle the truth. It's a known fact that pro Palestinians are allergic to it, so don't worry, you're not alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many "truths",  all with their own preconceptions and biases, interpretations, feelings and fantasies. Accepting one "truth" blinds you to the possibilities in all the others and is intellectually lazy. I strive to obtain "The Truth" from amongst the web of lies and deceptions that are out there pretending to be "The Truth".
> 
> If you are comfortable with your version of the "truth", that's fine, but your mind is closed as a consequence. As the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." I and millions of others have found that Zionist Historiography and Hasbara has lied, again and again and again, so pardon my continuing skepticism about the stream of Hasbara I'm bombarded with from the Pro-Israelis here. So I'm glad I'm not alone, but thanks for your concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is one truth that no one can deny with any documentation to back up a denial.  Among the indigenous Palestinians were Jews.  And not a single Muslim Palestinian among them.  And the overwhelming majority of Muslim Palestinians are squatters on Israel's land for generations with no deeds or titles whatsoever to the land they stole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts are a bitch especially when source documentation is provided.  The people living in Palestine before the European invasion/settlement, were for the most part the same indigenous people that were there since people started living there.  That they converted from Judaism, the Roman religions or Christianity to Islam, does not make them any less indigenous you moron.  Your ridiculous assertion regarding Muslim Palestinians is like claiming the Christian Germans aren't indigenous to Germany because there were no Christians in Germany before the time of Christ.
> 
> No, the overwhelming majority of squatters in Palestine are Jews.  There were only a handful of indigenous Jews in Palestine before the Europeans began their settlement/invasion:
> 
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. *Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems.* A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race.* Some 77,000 of the population are Christians*, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. *Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. *In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. Most of them were animated by religious motives; they came to pray and to die in the Holy Land, and to be buried in its soil. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for saving me the bother of looking it up.
Click to expand...






 And I will save you the bother of looking for the real numbers by posting this.


 Shows that all throughout recent history the muslims were the minority in Jerusalem



CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Jerusalem (After 1291)
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Jerusalem After 1291 

"...Present condition of the City: (1907 edition)

Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. The total population is estimated at 66,000. *The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures:
Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000;* Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the Nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly Half the present population...""

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Growth of Jerusalem 1838-Present

....... Jews Muslims Christians Total
1838 6,000 5,000 3,000 14,000
*1844 7,120 5,760 3,390 16,270 ..... ..The First Official Ottoman Census *
1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030 .... .....Second """"""""""
1905 40,000 8,000 10,900 58,900 ....... Third/last, detailed in CathEncyc above
1948 99,320 36,680 31,300 167,300
1990 353,200 124,200 14,000 491,400
1992 385,000 150,000 15,000 550,000

http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> There was never a case in which the Arab Palestinian attempted to use their right of self-determination, in an internationally accepted way, and was denied.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still does not change the fact that the Zionist colonial project was imposed on the Palestinians at the point of a gun denying them of their inalienable rights.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> When, in the 1920s, the Palestinian Arab Delegation rejected _(by right of self-determination)_ the opportunity to establish a legitimate Arab institution _(not once, not twice, but three times)_ to represent the Arab Palestinian People to express their concerns on what is in their best interest, the Arab Palestinian was not denied.
> 
> When, in 1948, the UN inviting the Arab Higher Committee to appoint a representative “to be available to the Palestine Commission for such authoritative information and other assistance as the commission may require,” and rejected representation _(by right of self-determination)_, the Arab Palestinian was not denied.
> 
> When, in 1950, the Arab Palestinian join the Jordanian Parliament and voted _(by right of self-determination)_ to be annexed into the Hashemite Kingdom, the Arab Palestinian was not denied.
> 
> When, in 1970, Arab Palestinian extremist elements _(took a public stance in favor of the Fedayeen)_, who ambushed the King Hussein’s motorcade twice --- and --- perpetrated a series of spectacular hijackings; and attempted to take by force control of the Hashemite Kingdom, Arab Palestinian was not denied.  While they lost to King Hussein, who ordered the army into action and suppress the Palestinian guerrillas in Amman, there was no external interference to deny the Arab Palestinians _(through the right of self-determination)_ their opportunity make the coup d'état attempt.
> 
> When, in 1988, the Arab Palestinian gathered and declared Independence _(Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory)_ the Arab Palestinian was not denied.​
> The Arab Palestinian was never denied their right.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

When, in the 1920s, the Palestinian Arab Delegation rejected _(by right of self-determination)_ the opportunity to establish a legitimate Arab institution _(not once, not twice, but three times)_ to represent the Arab Palestinian People to express their concerns on what is in their best interest, the Arab Palestinian was not denied.​
*Wrong again.*

They rejected the creation of an arm of the colonial project with their name on it.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> There was never a case in which the Arab Palestinian attempted to use their right of self-determination, in an internationally accepted way, and was denied.



What about their 1948 declaration of independence?


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, facts according to history.
> 
> 
> 
> Zionist history, perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's ok challenger, I don't expect you to accept the truth. I've seen your posts many times where you are simply unable to handle the truth. It's a known fact that pro Palestinians are allergic to it, so don't worry, you're not alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many "truths",  all with their own preconceptions and biases, interpretations, feelings and fantasies. Accepting one "truth" blinds you to the possibilities in all the others and is intellectually lazy. I strive to obtain "The Truth" from amongst the web of lies and deceptions that are out there pretending to be "The Truth".
> 
> If you are comfortable with your version of the "truth", that's fine, but your mind is closed as a consequence. As the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." I and millions of others have found that Zionist Historiography and Hasbara has lied, again and again and again, so pardon my continuing skepticism about the stream of Hasbara I'm bombarded with from the Pro-Israelis here. So I'm glad I'm not alone, but thanks for your concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you must be blind.  Israel has had nuclear weapons for years.  If they wanted to, they could wipe the Palestinians off the map.  They have the power to do so, but they have not.  They have tolerated a LOT from their "neighbors" over many, many, many years.  Obviously you are quite ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you must be really stupid. Nuclear War 101: Bang! the bombs goe off...lots of wanton death and destruction, vapourisation, etc.etc. Nice mushroom clouds of radioactive debris and dust tens of thousands of feet into the air, OK? still with me?
> 
> What goes up, must come down, it's called "fallout" and radioactive fallout at that. On its way down it is carried over long distances, many miles.
> 
> So....Israel nukes the West Bank and Gaza, job done....except for all that nasty radioactive fallout which is as likely to be carried East and North as it is to be carried South and West, thus leaving huge swathes of Israel uninhabitable and lots of Israelis "glowing in the dark" or growing two heads.
> 
> Power is one thing, but even the most rabid Zionist isn't that stupid. No wait, I hear you cry....get a weather forcast and nuke them when the winds are blowing away from Israel.....OK good idea but for those pesky facts that have a tendency to get in the way of the best Zionist wet dreams,
> 
> "Israel is located at the exact point where these four weather systems converge. This is why the country is subject to contradictory weather patterns (rainy or dry) as well as highly unpredictable shifts in the direction of prevailing winds. These unusual climatic conditions make it very difficult to predict weather conditions." What are Israel s prevailing winds
> 
> ....bummer.
Click to expand...





 You forget that the prevailing weather affects Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi and Egypt just as much as it would Israel. And Iran has made it clear that they are prepared to sacrifice 1 million muslims to kill 1 Jew as they know the same as you do. But as we have seen in the past nuclear explosions alter the worlds weather patterns and they become unpredictable so the fallout could go anywhere.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was never a case in which the Arab Palestinian attempted to use their right of self-determination, in an internationally accepted way, and was denied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about their 1948 declaration of independence?
Click to expand...





It was illegal as you cant declare on land already declared, and it was made after the cut off date so was not entertained.


----------



## Challenger

ChrisL said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zionist history, perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> It's ok challenger, I don't expect you to accept the truth. I've seen your posts many times where you are simply unable to handle the truth. It's a known fact that pro Palestinians are allergic to it, so don't worry, you're not alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many "truths",  all with their own preconceptions and biases, interpretations, feelings and fantasies. Accepting one "truth" blinds you to the possibilities in all the others and is intellectually lazy. I strive to obtain "The Truth" from amongst the web of lies and deceptions that are out there pretending to be "The Truth".
> 
> If you are comfortable with your version of the "truth", that's fine, but your mind is closed as a consequence. As the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." I and millions of others have found that Zionist Historiography and Hasbara has lied, again and again and again, so pardon my continuing skepticism about the stream of Hasbara I'm bombarded with from the Pro-Israelis here. So I'm glad I'm not alone, but thanks for your concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you must be blind.  Israel has had nuclear weapons for years.  If they wanted to, they could wipe the Palestinians off the map.  They have the power to do so, but they have not.  They have tolerated a LOT from their "neighbors" over many, many, many years.  Obviously you are quite ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you must be really stupid. Nuclear War 101: Bang! the bombs goe off...lots of wanton death and destruction, vapourisation, etc.etc. Nice mushroom clouds of radioactive debris and dust tens of thousands of feet into the air, OK? still with me?
> 
> What goes up, must come down, it's called "fallout" and radioactive fallout at that. On its way down it is carried over long distances, many miles.
> 
> So....Israel nukes the West Bank and Gaza, job done....except for all that nasty radioactive fallout which is as likely to be carried East and North as it is to be carried South and West, thus leaving huge swathes of Israel uninhabitable and lots of Israelis "glowing in the dark" or growing two heads.
> 
> Power is one thing, but even the most rabid Zionist isn't that stupid. No wait, I hear you cry....get a weather forcast and nuke them when the winds are blowing away from Israel.....OK good idea but for those pesky facts that have a tendency to get in the way of the best Zionist wet dreams,
> 
> "Israel is located at the exact point where these four weather systems converge. This is why the country is subject to contradictory weather patterns (rainy or dry) as well as highly unpredictable shifts in the direction of prevailing winds. These unusual climatic conditions make it very difficult to predict weather conditions." What are Israel s prevailing winds
> 
> ....bummer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, that wasn't the point at all.  The point is, Israel could wipe out Palestine with or without nuclear weapons.  If they are  as "evil" as you seem to think they are, they could capture, kill or enslave all of the Palestinians, but they have not.
Click to expand...


OK. Zionist Israel depends on America for it's continued existance (although it is looking to suck up to China in case America decides to throw it under a bus). Like it or not, most Americans are decent people who won't stomach an attempted genocide by their "closest ally".  Consequently, the Zionists are forced to play the long game, the slow ethocide, deprive them of  decent


Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zionist history, perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> It's ok challenger, I don't expect you to accept the truth. I've seen your posts many times where you are simply unable to handle the truth. It's a known fact that pro Palestinians are allergic to it, so don't worry, you're not alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many "truths",  all with their own preconceptions and biases, interpretations, feelings and fantasies. Accepting one "truth" blinds you to the possibilities in all the others and is intellectually lazy. I strive to obtain "The Truth" from amongst the web of lies and deceptions that are out there pretending to be "The Truth".
> 
> If you are comfortable with your version of the "truth", that's fine, but your mind is closed as a consequence. As the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." I and millions of others have found that Zionist Historiography and Hasbara has lied, again and again and again, so pardon my continuing skepticism about the stream of Hasbara I'm bombarded with from the Pro-Israelis here. So I'm glad I'm not alone, but thanks for your concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by your use of the terms Zionist and hasbara you prove beyond reasonable doubt that your mind is closed to the truth. All you want to see is your warped version of reality and the arab muslims "truths" being peddled. You don't want to see Islamic sources saying that arab muslims were very thin on the ground in Palestine prior to the Ottoman's inviting Jews to migrate and settle. You don't want to see the original acceptance by arab muslims to the Jews taking Palestine as their homeland as back then it was worthless desert. You don't want to see the evidence of mass illegal immigration by arab muslims. You don't want to see the atrocities committed by arab muslims in Palestine against all non muslims. because to admit that these are truth and reality would mean your brainwashing was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israelis and Jewish people use the terms Zionist and Hasbara all the time; the word "Hasbara" is an  Israeli word for goodness sake! I use the words for the purpose of clarity; being precise in defining what I'm talking about. I prefer to use the phrase "Jewish person" over the word "Jew" as I consider the word both derogatory and racist. I'm more than happy to look at any source but I'm allowed to be skeptical about any source's veracity and objectivity, as well as it's accuracy.
> 
> What source of yours says, "...that arab muslims were very thin on the ground in Palestine prior to the Ottoman's inviting Jews to migrate and settle"? I'll look at it.
> 
> What source of yours talks about, "acceptance by arab muslims to the Jews taking Palestine as their homeland as back then it was worthless desert."? I'll look at it as well.
> 
> What source of yours provides, "evidence of mass illegal immigration by arab muslims" ? I'll look at it.
> 
> What source of yours catalogues, "the atrocities committed by arab muslims in Palestine against all non muslims."? I'll look at that too, without fear and with an open mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you use the terms in the same way the Germans spewed out **** and juden, or the way the arab muslims used Palestinian when referring to the Jews.
> You have still to give your personal definition of Zionist because you know it will show you as a RACIST POS
> 
> 
> Try the ottomans reports of Palestine prior to 1870 when they failed to get arab muslims to colonise the land and turn it into valuable arable farms. 3 times they tried and each time the arab muslims up sticks and left, the same arab muslims that later came back and tried to claim they had lived in Palestine for 3,000 years.
> 
> The Mcmahon letters
> 
> The reports by Winston Churchill when he was foreign secretary
> 
> The 1929 massacre of Jews in Hebron, the ethnic cleansing of Christians from gaza and the west bank since 2005 and the civil wars or 1930 and 1945
Click to expand...


You have either links or references to these sources? There are thousands of Ottoman documents prior to 1870 for example; I have neither the time nor the inclination to go through what's available in print or the net. 

They are your claims; it's up to you to back them up.


----------



## Kondor3

Challenger said:


> ...Why, thank you for those kind words. sir.


Da nada...


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's ok challenger, I don't expect you to accept the truth. I've seen your posts many times where you are simply unable to handle the truth. It's a known fact that pro Palestinians are allergic to it, so don't worry, you're not alone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many "truths",  all with their own preconceptions and biases, interpretations, feelings and fantasies. Accepting one "truth" blinds you to the possibilities in all the others and is intellectually lazy. I strive to obtain "The Truth" from amongst the web of lies and deceptions that are out there pretending to be "The Truth".
> 
> If you are comfortable with your version of the "truth", that's fine, but your mind is closed as a consequence. As the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." I and millions of others have found that Zionist Historiography and Hasbara has lied, again and again and again, so pardon my continuing skepticism about the stream of Hasbara I'm bombarded with from the Pro-Israelis here. So I'm glad I'm not alone, but thanks for your concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you must be blind.  Israel has had nuclear weapons for years.  If they wanted to, they could wipe the Palestinians off the map.  They have the power to do so, but they have not.  They have tolerated a LOT from their "neighbors" over many, many, many years.  Obviously you are quite ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you must be really stupid. Nuclear War 101: Bang! the bombs goe off...lots of wanton death and destruction, vapourisation, etc.etc. Nice mushroom clouds of radioactive debris and dust tens of thousands of feet into the air, OK? still with me?
> 
> What goes up, must come down, it's called "fallout" and radioactive fallout at that. On its way down it is carried over long distances, many miles.
> 
> So....Israel nukes the West Bank and Gaza, job done....except for all that nasty radioactive fallout which is as likely to be carried East and North as it is to be carried South and West, thus leaving huge swathes of Israel uninhabitable and lots of Israelis "glowing in the dark" or growing two heads.
> 
> Power is one thing, but even the most rabid Zionist isn't that stupid. No wait, I hear you cry....get a weather forcast and nuke them when the winds are blowing away from Israel.....OK good idea but for those pesky facts that have a tendency to get in the way of the best Zionist wet dreams,
> 
> "Israel is located at the exact point where these four weather systems converge. This is why the country is subject to contradictory weather patterns (rainy or dry) as well as highly unpredictable shifts in the direction of prevailing winds. These unusual climatic conditions make it very difficult to predict weather conditions." What are Israel s prevailing winds
> 
> ....bummer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, that wasn't the point at all.  The point is, Israel could wipe out Palestine with or without nuclear weapons.  If they are  as "evil" as you seem to think they are, they could capture, kill or enslave all of the Palestinians, but they have not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK. Zionist Israel depends on America for it's continued existance (although it is looking to suck up to China in case America decides to throw it under a bus). Like it or not, most Americans are decent people who won't stomach an attempted genocide by their "closest ally".  Consequently, the Zionists are forced to play the long game, the slow ethocide, deprive them of  decent
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's ok challenger, I don't expect you to accept the truth. I've seen your posts many times where you are simply unable to handle the truth. It's a known fact that pro Palestinians are allergic to it, so don't worry, you're not alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many "truths",  all with their own preconceptions and biases, interpretations, feelings and fantasies. Accepting one "truth" blinds you to the possibilities in all the others and is intellectually lazy. I strive to obtain "The Truth" from amongst the web of lies and deceptions that are out there pretending to be "The Truth".
> 
> If you are comfortable with your version of the "truth", that's fine, but your mind is closed as a consequence. As the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." I and millions of others have found that Zionist Historiography and Hasbara has lied, again and again and again, so pardon my continuing skepticism about the stream of Hasbara I'm bombarded with from the Pro-Israelis here. So I'm glad I'm not alone, but thanks for your concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by your use of the terms Zionist and hasbara you prove beyond reasonable doubt that your mind is closed to the truth. All you want to see is your warped version of reality and the arab muslims "truths" being peddled. You don't want to see Islamic sources saying that arab muslims were very thin on the ground in Palestine prior to the Ottoman's inviting Jews to migrate and settle. You don't want to see the original acceptance by arab muslims to the Jews taking Palestine as their homeland as back then it was worthless desert. You don't want to see the evidence of mass illegal immigration by arab muslims. You don't want to see the atrocities committed by arab muslims in Palestine against all non muslims. because to admit that these are truth and reality would mean your brainwashing was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israelis and Jewish people use the terms Zionist and Hasbara all the time; the word "Hasbara" is an  Israeli word for goodness sake! I use the words for the purpose of clarity; being precise in defining what I'm talking about. I prefer to use the phrase "Jewish person" over the word "Jew" as I consider the word both derogatory and racist. I'm more than happy to look at any source but I'm allowed to be skeptical about any source's veracity and objectivity, as well as it's accuracy.
> 
> What source of yours says, "...that arab muslims were very thin on the ground in Palestine prior to the Ottoman's inviting Jews to migrate and settle"? I'll look at it.
> 
> What source of yours talks about, "acceptance by arab muslims to the Jews taking Palestine as their homeland as back then it was worthless desert."? I'll look at it as well.
> 
> What source of yours provides, "evidence of mass illegal immigration by arab muslims" ? I'll look at it.
> 
> What source of yours catalogues, "the atrocities committed by arab muslims in Palestine against all non muslims."? I'll look at that too, without fear and with an open mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you use the terms in the same way the Germans spewed out **** and juden, or the way the arab muslims used Palestinian when referring to the Jews.
> You have still to give your personal definition of Zionist because you know it will show you as a RACIST POS
> 
> 
> Try the ottomans reports of Palestine prior to 1870 when they failed to get arab muslims to colonise the land and turn it into valuable arable farms. 3 times they tried and each time the arab muslims up sticks and left, the same arab muslims that later came back and tried to claim they had lived in Palestine for 3,000 years.
> 
> The Mcmahon letters
> 
> The reports by Winston Churchill when he was foreign secretary
> 
> The 1929 massacre of Jews in Hebron, the ethnic cleansing of Christians from gaza and the west bank since 2005 and the civil wars or 1930 and 1945
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have either links or references to these sources? There are thousands of Ottoman documents prior to 1870 for example; I have neither the time nor the inclination to go through what's available in print or the net.
> 
> They are your claims; it's up to you to back them up.
Click to expand...






 So you are not prepared to do as you said because you know that the reports will say different to what you have been told.


----------



## ChrisL

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was never a case in which the Arab Palestinian attempted to use their right of self-determination, in an internationally accepted way, and was denied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about their 1948 declaration of independence?
Click to expand...


Are you German Tinmore?


----------



## ChrisL

Challenger said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's ok challenger, I don't expect you to accept the truth. I've seen your posts many times where you are simply unable to handle the truth. It's a known fact that pro Palestinians are allergic to it, so don't worry, you're not alone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many "truths",  all with their own preconceptions and biases, interpretations, feelings and fantasies. Accepting one "truth" blinds you to the possibilities in all the others and is intellectually lazy. I strive to obtain "The Truth" from amongst the web of lies and deceptions that are out there pretending to be "The Truth".
> 
> If you are comfortable with your version of the "truth", that's fine, but your mind is closed as a consequence. As the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." I and millions of others have found that Zionist Historiography and Hasbara has lied, again and again and again, so pardon my continuing skepticism about the stream of Hasbara I'm bombarded with from the Pro-Israelis here. So I'm glad I'm not alone, but thanks for your concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you must be blind.  Israel has had nuclear weapons for years.  If they wanted to, they could wipe the Palestinians off the map.  They have the power to do so, but they have not.  They have tolerated a LOT from their "neighbors" over many, many, many years.  Obviously you are quite ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you must be really stupid. Nuclear War 101: Bang! the bombs goe off...lots of wanton death and destruction, vapourisation, etc.etc. Nice mushroom clouds of radioactive debris and dust tens of thousands of feet into the air, OK? still with me?
> 
> What goes up, must come down, it's called "fallout" and radioactive fallout at that. On its way down it is carried over long distances, many miles.
> 
> So....Israel nukes the West Bank and Gaza, job done....except for all that nasty radioactive fallout which is as likely to be carried East and North as it is to be carried South and West, thus leaving huge swathes of Israel uninhabitable and lots of Israelis "glowing in the dark" or growing two heads.
> 
> Power is one thing, but even the most rabid Zionist isn't that stupid. No wait, I hear you cry....get a weather forcast and nuke them when the winds are blowing away from Israel.....OK good idea but for those pesky facts that have a tendency to get in the way of the best Zionist wet dreams,
> 
> "Israel is located at the exact point where these four weather systems converge. This is why the country is subject to contradictory weather patterns (rainy or dry) as well as highly unpredictable shifts in the direction of prevailing winds. These unusual climatic conditions make it very difficult to predict weather conditions." What are Israel s prevailing winds
> 
> ....bummer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, that wasn't the point at all.  The point is, Israel could wipe out Palestine with or without nuclear weapons.  If they are  as "evil" as you seem to think they are, they could capture, kill or enslave all of the Palestinians, but they have not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK. Zionist Israel depends on America for it's continued existance (although it is looking to suck up to China in case America decides to throw it under a bus). Like it or not, most Americans are decent people who won't stomach an attempted genocide by their "closest ally".  Consequently, the Zionists are forced to play the long game, the slow ethocide, deprive them of  decent
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's ok challenger, I don't expect you to accept the truth. I've seen your posts many times where you are simply unable to handle the truth. It's a known fact that pro Palestinians are allergic to it, so don't worry, you're not alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many "truths",  all with their own preconceptions and biases, interpretations, feelings and fantasies. Accepting one "truth" blinds you to the possibilities in all the others and is intellectually lazy. I strive to obtain "The Truth" from amongst the web of lies and deceptions that are out there pretending to be "The Truth".
> 
> If you are comfortable with your version of the "truth", that's fine, but your mind is closed as a consequence. As the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." I and millions of others have found that Zionist Historiography and Hasbara has lied, again and again and again, so pardon my continuing skepticism about the stream of Hasbara I'm bombarded with from the Pro-Israelis here. So I'm glad I'm not alone, but thanks for your concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by your use of the terms Zionist and hasbara you prove beyond reasonable doubt that your mind is closed to the truth. All you want to see is your warped version of reality and the arab muslims "truths" being peddled. You don't want to see Islamic sources saying that arab muslims were very thin on the ground in Palestine prior to the Ottoman's inviting Jews to migrate and settle. You don't want to see the original acceptance by arab muslims to the Jews taking Palestine as their homeland as back then it was worthless desert. You don't want to see the evidence of mass illegal immigration by arab muslims. You don't want to see the atrocities committed by arab muslims in Palestine against all non muslims. because to admit that these are truth and reality would mean your brainwashing was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israelis and Jewish people use the terms Zionist and Hasbara all the time; the word "Hasbara" is an  Israeli word for goodness sake! I use the words for the purpose of clarity; being precise in defining what I'm talking about. I prefer to use the phrase "Jewish person" over the word "Jew" as I consider the word both derogatory and racist. I'm more than happy to look at any source but I'm allowed to be skeptical about any source's veracity and objectivity, as well as it's accuracy.
> 
> What source of yours says, "...that arab muslims were very thin on the ground in Palestine prior to the Ottoman's inviting Jews to migrate and settle"? I'll look at it.
> 
> What source of yours talks about, "acceptance by arab muslims to the Jews taking Palestine as their homeland as back then it was worthless desert."? I'll look at it as well.
> 
> What source of yours provides, "evidence of mass illegal immigration by arab muslims" ? I'll look at it.
> 
> What source of yours catalogues, "the atrocities committed by arab muslims in Palestine against all non muslims."? I'll look at that too, without fear and with an open mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you use the terms in the same way the Germans spewed out **** and juden, or the way the arab muslims used Palestinian when referring to the Jews.
> You have still to give your personal definition of Zionist because you know it will show you as a RACIST POS
> 
> 
> Try the ottomans reports of Palestine prior to 1870 when they failed to get arab muslims to colonise the land and turn it into valuable arable farms. 3 times they tried and each time the arab muslims up sticks and left, the same arab muslims that later came back and tried to claim they had lived in Palestine for 3,000 years.
> 
> The Mcmahon letters
> 
> The reports by Winston Churchill when he was foreign secretary
> 
> The 1929 massacre of Jews in Hebron, the ethnic cleansing of Christians from gaza and the west bank since 2005 and the civil wars or 1930 and 1945
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have either links or references to these sources? There are thousands of Ottoman documents prior to 1870 for example; I have neither the time nor the inclination to go through what's available in print or the net.
> 
> They are your claims; it's up to you to back them up.
Click to expand...


You are not correct.  Israel has gone against the wishes of America and the world plenty of times.  Lol.  Keep your blinders on.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, that was not a case of a proper application.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was never a case in which the Arab Palestinian attempted to use their right of self-determination, in an internationally accepted way, and was denied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about their 1948 declaration of independence?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

First, the "All Palestine Government" (APG) was a puppet regime that was totally dependent of Egypt and the Military Governorship; thus "external influence and interference."

Second, the APG announce their declaration four months after the Jewish Palestinian Citizens announced the State of Israel.  The APG announcement try to encompass the same sovereign territory as the Jewish Palestinian Citizens already declared under the GA/RES/181(II).  

Third, the right of self-determination of the Arab Palestinian Citizens cannot overturn the right of self-determination of the Jew Palestinian Citizens.

It is not a case of the Arab Palestinian Citizens being denied their right of self-determination --- as it is --- being prevented or blocked from interfering with the Jewish Palestinian Citizens's right of self-determination.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

ChrisL said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Remembering --- that the UK Colonial Office (UKCO) to the Palestine Arab Delegation (PAD) is not an official; statement of policy.  Again, remember as stated in Correspondence #2, Paragraph #2, Mr Churchill and the UKCO was "not in a position to negotiate officially with [the PAD] or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine, since no official machinery for representation has as yet been constituted."  The Arab Palestinian Leadership having rejected (more then once) the opportunity to establish an official conduit.
> 
> Also remember that the very same people that wrote the Covenant for the League of Nations, also wrote the Mandate.  There is nothing at all in Article 22 of the Covenant, that would suggest that Article 22 was in anyway dedicated exclusively to the opportunities of Arab Palestinians --- or --- predicated upon the claim that the granting an advantage to the Arab Palestinians.  The same authors of the 1919 Covenant, were also the principles at the 1920 San Remo Convention in which the framework for the Mandate of Palestine was agreed upon; and where the concept was hammered-out in regards to the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH).
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As clearly stated, any obligation antecedent to the entry of a state as a member of the League of Nations that conflicted with the covenant of the LoN, was to abrogated by the entrant (UK) prior to joining the LoN.
> 
> _(b) _The object aimed at by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations is "the well-being and development of the people" of the land. Alien Jews not in Palestine do not come within the scope of this aim, neither is their association with Palestine more close than that of Christians and Moslems all over the world. *Consequently the Jewish National Home policy is contrary to the spirit of the Covenant.*
> 
> (c) Article XX of the Covenant reads: *"The Members of this League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings *_*inter se *_*which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, *and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
> *
> "In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."*
> 
> - See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Covenant grants no special or unique application to the indigenous population of the territory under mandate.  In fact, Article 22, could be thought of as applying in general to any of the orphaned territories left in the wake of the post-War conditions.
> 
> Relative to Article 22/1 of the Covenant:
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> In fact, of the Middle East Protectorates and Mandates, the following Arab countries were determined to stand-alone, with their independence and sovereignty.
> 
> Lebanon:  Independence:  22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Syria:  Independence:  17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Jordan:  Independence:  25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Iraq:  Independence:  3 October 1932 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Israel:  Independence:  14 May 1948 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Kuwait:  Independence:  19 June 1961 (from UK)
> Egypt:  Independence:  28 February 1922 (from UK)
> Relative to Article 22/4 of the Covenant:
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
> Nothing in this clause specifically applies to the Palestinian territory under Mandate.  It has a general application but on pinpoint specific application.  While in general one could say that the League of Nations gave Britain the Mandate to administer Palestine, which required her to implement the Balfour Declaration, and undertake a “sacred trust of civilisation” to advance the welfare of the all people and guide them to independence.   And here again, --- while the Jewish citizens under the Mandate of Palestine chose to follow the "Step Preparatory to Independence" as approved by the General Assembly; the Arab Palestinians turned this opportunity down at least three times.​
> Relative to Article 22/8 of the Covenant:
> The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.
> One of the major objectives of the Mandate, as passed-down from the San Remo Convention, by the Principal Allied Powers to the Mandatory --- was the responsibility for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917,  in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.​I have heard, many times, that the Palestinians were not given the proper well-being care and development they had due to them.  That they were denied the right to self-determination, and that they were not dealt with fairly.  The is a form of negativism in which the under developed culture does not have the ability to stand on its own --- and who tends to be negative.  Of course, most cultures have periods or moments of whining, complaining, and displaying “the glass-is-half-empty” attitude now and again, but the continuation --- day after day, year after year, decade after decade --- of dwelling on the worst outcome of any given situation --- droning on and on about the unfairness of the world, then there is something more wrong with the culture than meets the eye.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't matter if it were the British Virgin Islands.  If the British had a deal/treaty/agreement with the Gurkhas  to populate the BVIs with thousands Gurkhas and their extended families in order to create a Gurkha National home there, at the expense of the locals, they should, by the terms of the LoN Covenant, have extricated themselves out of that agreement.
> 
> There hasn't been any such campaign, validated by an International Organization, against any people that was planned and executed to replace an indigenous people living a continent away from Europe, with a  "favored" European people.  I don't think that anyone looking at it as a neutral could ever imagine that such a process, with all the opaque and sinister tactics combined with betrayal, used against the Christians and Muslims would be acceptable to any fair and neutral observer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And like a good little islamonazi stooge you deny the indigenous Jews of Palestine their rights to free determination and a homeland. So how about we make all muslims stateless and destined to wander the world for the next 2,000 years as unwanted pariahs ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Not true.*
> 
> Even the PLO Charter specifically recognizes indigenous Jews as legitimate citizens of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU are one of the most dishonest posters here and one of the most disgusting.  Jews are not respected as "citizens."  They are considered dhimmis.  Anyone who is not Muslim, is a second class citizen.
Click to expand...

Tinmore doesn't have any problem with Jews.
But you're right, he is one of, if not the most dishonest poster here.
Funny how he asked you for a link, when we always provide him with links to refute his lies yet he still keeps his position.


----------



## ChrisL

toastman said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Remembering --- that the UK Colonial Office (UKCO) to the Palestine Arab Delegation (PAD) is not an official; statement of policy.  Again, remember as stated in Correspondence #2, Paragraph #2, Mr Churchill and the UKCO was "not in a position to negotiate officially with [the PAD] or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine, since no official machinery for representation has as yet been constituted."  The Arab Palestinian Leadership having rejected (more then once) the opportunity to establish an official conduit.
> 
> Also remember that the very same people that wrote the Covenant for the League of Nations, also wrote the Mandate.  There is nothing at all in Article 22 of the Covenant, that would suggest that Article 22 was in anyway dedicated exclusively to the opportunities of Arab Palestinians --- or --- predicated upon the claim that the granting an advantage to the Arab Palestinians.  The same authors of the 1919 Covenant, were also the principles at the 1920 San Remo Convention in which the framework for the Mandate of Palestine was agreed upon; and where the concept was hammered-out in regards to the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH).
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Covenant grants no special or unique application to the indigenous population of the territory under mandate.  In fact, Article 22, could be thought of as applying in general to any of the orphaned territories left in the wake of the post-War conditions.
> 
> Relative to Article 22/1 of the Covenant:
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> In fact, of the Middle East Protectorates and Mandates, the following Arab countries were determined to stand-alone, with their independence and sovereignty.
> 
> Lebanon:  Independence:  22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Syria:  Independence:  17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Jordan:  Independence:  25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Iraq:  Independence:  3 October 1932 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Israel:  Independence:  14 May 1948 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Kuwait:  Independence:  19 June 1961 (from UK)
> Egypt:  Independence:  28 February 1922 (from UK)
> Relative to Article 22/4 of the Covenant:
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
> Nothing in this clause specifically applies to the Palestinian territory under Mandate.  It has a general application but on pinpoint specific application.  While in general one could say that the League of Nations gave Britain the Mandate to administer Palestine, which required her to implement the Balfour Declaration, and undertake a “sacred trust of civilisation” to advance the welfare of the all people and guide them to independence.   And here again, --- while the Jewish citizens under the Mandate of Palestine chose to follow the "Step Preparatory to Independence" as approved by the General Assembly; the Arab Palestinians turned this opportunity down at least three times.​
> Relative to Article 22/8 of the Covenant:
> The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.
> One of the major objectives of the Mandate, as passed-down from the San Remo Convention, by the Principal Allied Powers to the Mandatory --- was the responsibility for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917,  in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.​I have heard, many times, that the Palestinians were not given the proper well-being care and development they had due to them.  That they were denied the right to self-determination, and that they were not dealt with fairly.  The is a form of negativism in which the under developed culture does not have the ability to stand on its own --- and who tends to be negative.  Of course, most cultures have periods or moments of whining, complaining, and displaying “the glass-is-half-empty” attitude now and again, but the continuation --- day after day, year after year, decade after decade --- of dwelling on the worst outcome of any given situation --- droning on and on about the unfairness of the world, then there is something more wrong with the culture than meets the eye.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't matter if it were the British Virgin Islands.  If the British had a deal/treaty/agreement with the Gurkhas  to populate the BVIs with thousands Gurkhas and their extended families in order to create a Gurkha National home there, at the expense of the locals, they should, by the terms of the LoN Covenant, have extricated themselves out of that agreement.
> 
> There hasn't been any such campaign, validated by an International Organization, against any people that was planned and executed to replace an indigenous people living a continent away from Europe, with a  "favored" European people.  I don't think that anyone looking at it as a neutral could ever imagine that such a process, with all the opaque and sinister tactics combined with betrayal, used against the Christians and Muslims would be acceptable to any fair and neutral observer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And like a good little islamonazi stooge you deny the indigenous Jews of Palestine their rights to free determination and a homeland. So how about we make all muslims stateless and destined to wander the world for the next 2,000 years as unwanted pariahs ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Not true.*
> 
> Even the PLO Charter specifically recognizes indigenous Jews as legitimate citizens of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU are one of the most dishonest posters here and one of the most disgusting.  Jews are not respected as "citizens."  They are considered dhimmis.  Anyone who is not Muslim, is a second class citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tinmore doesn't have any problem with Jews.
> But you're right, he is one of, if not the most dishonest poster here.
> Funny how he asked you for a link, when we always provide him with links to refute his lies yet he still keeps his position.
Click to expand...


He sure seems to have a problem with them to me.  

He just ignores any links provided to him.


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Yes, that was not a case of a proper application.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was never a case in which the Arab Palestinian attempted to use their right of self-determination, in an internationally accepted way, and was denied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about their 1948 declaration of independence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, the "All Palestine Government" (APG) was a puppet regime that was totally dependent of Egypt and the Military Governorship; thus "external influence and interference."
> 
> Second, the APG announce their declaration four months after the Jewish Palestinian Citizens announced the State of Israel.  The APG announcement try to encompass the same sovereign territory as the Jewish Palestinian Citizens already declared under the GA/RES/181(II).
> 
> Third, the right of self-determination of the Arab Palestinian Citizens cannot overturn the right of self-determination of the Jew Palestinian Citizens.
> 
> It is not a case of the Arab Palestinian Citizens being denied their right of self-determination --- as it is --- being prevented or blocked from interfering with the Jewish Palestinian Citizens's right of self-determination.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Firstly, Kosovo was totally dependent on the West's governorship (and military) when it declared independence.  Northern Cyprus declared independence and was totally dependent on Turkey.  There are many other examples, so your dog won't hunt Rocco.

Secondly, If "the right of self-determination of the Arab Palestinian Citizens cannot overturn the right of self-determination of the Jew Palestinian Citizens."

Then the converse is true.

The right of self-determination of the Jew Palestinian Citizens. cannot overturn the right of self-determination of the Palestinian Citizens.

Declaring itself a Jewish state when over 45% of the population was either Jewish or Muslim (before the Jewish ethnic cleansing), overturned the right of self determination of the Christian and Muslim Palestinians.  Another salon dog.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was never a case in which the Arab Palestinian attempted to use their right of self-determination, in an internationally accepted way, and was denied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about their 1948 declaration of independence?
Click to expand...


Basically non existent.

Just google 'Palestinians declaration of independence' and EVERY link you find will tell you about the 1988 declaration.
When will yiu finally get that through your head ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

ChrisL said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was never a case in which the Arab Palestinian attempted to use their right of self-determination, in an internationally accepted way, and was denied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about their 1948 declaration of independence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you German Tinmore?
Click to expand...

Good call.

My mother's father was born in Germany and came to the US as a teen after WWI.

My mother's mother was Pennsylvania Dutch.

My father's mother was English.

My father's father was Scotch.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,



montelatici said:


> Firstly, Kosovo was totally dependent on the West's governorship (and military) when it declared independence.  Northern Cyprus declared independence and was totally dependent on Turkey.  There are many other examples, so your dog won't hunt Rocco.


*(COMMENT)*

The APG attempted to establish a "declarative state" (which did not exist in reality).  The Province of Kosovo established a  _de jure_ and _de facto_ (i.e. they exist both in law and in reality) as the Republic of Kosovo.  --- While Serbia recognizes the Kosovo governance of the territory, Serbia still claims the territory as an Autonomous Province of Kosovo; as opposed to fully indepent.  This is more analogous to the political status of Taiwan --- rather than what you suggest. 

The APG state differed significantly in that the declarative government of the territory did not actually have actual control.  The APG government existed totally for political convenience and was dissolve by Egypt for the reason - convenience.  

The PLO and Palestinian Authority claim that the 1988 State of Palestine is a sovereign state, a claim which has been recognized by more than a 100 states, though the territory it claims is under the _de facto_ control of Israel.  This is significantly different in that, the international institution consider "occupation" as not sovereign control and must be negotiated by a determination methodology sanctioned by the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States through (settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement) and may not be dissolved by another parent entity.

Cyprus is different yet again.  The Turkish Cypriot community, which administers the northern part of the island, refers to itself as the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus"  (TRNC).  The 1996 case _Loizidou vs. Turkey_, the European Court of Human Rights judged Turkey for having exercised authority in the territory ofNorthern Cyprus.

Cyprus and Kosovo are categorized as Non-UN member states recognized by at least one UN member with limited recognition.



montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Yes, that was not a case of a proper application.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was never a case in which the Arab Palestinian attempted to use their right of self-determination, in an internationally accepted way, and was denied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about their 1948 declaration of independence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, the "All Palestine Government" (APG) was a puppet regime that was totally dependent of Egypt and the Military Governorship; thus "external influence and interference."
> 
> Second, the APG announce their declaration four months after the Jewish Palestinian Citizens announced the State of Israel.  The APG announcement try to encompass the same sovereign territory as the Jewish Palestinian Citizens already declared under the GA/RES/181(II).
> 
> Third, the right of self-determination of the Arab Palestinian Citizens cannot overturn the right of self-determination of the Jew Palestinian Citizens.
> 
> It is not a case of the Arab Palestinian Citizens being denied their right of self-determination --- as it is --- being prevented or blocked from interfering with the Jewish Palestinian Citizens's right of self-determination.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




montelatici said:


> Secondly, If "the right of self-determination of the Arab Palestinian Citizens cannot overturn the right of self-determination of the Jew Palestinian Citizens."
> 
> Then the converse is true.
> 
> The right of self-determination of the Jew Palestinian Citizens. cannot overturn the right of self-determination of the Palestinian Citizens.


*(COMMENT)
*
Yes - all thing being equal, the reverse is very true.  But, but all things were not equal.  The Jewish exercised their right of self-determination first, and pursuant to International instruction.  The APG did not; its action was unilateral and attempting to defy international consensus.



montelatici said:


> Declaring itself a Jewish state when over 45% of the population was either Jewish or Muslim (before the Jewish ethnic cleansing), overturned the right of self determination of the Christian and Muslim Palestinians.  Another salon dog.


*(COMMENT)
*
The recommendation for this action came from the General Assembly as international consensus.  The decision to recognize the effort to comply with the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" also came General Assembly as international consensus. The Arab Palestinian declined and ultimately rejected all invitations to join in the process; this being much different from the claim that they were denied their right to self-determination.  And in fact, when the PLO finally did get recognition as the "State of Palestine," it was clear that the PLO recognized the international legitimacy of the general consensus.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

"Cyprus and Kosovo are categorized as Non-UN member states recognized by at least one UN member with limited recognition."

So what?  Weak response.

"Yes - all thing being equal, the reverse is very true. But, but all things were not equal. The Jewish exercised their right of self-determination first, and pursuant to International instruction. The APG did not; its action was unilateral and attempting to defy international consensus."

Doesn't matter at all.  The APG has nothing to do with it.  The right to self-determination of the Christians and Muslims was overturned.  

You can keep it up, but you are wrong on all counts.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

Never happened.



montelatici said:


> "
> 
> Doesn't matter at all.  The APG has nothing to do with it.  The right to self-determination of the Christians and Muslims was overturned.
> 
> You can keep it up, but you are wrong on all counts.


*(COMMENT)*

No one overturned the right to self-determination of the Christians and Muslims was overturned.

The Christians and Muslims never exercised the right; only APG attempted to exercise it.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "
> 
> Doesn't matter at all.  The APG has nothing to do with it.  The right to self-determination of the Christians and Muslims was overturned.
> 
> You can keep it up, but you are wrong on all counts.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> No one overturned the right to self-determination of the Christians and Muslims was overturned.
> 
> The Christians and Muslims never exercised the right; only APG attempted to exercise it.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


But of course it was "overturned" exercising or attempting has nothing to do with it.  Keep digging.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "
> 
> Doesn't matter at all.  The APG has nothing to do with it.  The right to self-determination of the Christians and Muslims was overturned.
> 
> You can keep it up, but you are wrong on all counts.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> No one overturned the right to self-determination of the Christians and Muslims was overturned.
> 
> The Christians and Muslims never exercised the right; only APG attempted to exercise it.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Lets look at the two bodies that claimed independence.

The APG (All Palestinian Government) consisted of over 80 Palestinian leaders. They claimed independence for Palestine's indigenous population, without regard to race, or religion, inside Palestine's international borders.

Israel, on the other hand, was declared inside Palestine's international borders by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. Of the 37 people who signed Israel's declaration of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of immigrants.

The foreign created Israeli government was not to represent the Palestinian people but to represent the foreign settlers that the Zionists imported to populate their planned Jewish state.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

I don't think you understand the nature of a "right!"



montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "
> 
> Doesn't matter at all.  The APG has nothing to do with it.  The right to self-determination of the Christians and Muslims was overturned.
> 
> You can keep it up, but you are wrong on all counts.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> No one overturned the right to self-determination of the Christians and Muslims was overturned.
> 
> The Christians and Muslims never exercised the right; only APG attempted to exercise it.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But of course it was "overturned" exercising or attempting has nothing to do with it.  Keep digging.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

I have the "right" to earn a Million Dollars a year.  But my attempts have failed.


Was my right denied?
or
Was my effort unsuccessful?

But, --- to be sure, the "right" does not include the requirement that someone must hand me the Million Dollars; with no effort on my part.

The same is true with even the greatest of all "rights" --- freedom.

Freedom is not free.  I can not think of any free nation that has not had to defend or work at defending there sovereignty and personal freedoms in their history.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> I don't think you understand the nature of a "right!"
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "
> 
> Doesn't matter at all.  The APG has nothing to do with it.  The right to self-determination of the Christians and Muslims was overturned.
> 
> You can keep it up, but you are wrong on all counts.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> No one overturned the right to self-determination of the Christians and Muslims was overturned.
> 
> The Christians and Muslims never exercised the right; only APG attempted to exercise it.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But of course it was "overturned" exercising or attempting has nothing to do with it.  Keep digging.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I have the "right" to earn a Million Dollars a year.  But my attempts have failed.
> 
> 
> Was my right denied?
> or
> Was my effort unsuccessful?
> 
> But, --- to be sure, the "right" does not include the requirement that someone must hand me the Million Dollars; with no effort on my part.
> 
> The same is true with even the greatest of all "rights" --- freedom.
> 
> Freedom is not free.  I can not think of any free nation that has not had to defend or work at defending there sovereignty and personal freedoms in their history.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Freedom is not free. I can not think of any free nation that has not had to defend or work at defending there sovereignty and personal freedoms in their history.​
Like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PFLP, etc. are doing as we speak.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is so ridiculous.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "
> 
> Doesn't matter at all.  The APG has nothing to do with it.  The right to self-determination of the Christians and Muslims was overturned.
> 
> You can keep it up, but you are wrong on all counts.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> No one overturned the right to self-determination of the Christians and Muslims was overturned.
> 
> The Christians and Muslims never exercised the right; only APG attempted to exercise it.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lets look at the two bodies that claimed independence.
> 
> The APG (All Palestinian Government) consisted of over 80 Palestinian leaders. They claimed independence for Palestine's indigenous population, without regard to race, or religion, inside Palestine's international borders.
> 
> Israel, on the other hand, was declared inside Palestine's international borders by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. Of the 37 people who signed Israel's declaration of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of immigrants.
> 
> The foreign created Israeli government was not to represent the Palestinian people but to represent the foreign settlers that the Zionists imported to populate their planned Jewish state.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

This is wrong:  Israel, on the other hand, was declared inside Palestine's international borders *(WRONG) *by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization *(WRONG)*.

Israel was declared inside the mandate/trusteeship IAW the initial boundaries set by Part II of GA/RES/181(II).  The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, stipulated by the UN General Assembly in  Parts II and III of the resolution.
The creation of the Jewish Agency was stipulated as a requirement by the Allied Powers in Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the Mandate for Palestine.
The Zionist Organization, was recognized as such agency; required under Article 4, Paragraph 2, of the Mandate for Palestine.
Both of these requirement were set by the Allied Powers at San Remo in 1920, which was 9 years before the WZO created the agency.
The foreign created Israeli government *(WRONG)* was not to represent the Palestinian people but to represent the foreign settlers *(WRONG)* that the Zionists imported to populate their planned Jewish state.

The Jewish population had the same citizenship as the Arab Palestinian.  They were not foreigners. (Citizenship Order)
The Jewish Citizenry generally represented the all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home. (Article 4 Paragraph 2)
There is no resolution or international law, treaty or convention that withholds self-determination from the Jewish Immigrants.  There is no resolution or international law, treaty or convention that gives the Arab Palestinian any special rights that supersedes those of the Jewish Constituency the that were taking part in the development of the of the Jewish National Home; or working to complete the Steps Preparatory to Independence as outlined by the General Assembly.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

The "occupation" is not based on the objective to withhold freedom or sovereignty.



P F Tinmore said:


> Like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PFLP, etc. are doing as we speak.


*(COMMENT)*

The "occupation" _(which existed well before the Arab Palestinian established the State of Palestine)_ was to contain or quarantine hostile activity from adversely impacting Israeli sovereignty and regional security.

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) was founded in 1967
Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) was formed in 1981
Hamas was established in 1987
All these Jihadist and Fedayeen groups were established after the occupation of the Jordanian West Bank --- but before the Jordan relinquish sovereignty.

The Jihadist and Fedayeen are not defending the State of Palestine _(West Bank and Gaza Strip)_.  They are attempting to destabilize the State of Israel and take by force the territory recognized as sovereign Israeli _(part of the landscape the Palestinian Terrorists call "from the river to the sea")_.  The Palestinian terrorist are attempting to use force to secure territory that was allocated to Israel by the International body.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> This is so ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "
> 
> Doesn't matter at all.  The APG has nothing to do with it.  The right to self-determination of the Christians and Muslims was overturned.
> 
> You can keep it up, but you are wrong on all counts.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> No one overturned the right to self-determination of the Christians and Muslims was overturned.
> 
> The Christians and Muslims never exercised the right; only APG attempted to exercise it.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lets look at the two bodies that claimed independence.
> 
> The APG (All Palestinian Government) consisted of over 80 Palestinian leaders. They claimed independence for Palestine's indigenous population, without regard to race, or religion, inside Palestine's international borders.
> 
> Israel, on the other hand, was declared inside Palestine's international borders by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. Of the 37 people who signed Israel's declaration of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of immigrants.
> 
> The foreign created Israeli government was not to represent the Palestinian people but to represent the foreign settlers that the Zionists imported to populate their planned Jewish state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is wrong:  Israel, on the other hand, was declared inside Palestine's international borders *(WRONG)*
Click to expand...

*
Look up international boundaries in the legend then find them on the map.*

*






*


> by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization *(WRONG)*.



In 1929, the Palestine Zionist Executive was renamed, restructured and officially inaugurated as The Jewish Agency for Palestine by the 16th Zionist Congress, held in Zurich, Switzerland.

Jewish Agency for Israel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​



> Israel was declared inside the mandate/trusteeship IAW the initial boundaries set by Part II of GA/RES/181(II).  The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, stipulated by the UN General Assembly in  Parts II and III of the resolution.
> [*]The creation of the Jewish Agency was stipulated as a requirement by the Allied Powers in Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the Mandate for Palestine.
> [*]The Zionist Organization, was recognized as such agency; required under Article 4, Paragraph 2, of the Mandate for Palestine.
> [*]Both of these requirement were set by the Allied Powers at San Remo in 1920, which was 9 years before the WZO created the agency.



Nobody, including Israel, has ever recognized the proposed borders of resolution 181.

The Jewish Agency had no authority. It was a consulting position for the mandate that existed at the pleasure of the mandate. When the mandate left the Jewish Agency no longer had any legitimacy.



> The foreign created Israeli government *(WRONG)* was not to represent the Palestinian people but to represent the foreign settlers *(WRONG)* that the Zionists imported to populate their planned Jewish state.
> 
> The Jewish population had the same citizenship as the Arab Palestinian.  They were not foreigners. (Citizenship Order)
> The Jewish Citizenry generally represented the all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home. (Article 4 Paragraph 2)
> There is no resolution or international law, treaty or convention that withholds self-determination from the Jewish Immigrants.  There is no resolution or international law, treaty or convention that gives the Arab Palestinian any special rights that supersedes those of the Jewish Constituency the that were taking part in the development of the of the Jewish National Home; or working to complete the Steps Preparatory to Independence as outlined by the General Assembly.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The "occupation" is not based on the objective to withhold freedom or sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PFLP, etc. are doing as we speak.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "occupation" _(which existed well before the Arab Palestinian established the State of Palestine)_ was to contain or quarantine hostile activity from adversely impacting Israeli sovereignty and regional security.
> 
> Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) was founded in 1967
> Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) was formed in 1981
> Hamas was established in 1987
> All these Jihadist and Fedayeen groups were established after the occupation of the Jordanian West Bank --- but before the Jordan relinquish sovereignty.
> 
> The Jihadist and Fedayeen are not defending the State of Palestine _(West Bank and Gaza Strip)_.  They are attempting to destabilize the State of Israel and take by force the territory recognized as sovereign Israeli _(part of the landscape the Palestinian Terrorists call "from the river to the sea")_.  The Palestinian terrorist are attempting to use force to secure territory that was allocated to Israel by the International body.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

You must be out of bullets.

You are playing the terrorist card.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "
> 
> Doesn't matter at all.  The APG has nothing to do with it.  The right to self-determination of the Christians and Muslims was overturned.
> 
> You can keep it up, but you are wrong on all counts.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> No one overturned the right to self-determination of the Christians and Muslims was overturned.
> 
> The Christians and Muslims never exercised the right; only APG attempted to exercise it.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lets look at the two bodies that claimed independence.
> 
> The APG (All Palestinian Government) consisted of over 80 Palestinian leaders. They claimed independence for Palestine's indigenous population, without regard to race, or religion, inside Palestine's international borders.
> 
> Israel, on the other hand, was declared inside Palestine's international borders by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. Of the 37 people who signed Israel's declaration of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of immigrants.
> 
> The foreign created Israeli government was not to represent the Palestinian people but to represent the foreign settlers that the Zionists imported to populate their planned Jewish state.
Click to expand...


Wow, what a loaf of crap. You're nothing but a liar Tinmore.
Israel was created inside Palestine's borders? What borders?? Israel declared independence BEFORE 'Palestine'.
Your feeble attempts at delegitimizing Israel will keep failing.

BTW, how many times have you failed to show me proof of Palestines international boundaries?
Israel on the other hand has international boundaries.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The "occupation" is not based on the objective to withhold freedom or sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PFLP, etc. are doing as we speak.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "occupation" _(which existed well before the Arab Palestinian established the State of Palestine)_ was to contain or quarantine hostile activity from adversely impacting Israeli sovereignty and regional security.
> 
> Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) was founded in 1967
> Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) was formed in 1981
> Hamas was established in 1987
> All these Jihadist and Fedayeen groups were established after the occupation of the Jordanian West Bank --- but before the Jordan relinquish sovereignty.
> 
> The Jihadist and Fedayeen are not defending the State of Palestine _(West Bank and Gaza Strip)_.  They are attempting to destabilize the State of Israel and take by force the territory recognized as sovereign Israeli _(part of the landscape the Palestinian Terrorists call "from the river to the sea")_.  The Palestinian terrorist are attempting to use force to secure territory that was allocated to Israel by the International body.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be out of bullets.
> 
> You are playing the terrorist card.
Click to expand...


Out of bullets? Really? We have all watched as Rocco has refuted every single one of your lies, day after day. So if anyone is out of bullets... It's you. Not that you had many to begin with.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> This is so ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "
> 
> Doesn't matter at all.  The APG has nothing to do with it.  The right to self-determination of the Christians and Muslims was overturned.
> 
> You can keep it up, but you are wrong on all counts.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> No one overturned the right to self-determination of the Christians and Muslims was overturned.
> 
> The Christians and Muslims never exercised the right; only APG attempted to exercise it.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lets look at the two bodies that claimed independence.
> 
> The APG (All Palestinian Government) consisted of over 80 Palestinian leaders. They claimed independence for Palestine's indigenous population, without regard to race, or religion, inside Palestine's international borders.
> 
> Israel, on the other hand, was declared inside Palestine's international borders by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. Of the 37 people who signed Israel's declaration of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of immigrants.
> 
> The foreign created Israeli government was not to represent the Palestinian people but to represent the foreign settlers that the Zionists imported to populate their planned Jewish state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is wrong:  Israel, on the other hand, was declared inside Palestine's international borders *(WRONG)*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Look up international boundaries in the legend then find them on the map.*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization *(WRONG)*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 1929, the Palestine Zionist Executive was renamed, restructured and officially inaugurated as The Jewish Agency for Palestine by the 16th Zionist Congress, held in Zurich, Switzerland.
> 
> Jewish Agency for Israel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel was declared inside the mandate/trusteeship IAW the initial boundaries set by Part II of GA/RES/181(II).  The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, stipulated by the UN General Assembly in  Parts II and III of the resolution.
> [*]The creation of the Jewish Agency was stipulated as a requirement by the Allied Powers in Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the Mandate for Palestine.
> [*]The Zionist Organization, was recognized as such agency; required under Article 4, Paragraph 2, of the Mandate for Palestine.
> [*]Both of these requirement were set by the Allied Powers at San Remo in 1920, which was 9 years before the WZO created the agency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody, including Israel, has ever recognized the proposed borders of resolution 181.
> 
> The Jewish Agency had no authority. It was a consulting position for the mandate that existed at the pleasure of the mandate. When the mandate left the Jewish Agency no longer had any legitimacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The foreign created Israeli government *(WRONG)* was not to represent the Palestinian people but to represent the foreign settlers *(WRONG)* that the Zionists imported to populate their planned Jewish state.
> 
> The Jewish population had the same citizenship as the Arab Palestinian.  They were not foreigners. (Citizenship Order)
> The Jewish Citizenry generally represented the all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home. (Article 4 Paragraph 2)
> There is no resolution or international law, treaty or convention that withholds self-determination from the Jewish Immigrants.  There is no resolution or international law, treaty or convention that gives the Arab Palestinian any special rights that supersedes those of the Jewish Constituency the that were taking part in the development of the of the Jewish National Home; or working to complete the Steps Preparatory to Independence as outlined by the General Assembly.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Again with that stupid map? Those are proposed borders. Palestine does not have any international boundaries. If they did, why can't you find a map that shows them . A map that says Palestine but not   Partition Plan?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

You only tell part of the story.



P F Tinmore said:


> Look up international boundaries in the legend then find them on the map.


*
(COMMENT)*

That international boundary was for the Trusteeship (territory former the Mandate for Palestine).  There was no other entity.

"After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed. - See more at: UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT​
Many of your arguments are based on the misguided notion that there was automatically a "State of Palestine" after the Mandate Terminated.  But when the Mandate Terminate, there was the successor governments were first the UNPC and the the Mediator who replaced the UNPC.  That somehow the State of Israel is a component of Palestine _(or as you say, in Palestine)_.  The State of Israel was immediately self-governing, and was a fully sovereign and independent state; in no way subordinate to the boundaries of the territory formerly under the Mandate.



P F Tinmore said:


> In 1929, the Palestine Zionist Executive was renamed, restructured and officially inaugurated as The Jewish Agency for Palestine by the 16th Zionist Congress, held in Zurich, Switzerland.


*
(COMMENT)*
​The WZO did meet in Zurich; but is was not its HQs any more than Basel, Switzerland was its HQs at the First Zionist Congress.  Just because they met in Zurich, does not change these facts:
Israel was declared inside the mandate/trusteeship IAW the initial boundaries set by Part II of GA/RES/181(II).  The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, stipulated by the UN General Assembly in  Parts II and III of the resolution.

The creation of the Jewish Agency was stipulated as a requirement by the Allied Powers in Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the Mandate for Palestine.
The Zionist Organization, was recognized as such agency; required under Article 4, Paragraph 2, of the Mandate for Palestine.
Both of these requirement were set by the Allied Powers at San Remo in 1920, which was 9 years before the WZO created the agency.
The *Jewish Agency* was _(and still is)_ a parallel organization, with goals, attributes and leadership closely intertwined with those of the Zionist Organization during the years before the establishment of the State of Israel, and to varying degrees after that. Significant changes to the statutes of both organizations occurred in 1952, 1970 and 1979.



P F Tinmore said:


> Nobody, including Israel, has ever recognized the proposed borders of resolution 181.


*
(COMMENT)*

That is because in a matter of hours after the State of Israel is proclaimed, the Arab Armies crossed their borders and launch an attack into Israel.  In the process of defending its independence, the Forward Edge of Battle Area (FEBA) moved out and encompassed additional territory under Israel control.  And that is how the Armistice Lines were established.  The proposed borders were overtaken by events.  The borders as originally depicted and outlined would have conformed to the proposal had it not been for Arab Army aggression.  You will also notice that Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip and Jordan occupied the West Bank.



P F Tinmore said:


> The Jewish Agency had no authority. It was a consulting position for the mandate that existed at the pleasure of the mandate. When the mandate left the Jewish Agency no longer had any legitimacy.


*
(COMMENT)
*
When the Mandate terminated, the Jewish Agency was folded over into the Israel government.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Yes, that was not a case of a proper application.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was never a case in which the Arab Palestinian attempted to use their right of self-determination, in an internationally accepted way, and was denied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about their 1948 declaration of independence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, the "All Palestine Government" (APG) was a puppet regime that was totally dependent of Egypt and the Military Governorship; thus "external influence and interference."
> 
> Second, the APG announce their declaration four months after the Jewish Palestinian Citizens announced the State of Israel.  The APG announcement try to encompass the same sovereign territory as the Jewish Palestinian Citizens already declared under the GA/RES/181(II).
> 
> Third, the right of self-determination of the Arab Palestinian Citizens cannot overturn the right of self-determination of the Jew Palestinian Citizens.
> 
> It is not a case of the Arab Palestinian Citizens being denied their right of self-determination --- as it is --- being prevented or blocked from interfering with the Jewish Palestinian Citizens's right of self-determination.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Firstly, Kosovo was totally dependent on the West's governorship (and military) when it declared independence.  Northern Cyprus declared independence and was totally dependent on Turkey.  There are many other examples, so your dog won't hunt Rocco.
> 
> Secondly, If "the right of self-determination of the Arab Palestinian Citizens cannot overturn the right of self-determination of the Jew Palestinian Citizens."
> 
> Then the converse is true.
> 
> The right of self-determination of the Jew Palestinian Citizens. cannot overturn the right of self-determination of the Palestinian Citizens.
> 
> Declaring itself a Jewish state when over 45% of the population was either Jewish or Muslim (before the Jewish ethnic cleansing), overturned the right of self determination of the Christian and Muslim Palestinians.  Another salon dog.
Click to expand...






 When did they move Kosovo and Northern Cyprus to Palestine.  Wasn't it you only yesterday that made an issue of another member bringing in an outside nation. If you cant keep to your own rules then it is time to stop posting.


 But you are saying that because in your eyes the Jews delaration of independence overturns the rights of the arab muslims then the Jews should be stripped of their rights and the arabs allowed to take their possesions.   The rights of the arabs were never overturned under 1948 international laws, in fact they were extended to cover more rights and they rewfused those rights. Read the Jews declaration of independence and you will see that the rights were given to those who decided to stay and live in peace.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was never a case in which the Arab Palestinian attempted to use their right of self-determination, in an internationally accepted way, and was denied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about their 1948 declaration of independence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you German Tinmore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good call.
> 
> My mother's father was born in Germany and came to the US as a teen after WWI.
> 
> My mother's mother was Pennsylvania Dutch.
> 
> My father's mother was English.
> 
> My father's father was Scotch.
Click to expand...





Scotch is a distilled drink and no self respecting descendant of a Scot would say they were Scotch. They are Scots or Scottish.   It was the same with the arab muslims prior to 1960 they would never say they were palestinians


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> This is so ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "
> 
> Doesn't matter at all.  The APG has nothing to do with it.  The right to self-determination of the Christians and Muslims was overturned.
> 
> You can keep it up, but you are wrong on all counts.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> No one overturned the right to self-determination of the Christians and Muslims was overturned.
> 
> The Christians and Muslims never exercised the right; only APG attempted to exercise it.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lets look at the two bodies that claimed independence.
> 
> The APG (All Palestinian Government) consisted of over 80 Palestinian leaders. They claimed independence for Palestine's indigenous population, without regard to race, or religion, inside Palestine's international borders.
> 
> Israel, on the other hand, was declared inside Palestine's international borders by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. Of the 37 people who signed Israel's declaration of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of immigrants.
> 
> The foreign created Israeli government was not to represent the Palestinian people but to represent the foreign settlers that the Zionists imported to populate their planned Jewish state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is wrong:  Israel, on the other hand, was declared inside Palestine's international borders *(WRONG)*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Look up international boundaries in the legend then find them on the map.*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization *(WRONG)*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 1929, the Palestine Zionist Executive was renamed, restructured and officially inaugurated as The Jewish Agency for Palestine by the 16th Zionist Congress, held in Zurich, Switzerland.
> 
> Jewish Agency for Israel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel was declared inside the mandate/trusteeship IAW the initial boundaries set by Part II of GA/RES/181(II).  The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, stipulated by the UN General Assembly in  Parts II and III of the resolution.
> [*]The creation of the Jewish Agency was stipulated as a requirement by the Allied Powers in Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the Mandate for Palestine.
> [*]The Zionist Organization, was recognized as such agency; required under Article 4, Paragraph 2, of the Mandate for Palestine.
> [*]Both of these requirement were set by the Allied Powers at San Remo in 1920, which was 9 years before the WZO created the agency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody, including Israel, has ever recognized the proposed borders of resolution 181.
> 
> The Jewish Agency had no authority. It was a consulting position for the mandate that existed at the pleasure of the mandate. When the mandate left the Jewish Agency no longer had any legitimacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The foreign created Israeli government *(WRONG)* was not to represent the Palestinian people but to represent the foreign settlers *(WRONG)* that the Zionists imported to populate their planned Jewish state.
> 
> The Jewish population had the same citizenship as the Arab Palestinian.  They were not foreigners. (Citizenship Order)
> The Jewish Citizenry generally represented the all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home. (Article 4 Paragraph 2)
> There is no resolution or international law, treaty or convention that withholds self-determination from the Jewish Immigrants.  There is no resolution or international law, treaty or convention that gives the Arab Palestinian any special rights that supersedes those of the Jewish Constituency the that were taking part in the development of the of the Jewish National Home; or working to complete the Steps Preparatory to Independence as outlined by the General Assembly.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...






 And as you have been told time and time again those borders are the ones of the Mandate for Palestine, not the state of Palestine that did not come into existence until 1988


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The "occupation" is not based on the objective to withhold freedom or sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PFLP, etc. are doing as we speak.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "occupation" _(which existed well before the Arab Palestinian established the State of Palestine)_ was to contain or quarantine hostile activity from adversely impacting Israeli sovereignty and regional security.
> 
> Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) was founded in 1967
> Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) was formed in 1981
> Hamas was established in 1987
> All these Jihadist and Fedayeen groups were established after the occupation of the Jordanian West Bank --- but before the Jordan relinquish sovereignty.
> 
> The Jihadist and Fedayeen are not defending the State of Palestine _(West Bank and Gaza Strip)_.  They are attempting to destabilize the State of Israel and take by force the territory recognized as sovereign Israeli _(part of the landscape the Palestinian Terrorists call "from the river to the sea")_.  The Palestinian terrorist are attempting to use force to secure territory that was allocated to Israel by the International body.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be out of bullets.
> 
> You are playing the terrorist card.
Click to expand...





 NOPE as the Palestinians are judged to be terrorists by many nations, so the moniker sticks like glue.


----------



## MJB12741

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "
> 
> Doesn't matter at all.  The APG has nothing to do with it.  The right to self-determination of the Christians and Muslims was overturned.
> 
> You can keep it up, but you are wrong on all counts.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> No one overturned the right to self-determination of the Christians and Muslims was overturned.
> 
> The Christians and Muslims never exercised the right; only APG attempted to exercise it.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lets look at the two bodies that claimed independence.
> 
> The APG (All Palestinian Government) consisted of over 80 Palestinian leaders. They claimed independence for Palestine's indigenous population, without regard to race, or religion, inside Palestine's international borders.
> 
> Israel, on the other hand, was declared inside Palestine's international borders by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. Of the 37 people who signed Israel's declaration of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of immigrants.
> 
> The foreign created Israeli government was not to represent the Palestinian people but to represent the foreign settlers that the Zionists imported to populate their planned Jewish state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, what a loaf of crap. You're nothing but a liar Tinmore.
> Israel was created inside Palestine's borders? What borders?? Israel declared independence BEFORE 'Palestine'.
> Your feeble attempts at delegitimizing Israel will keep failing.
> 
> BTW, how many times have you failed to show me proof of Palestines international boundaries?
> Israel on the other hand has international boundaries.
Click to expand...



I hope Tinmore will tell us more about those "indigenous Palestinians" he speeks of.  Indigenous since when?


----------



## toastman

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You only tell part of the story.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look up international boundaries in the legend then find them on the map.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> That international boundary was for the Trusteeship (territory former the Mandate for Palestine).  There was no other entity.
> 
> "After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed. - See more at: UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT​
> Many of your arguments are based on the misguided notion that there was automatically a "State of Palestine" after the Mandate Terminated.  But when the Mandate Terminate, there was the successor governments were first the UNPC and the the Mediator who replaced the UNPC.  That somehow the State of Israel is a component of Palestine _(or as you say, in Palestine)_.  The State of Israel was immediately self-governing, and was a fully sovereign and independent state; in no way subordinate to the boundaries of the territory formerly under the Mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1929, the Palestine Zionist Executive was renamed, restructured and officially inaugurated as The Jewish Agency for Palestine by the 16th Zionist Congress, held in Zurich, Switzerland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> ​The WZO did meet in Zurich; but is was not its HQs any more than Basel, Switzerland was its HQs at the First Zionist Congress.  Just because they met in Zurich, does not change these facts:
> Israel was declared inside the mandate/trusteeship IAW the initial boundaries set by Part II of GA/RES/181(II).  The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, stipulated by the UN General Assembly in  Parts II and III of the resolution.
> 
> The creation of the Jewish Agency was stipulated as a requirement by the Allied Powers in Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the Mandate for Palestine.
> The Zionist Organization, was recognized as such agency; required under Article 4, Paragraph 2, of the Mandate for Palestine.
> Both of these requirement were set by the Allied Powers at San Remo in 1920, which was 9 years before the WZO created the agency.
> The *Jewish Agency* was _(and still is)_ a parallel organization, with goals, attributes and leadership closely intertwined with those of the Zionist Organization during the years before the establishment of the State of Israel, and to varying degrees after that. Significant changes to the statutes of both organizations occurred in 1952, 1970 and 1979.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody, including Israel, has ever recognized the proposed borders of resolution 181.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> That is because in a matter of hours after the State of Israel is proclaimed, the Arab Armies crossed their borders and launch an attack into Israel.  In the process of defending its independence, the Forward Edge of Battle Area (FEBA) moved out and encompassed additional territory under Israel control.  And that is how the Armistice Lines were established.  The proposed borders were overtaken by events.  The borders as originally depicted and outlined would have conformed to the proposal had it not been for Arab Army aggression.  You will also notice that Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip and Jordan occupied the West Bank.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish Agency had no authority. It was a consulting position for the mandate that existed at the pleasure of the mandate. When the mandate left the Jewish Agency no longer had any legitimacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)
> *
> When the Mandate terminated, the Jewish Agency was folded over into the Israel government.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Excellent post Rocco


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are many "truths",  all with their own preconceptions and biases, interpretations, feelings and fantasies. Accepting one "truth" blinds you to the possibilities in all the others and is intellectually lazy. I strive to obtain "The Truth" from amongst the web of lies and deceptions that are out there pretending to be "The Truth".
> 
> If you are comfortable with your version of the "truth", that's fine, but your mind is closed as a consequence. As the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." I and millions of others have found that Zionist Historiography and Hasbara has lied, again and again and again, so pardon my continuing skepticism about the stream of Hasbara I'm bombarded with from the Pro-Israelis here. So I'm glad I'm not alone, but thanks for your concern.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And by your use of the terms Zionist and hasbara you prove beyond reasonable doubt that your mind is closed to the truth. All you want to see is your warped version of reality and the arab muslims "truths" being peddled. You don't want to see Islamic sources saying that arab muslims were very thin on the ground in Palestine prior to the Ottoman's inviting Jews to migrate and settle. You don't want to see the original acceptance by arab muslims to the Jews taking Palestine as their homeland as back then it was worthless desert. You don't want to see the evidence of mass illegal immigration by arab muslims. You don't want to see the atrocities committed by arab muslims in Palestine against all non muslims. because to admit that these are truth and reality would mean your brainwashing was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israelis and Jewish people use the terms Zionist and Hasbara all the time; the word "Hasbara" is an  Israeli word for goodness sake! I use the words for the purpose of clarity; being precise in defining what I'm talking about. I prefer to use the phrase "Jewish person" over the word "Jew" as I consider the word both derogatory and racist. I'm more than happy to look at any source but I'm allowed to be skeptical about any source's veracity and objectivity, as well as it's accuracy.
> 
> What source of yours says, "...that arab muslims were very thin on the ground in Palestine prior to the Ottoman's inviting Jews to migrate and settle"? I'll look at it.
> 
> What source of yours talks about, "acceptance by arab muslims to the Jews taking Palestine as their homeland as back then it was worthless desert."? I'll look at it as well.
> 
> What source of yours provides, "evidence of mass illegal immigration by arab muslims" ? I'll look at it.
> 
> What source of yours catalogues, "the atrocities committed by arab muslims in Palestine against all non muslims."? I'll look at that too, without fear and with an open mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you use the terms in the same way the Germans spewed out **** and juden, or the way the arab muslims used Palestinian when referring to the Jews.
> You have still to give your personal definition of Zionist because you know it will show you as a RACIST POS
> 
> Try the ottomans reports of Palestine prior to 1870 when they failed to get arab muslims to colonise the land and turn it into valuable arable farms. 3 times they tried and each time the arab muslims up sticks and left, the same arab muslims that later came back and tried to claim they had lived in Palestine for 3,000 years.
> 
> The Mcmahon letters
> 
> The reports by Winston Churchill when he was foreign secretary
> 
> The 1929 massacre of Jews in Hebron, the ethnic cleansing of Christians from gaza and the west bank since 2005 and the civil wars or 1930 and 1945
Click to expand...


You have either links or references to these sources? There are thousands of Ottoman documents prior to 1870 for example; I have neither the time nor the inclination to go through what's available in print or the net.

They are your claims; it's up to you to back them up.[/QUOTE]



			
				Phoenall said:
			
		

> So you are not prepared to do as you said because you know that the reports will say different to what you have been told.



Show me something specific to look at that proves your point, or even supports your assertions, and I'll look at it, vague references don't count as citations.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are many "truths",  all with their own preconceptions and biases, interpretations, feelings and fantasies. Accepting one "truth" blinds you to the possibilities in all the others and is intellectually lazy. I strive to obtain "The Truth" from amongst the web of lies and deceptions that are out there pretending to be "The Truth".
> 
> If you are comfortable with your version of the "truth", that's fine, but your mind is closed as a consequence. As the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." I and millions of others have found that Zionist Historiography and Hasbara has lied, again and again and again, so pardon my continuing skepticism about the stream of Hasbara I'm bombarded with from the Pro-Israelis here. So I'm glad I'm not alone, but thanks for your concern.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And by your use of the terms Zionist and hasbara you prove beyond reasonable doubt that your mind is closed to the truth. All you want to see is your warped version of reality and the arab muslims "truths" being peddled. You don't want to see Islamic sources saying that arab muslims were very thin on the ground in Palestine prior to the Ottoman's inviting Jews to migrate and settle. You don't want to see the original acceptance by arab muslims to the Jews taking Palestine as their homeland as back then it was worthless desert. You don't want to see the evidence of mass illegal immigration by arab muslims. You don't want to see the atrocities committed by arab muslims in Palestine against all non muslims. because to admit that these are truth and reality would mean your brainwashing was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israelis and Jewish people use the terms Zionist and Hasbara all the time; the word "Hasbara" is an  Israeli word for goodness sake! I use the words for the purpose of clarity; being precise in defining what I'm talking about. I prefer to use the phrase "Jewish person" over the word "Jew" as I consider the word both derogatory and racist. I'm more than happy to look at any source but I'm allowed to be skeptical about any source's veracity and objectivity, as well as it's accuracy.
> 
> What source of yours says, "...that arab muslims were very thin on the ground in Palestine prior to the Ottoman's inviting Jews to migrate and settle"? I'll look at it.
> 
> What source of yours talks about, "acceptance by arab muslims to the Jews taking Palestine as their homeland as back then it was worthless desert."? I'll look at it as well.
> 
> What source of yours provides, "evidence of mass illegal immigration by arab muslims" ? I'll look at it.
> 
> What source of yours catalogues, "the atrocities committed by arab muslims in Palestine against all non muslims."? I'll look at that too, without fear and with an open mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you use the terms in the same way the Germans spewed out **** and juden, or the way the arab muslims used Palestinian when referring to the Jews.
> You have still to give your personal definition of Zionist because you know it will show you as a RACIST POS
> 
> Try the ottomans reports of Palestine prior to 1870 when they failed to get arab muslims to colonise the land and turn it into valuable arable farms. 3 times they tried and each time the arab muslims up sticks and left, the same arab muslims that later came back and tried to claim they had lived in Palestine for 3,000 years.
> 
> The Mcmahon letters
> 
> The reports by Winston Churchill when he was foreign secretary
> 
> The 1929 massacre of Jews in Hebron, the ethnic cleansing of Christians from gaza and the west bank since 2005 and the civil wars or 1930 and 1945
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have either links or references to these sources? There are thousands of Ottoman documents prior to 1870 for example; I have neither the time nor the inclination to go through what's available in print or the net.
> 
> They are your claims; it's up to you to back them up.
Click to expand...




			
				Phoenall said:
			
		

> So you are not prepared to do as you said because you know that the reports will say different to what you have been told.



Show me something specific to look at that proves your point, or even supports your assertions, and I'll look at it, vague references don't count as citations.[/QUOTE]



They are specifics as the massacres of Jews in hebron is well documented

  They are not vague but specific in that the details are there in official Ottoman reports. Try looking for failed arab muslim colonisation of Palestine by the ottomans, or failed migration of arab muslims to Palestine under ottoman rule


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> But when the Mandate Terminate, there was the successor governments were first the UNPC and the the Mediator who replaced the UNPC.



Could you document the activities of the UNPC and the Mediator after May 15, 1948?


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are many "truths",  all with their own preconceptions and biases, interpretations, feelings and fantasies. Accepting one "truth" blinds you to the possibilities in all the others and is intellectually lazy. I strive to obtain "The Truth" from amongst the web of lies and deceptions that are out there pretending to be "The Truth".
> 
> If you are comfortable with your version of the "truth", that's fine, but your mind is closed as a consequence. As the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." I and millions of others have found that Zionist Historiography and Hasbara has lied, again and again and again, so pardon my continuing skepticism about the stream of Hasbara I'm bombarded with from the Pro-Israelis here. So I'm glad I'm not alone, but thanks for your concern.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And by your use of the terms Zionist and hasbara you prove beyond reasonable doubt that your mind is closed to the truth. All you want to see is your warped version of reality and the arab muslims "truths" being peddled. You don't want to see Islamic sources saying that arab muslims were very thin on the ground in Palestine prior to the Ottoman's inviting Jews to migrate and settle. You don't want to see the original acceptance by arab muslims to the Jews taking Palestine as their homeland as back then it was worthless desert. You don't want to see the evidence of mass illegal immigration by arab muslims. You don't want to see the atrocities committed by arab muslims in Palestine against all non muslims. because to admit that these are truth and reality would mean your brainwashing was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israelis and Jewish people use the terms Zionist and Hasbara all the time; the word "Hasbara" is an  Israeli word for goodness sake! I use the words for the purpose of clarity; being precise in defining what I'm talking about. I prefer to use the phrase "Jewish person" over the word "Jew" as I consider the word both derogatory and racist. I'm more than happy to look at any source but I'm allowed to be skeptical about any source's veracity and objectivity, as well as it's accuracy.
> 
> What source of yours says, "...that arab muslims were very thin on the ground in Palestine prior to the Ottoman's inviting Jews to migrate and settle"? I'll look at it.
> 
> What source of yours talks about, "acceptance by arab muslims to the Jews taking Palestine as their homeland as back then it was worthless desert."? I'll look at it as well.
> 
> What source of yours provides, "evidence of mass illegal immigration by arab muslims" ? I'll look at it.
> 
> What source of yours catalogues, "the atrocities committed by arab muslims in Palestine against all non muslims."? I'll look at that too, without fear and with an open mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you use the terms in the same way the Germans spewed out **** and juden, or the way the arab muslims used Palestinian when referring to the Jews.
> You have still to give your personal definition of Zionist because you know it will show you as a RACIST POS
> 
> Try the ottomans reports of Palestine prior to 1870 when they failed to get arab muslims to colonise the land and turn it into valuable arable farms. 3 times they tried and each time the arab muslims up sticks and left, the same arab muslims that later came back and tried to claim they had lived in Palestine for 3,000 years.
> 
> The Mcmahon letters
> 
> The reports by Winston Churchill when he was foreign secretary
> 
> The 1929 massacre of Jews in Hebron, the ethnic cleansing of Christians from gaza and the west bank since 2005 and the civil wars or 1930 and 1945
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have either links or references to these sources? There are thousands of Ottoman documents prior to 1870 for example; I have neither the time nor the inclination to go through what's available in print or the net.
> 
> They are your claims; it's up to you to back them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are not prepared to do as you said because you know that the reports will say different to what you have been told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me something specific to look at that proves your point, or even supports your assertions, and I'll look at it, vague references don't count as citations.
Click to expand...




They are specifics as the massacres of Jews in hebron is well documented

  They are not vague but specific in that the details are there in official Ottoman reports. Try looking for failed arab muslim colonisation of Palestine by the ottomans, or failed migration of arab muslims to Palestine under ottoman rule[/QUOTE]

Please provide links to these amazing discoveries in the Ottoman Archives.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I provided much of this information before.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But when the Mandate Terminate, there was the successor governments were first the UNPC and the the Mediator who replaced the UNPC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you document the activities of the UNPC and the Mediator after May 15, 1948?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*


05/14/1948 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 A/RES/186 (S-2) United Nations Mediator in Palestine/ Appointment, terms of reference/ End of UN Palestine Commission - Resolution
05/17/1948 PAL/169 Palestine question - Palestine Commission adjourns sine die - Press release
05/17/1948 A/AC.21/12/Rev.1 UN Palestine Commission - Documents distributed to the Commission - Note by Secretariat (Rev.1)
Friday, 9 January 1948 thru Monday, 17 May 1948

08/11/1949 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 S/RES/73 (1949) S/1376, II Armistice Agreements/SecCo truce superseded/ Acting Mediator relieved of resp./UNTSO - SecCo resolution
This is just some of the material available.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

From A/RES/186 (S-2) 

"(i) Arrange for the operation of common services necessary to the safety and well-being of the population of Palestine;"

Which, the UN did not do.  Or else the Christians and Muslims would not be in the situation they are in today.  The Israelis murder thousands of them every 2 years or so.


----------



## aris2chat

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I provided much of this information before.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But when the Mandate Terminate, there was the successor governments were first the UNPC and the the Mediator who replaced the UNPC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you document the activities of the UNPC and the Mediator after May 15, 1948?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 
> 05/14/1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A/RES/186 (S-2) United Nations Mediator in Palestine/ Appointment, terms of reference/ End of UN Palestine Commission - Resolution
> 05/17/1948 PAL/169 Palestine question - Palestine Commission adjourns sine die - Press release
> 05/17/1948 A/AC.21/12/Rev.1 UN Palestine Commission - Documents distributed to the Commission - Note by Secretariat (Rev.1)
> Friday, 9 January 1948 thru Monday, 17 May 1948
> 
> 08/11/1949
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S/RES/73 (1949) S/1376, II Armistice Agreements/SecCo truce superseded/ Acting Mediator relieved of resp./UNTSO - SecCo resolution
> This is just some of the material available.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


they have short memories


----------



## montelatici

You Zio Nazis have short memories.

"Yes, how many years can some people exist
Before they're allowed to be free?
Yes, how many times can a man turn his head
Pretending he just doesn't see?"


----------



## montelatici




----------



## montelatici

You ZioNazis just don't see, as Dylan sang.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But when the Mandate Terminate, there was the successor governments were first the UNPC and the the Mediator who replaced the UNPC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you document the activities of the UNPC and the Mediator after May 15, 1948?
Click to expand...





There was not any as there was no mediation to take place. The Palestinians exercised their free will and free determination and became part of Jordan and Egypt


montelatici said:


> You ZioNazis just don't see, as Dylan sang.







 OXYMORON AGAIN MORON


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And by your use of the terms Zionist and hasbara you prove beyond reasonable doubt that your mind is closed to the truth. All you want to see is your warped version of reality and the arab muslims "truths" being peddled. You don't want to see Islamic sources saying that arab muslims were very thin on the ground in Palestine prior to the Ottoman's inviting Jews to migrate and settle. You don't want to see the original acceptance by arab muslims to the Jews taking Palestine as their homeland as back then it was worthless desert. You don't want to see the evidence of mass illegal immigration by arab muslims. You don't want to see the atrocities committed by arab muslims in Palestine against all non muslims. because to admit that these are truth and reality would mean your brainwashing was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israelis and Jewish people use the terms Zionist and Hasbara all the time; the word "Hasbara" is an  Israeli word for goodness sake! I use the words for the purpose of clarity; being precise in defining what I'm talking about. I prefer to use the phrase "Jewish person" over the word "Jew" as I consider the word both derogatory and racist. I'm more than happy to look at any source but I'm allowed to be skeptical about any source's veracity and objectivity, as well as it's accuracy.
> 
> What source of yours says, "...that arab muslims were very thin on the ground in Palestine prior to the Ottoman's inviting Jews to migrate and settle"? I'll look at it.
> 
> What source of yours talks about, "acceptance by arab muslims to the Jews taking Palestine as their homeland as back then it was worthless desert."? I'll look at it as well.
> 
> What source of yours provides, "evidence of mass illegal immigration by arab muslims" ? I'll look at it.
> 
> What source of yours catalogues, "the atrocities committed by arab muslims in Palestine against all non muslims."? I'll look at that too, without fear and with an open mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you use the terms in the same way the Germans spewed out **** and juden, or the way the arab muslims used Palestinian when referring to the Jews.
> You have still to give your personal definition of Zionist because you know it will show you as a RACIST POS
> 
> Try the ottomans reports of Palestine prior to 1870 when they failed to get arab muslims to colonise the land and turn it into valuable arable farms. 3 times they tried and each time the arab muslims up sticks and left, the same arab muslims that later came back and tried to claim they had lived in Palestine for 3,000 years.
> 
> The Mcmahon letters
> 
> The reports by Winston Churchill when he was foreign secretary
> 
> The 1929 massacre of Jews in Hebron, the ethnic cleansing of Christians from gaza and the west bank since 2005 and the civil wars or 1930 and 1945
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have either links or references to these sources? There are thousands of Ottoman documents prior to 1870 for example; I have neither the time nor the inclination to go through what's available in print or the net.
> 
> They are your claims; it's up to you to back them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are not prepared to do as you said because you know that the reports will say different to what you have been told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me something specific to look at that proves your point, or even supports your assertions, and I'll look at it, vague references don't count as citations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are specifics as the massacres of Jews in hebron is well documented
> 
> They are not vague but specific in that the details are there in official Ottoman reports. Try looking for failed arab muslim colonisation of Palestine by the ottomans, or failed migration of arab muslims to Palestine under ottoman rule
Click to expand...


Please provide links to these amazing discoveries in the Ottoman Archives.[/QUOTE]





 Learn to read and understand English before replying to posts, no wonder you are laughed at all the time. Have you opened up your facebook page for general viewing yet ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> From A/RES/186 (S-2)
> 
> "(i) Arrange for the operation of common services necessary to the safety and well-being of the population of Palestine;"
> 
> Which, the UN did not do.  Or else the Christians and Muslims would not be in the situation they are in today.  The Israelis murder thousands of them every 2 years or so.






 PROOF  or you could be in serious trouble for slander and libel. Look at the definition of murder and you will see that it is hamas that is guilty of that crime not Israel.

 Once again you try and apply 2015 laws retrospectively  to 1923 problems and it will never work.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> You Zio Nazis have short memories.
> 
> "Yes, how many years can some people exist
> Before they're allowed to be free?
> Yes, how many times can a man turn his head
> Pretending he just doesn't see?"






 Tell it to the arab muslims that keep millions in slavery, mostly Christians.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I provided much of this information before.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But when the Mandate Terminate, there was the successor governments were first the UNPC and the the Mediator who replaced the UNPC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you document the activities of the UNPC and the Mediator after May 15, 1948?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 
> 05/14/1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A/RES/186 (S-2) United Nations Mediator in Palestine/ Appointment, terms of reference/ End of UN Palestine Commission - Resolution
> 05/17/1948 PAL/169 Palestine question - Palestine Commission adjourns sine die - Press release
> 05/17/1948 A/AC.21/12/Rev.1 UN Palestine Commission - Documents distributed to the Commission - Note by Secretariat (Rev.1)
> Friday, 9 January 1948 thru Monday, 17 May 1948
> 
> 08/11/1949
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S/RES/73 (1949) S/1376, II Armistice Agreements/SecCo truce superseded/ Acting Mediator relieved of resp./UNTSO - SecCo resolution
> This is just some of the material available.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

IOW, nothing.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> That is because in a matter of hours after the State of Israel is proclaimed, the Arab Armies crossed their borders and *launch an attack into Israel.*



How about you post a 1948 map of Israel then we can discuss where they went into Israel?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> The borders as originally depicted and outlined (proposed resolution 181 borders) would have conformed to the proposal had it not been for Arab Army aggression.



*Not true.*

Israel violated those borders before Israel declared independence.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> Many of your arguments are based on the misguided notion that there was automatically a "State of Palestine" after the Mandate Terminated.



It doesn't matter. People have the same rights without regard to the political status of where they live.

Being "a state" has no relevance.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is because in a matter of hours after the State of Israel is proclaimed, the Arab Armies crossed their borders and *launch an attack into Israel.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about you post a 1948 map of Israel then we can discuss where they went into Israel?
Click to expand...




 There are no 1948 maps of Israel just as there are no maps of the nation of Palestine. So how about you show where Palestine exists on the ground ?

 Then we can discuss their free determination and integrity ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The borders as originally depicted and outlined (proposed resolution 181 borders) would have conformed to the proposal had it not been for Arab Army aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Not true.*
> 
> Israel violated those borders before Israel declared independence.
Click to expand...





 Were those borders fixed by International treaty or were they just proposals. Before they became internationally recognised they did not exist so how could Israel have violated those borders. Much as the 1967 borders have never existed so can not be used as a staring point in any negotiations.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many of your arguments are based on the misguided notion that there was automatically a "State of Palestine" after the Mandate Terminated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter. People have the same rights without regard to the political status of where they live.
> 
> Being "a state" has no relevance.
Click to expand...





 Does that not also apply to the Jews of the world who were granted Palestinian citizenship by the LoN, or are you deliberately discounting their rights in favour of the arab muslim illegal immigrants.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is because in a matter of hours after the State of Israel is proclaimed, the Arab Armies crossed their borders and *launch an attack into Israel.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about you post a 1948 map of Israel then we can discuss where they went into Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no 1948 maps of Israel just as there are no maps of the nation of Palestine. So how about you show where Palestine exists on the ground ?
> 
> Then we can discuss their free determination and integrity ?
Click to expand...


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is because in a matter of hours after the State of Israel is proclaimed, the Arab Armies crossed their borders and *launch an attack into Israel.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about you post a 1948 map of Israel then we can discuss where they went into Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no 1948 maps of Israel just as there are no maps of the nation of Palestine. So how about you show where Palestine exists on the ground ?
> 
> Then we can discuss their free determination and integrity ?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Thank you for your unbiased, well documented maps from ArabBay.com


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is because in a matter of hours after the State of Israel is proclaimed, the Arab Armies crossed their borders and *launch an attack into Israel.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about you post a 1948 map of Israel then we can discuss where they went into Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no 1948 maps of Israel just as there are no maps of the nation of Palestine. So how about you show where Palestine exists on the ground ?
> 
> Then we can discuss their free determination and integrity ?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...






 As I said no maps of the nation of Palestine, all you produce are maps of the Mandate of Palestine.   Keep trying


----------



## Phoenall

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is because in a matter of hours after the State of Israel is proclaimed, the Arab Armies crossed their borders and *launch an attack into Israel.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about you post a 1948 map of Israel then we can discuss where they went into Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no 1948 maps of Israel just as there are no maps of the nation of Palestine. So how about you show where Palestine exists on the ground ?
> 
> Then we can discuss their free determination and integrity ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for your unbiased, well documented maps from ArabBay.com
Click to expand...




 Yep maps of the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is because in a matter of hours after the State of Israel is proclaimed, the Arab Armies crossed their borders and *launch an attack into Israel.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about you post a 1948 map of Israel then we can discuss where they went into Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no 1948 maps of Israel just as there are no maps of the nation of Palestine. So how about you show where Palestine exists on the ground ?
> 
> Then we can discuss their free determination and integrity ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said no maps of the nation of Palestine, all you produce are maps of the Mandate of Palestine.   Keep trying
Click to expand...

The Mandate was not a place. The Mandate was a temporarily appointed administration. It never claimed possession of any land.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is because in a matter of hours after the State of Israel is proclaimed, the Arab Armies crossed their borders and *launch an attack into Israel.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about you post a 1948 map of Israel then we can discuss where they went into Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no 1948 maps of Israel just as there are no maps of the nation of Palestine. So how about you show where Palestine exists on the ground ?
> 
> Then we can discuss their free determination and integrity ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said no maps of the nation of Palestine, all you produce are maps of the Mandate of Palestine.   Keep trying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Mandate was not a place. The Mandate was a temporarily appointed administration. It never claimed possession of any land.
Click to expand...





 The MANDATE was a legal document drawn up by the LEGAL LAND OWNERS of the old Ottoman empires lands. The Mandate for Palestine had international borders to differentiate it from the other mandates and the nations already in existence. You once again confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the British mandate, two completely separate entities. The LoN claimed possession and portioned the land into MANDATES that were ruled by MANDATORY POWERS. All you ever produce is the maps of the Mandate of Palestines borders, never the nation of palestines borders. And the Jewish home was to be resurrected within those borders as laid down in the Mandate


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

The world does not operate according to your interpretations.  Your definitions --- and --- twisting of words is not helpful.



P F Tinmore said:


> The Mandate was not a place. The Mandate was a temporarily appointed administration. It never claimed possession of any land.


*(OBSERVATION)*

PART I.





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


The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
Definitions.  2. In this Order the word:--


"The Mandate" means the Mandate for Palestine which was confirmed, and the terms of which were defined by the Council of the League of Nations on the 24th day of July, 1922.

Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between latitude 30° N. and 33° N., Longitude 34° 30 E. and 35° 30' E.

On the south it is bounded by Egyptian and Saudi Arabian territory, on the east by Trans-Jordan, on the north by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and the Lebanon, and on the west by the Mediterranean.

The boundaries are described as follows:--



_South._--From a point west of Rafa on the Mediterranean to a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba.

_East._--From a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba up the centre of the Wadi Araba, the Dead Sea, and the River Jordan, to the junction of the latter with the River Yarmuk, thence up the centre of the River Yarmuk to the Syrian frontier.

_North._--The northern boundary was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Stated briefly, the boundary runs from Ras el Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to Metulla and across the upper Jordan valley to Banias, thence to Jisr Banat Yaqub, thence along the Jordan to the Lake of Tiberias on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line.

_West._--The Mediterranean Sea.


*(COMMENT)*

Prior to 15 May 1948, the term "Palestine" =  "The territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies" =  "The boundaries are described, _supra_."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MJB12741

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The world does not operate according to your interpretations.  Your definitions --- and --- twisting of words is not helpful.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate was not a place. The Mandate was a temporarily appointed administration. It never claimed possession of any land.
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> PART I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PRELIMINARY.
> Title.  1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
> 
> 
> The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
> Definitions.  2. In this Order the word:--
> 
> 
> "The Mandate" means the Mandate for Palestine which was confirmed, and the terms of which were defined by the Council of the League of Nations on the 24th day of July, 1922.
> 
> Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between latitude 30° N. and 33° N., Longitude 34° 30 E. and 35° 30' E.
> 
> On the south it is bounded by Egyptian and Saudi Arabian territory, on the east by Trans-Jordan, on the north by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and the Lebanon, and on the west by the Mediterranean.
> 
> The boundaries are described as follows:--
> 
> 
> 
> _South._--From a point west of Rafa on the Mediterranean to a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba.
> 
> _East._--From a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba up the centre of the Wadi Araba, the Dead Sea, and the River Jordan, to the junction of the latter with the River Yarmuk, thence up the centre of the River Yarmuk to the Syrian frontier.
> 
> _North._--The northern boundary was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Stated briefly, the boundary runs from Ras el Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to Metulla and across the upper Jordan valley to Banias, thence to Jisr Banat Yaqub, thence along the Jordan to the Lake of Tiberias on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line.
> 
> _West._--The Mediterranean Sea.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Prior to 15 May 1948, the term "Palestine" =  "The territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies" =  "The boundaries are described, _supra_."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Thanks RoccoR.  Is their ANYONE who's geographic knowledge of the Palestinian territories is so unknown as to not under this?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The world does not operate according to your interpretations.  Your definitions --- and --- twisting of words is not helpful.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate was not a place. The Mandate was a temporarily appointed administration. It never claimed possession of any land.
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> PART I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PRELIMINARY.
> Title.  1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
> 
> 
> The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
> Definitions.  2. In this Order the word:--
> 
> 
> "The Mandate" means the Mandate for Palestine which was confirmed, and the terms of which were defined by the Council of the League of Nations on the 24th day of July, 1922.
> 
> Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between latitude 30° N. and 33° N., Longitude 34° 30 E. and 35° 30' E.
> 
> On the south it is bounded by Egyptian and Saudi Arabian territory, on the east by Trans-Jordan, on the north by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and the Lebanon, and on the west by the Mediterranean.
> 
> The boundaries are described as follows:--
> 
> 
> 
> _South._--From a point west of Rafa on the Mediterranean to a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba.
> 
> _East._--From a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba up the centre of the Wadi Araba, the Dead Sea, and the River Jordan, to the junction of the latter with the River Yarmuk, thence up the centre of the River Yarmuk to the Syrian frontier.
> 
> _North._--The northern boundary was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Stated briefly, the boundary runs from Ras el Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to Metulla and across the upper Jordan valley to Banias, thence to Jisr Banat Yaqub, thence along the Jordan to the Lake of Tiberias on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line.
> 
> _West._--The Mediterranean Sea.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Prior to 15 May 1948, the term "Palestine" =  "The territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies" =  "The boundaries are described, _supra_."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The Mandate was not a place. It was an administration that held Palestine in trust.

After the Mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The world does not operate according to your interpretations.  Your definitions --- and --- twisting of words is not helpful.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate was not a place. The Mandate was a temporarily appointed administration. It never claimed possession of any land.
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> PART I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PRELIMINARY.
> Title.  1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
> 
> 
> The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
> Definitions.  2. In this Order the word:--
> 
> 
> "The Mandate" means the Mandate for Palestine which was confirmed, and the terms of which were defined by the Council of the League of Nations on the 24th day of July, 1922.
> 
> Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between latitude 30° N. and 33° N., Longitude 34° 30 E. and 35° 30' E.
> 
> On the south it is bounded by Egyptian and Saudi Arabian territory, on the east by Trans-Jordan, on the north by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and the Lebanon, and on the west by the Mediterranean.
> 
> The boundaries are described as follows:--
> 
> 
> 
> _South._--From a point west of Rafa on the Mediterranean to a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba.
> 
> _East._--From a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba up the centre of the Wadi Araba, the Dead Sea, and the River Jordan, to the junction of the latter with the River Yarmuk, thence up the centre of the River Yarmuk to the Syrian frontier.
> 
> _North._--The northern boundary was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Stated briefly, the boundary runs from Ras el Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to Metulla and across the upper Jordan valley to Banias, thence to Jisr Banat Yaqub, thence along the Jordan to the Lake of Tiberias on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line.
> 
> _West._--The Mediterranean Sea.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Prior to 15 May 1948, the term "Palestine" =  "The territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies" =  "The boundaries are described, _supra_."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Mandate was not a place. It was an administration that held Palestine in trust.
> 
> After the Mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there.
Click to expand...






 Remember that two MANDATES apply, one being the LoN Mandate for Palestine which was a place. The other being the British Mandate which was an administration.

After the British left Palestine the area Palestine the area was still there. But it was never a nation until 1988, and the arab muslims admit that themselves by claiming independence in 1988.

 Unless you can produce a treaty signed by the Palestinian leardership proclaiming the nation of Palestine prior to 1988


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The world does not operate according to your interpretations.  Your definitions --- and --- twisting of words is not helpful.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate was not a place. The Mandate was a temporarily appointed administration. It never claimed possession of any land.
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> PART I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PRELIMINARY.
> Title.  1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
> 
> 
> The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
> Definitions.  2. In this Order the word:--
> 
> 
> "The Mandate" means the Mandate for Palestine which was confirmed, and the terms of which were defined by the Council of the League of Nations on the 24th day of July, 1922.
> 
> Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between latitude 30° N. and 33° N., Longitude 34° 30 E. and 35° 30' E.
> 
> On the south it is bounded by Egyptian and Saudi Arabian territory, on the east by Trans-Jordan, on the north by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and the Lebanon, and on the west by the Mediterranean.
> 
> The boundaries are described as follows:--
> 
> 
> 
> _South._--From a point west of Rafa on the Mediterranean to a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba.
> 
> _East._--From a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba up the centre of the Wadi Araba, the Dead Sea, and the River Jordan, to the junction of the latter with the River Yarmuk, thence up the centre of the River Yarmuk to the Syrian frontier.
> 
> _North._--The northern boundary was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Stated briefly, the boundary runs from Ras el Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to Metulla and across the upper Jordan valley to Banias, thence to Jisr Banat Yaqub, thence along the Jordan to the Lake of Tiberias on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line.
> 
> _West._--The Mediterranean Sea.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Prior to 15 May 1948, the term "Palestine" =  "The territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies" =  "The boundaries are described, _supra_."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Mandate was not a place. It was an administration that held Palestine in trust.
> 
> After the Mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that two MANDATES apply, one being the LoN Mandate for Palestine which was a place. The other being the British Mandate which was an administration.
> 
> After the British left Palestine the area Palestine the area was still there. But it was never a nation until 1988, and the arab muslims admit that themselves by claiming independence in 1988.
> 
> Unless you can produce a treaty signed by the Palestinian leardership proclaiming the nation of Palestine prior to 1988
Click to expand...

_Guided​_by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

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

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

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

(_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

2. _Reaffirms also_ the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;

A RES 3236 XXIX of 22 November 1974​
Why did the UN say "in Palestine" if it did not exist? What Palestine were they talking about?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The world does not operate according to your interpretations.  Your definitions --- and --- twisting of words is not helpful.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate was not a place. The Mandate was a temporarily appointed administration. It never claimed possession of any land.
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> PART I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PRELIMINARY.
> Title.  1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
> 
> 
> The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
> Definitions.  2. In this Order the word:--
> 
> 
> "The Mandate" means the Mandate for Palestine which was confirmed, and the terms of which were defined by the Council of the League of Nations on the 24th day of July, 1922.
> 
> Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between latitude 30° N. and 33° N., Longitude 34° 30 E. and 35° 30' E.
> 
> On the south it is bounded by Egyptian and Saudi Arabian territory, on the east by Trans-Jordan, on the north by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and the Lebanon, and on the west by the Mediterranean.
> 
> The boundaries are described as follows:--
> 
> 
> 
> _South._--From a point west of Rafa on the Mediterranean to a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba.
> 
> _East._--From a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba up the centre of the Wadi Araba, the Dead Sea, and the River Jordan, to the junction of the latter with the River Yarmuk, thence up the centre of the River Yarmuk to the Syrian frontier.
> 
> _North._--The northern boundary was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Stated briefly, the boundary runs from Ras el Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to Metulla and across the upper Jordan valley to Banias, thence to Jisr Banat Yaqub, thence along the Jordan to the Lake of Tiberias on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line.
> 
> _West._--The Mediterranean Sea.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Prior to 15 May 1948, the term "Palestine" =  "The territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies" =  "The boundaries are described, _supra_."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Mandate was not a place. It was an administration that held Palestine in trust.
> 
> After the Mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that two MANDATES apply, one being the LoN Mandate for Palestine which was a place. The other being the British Mandate which was an administration.
> 
> After the British left Palestine the area Palestine the area was still there. But it was never a nation until 1988, and the arab muslims admit that themselves by claiming independence in 1988.
> 
> Unless you can produce a treaty signed by the Palestinian leardership proclaiming the nation of Palestine prior to 1988
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Guided_
> by the purposes and principles of the Charter,
> 
> _Recalling_ its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
> 
> 1. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people *in Palestine,* including:
> 
> (_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> (_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> 2. _Reaffirms also_ the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;
> 
> A RES 3236 XXIX of 22 November 1974​
> Why did the UN say "in Palestine" if it did not exist? What Palestine were they talking about?
Click to expand...





Firstly it did not apply in 1920 when the LoN gave the land to the Jews

Secondly it did not apply in 1923 when the LoN  rethought the land to be given to the Jews

Thirdly  it did not apply in 1947 when the U.N illegally portioned the land and gave half to the Jews

Fourthly it did not apply in 1967 when the Palestinians and others declared war on Israel and decided to invade them

Fifthly it did not apply in 1970 when the Palestinians decided to terrorise Jordan and attempt to steal the land

And the Palestine in that resolution was not the nation of Palestine but the name given to the west bank and gaza for clerical purposes. It was a throwback to the LoN Mandate for Palestine terminology that truncated the Mandate for Palestine to Palestine and it has stuck ever since. Now how about this International treaty that was singed by a Palestinian leader agreeing to defined borders with its neighbours as laid down in UN res 242.


 For the record it took the PLO a further 14 years to realise what you have failed to do, that self determination is not given out but is grasped with both hands. So they did so in 1988 when they declared independence  and took on self determination only to immediately throw it away when they refused to take up national independence and sovereignty because it meant ending their violence, belligerence and terrorism.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The world does not operate according to your interpretations.  Your definitions --- and --- twisting of words is not helpful.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate was not a place. The Mandate was a temporarily appointed administration. It never claimed possession of any land.
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> PART I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PRELIMINARY.
> Title.  1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
> 
> 
> The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
> Definitions.  2. In this Order the word:--
> 
> 
> "The Mandate" means the Mandate for Palestine which was confirmed, and the terms of which were defined by the Council of the League of Nations on the 24th day of July, 1922.
> 
> Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between latitude 30° N. and 33° N., Longitude 34° 30 E. and 35° 30' E.
> 
> On the south it is bounded by Egyptian and Saudi Arabian territory, on the east by Trans-Jordan, on the north by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and the Lebanon, and on the west by the Mediterranean.
> 
> The boundaries are described as follows:--
> 
> 
> 
> _South._--From a point west of Rafa on the Mediterranean to a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba.
> 
> _East._--From a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba up the centre of the Wadi Araba, the Dead Sea, and the River Jordan, to the junction of the latter with the River Yarmuk, thence up the centre of the River Yarmuk to the Syrian frontier.
> 
> _North._--The northern boundary was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Stated briefly, the boundary runs from Ras el Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to Metulla and across the upper Jordan valley to Banias, thence to Jisr Banat Yaqub, thence along the Jordan to the Lake of Tiberias on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line.
> 
> _West._--The Mediterranean Sea.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Prior to 15 May 1948, the term "Palestine" =  "The territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies" =  "The boundaries are described, _supra_."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Mandate was not a place. It was an administration that held Palestine in trust.
> 
> After the Mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that two MANDATES apply, one being the LoN Mandate for Palestine which was a place. The other being the British Mandate which was an administration.
> 
> After the British left Palestine the area Palestine the area was still there. But it was never a nation until 1988, and the arab muslims admit that themselves by claiming independence in 1988.
> 
> Unless you can produce a treaty signed by the Palestinian leardership proclaiming the nation of Palestine prior to 1988
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Guided_
> by the purposes and principles of the Charter,
> 
> _Recalling_ its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
> 
> 1. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people *in Palestine,* including:
> 
> (_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> (_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> 2. _Reaffirms also_ the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;
> 
> A RES 3236 XXIX of 22 November 1974​
> Why did the UN say "in Palestine" if it did not exist? What Palestine were they talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly it did not apply in 1920 when the LoN gave the land to the Jews
> 
> Secondly it did not apply in 1923 when the LoN  rethought the land to be given to the Jews
> 
> Thirdly  it did not apply in 1947 when the U.N illegally portioned the land and gave half to the Jews
> 
> Fourthly it did not apply in 1967 when the Palestinians and others declared war on Israel and decided to invade them
> 
> Fifthly it did not apply in 1970 when the Palestinians decided to terrorise Jordan and attempt to steal the land
> 
> And the Palestine in that resolution was not the nation of Palestine but the name given to the west bank and gaza for clerical purposes. It was a throwback to the LoN Mandate for Palestine terminology that truncated the Mandate for Palestine to Palestine and it has stuck ever since. Now how about this International treaty that was singed by a Palestinian leader agreeing to defined borders with its neighbours as laid down in UN res 242.
> 
> 
> For the record it took the PLO a further 14 years to realise what you have failed to do, that self determination is not given out but is grasped with both hands. So they did so in 1988 when they declared independence  and took on self determination only to immediately throw it away when they refused to take up national independence and sovereignty because it meant ending their violence, belligerence and terrorism.
Click to expand...

Yep, Palestine and the Palestinians still there in 1974.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes this is true.  But again, this is not the whole story.



P F Tinmore said:


> Yep, Palestine and the Palestinians still there in 1974.


*(COMMENT)*

What is Palestine today?  It is not the same as it was prior to 1948.


			
				UN Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State said:
			
		

> Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfills the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UN the proclamation of the State of Palestine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Affirms the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;_
> 
> _Decides _that, effective as of 15 December 1988, the designation *"Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization"* in the United Nations system, without prejudice to the observer status and functions of the Palestine Liberation Organization within the United Nations system, in conformity with relevant United Nations resolutions and practice;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
Click to expand...


What is Palestine today?  When you say, when the Mandate left, Palestine remained, --- that is true.  The territory under the Mandate for Palestine became the territory under the Trusteeship of the UNPC.

However, since that time, the term "Palestine" has come to mean something else.

Mahmoud Abbas, also known by the kunya Abu Mazen, is the President of the *State of Palestine*. He has been the Chairman of the *Palestine Liberation Organization* since 11 November 2004 and has been President of the *Palestinian Authority* since 15 January 2005. Abbas is a member of the Fatah party.
PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas orders all institutions to stop using the term Palestinian Authority and start using "State of Palestine".
"At the end of the day, the Palestinian Authority won't cause trouble for its people," Nour Odeh, a spokeswoman for Abbas' self-rule government, said of the need for caution.

Most Respectfully,
R[/quote]


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes this is true.  But again, this is not the whole story.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Palestine and the Palestinians still there in 1974.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What is Palestine today?  It is not the same as it was prior to 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> UN Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfills the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UN the proclamation of the State of Palestine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Affirms the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;_
> 
> _Decides _that, effective as of 15 December 1988, the designation *"Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization"* in the United Nations system, without prejudice to the observer status and functions of the Palestine Liberation Organization within the United Nations system, in conformity with relevant United Nations resolutions and practice;
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is Palestine today?  When you say, when the Mandate left, Palestine remained, --- that is true.  The territory under the Mandate for Palestine became the territory under the Trusteeship of the UNPC.
> 
> However, since that time, the term "Palestine" has come to mean something else.
> 
> Mahmoud Abbas, also known by the kunya Abu Mazen, is the President of the *State of Palestine*. He has been the Chairman of the *Palestine Liberation Organization* since 11 November 2004 and has been President of the *Palestinian Authority* since 15 January 2005. Abbas is a member of the Fatah party.
> PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas orders all institutions to stop using the term Palestinian Authority and start using "State of Palestine".
> "At the end of the day, the Palestinian Authority won't cause trouble for its people," Nour Odeh, a spokeswoman for Abbas' self-rule government, said of the need for caution.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

OK, but the Palestinians have the same rights in Palestine that they have always had. Rights do not erode with time or diminish due to political change.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The world does not operate according to your interpretations.  Your definitions --- and --- twisting of words is not helpful.
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> PART I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PRELIMINARY.
> Title.  1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
> 
> 
> The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
> Definitions.  2. In this Order the word:--
> 
> 
> "The Mandate" means the Mandate for Palestine which was confirmed, and the terms of which were defined by the Council of the League of Nations on the 24th day of July, 1922.
> 
> Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between latitude 30° N. and 33° N., Longitude 34° 30 E. and 35° 30' E.
> 
> On the south it is bounded by Egyptian and Saudi Arabian territory, on the east by Trans-Jordan, on the north by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and the Lebanon, and on the west by the Mediterranean.
> 
> The boundaries are described as follows:--
> 
> 
> 
> _South._--From a point west of Rafa on the Mediterranean to a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba.
> 
> _East._--From a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba up the centre of the Wadi Araba, the Dead Sea, and the River Jordan, to the junction of the latter with the River Yarmuk, thence up the centre of the River Yarmuk to the Syrian frontier.
> 
> _North._--The northern boundary was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Stated briefly, the boundary runs from Ras el Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to Metulla and across the upper Jordan valley to Banias, thence to Jisr Banat Yaqub, thence along the Jordan to the Lake of Tiberias on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line.
> 
> _West._--The Mediterranean Sea.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Prior to 15 May 1948, the term "Palestine" =  "The territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies" =  "The boundaries are described, _supra_."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate was not a place. It was an administration that held Palestine in trust.
> 
> After the Mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that two MANDATES apply, one being the LoN Mandate for Palestine which was a place. The other being the British Mandate which was an administration.
> 
> After the British left Palestine the area Palestine the area was still there. But it was never a nation until 1988, and the arab muslims admit that themselves by claiming independence in 1988.
> 
> Unless you can produce a treaty signed by the Palestinian leardership proclaiming the nation of Palestine prior to 1988
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Guided_
> by the purposes and principles of the Charter,
> 
> _Recalling_ its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
> 
> 1. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people *in Palestine,* including:
> 
> (_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> (_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> 2. _Reaffirms also_ the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;
> 
> A RES 3236 XXIX of 22 November 1974​
> Why did the UN say "in Palestine" if it did not exist? What Palestine were they talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly it did not apply in 1920 when the LoN gave the land to the Jews
> 
> Secondly it did not apply in 1923 when the LoN  rethought the land to be given to the Jews
> 
> Thirdly  it did not apply in 1947 when the U.N illegally portioned the land and gave half to the Jews
> 
> Fourthly it did not apply in 1967 when the Palestinians and others declared war on Israel and decided to invade them
> 
> Fifthly it did not apply in 1970 when the Palestinians decided to terrorise Jordan and attempt to steal the land
> 
> And the Palestine in that resolution was not the nation of Palestine but the name given to the west bank and gaza for clerical purposes. It was a throwback to the LoN Mandate for Palestine terminology that truncated the Mandate for Palestine to Palestine and it has stuck ever since. Now how about this International treaty that was singed by a Palestinian leader agreeing to defined borders with its neighbours as laid down in UN res 242.
> 
> 
> For the record it took the PLO a further 14 years to realise what you have failed to do, that self determination is not given out but is grasped with both hands. So they did so in 1988 when they declared independence  and took on self determination only to immediately throw it away when they refused to take up national independence and sovereignty because it meant ending their violence, belligerence and terrorism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, Palestine and the Palestinians still there in 1974.
Click to expand...


Yep, Jews still there since antiquity.  And now we have nearly 6 million Muslim Palestinians mostly squatters with no titles or deeds whatsoever to the land they have been stealing in Israel.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The world does not operate according to your interpretations.  Your definitions --- and --- twisting of words is not helpful.
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> PART I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PRELIMINARY.
> Title.  1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
> 
> 
> The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
> Definitions.  2. In this Order the word:--
> 
> 
> "The Mandate" means the Mandate for Palestine which was confirmed, and the terms of which were defined by the Council of the League of Nations on the 24th day of July, 1922.
> 
> Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between latitude 30° N. and 33° N., Longitude 34° 30 E. and 35° 30' E.
> 
> On the south it is bounded by Egyptian and Saudi Arabian territory, on the east by Trans-Jordan, on the north by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and the Lebanon, and on the west by the Mediterranean.
> 
> The boundaries are described as follows:--
> 
> 
> 
> _South._--From a point west of Rafa on the Mediterranean to a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba.
> 
> _East._--From a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba up the centre of the Wadi Araba, the Dead Sea, and the River Jordan, to the junction of the latter with the River Yarmuk, thence up the centre of the River Yarmuk to the Syrian frontier.
> 
> _North._--The northern boundary was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Stated briefly, the boundary runs from Ras el Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to Metulla and across the upper Jordan valley to Banias, thence to Jisr Banat Yaqub, thence along the Jordan to the Lake of Tiberias on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line.
> 
> _West._--The Mediterranean Sea.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Prior to 15 May 1948, the term "Palestine" =  "The territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies" =  "The boundaries are described, _supra_."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate was not a place. It was an administration that held Palestine in trust.
> 
> After the Mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that two MANDATES apply, one being the LoN Mandate for Palestine which was a place. The other being the British Mandate which was an administration.
> 
> After the British left Palestine the area Palestine the area was still there. But it was never a nation until 1988, and the arab muslims admit that themselves by claiming independence in 1988.
> 
> Unless you can produce a treaty signed by the Palestinian leardership proclaiming the nation of Palestine prior to 1988
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Guided_
> by the purposes and principles of the Charter,
> 
> _Recalling_ its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
> 
> 1. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people *in Palestine,* including:
> 
> (_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> (_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> 2. _Reaffirms also_ the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;
> 
> A RES 3236 XXIX of 22 November 1974​
> Why did the UN say "in Palestine" if it did not exist? What Palestine were they talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly it did not apply in 1920 when the LoN gave the land to the Jews
> 
> Secondly it did not apply in 1923 when the LoN  rethought the land to be given to the Jews
> 
> Thirdly  it did not apply in 1947 when the U.N illegally portioned the land and gave half to the Jews
> 
> Fourthly it did not apply in 1967 when the Palestinians and others declared war on Israel and decided to invade them
> 
> Fifthly it did not apply in 1970 when the Palestinians decided to terrorise Jordan and attempt to steal the land
> 
> And the Palestine in that resolution was not the nation of Palestine but the name given to the west bank and gaza for clerical purposes. It was a throwback to the LoN Mandate for Palestine terminology that truncated the Mandate for Palestine to Palestine and it has stuck ever since. Now how about this International treaty that was singed by a Palestinian leader agreeing to defined borders with its neighbours as laid down in UN res 242.
> 
> 
> For the record it took the PLO a further 14 years to realise what you have failed to do, that self determination is not given out but is grasped with both hands. So they did so in 1988 when they declared independence  and took on self determination only to immediately throw it away when they refused to take up national independence and sovereignty because it meant ending their violence, belligerence and terrorism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, Palestine and the Palestinians still there in 1974.
Click to expand...





 Correct Jewish Palestine and Jewish Palestinians. The stolen name and land did not become arab muslim Palestine until 1988. Before that the Palestine mentioned by the UN and LoN was the Mandate for Palestine.

 Now were is this treaty that shows the borders of Palestine signed by a Palestinian official and representatives of neighbouring nations. Cant wait to see it, it must be lodged with the UN maybe monte can find it for you ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes this is true.  But again, this is not the whole story.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Palestine and the Palestinians still there in 1974.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What is Palestine today?  It is not the same as it was prior to 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> UN Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfills the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UN the proclamation of the State of Palestine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Affirms the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;_
> 
> _Decides _that, effective as of 15 December 1988, the designation *"Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization"* in the United Nations system, without prejudice to the observer status and functions of the Palestine Liberation Organization within the United Nations system, in conformity with relevant United Nations resolutions and practice;
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is Palestine today?  When you say, when the Mandate left, Palestine remained, --- that is true.  The territory under the Mandate for Palestine became the territory under the Trusteeship of the UNPC.
> 
> However, since that time, the term "Palestine" has come to mean something else.
> 
> Mahmoud Abbas, also known by the kunya Abu Mazen, is the President of the *State of Palestine*. He has been the Chairman of the *Palestine Liberation Organization* since 11 November 2004 and has been President of the *Palestinian Authority* since 15 January 2005. Abbas is a member of the Fatah party.
> PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas orders all institutions to stop using the term Palestinian Authority and start using "State of Palestine".
> "At the end of the day, the Palestinian Authority won't cause trouble for its people," Nour Odeh, a spokeswoman for Abbas' self-rule government, said of the need for caution.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but the Palestinians have the same rights in Palestine that they have always had. Rights do not erode with time or diminish due to political change.
Click to expand...





 The rights afforded the arab muslims of Palestine in 1920 were much less than the rights afforded arab muslims  of Palestine today. So NO they do not have the same rights they have always had, if they did then they had no right to use violence to achieve the aims of world domination as commanded by their gods.

 And Israel still has the same right to defend against attack using deadly force as it did in 1948, and the arab muslims have the same right to die for attacking Israel now as they did in 1948.


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:
			
		

> Firstly it did not apply in 1920 when the LoN gave the land to the Jews


League of Nations gave nothing to anyone.



			
				Phoenall said:
			
		

> Secondly it did not apply in 1923 when the LoN  rethought the land to be given to the Jews



League of Nations gave nothing to anyone.



			
				Phoenall said:
			
		

> Thirdly  it did not apply in 1947 when the U.N illegally portioned the land and gave half to the Jews



The U.N. gave nothing to anyone.



			
				Phoenall said:
			
		

> Fourthly it did not apply in 1967 when the Palestinians and others declared war on Israel and decided to invade them



Nobody invaded Israel in 1967, Israel attacked its neighbours and invaded their territories.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly it did not apply in 1920 when the LoN gave the land to the Jews
> 
> 
> 
> League of Nations gave nothing to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly it did not apply in 1923 when the LoN  rethought the land to be given to the Jews
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> League of Nations gave nothing to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thirdly  it did not apply in 1947 when the U.N illegally portioned the land and gave half to the Jews
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The U.N. gave nothing to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourthly it did not apply in 1967 when the Palestinians and others declared war on Israel and decided to invade them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody invaded Israel in 1967, Israel attacked its neighbours and invaded their territories.
Click to expand...




How about links to corroborate your claims, or will they be like your definition of Zionism non existent. And no partisan sources for your links either.

But remember if the LoN gave nothing then Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi and Egypt don't exist


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly it did not apply in 1920 when the LoN gave the land to the Jews
> 
> 
> 
> League of Nations gave nothing to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly it did not apply in 1923 when the LoN  rethought the land to be given to the Jews
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> League of Nations gave nothing to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thirdly  it did not apply in 1947 when the U.N illegally portioned the land and gave half to the Jews
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The U.N. gave nothing to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourthly it did not apply in 1967 when the Palestinians and others declared war on Israel and decided to invade them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody invaded Israel in 1967, Israel attacked its neighbours and invaded their territories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about links to corroborate your claims, or will they be like your definition of Zionism non existent. And no partisan sources for your links either.
> 
> But remember if the LoN gave nothing then Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi and Egypt don't exist
Click to expand...


I don't know whether this is just another troll, or whether you are a complete imbecile. 
Just look back through this thread and you will find abundant links to back up what I've posted. Even RoccoR is in qualified agreement. If you are too lazy or stupid to do so, send your "mini-me-minion" Abuafck to do it for you.


----------



## ChrisL

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly it did not apply in 1920 when the LoN gave the land to the Jews
> 
> 
> 
> League of Nations gave nothing to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly it did not apply in 1923 when the LoN  rethought the land to be given to the Jews
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> League of Nations gave nothing to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thirdly  it did not apply in 1947 when the U.N illegally portioned the land and gave half to the Jews
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The U.N. gave nothing to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourthly it did not apply in 1967 when the Palestinians and others declared war on Israel and decided to invade them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody invaded Israel in 1967, Israel attacked its neighbours and invaded their territories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about links to corroborate your claims, or will they be like your definition of Zionism non existent. And no partisan sources for your links either.
> 
> But remember if the LoN gave nothing then Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi and Egypt don't exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know whether this is just another troll, or whether you are a complete imbecile.
> Just look back through this thread and you will find abundant links to back up what I've posted. Even RoccoR is in qualified agreement. If you are too lazy or stupid to do so, send your "mini-me-minion" Abuafck to do it for you.
Click to expand...


Yes, the Israelis attacked first because they found out about the Arabs plans to attack them, so they got the jump on them.  Good intelligence.  Lol.


----------



## ChrisL

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly it did not apply in 1920 when the LoN gave the land to the Jews
> 
> 
> 
> League of Nations gave nothing to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly it did not apply in 1923 when the LoN  rethought the land to be given to the Jews
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> League of Nations gave nothing to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thirdly  it did not apply in 1947 when the U.N illegally portioned the land and gave half to the Jews
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The U.N. gave nothing to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourthly it did not apply in 1967 when the Palestinians and others declared war on Israel and decided to invade them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody invaded Israel in 1967, Israel attacked its neighbours and invaded their territories.
Click to expand...


To the victors go the spoils.  As a matter of fact, I don't think we should have ever left Iraq.  Look at what happens when daddy leaves.


----------



## Challenger

ChrisL said:
			
		

> To the victors go the spoils....



Not since 24th October 1945.


----------



## Challenger

ChrisL said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly it did not apply in 1920 when the LoN gave the land to the Jews
> 
> 
> 
> League of Nations gave nothing to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly it did not apply in 1923 when the LoN  rethought the land to be given to the Jews
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> League of Nations gave nothing to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thirdly  it did not apply in 1947 when the U.N illegally portioned the land and gave half to the Jews
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The U.N. gave nothing to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourthly it did not apply in 1967 when the Palestinians and others declared war on Israel and decided to invade them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody invaded Israel in 1967, Israel attacked its neighbours and invaded their territories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about links to corroborate your claims, or will they be like your definition of Zionism non existent. And no partisan sources for your links either.
> 
> But remember if the LoN gave nothing then Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi and Egypt don't exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know whether this is just another troll, or whether you are a complete imbecile.
> Just look back through this thread and you will find abundant links to back up what I've posted. Even RoccoR is in qualified agreement. If you are too lazy or stupid to do so, send your "mini-me-minion" Abuafck to do it for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the Israelis attacked first because they found out about the Arabs plans to attack them, so they got the jump on them.  Good intelligence.  Lol.
Click to expand...


----------



## ChrisL

Challenger said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly it did not apply in 1920 when the LoN gave the land to the Jews
> 
> 
> 
> League of Nations gave nothing to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly it did not apply in 1923 when the LoN  rethought the land to be given to the Jews
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> League of Nations gave nothing to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thirdly  it did not apply in 1947 when the U.N illegally portioned the land and gave half to the Jews
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The U.N. gave nothing to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourthly it did not apply in 1967 when the Palestinians and others declared war on Israel and decided to invade them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody invaded Israel in 1967, Israel attacked its neighbours and invaded their territories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about links to corroborate your claims, or will they be like your definition of Zionism non existent. And no partisan sources for your links either.
> 
> But remember if the LoN gave nothing then Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi and Egypt don't exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know whether this is just another troll, or whether you are a complete imbecile.
> Just look back through this thread and you will find abundant links to back up what I've posted. Even RoccoR is in qualified agreement. If you are too lazy or stupid to do so, send your "mini-me-minion" Abuafck to do it for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the Israelis attacked first because they found out about the Arabs plans to attack them, so they got the jump on them.  Good intelligence.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Yes.  

Myths Facts The 1967 Six-Day War Chapter 6 Jewish Virtual Library

*FACT*
A combination of bellicose Arab rhetoric, threatening behavior and, ultimately, an act of war left Israel no choice but preemptive action. To do this successfully, Israel needed the element of surprise. Had it waited for an Arab invasion, Israel would have been at a potentially catastrophic disadvantage.

In addition to Nasser’s verbal threats, Israel was under actual attack from Arab terrorists. In 1965, 35 raids were conducted against Israel. In 1966, the number increased to 41. In just the first four months of 1967, 37 attacks were launched.5

Meanwhile, Syria’s attacks on Israeli kibbutzim from the Golan Heights provoked a retaliatory strike on April 7, 1967, during which Israeli planes shot down six Syrian MiGs. Shortly thereafter, the Soviet Union—which had been providing military and economic aid to both Syria and Egypt—gave Damascus information alleging a massive Israeli military buildup in preparation for an attack. Despite Israeli denials, Syria decided to invoke its defense treaty with Egypt.

On May 15, Israel’s Independence Day, Egyptian troops began moving into the Sinai and massing near the Israeli border. By May 18, Syrian troops were prepared for battle along the Golan Heights.

Nasser ordered the UN Emergency Force, stationed in the Sinai since 1956, to withdraw on May 16. Without bringing the matter to the attention of the General Assembly, as his predecessor had promised, Secretary-General U Thant complied with the demand. After the withdrawal of the UNEF, the Voice of the Arabs proclaimed (May 18, 1967):

As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence. 6


----------



## ChrisL

Challenger said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly it did not apply in 1920 when the LoN gave the land to the Jews
> 
> 
> 
> League of Nations gave nothing to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly it did not apply in 1923 when the LoN  rethought the land to be given to the Jews
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> League of Nations gave nothing to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thirdly  it did not apply in 1947 when the U.N illegally portioned the land and gave half to the Jews
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The U.N. gave nothing to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourthly it did not apply in 1967 when the Palestinians and others declared war on Israel and decided to invade them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody invaded Israel in 1967, Israel attacked its neighbours and invaded their territories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about links to corroborate your claims, or will they be like your definition of Zionism non existent. And no partisan sources for your links either.
> 
> But remember if the LoN gave nothing then Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi and Egypt don't exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know whether this is just another troll, or whether you are a complete imbecile.
> Just look back through this thread and you will find abundant links to back up what I've posted. Even RoccoR is in qualified agreement. If you are too lazy or stupid to do so, send your "mini-me-minion" Abuafck to do it for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the Israelis attacked first because they found out about the Arabs plans to attack them, so they got the jump on them.  Good intelligence.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Lol.  Israel totally USED them.    To the victors go the spoils.


----------



## aris2chat

ChrisL said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly it did not apply in 1920 when the LoN gave the land to the Jews
> 
> 
> 
> League of Nations gave nothing to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly it did not apply in 1923 when the LoN  rethought the land to be given to the Jews
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> League of Nations gave nothing to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thirdly  it did not apply in 1947 when the U.N illegally portioned the land and gave half to the Jews
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The U.N. gave nothing to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourthly it did not apply in 1967 when the Palestinians and others declared war on Israel and decided to invade them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody invaded Israel in 1967, Israel attacked its neighbours and invaded their territories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about links to corroborate your claims, or will they be like your definition of Zionism non existent. And no partisan sources for your links either.
> 
> But remember if the LoN gave nothing then Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi and Egypt don't exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know whether this is just another troll, or whether you are a complete imbecile.
> Just look back through this thread and you will find abundant links to back up what I've posted. Even RoccoR is in qualified agreement. If you are too lazy or stupid to do so, send your "mini-me-minion" Abuafck to do it for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the Israelis attacked first because they found out about the Arabs plans to attack them, so they got the jump on them.  Good intelligence.  Lol.
Click to expand...


Israel was outnumbered 5 to 1, and about to be attacked on two fronts............ and Egypt had already declared war on Israel so it was not without justification for Israel to have acted.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly it did not apply in 1920 when the LoN gave the land to the Jews
> 
> 
> 
> League of Nations gave nothing to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly it did not apply in 1923 when the LoN  rethought the land to be given to the Jews
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> League of Nations gave nothing to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thirdly  it did not apply in 1947 when the U.N illegally portioned the land and gave half to the Jews
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The U.N. gave nothing to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourthly it did not apply in 1967 when the Palestinians and others declared war on Israel and decided to invade them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody invaded Israel in 1967, Israel attacked its neighbours and invaded their territories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about links to corroborate your claims, or will they be like your definition of Zionism non existent. And no partisan sources for your links either.
> 
> But remember if the LoN gave nothing then Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi and Egypt don't exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know whether this is just another troll, or whether you are a complete imbecile.
> Just look back through this thread and you will find abundant links to back up what I've posted. Even RoccoR is in qualified agreement. If you are too lazy or stupid to do so, send your "mini-me-minion" Abuafck to do it for you.
Click to expand...




 Then we will ask him shall we and see if he backs you or me ?


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the victors go the spoils....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not since 24th October 1945.
Click to expand...





 So why have the Palestinians been allowed to keep the land they stole in 1948 ?


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly it did not apply in 1920 when the LoN gave the land to the Jews
> 
> 
> 
> League of Nations gave nothing to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly it did not apply in 1923 when the LoN  rethought the land to be given to the Jews
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> League of Nations gave nothing to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thirdly  it did not apply in 1947 when the U.N illegally portioned the land and gave half to the Jews
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The U.N. gave nothing to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourthly it did not apply in 1967 when the Palestinians and others declared war on Israel and decided to invade them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody invaded Israel in 1967, Israel attacked its neighbours and invaded their territories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about links to corroborate your claims, or will they be like your definition of Zionism non existent. And no partisan sources for your links either.
> 
> But remember if the LoN gave nothing then Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi and Egypt don't exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know whether this is just another troll, or whether you are a complete imbecile.
> Just look back through this thread and you will find abundant links to back up what I've posted. Even RoccoR is in qualified agreement. If you are too lazy or stupid to do so, send your "mini-me-minion" Abuafck to do it for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the Israelis attacked first because they found out about the Arabs plans to attack them, so they got the jump on them.  Good intelligence.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...






* remember if the LoN gave nothing then Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi and Egypt don't exist*


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> League of Nations gave nothing to anyone.
> 
> League of Nations gave nothing to anyone.
> 
> The U.N. gave nothing to anyone.
> 
> Nobody invaded Israel in 1967, Israel attacked its neighbours and invaded their territories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about links to corroborate your claims, or will they be like your definition of Zionism non existent. And no partisan sources for your links either.
> 
> But remember if the LoN gave nothing then Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi and Egypt don't exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know whether this is just another troll, or whether you are a complete imbecile.
> Just look back through this thread and you will find abundant links to back up what I've posted. Even RoccoR is in qualified agreement. If you are too lazy or stupid to do so, send your "mini-me-minion" Abuafck to do it for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the Israelis attacked first because they found out about the Arabs plans to attack them, so they got the jump on them.  Good intelligence.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * remember if the LoN gave nothing then Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi and Egypt don't exist*
Click to expand...

The LoN didn't have to give them anything. They already lived there.


----------



## MJB12741

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the victors go the spoils....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not since 24th October 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why have the Palestinians been allowed to keep the land they stole in 1948 ?
Click to expand...


As soon as Israel turned the wasteland into a thriving metropolis, here came the hoards of Palestinians to claim it's their land.  Oh well, one thing we have learned is no matter what, Palestinians will be Palestinians.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the victors go the spoils....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not since 24th October 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why have the Palestinians been allowed to keep the land they stole in 1948 ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As soon as Israel turned the wasteland into a thriving metropolis, here came the hoards of Palestinians to claim it's their land.  Oh well, one thing we have learned is no matter what, Palestinians will be Palestinians.
Click to expand...


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the victors go the spoils....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not since 24th October 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why have the Palestinians been allowed to keep the land they stole in 1948 ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As soon as Israel turned the wasteland into a thriving metropolis, here came the hoards of Palestinians to claim it's their land.  Oh well, one thing we have learned is no matter what, Palestinians will be Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


OUTSTANDING POST.  Bless you for showing us the truth that Muslim Palestinians have been squatting on Israel's ancient land for generations.  And not a single Muslim Palestinian among the ancient indigenous Jewish Palestinians.  Watch this video from Al Jazeera folks.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about links to corroborate your claims, or will they be like your definition of Zionism non existent. And no partisan sources for your links either.
> 
> But remember if the LoN gave nothing then Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi and Egypt don't exist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know whether this is just another troll, or whether you are a complete imbecile.
> Just look back through this thread and you will find abundant links to back up what I've posted. Even RoccoR is in qualified agreement. If you are too lazy or stupid to do so, send your "mini-me-minion" Abuafck to do it for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the Israelis attacked first because they found out about the Arabs plans to attack them, so they got the jump on them.  Good intelligence.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * remember if the LoN gave nothing then Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi and Egypt don't exist*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The LoN didn't have to give them anything. They already lived there.
Click to expand...





 So did the Jews and you want to disown them of their heritage, but living there and being citizens are two different things. While the arab muslims say themselves are Syrians they had no claim to Palestine, and while they illegally migrated they forewent any claim to the land they squatted on.

 Now you are seeing that your claims are as full of holes as a colander you are grasping at straws to win points.


----------



## Phoenall

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the victors go the spoils....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not since 24th October 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why have the Palestinians been allowed to keep the land they stole in 1948 ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As soon as Israel turned the wasteland into a thriving metropolis, here came the hoards of Palestinians to claim it's their land.  Oh well, one thing we have learned is no matter what, Palestinians will be Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OUTSTANDING POST.  Bless you for showing us the truth that Muslim Palestinians have been squatting on Israel's ancient land for generations.  And not a single Muslim Palestinian among the ancient indigenous Jewish Palestinians.  Watch this video from Al Jazeera folks.
Click to expand...





 Don't forget that it shows what happens when Palestine tries to invade Israel and Israel hits back. You cant expect those you attack to not attack you in return. Did you see the very modern Jet Fighters flying over some M.E country as if they were the standard planes of 1948. Pallywood productions at its best............


----------



## MJB12741

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know whether this is just another troll, or whether you are a complete imbecile.
> Just look back through this thread and you will find abundant links to back up what I've posted. Even RoccoR is in qualified agreement. If you are too lazy or stupid to do so, send your "mini-me-minion" Abuafck to do it for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Israelis attacked first because they found out about the Arabs plans to attack them, so they got the jump on them.  Good intelligence.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * remember if the LoN gave nothing then Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi and Egypt don't exist*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The LoN didn't have to give them anything. They already lived there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So did the Jews and you want to disown them of their heritage, but living there and being citizens are two different things. While the arab muslims say themselves are Syrians they had no claim to Palestine, and while they illegally migrated they forewent any claim to the land they squatted on.
> 
> Now you are seeing that your claims are as full of holes as a colander you are grasping at straws to win points.
Click to expand...


The only road to peace is for Israel to find a way to remove all the Palestinian squatters.


----------



## Penelope

MJB12741 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Israelis attacked first because they found out about the Arabs plans to attack them, so they got the jump on them.  Good intelligence.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * remember if the LoN gave nothing then Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi and Egypt don't exist*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The LoN didn't have to give them anything. They already lived there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So did the Jews and you want to disown them of their heritage, but living there and being citizens are two different things. While the arab muslims say themselves are Syrians they had no claim to Palestine, and while they illegally migrated they forewent any claim to the land they squatted on.
> 
> Now you are seeing that your claims are as full of holes as a colander you are grasping at straws to win points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only road to peace is for Israel to find a way to remove all the Palestinian squatters.
Click to expand...


Israelites will never have peace , and the Pals wont as long as the invaders are there.


----------



## toastman

Penelope said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * remember if the LoN gave nothing then Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi and Egypt don't exist*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The LoN didn't have to give them anything. They already lived there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So did the Jews and you want to disown them of their heritage, but living there and being citizens are two different things. While the arab muslims say themselves are Syrians they had no claim to Palestine, and while they illegally migrated they forewent any claim to the land they squatted on.
> 
> Now you are seeing that your claims are as full of holes as a colander you are grasping at straws to win points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only road to peace is for Israel to find a way to remove all the Palestinian squatters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israelites will never have peace , and the Pals wont as long as the invaders are there.
Click to expand...


Israel has never had peace yet has managed to produce a happy productive society.
Having no peace is a lot worse for the 'Palestinians'


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> * remember if the LoN gave nothing then Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi and Egypt don't exist*
> 
> 
> 
> The LoN didn't have to give them anything. They already lived there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So did the Jews and you want to disown them of their heritage, but living there and being citizens are two different things. While the arab muslims say themselves are Syrians they had no claim to Palestine, and while they illegally migrated they forewent any claim to the land they squatted on.
> 
> Now you are seeing that your claims are as full of holes as a colander you are grasping at straws to win points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only road to peace is for Israel to find a way to remove all the Palestinian squatters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israelites will never have peace , and the Pals wont as long as the invaders are there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel has never had peace yet has managed to produce a happy productive society.
> Having no peace is a lot worse for the 'Palestinians'
Click to expand...

The Palestinians have been on the wrong end of mooched guns for a hundred years.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The LoN didn't have to give them anything. They already lived there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So did the Jews and you want to disown them of their heritage, but living there and being citizens are two different things. While the arab muslims say themselves are Syrians they had no claim to Palestine, and while they illegally migrated they forewent any claim to the land they squatted on.
> 
> Now you are seeing that your claims are as full of holes as a colander you are grasping at straws to win points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only road to peace is for Israel to find a way to remove all the Palestinian squatters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israelites will never have peace , and the Pals wont as long as the invaders are there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel has never had peace yet has managed to produce a happy productive society.
> Having no peace is a lot worse for the 'Palestinians'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians have been on the wrong end of mooched guns for a hundred years.
Click to expand...


Palestinians are the biggest moochers in the world.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So did the Jews and you want to disown them of their heritage, but living there and being citizens are two different things. While the arab muslims say themselves are Syrians they had no claim to Palestine, and while they illegally migrated they forewent any claim to the land they squatted on.
> 
> Now you are seeing that your claims are as full of holes as a colander you are grasping at straws to win points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only road to peace is for Israel to find a way to remove all the Palestinian squatters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israelites will never have peace , and the Pals wont as long as the invaders are there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel has never had peace yet has managed to produce a happy productive society.
> Having no peace is a lot worse for the 'Palestinians'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians have been on the wrong end of mooched guns for a hundred years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestinians are the biggest moochers in the world.
Click to expand...


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only road to peace is for Israel to find a way to remove all the Palestinian squatters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israelites will never have peace , and the Pals wont as long as the invaders are there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel has never had peace yet has managed to produce a happy productive society.
> Having no peace is a lot worse for the 'Palestinians'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians have been on the wrong end of mooched guns for a hundred years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestinians are the biggest moochers in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You need a link to show you how many different organizations / countries give money to the Palestinians?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israelites will never have peace , and the Pals wont as long as the invaders are there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has never had peace yet has managed to produce a happy productive society.
> Having no peace is a lot worse for the 'Palestinians'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians have been on the wrong end of mooched guns for a hundred years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestinians are the biggest moochers in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need a link to show you how many different organizations / countries give money to the Palestinians?
Click to expand...

How many give them military aid?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has never had peace yet has managed to produce a happy productive society.
> Having no peace is a lot worse for the 'Palestinians'
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have been on the wrong end of mooched guns for a hundred years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestinians are the biggest moochers in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need a link to show you how many different organizations / countries give money to the Palestinians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many give them military aid?
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with anything? They don't even have a military


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have been on the wrong end of mooched guns for a hundred years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians are the biggest moochers in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need a link to show you how many different organizations / countries give money to the Palestinians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many give them military aid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with anything? They don't even have a military
Click to expand...

*Bingo!*

It has always been Israel's mooched military attacking Palestinian civilians starting before 1948.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians are the biggest moochers in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need a link to show you how many different organizations / countries give money to the Palestinians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many give them military aid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with anything? They don't even have a military
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Bingo!*
> 
> It has always been Israel's mooched military attacking Palestinian civilians starting before 1948.
Click to expand...

Link?

Speaking if attacking, it was the Arabs who were attacking Jewish civilians bexore 1948 and before any Arab was attacked. 
But you're deflecting. Palestinians are still the biggest moochers/cry babies of the world. 
Not my fault you can't handle the truth.  
Speaking of mooching, where does Hamas get their rockets/ weapons from? Or the money for them?


----------



## ChrisL

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need a link to show you how many different organizations / countries give money to the Palestinians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many give them military aid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with anything? They don't even have a military
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Bingo!*
> 
> It has always been Israel's mooched military attacking Palestinian civilians starting before 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Speaking if attacking, it was the Arabs who were attacking Jewish civilians bexore 1948 and before any Arab was attacked.
> But you're deflecting. Palestinians are still the biggest moochers/cry babies of the world.
> Not my fault you can't handle the truth.
> Speaking of mooching, where does Hamas get their rockets/ weapons from? Or the money for them?
Click to expand...


Iran would be my guess.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need a link to show you how many different organizations / countries give money to the Palestinians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many give them military aid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with anything? They don't even have a military
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Bingo!*
> 
> It has always been Israel's mooched military attacking Palestinian civilians starting before 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Speaking if attacking, it was the Arabs who were attacking Jewish civilians bexore 1948 and before any Arab was attacked.
> But you're deflecting. Palestinians are still the biggest moochers/cry babies of the world.
> Not my fault you can't handle the truth.
> Speaking of mooching, where does Hamas get their rockets/ weapons from? Or the money for them?
Click to expand...

Do they get $3B a year like the mooch capital of the world gets?

And besides, Palestine gets no military aid.


----------



## Phoenall

Penelope said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * remember if the LoN gave nothing then Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi and Egypt don't exist*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The LoN didn't have to give them anything. They already lived there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So did the Jews and you want to disown them of their heritage, but living there and being citizens are two different things. While the arab muslims say themselves are Syrians they had no claim to Palestine, and while they illegally migrated they forewent any claim to the land they squatted on.
> 
> Now you are seeing that your claims are as full of holes as a colander you are grasping at straws to win points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only road to peace is for Israel to find a way to remove all the Palestinian squatters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israelites will never have peace , and the Pals wont as long as the invaders are there.
Click to expand...





 Not while NAZI JEW HATERS like you are allowed to spout your filthy lies they wont.    And according to history of the Ottomans the arab muslims are the invaders.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The LoN didn't have to give them anything. They already lived there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So did the Jews and you want to disown them of their heritage, but living there and being citizens are two different things. While the arab muslims say themselves are Syrians they had no claim to Palestine, and while they illegally migrated they forewent any claim to the land they squatted on.
> 
> Now you are seeing that your claims are as full of holes as a colander you are grasping at straws to win points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only road to peace is for Israel to find a way to remove all the Palestinian squatters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israelites will never have peace , and the Pals wont as long as the invaders are there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel has never had peace yet has managed to produce a happy productive society.
> Having no peace is a lot worse for the 'Palestinians'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians have been on the wrong end of mooched guns for a hundred years.
Click to expand...





WRONG as the records show, every weapon Israel has they either made or paid full price for, it is the Palestinians that mooch of the whole world and still cant pay the bills. The UN gives them $4b a year alone to spend on terrorist weapons.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only road to peace is for Israel to find a way to remove all the Palestinian squatters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israelites will never have peace , and the Pals wont as long as the invaders are there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel has never had peace yet has managed to produce a happy productive society.
> Having no peace is a lot worse for the 'Palestinians'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians have been on the wrong end of mooched guns for a hundred years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestinians are the biggest moochers in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




International aid to Palestinians - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

How much international aid does Palestine receive 

 On December 17, 2007, eighty-seven countries and international organizations met in Paris and pledged to provide $7.4 billion over three years to the Palestinian Authority[1] (PA), an amount far in excess of any previous level of U.S. or European aid to the Palestinians.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has never had peace yet has managed to produce a happy productive society.
> Having no peace is a lot worse for the 'Palestinians'
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have been on the wrong end of mooched guns for a hundred years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestinians are the biggest moochers in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need a link to show you how many different organizations / countries give money to the Palestinians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many give them military aid?
Click to expand...





 Every single one of them as that is what the money is spent on. And that was why the E.U. stopped paying for their electricity.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians are the biggest moochers in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need a link to show you how many different organizations / countries give money to the Palestinians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many give them military aid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with anything? They don't even have a military
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Bingo!*
> 
> It has always been Israel's mooched military attacking Palestinian civilians starting before 1948.
Click to expand...




BULLSHIT   now how about a non partisan link to prove this claim.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need a link to show you how many different organizations / countries give money to the Palestinians?
> 
> 
> 
> How many give them military aid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with anything? They don't even have a military
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Bingo!*
> 
> It has always been Israel's mooched military attacking Palestinian civilians starting before 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Speaking if attacking, it was the Arabs who were attacking Jewish civilians bexore 1948 and before any Arab was attacked.
> But you're deflecting. Palestinians are still the biggest moochers/cry babies of the world.
> Not my fault you can't handle the truth.
> Speaking of mooching, where does Hamas get their rockets/ weapons from? Or the money for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do they get $3B a year like the mooch capital of the world gets?
> 
> And besides, Palestine gets no military aid.
Click to expand...






 Actually they get about twice that amount and it all goes on terrorist weapons, see my links to this effect


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many give them military aid?
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with anything? They don't even have a military
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Bingo!*
> 
> It has always been Israel's mooched military attacking Palestinian civilians starting before 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Speaking if attacking, it was the Arabs who were attacking Jewish civilians bexore 1948 and before any Arab was attacked.
> But you're deflecting. Palestinians are still the biggest moochers/cry babies of the world.
> Not my fault you can't handle the truth.
> Speaking of mooching, where does Hamas get their rockets/ weapons from? Or the money for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do they get $3B a year like the mooch capital of the world gets?
> 
> And besides, Palestine gets no military aid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually they get about twice that amount and it all goes on terrorist weapons, see my links to this effect
Click to expand...


----------



## Slyhunter

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need a link to show you how many different organizations / countries give money to the Palestinians?
> 
> 
> 
> How many give them military aid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with anything? They don't even have a military
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Bingo!*
> 
> It has always been Israel's mooched military attacking Palestinian civilians starting before 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Speaking if attacking, it was the Arabs who were attacking Jewish civilians bexore 1948 and before any Arab was attacked.
> But you're deflecting. Palestinians are still the biggest moochers/cry babies of the world.
> Not my fault you can't handle the truth.
> Speaking of mooching, where does Hamas get their rockets/ weapons from? Or the money for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do they get $3B a year like the mooch capital of the world gets?
> 
> And besides, Palestine gets no military aid.
Click to expand...

Iran gives them tons of military aid.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Slyhunter said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many give them military aid?
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with anything? They don't even have a military
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Bingo!*
> 
> It has always been Israel's mooched military attacking Palestinian civilians starting before 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Speaking if attacking, it was the Arabs who were attacking Jewish civilians bexore 1948 and before any Arab was attacked.
> But you're deflecting. Palestinians are still the biggest moochers/cry babies of the world.
> Not my fault you can't handle the truth.
> Speaking of mooching, where does Hamas get their rockets/ weapons from? Or the money for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do they get $3B a year like the mooch capital of the world gets?
> 
> And besides, Palestine gets no military aid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Iran gives them tons of military aid.
Click to expand...

Palestine has no military.


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> * remember if the LoN gave nothing then Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi and Egypt don't exist*
> 
> 
> 
> The LoN didn't have to give them anything. They already lived there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So did the Jews and you want to disown them of their heritage, but living there and being citizens are two different things. While the arab muslims say themselves are Syrians they had no claim to Palestine, and while they illegally migrated they forewent any claim to the land they squatted on.
> 
> Now you are seeing that your claims are as full of holes as a colander you are grasping at straws to win points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only road to peace is for Israel to find a way to remove all the Palestinian squatters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israelites will never have peace , and the Pals wont as long as the invaders are there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not while NAZI JEW HATERS like you are allowed to spout your filthy lies they wont.    And according to history of the Ottomans the arab muslims are the invaders.
Click to expand...


Someone's forgotten the Babylonians, Persians Greeks, Romans, Persians (again) Romans (again) THEN we have the Arabs...the only "Nazi Jew Haters" on this forum are Zionists.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need a link to show you how many different organizations / countries give money to the Palestinians?
> 
> 
> 
> How many give them military aid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with anything? They don't even have a military
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Bingo!*
> 
> It has always been Israel's mooched military attacking Palestinian civilians starting before 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Speaking if attacking, it was the Arabs who were attacking Jewish civilians bexore 1948 and before any Arab was attacked.
> But you're deflecting. Palestinians are still the biggest moochers/cry babies of the world.
> Not my fault you can't handle the truth.
> Speaking of mooching, where does Hamas get their rockets/ weapons from? Or the money for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do they get $3B a year like the mooch capital of the world gets?
> 
> And besides, Palestine gets no military aid.
Click to expand...

Palestine IS the mooch capital of the world. They get their weapons from Iran and Lebanon. Not to mention they get TONS of aid from many different countries/organizations around the world.


----------



## Penelope

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many give them military aid?
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with anything? They don't even have a military
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Bingo!*
> 
> It has always been Israel's mooched military attacking Palestinian civilians starting before 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Speaking if attacking, it was the Arabs who were attacking Jewish civilians bexore 1948 and before any Arab was attacked.
> But you're deflecting. Palestinians are still the biggest moochers/cry babies of the world.
> Not my fault you can't handle the truth.
> Speaking of mooching, where does Hamas get their rockets/ weapons from? Or the money for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do they get $3B a year like the mooch capital of the world gets?
> 
> And besides, Palestine gets no military aid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine IS the mooch capital of the world. They get their weapons from Iran and Lebanon. Not to mention they get TONS of aid from many different countries/organizations around the world.
Click to expand...


Israel gets their weapons from Germany, France and the US, China, and India.


----------



## Challenger

"Congressional researchers have disclosed that between 1974 and 1989, $16.4 billion in U.S. military loans were converted to grants and that this was the understanding from the beginning. Indeed, all past U.S. loans to Israel have eventually been forgiven by Congress, which has undoubtedly helped Israel's often-touted claim that they have never defaulted on a U.S. government loan. U.S. policy since 1984 has been that economic assistance to Israel must equal or exceed Israel's annual debt repayment to the United States. Unlike other countries, which receive aid in quarterly installments, aid to Israel since 1982 has been given in a lump sum at the beginning of the fiscal year, leaving the U.S. government to borrow from future revenues. Israel even lends some of this money back through U.S. treasury bills and collects the additional interest.

In addition, there is the more than $1.5 billion in private U.S. funds that go to Israel annually in the form of $1 billion in private tax-deductible donations and $500 million in Israeli bonds. The ability of Americans to make what amounts to tax-deductible contributions to a foreign government, made possible through a number of Jewish charities, does not exist with any other country. Nor do these figures include short- and long-term commercial loans from U.S. banks, which have been as high as $1 billion annually in recent years.

Total U.S. aid to Israel is approximately one-third of the American foreign-aid budget, even though Israel comprises just .001 percent of the world's population and already has one of the world's higher per capita incomes. Indeed, Israel's GNP is higher than the combined GNP of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza. With a per capita income of about $14,000, Israel ranks as the sixteenth wealthiest country in the world; Israelis enjoy a higher per capita income than oil-rich Saudi Arabia and are only slightly less well-off than most Western European countries."---Dr. Stephen Zunes Stephen Zunes


----------



## Challenger

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many give them military aid?
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with anything? They don't even have a military
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Bingo!*
> 
> It has always been Israel's mooched military attacking Palestinian civilians starting before 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Speaking if attacking, it was the Arabs who were attacking Jewish civilians bexore 1948 and before any Arab was attacked.
> But you're deflecting. Palestinians are still the biggest moochers/cry babies of the world.
> Not my fault you can't handle the truth.
> Speaking of mooching, where does Hamas get their rockets/ weapons from? Or the money for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do they get $3B a year like the mooch capital of the world gets?
> 
> And besides, Palestine gets no military aid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine IS the mooch capital of the world. They get their weapons from Iran and Lebanon. Not to mention they get TONS of aid from many different countries/organizations around the world.
Click to expand...


Supposition, prove it.


----------



## toastman

Challenger said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with anything? They don't even have a military
> 
> 
> 
> *Bingo!*
> 
> It has always been Israel's mooched military attacking Palestinian civilians starting before 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Speaking if attacking, it was the Arabs who were attacking Jewish civilians bexore 1948 and before any Arab was attacked.
> But you're deflecting. Palestinians are still the biggest moochers/cry babies of the world.
> Not my fault you can't handle the truth.
> Speaking of mooching, where does Hamas get their rockets/ weapons from? Or the money for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do they get $3B a year like the mooch capital of the world gets?
> 
> And besides, Palestine gets no military aid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine IS the mooch capital of the world. They get their weapons from Iran and Lebanon. Not to mention they get TONS of aid from many different countries/organizations around the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supposition, prove it.
Click to expand...

If you need proof of what I posted, you're dumber than I thought, and that says a lot.


----------



## toastman

International aid to Palestinians - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

*International aid* has played a major role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflictas it has been used as a means to keep the peace process going.[1]*Palestinians* in the West Bank and Gaza Strip receive one of the highest levels of aid in the world.[2

That's right Challenger.


----------



## Mindful

Arming the Palestinians.

 US Consulate in Jerusalem arming Palestinian guards The Times of Israel


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with anything? They don't even have a military
> 
> 
> 
> *Bingo!*
> 
> It has always been Israel's mooched military attacking Palestinian civilians starting before 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Speaking if attacking, it was the Arabs who were attacking Jewish civilians bexore 1948 and before any Arab was attacked.
> But you're deflecting. Palestinians are still the biggest moochers/cry babies of the world.
> Not my fault you can't handle the truth.
> Speaking of mooching, where does Hamas get their rockets/ weapons from? Or the money for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do they get $3B a year like the mooch capital of the world gets?
> 
> And besides, Palestine gets no military aid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually they get about twice that amount and it all goes on terrorist weapons, see my links to this effect
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...






 Yep that is all you ever post


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with anything? They don't even have a military
> 
> 
> 
> *Bingo!*
> 
> It has always been Israel's mooched military attacking Palestinian civilians starting before 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Speaking if attacking, it was the Arabs who were attacking Jewish civilians bexore 1948 and before any Arab was attacked.
> But you're deflecting. Palestinians are still the biggest moochers/cry babies of the world.
> Not my fault you can't handle the truth.
> Speaking of mooching, where does Hamas get their rockets/ weapons from? Or the money for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do they get $3B a year like the mooch capital of the world gets?
> 
> And besides, Palestine gets no military aid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Iran gives them tons of military aid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine has no military.
Click to expand...





 It does it has a para-military


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The LoN didn't have to give them anything. They already lived there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So did the Jews and you want to disown them of their heritage, but living there and being citizens are two different things. While the arab muslims say themselves are Syrians they had no claim to Palestine, and while they illegally migrated they forewent any claim to the land they squatted on.
> 
> Now you are seeing that your claims are as full of holes as a colander you are grasping at straws to win points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only road to peace is for Israel to find a way to remove all the Palestinian squatters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israelites will never have peace , and the Pals wont as long as the invaders are there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not while NAZI JEW HATERS like you are allowed to spout your filthy lies they wont.    And according to history of the Ottomans the arab muslims are the invaders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone's forgotten the Babylonians, Persians Greeks, Romans, Persians (again) Romans (again) THEN we have the Arabs...the only "Nazi Jew Haters" on this forum are Zionists.
Click to expand...





 So all these invaded between 1850 and 1948 did they ?

 Link to prove the above claim, and not some NAZI site either


----------



## Phoenall

Penelope said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with anything? They don't even have a military
> 
> 
> 
> *Bingo!*
> 
> It has always been Israel's mooched military attacking Palestinian civilians starting before 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Speaking if attacking, it was the Arabs who were attacking Jewish civilians bexore 1948 and before any Arab was attacked.
> But you're deflecting. Palestinians are still the biggest moochers/cry babies of the world.
> Not my fault you can't handle the truth.
> Speaking of mooching, where does Hamas get their rockets/ weapons from? Or the money for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do they get $3B a year like the mooch capital of the world gets?
> 
> And besides, Palestine gets no military aid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine IS the mooch capital of the world. They get their weapons from Iran and Lebanon. Not to mention they get TONS of aid from many different countries/organizations around the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel gets their weapons from Germany, France and the US, China, and India.
Click to expand...





 All paid for of course, so why did you miss that little part out ?   Unlike the Palestinian arab muslims who beg from iran all the weapons they can get their hands on so they can target Israeli children


----------



## Hossfly

Phoenall said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bingo!*
> 
> It has always been Israel's mooched military attacking Palestinian civilians starting before 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Speaking if attacking, it was the Arabs who were attacking Jewish civilians bexore 1948 and before any Arab was attacked.
> But you're deflecting. Palestinians are still the biggest moochers/cry babies of the world.
> Not my fault you can't handle the truth.
> Speaking of mooching, where does Hamas get their rockets/ weapons from? Or the money for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do they get $3B a year like the mooch capital of the world gets?
> 
> And besides, Palestine gets no military aid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine IS the mooch capital of the world. They get their weapons from Iran and Lebanon. Not to mention they get TONS of aid from many different countries/organizations around the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel gets their weapons from Germany, France and the US, China, and India.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All paid for of course, so why did you miss that little part out ?   Unlike the Palestinian arab muslims who beg from iran all the weapons they can get their hands on so they can target Israeli children
Click to expand...

Just so they can add to the body count.


*Fatah Doubles Body Count of Terror Massacre in Lauding Attack*
Fatah fudges number of Israelis murdered from 37 to 80 in Mughrabi attack, holds ceremony at square named for her in Ramallah.
Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on printMore Sharing Services22


By Ari Yashar

First Publish: 3/11/2015, 9:14 PM






Dalal Mughrabi hero worship in Ramallah (file)
Issam Rimawi/Flash 90


Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah faction took the unusual step on Tuesday of more than doubling the number of Israelismurdered in a brutal terrorist attack from 1978, while glorifying the massacre on its anniversary.

_Palestinian Media Watch_ (PMW) revealed that Fatah praised the March 1978 attack, which was committed by a group of Fatah terrorists from Lebanon led by Dalal Mughrabi.

The terrorists hijacked a bus on Israel's coastal highway, and when confronted by the IDF they slaughtered 37 civilians, 12 of them children, wounding another 70 before being neutralized. The attack is known as the Coastal Road massacre in Israel.

But in praising the attack, Fatah on Tuesday inflated the numbers, writing on Facebook "a huge self-sacrificing operation in Herzliya, Tel Aviv. 80 Israelis killed and over 100 wounded



Fatah Doubles Body Count of Terror Massacre - Middle East - News - Arutz Sheva


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many give them military aid?
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with anything? They don't even have a military
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Bingo!*
> 
> It has always been Israel's mooched military attacking Palestinian civilians starting before 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Speaking if attacking, it was the Arabs who were attacking Jewish civilians bexore 1948 and before any Arab was attacked.
> But you're deflecting. Palestinians are still the biggest moochers/cry babies of the world.
> Not my fault you can't handle the truth.
> Speaking of mooching, where does Hamas get their rockets/ weapons from? Or the money for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do they get $3B a year like the mooch capital of the world gets?
> 
> And besides, Palestine gets no military aid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine IS the mooch capital of the world. They get their weapons from Iran and Lebanon. Not to mention they get TONS of aid from many different countries/organizations around the world.
Click to expand...

*International Aid & the Palestinians: Supporting Israel's Occupation? *

**


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This is a variation on the theme I discussed in Posting #4 in the "Argument Can Israel Survive Without the Palestinian Authority?" Discussion Thread.



P F Tinmore said:


> *International Aid & the Palestinians: Supporting Israel's Occupation? *


*(COMMENT)*

The host of the media video clip, Clea Thouin _(Palestine Studies TV)_  opens with the remark --- that since 1993, the Palestinians have received about $15 Billion in foreign aid from the donor group.  And Nadia Hijab, Senior Fellow at the Palestinian Institute _(the interviewee)_ who takes the position that the $15 Billion goes to support the Israeli Occupation.

I don't agree Ms Hijab.  The position that Nadia Hijab takes can only be true if the Palestinians simultaneously claim that they had no control over how the aid is spent.   And if that is the case, then the State of Palestine has never been able to meet the Article 22 criteria for independence and sovereignty _(ie the stand alone clause)_.  This is further substantiated by Ms Hijab, in the admission that the Palestinians are totally dependent on the aid and incapable of running the country without it.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is a variation on the theme I discussed in Posting #4 in the "Argument Can Israel Survive Without the Palestinian Authority?" Discussion Thread.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *International Aid & the Palestinians: Supporting Israel's Occupation? *
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The host of the media video clip, Clea Thouin _(Palestine Studies TV)_  opens with the remark --- that since 1993, the Palestinians have received about $15 Billion in foreign aid from the donor group.  And Nadia Hijab, Senior Fellow at the Palestinian Institute _(the interviewee)_ who takes the position that the $15 Billion goes to support the Israeli Occupation.
> 
> I don't agree Ms Hijab.  The position that Nadia Hijab takes can only be true if the Palestinians simultaneously claim that they had no control over how the aid is spent.   And if that is the case, then the State of Palestine has never been able to meet the Article 22 criteria for independence and sovereignty _(ie the stand alone clause)_.  This is further substantiated by Ms Hijab, in the admission that the Palestinians are totally dependent on the aid and incapable of running the country without it.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Oh jeeze, another hit piece.

Of course you do not agree. It does not conform to the Israeli propaganda that you always pimp.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I consider the Arab Palestinian --- at some point --- must be accountable and responsible for their actions.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is a variation on the theme I discussed in Posting #4 in the "Argument Can Israel Survive Without the Palestinian Authority?" Discussion Thread.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *International Aid & the Palestinians: Supporting Israel's Occupation? *
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The host of the media video clip, Clea Thouin _(Palestine Studies TV)_  opens with the remark --- that since 1993, the Palestinians have received about $15 Billion in foreign aid from the donor group.  And Nadia Hijab, Senior Fellow at the Palestinian Institute _(the interviewee)_ who takes the position that the $15 Billion goes to support the Israeli Occupation.
> 
> I don't agree Ms Hijab.  The position that Nadia Hijab takes can only be true if the Palestinians simultaneously claim that they had no control over how the aid is spent.   And if that is the case, then the State of Palestine has never been able to meet the Article 22 criteria for independence and sovereignty _(ie the stand alone clause)_.  This is further substantiated by Ms Hijab, in the admission that the Palestinians are totally dependent on the aid and incapable of running the country without it.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh jeeze, another hit piece.
> 
> Of course you do not agree. It does not conform to the Israeli propaganda that you always pimp.
Click to expand...

*(QUESTION)*

If the donor aid is so terrible and so damaging, then why do they accept it?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is a variation on the theme I discussed in Posting #4 in the "Argument Can Israel Survive Without the Palestinian Authority?" Discussion Thread.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *International Aid & the Palestinians: Supporting Israel's Occupation? *
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The host of the media video clip, Clea Thouin _(Palestine Studies TV)_  opens with the remark --- that since 1993, the Palestinians have received about $15 Billion in foreign aid from the donor group.  And Nadia Hijab, Senior Fellow at the Palestinian Institute _(the interviewee)_ who takes the position that the $15 Billion goes to support the Israeli Occupation.
> 
> I don't agree Ms Hijab.  The position that Nadia Hijab takes can only be true if the Palestinians simultaneously claim that they had no control over how the aid is spent.   And if that is the case, then the State of Palestine has never been able to meet the Article 22 criteria for independence and sovereignty _(ie the stand alone clause)_.  This is further substantiated by Ms Hijab, in the admission that the Palestinians are totally dependent on the aid and incapable of running the country without it.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh jeeze, another hit piece.
> 
> Of course you do not agree. It does not conform to the Israeli propaganda that you always pimp.
Click to expand...

What do you want, Tinmore. What would satisfy your little brain?  You disagree with everything just like a belligerent drunk.Talk about arguing with the devil!


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well, I consider the Arab Palestinian --- at some point --- must be accountable and responsible for their actions.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is a variation on the theme I discussed in Posting #4 in the "Argument Can Israel Survive Without the Palestinian Authority?" Discussion Thread.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *International Aid & the Palestinians: Supporting Israel's Occupation? *
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The host of the media video clip, Clea Thouin _(Palestine Studies TV)_  opens with the remark --- that since 1993, the Palestinians have received about $15 Billion in foreign aid from the donor group.  And Nadia Hijab, Senior Fellow at the Palestinian Institute _(the interviewee)_ who takes the position that the $15 Billion goes to support the Israeli Occupation.
> 
> I don't agree Ms Hijab.  The position that Nadia Hijab takes can only be true if the Palestinians simultaneously claim that they had no control over how the aid is spent.   And if that is the case, then the State of Palestine has never been able to meet the Article 22 criteria for independence and sovereignty _(ie the stand alone clause)_.  This is further substantiated by Ms Hijab, in the admission that the Palestinians are totally dependent on the aid and incapable of running the country without it.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh jeeze, another hit piece.
> 
> Of course you do not agree. It does not conform to the Israeli propaganda that you always pimp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> If the donor aid is so terrible and so damaging, then why do they accept it?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

What choices do the Palestinians have with a gun in their face?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Oh --- come on now.  The world is damned for giving the donor dollars to the Palestinians who then are accused of collaborating with the Israelis and supporting the Israeli Occupation.  On the other hand, you claim that the Palestinians have "no choice" but to accept the donor dollars --- which they then use to collaborate and support occupation.



P F Tinmore said:


> What choices do the Palestinians have with a gun in their face?


*(COMMENT)*

In both cases, the Arab Palestinians accepts absolutely no responsibility for the consequences of their action.  And in both cases, either the donors, the donors and Israel, and the US are at fault. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh --- come on now.  The world is damned for giving the donor dollars to the Palestinians who then are accused of collaborating with the Israelis and supporting the Israeli Occupation.  On the other hand, you claim that the Palestinians have "no choice" but to accept the donor dollars --- which they then use to collaborate and support occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What choices do the Palestinians have with a gun in their face?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In both cases, the Arab Palestinians accepts absolutely no responsibility for the consequences of their action.  And in both cases, either the donors, the donors and Israel, and the US are at fault.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Rocco, Rocco, Rocco, The Palestinians have an Israeli gun in their face and on the other hand they have a foreign money ring in their nose.

Then you repeatedly say that they cannot build a state because they are incompetent.

Where do you get that crap?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is a variation on the theme I discussed in Posting #4 in the "Argument Can Israel Survive Without the Palestinian Authority?" Discussion Thread.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *International Aid & the Palestinians: Supporting Israel's Occupation? *
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The host of the media video clip, Clea Thouin _(Palestine Studies TV)_  opens with the remark --- that since 1993, the Palestinians have received about $15 Billion in foreign aid from the donor group.  And Nadia Hijab, Senior Fellow at the Palestinian Institute _(the interviewee)_ who takes the position that the $15 Billion goes to support the Israeli Occupation.
> 
> I don't agree Ms Hijab.  The position that Nadia Hijab takes can only be true if the Palestinians simultaneously claim that they had no control over how the aid is spent.   And if that is the case, then the State of Palestine has never been able to meet the Article 22 criteria for independence and sovereignty _(ie the stand alone clause)_.  This is further substantiated by Ms Hijab, in the admission that the Palestinians are totally dependent on the aid and incapable of running the country without it.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh jeeze, another hit piece.
> 
> Of course you do not agree. It does not conform to the Israeli propaganda that you always pimp.
Click to expand...

Oh shutup Tinmore. The only reason you attack Rocco like that all the time is because he is always refuting your lies, so you are bitter against him.
You are a Palestinian propagandist, so you have no right to accuse someone else of posting propaganda


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh --- come on now.  The world is damned for giving the donor dollars to the Palestinians who then are accused of collaborating with the Israelis and supporting the Israeli Occupation.  On the other hand, you claim that the Palestinians have "no choice" but to accept the donor dollars --- which they then use to collaborate and support occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What choices do the Palestinians have with a gun in their face?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In both cases, the Arab Palestinians accepts absolutely no responsibility for the consequences of their action.  And in both cases, either the donors, the donors and Israel, and the US are at fault.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco, Rocco, Rocco, The Palestinians have an Israeli gun in their face and on the other hand they have a foreign money ring in their nose.
> 
> Then you repeatedly say that they cannot build a state because they are incompetent.
> 
> Where do you get that crap?
Click to expand...

Because they ARE incompetent.
They whine about Israel attacking them, but then they launch thousands of rockets.
Palestinians are the most imcompetent crybabies in the world.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

OK --- the claim is:

gun in their face
foreign money ring in their nose
say that they cannot build a state
they are incompetent



P F Tinmore said:


> Rocco, Rocco, Rocco, The Palestinians have an Israeli gun in their face and on the other hand they have a foreign money ring in their nose.
> 
> Then you repeatedly say that they cannot build a state because they are incompetent.
> 
> Where do you get that crap?


*(COMMENT)*

The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis.  The two parties made different choices.  The outcome of the nation that each party has established over the last half century is the practical and tangible evidence and answer to:  "Where do you get that crap." 

This is a case where the parties could have a benevolent relationship, or --- a belligerent relationship.  The extent to which "gun in their face" was an issue --- is based on the threat posed by the Arab Palestinian to the Israelis.  The Palestinians have not made any effort to conceal the fact that they are in a jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis.

The extent to which "foreign money ring in their nose" is an issue --- is based on the Arab Palestinian acceptance.  This money is not forced upon them at gun-point.  The Arab Palestinian can turn-down the money at any time.

Periodically --- Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas  threatens Israel with disbanding his government or some portion of it.   Palestinians living under Israeli rule are increasingly questioning whether the PA is truly looking out for their interests.   What is different this time around is the threat to discontinue security coordination.  There is no question that there is an increasingly unpopular attitude, as many Arab Palestinians feel the arrangement assists the Israeli military in control over the occupied territory.  

The fact that the Palestinians, after a quarter century, still don't have full recognition of the state, is a epitaph to its competence.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hossfly

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK --- the claim is:
> 
> gun in their face
> foreign money ring in their nose
> say that they cannot build a state
> they are incompetent
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, Rocco, Rocco, The Palestinians have an Israeli gun in their face and on the other hand they have a foreign money ring in their nose.
> 
> Then you repeatedly say that they cannot build a state because they are incompetent.
> 
> Where do you get that crap?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis.  The two parties made different choices.  The outcome of the nation that each party has established over the last half century is the practical and tangible evidence and answer to:  "Where do you get that crap."
> 
> This is a case where the parties could have a benevolent relationship, or --- a belligerent relationship.  The extent to which "gun in their face" was an issue --- is based on the threat posed by the Arab Palestinian to the Israelis.  The Palestinians have not made any effort to conceal the fact that they are in a jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis.
> 
> The extent to which "foreign money ring in their nose" is an issue --- is based on the Arab Palestinian acceptance.  This money is not forced upon them at gun-point.  The Arab Palestinian can turn-down the money at any time.
> 
> Periodically --- Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas  threatens Israel with disbanding his government or some portion of it.   Palestinians living under Israeli rule are increasingly questioning whether the PA is truly looking out for their interests.   What is different this time around is the threat to discontinue security coordination.  There is no question that there is an increasingly unpopular attitude, as many Arab Palestinians feel the arrangement assists the Israeli military in control over the occupied territory.
> 
> The fact that the Palestinians, after a quarter century, still don't have full recognition of the state, is a epitaph to its competence.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Now this is a horrible sight. Rocco pissing into the wind. I can't take it anymore.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK --- the claim is:
> 
> gun in their face
> foreign money ring in their nose
> say that they cannot build a state
> they are incompetent
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, Rocco, Rocco, The Palestinians have an Israeli gun in their face and on the other hand they have a foreign money ring in their nose.
> 
> Then you repeatedly say that they cannot build a state because they are incompetent.
> 
> Where do you get that crap?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis.  The two parties made different choices.  The outcome of the nation that each party has established over the last half century is the practical and tangible evidence and answer to:  "Where do you get that crap."
> 
> This is a case where the parties could have a benevolent relationship, or --- a belligerent relationship.  The extent to which "gun in their face" was an issue --- is based on the threat posed by the Arab Palestinian to the Israelis.  The Palestinians have not made any effort to conceal the fact that they are in a jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis.
> 
> The extent to which "foreign money ring in their nose" is an issue --- is based on the Arab Palestinian acceptance.  This money is not forced upon them at gun-point.  The Arab Palestinian can turn-down the money at any time.
> 
> Periodically --- Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas  threatens Israel with disbanding his government or some portion of it.   Palestinians living under Israeli rule are increasingly questioning whether the PA is truly looking out for their interests.   What is different this time around is the threat to discontinue security coordination.  There is no question that there is an increasingly unpopular attitude, as many Arab Palestinians feel the arrangement assists the Israeli military in control over the occupied territory.
> 
> The fact that the Palestinians, after a quarter century, still don't have full recognition of the state, is a epitaph to its competence.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis.​
Rocco, you always start with a lie them form your conclusion based on false premise.

Palestine was born under British occupation. Britain (a long time colonialists and world superpower) landed in Palestine in full military gear and the Balfour Declaration in its pocket. Britain kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the foreign Zionist agenda. Meanwhile the Zionists were importing foreign settlers by the boatload with the stated goal of creating a Jewish state in Palestine.

The Palestinians have been defending themselves from that aggression until today.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK --- the claim is:
> 
> gun in their face
> foreign money ring in their nose
> say that they cannot build a state
> they are incompetent
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, Rocco, Rocco, The Palestinians have an Israeli gun in their face and on the other hand they have a foreign money ring in their nose.
> 
> Then you repeatedly say that they cannot build a state because they are incompetent.
> 
> Where do you get that crap?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis.  The two parties made different choices.  The outcome of the nation that each party has established over the last half century is the practical and tangible evidence and answer to:  "Where do you get that crap."
> 
> This is a case where the parties could have a benevolent relationship, or --- a belligerent relationship.  The extent to which "gun in their face" was an issue --- is based on the threat posed by the Arab Palestinian to the Israelis.  The Palestinians have not made any effort to conceal the fact that they are in a jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis.
> 
> The extent to which "foreign money ring in their nose" is an issue --- is based on the Arab Palestinian acceptance.  This money is not forced upon them at gun-point.  The Arab Palestinian can turn-down the money at any time.
> 
> Periodically --- Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas  threatens Israel with disbanding his government or some portion of it.   Palestinians living under Israeli rule are increasingly questioning whether the PA is truly looking out for their interests.   What is different this time around is the threat to discontinue security coordination.  There is no question that there is an increasingly unpopular attitude, as many Arab Palestinians feel the arrangement assists the Israeli military in control over the occupied territory.
> 
> The fact that the Palestinians, after a quarter century, still don't have full recognition of the state, is a epitaph to its competence.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis.​
> Rocco, you always start with a lie them form your conclusion based on false premise.
> 
> Palestine was born under British occupation. Britain (a long time colonialists and world superpower) landed in Palestine in full military gear and the Balfour Declaration in its pocket. Britain kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the foreign Zionist agenda. Meanwhile the Zionists were importing foreign settlers by the boatload with the stated goal of creating a Jewish state in Palestine.
> 
> The Palestinians have been defending themselves from that aggression until today.
Click to expand...


Israelis have been defending themselves since their inception. What's your point.

BTW, can you give me some examples of the Palestinians having defended themselves?

"Rocco, you always start with a lie"

Tinmore, 99% of what you say is a lie. You're ragging on Rocco because you simply cannot accept the truth.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK --- the claim is:
> 
> gun in their face
> foreign money ring in their nose
> say that they cannot build a state
> they are incompetent
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, Rocco, Rocco, The Palestinians have an Israeli gun in their face and on the other hand they have a foreign money ring in their nose.
> 
> Then you repeatedly say that they cannot build a state because they are incompetent.
> 
> Where do you get that crap?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis.  The two parties made different choices.  The outcome of the nation that each party has established over the last half century is the practical and tangible evidence and answer to:  "Where do you get that crap."
> 
> This is a case where the parties could have a benevolent relationship, or --- a belligerent relationship.  The extent to which "gun in their face" was an issue --- is based on the threat posed by the Arab Palestinian to the Israelis.  The Palestinians have not made any effort to conceal the fact that they are in a jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis.
> 
> The extent to which "foreign money ring in their nose" is an issue --- is based on the Arab Palestinian acceptance.  This money is not forced upon them at gun-point.  The Arab Palestinian can turn-down the money at any time.
> 
> Periodically --- Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas  threatens Israel with disbanding his government or some portion of it.   Palestinians living under Israeli rule are increasingly questioning whether the PA is truly looking out for their interests.   What is different this time around is the threat to discontinue security coordination.  There is no question that there is an increasingly unpopular attitude, as many Arab Palestinians feel the arrangement assists the Israeli military in control over the occupied territory.
> 
> The fact that the Palestinians, after a quarter century, still don't have full recognition of the state, is a epitaph to its competence.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis.​
> Rocco, you always start with a lie them form your conclusion based on false premise.
> 
> Palestine was born under British occupation. Britain (a long time colonialists and world superpower) landed in Palestine in full military gear and the Balfour Declaration in its pocket. Britain kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the foreign Zionist agenda. Meanwhile the Zionists were importing foreign settlers by the boatload with the stated goal of creating a Jewish state in Palestine.
> 
> The Palestinians have been defending themselves from that aggression until today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israelis have been defending themselves since their inception. What's your point.
> 
> BTW, can you give me some examples of the Palestinians having defended themselves?
> 
> "Rocco, you always start with a lie"
> 
> Tinmore, 99% of what you say is a lie. You're ragging on Rocco because you simply cannot accept the truth.
Click to expand...

What did I say that isn't true?


----------



## Challenger

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK --- the claim is:
> 
> gun in their face
> foreign money ring in their nose
> say that they cannot build a state
> they are incompetent
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, Rocco, Rocco, The Palestinians have an Israeli gun in their face and on the other hand they have a foreign money ring in their nose.
> 
> Then you repeatedly say that they cannot build a state because they are incompetent.
> 
> Where do you get that crap?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis.  The two parties made different choices.  The outcome of the nation that each party has established over the last half century is the practical and tangible evidence and answer to:  "Where do you get that crap."
> 
> This is a case where the parties could have a benevolent relationship, or --- a belligerent relationship.  The extent to which "gun in their face" was an issue --- is based on the threat posed by the Arab Palestinian to the Israelis.  The Palestinians have not made any effort to conceal the fact that they are in a jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis.
> 
> The extent to which "foreign money ring in their nose" is an issue --- is based on the Arab Palestinian acceptance.  This money is not forced upon them at gun-point.  The Arab Palestinian can turn-down the money at any time.
> 
> Periodically --- Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas  threatens Israel with disbanding his government or some portion of it.   Palestinians living under Israeli rule are increasingly questioning whether the PA is truly looking out for their interests.   What is different this time around is the threat to discontinue security coordination.  There is no question that there is an increasingly unpopular attitude, as many Arab Palestinians feel the arrangement assists the Israeli military in control over the occupied territory.
> 
> The fact that the Palestinians, after a quarter century, still don't have full recognition of the state, is a epitaph to its competence.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Well no they didn't. By the 1940's the Palestinian attempt at independance, begun in 1936 had been all but brutally suppressed by the Mandatory power charged with facilitating that independence with the aid of Zionist Jewish militias and death squads. The Palestinian leadership was either dead, in prison or in exile and Palestinian civil society/institutions in ruins. Meanwhile the Zionists had greatly strengthened their position, gaining training and experience from the British. By the time the British abandoned the Mandate, the Zionists in Palestine were the strongest military force in the region and more than ready to take over. The threat had always come from the Zionist Jewish colonists; the Palestinians merely tried to defend themselves as best they could.  Characterising this as a "jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis". Is pandering to Zionist propagandist/Hasbarist historiography. There was never any possibility of a "benevolent relationship" with Zionism, whose aim from the outset was ethnic cleansing of the native population in favour of European Jewish colonisation.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, we may disagree on our interpretations, but I never start with the intent to deceive anyone about anything (lie).



P F Tinmore said:


> The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis.​
> Rocco, you always start with a lie them form your conclusion based on false premise.
> 
> Palestine was born under British occupation. Britain (a long time colonialists and world superpower) landed in Palestine in full military gear and the Balfour Declaration in its pocket. Britain kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the foreign Zionist agenda. Meanwhile the Zionists were importing foreign settlers by the boatload with the stated goal of creating a Jewish state in Palestine.
> 
> The Palestinians have been defending themselves from that aggression until today.


*(COMMENT)*

The concept of Palestine was established at the San Remo Conference --- decided on 24 April 1920 --- to assign the Mandate [for Palestine] to Great Britain; within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers.  Palestine, as defined by the Allied Powers, was not an "occupation;" but a civil administration of a "peoples not yet able to stand by themselves."  

The Mandate differs significantly from an Occupation.  In a "Mandate", the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory's Civil authority and is explicitly defined in each case by the Council.   In an "Occupation" the territory is placed under the authority of the dominate military governorship _(in terms of the Article 42 of the Hague Convention --- a "hostile Army")_ and extends only to the territory where such military authority has been established and can be exercised.  In the case of Palestine, _(within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers)_ on July 1st, 1920, by order of His Majesty's Government a "Civil Administration" was established.  Note, this is two years before the Mandate for Palestine was even written. 

Between October 1914 and October 1918 --- British Expeditionary Forces _(British Third Army)_ engaged the elements of the Ottoman Fourth Army, which ultimately lead to the military defeat of Ottoman Forces in the Region and all threats to British defenses on the Suez Canal (February 1915).  British Expeditionary Forces did not engage the Ottoman Fourth Army to implement the Balfour Declaration; but to advance the southern forward edge of battle from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean and protect the Suez Canal.  The decision to implement the Balfour Declaration had not yet been adopted by the Allied Powers, nor had the League of Nations Covenant been published.

Now it is true, that between September 1920 and May 1921, about 10,000 Jewish immigrants arrived _(8084 came under the auspices of the Zionist Organization and 1815 came independently)_.  But this is hardly the "boatload with the stated goal of creating a Jewish state" you allege.   However, it was pursuant to the intent of the Allied Powers "to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Muslim75

MJB12741 said:


> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine



I am Muslim. Jerusalem and Palstine are holy and sacred in Islam. Jerusalem is holy and sacred in Christianity and Judaism. Islam does not claim to be a religion that started in 609. Islam claims to be the sa,e religion of Abraham, the same religion of Moses, of David, of Solomon, of Jesus, of John, etc...In 609, Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) received the mission to close prophethood. He is the Seal of the Prophets. That is why Islam has a claim to Palestine and Jerusalem.

In other words, Judaism and Christianity are not true today, to Jesus, Moses and Abraham. Their messages were changed over tiome by people with more or less political agendas. Jesus, Moses and Abraham gave the good news that one day Muhammad would come. But people hided that after them, out of jealousy of Muhammad, the Arab Prophet. This is why even as a child, the Jews were eager to have Muhammad killed, but Allah (God) protected him very meticulously.

Another proof of the deceit is that Christians know well that Jesus was hated and in danger of being killed, and he was overpowered by the Jews, and yet they still think the Bible was never changed by some people with agendas.

Let me precise that Jesus was not killed, according to Islam, he escaped crucifixion. The one who betrayed him was crucified in his place after God made him to look like Jesus.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with anything? They don't even have a military
> 
> 
> 
> *Bingo!*
> 
> It has always been Israel's mooched military attacking Palestinian civilians starting before 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Speaking if attacking, it was the Arabs who were attacking Jewish civilians bexore 1948 and before any Arab was attacked.
> But you're deflecting. Palestinians are still the biggest moochers/cry babies of the world.
> Not my fault you can't handle the truth.
> Speaking of mooching, where does Hamas get their rockets/ weapons from? Or the money for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do they get $3B a year like the mooch capital of the world gets?
> 
> And besides, Palestine gets no military aid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine IS the mooch capital of the world. They get their weapons from Iran and Lebanon. Not to mention they get TONS of aid from many different countries/organizations around the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *International Aid & the Palestinians: Supporting Israel's Occupation? *
> 
> **
Click to expand...





 ISLAMONAZI LIES AND PROPAGANDA  just look at the source.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is a variation on the theme I discussed in Posting #4 in the "Argument Can Israel Survive Without the Palestinian Authority?" Discussion Thread.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *International Aid & the Palestinians: Supporting Israel's Occupation? *
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The host of the media video clip, Clea Thouin _(Palestine Studies TV)_  opens with the remark --- that since 1993, the Palestinians have received about $15 Billion in foreign aid from the donor group.  And Nadia Hijab, Senior Fellow at the Palestinian Institute _(the interviewee)_ who takes the position that the $15 Billion goes to support the Israeli Occupation.
> 
> I don't agree Ms Hijab.  The position that Nadia Hijab takes can only be true if the Palestinians simultaneously claim that they had no control over how the aid is spent.   And if that is the case, then the State of Palestine has never been able to meet the Article 22 criteria for independence and sovereignty _(ie the stand alone clause)_.  This is further substantiated by Ms Hijab, in the admission that the Palestinians are totally dependent on the aid and incapable of running the country without it.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh jeeze, another hit piece.
> 
> Of course you do not agree. It does not conform to the Israeli propaganda that you always pimp.
Click to expand...






 So where is the evidence from a non partisan source showing the same thing, as soon as it is pointed out that this is a complete fabrication you go demented and start throwing around false claims.

If the Palestinian arab muslims were capable of standing alone then they woulkd have done so from 1988, but seeing as they are so heavily in debt that the sun will go cold before they manage to pay it off then they never will. The P.A. knows this as does the UN, and they are hiding the facts from the world in case the whole show collapses as aid dries up


----------



## Phoenall

Muslim75 said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am Muslim. Jerusalem and Palstine are holy and sacred in Islam. Jerusalem is holy and sacred in Christianity and Judaism. Islam does not claim to be a religion that started in 609. Islam claims to be the sa,e religion of Abraham, the same religion of Moses, of David, of Solomon, of Jesus, of John, etc...In 609, Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) received the mission to close prophethood. He is the Seal of the Prophets. That is why Islam has a claim to Palestine and Jerusalem.
> 
> In other words, Judaism and Christianity are not true today, to Jesus, Moses and Abraham. Their messages were changed over tiome by people with more or less political agendas. Jesus, Moses and Abraham gave the good news that one day Muhammad would come. But people hided that after them, out of jealousy of Muhammad, the Arab Prophet. This is why even as a child, the Jews were eager to have Muhammad killed, but Allah (God) protected him very meticulously.
> 
> Another proof of the deceit is that Christians know well that Jesus was hated and in danger of being killed, and he was overpowered by the Jews, and yet they still think the Bible was never changed by some people with agendas.
> 
> Let me precise that Jesus was not killed, according to Islam, he escaped crucifixion. The one who betrayed him was crucified in his place after God made him to look like Jesus.
Click to expand...





 Then show were Jerusalem and Palestine are mentioned in the koran and hadiths, and explain how the mosque on the temple mount was not built until 30 years after the death of Mohamed.

 What did he prophesy then if he is the last prophet, tell the board something that was not known before Mohamed invented islam.

 Care to explain why the Koran of today is radically different to the Koran of the 7C. It is even in your own hadiths that it has been altered and parts removed by successive leaders. Ayesha states that certain Surah's of the Koran contained many more verses than the korans of today. This must mean that Islam's message has also been changed by people with their own agenda.


So when can I expect your answer to the above facts that show islam to be a false religion based on a moon god, 3 crane goddesses and a psychopaths bloodlust.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well, I consider the Arab Palestinian --- at some point --- must be accountable and responsible for their actions.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is a variation on the theme I discussed in Posting #4 in the "Argument Can Israel Survive Without the Palestinian Authority?" Discussion Thread.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *International Aid & the Palestinians: Supporting Israel's Occupation? *
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The host of the media video clip, Clea Thouin _(Palestine Studies TV)_  opens with the remark --- that since 1993, the Palestinians have received about $15 Billion in foreign aid from the donor group.  And Nadia Hijab, Senior Fellow at the Palestinian Institute _(the interviewee)_ who takes the position that the $15 Billion goes to support the Israeli Occupation.
> 
> I don't agree Ms Hijab.  The position that Nadia Hijab takes can only be true if the Palestinians simultaneously claim that they had no control over how the aid is spent.   And if that is the case, then the State of Palestine has never been able to meet the Article 22 criteria for independence and sovereignty _(ie the stand alone clause)_.  This is further substantiated by Ms Hijab, in the admission that the Palestinians are totally dependent on the aid and incapable of running the country without it.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh jeeze, another hit piece.
> 
> Of course you do not agree. It does not conform to the Israeli propaganda that you always pimp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> If the donor aid is so terrible and so damaging, then why do they accept it?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What choices do the Palestinians have with a gun in their face?
Click to expand...





 They have it in their power to be free once and for all by simply accepting International law and agreeing to peace talks and mutual borders


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh --- come on now.  The world is damned for giving the donor dollars to the Palestinians who then are accused of collaborating with the Israelis and supporting the Israeli Occupation.  On the other hand, you claim that the Palestinians have "no choice" but to accept the donor dollars --- which they then use to collaborate and support occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What choices do the Palestinians have with a gun in their face?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In both cases, the Arab Palestinians accepts absolutely no responsibility for the consequences of their action.  And in both cases, either the donors, the donors and Israel, and the US are at fault.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco, Rocco, Rocco, The Palestinians have an Israeli gun in their face and on the other hand they have a foreign money ring in their nose.
> 
> Then you repeatedly say that they cannot build a state because they are incompetent.
> 
> Where do you get that crap?
Click to expand...




 From the evidence plainly available on the internet. If they wanted a state they could have had one in 1948, 1988, 1999 and at any time since. But while they engage in terrorism, violence, belligerence and propaganda they will never get a state. They are to blame themselves for the situation they are currently in, and if the world stopped all the aid going to the west bank and gaza the people would slowly starve to death while the leaders grew fatter.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK --- the claim is:
> 
> gun in their face
> foreign money ring in their nose
> say that they cannot build a state
> they are incompetent
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, Rocco, Rocco, The Palestinians have an Israeli gun in their face and on the other hand they have a foreign money ring in their nose.
> 
> Then you repeatedly say that they cannot build a state because they are incompetent.
> 
> Where do you get that crap?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis.  The two parties made different choices.  The outcome of the nation that each party has established over the last half century is the practical and tangible evidence and answer to:  "Where do you get that crap."
> 
> This is a case where the parties could have a benevolent relationship, or --- a belligerent relationship.  The extent to which "gun in their face" was an issue --- is based on the threat posed by the Arab Palestinian to the Israelis.  The Palestinians have not made any effort to conceal the fact that they are in a jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis.
> 
> The extent to which "foreign money ring in their nose" is an issue --- is based on the Arab Palestinian acceptance.  This money is not forced upon them at gun-point.  The Arab Palestinian can turn-down the money at any time.
> 
> Periodically --- Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas  threatens Israel with disbanding his government or some portion of it.   Palestinians living under Israeli rule are increasingly questioning whether the PA is truly looking out for their interests.   What is different this time around is the threat to discontinue security coordination.  There is no question that there is an increasingly unpopular attitude, as many Arab Palestinians feel the arrangement assists the Israeli military in control over the occupied territory.
> 
> The fact that the Palestinians, after a quarter century, still don't have full recognition of the state, is a epitaph to its competence.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis.​
> Rocco, you always start with a lie them form your conclusion based on false premise.
> 
> Palestine was born under British occupation. Britain (a long time colonialists and world superpower) landed in Palestine in full military gear and the Balfour Declaration in its pocket. Britain kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the foreign Zionist agenda. Meanwhile the Zionists were importing foreign settlers by the boatload with the stated goal of creating a Jewish state in Palestine.
> 
> The Palestinians have been defending themselves from that aggression until today.
Click to expand...




 So how did the Palestinians manage to get Jordan then ?

 Why do you always blame Britain when they were just the Mandatory power and acted on orders from the legal land owners ?

The Palestinians have initiated the aggression from the late 1890's and this time the Jews fought back

 The Zionists watched as the British caged boatloads of Jews in death camps while allowing many tens of thousands of arab muslims flood into Palestine from Syria and Jordan.


 That is the reality, not your made up islamonazi fantasy


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK --- the claim is:
> 
> gun in their face
> foreign money ring in their nose
> say that they cannot build a state
> they are incompetent
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, Rocco, Rocco, The Palestinians have an Israeli gun in their face and on the other hand they have a foreign money ring in their nose.
> 
> Then you repeatedly say that they cannot build a state because they are incompetent.
> 
> Where do you get that crap?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis.  The two parties made different choices.  The outcome of the nation that each party has established over the last half century is the practical and tangible evidence and answer to:  "Where do you get that crap."
> 
> This is a case where the parties could have a benevolent relationship, or --- a belligerent relationship.  The extent to which "gun in their face" was an issue --- is based on the threat posed by the Arab Palestinian to the Israelis.  The Palestinians have not made any effort to conceal the fact that they are in a jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis.
> 
> The extent to which "foreign money ring in their nose" is an issue --- is based on the Arab Palestinian acceptance.  This money is not forced upon them at gun-point.  The Arab Palestinian can turn-down the money at any time.
> 
> Periodically --- Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas  threatens Israel with disbanding his government or some portion of it.   Palestinians living under Israeli rule are increasingly questioning whether the PA is truly looking out for their interests.   What is different this time around is the threat to discontinue security coordination.  There is no question that there is an increasingly unpopular attitude, as many Arab Palestinians feel the arrangement assists the Israeli military in control over the occupied territory.
> 
> The fact that the Palestinians, after a quarter century, still don't have full recognition of the state, is a epitaph to its competence.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis.​
> Rocco, you always start with a lie them form your conclusion based on false premise.
> 
> Palestine was born under British occupation. Britain (a long time colonialists and world superpower) landed in Palestine in full military gear and the Balfour Declaration in its pocket. Britain kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the foreign Zionist agenda. Meanwhile the Zionists were importing foreign settlers by the boatload with the stated goal of creating a Jewish state in Palestine.
> 
> The Palestinians have been defending themselves from that aggression until today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israelis have been defending themselves since their inception. What's your point.
> 
> BTW, can you give me some examples of the Palestinians having defended themselves?
> 
> "Rocco, you always start with a lie"
> 
> Tinmore, 99% of what you say is a lie. You're ragging on Rocco because you simply cannot accept the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did I say that isn't true?
Click to expand...




99% of it as you never back it up with non partisan links


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK --- the claim is:
> 
> gun in their face
> foreign money ring in their nose
> say that they cannot build a state
> they are incompetent
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, Rocco, Rocco, The Palestinians have an Israeli gun in their face and on the other hand they have a foreign money ring in their nose.
> 
> Then you repeatedly say that they cannot build a state because they are incompetent.
> 
> Where do you get that crap?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis.  The two parties made different choices.  The outcome of the nation that each party has established over the last half century is the practical and tangible evidence and answer to:  "Where do you get that crap."
> 
> This is a case where the parties could have a benevolent relationship, or --- a belligerent relationship.  The extent to which "gun in their face" was an issue --- is based on the threat posed by the Arab Palestinian to the Israelis.  The Palestinians have not made any effort to conceal the fact that they are in a jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis.
> 
> The extent to which "foreign money ring in their nose" is an issue --- is based on the Arab Palestinian acceptance.  This money is not forced upon them at gun-point.  The Arab Palestinian can turn-down the money at any time.
> 
> Periodically --- Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas  threatens Israel with disbanding his government or some portion of it.   Palestinians living under Israeli rule are increasingly questioning whether the PA is truly looking out for their interests.   What is different this time around is the threat to discontinue security coordination.  There is no question that there is an increasingly unpopular attitude, as many Arab Palestinians feel the arrangement assists the Israeli military in control over the occupied territory.
> 
> The fact that the Palestinians, after a quarter century, still don't have full recognition of the state, is a epitaph to its competence.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well no they didn't. By the 1940's the Palestinian attempt at independance, begun in 1936 had been all but brutally suppressed by the Mandatory power charged with facilitating that independence with the aid of Zionist Jewish militias and death squads. The Palestinian leadership was either dead, in prison or in exile and Palestinian civil society/institutions in ruins. Meanwhile the Zionists had greatly strengthened their position, gaining training and experience from the British. By the time the British abandoned the Mandate, the Zionists in Palestine were the strongest military force in the region and more than ready to take over. The threat had always come from the Zionist Jewish colonists; the Palestinians merely tried to defend themselves as best they could.  Characterising this as a "jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis". Is pandering to Zionist propagandist/Hasbarist historiography. There was never any possibility of a "benevolent relationship" with Zionism, whose aim from the outset was ethnic cleansing of the native population in favour of European Jewish colonisation.
Click to expand...






 LINK


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK --- the claim is:
> 
> gun in their face
> foreign money ring in their nose
> say that they cannot build a state
> they are incompetent
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, Rocco, Rocco, The Palestinians have an Israeli gun in their face and on the other hand they have a foreign money ring in their nose.
> 
> Then you repeatedly say that they cannot build a state because they are incompetent.
> 
> Where do you get that crap?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis.  The two parties made different choices.  The outcome of the nation that each party has established over the last half century is the practical and tangible evidence and answer to:  "Where do you get that crap."
> 
> This is a case where the parties could have a benevolent relationship, or --- a belligerent relationship.  The extent to which "gun in their face" was an issue --- is based on the threat posed by the Arab Palestinian to the Israelis.  The Palestinians have not made any effort to conceal the fact that they are in a jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis.
> 
> The extent to which "foreign money ring in their nose" is an issue --- is based on the Arab Palestinian acceptance.  This money is not forced upon them at gun-point.  The Arab Palestinian can turn-down the money at any time.
> 
> Periodically --- Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas  threatens Israel with disbanding his government or some portion of it.   Palestinians living under Israeli rule are increasingly questioning whether the PA is truly looking out for their interests.   What is different this time around is the threat to discontinue security coordination.  There is no question that there is an increasingly unpopular attitude, as many Arab Palestinians feel the arrangement assists the Israeli military in control over the occupied territory.
> 
> The fact that the Palestinians, after a quarter century, still don't have full recognition of the state, is a epitaph to its competence.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well no they didn't. By the 1940's the Palestinian attempt at independance, begun in 1936 had been all but brutally suppressed by the Mandatory power charged with facilitating that independence with the aid of Zionist Jewish militias and death squads. The Palestinian leadership was either dead, in prison or in exile and Palestinian civil society/institutions in ruins. Meanwhile the Zionists had greatly strengthened their position, gaining training and experience from the British. By the time the British abandoned the Mandate, the Zionists in Palestine were the strongest military force in the region and more than ready to take over. The threat had always come from the Zionist Jewish colonists; the Palestinians merely tried to defend themselves as best they could.  Characterising this as a "jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis". Is pandering to Zionist propagandist/Hasbarist historiography. There was never any possibility of a "benevolent relationship" with Zionism, whose aim from the outset was ethnic cleansing of the native population in favour of European Jewish colonisation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LINK
Click to expand...


1936 39 Arab revolt in Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well, we may disagree on our interpretations, but I never start with the intent to deceive anyone about anything (lie).
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis.​
> Rocco, you always start with a lie them form your conclusion based on false premise.
> 
> Palestine was born under British occupation. Britain (a long time colonialists and world superpower) landed in Palestine in full military gear and the Balfour Declaration in its pocket. Britain kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the foreign Zionist agenda. Meanwhile the Zionists were importing foreign settlers by the boatload with the stated goal of creating a Jewish state in Palestine.
> 
> The Palestinians have been defending themselves from that aggression until today.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The concept of Palestine was established at the San Remo Conference --- decided on 24 April 1920 --- to assign the Mandate [for Palestine] to Great Britain; within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers.  Palestine, as defined by the Allied Powers, was not an "occupation;" but a civil administration of a "peoples not yet able to stand by themselves."
> 
> The Mandate differs significantly from an Occupation.  In a "Mandate", the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory's Civil authority and is explicitly defined in each case by the Council.   In an "Occupation" the territory is placed under the authority of the dominate military governorship _(in terms of the Article 42 of the Hague Convention --- a "hostile Army")_ and extends only to the territory where such military authority has been established and can be exercised.  In the case of Palestine, _(within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers)_ on July 1st, 1920, by order of His Majesty's Government a "Civil Administration" was established.  Note, this is two years before the Mandate for Palestine was even written.
> 
> Between October 1914 and October 1918 --- British Expeditionary Forces _(British Third Army)_ engaged the elements of the Ottoman Fourth Army, which ultimately lead to the military defeat of Ottoman Forces in the Region and all threats to British defenses on the Suez Canal (February 1915).  British Expeditionary Forces did not engage the Ottoman Fourth Army to implement the Balfour Declaration; but to advance the southern forward edge of battle from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean and protect the Suez Canal.  The decision to implement the Balfour Declaration had not yet been adopted by the Allied Powers, nor had the League of Nations Covenant been published.
> 
> Now it is true, that between September 1920 and May 1921, about 10,000 Jewish immigrants arrived _(8084 came under the auspices of the Zionist Organization and 1815 came independently)_.  But this is hardly the "boatload with the stated goal of creating a Jewish state" you allege.   However, it was pursuant to the intent of the Allied Powers "to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Well, we may disagree on our interpretations,..​
Indeed, because you can't get your face out of Israeli propaganda.

For Britain when it changed from an occupation to a civil administration it was merely a name change. It kept its military there and in fact increased troop strength in the '30s to better trample on the Palestinian's inalienable rights.


----------



## toastman

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK --- the claim is:
> 
> gun in their face
> foreign money ring in their nose
> say that they cannot build a state
> they are incompetent
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, Rocco, Rocco, The Palestinians have an Israeli gun in their face and on the other hand they have a foreign money ring in their nose.
> 
> Then you repeatedly say that they cannot build a state because they are incompetent.
> 
> Where do you get that crap?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis.  The two parties made different choices.  The outcome of the nation that each party has established over the last half century is the practical and tangible evidence and answer to:  "Where do you get that crap."
> 
> This is a case where the parties could have a benevolent relationship, or --- a belligerent relationship.  The extent to which "gun in their face" was an issue --- is based on the threat posed by the Arab Palestinian to the Israelis.  The Palestinians have not made any effort to conceal the fact that they are in a jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis.
> 
> The extent to which "foreign money ring in their nose" is an issue --- is based on the Arab Palestinian acceptance.  This money is not forced upon them at gun-point.  The Arab Palestinian can turn-down the money at any time.
> 
> Periodically --- Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas  threatens Israel with disbanding his government or some portion of it.   Palestinians living under Israeli rule are increasingly questioning whether the PA is truly looking out for their interests.   What is different this time around is the threat to discontinue security coordination.  There is no question that there is an increasingly unpopular attitude, as many Arab Palestinians feel the arrangement assists the Israeli military in control over the occupied territory.
> 
> The fact that the Palestinians, after a quarter century, still don't have full recognition of the state, is a epitaph to its competence.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well no they didn't. By the 1940's the Palestinian attempt at independance, begun in 1936 had been all but brutally suppressed by the Mandatory power charged with facilitating that independence with the aid of Zionist Jewish militias and death squads. The Palestinian leadership was either dead, in prison or in exile and Palestinian civil society/institutions in ruins. Meanwhile the Zionists had greatly strengthened their position, gaining training and experience from the British. By the time the British abandoned the Mandate, the Zionists in Palestine were the strongest military force in the region and more than ready to take over. The threat had always come from the Zionist Jewish colonists; the Palestinians merely tried to defend themselves as best they could.  Characterising this as a "jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis". Is pandering to Zionist propagandist/Hasbarist historiography. There was never any possibility of a "benevolent relationship" with Zionism, whose aim from the outset was ethnic cleansing of the native population in favour of European Jewish colonisation.
Click to expand...

Do you have any links to back this bullshit propaganda up?


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well, we may disagree on our interpretations, but I never start with the intent to deceive anyone about anything (lie).
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis.​
> Rocco, you always start with a lie them form your conclusion based on false premise.
> 
> Palestine was born under British occupation. Britain (a long time colonialists and world superpower) landed in Palestine in full military gear and the Balfour Declaration in its pocket. Britain kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the foreign Zionist agenda. Meanwhile the Zionists were importing foreign settlers by the boatload with the stated goal of creating a Jewish state in Palestine.
> 
> The Palestinians have been defending themselves from that aggression until today.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The concept of Palestine was established at the San Remo Conference --- decided on 24 April 1920 --- to assign the Mandate [for Palestine] to Great Britain; within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers.  Palestine, as defined by the Allied Powers, was not an "occupation;" but a civil administration of a "peoples not yet able to stand by themselves."
> 
> The Mandate differs significantly from an Occupation.  In a "Mandate", the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory's Civil authority and is explicitly defined in each case by the Council.   In an "Occupation" the territory is placed under the authority of the dominate military governorship _(in terms of the Article 42 of the Hague Convention --- a "hostile Army")_ and extends only to the territory where such military authority has been established and can be exercised.  In the case of Palestine, _(within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers)_ on July 1st, 1920, by order of His Majesty's Government a "Civil Administration" was established.  Note, this is two years before the Mandate for Palestine was even written.
> 
> Between October 1914 and October 1918 --- British Expeditionary Forces _(British Third Army)_ engaged the elements of the Ottoman Fourth Army, which ultimately lead to the military defeat of Ottoman Forces in the Region and all threats to British defenses on the Suez Canal (February 1915).  British Expeditionary Forces did not engage the Ottoman Fourth Army to implement the Balfour Declaration; but to advance the southern forward edge of battle from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean and protect the Suez Canal.  The decision to implement the Balfour Declaration had not yet been adopted by the Allied Powers, nor had the League of Nations Covenant been published.
> 
> Now it is true, that between September 1920 and May 1921, about 10,000 Jewish immigrants arrived _(8084 came under the auspices of the Zionist Organization and 1815 came independently)_.  But this is hardly the "boatload with the stated goal of creating a Jewish state" you allege.   However, it was pursuant to the intent of the Allied Powers "to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, we may disagree on our interpretations,..​
> Indeed, because you can't get your face out of Israeli propaganda.
> 
> For Britain when it changed from an occupation to a civil administration it was merely a name change. It kept its military there and in fact increased troop strength in the '30s to better trample on the Palestinian's inalienable rights.
Click to expand...

Trampling on Palestinian rights.


----------



## toastman

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK --- the claim is:
> 
> gun in their face
> foreign money ring in their nose
> say that they cannot build a state
> they are incompetent
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, Rocco, Rocco, The Palestinians have an Israeli gun in their face and on the other hand they have a foreign money ring in their nose.
> 
> Then you repeatedly say that they cannot build a state because they are incompetent.
> 
> Where do you get that crap?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis.  The two parties made different choices.  The outcome of the nation that each party has established over the last half century is the practical and tangible evidence and answer to:  "Where do you get that crap."
> 
> This is a case where the parties could have a benevolent relationship, or --- a belligerent relationship.  The extent to which "gun in their face" was an issue --- is based on the threat posed by the Arab Palestinian to the Israelis.  The Palestinians have not made any effort to conceal the fact that they are in a jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis.
> 
> The extent to which "foreign money ring in their nose" is an issue --- is based on the Arab Palestinian acceptance.  This money is not forced upon them at gun-point.  The Arab Palestinian can turn-down the money at any time.
> 
> Periodically --- Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas  threatens Israel with disbanding his government or some portion of it.   Palestinians living under Israeli rule are increasingly questioning whether the PA is truly looking out for their interests.   What is different this time around is the threat to discontinue security coordination.  There is no question that there is an increasingly unpopular attitude, as many Arab Palestinians feel the arrangement assists the Israeli military in control over the occupied territory.
> 
> The fact that the Palestinians, after a quarter century, still don't have full recognition of the state, is a epitaph to its competence.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well no they didn't. By the 1940's the Palestinian attempt at independance, begun in 1936 had been all but brutally suppressed by the Mandatory power charged with facilitating that independence with the aid of Zionist Jewish militias and death squads. The Palestinian leadership was either dead, in prison or in exile and Palestinian civil society/institutions in ruins. Meanwhile the Zionists had greatly strengthened their position, gaining training and experience from the British. By the time the British abandoned the Mandate, the Zionists in Palestine were the strongest military force in the region and more than ready to take over. The threat had always come from the Zionist Jewish colonists; the Palestinians merely tried to defend themselves as best they could.  Characterising this as a "jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis". Is pandering to Zionist propagandist/Hasbarist historiography. There was never any possibility of a "benevolent relationship" with Zionism, whose aim from the outset was ethnic cleansing of the native population in favour of European Jewish colonisation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1936 39 Arab revolt in Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting thag link. If you read it, you will see that the revolt was started by the Palestinians. In fact, ALL the violence was started by the Arabs.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well, we may disagree on our interpretations, but I never start with the intent to deceive anyone about anything (lie).
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis.​
> Rocco, you always start with a lie them form your conclusion based on false premise.
> 
> Palestine was born under British occupation. Britain (a long time colonialists and world superpower) landed in Palestine in full military gear and the Balfour Declaration in its pocket. Britain kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the foreign Zionist agenda. Meanwhile the Zionists were importing foreign settlers by the boatload with the stated goal of creating a Jewish state in Palestine.
> 
> The Palestinians have been defending themselves from that aggression until today.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The concept of Palestine was established at the San Remo Conference --- decided on 24 April 1920 --- to assign the Mandate [for Palestine] to Great Britain; within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers.  Palestine, as defined by the Allied Powers, was not an "occupation;" but a civil administration of a "peoples not yet able to stand by themselves."
> 
> The Mandate differs significantly from an Occupation.  In a "Mandate", the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory's Civil authority and is explicitly defined in each case by the Council.   In an "Occupation" the territory is placed under the authority of the dominate military governorship _(in terms of the Article 42 of the Hague Convention --- a "hostile Army")_ and extends only to the territory where such military authority has been established and can be exercised.  In the case of Palestine, _(within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers)_ on July 1st, 1920, by order of His Majesty's Government a "Civil Administration" was established.  Note, this is two years before the Mandate for Palestine was even written.
> 
> Between October 1914 and October 1918 --- British Expeditionary Forces _(British Third Army)_ engaged the elements of the Ottoman Fourth Army, which ultimately lead to the military defeat of Ottoman Forces in the Region and all threats to British defenses on the Suez Canal (February 1915).  British Expeditionary Forces did not engage the Ottoman Fourth Army to implement the Balfour Declaration; but to advance the southern forward edge of battle from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean and protect the Suez Canal.  The decision to implement the Balfour Declaration had not yet been adopted by the Allied Powers, nor had the League of Nations Covenant been published.
> 
> Now it is true, that between September 1920 and May 1921, about 10,000 Jewish immigrants arrived _(8084 came under the auspices of the Zionist Organization and 1815 came independently)_.  But this is hardly the "boatload with the stated goal of creating a Jewish state" you allege.   However, it was pursuant to the intent of the Allied Powers "to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, we may disagree on our interpretations,..​
> Indeed, because you can't get your face out of Israeli propaganda.
> 
> For Britain when it changed from an occupation to a civil administration it was merely a name change. It kept its military there and in fact increased troop strength in the '30s to better trample on the Palestinian's inalienable rights.
Click to expand...


Funny, because I havr never seen you refute Rocco's posts. All you do is call his posts propaganda, while you post Palestinian propaganda, yet you cannot refute a thing that he says.
Like most pro Palestinians, you cannot handle the truth.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well, we may disagree on our interpretations, but I never start with the intent to deceive anyone about anything (lie).
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis.​
> Rocco, you always start with a lie them form your conclusion based on false premise.
> 
> Palestine was born under British occupation. Britain (a long time colonialists and world superpower) landed in Palestine in full military gear and the Balfour Declaration in its pocket. Britain kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the foreign Zionist agenda. Meanwhile the Zionists were importing foreign settlers by the boatload with the stated goal of creating a Jewish state in Palestine.
> 
> The Palestinians have been defending themselves from that aggression until today.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The concept of Palestine was established at the San Remo Conference --- decided on 24 April 1920 --- to assign the Mandate [for Palestine] to Great Britain; within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers.  Palestine, as defined by the Allied Powers, was not an "occupation;" but a civil administration of a "peoples not yet able to stand by themselves."
> 
> The Mandate differs significantly from an Occupation.  In a "Mandate", the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory's Civil authority and is explicitly defined in each case by the Council.   In an "Occupation" the territory is placed under the authority of the dominate military governorship _(in terms of the Article 42 of the Hague Convention --- a "hostile Army")_ and extends only to the territory where such military authority has been established and can be exercised.  In the case of Palestine, _(within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers)_ on July 1st, 1920, by order of His Majesty's Government a "Civil Administration" was established.  Note, this is two years before the Mandate for Palestine was even written.
> 
> Between October 1914 and October 1918 --- British Expeditionary Forces _(British Third Army)_ engaged the elements of the Ottoman Fourth Army, which ultimately lead to the military defeat of Ottoman Forces in the Region and all threats to British defenses on the Suez Canal (February 1915).  British Expeditionary Forces did not engage the Ottoman Fourth Army to implement the Balfour Declaration; but to advance the southern forward edge of battle from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean and protect the Suez Canal.  The decision to implement the Balfour Declaration had not yet been adopted by the Allied Powers, nor had the League of Nations Covenant been published.
> 
> Now it is true, that between September 1920 and May 1921, about 10,000 Jewish immigrants arrived _(8084 came under the auspices of the Zionist Organization and 1815 came independently)_.  But this is hardly the "boatload with the stated goal of creating a Jewish state" you allege.   However, it was pursuant to the intent of the Allied Powers "to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, we may disagree on our interpretations,..​
> Indeed, because you can't get your face out of Israeli propaganda.
> 
> For Britain when it changed from an occupation to a civil administration it was merely a name change. It kept its military there and in fact increased troop strength in the '30s to better trample on the Palestinian's inalienable rights.
Click to expand...

Can you provide some evidence on Britain trampling on their rights?


----------



## Challenger

toastman said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK --- the claim is:
> 
> gun in their face
> foreign money ring in their nose
> say that they cannot build a state
> they are incompetent
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, Rocco, Rocco, The Palestinians have an Israeli gun in their face and on the other hand they have a foreign money ring in their nose.
> 
> Then you repeatedly say that they cannot build a state because they are incompetent.
> 
> Where do you get that crap?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis.  The two parties made different choices.  The outcome of the nation that each party has established over the last half century is the practical and tangible evidence and answer to:  "Where do you get that crap."
> 
> This is a case where the parties could have a benevolent relationship, or --- a belligerent relationship.  The extent to which "gun in their face" was an issue --- is based on the threat posed by the Arab Palestinian to the Israelis.  The Palestinians have not made any effort to conceal the fact that they are in a jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis.
> 
> The extent to which "foreign money ring in their nose" is an issue --- is based on the Arab Palestinian acceptance.  This money is not forced upon them at gun-point.  The Arab Palestinian can turn-down the money at any time.
> 
> Periodically --- Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas  threatens Israel with disbanding his government or some portion of it.   Palestinians living under Israeli rule are increasingly questioning whether the PA is truly looking out for their interests.   What is different this time around is the threat to discontinue security coordination.  There is no question that there is an increasingly unpopular attitude, as many Arab Palestinians feel the arrangement assists the Israeli military in control over the occupied territory.
> 
> The fact that the Palestinians, after a quarter century, still don't have full recognition of the state, is a epitaph to its competence.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well no they didn't. By the 1940's the Palestinian attempt at independance, begun in 1936 had been all but brutally suppressed by the Mandatory power charged with facilitating that independence with the aid of Zionist Jewish militias and death squads. The Palestinian leadership was either dead, in prison or in exile and Palestinian civil society/institutions in ruins. Meanwhile the Zionists had greatly strengthened their position, gaining training and experience from the British. By the time the British abandoned the Mandate, the Zionists in Palestine were the strongest military force in the region and more than ready to take over. The threat had always come from the Zionist Jewish colonists; the Palestinians merely tried to defend themselves as best they could.  Characterising this as a "jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis". Is pandering to Zionist propagandist/Hasbarist historiography. There was never any possibility of a "benevolent relationship" with Zionism, whose aim from the outset was ethnic cleansing of the native population in favour of European Jewish colonisation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1936 39 Arab revolt in Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for posting thag link. If you read it, you will see that the revolt was started by the Palestinians. ...
Click to expand...

Wow, no shit Sherlock, That's why it was called the "ARAB revolt in Palestine". Oh, BTW, go argue with Phoney, HE claims "Palestinians" were what Arabs called Jewish people at the time.


----------



## toastman

Challenger said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK --- the claim is:
> 
> gun in their face
> foreign money ring in their nose
> say that they cannot build a state
> they are incompetent
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis.  The two parties made different choices.  The outcome of the nation that each party has established over the last half century is the practical and tangible evidence and answer to:  "Where do you get that crap."
> 
> This is a case where the parties could have a benevolent relationship, or --- a belligerent relationship.  The extent to which "gun in their face" was an issue --- is based on the threat posed by the Arab Palestinian to the Israelis.  The Palestinians have not made any effort to conceal the fact that they are in a jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis.
> 
> The extent to which "foreign money ring in their nose" is an issue --- is based on the Arab Palestinian acceptance.  This money is not forced upon them at gun-point.  The Arab Palestinian can turn-down the money at any time.
> 
> Periodically --- Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas  threatens Israel with disbanding his government or some portion of it.   Palestinians living under Israeli rule are increasingly questioning whether the PA is truly looking out for their interests.   What is different this time around is the threat to discontinue security coordination.  There is no question that there is an increasingly unpopular attitude, as many Arab Palestinians feel the arrangement assists the Israeli military in control over the occupied territory.
> 
> The fact that the Palestinians, after a quarter century, still don't have full recognition of the state, is a epitaph to its competence.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no they didn't. By the 1940's the Palestinian attempt at independance, begun in 1936 had been all but brutally suppressed by the Mandatory power charged with facilitating that independence with the aid of Zionist Jewish militias and death squads. The Palestinian leadership was either dead, in prison or in exile and Palestinian civil society/institutions in ruins. Meanwhile the Zionists had greatly strengthened their position, gaining training and experience from the British. By the time the British abandoned the Mandate, the Zionists in Palestine were the strongest military force in the region and more than ready to take over. The threat had always come from the Zionist Jewish colonists; the Palestinians merely tried to defend themselves as best they could.  Characterising this as a "jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis". Is pandering to Zionist propagandist/Hasbarist historiography. There was never any possibility of a "benevolent relationship" with Zionism, whose aim from the outset was ethnic cleansing of the native population in favour of European Jewish colonisation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1936 39 Arab revolt in Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for posting thag link. If you read it, you will see that the revolt was started by the Palestinians. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, no shit Sherlock, That's why it was called the "ARAB revolt in Palestine". Oh, BTW, go argue with Phoney, HE claims "Palestinians" were what Arabs called Jewish people at the time.
Click to expand...

And it was that revolt that started causing them problems. I've read the link you posted before.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK --- the claim is:
> 
> gun in their face
> foreign money ring in their nose
> say that they cannot build a state
> they are incompetent
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, Rocco, Rocco, The Palestinians have an Israeli gun in their face and on the other hand they have a foreign money ring in their nose.
> 
> Then you repeatedly say that they cannot build a state because they are incompetent.
> 
> Where do you get that crap?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis.  The two parties made different choices.  The outcome of the nation that each party has established over the last half century is the practical and tangible evidence and answer to:  "Where do you get that crap."
> 
> This is a case where the parties could have a benevolent relationship, or --- a belligerent relationship.  The extent to which "gun in their face" was an issue --- is based on the threat posed by the Arab Palestinian to the Israelis.  The Palestinians have not made any effort to conceal the fact that they are in a jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis.
> 
> The extent to which "foreign money ring in their nose" is an issue --- is based on the Arab Palestinian acceptance.  This money is not forced upon them at gun-point.  The Arab Palestinian can turn-down the money at any time.
> 
> Periodically --- Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas  threatens Israel with disbanding his government or some portion of it.   Palestinians living under Israeli rule are increasingly questioning whether the PA is truly looking out for their interests.   What is different this time around is the threat to discontinue security coordination.  There is no question that there is an increasingly unpopular attitude, as many Arab Palestinians feel the arrangement assists the Israeli military in control over the occupied territory.
> 
> The fact that the Palestinians, after a quarter century, still don't have full recognition of the state, is a epitaph to its competence.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well no they didn't. By the 1940's the Palestinian attempt at independance, begun in 1936 had been all but brutally suppressed by the Mandatory power charged with facilitating that independence with the aid of Zionist Jewish militias and death squads. The Palestinian leadership was either dead, in prison or in exile and Palestinian civil society/institutions in ruins. Meanwhile the Zionists had greatly strengthened their position, gaining training and experience from the British. By the time the British abandoned the Mandate, the Zionists in Palestine were the strongest military force in the region and more than ready to take over. The threat had always come from the Zionist Jewish colonists; the Palestinians merely tried to defend themselves as best they could.  Characterising this as a "jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis". Is pandering to Zionist propagandist/Hasbarist historiography. There was never any possibility of a "benevolent relationship" with Zionism, whose aim from the outset was ethnic cleansing of the native population in favour of European Jewish colonisation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1936 39 Arab revolt in Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


----------



## Phoenall

So what about the 1929 massacres of Jews, the civil uprising of 1931 and all the other arab nationalist violent protests ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well, we may disagree on our interpretations, but I never start with the intent to deceive anyone about anything (lie).
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis.​
> Rocco, you always start with a lie them form your conclusion based on false premise.
> 
> Palestine was born under British occupation. Britain (a long time colonialists and world superpower) landed in Palestine in full military gear and the Balfour Declaration in its pocket. Britain kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the foreign Zionist agenda. Meanwhile the Zionists were importing foreign settlers by the boatload with the stated goal of creating a Jewish state in Palestine.
> 
> The Palestinians have been defending themselves from that aggression until today.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The concept of Palestine was established at the San Remo Conference --- decided on 24 April 1920 --- to assign the Mandate [for Palestine] to Great Britain; within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers.  Palestine, as defined by the Allied Powers, was not an "occupation;" but a civil administration of a "peoples not yet able to stand by themselves."
> 
> The Mandate differs significantly from an Occupation.  In a "Mandate", the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory's Civil authority and is explicitly defined in each case by the Council.   In an "Occupation" the territory is placed under the authority of the dominate military governorship _(in terms of the Article 42 of the Hague Convention --- a "hostile Army")_ and extends only to the territory where such military authority has been established and can be exercised.  In the case of Palestine, _(within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers)_ on July 1st, 1920, by order of His Majesty's Government a "Civil Administration" was established.  Note, this is two years before the Mandate for Palestine was even written.
> 
> Between October 1914 and October 1918 --- British Expeditionary Forces _(British Third Army)_ engaged the elements of the Ottoman Fourth Army, which ultimately lead to the military defeat of Ottoman Forces in the Region and all threats to British defenses on the Suez Canal (February 1915).  British Expeditionary Forces did not engage the Ottoman Fourth Army to implement the Balfour Declaration; but to advance the southern forward edge of battle from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean and protect the Suez Canal.  The decision to implement the Balfour Declaration had not yet been adopted by the Allied Powers, nor had the League of Nations Covenant been published.
> 
> Now it is true, that between September 1920 and May 1921, about 10,000 Jewish immigrants arrived _(8084 came under the auspices of the Zionist Organization and 1815 came independently)_.  But this is hardly the "boatload with the stated goal of creating a Jewish state" you allege.   However, it was pursuant to the intent of the Allied Powers "to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, we may disagree on our interpretations,..​
> Indeed, because you can't get your face out of Israeli propaganda.
> 
> For Britain when it changed from an occupation to a civil administration it was merely a name change. It kept its military there and in fact increased troop strength in the '30s to better trample on the Palestinian's inalienable rights.
Click to expand...





 Would that be the Jewish Palestinians as they were the only ones known by that name at that time


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK --- the claim is:
> 
> gun in their face
> foreign money ring in their nose
> say that they cannot build a state
> they are incompetent
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis.  The two parties made different choices.  The outcome of the nation that each party has established over the last half century is the practical and tangible evidence and answer to:  "Where do you get that crap."
> 
> This is a case where the parties could have a benevolent relationship, or --- a belligerent relationship.  The extent to which "gun in their face" was an issue --- is based on the threat posed by the Arab Palestinian to the Israelis.  The Palestinians have not made any effort to conceal the fact that they are in a jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis.
> 
> The extent to which "foreign money ring in their nose" is an issue --- is based on the Arab Palestinian acceptance.  This money is not forced upon them at gun-point.  The Arab Palestinian can turn-down the money at any time.
> 
> Periodically --- Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas  threatens Israel with disbanding his government or some portion of it.   Palestinians living under Israeli rule are increasingly questioning whether the PA is truly looking out for their interests.   What is different this time around is the threat to discontinue security coordination.  There is no question that there is an increasingly unpopular attitude, as many Arab Palestinians feel the arrangement assists the Israeli military in control over the occupied territory.
> 
> The fact that the Palestinians, after a quarter century, still don't have full recognition of the state, is a epitaph to its competence.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no they didn't. By the 1940's the Palestinian attempt at independance, begun in 1936 had been all but brutally suppressed by the Mandatory power charged with facilitating that independence with the aid of Zionist Jewish militias and death squads. The Palestinian leadership was either dead, in prison or in exile and Palestinian civil society/institutions in ruins. Meanwhile the Zionists had greatly strengthened their position, gaining training and experience from the British. By the time the British abandoned the Mandate, the Zionists in Palestine were the strongest military force in the region and more than ready to take over. The threat had always come from the Zionist Jewish colonists; the Palestinians merely tried to defend themselves as best they could.  Characterising this as a "jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis". Is pandering to Zionist propagandist/Hasbarist historiography. There was never any possibility of a "benevolent relationship" with Zionism, whose aim from the outset was ethnic cleansing of the native population in favour of European Jewish colonisation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1936 39 Arab revolt in Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for posting thag link. If you read it, you will see that the revolt was started by the Palestinians. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, no shit Sherlock, That's why it was called the "ARAB revolt in Palestine". Oh, BTW, go argue with Phoney, HE claims "Palestinians" were what Arabs called Jewish people at the time.
Click to expand...





 And you have as yet not been able to prove otherwise, so you resort to abuse and flaming


----------



## aris2chat

Hossfly said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Speaking if attacking, it was the Arabs who were attacking Jewish civilians bexore 1948 and before any Arab was attacked.
> But you're deflecting. Palestinians are still the biggest moochers/cry babies of the world.
> Not my fault you can't handle the truth.
> Speaking of mooching, where does Hamas get their rockets/ weapons from? Or the money for them?
> 
> 
> 
> Do they get $3B a year like the mooch capital of the world gets?
> 
> And besides, Palestine gets no military aid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine IS the mooch capital of the world. They get their weapons from Iran and Lebanon. Not to mention they get TONS of aid from many different countries/organizations around the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel gets their weapons from Germany, France and the US, China, and India.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All paid for of course, so why did you miss that little part out ?   Unlike the Palestinian arab muslims who beg from iran all the weapons they can get their hands on so they can target Israeli children
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just so they can add to the body count.
> 
> 
> *Fatah Doubles Body Count of Terror Massacre in Lauding Attack*
> Fatah fudges number of Israelis murdered from 37 to 80 in Mughrabi attack, holds ceremony at square named for her in Ramallah.
> Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on printMore Sharing Services22
> 
> 
> By Ari Yashar
> 
> First Publish: 3/11/2015, 9:14 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalal Mughrabi hero worship in Ramallah (file)
> Issam Rimawi/Flash 90
> 
> 
> Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah faction took the unusual step on Tuesday of more than doubling the number of Israelismurdered in a brutal terrorist attack from 1978, while glorifying the massacre on its anniversary.
> 
> _Palestinian Media Watch_ (PMW) revealed that Fatah praised the March 1978 attack, which was committed by a group of Fatah terrorists from Lebanon led by Dalal Mughrabi.
> 
> The terrorists hijacked a bus on Israel's coastal highway, and when confronted by the IDF they slaughtered 37 civilians, 12 of them children, wounding another 70 before being neutralized. The attack is known as the Coastal Road massacre in Israel.
> 
> But in praising the attack, Fatah on Tuesday inflated the numbers, writing on Facebook "a huge self-sacrificing operation in Herzliya, Tel Aviv. 80 Israelis killed and over 100 wounded
> 
> 
> 
> Fatah Doubles Body Count of Terror Massacre - Middle East - News - Arutz Sheva
Click to expand...


They always have

I remember the stories of Mughrabi.  One women in the bus tried to throw her infant out of the bus to save it, Mughrabi threw it in the fire and laughed when the skull popped from the heat.


----------



## MJB12741

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well, we may disagree on our interpretations, but I never start with the intent to deceive anyone about anything (lie).
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis.​
> Rocco, you always start with a lie them form your conclusion based on false premise.
> 
> Palestine was born under British occupation. Britain (a long time colonialists and world superpower) landed in Palestine in full military gear and the Balfour Declaration in its pocket. Britain kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the foreign Zionist agenda. Meanwhile the Zionists were importing foreign settlers by the boatload with the stated goal of creating a Jewish state in Palestine.
> 
> The Palestinians have been defending themselves from that aggression until today.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The concept of Palestine was established at the San Remo Conference --- decided on 24 April 1920 --- to assign the Mandate [for Palestine] to Great Britain; within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers.  Palestine, as defined by the Allied Powers, was not an "occupation;" but a civil administration of a "peoples not yet able to stand by themselves."
> 
> The Mandate differs significantly from an Occupation.  In a "Mandate", the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory's Civil authority and is explicitly defined in each case by the Council.   In an "Occupation" the territory is placed under the authority of the dominate military governorship _(in terms of the Article 42 of the Hague Convention --- a "hostile Army")_ and extends only to the territory where such military authority has been established and can be exercised.  In the case of Palestine, _(within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers)_ on July 1st, 1920, by order of His Majesty's Government a "Civil Administration" was established.  Note, this is two years before the Mandate for Palestine was even written.
> 
> Between October 1914 and October 1918 --- British Expeditionary Forces _(British Third Army)_ engaged the elements of the Ottoman Fourth Army, which ultimately lead to the military defeat of Ottoman Forces in the Region and all threats to British defenses on the Suez Canal (February 1915).  British Expeditionary Forces did not engage the Ottoman Fourth Army to implement the Balfour Declaration; but to advance the southern forward edge of battle from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean and protect the Suez Canal.  The decision to implement the Balfour Declaration had not yet been adopted by the Allied Powers, nor had the League of Nations Covenant been published.
> 
> Now it is true, that between September 1920 and May 1921, about 10,000 Jewish immigrants arrived _(8084 came under the auspices of the Zionist Organization and 1815 came independently)_.  But this is hardly the "boatload with the stated goal of creating a Jewish state" you allege.   However, it was pursuant to the intent of the Allied Powers "to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, we may disagree on our interpretations,..​
> Indeed, because you can't get your face out of Israeli propaganda.
> 
> For Britain when it changed from an occupation to a civil administration it was merely a name change. It kept its military there and in fact increased troop strength in the '30s to better trample on the Palestinian's inalienable rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would that be the Jewish Palestinians as they were the only ones known by that name at that time
Click to expand...


So true.  Not a single Muslim Palestinian among the indigenous Palestinians.  Want peace?  Israel must find some way to convince the surrounding Arab countries to grant their Palestinian squatters a right of return back to their native homelands.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Palestinian Village Histories: Geographies of the Displaced *

**


----------



## theliq

MJB12741 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well, we may disagree on our interpretations, but I never start with the intent to deceive anyone about anything (lie).
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis.​
> Rocco, you always start with a lie them form your conclusion based on false premise.
> 
> Palestine was born under British occupation. Britain (a long time colonialists and world superpower) landed in Palestine in full military gear and the Balfour Declaration in its pocket. Britain kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the foreign Zionist agenda. Meanwhile the Zionists were importing foreign settlers by the boatload with the stated goal of creating a Jewish state in Palestine.
> 
> The Palestinians have been defending themselves from that aggression until today.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The concept of Palestine was established at the San Remo Conference --- decided on 24 April 1920 --- to assign the Mandate [for Palestine] to Great Britain; within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers.  Palestine, as defined by the Allied Powers, was not an "occupation;" but a civil administration of a "peoples not yet able to stand by themselves."
> 
> The Mandate differs significantly from an Occupation.  In a "Mandate", the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory's Civil authority and is explicitly defined in each case by the Council.   In an "Occupation" the territory is placed under the authority of the dominate military governorship _(in terms of the Article 42 of the Hague Convention --- a "hostile Army")_ and extends only to the territory where such military authority has been established and can be exercised.  In the case of Palestine, _(within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers)_ on July 1st, 1920, by order of His Majesty's Government a "Civil Administration" was established.  Note, this is two years before the Mandate for Palestine was even written.
> 
> Between October 1914 and October 1918 --- British Expeditionary Forces _(British Third Army)_ engaged the elements of the Ottoman Fourth Army, which ultimately lead to the military defeat of Ottoman Forces in the Region and all threats to British defenses on the Suez Canal (February 1915).  British Expeditionary Forces did not engage the Ottoman Fourth Army to implement the Balfour Declaration; but to advance the southern forward edge of battle from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean and protect the Suez Canal.  The decision to implement the Balfour Declaration had not yet been adopted by the Allied Powers, nor had the League of Nations Covenant been published.
> 
> Now it is true, that between September 1920 and May 1921, about 10,000 Jewish immigrants arrived _(8084 came under the auspices of the Zionist Organization and 1815 came independently)_.  But this is hardly the "boatload with the stated goal of creating a Jewish state" you allege.   However, it was pursuant to the intent of the Allied Powers "to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, we may disagree on our interpretations,..​
> Indeed, because you can't get your face out of Israeli propaganda.
> 
> For Britain when it changed from an occupation to a civil administration it was merely a name change. It kept its military there and in fact increased troop strength in the '30s to better trample on the Palestinian's inalienable rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would that be the Jewish Palestinians as they were the only ones known by that name at that time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So true.  Not a single Muslim Palestinian among the indigenous Palestinians.  Want peace?  Israel must find some way to convince the surrounding Arab countries to grant their Palestinian squatters a right of return back to their native homelands.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!
Click to expand...

First you have Stated before on this site,THERE WERE NO PALESTINIANS IN WHAT IS NOW ISRAEL(MORONIC I KNOW)........


----------



## theliq

theliq said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well, we may disagree on our interpretations, but I never start with the intent to deceive anyone about anything (lie).
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis.​
> Rocco, you always start with a lie them form your conclusion based on false premise.
> 
> Palestine was born under British occupation. Britain (a long time colonialists and world superpower) landed in Palestine in full military gear and the Balfour Declaration in its pocket. Britain kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the foreign Zionist agenda. Meanwhile the Zionists were importing foreign settlers by the boatload with the stated goal of creating a Jewish state in Palestine.
> 
> The Palestinians have been defending themselves from that aggression until today.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The concept of Palestine was established at the San Remo Conference --- decided on 24 April 1920 --- to assign the Mandate [for Palestine] to Great Britain; within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers.  Palestine, as defined by the Allied Powers, was not an "occupation;" but a civil administration of a "peoples not yet able to stand by themselves."
> 
> The Mandate differs significantly from an Occupation.  In a "Mandate", the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory's Civil authority and is explicitly defined in each case by the Council.   In an "Occupation" the territory is placed under the authority of the dominate military governorship _(in terms of the Article 42 of the Hague Convention --- a "hostile Army")_ and extends only to the territory where such military authority has been established and can be exercised.  In the case of Palestine, _(within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers)_ on July 1st, 1920, by order of His Majesty's Government a "Civil Administration" was established.  Note, this is two years before the Mandate for Palestine was even written.
> 
> Between October 1914 and October 1918 --- British Expeditionary Forces _(British Third Army)_ engaged the elements of the Ottoman Fourth Army, which ultimately lead to the military defeat of Ottoman Forces in the Region and all threats to British defenses on the Suez Canal (February 1915).  British Expeditionary Forces did not engage the Ottoman Fourth Army to implement the Balfour Declaration; but to advance the southern forward edge of battle from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean and protect the Suez Canal.  The decision to implement the Balfour Declaration had not yet been adopted by the Allied Powers, nor had the League of Nations Covenant been published.
> 
> Now it is true, that between September 1920 and May 1921, about 10,000 Jewish immigrants arrived _(8084 came under the auspices of the Zionist Organization and 1815 came independently)_.  But this is hardly the "boatload with the stated goal of creating a Jewish state" you allege.   However, it was pursuant to the intent of the Allied Powers "to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, we may disagree on our interpretations,..​
> Indeed, because you can't get your face out of Israeli propaganda.
> 
> For Britain when it changed from an occupation to a civil administration it was merely a name change. It kept its military there and in fact increased troop strength in the '30s to better trample on the Palestinian's inalienable rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would that be the Jewish Palestinians as they were the only ones known by that name at that time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So true.  Not a single Muslim Palestinian among the indigenous Palestinians.  Want peace?  Israel must find some way to convince the surrounding Arab countries to grant their Palestinian squatters a right of return back to their native homelands.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First you have Stated before on this site,THERE WERE NO PALESTINIANS IN WHAT IS NOW ISRAEL(MORONIC I KNOW)........
Click to expand...

Then you say.....return to their, the Palestinian NATIVE HOMELANDS.................You represent all that is wrong in Message Boards like these.

Just NOT GOOD ENOUGH........H.I.M  theliq


----------



## theliq

theliq said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well, we may disagree on our interpretations, but I never start with the intent to deceive anyone about anything (lie).
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The concept of Palestine was established at the San Remo Conference --- decided on 24 April 1920 --- to assign the Mandate [for Palestine] to Great Britain; within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers.  Palestine, as defined by the Allied Powers, was not an "occupation;" but a civil administration of a "peoples not yet able to stand by themselves."
> 
> The Mandate differs significantly from an Occupation.  In a "Mandate", the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory's Civil authority and is explicitly defined in each case by the Council.   In an "Occupation" the territory is placed under the authority of the dominate military governorship _(in terms of the Article 42 of the Hague Convention --- a "hostile Army")_ and extends only to the territory where such military authority has been established and can be exercised.  In the case of Palestine, _(within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers)_ on July 1st, 1920, by order of His Majesty's Government a "Civil Administration" was established.  Note, this is two years before the Mandate for Palestine was even written.
> 
> Between October 1914 and October 1918 --- British Expeditionary Forces _(British Third Army)_ engaged the elements of the Ottoman Fourth Army, which ultimately lead to the military defeat of Ottoman Forces in the Region and all threats to British defenses on the Suez Canal (February 1915).  British Expeditionary Forces did not engage the Ottoman Fourth Army to implement the Balfour Declaration; but to advance the southern forward edge of battle from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean and protect the Suez Canal.  The decision to implement the Balfour Declaration had not yet been adopted by the Allied Powers, nor had the League of Nations Covenant been published.
> 
> Now it is true, that between September 1920 and May 1921, about 10,000 Jewish immigrants arrived _(8084 came under the auspices of the Zionist Organization and 1815 came independently)_.  But this is hardly the "boatload with the stated goal of creating a Jewish state" you allege.   However, it was pursuant to the intent of the Allied Powers "to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we may disagree on our interpretations,..​
> Indeed, because you can't get your face out of Israeli propaganda.
> 
> For Britain when it changed from an occupation to a civil administration it was merely a name change. It kept its military there and in fact increased troop strength in the '30s to better trample on the Palestinian's inalienable rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would that be the Jewish Palestinians as they were the only ones known by that name at that time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So true.  Not a single Muslim Palestinian among the indigenous Palestinians.  Want peace?  Israel must find some way to convince the surrounding Arab countries to grant their Palestinian squatters a right of return back to their native homelands.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First you have Stated before on this site,THERE WERE NO PALESTINIANS IN WHAT IS NOW ISRAEL(MORONIC I KNOW)........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you say.....return to their, the Palestinian NATIVE HOMELANDS.................You represent all that is wrong in Message Boards like these.
> 
> Just NOT GOOD ENOUGH........H.I.M  theliq
Click to expand...

As for my friend Hoss,agreeing with some of your comments,well you should stop plying Hoss with LIQ


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> So what about the 1929 massacres of Jews, the civil uprising of 1931 and all the other arab nationalist violent protests ?


Wouldn't have happened without the Zionist invasion.


----------



## Mindful

P F Tinmore said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was never a case in which the Arab Palestinian attempted to use their right of self-determination, in an internationally accepted way, and was denied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about their 1948 declaration of independence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you German Tinmore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good call.
> 
> My mother's father was born in Germany and came to the US as a teen after WWI.
> 
> My mother's mother was Pennsylvania Dutch.
> 
> My father's mother was English.
> 
> My father's father was Scotch.
Click to expand...



Scottish.

Scotch is the drink.


----------



## Mindful

Hi guys—

Hamas has a media campaign up.  They are taking questions via twitter with Hashtag #AskHamas .

I don’t tweet, but this is a good opportunity to ask them all sorts of questions they Don’t want to answer.  And of course, pass it ON!


Source: Hamas Social Media Campaign Backfires Hilariously Tablet Magazine


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> So what about the 1929 massacres of Jews, the civil uprising of 1931 and all the other arab nationalist violent protests ?



Kind of like complaining about the massacre of the English at Jamestown and the subsequent Indian attacks on European settlers.


----------



## Mindful

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what about the 1929 massacres of Jews, the civil uprising of 1931 and all the other arab nationalist violent protests ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of like complaining about the massacre of the English at Jamestown and the subsequent Indian attacks on European settlers.
Click to expand...


No it isn't like that atall.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Mindful said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was never a case in which the Arab Palestinian attempted to use their right of self-determination, in an internationally accepted way, and was denied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about their 1948 declaration of independence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you German Tinmore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good call.
> 
> My mother's father was born in Germany and came to the US as a teen after WWI.
> 
> My mother's mother was Pennsylvania Dutch.
> 
> My father's mother was English.
> 
> My father's father was Scotch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scottish.
> 
> Scotch is the drink.
Click to expand...

And a tape.

BTW, Thanks. I have never been there myself.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what about the 1929 massacres of Jews, the civil uprising of 1931 and all the other arab nationalist violent protests ?
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't have happened without the Zionist invasion.
Click to expand...




 What Zionist invasion would that be, how about a link showing there was a Zionist invasion and not a migration at the request of the land legal owners ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what about the 1929 massacres of Jews, the civil uprising of 1931 and all the other arab nationalist violent protests ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of like complaining about the massacre of the English at Jamestown and the subsequent Indian attacks on European settlers.
Click to expand...




 Not really as the British had not been getting massacred by the Indians for 1300 years as a direct result of some mentally deranged false prophet commanding them to kill them.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what about the 1929 massacres of Jews, the civil uprising of 1931 and all the other arab nationalist violent protests ?
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't have happened without the Zionist invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Zionist invasion would that be, how about a link showing there was a Zionist invasion and not a migration at the request of the land legal owners ?
Click to expand...

Who would those "legal" land owners be.

Neither the LoN  nor the Mandate claimed any land.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what about the 1929 massacres of Jews, the civil uprising of 1931 and all the other arab nationalist violent protests ?
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't have happened without the Zionist invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Zionist invasion would that be, how about a link showing there was a Zionist invasion and not a migration at the request of the land legal owners ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who would those "legal" land owners be.
> 
> Neither the LoN  nor the Mandate claimed any land.
Click to expand...





 Do you have a link to that, like the terms of surrender treaty signed by the Ottoman owners handing the land to the LoN


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what about the 1929 massacres of Jews, the civil uprising of 1931 and all the other arab nationalist violent protests ?
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't have happened without the Zionist invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Zionist invasion would that be, how about a link showing there was a Zionist invasion and not a migration at the request of the land legal owners ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who would those "legal" land owners be.
> 
> Neither the LoN  nor the Mandate claimed any land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link to that, like the terms of surrender treaty signed by the Ottoman owners handing the land to the LoN
Click to expand...

I can't prove a negative.

Do you have any claims of ownership, not just control, of any land?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what about the 1929 massacres of Jews, the civil uprising of 1931 and all the other arab nationalist violent protests ?
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't have happened without the Zionist invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Zionist invasion would that be, how about a link showing there was a Zionist invasion and not a migration at the request of the land legal owners ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who would those "legal" land owners be.
> 
> Neither the LoN  nor the Mandate claimed any land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link to that, like the terms of surrender treaty signed by the Ottoman owners handing the land to the LoN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't prove a negative.
> 
> Do you have any claims of ownership, not just control, of any land?
Click to expand...




 I gave you a lead to it in the form of the treaty of surrender that handed ownership of the land to the LoN. And it was not just land in the M.E. that was invaolved but also land in Africa and Europe


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't have happened without the Zionist invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Zionist invasion would that be, how about a link showing there was a Zionist invasion and not a migration at the request of the land legal owners ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who would those "legal" land owners be.
> 
> Neither the LoN  nor the Mandate claimed any land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link to that, like the terms of surrender treaty signed by the Ottoman owners handing the land to the LoN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't prove a negative.
> 
> Do you have any claims of ownership, not just control, of any land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you a lead to it in the form of the treaty of surrender that handed ownership of the land to the LoN. And it was not just land in the M.E. that was invaolved but also land in Africa and Europe
Click to expand...

Nice duck. You avoided my question.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Sovereignty and Independence --- the idea of self-determination, are all relatively new ideas over the last century; --- emerging within the last 100 years since the beginning of World War I.  And none of this has to do with "land ownership."  This topic is not about the title and deeds to the land ---  but the leadership of the population over the land.  

The character of every mandate differs according to the stage of the development of the people.   Article 22, of the League of Nations Covenant, stipulates the principle and *Key Test*:  wherein --- "independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. 

In the last century, the remaining Hostile Arab Palestinians have never demonstrated that they could meet this test; that they could ever stand alone.  Not in 1920s, not in the 1930s, not in the 1940s, not during Jordanian occupation, not during Israel security containment and not today as the State of Palestine within the territory occupied since 1967.  



P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what about the 1929 massacres of Jews, the civil uprising of 1931 and all the other arab nationalist violent protests ?
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't have happened without the Zionist invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Zionist invasion would that be, how about a link showing there was a Zionist invasion and not a migration at the request of the land legal owners ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who would those "legal" land owners be.
> 
> Neither the LoN  nor the Mandate claimed any land.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The entire concepts of the Arab Palestinian is based on the continuing struggle to removed Israeli Independence and sovereignty from anywhere in the region and replace it with some Arab Dominance; something more advanced --- beyond that of the demonstrated leadership of an Arab Palestinian Failed State _(having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government)_ exhibited in the last half century _(even before the time of Israeli occupation)_.  The Arab Palestinian, as represented today, is not capable of living in peace --- even with other Arabs.  The attempt to assassinate the Jordanian King in the 1970's --- when Jordan was attempting to help the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) --- is an example of the basic capacity for peace.  This was replicated in 2005 after the Israeli disengagement from Gaza.  In fact, the current coalition government behind the Palestinians is based on the mantra of liberating Palestine, as a national duty, from the river to the sea, and from north to south.  Whatever the impression that the HoAP may have given in terms of a two-state solution living side by side in peace, the actual agenda for the HoAP is the removal of Israeli sovereignty _(recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine)_.   Even if Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni come to the table with the long-term strategic goal leading to a two-state solution and an overall making an overall settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, it cannot gain any traction if the ultimate objective of the Unity Government (HAMAS+Fatah) is the dismantlement of Israeli sovereignty.

As long as the HoAP have, in any numbers, a body within the population that believes that Israel needs to be expunged from the Middle East, the shadow casts by this demonstrated threat remains and requires containment.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't have happened without the Zionist invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Zionist invasion would that be, how about a link showing there was a Zionist invasion and not a migration at the request of the land legal owners ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who would those "legal" land owners be.
> 
> Neither the LoN  nor the Mandate claimed any land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link to that, like the terms of surrender treaty signed by the Ottoman owners handing the land to the LoN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't prove a negative.
> 
> Do you have any claims of ownership, not just control, of any land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you a lead to it in the form of the treaty of surrender that handed ownership of the land to the LoN. And it was not just land in the M.E. that was invaolved but also land in Africa and Europe
Click to expand...




P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Zionist invasion would that be, how about a link showing there was a Zionist invasion and not a migration at the request of the land legal owners ?
> 
> 
> 
> Who would those "legal" land owners be.
> 
> Neither the LoN  nor the Mandate claimed any land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link to that, like the terms of surrender treaty signed by the Ottoman owners handing the land to the LoN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't prove a negative.
> 
> Do you have any claims of ownership, not just control, of any land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you a lead to it in the form of the treaty of surrender that handed ownership of the land to the LoN. And it was not just land in the M.E. that was invaolved but also land in Africa and Europe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice duck. You avoided my question.
Click to expand...




 How when I gave you the answer, not my fault you don't like the answer beause it shows you are wrong.


----------



## MJB12741

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Sovereignty and Independence --- the idea of self-determination, are all relatively new ideas over the last century; --- emerging within the last 100 years since the beginning of World War I.  And none of this has to do with "land ownership."  This topic is not about the title and deeds to the land ---  but the leadership of the population over the land.
> 
> The character of every mandate differs according to the stage of the development of the people.   Article 22, of the League of Nations Covenant, stipulates the principle and *Key Test*:  wherein --- "independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.
> 
> In the last century, the remaining Hostile Arab Palestinians have never demonstrated that they could meet this test; that they could ever stand alone.  Not in 1920s, not in the 1930s, not in the 1940s, not during Jordanian occupation, not during Israel security containment and not today as the State of Palestine within the territory occupied since 1967.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what about the 1929 massacres of Jews, the civil uprising of 1931 and all the other arab nationalist violent protests ?
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't have happened without the Zionist invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Zionist invasion would that be, how about a link showing there was a Zionist invasion and not a migration at the request of the land legal owners ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who would those "legal" land owners be.
> 
> Neither the LoN  nor the Mandate claimed any land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The entire concepts of the Arab Palestinian is based on the continuing struggle to removed Israeli Independence and sovereignty from anywhere in the region and replace it with some Arab Dominance; something more advanced --- beyond that of the demonstrated leadership of an Arab Palestinian Failed State _(having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government)_ exhibited in the last half century _(even before the time of Israeli occupation)_.  The Arab Palestinian, as represented today, is not capable of living in peace --- even with other Arabs.  The attempt to assassinate the Jordanian King in the 1970's --- when Jordan was attempting to help the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) --- is an example of the basic capacity for peace.  This was replicated in 2005 after the Israeli disengagement from Gaza.  In fact, the current coalition government behind the Palestinians is based on the mantra of liberating Palestine, as a national duty, from the river to the sea, and from north to south.  Whatever the impression that the HoAP may have given in terms of a two-state solution living side by side in peace, the actual agenda for the HoAP is the removal of Israeli sovereignty _(recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine)_.   Even if Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni come to the table with the long-term strategic goal leading to a two-state solution and an overall making an overall settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, it cannot gain any traction if the ultimate objective of the Unity Government (HAMAS+Fatah) is the dismantlement of Israeli sovereignty.
> 
> As long as the HoAP have, in any numbers, a body within the population that believes that Israel needs to be expunged from the Middle East, the shadow casts by this demonstrated threat remains and requires containment.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


I am all for a Palestinian State with self determination.  No longer would they have Israel to suck off of to support them.  The big question is where can this be when no surrounding Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homeland?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Sovereignty and Independence --- the idea of self-determination, are all relatively new ideas over the last century; --- emerging within the last 100 years since the beginning of World War I.  And none of this has to do with "land ownership."  This topic is not about the title and deeds to the land ---  but the leadership of the population over the land.
> 
> The character of every mandate differs according to the stage of the development of the people.   Article 22, of the League of Nations Covenant, stipulates the principle and *Key Test*:  wherein --- "independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.
> 
> In the last century, the remaining Hostile Arab Palestinians have never demonstrated that they could meet this test; that they could ever stand alone.  Not in 1920s, not in the 1930s, not in the 1940s, not during Jordanian occupation, not during Israel security containment and not today as the State of Palestine within the territory occupied since 1967.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what about the 1929 massacres of Jews, the civil uprising of 1931 and all the other arab nationalist violent protests ?
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't have happened without the Zionist invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Zionist invasion would that be, how about a link showing there was a Zionist invasion and not a migration at the request of the land legal owners ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who would those "legal" land owners be.
> 
> Neither the LoN  nor the Mandate claimed any land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The entire concepts of the Arab Palestinian is based on the continuing struggle to removed Israeli Independence and sovereignty from anywhere in the region and replace it with some Arab Dominance; something more advanced --- beyond that of the demonstrated leadership of an Arab Palestinian Failed State _(having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government)_ exhibited in the last half century _(even before the time of Israeli occupation)_.  The Arab Palestinian, as represented today, is not capable of living in peace --- even with other Arabs.  The attempt to assassinate the Jordanian King in the 1970's --- when Jordan was attempting to help the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) --- is an example of the basic capacity for peace.  This was replicated in 2005 after the Israeli disengagement from Gaza.  In fact, the current coalition government behind the Palestinians is based on the mantra of liberating Palestine, as a national duty, from the river to the sea, and from north to south.  Whatever the impression that the HoAP may have given in terms of a two-state solution living side by side in peace, the actual agenda for the HoAP is the removal of Israeli sovereignty _(recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine)_.   Even if Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni come to the table with the long-term strategic goal leading to a two-state solution and an overall making an overall settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, it cannot gain any traction if the ultimate objective of the Unity Government (HAMAS+Fatah) is the dismantlement of Israeli sovereignty.
> 
> As long as the HoAP have, in any numbers, a body within the population that believes that Israel needs to be expunged from the Middle East, the shadow casts by this demonstrated threat remains and requires containment.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

This topic is not about the title and deeds to the land --- but the leadership of the population over the land.​
Indeed, it is about who has the *righ*t to self determination, independence, and sovereignty.

That right belongs to the Palestinians as several UN resolutions state.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore said:


> Do you have a link to that, like the terms of surrender treaty signed by the Ottoman owners handing the land to the LoN


I can't prove a negative.

Do you have any claims of ownership, not just control, of any land?[/QUOTE]
*(ANSWER)
*
*On October 30, 1918, aboard the British battleship Agamemnon,* anchored in the port of Mudros on the Aegean island of Lemnos, representatives of Great Britain and the Ottoman Empire sign an armistice treaty marking the end of Ottoman participation in the First World War.

ARTICLE I6.  Treaty of Lausanne

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

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighborly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​
XVI.  Treaty of Mudros
30 October 1918

—Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V.​

*(COMMENT)*

This replaced Article 132 of the Treaty of Sevres.  Turkey never surrender.  It was the Ottoman Empire that surrendered.  Shortly after the Treaty of Sevres was signed, the Turkish War of Independence started; with Kamal and the Turks winning.  The War of Independence interrupted the ratification process on the Treaty of Sevres thus requiring something new.  The Turks renegotiated the Treaty of Lausanne.   In some ways it was a better deal, in other ways, Turkey lost more.  Turkey renounced everything outside the new Turkish borders.  They agreement was often described as the "Drastic Terms of Surrender."   Alternative Source:  *The Drastic Terms Of Surrender*

It was a form of unconditional surrender.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link to that, like the terms of surrender treaty signed by the Ottoman owners handing the land to the LoN
> 
> 
> 
> I can't prove a negative.
> 
> Do you have any claims of ownership, not just control, of any land?
Click to expand...

*(ANSWER)
*
*On October 30, 1918, aboard the British battleship Agamemnon,* anchored in the port of Mudros on the Aegean island of Lemnos, representatives of Great Britain and the Ottoman Empire sign an armistice treaty marking the end of Ottoman participation in the First World War.

ARTICLE I6.  Treaty of Lausanne

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

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighborly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​
XVI.  Treaty of Mudros
30 October 1918

—Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V.​

*(COMMENT)*

This replaced Article 132 of the Treaty of Sevres.  Turkey never surrender.  It was the Ottoman Empire that surrendered.  Shortly after the Treaty of Sevres was signed, the Turkish War of Independence started; with Kamal and the Turks winning.  The War of Independence interrupted the ratification process on the Treaty of Sevres thus requiring something new.  The Turks renegotiated the Treaty of Lausanne.   In some ways it was a better deal, in other ways, Turkey lost more.  Turkey renounced everything outside the new Turkish borders.  They agreement was often described as the "Drastic Terms of Surrender."   Alternative Source:  *The Drastic Terms Of Surrender*

It was a form of unconditional surrender.

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]
OK, but didn't the LoN hold the territories in trust for the people? I see nowhere that the LoN or the Mandates took possession of any land.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Well, you don't have this quite right.



P F Tinmore said:


> [
> 
> Indeed, it is about who has the *righ*t to self determination, independence, and sovereignty.
> 
> That right belongs to the Palestinians as several UN resolutions state.


*(COMMENT)*

First, these "rights" don't start coming until 1945, and then slowly.

Second, the rights mean nothing if they are not used.

You highlight the word: "right," --- yet when did the Arab Palestinian use that "right?"

Just because you have the perception of a "right" does not mean someone is going to come along and give the Arab Palestinian something for nothing.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Well, you don't have this quite right.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Indeed, it is about who has the *righ*t to self determination, independence, and sovereignty.
> 
> That right belongs to the Palestinians as several UN resolutions state.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, these "rights" don't start coming until 1945, and then slowly.
> 
> Second, the rights mean nothing if they are not used.
> 
> You highlight the word: "right," --- yet when did the Arab Palestinian use that "right?"
> 
> Just because you have the perception of a "right" does not mean someone is going to come along and give the Arab Palestinian something for nothing.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Preventing people from exercising their rights (usually by illegal external interference) is a crime against those people.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Well, you don't have this quite right.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Indeed, it is about who has the *righ*t to self determination, independence, and sovereignty.
> 
> That right belongs to the Palestinians as several UN resolutions state.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, these "rights" don't start coming until 1945, and then slowly.
> 
> Second, the rights mean nothing if they are not used.
> 
> You highlight the word: "right," --- yet when did the Arab Palestinian use that "right?"
> 
> Just because you have the perception of a "right" does not mean someone is going to come along and give the Arab Palestinian something for nothing.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Preventing people from exercising their rights (usually by illegal external interference) is a crime against those people.
Click to expand...



You mean their rights to kill Israeli's?  The nerve of Israel for preventing them their rights.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Sovereignty and Independence --- the idea of self-determination, are all relatively new ideas over the last century; --- emerging within the last 100 years since the beginning of World War I.  And none of this has to do with "land ownership."  This topic is not about the title and deeds to the land ---  but the leadership of the population over the land.
> 
> The character of every mandate differs according to the stage of the development of the people.   Article 22, of the League of Nations Covenant, stipulates the principle and *Key Test*:  wherein --- "independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.
> 
> In the last century, the remaining Hostile Arab Palestinians have never demonstrated that they could meet this test; that they could ever stand alone.  Not in 1920s, not in the 1930s, not in the 1940s, not during Jordanian occupation, not during Israel security containment and not today as the State of Palestine within the territory occupied since 1967.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what about the 1929 massacres of Jews, the civil uprising of 1931 and all the other arab nationalist violent protests ?
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't have happened without the Zionist invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Zionist invasion would that be, how about a link showing there was a Zionist invasion and not a migration at the request of the land legal owners ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who would those "legal" land owners be.
> 
> Neither the LoN  nor the Mandate claimed any land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The entire concepts of the Arab Palestinian is based on the continuing struggle to removed Israeli Independence and sovereignty from anywhere in the region and replace it with some Arab Dominance; something more advanced --- beyond that of the demonstrated leadership of an Arab Palestinian Failed State _(having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government)_ exhibited in the last half century _(even before the time of Israeli occupation)_.  The Arab Palestinian, as represented today, is not capable of living in peace --- even with other Arabs.  The attempt to assassinate the Jordanian King in the 1970's --- when Jordan was attempting to help the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) --- is an example of the basic capacity for peace.  This was replicated in 2005 after the Israeli disengagement from Gaza.  In fact, the current coalition government behind the Palestinians is based on the mantra of liberating Palestine, as a national duty, from the river to the sea, and from north to south.  Whatever the impression that the HoAP may have given in terms of a two-state solution living side by side in peace, the actual agenda for the HoAP is the removal of Israeli sovereignty _(recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine)_.   Even if Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni come to the table with the long-term strategic goal leading to a two-state solution and an overall making an overall settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, it cannot gain any traction if the ultimate objective of the Unity Government (HAMAS+Fatah) is the dismantlement of Israeli sovereignty.
> 
> As long as the HoAP have, in any numbers, a body within the population that believes that Israel needs to be expunged from the Middle East, the shadow casts by this demonstrated threat remains and requires containment.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This topic is not about the title and deeds to the land --- but the leadership of the population over the land.​
> Indeed, it is about who has the *righ*t to self determination, independence, and sovereignty.
> 
> That right belongs to the Palestinians as several UN resolutions state.
Click to expand...





 Then define what you mean by Palestinians, and which sectors have what rights ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link to that, like the terms of surrender treaty signed by the Ottoman owners handing the land to the LoN
> 
> 
> 
> I can't prove a negative.
> 
> Do you have any claims of ownership, not just control, of any land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(ANSWER)
> *
> *On October 30, 1918, aboard the British battleship Agamemnon,* anchored in the port of Mudros on the Aegean island of Lemnos, representatives of Great Britain and the Ottoman Empire sign an armistice treaty marking the end of Ottoman participation in the First World War.
> 
> ARTICLE I6.  Treaty of Lausanne
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
> 
> The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighborly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​
> XVI.  Treaty of Mudros
> 30 October 1918
> 
> —Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V.​
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This replaced Article 132 of the Treaty of Sevres.  Turkey never surrender.  It was the Ottoman Empire that surrendered.  Shortly after the Treaty of Sevres was signed, the Turkish War of Independence started; with Kamal and the Turks winning.  The War of Independence interrupted the ratification process on the Treaty of Sevres thus requiring something new.  The Turks renegotiated the Treaty of Lausanne.   In some ways it was a better deal, in other ways, Turkey lost more.  Turkey renounced everything outside the new Turkish borders.  They agreement was often described as the "Drastic Terms of Surrender."   Alternative Source:  *The Drastic Terms Of Surrender*
> 
> It was a form of unconditional surrender.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

OK, but didn't the LoN hold the territories in trust for the people? I see nowhere that the LoN or the Mandates took possession of any land.[/QUOTE]



 NOPE nowhere does it say that in any of the mandates.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Well, you don't have this quite right.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Indeed, it is about who has the *righ*t to self determination, independence, and sovereignty.
> 
> That right belongs to the Palestinians as several UN resolutions state.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, these "rights" don't start coming until 1945, and then slowly.
> 
> Second, the rights mean nothing if they are not used.
> 
> You highlight the word: "right," --- yet when did the Arab Palestinian use that "right?"
> 
> Just because you have the perception of a "right" does not mean someone is going to come along and give the Arab Palestinian something for nothing.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Preventing people from exercising their rights (usually by illegal external interference) is a crime against those people.
Click to expand...





 And who has prevented the arab muslims from exercising those rights, and give links to support any claims.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

Surrender:  cease resistance to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority.



P F Tinmore said:


> OK, but didn't the LoN hold the territories in trust for the people? I see nowhere that the LoN or the Mandates took possession of any land.


*(COMMENT)*

First the Ottoman Empire surrendered to the Allied Powers, then Turkey renounced all it authority over the territory.  You don't necessarily see one country take possession of another country --- in a surrender.  And, you don't necessity see an exchange of territory.  The Allied Powers, to a degree, did not take possession of Japan and Germany at the end of WWII.  What you saw was the extension of Allied Authority over that territory.  _(Noting that the minor exception in that the USSR did partition East Germany from the remainder.)  _

And YES!  The League of Nations via the Allied Powers, did take various territories in trust, which were inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, and assumed control --- externally placed under a Civil Administration with full power of administration (executive powers) and legislation (law making powers) subject to the terms and authority of the Allied Powers.  But the Allied Powers had a stipulation for a portion of Palestine which was unique form all the other Mandates:  the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

Now the non-Jewish population had two _(and only two)_ sets of rights that were explicitly identified for protection: "nothing should be done which might prejudice the *civil and religious rights* of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" (ie *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*).  

*(QUESTION)*

In 1922, what were *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*?  

In 1922, the Religious Rights were fairly simple:   The freedom to believe in, and the ability to teaching, practice, worship, and observe the various religious theologies without undue interference.  But it was not until 1948 that this right was considered a Universal Human Right (Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) Universal Declaration of Human Rights).   

In 1922, there was not universal understanding of what was meant by civil rights; but slowly evolving was the concept of equal protect.  It was emerging as, in addition to personal liberty, rights to full legal, social, and economic equality.
But you would be hard pressed to make the case that right to sovereignty and independence is included in the civil rights of 1922.  So the Question becomes, when the Allied Powers decided on creating a Jewish National Home, did the Arab Palestinians have this elusive set of rights to independence and sovereignty?  I would argue that prior to the 1945 Charter, the right of self-determination was only theoretical.  And prior to 1960, the definition of the right of self-determination was not clearly articulated. 

Adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960

Conscious of the need for the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion;
All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966

 All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.  (Derivative from the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the 1945 Charter.)
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote: 
a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development; 
b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and inter- 11 ational cultural and educational cooperation; and 
c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.


​
It was not until 5 NOVEMBER 2013 GA/SHC/4085 that we hear that Self-Determination Integral to Basic Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms, Third Committee Told as It Concludes General Discussion.

No, in 1922, or for that matter, in 1948, it was clear that the no right of the Arab Palestinian was trampled when the General Assemble set out to implement the Partition Plan.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

In 1948, the first occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was accomplished by the Jordanians and the Egyptians.



P F Tinmore said:


> Preventing people from exercising their rights (usually by illegal external interference) is a crime against those people.


*(COMMENT)*

It was the Arab League that, using armed force and military aggression, exercised external interference in an attempt to circumvent the UN decision to implement the Partition Plan.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> In 1948, the first occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was accomplished by the Jordanians and the Egyptians.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Preventing people from exercising their rights (usually by illegal external interference) is a crime against those people.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It was the Arab League that, using armed force and military aggression, exercised external interference in an attempt to circumvent the UN decision to implement the Partition Plan.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Why do you consider the 1948 war to be external interference?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> In 1948, the first occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was accomplished by the Jordanians and the Egyptians.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Preventing people from exercising their rights (usually by illegal external interference) is a crime against those people.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It was the Arab League that, using armed force and military aggression, exercised external interference in an attempt to circumvent the UN decision to implement the Partition Plan.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you consider the 1948 war to be external interference?
Click to expand...





 How many foreign arab muslim nations invaded the mandate of Palestine to wipe out the Jews and stop them from exercising self determination, and in the process trample all over the arab muslims right to self determination.


----------



## theliq

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Surrender:  cease resistance to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but didn't the LoN hold the territories in trust for the people? I see nowhere that the LoN or the Mandates took possession of any land.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First the Ottoman Empire surrendered to the Allied Powers, then Turkey renounced all it authority over the territory.  You don't necessarily see one country take possession of another country --- in a surrender.  And, you don't necessity see an exchange of territory.  The Allied Powers, to a degree, did not take possession of Japan and Germany at the end of WWII.  What you saw was the extension of Allied Authority over that territory.  _(Noting that the minor exception in that the USSR did partition East Germany from the remainder.)  _
> 
> And YES!  The League of Nations via the Allied Powers, did take various territories in trust, which were inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, and assumed control --- externally placed under a Civil Administration with full power of administration (executive powers) and legislation (law making powers) subject to the terms and authority of the Allied Powers.  But the Allied Powers had a stipulation for a portion of Palestine which was unique form all the other Mandates:  the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
> 
> Now the non-Jewish population had two _(and only two)_ sets of rights that were explicitly identified for protection: "nothing should be done which might prejudice the *civil and religious rights* of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" (ie *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*).
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> In 1922, what were *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*?
> 
> In 1922, the Religious Rights were fairly simple:   The freedom to believe in, and the ability to teaching, practice, worship, and observe the various religious theologies without undue interference.  But it was not until 1948 that this right was considered a Universal Human Right (Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
> 
> In 1922, there was not universal understanding of what was meant by civil rights; but slowly evolving was the concept of equal protect.  It was emerging as, in addition to personal liberty, rights to full legal, social, and economic equality.
> But you would be hard pressed to make the case that right to sovereignty and independence is included in the civil rights of 1922.  So the Question becomes, when the Allied Powers decided on creating a Jewish National Home, did the Arab Palestinians have this elusive set of rights to independence and sovereignty?  I would argue that prior to the 1945 Charter, the right of self-determination was only theoretical.  And prior to 1960, the definition of the right of self-determination was not clearly articulated.
> 
> Adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conscious of the need for the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion;
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.  (Derivative from the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the 1945 Charter.)
> To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
> With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
> a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
> b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and inter- 11 ational cultural and educational cooperation; and
> c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was not until 5 NOVEMBER 2013 GA/SHC/4085 that we hear that Self-Determination Integral to Basic Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms, Third Committee Told as It Concludes General Discussion.
> 
> No, in 1922, or for that matter, in 1948, it was clear that the no right of the Arab Palestinian was trampled when the General Assemble set out to implement the Partition Plan.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

BUT IT WAS A FACT THAT THE ZIONISTS HAD NO INTENTION OF ABIDING BY THIS OR ANY PARTITION PLAN,AS REGARDS TO THE PALESTINIANS AS HISTORY HAS PROVEN.......IN FACT THEY HAVE AND STILL DO COMMIT CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY,DAILY.

What I find absolutely disgusting about most of your pose is the justification and legitimacy you try to use, for often criminal behaviour of  the many Jewish sectors in Israel today and the past........towards the Palestinians.

I think you would have clearly realised by now that I find you quite sickening, as an individual,I don't even believe you are Jewish.....so what motivates you,I find impossible to understand....what is that irritating and synthetic end you use at the end of each post .;
?????that's right.

Most Respectfully(UCK)


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> In 1948, the first occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was accomplished by the Jordanians and the Egyptians.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Preventing people from exercising their rights (usually by illegal external interference) is a crime against those people.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It was the Arab League that, using armed force and military aggression, exercised external interference in an attempt to circumvent the UN decision to implement the Partition Plan.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you consider the 1948 war to be external interference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many foreign arab muslim nations invaded the mandate of Palestine to wipe out the Jews and stop them from exercising self determination, and in the process trample all over the arab muslims right to self determination.
Click to expand...

You can run Phoney.....but you can never hide.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Surrender:  cease resistance to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but didn't the LoN hold the territories in trust for the people? I see nowhere that the LoN or the Mandates took possession of any land.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First the Ottoman Empire surrendered to the Allied Powers, then Turkey renounced all it authority over the territory.  You don't necessarily see one country take possession of another country --- in a surrender.  And, you don't necessity see an exchange of territory.  The Allied Powers, to a degree, did not take possession of Japan and Germany at the end of WWII.  What you saw was the extension of Allied Authority over that territory.  _(Noting that the minor exception in that the USSR did partition East Germany from the remainder.)  _
> 
> And YES!  The League of Nations via the Allied Powers, did take various territories in trust, which were inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, and assumed control --- externally placed under a Civil Administration with full power of administration (executive powers) and legislation (law making powers) subject to the terms and authority of the Allied Powers.  But the Allied Powers had a stipulation for a portion of Palestine which was unique form all the other Mandates:  the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
> 
> Now the non-Jewish population had two _(and only two)_ sets of rights that were explicitly identified for protection: "nothing should be done which might prejudice the *civil and religious rights* of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" (ie *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*).
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> In 1922, what were *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*?
> 
> In 1922, the Religious Rights were fairly simple:   The freedom to believe in, and the ability to teaching, practice, worship, and observe the various religious theologies without undue interference.  But it was not until 1948 that this right was considered a Universal Human Right (Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
> 
> In 1922, there was not universal understanding of what was meant by civil rights; but slowly evolving was the concept of equal protect.  It was emerging as, in addition to personal liberty, rights to full legal, social, and economic equality.
> But you would be hard pressed to make the case that right to sovereignty and independence is included in the civil rights of 1922.  So the Question becomes, when the Allied Powers decided on creating a Jewish National Home, did the Arab Palestinians have this elusive set of rights to independence and sovereignty?  I would argue that prior to the 1945 Charter, the right of self-determination was only theoretical.  And prior to 1960, the definition of the right of self-determination was not clearly articulated.
> 
> Adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conscious of the need for the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion;
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.  (Derivative from the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the 1945 Charter.)
> To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
> With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
> a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
> b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and inter- 11 ational cultural and educational cooperation; and
> c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was not until 5 NOVEMBER 2013 GA/SHC/4085 that we hear that Self-Determination Integral to Basic Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms, Third Committee Told as It Concludes General Discussion.
> 
> No, in 1922, or for that matter, in 1948, it was clear that the no right of the Arab Palestinian was trampled when the General Assemble set out to implement the Partition Plan.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

In 1922, what were *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*?​
Britain tried to remove the Palestinians from their *Political Rights.* That is the right to develop their own government. This ran contrary to the rights implied by The League of Nations Covenant.

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

I believe that the meaning of "stand alone" to be when they created their own functioning government and the Mandate was charged with assisting them to do that.

Britain violently prevented the Palestinians from creating their own government while imposing by force laws and policies against the wishes and best interest of the people.

Since the Mandate failed to create an independent state the creation of Israel was a completely separate issue.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Surrender:  cease resistance to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but didn't the LoN hold the territories in trust for the people? I see nowhere that the LoN or the Mandates took possession of any land.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First the Ottoman Empire surrendered to the Allied Powers, then Turkey renounced all it authority over the territory.  You don't necessarily see one country take possession of another country --- in a surrender.  And, you don't necessity see an exchange of territory.  The Allied Powers, to a degree, did not take possession of Japan and Germany at the end of WWII.  What you saw was the extension of Allied Authority over that territory.  _(Noting that the minor exception in that the USSR did partition East Germany from the remainder.)  _
> 
> And YES!  The League of Nations via the Allied Powers, did take various territories in trust, which were inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, and assumed control --- externally placed under a Civil Administration with full power of administration (executive powers) and legislation (law making powers) subject to the terms and authority of the Allied Powers.  But the Allied Powers had a stipulation for a portion of Palestine which was unique form all the other Mandates:  the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
> 
> Now the non-Jewish population had two _(and only two)_ sets of rights that were explicitly identified for protection: "nothing should be done which might prejudice the *civil and religious rights* of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" (ie *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*).
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> In 1922, what were *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*?
> 
> In 1922, the Religious Rights were fairly simple:   The freedom to believe in, and the ability to teaching, practice, worship, and observe the various religious theologies without undue interference.  But it was not until 1948 that this right was considered a Universal Human Right (Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
> 
> In 1922, there was not universal understanding of what was meant by civil rights; but slowly evolving was the concept of equal protect.  It was emerging as, in addition to personal liberty, rights to full legal, social, and economic equality.
> But you would be hard pressed to make the case that right to sovereignty and independence is included in the civil rights of 1922.  So the Question becomes, when the Allied Powers decided on creating a Jewish National Home, did the Arab Palestinians have this elusive set of rights to independence and sovereignty?  I would argue that prior to the 1945 Charter, the right of self-determination was only theoretical.  And prior to 1960, the definition of the right of self-determination was not clearly articulated.
> 
> Adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conscious of the need for the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion;
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.  (Derivative from the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the 1945 Charter.)
> To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
> With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
> a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
> b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and inter- 11 ational cultural and educational cooperation; and
> c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was not until 5 NOVEMBER 2013 GA/SHC/4085 that we hear that Self-Determination Integral to Basic Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms, Third Committee Told as It Concludes General Discussion.
> 
> No, in 1922, or for that matter, in 1948, it was clear that the no right of the Arab Palestinian was trampled when the General Assemble set out to implement the Partition Plan.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1922, what were *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*?​
> Britain tried to remove the Palestinians from their *Political Rights.* That is the right to develop their own government. This ran contrary to the rights implied by The League of Nations Covenant.
> 
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the *rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.*​
> 
> I believe that the meaning of "stand alone" to be when they created their own functioning government and the Mandate was charged with assisting them to do that.
> 
> Britain violently prevented the Palestinians from creating their own government while imposing by force laws and policies against the wishes and best interest of the people.
> 
> Since the Mandate failed to create an independent state the creation of Israel was a completely separate issue.
Click to expand...

I have asked you to prove your claims about the British many times, yet you never have any proof. Why is that?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Sovereignty and Independence --- the idea of self-determination, are all relatively new ideas over the last century; --- emerging within the last 100 years since the beginning of World War I.  And none of this has to do with "land ownership."  This topic is not about the title and deeds to the land ---  but the leadership of the population over the land.
> 
> The character of every mandate differs according to the stage of the development of the people.   Article 22, of the League of Nations Covenant, stipulates the principle and *Key Test*:  wherein --- "independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.
> 
> In the last century, the remaining Hostile Arab Palestinians have never demonstrated that they could meet this test; that they could ever stand alone.  Not in 1920s, not in the 1930s, not in the 1940s, not during Jordanian occupation, not during Israel security containment and not today as the State of Palestine within the territory occupied since 1967.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't have happened without the Zionist invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> What Zionist invasion would that be, how about a link showing there was a Zionist invasion and not a migration at the request of the land legal owners ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who would those "legal" land owners be.
> 
> Neither the LoN  nor the Mandate claimed any land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The entire concepts of the Arab Palestinian is based on the continuing struggle to removed Israeli Independence and sovereignty from anywhere in the region and replace it with some Arab Dominance; something more advanced --- beyond that of the demonstrated leadership of an Arab Palestinian Failed State _(having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government)_ exhibited in the last half century _(even before the time of Israeli occupation)_.  The Arab Palestinian, as represented today, is not capable of living in peace --- even with other Arabs.  The attempt to assassinate the Jordanian King in the 1970's --- when Jordan was attempting to help the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) --- is an example of the basic capacity for peace.  This was replicated in 2005 after the Israeli disengagement from Gaza.  In fact, the current coalition government behind the Palestinians is based on the mantra of liberating Palestine, as a national duty, from the river to the sea, and from north to south.  Whatever the impression that the HoAP may have given in terms of a two-state solution living side by side in peace, the actual agenda for the HoAP is the removal of Israeli sovereignty _(recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine)_.   Even if Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni come to the table with the long-term strategic goal leading to a two-state solution and an overall making an overall settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, it cannot gain any traction if the ultimate objective of the Unity Government (HAMAS+Fatah) is the dismantlement of Israeli sovereignty.
> 
> As long as the HoAP have, in any numbers, a body within the population that believes that Israel needs to be expunged from the Middle East, the shadow casts by this demonstrated threat remains and requires containment.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This topic is not about the title and deeds to the land --- but the leadership of the population over the land.​
> Indeed, it is about who has the *righ*t to self determination, independence, and sovereignty.
> 
> That right belongs to the Palestinians as several UN resolutions state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then define what you mean by Palestinians, and which sectors have what rights ?
Click to expand...

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

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


----------



## theliq

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Sovereignty and Independence --- the idea of self-determination, are all relatively new ideas over the last century; --- emerging within the last 100 years since the beginning of World War I.  And none of this has to do with "land ownership."  This topic is not about the title and deeds to the land ---  but the leadership of the population over the land.
> 
> The character of every mandate differs according to the stage of the development of the people.   Article 22, of the League of Nations Covenant, stipulates the principle and *Key Test*:  wherein --- "independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.
> 
> In the last century, the remaining Hostile Arab Palestinians have never demonstrated that they could meet this test; that they could ever stand alone.  Not in 1920s, not in the 1930s, not in the 1940s, not during Jordanian occupation, not during Israel security containment and not today as the State of Palestine within the territory occupied since 1967.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Zionist invasion would that be, how about a link showing there was a Zionist invasion and not a migration at the request of the land legal owners ?
> 
> 
> 
> Who would those "legal" land owners be.
> 
> Neither the LoN  nor the Mandate claimed any land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The entire concepts of the Arab Palestinian is based on the continuing struggle to removed Israeli Independence and sovereignty from anywhere in the region and replace it with some Arab Dominance; something more advanced --- beyond that of the demonstrated leadership of an Arab Palestinian Failed State _(having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government)_ exhibited in the last half century _(even before the time of Israeli occupation)_.  The Arab Palestinian, as represented today, is not capable of living in peace --- even with other Arabs.  The attempt to assassinate the Jordanian King in the 1970's --- when Jordan was attempting to help the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) --- is an example of the basic capacity for peace.  This was replicated in 2005 after the Israeli disengagement from Gaza.  In fact, the current coalition government behind the Palestinians is based on the mantra of liberating Palestine, as a national duty, from the river to the sea, and from north to south.  Whatever the impression that the HoAP may have given in terms of a two-state solution living side by side in peace, the actual agenda for the HoAP is the removal of Israeli sovereignty _(recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine)_.   Even if Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni come to the table with the long-term strategic goal leading to a two-state solution and an overall making an overall settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, it cannot gain any traction if the ultimate objective of the Unity Government (HAMAS+Fatah) is the dismantlement of Israeli sovereignty.
> 
> As long as the HoAP have, in any numbers, a body within the population that believes that Israel needs to be expunged from the Middle East, the shadow casts by this demonstrated threat remains and requires containment.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This topic is not about the title and deeds to the land --- but the leadership of the population over the land.​
> Indeed, it is about who has the *righ*t to self determination, independence, and sovereignty.
> 
> That right belongs to the Palestinians as several UN resolutions state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then define what you mean by Palestinians, and which sectors have what rights ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
Click to expand...

"Palestine" being the operative word here


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Surrender:  cease resistance to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but didn't the LoN hold the territories in trust for the people? I see nowhere that the LoN or the Mandates took possession of any land.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First the Ottoman Empire surrendered to the Allied Powers, then Turkey renounced all it authority over the territory.  You don't necessarily see one country take possession of another country --- in a surrender.  And, you don't necessity see an exchange of territory.  The Allied Powers, to a degree, did not take possession of Japan and Germany at the end of WWII.  What you saw was the extension of Allied Authority over that territory.  _(Noting that the minor exception in that the USSR did partition East Germany from the remainder.)  _
> 
> And YES!  The League of Nations via the Allied Powers, did take various territories in trust, which were inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, and assumed control --- externally placed under a Civil Administration with full power of administration (executive powers) and legislation (law making powers) subject to the terms and authority of the Allied Powers.  But the Allied Powers had a stipulation for a portion of Palestine which was unique form all the other Mandates:  the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
> 
> Now the non-Jewish population had two _(and only two)_ sets of rights that were explicitly identified for protection: "nothing should be done which might prejudice the *civil and religious rights* of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" (ie *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*).
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> In 1922, what were *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*?
> 
> In 1922, the Religious Rights were fairly simple:   The freedom to believe in, and the ability to teaching, practice, worship, and observe the various religious theologies without undue interference.  But it was not until 1948 that this right was considered a Universal Human Right (Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
> 
> In 1922, there was not universal understanding of what was meant by civil rights; but slowly evolving was the concept of equal protect.  It was emerging as, in addition to personal liberty, rights to full legal, social, and economic equality.
> But you would be hard pressed to make the case that right to sovereignty and independence is included in the civil rights of 1922.  So the Question becomes, when the Allied Powers decided on creating a Jewish National Home, did the Arab Palestinians have this elusive set of rights to independence and sovereignty?  I would argue that prior to the 1945 Charter, the right of self-determination was only theoretical.  And prior to 1960, the definition of the right of self-determination was not clearly articulated.
> 
> Adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conscious of the need for the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion;
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.  (Derivative from the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the 1945 Charter.)
> To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
> With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
> a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
> b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and inter- 11 ational cultural and educational cooperation; and
> c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was not until 5 NOVEMBER 2013 GA/SHC/4085 that we hear that Self-Determination Integral to Basic Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms, Third Committee Told as It Concludes General Discussion.
> 
> No, in 1922, or for that matter, in 1948, it was clear that the no right of the Arab Palestinian was trampled when the General Assemble set out to implement the Partition Plan.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BUT IT WAS A FACT THAT THE ZIONISTS HAD NO INTENTION OF ABIDING BY THIS OR ANY PARTITION PLAN,AS REGARDS TO THE PALESTINIANS AS HISTORY HAS PROVEN.......IN FACT THEY HAVE AND STILL DO COMMIT CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY,DAILY.
> 
> What I find absolutely disgusting about most of your pose is the justification and legitimacy you try to use, for often criminal behaviour of  the many Jewish sectors in Israel today and the past........towards the Palestinians.
> 
> I think you would have clearly realised by now that I find you quite sickening, as an individual,I don't even believe you are Jewish.....so what motivates you,I find impossible to understand....what is that irritating and synthetic end you use at the end of each post .;
> ?????that's right.
> 
> Most Respectfully(UCK)
Click to expand...






 Was it then you will have no problem in providing the evidence from a non partisan source.

 Since when has responding to terrorism and violence been against international law, because that is what Israel is doing. Why do you think the ICJ is dragging its heels and asking for more time before giving its findings into the claims of war crimes in gaza last summer


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Sovereignty and Independence --- the idea of self-determination, are all relatively new ideas over the last century; --- emerging within the last 100 years since the beginning of World War I.  And none of this has to do with "land ownership."  This topic is not about the title and deeds to the land ---  but the leadership of the population over the land.
> 
> The character of every mandate differs according to the stage of the development of the people.   Article 22, of the League of Nations Covenant, stipulates the principle and *Key Test*:  wherein --- "independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.
> 
> In the last century, the remaining Hostile Arab Palestinians have never demonstrated that they could meet this test; that they could ever stand alone.  Not in 1920s, not in the 1930s, not in the 1940s, not during Jordanian occupation, not during Israel security containment and not today as the State of Palestine within the territory occupied since 1967.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Zionist invasion would that be, how about a link showing there was a Zionist invasion and not a migration at the request of the land legal owners ?
> 
> 
> 
> Who would those "legal" land owners be.
> 
> Neither the LoN  nor the Mandate claimed any land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The entire concepts of the Arab Palestinian is based on the continuing struggle to removed Israeli Independence and sovereignty from anywhere in the region and replace it with some Arab Dominance; something more advanced --- beyond that of the demonstrated leadership of an Arab Palestinian Failed State _(having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government)_ exhibited in the last half century _(even before the time of Israeli occupation)_.  The Arab Palestinian, as represented today, is not capable of living in peace --- even with other Arabs.  The attempt to assassinate the Jordanian King in the 1970's --- when Jordan was attempting to help the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) --- is an example of the basic capacity for peace.  This was replicated in 2005 after the Israeli disengagement from Gaza.  In fact, the current coalition government behind the Palestinians is based on the mantra of liberating Palestine, as a national duty, from the river to the sea, and from north to south.  Whatever the impression that the HoAP may have given in terms of a two-state solution living side by side in peace, the actual agenda for the HoAP is the removal of Israeli sovereignty _(recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine)_.   Even if Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni come to the table with the long-term strategic goal leading to a two-state solution and an overall making an overall settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, it cannot gain any traction if the ultimate objective of the Unity Government (HAMAS+Fatah) is the dismantlement of Israeli sovereignty.
> 
> As long as the HoAP have, in any numbers, a body within the population that believes that Israel needs to be expunged from the Middle East, the shadow casts by this demonstrated threat remains and requires containment.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This topic is not about the title and deeds to the land --- but the leadership of the population over the land.​
> Indeed, it is about who has the *righ*t to self determination, independence, and sovereignty.
> 
> That right belongs to the Palestinians as several UN resolutions state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then define what you mean by Palestinians, and which sectors have what rights ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
Click to expand...






 But it did not say that did it, what it said was the inhabitants of the mandate for Palestine would become BRITISH Palestinian citizens, which is why the passports were British passports and not Palestinian ones.


 Still you have not defined who are Palestinians and which rights are accorded to which sectors of the mandate for palestines inhabitants ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Sovereignty and Independence --- the idea of self-determination, are all relatively new ideas over the last century; --- emerging within the last 100 years since the beginning of World War I.  And none of this has to do with "land ownership."  This topic is not about the title and deeds to the land ---  but the leadership of the population over the land.
> 
> The character of every mandate differs according to the stage of the development of the people.   Article 22, of the League of Nations Covenant, stipulates the principle and *Key Test*:  wherein --- "independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.
> 
> In the last century, the remaining Hostile Arab Palestinians have never demonstrated that they could meet this test; that they could ever stand alone.  Not in 1920s, not in the 1930s, not in the 1940s, not during Jordanian occupation, not during Israel security containment and not today as the State of Palestine within the territory occupied since 1967.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who would those "legal" land owners be.
> 
> Neither the LoN  nor the Mandate claimed any land.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The entire concepts of the Arab Palestinian is based on the continuing struggle to removed Israeli Independence and sovereignty from anywhere in the region and replace it with some Arab Dominance; something more advanced --- beyond that of the demonstrated leadership of an Arab Palestinian Failed State _(having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government)_ exhibited in the last half century _(even before the time of Israeli occupation)_.  The Arab Palestinian, as represented today, is not capable of living in peace --- even with other Arabs.  The attempt to assassinate the Jordanian King in the 1970's --- when Jordan was attempting to help the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) --- is an example of the basic capacity for peace.  This was replicated in 2005 after the Israeli disengagement from Gaza.  In fact, the current coalition government behind the Palestinians is based on the mantra of liberating Palestine, as a national duty, from the river to the sea, and from north to south.  Whatever the impression that the HoAP may have given in terms of a two-state solution living side by side in peace, the actual agenda for the HoAP is the removal of Israeli sovereignty _(recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine)_.   Even if Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni come to the table with the long-term strategic goal leading to a two-state solution and an overall making an overall settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, it cannot gain any traction if the ultimate objective of the Unity Government (HAMAS+Fatah) is the dismantlement of Israeli sovereignty.
> 
> As long as the HoAP have, in any numbers, a body within the population that believes that Israel needs to be expunged from the Middle East, the shadow casts by this demonstrated threat remains and requires containment.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This topic is not about the title and deeds to the land --- but the leadership of the population over the land.​
> Indeed, it is about who has the *righ*t to self determination, independence, and sovereignty.
> 
> That right belongs to the Palestinians as several UN resolutions state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then define what you mean by Palestinians, and which sectors have what rights ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it did not say that did it, what it said was the inhabitants of the mandate for Palestine would become BRITISH Palestinian citizens, which is why the passports were British passports and not Palestinian ones.
> 
> 
> Still you have not defined who are Palestinians and which rights are accorded to which sectors of the mandate for palestines inhabitants ?
Click to expand...

Where do you keep getting these lies? Oh yeah, from Israel.
-------------------
With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:

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


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we may disagree on our interpretations,..​
> Indeed, because you can't get your face out of Israeli propaganda.
> 
> For Britain when it changed from an occupation to a civil administration it was merely a name change. It kept its military there and in fact increased troop strength in the '30s to better trample on the Palestinian's inalienable rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would that be the Jewish Palestinians as they were the only ones known by that name at that time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So true.  Not a single Muslim Palestinian among the indigenous Palestinians.  Want peace?  Israel must find some way to convince the surrounding Arab countries to grant their Palestinian squatters a right of return back to their native homelands.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First you have Stated before on this site,THERE WERE NO PALESTINIANS IN WHAT IS NOW ISRAEL(MORONIC I KNOW)........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you say.....return to their, the Palestinian NATIVE HOMELANDS.................You represent all that is wrong in Message Boards like these.
> 
> Just NOT GOOD ENOUGH........H.I.M  theliq
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As for my friend Hoss,agreeing with some of your comments,well you should stop plying Hoss with LIQ
Click to expand...

Palestinians are, were, and will remain Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian. No amount of name changing can change those facts, Steve.


----------



## MJB12741

theliq said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Sovereignty and Independence --- the idea of self-determination, are all relatively new ideas over the last century; --- emerging within the last 100 years since the beginning of World War I.  And none of this has to do with "land ownership."  This topic is not about the title and deeds to the land ---  but the leadership of the population over the land.
> 
> The character of every mandate differs according to the stage of the development of the people.   Article 22, of the League of Nations Covenant, stipulates the principle and *Key Test*:  wherein --- "independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.
> 
> In the last century, the remaining Hostile Arab Palestinians have never demonstrated that they could meet this test; that they could ever stand alone.  Not in 1920s, not in the 1930s, not in the 1940s, not during Jordanian occupation, not during Israel security containment and not today as the State of Palestine within the territory occupied since 1967.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who would those "legal" land owners be.
> 
> Neither the LoN  nor the Mandate claimed any land.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The entire concepts of the Arab Palestinian is based on the continuing struggle to removed Israeli Independence and sovereignty from anywhere in the region and replace it with some Arab Dominance; something more advanced --- beyond that of the demonstrated leadership of an Arab Palestinian Failed State _(having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government)_ exhibited in the last half century _(even before the time of Israeli occupation)_.  The Arab Palestinian, as represented today, is not capable of living in peace --- even with other Arabs.  The attempt to assassinate the Jordanian King in the 1970's --- when Jordan was attempting to help the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) --- is an example of the basic capacity for peace.  This was replicated in 2005 after the Israeli disengagement from Gaza.  In fact, the current coalition government behind the Palestinians is based on the mantra of liberating Palestine, as a national duty, from the river to the sea, and from north to south.  Whatever the impression that the HoAP may have given in terms of a two-state solution living side by side in peace, the actual agenda for the HoAP is the removal of Israeli sovereignty _(recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine)_.   Even if Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni come to the table with the long-term strategic goal leading to a two-state solution and an overall making an overall settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, it cannot gain any traction if the ultimate objective of the Unity Government (HAMAS+Fatah) is the dismantlement of Israeli sovereignty.
> 
> As long as the HoAP have, in any numbers, a body within the population that believes that Israel needs to be expunged from the Middle East, the shadow casts by this demonstrated threat remains and requires containment.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This topic is not about the title and deeds to the land --- but the leadership of the population over the land.​
> Indeed, it is about who has the *righ*t to self determination, independence, and sovereignty.
> 
> That right belongs to the Palestinians as several UN resolutions state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then define what you mean by Palestinians, and which sectors have what rights ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Palestine" being the operative word here
Click to expand...


OUTSTANDING POINT!  And who said Theliq is an imbecile?  Yes, Palestine, the Jewish homeland.  

Mandate For Palestine - The Legal Aspects of Jewish Rights


----------



## RoccoR

theliq, et al,

You read, but you do not understand.



theliq said:


> "Palestine" being the operative word here


*(COMMENT)*

The word "Palestine" means the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies.

The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - The Palestine Order in LoN Council - Mandatory order 10 August 1922 ​The rule is that everyone is entitled to citizenship; no one is stateless.  In this case the citizenship was to the Mandate Territory.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## aris2chat

RoccoR said:


> theliq, et al,
> 
> You read, but you do not understand.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Palestine" being the operative word here
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The word "Palestine" means the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies.
> 
> The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - The Palestine Order in LoN Council - Mandatory order 10 August 1922 ​The rule is that everyone is entitled to citizenship; no one is stateless.  In this case the citizenship was to the Mandate Territory.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


It has been explained and various sources given many times.
They don't want to listen.  They prefer the lies and disinformation
Everyone is trying to give the palestinians some sort of state, except the hateful and those who breed violence.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

OH Please.



P F Tinmore said:


> ​-------------------
> With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:
> 
> “(1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
> (2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them…”92​
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel


(COMMENT)

For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - The Palestine Order in LoN Council - Mandatory order 10 August 1922 ​The phrase "nationality of the Mandatory Power" means the "nationality of Great Britain."  Great Britain is the Mandatory Power.

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 12 August 1922 ​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hossfly

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OH Please.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​-------------------
> With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:
> 
> “(1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
> (2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them…”92​
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> 
> 
> (COMMENT)
> 
> For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - The Palestine Order in LoN Council - Mandatory order 10 August 1922 ​The phrase "nationality of the Mandatory Power" means the "nationality of Great Britain."  Great Britain is the Mandatory Power.
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 12 August 1922 ​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

RoccoR , if Tinmore would read and accept all your discourse on the Israel/Palestine situation, he could easily earn a PhD in mid-East affairs.


----------



## toastman

Hossfly said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OH Please.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​-------------------
> With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:
> 
> “(1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
> (2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them…”92​
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> 
> 
> (COMMENT)
> 
> For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - The Palestine Order in LoN Council - Mandatory order 10 August 1922 ​The phrase "nationality of the Mandatory Power" means the "nationality of Great Britain."  Great Britain is the Mandatory Power.
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 12 August 1922 ​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RoccoR , if Tinmore would read and accept all your discourse on the Israel/Palestine situation, he could easily earn a PhD in mid-East affairs.
Click to expand...

Tinmore is allergic to the truth. 

He does 't even consider Israel to be a country


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OH Please.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​-------------------
> With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:
> 
> “(1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
> (2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them…”92​
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> 
> 
> (COMMENT)
> 
> For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - The Palestine Order in LoN Council - Mandatory order 10 August 1922 ​The phrase "nationality of the Mandatory Power" means the "nationality of Great Britain."  Great Britain is the Mandatory Power.
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 12 August 1922 ​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The phrase "nationality of the Mandatory Power" means the "nationality of Great Britain." Great Britain is the Mandatory Power.

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 12 August 1922 ​
Uh, Rocco, neither of those two phrases that you have in quotes is in the link you posted.

Before 1924 Palestine was a part of Turkish sovereign territory occupied be the British. After 1924 Palestine was a "successor state" under the trust of the British Mandate for Palestine.

Two different sets of rules.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Sovereignty and Independence --- the idea of self-determination, are all relatively new ideas over the last century; --- emerging within the last 100 years since the beginning of World War I.  And none of this has to do with "land ownership."  This topic is not about the title and deeds to the land ---  but the leadership of the population over the land.
> 
> The character of every mandate differs according to the stage of the development of the people.   Article 22, of the League of Nations Covenant, stipulates the principle and *Key Test*:  wherein --- "independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.
> 
> In the last century, the remaining Hostile Arab Palestinians have never demonstrated that they could meet this test; that they could ever stand alone.  Not in 1920s, not in the 1930s, not in the 1940s, not during Jordanian occupation, not during Israel security containment and not today as the State of Palestine within the territory occupied since 1967.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The entire concepts of the Arab Palestinian is based on the continuing struggle to removed Israeli Independence and sovereignty from anywhere in the region and replace it with some Arab Dominance; something more advanced --- beyond that of the demonstrated leadership of an Arab Palestinian Failed State _(having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government)_ exhibited in the last half century _(even before the time of Israeli occupation)_.  The Arab Palestinian, as represented today, is not capable of living in peace --- even with other Arabs.  The attempt to assassinate the Jordanian King in the 1970's --- when Jordan was attempting to help the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) --- is an example of the basic capacity for peace.  This was replicated in 2005 after the Israeli disengagement from Gaza.  In fact, the current coalition government behind the Palestinians is based on the mantra of liberating Palestine, as a national duty, from the river to the sea, and from north to south.  Whatever the impression that the HoAP may have given in terms of a two-state solution living side by side in peace, the actual agenda for the HoAP is the removal of Israeli sovereignty _(recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine)_.   Even if Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni come to the table with the long-term strategic goal leading to a two-state solution and an overall making an overall settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, it cannot gain any traction if the ultimate objective of the Unity Government (HAMAS+Fatah) is the dismantlement of Israeli sovereignty.
> 
> As long as the HoAP have, in any numbers, a body within the population that believes that Israel needs to be expunged from the Middle East, the shadow casts by this demonstrated threat remains and requires containment.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> This topic is not about the title and deeds to the land --- but the leadership of the population over the land.​
> Indeed, it is about who has the *righ*t to self determination, independence, and sovereignty.
> 
> That right belongs to the Palestinians as several UN resolutions state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then define what you mean by Palestinians, and which sectors have what rights ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it did not say that did it, what it said was the inhabitants of the mandate for Palestine would become BRITISH Palestinian citizens, which is why the passports were British passports and not Palestinian ones.
> 
> 
> Still you have not defined who are Palestinians and which rights are accorded to which sectors of the mandate for palestines inhabitants ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do you keep getting these lies? Oh yeah, from Israel.
> -------------------
> With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:
> 
> “(1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
> (2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them…”92​
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
Click to expand...





 Keep trying as the truth is the citizens of the Mandate for Palestine to give it its full title did not have any nation or state other than the Mandate. This meant that the British took on the task  of providing them with passports and travel documents. This is why the passports showed British Palestine.

 But you still have not defined who are Palestinians and which rights are accorded to which sectors of the Mandate for Palestine's inhabitants


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OH Please.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​-------------------
> With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:
> 
> “(1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
> (2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them…”92​
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> 
> 
> (COMMENT)
> 
> For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - The Palestine Order in LoN Council - Mandatory order 10 August 1922 ​The phrase "nationality of the Mandatory Power" means the "nationality of Great Britain."  Great Britain is the Mandatory Power.
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 12 August 1922 ​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The phrase "nationality of the Mandatory Power" means the "nationality of Great Britain." Great Britain is the Mandatory Power.
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 12 August 1922 ​
> Uh, Rocco, neither of those two phrases that you have in quotes is in the link you posted.
> 
> Before 1924 Palestine was a part of Turkish sovereign territory occupied be the British. After 1924 Palestine was a "successor state" under the trust of the British Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> Two different sets of rules.
Click to expand...




 Wrong again by at least 6 years as the British defeated the Ottoman empire in 1918 and the terms of surrender were agreed and signed. The treaty was signed by the Ottoman empire and the LoN, if it was a successor state then who was its leader, what was its capital, what was its currency and who was responsible for its foreign affairs and travel documents. At no time was it ever Turkish sovereign territory.........................


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I don't know what you are talking about.  I just went to the links.



P F Tinmore said:


> The phrase "nationality of the Mandatory Power" means the "nationality of Great Britain." Great Britain is the Mandatory Power.
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 12 August 1922 ​
> Uh, Rocco, neither of those two phrases that you have in quotes is in the link you posted.
> 
> Before 1924 Palestine was a part of Turkish sovereign territory occupied be the British. After 1924 Palestine was a "successor state" under the trust of the British Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> Two different sets of rules.


*(COMMENT)*

The first one is my language, the second one with the link is a cut'n'paste (used as the source).

This is incorrect as well:  "Before 1924 Palestine was a part of Turkish sovereign territory occupied be the British. After 1924 Palestine was a "successor state" under the trust of the British Mandate for Palestine."

The Allied Forces occupied "Ottoman Empire Territory" and accepted the surrender from the "Ottoman Empire."  There was a War of Independence (May 19, 1919 – July 24, 1923)  in Turkey _(Mustafa Kemal Atatürk led the Turkish National Movement in the Turkish War of Independence)_ in which the Ottoman Empire was replace by the new Turkish Government _(Turkish National Movement)_.  The Armistice of Mudros (1918) and the Treaty of Sèvres (1920) were the instruments used by the Allied Powers to accept the surrender of the various territories from the Ottoman Empire.  Then when the Turkish National Movement assumed power, the Treaty of Lausanne (1924) was the instrument that was used by the Turkish Government _(successor to the Ottoman Empire)_ to renounce external territory occupied by Allied Forces.

The TIMELINE:

In 1918, The Armistice of Mudros, the Ottomans surrendered their remaining garrisons and all Ottoman Forces in the Hejaz, Yemen, *Syria (which contained Palestine),* Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica.
Between 1918 and 1920, the British established a military occupation of the territory under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire.
In 1919, the League of Nations Covenant signed, and Article 22 criteria established and the authority of a Mandate recognized.
In 1920, the San Remo Convention established the framework for the Mandate and decide to establish a Jewish National Home.
In 1920, by order of His Majesty, a Civil Administration was established to replace the military occupation of the territory under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire.
In 1922,  The Order in Council _(first)_ and then the Mandate _(second)_ of Palestine are created.
In 1923, Turkish Nationalist assume power, the Sultanate abolished, the Caliph exiled, the decision to abandon the Treaty of Sèvres was made.
In 1923, Treaty of Lausanna --- The Turkish successor government to the Ottoman Empire renounces all claims to Arab territories previously surrendered by the Ottoman Empire.
In 1924, the Treaty of Lausanne 6 August 1924 become effective.

Prior to 24 July, 1923, there was no such thing as the Republic of Turkey.  The Republic of Turkey never had control or extended sovereignty over any of the Arab Provinces.  The Allied Powers _(British and French)_ accepted the surrender and occupied the territories from the Ottoman Empire.  At no time did Allied Forces occupy any sovereign territory of the Republic of Turkey which came into existence in 1923.

In Palestine, the territories to which the Mandate applied, the successor government to Ottoman control was the British Civil Administration.  Nothing was put in trust for the anyone.  Nothing changed in 1924.  The key feature of the Treaty of Lausanne, besides the establishment of borders, was the renouncement of claims.  Included in Part I ---Article 3(1) of the Treaty was the understanding that Syria is outside the borders of Turkey; and that:

*ARTICLE 16*.

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

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​Other than the Mandate for Palestine, there was no successor state announce.  Palestine was delineated in Part I (Preliminary) --- Paragraph 1 (Title) that:

Title.1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
- See more at: Mandate for Palestine - The Palestine Order in LoN Council - Mandatory order 10 August 1922 ​
The idea that the Mandate System _(described at length in VI.A. MANDATES 1945. VI.A. 1)_, is a trusteeship wherein Palestine is palced in trust for someone is entirely wrong.

The _Palestine_ Mandate is of a very special character. While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917. By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. The Mandate reproduces the Balfour Declaration almost in full in its preamble and states that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country".​
Accordingly, under the terms of the Mandate, the Mandatory is to be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion. The Mandate also provides for the recognition as a public body of a Jewish agency which is to advise and co-operate with the administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country. At first and in accordance with the terms of the Mandate, this role was entrusted to the Zionist Organisation; later, however, from 1929 onwards, that organisation was replaced by the "Jewish Agency for Palestine", which includes representatives not only of the Zionist Organisation but also of other Jewish bodies in various countries. In consultation with the Mandatory, this agency takes steps to secure the co-operation of all Jews willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home. While ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, the Administration, for its part, must facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and, in co-operation with the Jewish agency, encourage close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes. A nationality law is to be enacted containing provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.​
There is little question that the Mandatory was entrusted with a great responsibility; but a trusteeship (as in the UN Charter) is not the same as the LoN Mandate System.  In fact, in the entire manual on the Mandate System, the word trust is only used three times: _(The word "trustee or trusteeship" or any variation is not used at all.)_

"1. To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.​
But this has nothing to do with putting the government, the territory, or the people in a "trust" situation; wherein League of Nations transfers some or all of the Mandate to a trustee. The trustee (the UK) holds that property for the trust's beneficiaries (Palestinians).  Nowhere is that scenario described.  But included is the criteria that:  "administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone."  There has never been a time when the Palestinian was considered able to "stand alone."

In fact, The Trusteeship Council suspended operation on 1 November 1994, when the last remaining United Nations trust territory, became independent.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Surrender:  cease resistance to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but didn't the LoN hold the territories in trust for the people? I see nowhere that the LoN or the Mandates took possession of any land.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First the Ottoman Empire surrendered to the Allied Powers, then Turkey renounced all it authority over the territory.  You don't necessarily see one country take possession of another country --- in a surrender.  And, you don't necessity see an exchange of territory.  The Allied Powers, to a degree, did not take possession of Japan and Germany at the end of WWII.  What you saw was the extension of Allied Authority over that territory.  _(Noting that the minor exception in that the USSR did partition East Germany from the remainder.)  _
> 
> And YES!  The League of Nations via the Allied Powers, did take various territories in trust, which were inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, and assumed control --- externally placed under a Civil Administration with full power of administration (executive powers) and legislation (law making powers) subject to the terms and authority of the Allied Powers.  But the Allied Powers had a stipulation for a portion of Palestine which was unique form all the other Mandates:  the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
> 
> Now the non-Jewish population had two _(and only two)_ sets of rights that were explicitly identified for protection: "nothing should be done which might prejudice the *civil and religious rights* of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" (ie *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*).
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> In 1922, what were *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*?
> 
> In 1922, the Religious Rights were fairly simple:   The freedom to believe in, and the ability to teaching, practice, worship, and observe the various religious theologies without undue interference.  But it was not until 1948 that this right was considered a Universal Human Right (Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
> 
> In 1922, there was not universal understanding of what was meant by civil rights; but slowly evolving was the concept of equal protect.  It was emerging as, in addition to personal liberty, rights to full legal, social, and economic equality.
> But you would be hard pressed to make the case that right to sovereignty and independence is included in the civil rights of 1922.  So the Question becomes, when the Allied Powers decided on creating a Jewish National Home, did the Arab Palestinians have this elusive set of rights to independence and sovereignty?  I would argue that prior to the 1945 Charter, the right of self-determination was only theoretical.  And prior to 1960, the definition of the right of self-determination was not clearly articulated.
> 
> Adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conscious of the need for the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion;
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.  (Derivative from the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the 1945 Charter.)
> To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
> With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
> a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
> b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and inter- 11 ational cultural and educational cooperation; and
> c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was not until 5 NOVEMBER 2013 GA/SHC/4085 that we hear that Self-Determination Integral to Basic Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms, Third Committee Told as It Concludes General Discussion.
> 
> No, in 1922, or for that matter, in 1948, it was clear that the no right of the Arab Palestinian was trampled when the General Assemble set out to implement the Partition Plan.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1922, what were *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*?​
> Britain tried to remove the Palestinians from their *Political Rights.* That is the right to develop their own government. This ran contrary to the rights implied by The League of Nations Covenant.
> 
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the *rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.*​
> 
> I believe that the meaning of "stand alone" to be when they created their own functioning government and the Mandate was charged with assisting them to do that.
> 
> Britain violently prevented the Palestinians from creating their own government while imposing by force laws and policies against the wishes and best interest of the people.
> 
> Since the Mandate failed to create an independent state the creation of Israel was a completely separate issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have asked you to prove your claims about the British many times, yet you never have any proof. Why is that?
Click to expand...

OK, here is some but you will not look at it.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Surrender:  cease resistance to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but didn't the LoN hold the territories in trust for the people? I see nowhere that the LoN or the Mandates took possession of any land.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First the Ottoman Empire surrendered to the Allied Powers, then Turkey renounced all it authority over the territory.  You don't necessarily see one country take possession of another country --- in a surrender.  And, you don't necessity see an exchange of territory.  The Allied Powers, to a degree, did not take possession of Japan and Germany at the end of WWII.  What you saw was the extension of Allied Authority over that territory.  _(Noting that the minor exception in that the USSR did partition East Germany from the remainder.)  _
> 
> And YES!  The League of Nations via the Allied Powers, did take various territories in trust, which were inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, and assumed control --- externally placed under a Civil Administration with full power of administration (executive powers) and legislation (law making powers) subject to the terms and authority of the Allied Powers.  But the Allied Powers had a stipulation for a portion of Palestine which was unique form all the other Mandates:  the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
> 
> Now the non-Jewish population had two _(and only two)_ sets of rights that were explicitly identified for protection: "nothing should be done which might prejudice the *civil and religious rights* of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" (ie *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*).
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> In 1922, what were *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*?
> 
> In 1922, the Religious Rights were fairly simple:   The freedom to believe in, and the ability to teaching, practice, worship, and observe the various religious theologies without undue interference.  But it was not until 1948 that this right was considered a Universal Human Right (Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
> 
> In 1922, there was not universal understanding of what was meant by civil rights; but slowly evolving was the concept of equal protect.  It was emerging as, in addition to personal liberty, rights to full legal, social, and economic equality.
> But you would be hard pressed to make the case that right to sovereignty and independence is included in the civil rights of 1922.  So the Question becomes, when the Allied Powers decided on creating a Jewish National Home, did the Arab Palestinians have this elusive set of rights to independence and sovereignty?  I would argue that prior to the 1945 Charter, the right of self-determination was only theoretical.  And prior to 1960, the definition of the right of self-determination was not clearly articulated.
> 
> Adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conscious of the need for the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion;
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.  (Derivative from the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the 1945 Charter.)
> To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
> With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
> a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
> b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and inter- 11 ational cultural and educational cooperation; and
> c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was not until 5 NOVEMBER 2013 GA/SHC/4085 that we hear that Self-Determination Integral to Basic Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms, Third Committee Told as It Concludes General Discussion.
> 
> No, in 1922, or for that matter, in 1948, it was clear that the no right of the Arab Palestinian was trampled when the General Assemble set out to implement the Partition Plan.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1922, what were *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*?​
> Britain tried to remove the Palestinians from their *Political Rights.* That is the right to develop their own government. This ran contrary to the rights implied by The League of Nations Covenant.
> 
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the *rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.*​
> 
> I believe that the meaning of "stand alone" to be when they created their own functioning government and the Mandate was charged with assisting them to do that.
> 
> Britain violently prevented the Palestinians from creating their own government while imposing by force laws and policies against the wishes and best interest of the people.
> 
> Since the Mandate failed to create an independent state the creation of Israel was a completely separate issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have asked you to prove your claims about the British many times, yet you never have any proof. Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, here is some but you will not look at it.
Click to expand...






 Watched it and saw it was just the same old islamonazi LIES and propaganda that have no basis in reality. It was produced by the arab muslims so straight away it is heavily biased against the truth and anyone that opposes Islamic world domination and slavery.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Surrender:  cease resistance to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but didn't the LoN hold the territories in trust for the people? I see nowhere that the LoN or the Mandates took possession of any land.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First the Ottoman Empire surrendered to the Allied Powers, then Turkey renounced all it authority over the territory.  You don't necessarily see one country take possession of another country --- in a surrender.  And, you don't necessity see an exchange of territory.  The Allied Powers, to a degree, did not take possession of Japan and Germany at the end of WWII.  What you saw was the extension of Allied Authority over that territory.  _(Noting that the minor exception in that the USSR did partition East Germany from the remainder.)  _
> 
> And YES!  The League of Nations via the Allied Powers, did take various territories in trust, which were inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, and assumed control --- externally placed under a Civil Administration with full power of administration (executive powers) and legislation (law making powers) subject to the terms and authority of the Allied Powers.  But the Allied Powers had a stipulation for a portion of Palestine which was unique form all the other Mandates:  the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
> 
> Now the non-Jewish population had two _(and only two)_ sets of rights that were explicitly identified for protection: "nothing should be done which might prejudice the *civil and religious rights* of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" (ie *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*).
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> In 1922, what were *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*?
> 
> In 1922, the Religious Rights were fairly simple:   The freedom to believe in, and the ability to teaching, practice, worship, and observe the various religious theologies without undue interference.  But it was not until 1948 that this right was considered a Universal Human Right (Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
> 
> In 1922, there was not universal understanding of what was meant by civil rights; but slowly evolving was the concept of equal protect.  It was emerging as, in addition to personal liberty, rights to full legal, social, and economic equality.
> But you would be hard pressed to make the case that right to sovereignty and independence is included in the civil rights of 1922.  So the Question becomes, when the Allied Powers decided on creating a Jewish National Home, did the Arab Palestinians have this elusive set of rights to independence and sovereignty?  I would argue that prior to the 1945 Charter, the right of self-determination was only theoretical.  And prior to 1960, the definition of the right of self-determination was not clearly articulated.
> 
> Adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conscious of the need for the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion;
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.  (Derivative from the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the 1945 Charter.)
> To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
> With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
> a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
> b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and inter- 11 ational cultural and educational cooperation; and
> c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was not until 5 NOVEMBER 2013 GA/SHC/4085 that we hear that Self-Determination Integral to Basic Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms, Third Committee Told as It Concludes General Discussion.
> 
> No, in 1922, or for that matter, in 1948, it was clear that the no right of the Arab Palestinian was trampled when the General Assemble set out to implement the Partition Plan.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1922, what were *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*?​
> Britain tried to remove the Palestinians from their *Political Rights.* That is the right to develop their own government. This ran contrary to the rights implied by The League of Nations Covenant.
> 
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the *rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.*​
> 
> I believe that the meaning of "stand alone" to be when they created their own functioning government and the Mandate was charged with assisting them to do that.
> 
> Britain violently prevented the Palestinians from creating their own government while imposing by force laws and policies against the wishes and best interest of the people.
> 
> Since the Mandate failed to create an independent state the creation of Israel was a completely separate issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have asked you to prove your claims about the British many times, yet you never have any proof. Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, here is some but you will not look at it.
Click to expand...




P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Surrender:  cease resistance to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but didn't the LoN hold the territories in trust for the people? I see nowhere that the LoN or the Mandates took possession of any land.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First the Ottoman Empire surrendered to the Allied Powers, then Turkey renounced all it authority over the territory.  You don't necessarily see one country take possession of another country --- in a surrender.  And, you don't necessity see an exchange of territory.  The Allied Powers, to a degree, did not take possession of Japan and Germany at the end of WWII.  What you saw was the extension of Allied Authority over that territory.  _(Noting that the minor exception in that the USSR did partition East Germany from the remainder.)  _
> 
> And YES!  The League of Nations via the Allied Powers, did take various territories in trust, which were inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, and assumed control --- externally placed under a Civil Administration with full power of administration (executive powers) and legislation (law making powers) subject to the terms and authority of the Allied Powers.  But the Allied Powers had a stipulation for a portion of Palestine which was unique form all the other Mandates:  the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
> 
> Now the non-Jewish population had two _(and only two)_ sets of rights that were explicitly identified for protection: "nothing should be done which might prejudice the *civil and religious rights* of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" (ie *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*).
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> In 1922, what were *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*?
> 
> In 1922, the Religious Rights were fairly simple:   The freedom to believe in, and the ability to teaching, practice, worship, and observe the various religious theologies without undue interference.  But it was not until 1948 that this right was considered a Universal Human Right (Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
> 
> In 1922, there was not universal understanding of what was meant by civil rights; but slowly evolving was the concept of equal protect.  It was emerging as, in addition to personal liberty, rights to full legal, social, and economic equality.
> But you would be hard pressed to make the case that right to sovereignty and independence is included in the civil rights of 1922.  So the Question becomes, when the Allied Powers decided on creating a Jewish National Home, did the Arab Palestinians have this elusive set of rights to independence and sovereignty?  I would argue that prior to the 1945 Charter, the right of self-determination was only theoretical.  And prior to 1960, the definition of the right of self-determination was not clearly articulated.
> 
> Adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conscious of the need for the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion;
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.  (Derivative from the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the 1945 Charter.)
> To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
> With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
> a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
> b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and inter- 11 ational cultural and educational cooperation; and
> c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was not until 5 NOVEMBER 2013 GA/SHC/4085 that we hear that Self-Determination Integral to Basic Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms, Third Committee Told as It Concludes General Discussion.
> 
> No, in 1922, or for that matter, in 1948, it was clear that the no right of the Arab Palestinian was trampled when the General Assemble set out to implement the Partition Plan.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1922, what were *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*?​
> Britain tried to remove the Palestinians from their *Political Rights.* That is the right to develop their own government. This ran contrary to the rights implied by The League of Nations Covenant.
> 
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the *rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.*​
> 
> I believe that the meaning of "stand alone" to be when they created their own functioning government and the Mandate was charged with assisting them to do that.
> 
> Britain violently prevented the Palestinians from creating their own government while imposing by force laws and policies against the wishes and best interest of the people.
> 
> Since the Mandate failed to create an independent state the creation of Israel was a completely separate issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have asked you to prove your claims about the British many times, yet you never have any proof. Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, here is some but you will not look at it.
Click to expand...


And yet another of Tinmore's famous, unbiased, honest Al Jazeera source documentation.  Ya gotta love him for all the fun & laughs he gives us.  Heh Heh!


----------



## Hossfly

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Surrender:  cease resistance to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but didn't the LoN hold the territories in trust for the people? I see nowhere that the LoN or the Mandates took possession of any land.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First the Ottoman Empire surrendered to the Allied Powers, then Turkey renounced all it authority over the territory.  You don't necessarily see one country take possession of another country --- in a surrender.  And, you don't necessity see an exchange of territory.  The Allied Powers, to a degree, did not take possession of Japan and Germany at the end of WWII.  What you saw was the extension of Allied Authority over that territory.  _(Noting that the minor exception in that the USSR did partition East Germany from the remainder.)  _
> 
> And YES!  The League of Nations via the Allied Powers, did take various territories in trust, which were inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, and assumed control --- externally placed under a Civil Administration with full power of administration (executive powers) and legislation (law making powers) subject to the terms and authority of the Allied Powers.  But the Allied Powers had a stipulation for a portion of Palestine which was unique form all the other Mandates:  the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
> 
> Now the non-Jewish population had two _(and only two)_ sets of rights that were explicitly identified for protection: "nothing should be done which might prejudice the *civil and religious rights* of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" (ie *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*).
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> In 1922, what were *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*?
> 
> In 1922, the Religious Rights were fairly simple:   The freedom to believe in, and the ability to teaching, practice, worship, and observe the various religious theologies without undue interference.  But it was not until 1948 that this right was considered a Universal Human Right (Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
> 
> In 1922, there was not universal understanding of what was meant by civil rights; but slowly evolving was the concept of equal protect.  It was emerging as, in addition to personal liberty, rights to full legal, social, and economic equality.
> But you would be hard pressed to make the case that right to sovereignty and independence is included in the civil rights of 1922.  So the Question becomes, when the Allied Powers decided on creating a Jewish National Home, did the Arab Palestinians have this elusive set of rights to independence and sovereignty?  I would argue that prior to the 1945 Charter, the right of self-determination was only theoretical.  And prior to 1960, the definition of the right of self-determination was not clearly articulated.
> 
> Adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conscious of the need for the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion;
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.  (Derivative from the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the 1945 Charter.)
> To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
> With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
> a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
> b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and inter- 11 ational cultural and educational cooperation; and
> c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was not until 5 NOVEMBER 2013 GA/SHC/4085 that we hear that Self-Determination Integral to Basic Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms, Third Committee Told as It Concludes General Discussion.
> 
> No, in 1922, or for that matter, in 1948, it was clear that the no right of the Arab Palestinian was trampled when the General Assemble set out to implement the Partition Plan.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1922, what were *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*?​
> Britain tried to remove the Palestinians from their *Political Rights.* That is the right to develop their own government. This ran contrary to the rights implied by The League of Nations Covenant.
> 
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the *rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.*​
> 
> I believe that the meaning of "stand alone" to be when they created their own functioning government and the Mandate was charged with assisting them to do that.
> 
> Britain violently prevented the Palestinians from creating their own government while imposing by force laws and policies against the wishes and best interest of the people.
> 
> Since the Mandate failed to create an independent state the creation of Israel was a completely separate issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have asked you to prove your claims about the British many times, yet you never have any proof. Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, here is some but you will not look at it.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Surrender:  cease resistance to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but didn't the LoN hold the territories in trust for the people? I see nowhere that the LoN or the Mandates took possession of any land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First the Ottoman Empire surrendered to the Allied Powers, then Turkey renounced all it authority over the territory.  You don't necessarily see one country take possession of another country --- in a surrender.  And, you don't necessity see an exchange of territory.  The Allied Powers, to a degree, did not take possession of Japan and Germany at the end of WWII.  What you saw was the extension of Allied Authority over that territory.  _(Noting that the minor exception in that the USSR did partition East Germany from the remainder.)  _
> 
> And YES!  The League of Nations via the Allied Powers, did take various territories in trust, which were inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, and assumed control --- externally placed under a Civil Administration with full power of administration (executive powers) and legislation (law making powers) subject to the terms and authority of the Allied Powers.  But the Allied Powers had a stipulation for a portion of Palestine which was unique form all the other Mandates:  the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
> 
> Now the non-Jewish population had two _(and only two)_ sets of rights that were explicitly identified for protection: "nothing should be done which might prejudice the *civil and religious rights* of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" (ie *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*).
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> In 1922, what were *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*?
> 
> In 1922, the Religious Rights were fairly simple:   The freedom to believe in, and the ability to teaching, practice, worship, and observe the various religious theologies without undue interference.  But it was not until 1948 that this right was considered a Universal Human Right (Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
> 
> In 1922, there was not universal understanding of what was meant by civil rights; but slowly evolving was the concept of equal protect.  It was emerging as, in addition to personal liberty, rights to full legal, social, and economic equality.
> But you would be hard pressed to make the case that right to sovereignty and independence is included in the civil rights of 1922.  So the Question becomes, when the Allied Powers decided on creating a Jewish National Home, did the Arab Palestinians have this elusive set of rights to independence and sovereignty?  I would argue that prior to the 1945 Charter, the right of self-determination was only theoretical.  And prior to 1960, the definition of the right of self-determination was not clearly articulated.
> 
> Adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conscious of the need for the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion;
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.  (Derivative from the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the 1945 Charter.)
> To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
> With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
> a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
> b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and inter- 11 ational cultural and educational cooperation; and
> c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was not until 5 NOVEMBER 2013 GA/SHC/4085 that we hear that Self-Determination Integral to Basic Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms, Third Committee Told as It Concludes General Discussion.
> 
> No, in 1922, or for that matter, in 1948, it was clear that the no right of the Arab Palestinian was trampled when the General Assemble set out to implement the Partition Plan.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1922, what were *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*?​
> Britain tried to remove the Palestinians from their *Political Rights.* That is the right to develop their own government. This ran contrary to the rights implied by The League of Nations Covenant.
> 
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the *rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.*​
> 
> I believe that the meaning of "stand alone" to be when they created their own functioning government and the Mandate was charged with assisting them to do that.
> 
> Britain violently prevented the Palestinians from creating their own government while imposing by force laws and policies against the wishes and best interest of the people.
> 
> Since the Mandate failed to create an independent state the creation of Israel was a completely separate issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have asked you to prove your claims about the British many times, yet you never have any proof. Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, here is some but you will not look at it.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet another of Tinmore's famous, unbiased, honest Al Jazeera source documentation.  Ya gotta love him for all the fun & laughs he gives us.  Heh Heh!
Click to expand...

I didn't want to be the bearer of bad news but he is playing rope-a-dope with Rocco and getting ready to deliver the knock out punch. That Tinmore is one sly dude. Keep your guard up, Rocco.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Surrender:  cease resistance to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but didn't the LoN hold the territories in trust for the people? I see nowhere that the LoN or the Mandates took possession of any land.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First the Ottoman Empire surrendered to the Allied Powers, then Turkey renounced all it authority over the territory.  You don't necessarily see one country take possession of another country --- in a surrender.  And, you don't necessity see an exchange of territory.  The Allied Powers, to a degree, did not take possession of Japan and Germany at the end of WWII.  What you saw was the extension of Allied Authority over that territory.  _(Noting that the minor exception in that the USSR did partition East Germany from the remainder.)  _
> 
> And YES!  The League of Nations via the Allied Powers, did take various territories in trust, which were inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, and assumed control --- externally placed under a Civil Administration with full power of administration (executive powers) and legislation (law making powers) subject to the terms and authority of the Allied Powers.  But the Allied Powers had a stipulation for a portion of Palestine which was unique form all the other Mandates:  the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
> 
> Now the non-Jewish population had two _(and only two)_ sets of rights that were explicitly identified for protection: "nothing should be done which might prejudice the *civil and religious rights* of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" (ie *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*).
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> In 1922, what were *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*?
> 
> In 1922, the Religious Rights were fairly simple:   The freedom to believe in, and the ability to teaching, practice, worship, and observe the various religious theologies without undue interference.  But it was not until 1948 that this right was considered a Universal Human Right (Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
> 
> In 1922, there was not universal understanding of what was meant by civil rights; but slowly evolving was the concept of equal protect.  It was emerging as, in addition to personal liberty, rights to full legal, social, and economic equality.
> But you would be hard pressed to make the case that right to sovereignty and independence is included in the civil rights of 1922.  So the Question becomes, when the Allied Powers decided on creating a Jewish National Home, did the Arab Palestinians have this elusive set of rights to independence and sovereignty?  I would argue that prior to the 1945 Charter, the right of self-determination was only theoretical.  And prior to 1960, the definition of the right of self-determination was not clearly articulated.
> 
> Adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conscious of the need for the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion;
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.  (Derivative from the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the 1945 Charter.)
> To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
> With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
> a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
> b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and inter- 11 ational cultural and educational cooperation; and
> c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was not until 5 NOVEMBER 2013 GA/SHC/4085 that we hear that Self-Determination Integral to Basic Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms, Third Committee Told as It Concludes General Discussion.
> 
> No, in 1922, or for that matter, in 1948, it was clear that the no right of the Arab Palestinian was trampled when the General Assemble set out to implement the Partition Plan.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1922, what were *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*?​
> Britain tried to remove the Palestinians from their *Political Rights.* That is the right to develop their own government. This ran contrary to the rights implied by The League of Nations Covenant.
> 
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the *rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.*​
> 
> I believe that the meaning of "stand alone" to be when they created their own functioning government and the Mandate was charged with assisting them to do that.
> 
> Britain violently prevented the Palestinians from creating their own government while imposing by force laws and policies against the wishes and best interest of the people.
> 
> Since the Mandate failed to create an independent state the creation of Israel was a completely separate issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have asked you to prove your claims about the British many times, yet you never have any proof. Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, here is some but you will not look at it.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Watched it and saw it was just the same old islamonazi LIES and propaganda that have no basis in reality. It was produced by the arab muslims so straight away it is heavily biased against the truth and anyone that opposes Islamic world domination and slavery.
Click to expand...


What did they say that you believe is false?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Surrender:  cease resistance to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but didn't the LoN hold the territories in trust for the people? I see nowhere that the LoN or the Mandates took possession of any land.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First the Ottoman Empire surrendered to the Allied Powers, then Turkey renounced all it authority over the territory.  You don't necessarily see one country take possession of another country --- in a surrender.  And, you don't necessity see an exchange of territory.  The Allied Powers, to a degree, did not take possession of Japan and Germany at the end of WWII.  What you saw was the extension of Allied Authority over that territory.  _(Noting that the minor exception in that the USSR did partition East Germany from the remainder.)  _
> 
> And YES!  The League of Nations via the Allied Powers, did take various territories in trust, which were inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, and assumed control --- externally placed under a Civil Administration with full power of administration (executive powers) and legislation (law making powers) subject to the terms and authority of the Allied Powers.  But the Allied Powers had a stipulation for a portion of Palestine which was unique form all the other Mandates:  the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
> 
> Now the non-Jewish population had two _(and only two)_ sets of rights that were explicitly identified for protection: "nothing should be done which might prejudice the *civil and religious rights* of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" (ie *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*).
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> In 1922, what were *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*?
> 
> In 1922, the Religious Rights were fairly simple:   The freedom to believe in, and the ability to teaching, practice, worship, and observe the various religious theologies without undue interference.  But it was not until 1948 that this right was considered a Universal Human Right (Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
> 
> In 1922, there was not universal understanding of what was meant by civil rights; but slowly evolving was the concept of equal protect.  It was emerging as, in addition to personal liberty, rights to full legal, social, and economic equality.
> But you would be hard pressed to make the case that right to sovereignty and independence is included in the civil rights of 1922.  So the Question becomes, when the Allied Powers decided on creating a Jewish National Home, did the Arab Palestinians have this elusive set of rights to independence and sovereignty?  I would argue that prior to the 1945 Charter, the right of self-determination was only theoretical.  And prior to 1960, the definition of the right of self-determination was not clearly articulated.
> 
> Adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conscious of the need for the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion;
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.  (Derivative from the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the 1945 Charter.)
> To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
> With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
> a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
> b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and inter- 11 ational cultural and educational cooperation; and
> c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was not until 5 NOVEMBER 2013 GA/SHC/4085 that we hear that Self-Determination Integral to Basic Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms, Third Committee Told as It Concludes General Discussion.
> 
> No, in 1922, or for that matter, in 1948, it was clear that the no right of the Arab Palestinian was trampled when the General Assemble set out to implement the Partition Plan.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

It was not until 5 NOVEMBER 2013 GA/SHC/4085 that we hear that Self-Determination Integral to Basic Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms, Third Committee Told as It Concludes General Discussion.​
Then it is interesting that the Palestinians invoked the right to self determination in their 1948 declaration of independence.

I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND...

A C.1 330 of 14 October 1948​
It looks like you are trying to mislead.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Surrender:  cease resistance to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First the Ottoman Empire surrendered to the Allied Powers, then Turkey renounced all it authority over the territory.  You don't necessarily see one country take possession of another country --- in a surrender.  And, you don't necessity see an exchange of territory.  The Allied Powers, to a degree, did not take possession of Japan and Germany at the end of WWII.  What you saw was the extension of Allied Authority over that territory.  _(Noting that the minor exception in that the USSR did partition East Germany from the remainder.)  _
> 
> And YES!  The League of Nations via the Allied Powers, did take various territories in trust, which were inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, and assumed control --- externally placed under a Civil Administration with full power of administration (executive powers) and legislation (law making powers) subject to the terms and authority of the Allied Powers.  But the Allied Powers had a stipulation for a portion of Palestine which was unique form all the other Mandates:  the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
> 
> Now the non-Jewish population had two _(and only two)_ sets of rights that were explicitly identified for protection: "nothing should be done which might prejudice the *civil and religious rights* of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" (ie *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*).
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> In 1922, what were *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*?
> 
> In 1922, the Religious Rights were fairly simple:   The freedom to believe in, and the ability to teaching, practice, worship, and observe the various religious theologies without undue interference.  But it was not until 1948 that this right was considered a Universal Human Right (Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
> 
> In 1922, there was not universal understanding of what was meant by civil rights; but slowly evolving was the concept of equal protect.  It was emerging as, in addition to personal liberty, rights to full legal, social, and economic equality.
> But you would be hard pressed to make the case that right to sovereignty and independence is included in the civil rights of 1922.  So the Question becomes, when the Allied Powers decided on creating a Jewish National Home, did the Arab Palestinians have this elusive set of rights to independence and sovereignty?  I would argue that prior to the 1945 Charter, the right of self-determination was only theoretical.  And prior to 1960, the definition of the right of self-determination was not clearly articulated.
> 
> Adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conscious of the need for the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion;
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.  (Derivative from the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the 1945 Charter.)
> To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
> With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
> a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
> b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and inter- 11 ational cultural and educational cooperation; and
> c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was not until 5 NOVEMBER 2013 GA/SHC/4085 that we hear that Self-Determination Integral to Basic Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms, Third Committee Told as It Concludes General Discussion.
> 
> No, in 1922, or for that matter, in 1948, it was clear that the no right of the Arab Palestinian was trampled when the General Assemble set out to implement the Partition Plan.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> In 1922, what were *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*?​
> Britain tried to remove the Palestinians from their *Political Rights.* That is the right to develop their own government. This ran contrary to the rights implied by The League of Nations Covenant.
> 
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the *rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.*​
> 
> I believe that the meaning of "stand alone" to be when they created their own functioning government and the Mandate was charged with assisting them to do that.
> 
> Britain violently prevented the Palestinians from creating their own government while imposing by force laws and policies against the wishes and best interest of the people.
> 
> Since the Mandate failed to create an independent state the creation of Israel was a completely separate issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have asked you to prove your claims about the British many times, yet you never have any proof. Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, here is some but you will not look at it.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Watched it and saw it was just the same old islamonazi LIES and propaganda that have no basis in reality. It was produced by the arab muslims so straight away it is heavily biased against the truth and anyone that opposes Islamic world domination and slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did they say that you believe is false?
Click to expand...




 All of it


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1922, what were *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*?​
> Britain tried to remove the Palestinians from their *Political Rights.* That is the right to develop their own government. This ran contrary to the rights implied by The League of Nations Covenant.
> 
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the *rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.*​
> 
> I believe that the meaning of "stand alone" to be when they created their own functioning government and the Mandate was charged with assisting them to do that.
> 
> Britain violently prevented the Palestinians from creating their own government while imposing by force laws and policies against the wishes and best interest of the people.
> 
> Since the Mandate failed to create an independent state the creation of Israel was a completely separate issue.
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked you to prove your claims about the British many times, yet you never have any proof. Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, here is some but you will not look at it.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Watched it and saw it was just the same old islamonazi LIES and propaganda that have no basis in reality. It was produced by the arab muslims so straight away it is heavily biased against the truth and anyone that opposes Islamic world domination and slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did they say that you believe is false?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of it
Click to expand...

You sound like a teenage girl explaining what she doesn't like about her ex.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked you to prove your claims about the British many times, yet you never have any proof. Why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> OK, here is some but you will not look at it.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Watched it and saw it was just the same old islamonazi LIES and propaganda that have no basis in reality. It was produced by the arab muslims so straight away it is heavily biased against the truth and anyone that opposes Islamic world domination and slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did they say that you believe is false?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sound like a teenage girl explaining what she doesn't like about her ex.
Click to expand...




 And you sound like a brainwashed stooge that cant think for themselves.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

No, you are conveniently misreading the intent.  You are misleading the other members of the discussion group by not fully quoting the salient point of the posting.



P F Tinmore said:


> It was not until 5 NOVEMBER 2013 GA/SHC/4085 that we hear that Self-Determination Integral to Basic Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms, Third Committee Told as It Concludes General Discussion.​
> Then it is interesting that the Palestinians invoked the right to self determination in their 1948 declaration of independence.
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND...
> 
> A C.1 330 of 14 October 1948​
> It looks like you are trying to mislead.


*(COMMENT)*

As I have said before, the first time self-determination is mention as a formal matter is in the 1945 UN Charter.  You quoted Posting 2776, but conveniently left out the lead-in.  I repost a salient point form the earlier post for clarification:

All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. *(Derivative from the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the 1945 Charter.)*
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and inter- 11 ational cultural and educational cooperation; and
c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.


The Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 217 A (III). Universal Declaration of Human Rights (DEC 1948), does not include the Right of Self-Determination as a "Universal Basic Human Right" with all the other codification of Basic Human Rights.  As I said, that really doesn't happen until 2013.

The All-Palestine Government (Egyptian puppet APG) could only use the new Charter as a reference because the Right of Self-determination was a relatively new concept and not universally adopted and not considered a universal right with an definition.

There is a difference between an undefined Charter right and a universally accepted right.  And that is why, in the Universal Declaration, the right of self-determination is not mentioned.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> No, you are conveniently misreading the intent.  You are misleading the other members of the discussion group by not fully quoting the salient point of the posting.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was not until 5 NOVEMBER 2013 GA/SHC/4085 that we hear that Self-Determination Integral to Basic Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms, Third Committee Told as It Concludes General Discussion.​
> Then it is interesting that the Palestinians invoked the right to self determination in their 1948 declaration of independence.
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND...
> 
> A C.1 330 of 14 October 1948​
> It looks like you are trying to mislead.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As I have said before, the first time self-determination is mention as a formal matter is in the 1945 UN Charter.  You quoted Posting 2776, but conveniently left out the lead-in.  I repost a salient point form the earlier post for clarification:
> 
> All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. *(Derivative from the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the 1945 Charter.)*
> To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
> With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
> a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
> b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and inter- 11 ational cultural and educational cooperation; and
> c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
> 
> 
> The Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 217 A (III). Universal Declaration of Human Rights (DEC 1948), does not include the Right of Self-Determination as a "Universal Basic Human Right" with all the other codification of Basic Human Rights.  As I said, that really doesn't happen until 2013.
> 
> The All-Palestine Government (Egyptian puppet APG) could only use the new Charter as a reference because the Right of Self-determination was a relatively new concept and not universally adopted and not considered a universal right with an definition.
> 
> There is a difference between an undefined Charter right and a universally accepted right.  And that is why, in the Universal Declaration, the right of self-determination is not mentioned.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

But you repeatedly claim that the Jews exercised their right to self determination in 1948.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Surrender:  cease resistance to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but didn't the LoN hold the territories in trust for the people? I see nowhere that the LoN or the Mandates took possession of any land.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First the Ottoman Empire surrendered to the Allied Powers, then Turkey renounced all it authority over the territory.  You don't necessarily see one country take possession of another country --- in a surrender.  And, you don't necessity see an exchange of territory.  The Allied Powers, to a degree, did not take possession of Japan and Germany at the end of WWII.  What you saw was the extension of Allied Authority over that territory.  _(Noting that the minor exception in that the USSR did partition East Germany from the remainder.)  _
> 
> And YES!  The League of Nations via the Allied Powers, did take various territories in trust, which were inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, and assumed control --- externally placed under a Civil Administration with full power of administration (executive powers) and legislation (law making powers) subject to the terms and authority of the Allied Powers.  But the Allied Powers had a stipulation for a portion of Palestine which was unique form all the other Mandates:  the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
> 
> Now the non-Jewish population had two _(and only two)_ sets of rights that were explicitly identified for protection: "nothing should be done which might prejudice the *civil and religious rights* of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" (ie *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*).
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> In 1922, what were *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*?
> 
> In 1922, the Religious Rights were fairly simple:   The freedom to believe in, and the ability to teaching, practice, worship, and observe the various religious theologies without undue interference.  But it was not until 1948 that this right was considered a Universal Human Right (Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
> 
> In 1922, there was not universal understanding of what was meant by civil rights; but slowly evolving was the concept of equal protect.  It was emerging as, in addition to personal liberty, rights to full legal, social, and economic equality.
> But you would be hard pressed to make the case that right to sovereignty and independence is included in the civil rights of 1922.  So the Question becomes, when the Allied Powers decided on creating a Jewish National Home, did the Arab Palestinians have this elusive set of rights to independence and sovereignty?  I would argue that prior to the 1945 Charter, the right of self-determination was only theoretical.  And prior to 1960, the definition of the right of self-determination was not clearly articulated.
> 
> Adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conscious of the need for the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion;
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.  (Derivative from the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the 1945 Charter.)
> To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
> With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
> a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
> b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and inter- 11 ational cultural and educational cooperation; and
> c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was not until 5 NOVEMBER 2013 GA/SHC/4085 that we hear that Self-Determination Integral to Basic Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms, Third Committee Told as It Concludes General Discussion.
> 
> No, in 1922, or for that matter, in 1948, it was clear that the no right of the Arab Palestinian was trampled when the General Assemble set out to implement the Partition Plan.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1922, what were *Civil Rights* and *Religious Rights*?​
> Britain tried to remove the Palestinians from their *Political Rights.* That is the right to develop their own government. This ran contrary to the rights implied by The League of Nations Covenant.
> 
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the *rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.*​
> 
> I believe that the meaning of "stand alone" to be when they created their own functioning government and the Mandate was charged with assisting them to do that.
> 
> Britain violently prevented the Palestinians from creating their own government while imposing by force laws and policies against the wishes and best interest of the people.
> 
> Since the Mandate failed to create an independent state the creation of Israel was a completely separate issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have asked you to prove your claims about the British many times, yet you never have any proof. Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, here is some but you will not look at it.
Click to expand...

I ask you a simple question and you respond with a video that is over an hour and a half??


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,   et al,

The 1948 Declaration of Independence for the Jewish State of Israel has more than one facet.



P F Tinmore said:


> But you repeatedly claim that the Jews exercised their right to self determination in 1948.


*(COMMENT)*

There are several points of concern when looking at the 1948 Jewish Bid:

The 1919 Article 22(4) "able to stand alone" criteria in the League of Nation Covenant.
Of course the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the UN Charter of 1945 is but one aspect.
The 1922 Article 4 and Article 6 Jewish National Home criteria in the Mandate for Palestine.
The 1947 unanimous recommendations and Partition Plan by the majority of the Special Committee.
The 1947 Steps Preparatory to Independence, A/RES/181(II).
The 1948 coordination with the UN Palestine Commission.
The path taken by the Jewish, is considerably different than that taken by the All-Palestine Government, --- OR --- the Arab High Committee.  Yes, the Jewish exercised their 'Right of Self-Determination, but there was so much more that they did in connection with their independence that the Arab Palestinians declined.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,   et al,
> 
> The 1948 Declaration of Independence for the Jewish State of Israel has more than one facet.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you repeatedly claim that the Jews exercised their right to self determination in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are several points of concern when looking at the 1948 Jewish Bid:
> 
> The 1919 Article 22(4) "able to stand alone" criteria in the League of Nation Covenant.
> Of course the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the UN Charter of 1945 is but one aspect.
> The 1922 Article 4 and Article 6 Jewish National Home criteria in the Mandate for Palestine.
> The 1947 unanimous recommendations and Partition Plan by the majority of the Special Committee.
> The 1947 Steps Preparatory to Independence, A/RES/181(II).
> The 1948 coordination with the UN Palestine Commission.
> The path taken by the Jewish, is considerably different than that taken by the All-Palestine Government, --- OR --- the Arab High Committee.  Yes, the Jewish exercised their 'Right of Self-Determination, but there was so much more that they did in connection with their independence that the Arab Palestinians declined.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The creation of Israel was purely unilateral.  Neither the UN nor the Mandate had anything to do with it.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

* Zeina Melhem*


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> No, you are conveniently misreading the intent.  You are misleading the other members of the discussion group by not fully quoting the salient point of the posting.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was not until 5 NOVEMBER 2013 GA/SHC/4085 that we hear that Self-Determination Integral to Basic Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms, Third Committee Told as It Concludes General Discussion.​
> Then it is interesting that the Palestinians invoked the right to self determination in their 1948 declaration of independence.
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND...
> 
> A C.1 330 of 14 October 1948​
> It looks like you are trying to mislead.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As I have said before, the first time self-determination is mention as a formal matter is in the 1945 UN Charter.  You quoted Posting 2776, but conveniently left out the lead-in.  I repost a salient point form the earlier post for clarification:
> 
> All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. *(Derivative from the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the 1945 Charter.)*
> To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
> With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
> a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
> b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and inter- 11 ational cultural and educational cooperation; and
> c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
> 
> 
> The Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 217 A (III). Universal Declaration of Human Rights (DEC 1948), does not include the Right of Self-Determination as a "Universal Basic Human Right" with all the other codification of Basic Human Rights.  As I said, that really doesn't happen until 2013.
> 
> The All-Palestine Government (Egyptian puppet APG) could only use the new Charter as a reference because the Right of Self-determination was a relatively new concept and not universally adopted and not considered a universal right with an definition.
> 
> There is a difference between an undefined Charter right and a universally accepted right.  And that is why, in the Universal Declaration, the right of self-determination is not mentioned.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you repeatedly claim that the Jews exercised their right to self determination in 1948.
Click to expand...






 Correct in as much as it applied at that time ...........to whit

 All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. *(Derivative from the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the 1945 Charter.)


The arab muslim by dint of allowing outside interference were no accorded the same right because of the outside interference.*


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,   et al,
> 
> The 1948 Declaration of Independence for the Jewish State of Israel has more than one facet.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you repeatedly claim that the Jews exercised their right to self determination in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are several points of concern when looking at the 1948 Jewish Bid:
> 
> The 1919 Article 22(4) "able to stand alone" criteria in the League of Nation Covenant.
> Of course the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the UN Charter of 1945 is but one aspect.
> The 1922 Article 4 and Article 6 Jewish National Home criteria in the Mandate for Palestine.
> The 1947 unanimous recommendations and Partition Plan by the majority of the Special Committee.
> The 1947 Steps Preparatory to Independence, A/RES/181(II).
> The 1948 coordination with the UN Palestine Commission.
> The path taken by the Jewish, is considerably different than that taken by the All-Palestine Government, --- OR --- the Arab High Committee.  Yes, the Jewish exercised their 'Right of Self-Determination, but there was so much more that they did in connection with their independence that the Arab Palestinians declined.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The creation of Israel was purely unilateral.  Neither the UN nor the Mandate had anything to do with it.
Click to expand...





 Just as the creation of Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon were also unilateral and the UN and Mandate had nothing to do with them. You cant pick and choose your details just because they support part of your POV.  That is the essence of free determination to make unilateral decisions. Now why haven't the arab muslim Palestinians made that second unilateral step towards free determination


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> * Zeina Melhem*






 What is she on, she rabbits away without taking a breath and looks like she has been to an amphetamine party and taken too much.

Don't you have anything from an unbiased non partisan source


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> No, you are conveniently misreading the intent.  You are misleading the other members of the discussion group by not fully quoting the salient point of the posting.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was not until 5 NOVEMBER 2013 GA/SHC/4085 that we hear that Self-Determination Integral to Basic Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms, Third Committee Told as It Concludes General Discussion.​
> Then it is interesting that the Palestinians invoked the right to self determination in their 1948 declaration of independence.
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND...
> 
> A C.1 330 of 14 October 1948​
> It looks like you are trying to mislead.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As I have said before, the first time self-determination is mention as a formal matter is in the 1945 UN Charter.  You quoted Posting 2776, but conveniently left out the lead-in.  I repost a salient point form the earlier post for clarification:
> 
> All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. *(Derivative from the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the 1945 Charter.)*
> To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
> With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
> a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
> b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and inter- 11 ational cultural and educational cooperation; and
> c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
> 
> 
> The Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 217 A (III). Universal Declaration of Human Rights (DEC 1948), does not include the Right of Self-Determination as a "Universal Basic Human Right" with all the other codification of Basic Human Rights.  As I said, that really doesn't happen until 2013.
> 
> The All-Palestine Government (Egyptian puppet APG) could only use the new Charter as a reference because the Right of Self-determination was a relatively new concept and not universally adopted and not considered a universal right with an definition.
> 
> There is a difference between an undefined Charter right and a universally accepted right.  And that is why, in the Universal Declaration, the right of self-determination is not mentioned.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you repeatedly claim that the Jews exercised their right to self determination in 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct in as much as it applied at that time ...........to whit
> 
> All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. *(Derivative from the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the 1945 Charter.)
> 
> 
> The arab muslim by dint of allowing outside interference were no accorded the same right because of the outside interference.*
Click to expand...

The only Arab country that interfered with Palestinian self determination was Jordan and they were in cahoots with the Zionists. Jordan, however, did release Palestine from its occupation


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,   et al,
> 
> The 1948 Declaration of Independence for the Jewish State of Israel has more than one facet.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you repeatedly claim that the Jews exercised their right to self determination in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are several points of concern when looking at the 1948 Jewish Bid:
> 
> The 1919 Article 22(4) "able to stand alone" criteria in the League of Nation Covenant.
> Of course the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the UN Charter of 1945 is but one aspect.
> The 1922 Article 4 and Article 6 Jewish National Home criteria in the Mandate for Palestine.
> The 1947 unanimous recommendations and Partition Plan by the majority of the Special Committee.
> The 1947 Steps Preparatory to Independence, A/RES/181(II).
> The 1948 coordination with the UN Palestine Commission.
> The path taken by the Jewish, is considerably different than that taken by the All-Palestine Government, --- OR --- the Arab High Committee.  Yes, the Jewish exercised their 'Right of Self-Determination, but there was so much more that they did in connection with their independence that the Arab Palestinians declined.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The creation of Israel was purely unilateral.  Neither the UN nor the Mandate had anything to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as the creation of Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon were also unilateral and the UN and Mandate had nothing to do with them. You cant pick and choose your details just because they support part of your POV.  That is the essence of free determination to make unilateral decisions. Now why haven't the arab muslim Palestinians made that second unilateral step towards free determination
Click to expand...

The UN had nothing to do with it. In all of those countries the Mandate accomplished its goal and they became independent states.

Britain flopped in Palestine.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> No, you are conveniently misreading the intent.  You are misleading the other members of the discussion group by not fully quoting the salient point of the posting.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was not until 5 NOVEMBER 2013 GA/SHC/4085 that we hear that Self-Determination Integral to Basic Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms, Third Committee Told as It Concludes General Discussion.​
> Then it is interesting that the Palestinians invoked the right to self determination in their 1948 declaration of independence.
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND...
> 
> A C.1 330 of 14 October 1948​
> It looks like you are trying to mislead.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As I have said before, the first time self-determination is mention as a formal matter is in the 1945 UN Charter.  You quoted Posting 2776, but conveniently left out the lead-in.  I repost a salient point form the earlier post for clarification:
> 
> All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. *(Derivative from the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the 1945 Charter.)*
> To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
> With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
> a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
> b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and inter- 11 ational cultural and educational cooperation; and
> c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
> 
> 
> The Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 217 A (III). Universal Declaration of Human Rights (DEC 1948), does not include the Right of Self-Determination as a "Universal Basic Human Right" with all the other codification of Basic Human Rights.  As I said, that really doesn't happen until 2013.
> 
> The All-Palestine Government (Egyptian puppet APG) could only use the new Charter as a reference because the Right of Self-determination was a relatively new concept and not universally adopted and not considered a universal right with an definition.
> 
> There is a difference between an undefined Charter right and a universally accepted right.  And that is why, in the Universal Declaration, the right of self-determination is not mentioned.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you repeatedly claim that the Jews exercised their right to self determination in 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct in as much as it applied at that time ...........to whit
> 
> All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. *(Derivative from the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the 1945 Charter.)
> 
> 
> The arab muslim by dint of allowing outside interference were no accorded the same right because of the outside interference.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only Arab country that interfered with Palestinian self determination was Jordan and they were in cahoots with the Zionists. Jordan, however, did release Palestine from its occupation
Click to expand...






 TRy including Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Saudi who all banded together as the arab league and invaded Palestine with the intention of wiping out the Jews and taking all the land. They interfered with the arab muslims self determination, and made it even worse when they created the foreign ran  APG.

All-Palestine Government - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> No, you are conveniently misreading the intent.  You are misleading the other members of the discussion group by not fully quoting the salient point of the posting.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was not until 5 NOVEMBER 2013 GA/SHC/4085 that we hear that Self-Determination Integral to Basic Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms, Third Committee Told as It Concludes General Discussion.​
> Then it is interesting that the Palestinians invoked the right to self determination in their 1948 declaration of independence.
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND...
> 
> A C.1 330 of 14 October 1948​
> It looks like you are trying to mislead.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As I have said before, the first time self-determination is mention as a formal matter is in the 1945 UN Charter.  You quoted Posting 2776, but conveniently left out the lead-in.  I repost a salient point form the earlier post for clarification:
> 
> All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. *(Derivative from the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the 1945 Charter.)*
> To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
> With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
> a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
> b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and inter- 11 ational cultural and educational cooperation; and
> c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
> 
> 
> The Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 217 A (III). Universal Declaration of Human Rights (DEC 1948), does not include the Right of Self-Determination as a "Universal Basic Human Right" with all the other codification of Basic Human Rights.  As I said, that really doesn't happen until 2013.
> 
> The All-Palestine Government (Egyptian puppet APG) could only use the new Charter as a reference because the Right of Self-determination was a relatively new concept and not universally adopted and not considered a universal right with an definition.
> 
> There is a difference between an undefined Charter right and a universally accepted right.  And that is why, in the Universal Declaration, the right of self-determination is not mentioned.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you repeatedly claim that the Jews exercised their right to self determination in 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct in as much as it applied at that time ...........to whit
> 
> All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. *(Derivative from the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the 1945 Charter.)
> 
> 
> The arab muslim by dint of allowing outside interference were no accorded the same right because of the outside interference.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only Arab country that interfered with Palestinian self determination was Jordan and they were in cahoots with the Zionists. Jordan, however, did release Palestine from its occupation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRy including Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Saudi who all banded together as the arab league and invaded Palestine with the intention of wiping out the Jews and taking all the land. They interfered with the arab muslims self determination, and made it even worse when they created the foreign ran  APG.
> 
> All-Palestine Government - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Jordan is the only one who claimed any land and it gave it back.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,   et al,
> 
> The 1948 Declaration of Independence for the Jewish State of Israel has more than one facet.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you repeatedly claim that the Jews exercised their right to self determination in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are several points of concern when looking at the 1948 Jewish Bid:
> 
> The 1919 Article 22(4) "able to stand alone" criteria in the League of Nation Covenant.
> Of course the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the UN Charter of 1945 is but one aspect.
> The 1922 Article 4 and Article 6 Jewish National Home criteria in the Mandate for Palestine.
> The 1947 unanimous recommendations and Partition Plan by the majority of the Special Committee.
> The 1947 Steps Preparatory to Independence, A/RES/181(II).
> The 1948 coordination with the UN Palestine Commission.
> The path taken by the Jewish, is considerably different than that taken by the All-Palestine Government, --- OR --- the Arab High Committee.  Yes, the Jewish exercised their 'Right of Self-Determination, but there was so much more that they did in connection with their independence that the Arab Palestinians declined.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The creation of Israel was purely unilateral.  Neither the UN nor the Mandate had anything to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as the creation of Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon were also unilateral and the UN and Mandate had nothing to do with them. You cant pick and choose your details just because they support part of your POV.  That is the essence of free determination to make unilateral decisions. Now why haven't the arab muslim Palestinians made that second unilateral step towards free determination
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The UN had nothing to do with it. In all of those countries the Mandate accomplished its goal and they became independent states.
> 
> Britain flopped in Palestine.
Click to expand...





 Not until the mid to late 1940's when the Mandate was signed of by the Mandate power. In 1948 this was the U.N as the British could no longer afford to keep an army in Palestine. The UN issued res 181 and that is what the two declarations of independence are based on.
 Now why haven't the arab muslim Palestinians taken the that second unilateral step towards free deterimination


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> No, you are conveniently misreading the intent.  You are misleading the other members of the discussion group by not fully quoting the salient point of the posting.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As I have said before, the first time self-determination is mention as a formal matter is in the 1945 UN Charter.  You quoted Posting 2776, but conveniently left out the lead-in.  I repost a salient point form the earlier post for clarification:
> 
> All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. *(Derivative from the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the 1945 Charter.)*
> To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
> With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
> a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
> b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and inter- 11 ational cultural and educational cooperation; and
> c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
> 
> 
> The Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 217 A (III). Universal Declaration of Human Rights (DEC 1948), does not include the Right of Self-Determination as a "Universal Basic Human Right" with all the other codification of Basic Human Rights.  As I said, that really doesn't happen until 2013.
> 
> The All-Palestine Government (Egyptian puppet APG) could only use the new Charter as a reference because the Right of Self-determination was a relatively new concept and not universally adopted and not considered a universal right with an definition.
> 
> There is a difference between an undefined Charter right and a universally accepted right.  And that is why, in the Universal Declaration, the right of self-determination is not mentioned.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> But you repeatedly claim that the Jews exercised their right to self determination in 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct in as much as it applied at that time ...........to whit
> 
> All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. *(Derivative from the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the 1945 Charter.)
> 
> 
> The arab muslim by dint of allowing outside interference were no accorded the same right because of the outside interference.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only Arab country that interfered with Palestinian self determination was Jordan and they were in cahoots with the Zionists. Jordan, however, did release Palestine from its occupation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRy including Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Saudi who all banded together as the arab league and invaded Palestine with the intention of wiping out the Jews and taking all the land. They interfered with the arab muslims self determination, and made it even worse when they created the foreign ran  APG.
> 
> All-Palestine Government - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jordan is the only one who claimed any land and it gave it back.
Click to expand...





 They also threw out the arab muslim Palestinians who caused the rift. I do believe that Israel also gave back land they had occupied in 1967 to Egypt and Jordan. I also believe that both Egypt and Jordan told Israel to keep certain parts of the land as they did not want anything to do with the arab muslim terrorists infesting those lands.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,   et al,
> 
> The 1948 Declaration of Independence for the Jewish State of Israel has more than one facet.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you repeatedly claim that the Jews exercised their right to self determination in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are several points of concern when looking at the 1948 Jewish Bid:
> 
> The 1919 Article 22(4) "able to stand alone" criteria in the League of Nation Covenant.
> Of course the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the UN Charter of 1945 is but one aspect.
> The 1922 Article 4 and Article 6 Jewish National Home criteria in the Mandate for Palestine.
> The 1947 unanimous recommendations and Partition Plan by the majority of the Special Committee.
> The 1947 Steps Preparatory to Independence, A/RES/181(II).
> The 1948 coordination with the UN Palestine Commission.
> The path taken by the Jewish, is considerably different than that taken by the All-Palestine Government, --- OR --- the Arab High Committee.  Yes, the Jewish exercised their 'Right of Self-Determination, but there was so much more that they did in connection with their independence that the Arab Palestinians declined.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The creation of Israel was purely unilateral.  Neither the UN nor the Mandate had anything to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as the creation of Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon were also unilateral and the UN and Mandate had nothing to do with them. You cant pick and choose your details just because they support part of your POV.  That is the essence of free determination to make unilateral decisions. Now why haven't the arab muslim Palestinians made that second unilateral step towards free determination
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The UN had nothing to do with it. In all of those countries the Mandate accomplished its goal and they became independent states.
> 
> Britain flopped in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not until the mid to late 1940's when the Mandate was signed of by the Mandate power. In 1948 this was the U.N as the British could no longer afford to keep an army in Palestine. The UN issued res 181 and that is what the two declarations of independence are based on.
> Now why haven't the arab muslim Palestinians taken the that second unilateral step towards free deterimination
Click to expand...

When Britain cut and ran so did the UN. Resolution 181 was nothing but a non binding recommendation. Some people do invoke the resolution grasping for some legitimacy.

BTW, the mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice.

Why did Britain need an army for basically a consultant position? A handful of civilians should have been in and out of there in ten years.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you repeatedly claim that the Jews exercised their right to self determination in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct in as much as it applied at that time ...........to whit
> 
> All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. *(Derivative from the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the 1945 Charter.)
> 
> 
> The arab muslim by dint of allowing outside interference were no accorded the same right because of the outside interference.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only Arab country that interfered with Palestinian self determination was Jordan and they were in cahoots with the Zionists. Jordan, however, did release Palestine from its occupation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRy including Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Saudi who all banded together as the arab league and invaded Palestine with the intention of wiping out the Jews and taking all the land. They interfered with the arab muslims self determination, and made it even worse when they created the foreign ran  APG.
> 
> All-Palestine Government - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jordan is the only one who claimed any land and it gave it back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They also threw out the arab muslim Palestinians who caused the rift. I do believe that Israel also gave back land they had occupied in 1967 to Egypt and Jordan. I also believe that both Egypt and Jordan told Israel to keep certain parts of the land as they did not want anything to do with the arab muslim terrorists infesting those lands.
Click to expand...

The Palestinians were only thrown out of the area that was occupied by Israel.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,   et al,
> 
> The 1948 Declaration of Independence for the Jewish State of Israel has more than one facet.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are several points of concern when looking at the 1948 Jewish Bid:
> 
> The 1919 Article 22(4) "able to stand alone" criteria in the League of Nation Covenant.
> Of course the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the UN Charter of 1945 is but one aspect.
> The 1922 Article 4 and Article 6 Jewish National Home criteria in the Mandate for Palestine.
> The 1947 unanimous recommendations and Partition Plan by the majority of the Special Committee.
> The 1947 Steps Preparatory to Independence, A/RES/181(II).
> The 1948 coordination with the UN Palestine Commission.
> The path taken by the Jewish, is considerably different than that taken by the All-Palestine Government, --- OR --- the Arab High Committee.  Yes, the Jewish exercised their 'Right of Self-Determination, but there was so much more that they did in connection with their independence that the Arab Palestinians declined.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> The creation of Israel was purely unilateral.  Neither the UN nor the Mandate had anything to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as the creation of Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon were also unilateral and the UN and Mandate had nothing to do with them. You cant pick and choose your details just because they support part of your POV.  That is the essence of free determination to make unilateral decisions. Now why haven't the arab muslim Palestinians made that second unilateral step towards free determination
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The UN had nothing to do with it. In all of those countries the Mandate accomplished its goal and they became independent states.
> 
> Britain flopped in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not until the mid to late 1940's when the Mandate was signed of by the Mandate power. In 1948 this was the U.N as the British could no longer afford to keep an army in Palestine. The UN issued res 181 and that is what the two declarations of independence are based on.
> Now why haven't the arab muslim Palestinians taken the that second unilateral step towards free deterimination
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When Britain cut and ran so did the UN. Resolution 181 was nothing but a non binding recommendation. Some people do invoke the resolution grasping for some legitimacy.
> 
> BTW, the mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice.
> 
> Why did Britain need an army for basically a consultant position? A handful of civilians should have been in and out of there in ten years.
Click to expand...





 Yet the arasb muslim Palestinians have invoked it as part of their declaration

 Because the arab muslims were resorting to violence to stop the Jews from getting the land promised to them. The civilians would have been killed within weeks, so they needed a peace keeping force there under the terms of the Mandate for Palestine


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The creation of Israel was purely unilateral.  Neither the UN nor the Mandate had anything to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as the creation of Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon were also unilateral and the UN and Mandate had nothing to do with them. You cant pick and choose your details just because they support part of your POV.  That is the essence of free determination to make unilateral decisions. Now why haven't the arab muslim Palestinians made that second unilateral step towards free determination
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The UN had nothing to do with it. In all of those countries the Mandate accomplished its goal and they became independent states.
> 
> Britain flopped in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not until the mid to late 1940's when the Mandate was signed of by the Mandate power. In 1948 this was the U.N as the British could no longer afford to keep an army in Palestine. The UN issued res 181 and that is what the two declarations of independence are based on.
> Now why haven't the arab muslim Palestinians taken the that second unilateral step towards free deterimination
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When Britain cut and ran so did the UN. Resolution 181 was nothing but a non binding recommendation. Some people do invoke the resolution grasping for some legitimacy.
> 
> BTW, the mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice.
> 
> Why did Britain need an army for basically a consultant position? A handful of civilians should have been in and out of there in ten years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the arasb muslim Palestinians have invoked it as part of their declaration
> 
> Because the arab muslims were resorting to violence to stop the Jews from getting the land promised to them. The civilians would have been killed within weeks, so they needed a peace keeping force there under the terms of the Mandate for Palestine
Click to expand...

The Palestinians were not killing each other.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as the creation of Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon were also unilateral and the UN and Mandate had nothing to do with them. You cant pick and choose your details just because they support part of your POV.  That is the essence of free determination to make unilateral decisions. Now why haven't the arab muslim Palestinians made that second unilateral step towards free determination
> 
> 
> 
> The UN had nothing to do with it. In all of those countries the Mandate accomplished its goal and they became independent states.
> 
> Britain flopped in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not until the mid to late 1940's when the Mandate was signed of by the Mandate power. In 1948 this was the U.N as the British could no longer afford to keep an army in Palestine. The UN issued res 181 and that is what the two declarations of independence are based on.
> Now why haven't the arab muslim Palestinians taken the that second unilateral step towards free deterimination
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When Britain cut and ran so did the UN. Resolution 181 was nothing but a non binding recommendation. Some people do invoke the resolution grasping for some legitimacy.
> 
> BTW, the mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice.
> 
> Why did Britain need an army for basically a consultant position? A handful of civilians should have been in and out of there in ten years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the arasb muslim Palestinians have invoked it as part of their declaration
> 
> Because the arab muslims were resorting to violence to stop the Jews from getting the land promised to them. The civilians would have been killed within weeks, so they needed a peace keeping force there under the terms of the Mandate for Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians were not killing each other.
Click to expand...





 They were attacking and killing the Jews on the orders of the Grand Mufti, this came to a head in the Hebron massacre when Jews were killed on a LIE. This caused the Jews to set up local defence groups to combat islamonazi violence and terrorism.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN had nothing to do with it. In all of those countries the Mandate accomplished its goal and they became independent states.
> 
> Britain flopped in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not until the mid to late 1940's when the Mandate was signed of by the Mandate power. In 1948 this was the U.N as the British could no longer afford to keep an army in Palestine. The UN issued res 181 and that is what the two declarations of independence are based on.
> Now why haven't the arab muslim Palestinians taken the that second unilateral step towards free deterimination
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When Britain cut and ran so did the UN. Resolution 181 was nothing but a non binding recommendation. Some people do invoke the resolution grasping for some legitimacy.
> 
> BTW, the mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice.
> 
> Why did Britain need an army for basically a consultant position? A handful of civilians should have been in and out of there in ten years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the arasb muslim Palestinians have invoked it as part of their declaration
> 
> Because the arab muslims were resorting to violence to stop the Jews from getting the land promised to them. The civilians would have been killed within weeks, so they needed a peace keeping force there under the terms of the Mandate for Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians were not killing each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were attacking and killing the Jews on the orders of the Grand Mufti, this came to a head in the Hebron massacre when Jews were killed on a LIE. This caused the Jews to set up local defence groups to combat islamonazi violence and terrorism.
Click to expand...

You sure suck up that Israeli propaganda, don't you?


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not until the mid to late 1940's when the Mandate was signed of by the Mandate power. In 1948 this was the U.N as the British could no longer afford to keep an army in Palestine. The UN issued res 181 and that is what the two declarations of independence are based on.
> Now why haven't the arab muslim Palestinians taken the that second unilateral step towards free deterimination
> 
> 
> 
> When Britain cut and ran so did the UN. Resolution 181 was nothing but a non binding recommendation. Some people do invoke the resolution grasping for some legitimacy.
> 
> BTW, the mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice.
> 
> Why did Britain need an army for basically a consultant position? A handful of civilians should have been in and out of there in ten years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the arasb muslim Palestinians have invoked it as part of their declaration
> 
> Because the arab muslims were resorting to violence to stop the Jews from getting the land promised to them. The civilians would have been killed within weeks, so they needed a peace keeping force there under the terms of the Mandate for Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians were not killing each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were attacking and killing the Jews on the orders of the Grand Mufti, this came to a head in the Hebron massacre when Jews were killed on a LIE. This caused the Jews to set up local defence groups to combat islamonazi violence and terrorism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure suck up that Israeli propaganda, don't you?
Click to expand...




Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you repeatedly claim that the Jews exercised their right to self determination in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct in as much as it applied at that time ...........to whit
> 
> All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. *(Derivative from the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the 1945 Charter.)
> 
> 
> The arab muslim by dint of allowing outside interference were no accorded the same right because of the outside interference.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only Arab country that interfered with Palestinian self determination was Jordan and they were in cahoots with the Zionists. Jordan, however, did release Palestine from its occupation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRy including Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Saudi who all banded together as the arab league and invaded Palestine with the intention of wiping out the Jews and taking all the land. They interfered with the arab muslims self determination, and made it even worse when they created the foreign ran  APG.
> 
> All-Palestine Government - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jordan is the only one who claimed any land and it gave it back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They also threw out the arab muslim Palestinians who caused the rift. I do believe that Israel also gave back land they had occupied in 1967 to Egypt and Jordan. I also believe that both Egypt and Jordan told Israel to keep certain parts of the land as they did not want anything to do with the arab muslim terrorists infesting those lands.
Click to expand...


It is so tragic & hard to forgive the Arab country's treatment of their Palestinians.  But hey, lets face it, they know the Palestinians best..  Is it any wonder why after the 67 war Jordan refused Israel's offer to return the entire West Bank?  How relieved Jordan was to sacrifice this piece of land to dump their Palestinians on Israel to deal with.  

Oh wait, maybe that too is just "Israeli propaganda."  Let's ask Tinmore.
t


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

From the time of the San Remo Convention _(1920 --- when the Allied Powers decided to set the conditions for a Jewish National Home in Palestine)_ and forward --- the Jewish People started to work on their nation building skills.

From a time before the Ottoman Sovereignty over the land, the Arab of Palestine _(as determined by the Allied Powers)_ made no effect at all to build an Arab State.  In fact, the Arab of Palestine _(as determined by the Allied Powers)_ rejected or declined every opportunity to participate in the development of the territory.



P F Tinmore said:


> The creation of Israel was purely unilateral.  Neither the UN nor the Mandate had anything to do with it.





P F Tinmore said:


> The UN had nothing to do with it. In all of those countries the Mandate accomplished its goal and they became independent states.
> 
> Britain flopped in Palestine.


*(OBSERVATION of ARAB COOPERATION)*

Paragraph 22 --- _*The First Attempt to Create Self-Governing Institutions, 1922-23 *--- *The Political History of Palestine under British Administration A/AC.14/8                2 October 1947*_

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

“The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”​In practice it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.​
*(COMMENT)*

The Arab of Palestine _(as determined by the Allied Powers)_ made no effort at all to cooperate with the Mandatory.  You may see it as some sort of unilateral move on the part of the Jewish People to create the State of Israel.  Others may see it as the culmination of a 40 year vigorous or determined attempt to bring the dream of a Jewish National Home into a reality. 

This effort was not even attempted by the Arab of Palestine _(as determined by the Allied Powers).   _The Arab of Palestine _(as determined by the Allied Powers) _not only wanted the Arab community to be entitled to special consideration, but wanted a nation handed to them on a silver platter --- without any effort on their part.

The Arab of Palestine _(as determined by the Allied Powers)_ lives with (today) the consequences from the summation and the accumulated rejections, lack of cooperation, and their pursuit of conflict, in the same 40 year history.

The Arab of Palestine _(as determined by the Allied Powers) _was not denied their right of self-determination --- they rejected it and threw opportunity away.  And now they have the audacity to complain about the consequences of their actions --- still unable to meet the 1919 Article 22 criteria to be able to "stand alone."  They blame everyone but themselves.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not until the mid to late 1940's when the Mandate was signed of by the Mandate power. In 1948 this was the U.N as the British could no longer afford to keep an army in Palestine. The UN issued res 181 and that is what the two declarations of independence are based on.
> Now why haven't the arab muslim Palestinians taken the that second unilateral step towards free deterimination
> 
> 
> 
> When Britain cut and ran so did the UN. Resolution 181 was nothing but a non binding recommendation. Some people do invoke the resolution grasping for some legitimacy.
> 
> BTW, the mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice.
> 
> Why did Britain need an army for basically a consultant position? A handful of civilians should have been in and out of there in ten years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the arasb muslim Palestinians have invoked it as part of their declaration
> 
> Because the arab muslims were resorting to violence to stop the Jews from getting the land promised to them. The civilians would have been killed within weeks, so they needed a peace keeping force there under the terms of the Mandate for Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians were not killing each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were attacking and killing the Jews on the orders of the Grand Mufti, this came to a head in the Hebron massacre when Jews were killed on a LIE. This caused the Jews to set up local defence groups to combat islamonazi violence and terrorism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure suck up that Israeli propaganda, don't you?
Click to expand...





 Where is the Jewish propaganda in the truth, it is in the history books that the arab muslims were killing the Jews on the commands of al hussieni. This led to the Jews forming defence groups to combat the killings, they must have worked as the islamonazi brainwashed morons deny the facts 80 years later even though there are people still alive who saw them


----------



## Wry Catcher

MJB12741 said:


> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine




Primer on Palestine Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict Middle East Research and Information Project


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> From the time of the San Remo Convention _(1920 --- when the Allied Powers decided to set the conditions for a Jewish National Home in Palestine)_ and forward --- the Jewish People started to work on their nation building skills.
> 
> From a time before the Ottoman Sovereignty over the land, the Arab of Palestine _(as determined by the Allied Powers)_ made no effect at all to build an Arab State.  In fact, the Arab of Palestine _(as determined by the Allied Powers)_ rejected or declined every opportunity to participate in the development of the territory.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The creation of Israel was purely unilateral.  Neither the UN nor the Mandate had anything to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN had nothing to do with it. In all of those countries the Mandate accomplished its goal and they became independent states.
> 
> Britain flopped in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION of ARAB COOPERATION)*
> 
> Paragraph 22 --- _*The First Attempt to Create Self-Governing Institutions, 1922-23 *--- *The Political History of Palestine under British Administration A/AC.14/8                2 October 1947*_
> 
> Later in 1923, *a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government.* The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. _*The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. *_They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.
> 
> “The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”​In practice it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab of Palestine _(as determined by the Allied Powers)_ made no effort at all to cooperate with the Mandatory.  You may see it as some sort of unilateral move on the part of the Jewish People to create the State of Israel.  Others may see it as the culmination of a 40 year vigorous or determined attempt to bring the dream of a Jewish National Home into a reality.
> 
> This effort was not even attempted by the Arab of Palestine _(as determined by the Allied Powers).   _The Arab of Palestine _(as determined by the Allied Powers) _not only wanted the Arab community to be entitled to special consideration, but wanted a nation handed to them on a silver platter --- without any effort on their part.
> 
> The Arab of Palestine _(as determined by the Allied Powers)_ lives with (today) the consequences from the summation and the accumulated rejections, lack of cooperation, and their pursuit of conflict, in the same 40 year history.
> 
> The Arab of Palestine _(as determined by the Allied Powers) _was not denied their right of self-determination --- they rejected it and threw opportunity away.  And now they have the audacity to complain about the consequences of their actions --- still unable to meet the 1919 Article 22 criteria to be able to "stand alone."  They blame everyone but themselves.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Indeed, the Palestinians would not cooperate with any of the colonial project.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> From the time of the San Remo Convention _(1920 --- when the Allied Powers decided to set the conditions for a Jewish National Home in Palestine)_ and forward --- the Jewish People started to work on their nation building skills.
> 
> From a time before the Ottoman Sovereignty over the land, the Arab of Palestine _(as determined by the Allied Powers)_ made no effect at all to build an Arab State.  In fact, the Arab of Palestine _(as determined by the Allied Powers)_ rejected or declined every opportunity to participate in the development of the territory.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The creation of Israel was purely unilateral.  Neither the UN nor the Mandate had anything to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN had nothing to do with it. In all of those countries the Mandate accomplished its goal and they became independent states.
> 
> Britain flopped in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION of ARAB COOPERATION)*
> 
> Paragraph 22 --- _*The First Attempt to Create Self-Governing Institutions, 1922-23 *--- *The Political History of Palestine under British Administration A/AC.14/8                2 October 1947*_
> 
> Later in 1923, *a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government.* The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. _*The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. *_They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.
> 
> “The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”​In practice it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab of Palestine _(as determined by the Allied Powers)_ made no effort at all to cooperate with the Mandatory.  You may see it as some sort of unilateral move on the part of the Jewish People to create the State of Israel.  Others may see it as the culmination of a 40 year vigorous or determined attempt to bring the dream of a Jewish National Home into a reality.
> 
> This effort was not even attempted by the Arab of Palestine _(as determined by the Allied Powers).   _The Arab of Palestine _(as determined by the Allied Powers) _not only wanted the Arab community to be entitled to special consideration, but wanted a nation handed to them on a silver platter --- without any effort on their part.
> 
> The Arab of Palestine _(as determined by the Allied Powers)_ lives with (today) the consequences from the summation and the accumulated rejections, lack of cooperation, and their pursuit of conflict, in the same 40 year history.
> 
> The Arab of Palestine _(as determined by the Allied Powers) _was not denied their right of self-determination --- they rejected it and threw opportunity away.  And now they have the audacity to complain about the consequences of their actions --- still unable to meet the 1919 Article 22 criteria to be able to "stand alone."  They blame everyone but themselves.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, the Palestinians would not cooperate with any of the colonial project.
Click to expand...





 And now regret it as they lost out on 66 years of peace and prosperity.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Again, the Arab Palestinians generally interpret most issues about the migration of Jews to the territory in which the Mandate applied.



P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, the Palestinians would not cooperate with any of the colonial project.


*(OBSERVATION)*

The "Black Letter:"  Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald --- to --- Dr. Weizmann on the 13th February, 1931

The Mandatory Government and the Jewish Agency had a conference in November 1930, to discuss the revival of Arab antagonism and the emergence of the Palestinian Black Hand of Syrian-born Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam --- and the Arab jihadist attacks on Jewish settlers.   In part, The Prime Minister said, “will fall to be read as the authoritative interpretation of the White Paper” (pertaining to matter it discussed).  Among the issues were:




“The obligation to facilitate Jewish immigration and to encourage close settlement by Jews on the land remains a positive obligation of the Mandate, and it can be fulfilled without prejudice to the rights and position of other sections of the population of Palestine.”




“The statement of policy of His Majesty’s Government did not imply a prohibition of acquisition of additional land by Jews.”




“His Majesty’s Government did not prescribe and do not contemplate any stoppage or prohibition of Jewish immigration in any of its categories.”

*(COMMENT)*

This statement of policy and the interpretation _(of the previous 1930 White Paper)_ seemed to be more acceptable to the Jewish Agency than it did to the various disorganized Arab observers; many of whom considered the letter to be a modification to the policy expressed in the White Paper.  The Arabs declined to participate with the High Commissioner in the decision making processes; and retarding the to development self-governing institutions.  Gradually --- over time, the Arab became a little more organized and began to collectively voice informally their interpretation of the Jewish Immigration in negative terms; describing it as colonialism, foreign invasion, and a threat to Arab civil rights. 

The Arab Palestinians, five years later, pulled together five Arab political parties and presented the High commissioner memorandum demanding immediate cessation of Jewish immigration.

As usual, the Arab Palestinians failed to understand one of the principle objectives was the immigration of Jews for the establishment of a Jewish National Home. 

The Arab Palestinian, unable to get their demands met, ramped-up the propaganda effort to suggest that they are the virtual victims of an international conspiracy to steal the land formerly under the sovereign control of the Ottoman Empire.  And today, this allegation that they are subject to a policy of colonialism is merely an extension of the 1930s argument using contemporary terminology.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Again, the Arab Palestinians generally interpret most issues about the migration of Jews to the territory in which the Mandate applied.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the Palestinians would not cooperate with any of the colonial project.
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> The "Black Letter:"  Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald --- to --- Dr. Weizmann on the 13th February, 1931
> 
> The Mandatory Government and the Jewish Agency had a conference in November 1930, to discuss the revival of Arab antagonism and the emergence of the Palestinian Black Hand of Syrian-born Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam --- and the Arab jihadist attacks on Jewish settlers.   In part, The Prime Minister said, “will fall to be read as the authoritative interpretation of the White Paper” (pertaining to matter it discussed).  Among the issues were:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “The obligation to facilitate Jewish immigration and to encourage close settlement by Jews on the land remains a positive obligation of the Mandate, and it can be fulfilled without prejudice to the rights and position of other sections of the population of Palestine.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “The statement of policy of His Majesty’s Government did not imply a prohibition of acquisition of additional land by Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “His Majesty’s Government did not prescribe and do not contemplate any stoppage or prohibition of Jewish immigration in any of its categories.”
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This statement of policy and the interpretation _(of the previous 1930 White Paper)_ seemed to be more acceptable to the Jewish Agency than it did to the various disorganized Arab observers; many of whom considered the letter to be a modification to the policy expressed in the White Paper.  The Arabs declined to participate with the High Commissioner in the decision making processes; and retarding the to development self-governing institutions.  Gradually --- over time, the Arab became a little more organized and began to collectively voice informally their interpretation of the Jewish Immigration in negative terms; describing it as colonialism, foreign invasion, and a threat to Arab civil rights.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians, five years later, pulled together five Arab political parties and presented the High commissioner memorandum demanding immediate cessation of Jewish immigration.
> 
> As usual, the Arab Palestinians failed to understand one of the principle objectives was the immigration of Jews for the establishment of a Jewish National Home.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, unable to get their demands met, ramped-up the propaganda effort to suggest that they are the virtual victims of an international conspiracy to steal the land formerly under the sovereign control of the Ottoman Empire.  And today, this allegation that they are subject to a policy of colonialism is merely an extension of the 1930s argument using contemporary terminology.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Your language is very discriminatory.

You make it sound wrong for the Palestinians to defend their country.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not until the mid to late 1940's when the Mandate was signed of by the Mandate power. In 1948 this was the U.N as the British could no longer afford to keep an army in Palestine. The UN issued res 181 and that is what the two declarations of independence are based on.
> Now why haven't the arab muslim Palestinians taken the that second unilateral step towards free deterimination
> 
> 
> 
> When Britain cut and ran so did the UN. Resolution 181 was nothing but a non binding recommendation. Some people do invoke the resolution grasping for some legitimacy.
> 
> BTW, the mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice.
> 
> Why did Britain need an army for basically a consultant position? A handful of civilians should have been in and out of there in ten years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the arasb muslim Palestinians have invoked it as part of their declaration
> 
> Because the arab muslims were resorting to violence to stop the Jews from getting the land promised to them. The civilians would have been killed within weeks, so they needed a peace keeping force there under the terms of the Mandate for Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians were not killing each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were attacking and killing the Jews on the orders of the Grand Mufti, this came to a head in the Hebron massacre when Jews were killed on a LIE. This caused the Jews to set up local defence groups to combat islamonazi violence and terrorism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure suck up that Israeli propaganda, don't you?
Click to expand...




P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Again, the Arab Palestinians generally interpret most issues about the migration of Jews to the territory in which the Mandate applied.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the Palestinians would not cooperate with any of the colonial project.
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> The "Black Letter:"  Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald --- to --- Dr. Weizmann on the 13th February, 1931
> 
> The Mandatory Government and the Jewish Agency had a conference in November 1930, to discuss the revival of Arab antagonism and the emergence of the Palestinian Black Hand of Syrian-born Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam --- and the Arab jihadist attacks on Jewish settlers.   In part, The Prime Minister said, “will fall to be read as the authoritative interpretation of the White Paper” (pertaining to matter it discussed).  Among the issues were:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “The obligation to facilitate Jewish immigration and to encourage close settlement by Jews on the land remains a positive obligation of the Mandate, and it can be fulfilled without prejudice to the rights and position of other sections of the population of Palestine.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “The statement of policy of His Majesty’s Government did not imply a prohibition of acquisition of additional land by Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “His Majesty’s Government did not prescribe and do not contemplate any stoppage or prohibition of Jewish immigration in any of its categories.”
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This statement of policy and the interpretation _(of the previous 1930 White Paper)_ seemed to be more acceptable to the Jewish Agency than it did to the various disorganized Arab observers; many of whom considered the letter to be a modification to the policy expressed in the White Paper.  The Arabs declined to participate with the High Commissioner in the decision making processes; and retarding the to development self-governing institutions.  Gradually --- over time, the Arab became a little more organized and began to collectively voice informally their interpretation of the Jewish Immigration in negative terms; describing it as colonialism, foreign invasion, and a threat to Arab civil rights.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians, five years later, pulled together five Arab political parties and presented the High commissioner memorandum demanding immediate cessation of Jewish immigration.
> 
> As usual, the Arab Palestinians failed to understand one of the principle objectives was the immigration of Jews for the establishment of a Jewish National Home.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, unable to get their demands met, ramped-up the propaganda effort to suggest that they are the virtual victims of an international conspiracy to steal the land formerly under the sovereign control of the Ottoman Empire.  And today, this allegation that they are subject to a policy of colonialism is merely an extension of the 1930s argument using contemporary terminology.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your language is very discriminatory.
> 
> You make it sound wrong for the Palestinians to defend their country.
Click to expand...

You've said this many times, and I have asked you this question many times without getting a response:
What have the Palestinians done or are doing to defend their 'country'


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

If I used some inappropriate language, I sincerely apologize.  



P F Tinmore said:


> Your language is very discriminatory.


*(COMMENT)
*
I looked through it twice, and failed to find any use of derogatory comments, or direct attacks upon characteristics pertaining to skin color, medical conditions, intelligence, gender, age, etc.  I thought it was all pretty straight forward.



P F Tinmore said:


> You make it sound wrong for the Palestinians to defend their country.


*(COMMENT)*

Their Country?  Prior to 1988, the Arab Palestinians did not have a country.  

The State of Palestine (1988) was created while the territory was already under Israeli effective control.

The 1988 territory was never under attack.  The Arab Palestinian have territory under assault to defend; there is no aggressor.

The Arab Palestinian is under occupation, security containment and quarantine due to its continuous line of direct threats to the sovereignty of Israel.

_Considering_ that the progressive development and codification of the following principles:

The principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations,


The principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered,


The duty not to intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any State, in accordance with the Charter,


The duty of States to co-operate with one another in accordance with the Charter,


The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,


The principle of sovereign equality of States,


The principle that States shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the Charter,

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## ChrisL




----------



## ChrisL

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not until the mid to late 1940's when the Mandate was signed of by the Mandate power. In 1948 this was the U.N as the British could no longer afford to keep an army in Palestine. The UN issued res 181 and that is what the two declarations of independence are based on.
> Now why haven't the arab muslim Palestinians taken the that second unilateral step towards free deterimination
> 
> 
> 
> When Britain cut and ran so did the UN. Resolution 181 was nothing but a non binding recommendation. Some people do invoke the resolution grasping for some legitimacy.
> 
> BTW, the mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice.
> 
> Why did Britain need an army for basically a consultant position? A handful of civilians should have been in and out of there in ten years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the arasb muslim Palestinians have invoked it as part of their declaration
> 
> Because the arab muslims were resorting to violence to stop the Jews from getting the land promised to them. The civilians would have been killed within weeks, so they needed a peace keeping force there under the terms of the Mandate for Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians were not killing each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were attacking and killing the Jews on the orders of the Grand Mufti, this came to a head in the Hebron massacre when Jews were killed on a LIE. This caused the Jews to set up local defence groups to combat islamonazi violence and terrorism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure suck up that Israeli propaganda, don't you?
Click to expand...


----------



## ChrisL




----------



## ChrisL

And one more for good measure.


----------



## aris2chat

ChrisL said:


>



AP, BBC and other have debunked the numbers of civilians.
Hamas might not care about rebuilding homes in G but they finished rebuilding their military bases in G already.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Britain cut and ran so did the UN. Resolution 181 was nothing but a non binding recommendation. Some people do invoke the resolution grasping for some legitimacy.
> 
> BTW, the mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice.
> 
> Why did Britain need an army for basically a consultant position? A handful of civilians should have been in and out of there in ten years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the arasb muslim Palestinians have invoked it as part of their declaration
> 
> Because the arab muslims were resorting to violence to stop the Jews from getting the land promised to them. The civilians would have been killed within weeks, so they needed a peace keeping force there under the terms of the Mandate for Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians were not killing each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were attacking and killing the Jews on the orders of the Grand Mufti, this came to a head in the Hebron massacre when Jews were killed on a LIE. This caused the Jews to set up local defence groups to combat islamonazi violence and terrorism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure suck up that Israeli propaganda, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Again, the Arab Palestinians generally interpret most issues about the migration of Jews to the territory in which the Mandate applied.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the Palestinians would not cooperate with any of the colonial project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> The "Black Letter:"  Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald --- to --- Dr. Weizmann on the 13th February, 1931
> 
> The Mandatory Government and the Jewish Agency had a conference in November 1930, to discuss the revival of Arab antagonism and the emergence of the Palestinian Black Hand of Syrian-born Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam --- and the Arab jihadist attacks on Jewish settlers.   In part, The Prime Minister said, “will fall to be read as the authoritative interpretation of the White Paper” (pertaining to matter it discussed).  Among the issues were:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “The obligation to facilitate Jewish immigration and to encourage close settlement by Jews on the land remains a positive obligation of the Mandate, and it can be fulfilled without prejudice to the rights and position of other sections of the population of Palestine.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “The statement of policy of His Majesty’s Government did not imply a prohibition of acquisition of additional land by Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “His Majesty’s Government did not prescribe and do not contemplate any stoppage or prohibition of Jewish immigration in any of its categories.”
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This statement of policy and the interpretation _(of the previous 1930 White Paper)_ seemed to be more acceptable to the Jewish Agency than it did to the various disorganized Arab observers; many of whom considered the letter to be a modification to the policy expressed in the White Paper.  The Arabs declined to participate with the High Commissioner in the decision making processes; and retarding the to development self-governing institutions.  Gradually --- over time, the Arab became a little more organized and began to collectively voice informally their interpretation of the Jewish Immigration in negative terms; describing it as colonialism, foreign invasion, and a threat to Arab civil rights.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians, five years later, pulled together five Arab political parties and presented the High commissioner memorandum demanding immediate cessation of Jewish immigration.
> 
> As usual, the Arab Palestinians failed to understand one of the principle objectives was the immigration of Jews for the establishment of a Jewish National Home.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, unable to get their demands met, ramped-up the propaganda effort to suggest that they are the virtual victims of an international conspiracy to steal the land formerly under the sovereign control of the Ottoman Empire.  And today, this allegation that they are subject to a policy of colonialism is merely an extension of the 1930s argument using contemporary terminology.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your language is very discriminatory.
> 
> You make it sound wrong for the Palestinians to defend their country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've said this many times, and I have asked you this question many times without getting a response:
> What have the Palestinians done or are doing to defend their 'country'
Click to expand...

Everything Israel bitches about.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> If I used some inappropriate language, I sincerely apologize.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your language is very discriminatory.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)
> *
> I looked through it twice, and failed to find any use of derogatory comments, or direct attacks upon characteristics pertaining to skin color, medical conditions, intelligence, gender, age, etc.  I thought it was all pretty straight forward.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make it sound wrong for the Palestinians to defend their country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Their Country?  Prior to 1988, the Arab Palestinians did not have a country.
> 
> The State of Palestine (1988) was created while the territory was already under Israeli effective control.
> 
> The 1988 territory was never under attack.  The Arab Palestinian have territory under assault to defend; there is no aggressor.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian is under occupation, security containment and quarantine due to its continuous line of direct threats to the sovereignty of Israel.
> 
> _Considering_ that the progressive development and codification of the following principles:
> 
> The principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations,
> 
> 
> The principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered,
> 
> 
> The duty not to intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any State, in accordance with the Charter,
> 
> 
> The duty of States to co-operate with one another in accordance with the Charter,
> 
> 
> The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,
> 
> 
> The principle of sovereign equality of States,
> 
> 
> The principle that States shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the Charter,
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

You always give the Israeli version.

_Considering_
that the progressive development and codification of the following principles: bla, bla, bla​
How does this apply to Palestine?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the arasb muslim Palestinians have invoked it as part of their declaration
> 
> Because the arab muslims were resorting to violence to stop the Jews from getting the land promised to them. The civilians would have been killed within weeks, so they needed a peace keeping force there under the terms of the Mandate for Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians were not killing each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were attacking and killing the Jews on the orders of the Grand Mufti, this came to a head in the Hebron massacre when Jews were killed on a LIE. This caused the Jews to set up local defence groups to combat islamonazi violence and terrorism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure suck up that Israeli propaganda, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Again, the Arab Palestinians generally interpret most issues about the migration of Jews to the territory in which the Mandate applied.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the Palestinians would not cooperate with any of the colonial project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> The "Black Letter:"  Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald --- to --- Dr. Weizmann on the 13th February, 1931
> 
> The Mandatory Government and the Jewish Agency had a conference in November 1930, to discuss the revival of Arab antagonism and the emergence of the Palestinian Black Hand of Syrian-born Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam --- and the Arab jihadist attacks on Jewish settlers.   In part, The Prime Minister said, “will fall to be read as the authoritative interpretation of the White Paper” (pertaining to matter it discussed).  Among the issues were:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “The obligation to facilitate Jewish immigration and to encourage close settlement by Jews on the land remains a positive obligation of the Mandate, and it can be fulfilled without prejudice to the rights and position of other sections of the population of Palestine.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “The statement of policy of His Majesty’s Government did not imply a prohibition of acquisition of additional land by Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “His Majesty’s Government did not prescribe and do not contemplate any stoppage or prohibition of Jewish immigration in any of its categories.”
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This statement of policy and the interpretation _(of the previous 1930 White Paper)_ seemed to be more acceptable to the Jewish Agency than it did to the various disorganized Arab observers; many of whom considered the letter to be a modification to the policy expressed in the White Paper.  The Arabs declined to participate with the High Commissioner in the decision making processes; and retarding the to development self-governing institutions.  Gradually --- over time, the Arab became a little more organized and began to collectively voice informally their interpretation of the Jewish Immigration in negative terms; describing it as colonialism, foreign invasion, and a threat to Arab civil rights.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians, five years later, pulled together five Arab political parties and presented the High commissioner memorandum demanding immediate cessation of Jewish immigration.
> 
> As usual, the Arab Palestinians failed to understand one of the principle objectives was the immigration of Jews for the establishment of a Jewish National Home.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, unable to get their demands met, ramped-up the propaganda effort to suggest that they are the virtual victims of an international conspiracy to steal the land formerly under the sovereign control of the Ottoman Empire.  And today, this allegation that they are subject to a policy of colonialism is merely an extension of the 1930s argument using contemporary terminology.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your language is very discriminatory.
> 
> You make it sound wrong for the Palestinians to defend their country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've said this many times, and I have asked you this question many times without getting a response:
> What have the Palestinians done or are doing to defend their 'country'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything Israel bitches about.
Click to expand...


Common Tinmore. Give me some examples of how 'Palestine' defended themselves against Israel?


----------



## toastman

aris2chat said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AP, BBC and other have debunked the numbers of civilians.
> Hamas might not care about rebuilding homes in G but they finished rebuilding their military bases in G already.
Click to expand...

Why is it that with all the money Gaza gets, that there are still so many slums there?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AP, BBC and other have debunked the numbers of civilians.
> Hamas might not care about rebuilding homes in G but they finished rebuilding their military bases in G already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it that with all the money Gaza gets, that there are still so many slums there?
Click to expand...

And Israel pumps money into its military while poverty rises.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not until the mid to late 1940's when the Mandate was signed of by the Mandate power. In 1948 this was the U.N as the British could no longer afford to keep an army in Palestine. The UN issued res 181 and that is what the two declarations of independence are based on.
> Now why haven't the arab muslim Palestinians taken the that second unilateral step towards free deterimination
> 
> 
> 
> When Britain cut and ran so did the UN. Resolution 181 was nothing but a non binding recommendation. Some people do invoke the resolution grasping for some legitimacy.
> 
> BTW, the mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice.
> 
> Why did Britain need an army for basically a consultant position? A handful of civilians should have been in and out of there in ten years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the arasb muslim Palestinians have invoked it as part of their declaration
> 
> Because the arab muslims were resorting to violence to stop the Jews from getting the land promised to them. The civilians would have been killed within weeks, so they needed a peace keeping force there under the terms of the Mandate for Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians were not killing each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were attacking and killing the Jews on the orders of the Grand Mufti, this came to a head in the Hebron massacre when Jews were killed on a LIE. This caused the Jews to set up local defence groups to combat islamonazi violence and terrorism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure suck up that Israeli propaganda, don't you?
Click to expand...


Actually, Phoenal is correct:

I_*n addition to guarding Jewish communities, the role of the Haganah was to warn the residents of and repel attacks by Palestinian Arabs*_
_*
Haganah - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia*_


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AP, BBC and other have debunked the numbers of civilians.
> Hamas might not care about rebuilding homes in G but they finished rebuilding their military bases in G already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it that with all the money Gaza gets, that there are still so many slums there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And Israel pumps money into its military while poverty rises.
Click to expand...


I wonder why Israel pumps money into her military ..........


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Britain cut and ran so did the UN. Resolution 181 was nothing but a non binding recommendation. Some people do invoke the resolution grasping for some legitimacy.
> 
> BTW, the mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice.
> 
> Why did Britain need an army for basically a consultant position? A handful of civilians should have been in and out of there in ten years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the arasb muslim Palestinians have invoked it as part of their declaration
> 
> Because the arab muslims were resorting to violence to stop the Jews from getting the land promised to them. The civilians would have been killed within weeks, so they needed a peace keeping force there under the terms of the Mandate for Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians were not killing each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were attacking and killing the Jews on the orders of the Grand Mufti, this came to a head in the Hebron massacre when Jews were killed on a LIE. This caused the Jews to set up local defence groups to combat islamonazi violence and terrorism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure suck up that Israeli propaganda, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, Phoenal is correct:
> 
> I_*n addition to guarding Jewish communities, the role of the Haganah was to warn the residents of and repel attacks by Palestinian Arabs
> 
> Haganah - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia*_
Click to expand...

Indeed, that is part of the story.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the arasb muslim Palestinians have invoked it as part of their declaration
> 
> Because the arab muslims were resorting to violence to stop the Jews from getting the land promised to them. The civilians would have been killed within weeks, so they needed a peace keeping force there under the terms of the Mandate for Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians were not killing each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were attacking and killing the Jews on the orders of the Grand Mufti, this came to a head in the Hebron massacre when Jews were killed on a LIE. This caused the Jews to set up local defence groups to combat islamonazi violence and terrorism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure suck up that Israeli propaganda, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, Phoenal is correct:
> 
> I_*n addition to guarding Jewish communities, the role of the Haganah was to warn the residents of and repel attacks by Palestinian Arabs
> 
> Haganah - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, that is part of the story.
Click to expand...

The 'Tinmore Version' of the story does not apply to real life though.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> From the time of the San Remo Convention _(1920 --- when the Allied Powers decided to set the conditions for a Jewish National Home in Palestine)_ and forward --- the Jewish People started to work on their nation building skills.
> 
> From a time before the Ottoman Sovereignty over the land, the Arab of Palestine _(as determined by the Allied Powers)_ made no effect at all to build an Arab State.  In fact, the Arab of Palestine _(as determined by the Allied Powers)_ rejected or declined every opportunity to participate in the development of the territory.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The creation of Israel was purely unilateral.  Neither the UN nor the Mandate had anything to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN had nothing to do with it. In all of those countries the Mandate accomplished its goal and they became independent states.
> 
> Britain flopped in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION of ARAB COOPERATION)*
> 
> Paragraph 22 --- _*The First Attempt to Create Self-Governing Institutions, 1922-23 *--- *The Political History of Palestine under British Administration A/AC.14/8                2 October 1947*_
> 
> Later in 1923, *a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government.* The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. _*The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. *_They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.
> 
> “The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”​In practice it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab of Palestine _(as determined by the Allied Powers)_ made no effort at all to cooperate with the Mandatory.  You may see it as some sort of unilateral move on the part of the Jewish People to create the State of Israel.  Others may see it as the culmination of a 40 year vigorous or determined attempt to bring the dream of a Jewish National Home into a reality.
> 
> This effort was not even attempted by the Arab of Palestine _(as determined by the Allied Powers).   _The Arab of Palestine _(as determined by the Allied Powers) _not only wanted the Arab community to be entitled to special consideration, but wanted a nation handed to them on a silver platter --- without any effort on their part.
> 
> The Arab of Palestine _(as determined by the Allied Powers)_ lives with (today) the consequences from the summation and the accumulated rejections, lack of cooperation, and their pursuit of conflict, in the same 40 year history.
> 
> The Arab of Palestine _(as determined by the Allied Powers) _was not denied their right of self-determination --- they rejected it and threw opportunity away.  And now they have the audacity to complain about the consequences of their actions --- still unable to meet the 1919 Article 22 criteria to be able to "stand alone."  They blame everyone but themselves.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, the Palestinians would not cooperate with any of the colonial project.
Click to expand...


And praise be to Allah the Palestinians prefer poverty.


----------



## ChrisL

toastman said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AP, BBC and other have debunked the numbers of civilians.
> Hamas might not care about rebuilding homes in G but they finished rebuilding their military bases in G already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it that with all the money Gaza gets, that there are still so many slums there?
Click to expand...


Because they spend all their money on crappy rockets and guns and don't care one bit about the people living there.  They are so consumed with hatred, they cannot focus on anything but Israel.  It's like a disease.


----------



## ChrisL

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> From the time of the San Remo Convention _(1920 --- when the Allied Powers decided to set the conditions for a Jewish National Home in Palestine)_ and forward --- the Jewish People started to work on their nation building skills.
> 
> From a time before the Ottoman Sovereignty over the land, the Arab of Palestine _(as determined by the Allied Powers)_ made no effect at all to build an Arab State.  In fact, the Arab of Palestine _(as determined by the Allied Powers)_ rejected or declined every opportunity to participate in the development of the territory.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The creation of Israel was purely unilateral.  Neither the UN nor the Mandate had anything to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN had nothing to do with it. In all of those countries the Mandate accomplished its goal and they became independent states.
> 
> Britain flopped in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION of ARAB COOPERATION)*
> 
> Paragraph 22 --- _*The First Attempt to Create Self-Governing Institutions, 1922-23 *--- *The Political History of Palestine under British Administration A/AC.14/8                2 October 1947*_
> 
> Later in 1923, *a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government.* The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. _*The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. *_They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.
> 
> “The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”​In practice it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab of Palestine _(as determined by the Allied Powers)_ made no effort at all to cooperate with the Mandatory.  You may see it as some sort of unilateral move on the part of the Jewish People to create the State of Israel.  Others may see it as the culmination of a 40 year vigorous or determined attempt to bring the dream of a Jewish National Home into a reality.
> 
> This effort was not even attempted by the Arab of Palestine _(as determined by the Allied Powers).   _The Arab of Palestine _(as determined by the Allied Powers) _not only wanted the Arab community to be entitled to special consideration, but wanted a nation handed to them on a silver platter --- without any effort on their part.
> 
> The Arab of Palestine _(as determined by the Allied Powers)_ lives with (today) the consequences from the summation and the accumulated rejections, lack of cooperation, and their pursuit of conflict, in the same 40 year history.
> 
> The Arab of Palestine _(as determined by the Allied Powers) _was not denied their right of self-determination --- they rejected it and threw opportunity away.  And now they have the audacity to complain about the consequences of their actions --- still unable to meet the 1919 Article 22 criteria to be able to "stand alone."  They blame everyone but themselves.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, the Palestinians would not cooperate with any of the colonial project.
Click to expand...


Seems to me that they would be better off.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AP, BBC and other have debunked the numbers of civilians.
> Hamas might not care about rebuilding homes in G but they finished rebuilding their military bases in G already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it that with all the money Gaza gets, that there are still so many slums there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And Israel pumps money into its military while poverty rises.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder why Israel pumps money into her military ..........
Click to expand...

Because the Palestinians force them to do so.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Again, the Arab Palestinians generally interpret most issues about the migration of Jews to the territory in which the Mandate applied.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the Palestinians would not cooperate with any of the colonial project.
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> The "Black Letter:"  Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald --- to --- Dr. Weizmann on the 13th February, 1931
> 
> The Mandatory Government and the Jewish Agency had a conference in November 1930, to discuss the revival of Arab antagonism and the emergence of the Palestinian Black Hand of Syrian-born Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam --- and the Arab jihadist attacks on Jewish settlers.   In part, The Prime Minister said, “will fall to be read as the authoritative interpretation of the White Paper” (pertaining to matter it discussed).  Among the issues were:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “The obligation to facilitate Jewish immigration and to encourage close settlement by Jews on the land remains a positive obligation of the Mandate, and it can be fulfilled without prejudice to the rights and position of other sections of the population of Palestine.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “The statement of policy of His Majesty’s Government did not imply a prohibition of acquisition of additional land by Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “His Majesty’s Government did not prescribe and do not contemplate any stoppage or prohibition of Jewish immigration in any of its categories.”
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This statement of policy and the interpretation _(of the previous 1930 White Paper)_ seemed to be more acceptable to the Jewish Agency than it did to the various disorganized Arab observers; many of whom considered the letter to be a modification to the policy expressed in the White Paper.  The Arabs declined to participate with the High Commissioner in the decision making processes; and retarding the to development self-governing institutions.  Gradually --- over time, the Arab became a little more organized and began to collectively voice informally their interpretation of the Jewish Immigration in negative terms; describing it as colonialism, foreign invasion, and a threat to Arab civil rights.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians, five years later, pulled together five Arab political parties and presented the High commissioner memorandum demanding immediate cessation of Jewish immigration.
> 
> As usual, the Arab Palestinians failed to understand one of the principle objectives was the immigration of Jews for the establishment of a Jewish National Home.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, unable to get their demands met, ramped-up the propaganda effort to suggest that they are the virtual victims of an international conspiracy to steal the land formerly under the sovereign control of the Ottoman Empire.  And today, this allegation that they are subject to a policy of colonialism is merely an extension of the 1930s argument using contemporary terminology.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your language is very discriminatory.
> 
> You make it sound wrong for the Palestinians to defend their country.
Click to expand...





 Which country is that, what are its capital city and currency, who is its leader and what is it GDP


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AP, BBC and other have debunked the numbers of civilians.
> Hamas might not care about rebuilding homes in G but they finished rebuilding their military bases in G already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it that with all the money Gaza gets, that there are still so many slums there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And Israel pumps money into its military while poverty rises.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder why Israel pumps money into her military ..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the Palestinians force them to do so.
Click to expand...





Then they are in breach of the UN charters they have recently signed and should be removed from the UN completely and their declaration of independence torn up and used as toilet paper in the Islamic toilets.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the arasb muslim Palestinians have invoked it as part of their declaration
> 
> Because the arab muslims were resorting to violence to stop the Jews from getting the land promised to them. The civilians would have been killed within weeks, so they needed a peace keeping force there under the terms of the Mandate for Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians were not killing each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were attacking and killing the Jews on the orders of the Grand Mufti, this came to a head in the Hebron massacre when Jews were killed on a LIE. This caused the Jews to set up local defence groups to combat islamonazi violence and terrorism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure suck up that Israeli propaganda, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Again, the Arab Palestinians generally interpret most issues about the migration of Jews to the territory in which the Mandate applied.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the Palestinians would not cooperate with any of the colonial project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> The "Black Letter:"  Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald --- to --- Dr. Weizmann on the 13th February, 1931
> 
> The Mandatory Government and the Jewish Agency had a conference in November 1930, to discuss the revival of Arab antagonism and the emergence of the Palestinian Black Hand of Syrian-born Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam --- and the Arab jihadist attacks on Jewish settlers.   In part, The Prime Minister said, “will fall to be read as the authoritative interpretation of the White Paper” (pertaining to matter it discussed).  Among the issues were:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “The obligation to facilitate Jewish immigration and to encourage close settlement by Jews on the land remains a positive obligation of the Mandate, and it can be fulfilled without prejudice to the rights and position of other sections of the population of Palestine.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “The statement of policy of His Majesty’s Government did not imply a prohibition of acquisition of additional land by Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “His Majesty’s Government did not prescribe and do not contemplate any stoppage or prohibition of Jewish immigration in any of its categories.”
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This statement of policy and the interpretation _(of the previous 1930 White Paper)_ seemed to be more acceptable to the Jewish Agency than it did to the various disorganized Arab observers; many of whom considered the letter to be a modification to the policy expressed in the White Paper.  The Arabs declined to participate with the High Commissioner in the decision making processes; and retarding the to development self-governing institutions.  Gradually --- over time, the Arab became a little more organized and began to collectively voice informally their interpretation of the Jewish Immigration in negative terms; describing it as colonialism, foreign invasion, and a threat to Arab civil rights.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians, five years later, pulled together five Arab political parties and presented the High commissioner memorandum demanding immediate cessation of Jewish immigration.
> 
> As usual, the Arab Palestinians failed to understand one of the principle objectives was the immigration of Jews for the establishment of a Jewish National Home.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, unable to get their demands met, ramped-up the propaganda effort to suggest that they are the virtual victims of an international conspiracy to steal the land formerly under the sovereign control of the Ottoman Empire.  And today, this allegation that they are subject to a policy of colonialism is merely an extension of the 1930s argument using contemporary terminology.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your language is very discriminatory.
> 
> You make it sound wrong for the Palestinians to defend their country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've said this many times, and I have asked you this question many times without getting a response:
> What have the Palestinians done or are doing to defend their 'country'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything Israel bitches about.
Click to expand...





 Attacking Israeli children in schools is not defence, and anyone that believes it is should be hung slowly until they die knowing they supported child mass murder.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AP, BBC and other have debunked the numbers of civilians.
> Hamas might not care about rebuilding homes in G but they finished rebuilding their military bases in G already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it that with all the money Gaza gets, that there are still so many slums there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And Israel pumps money into its military while poverty rises.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder why Israel pumps money into her military ..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the Palestinians force them to do so.
Click to expand...

Lol you can think all you want that the Palestinians are responsible for that, but the reality is that the reason for it is defense vs. Potential attacks from Israels neighbours . 
BTW, you never answered my question as to how Palestinians have defended 'Palestine' ?


----------



## MJB12741

ChrisL said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AP, BBC and other have debunked the numbers of civilians.
> Hamas might not care about rebuilding homes in G but they finished rebuilding their military bases in G already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it that with all the money Gaza gets, that there are still so many slums there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they spend all their money on crappy rockets and guns and don't care one bit about the people living there.  They are so consumed with hatred, they cannot focus on anything but Israel.  It's like a disease.
Click to expand...


Rather than build an infrastructure to benefit themselves the Palestinians just suck off of Israel to provide them while they vow to kill more Israeli's & annihilate Israel.  It's called Palestinian mentality.


----------



## aris2chat

Al-Aqsa mosque just called for the death of jews and Israel.  Such peaceful loving people, and this after Israel lifted the need for palestinians over 50 from needing permits to enter Israel.
The first step to peace is to stop the violent rhetoric and actually listen to each other.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians were not killing each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were attacking and killing the Jews on the orders of the Grand Mufti, this came to a head in the Hebron massacre when Jews were killed on a LIE. This caused the Jews to set up local defence groups to combat islamonazi violence and terrorism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure suck up that Israeli propaganda, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Again, the Arab Palestinians generally interpret most issues about the migration of Jews to the territory in which the Mandate applied.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the Palestinians would not cooperate with any of the colonial project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> The "Black Letter:"  Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald --- to --- Dr. Weizmann on the 13th February, 1931
> 
> The Mandatory Government and the Jewish Agency had a conference in November 1930, to discuss the revival of Arab antagonism and the emergence of the Palestinian Black Hand of Syrian-born Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam --- and the Arab jihadist attacks on Jewish settlers.   In part, The Prime Minister said, “will fall to be read as the authoritative interpretation of the White Paper” (pertaining to matter it discussed).  Among the issues were:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “The obligation to facilitate Jewish immigration and to encourage close settlement by Jews on the land remains a positive obligation of the Mandate, and it can be fulfilled without prejudice to the rights and position of other sections of the population of Palestine.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “The statement of policy of His Majesty’s Government did not imply a prohibition of acquisition of additional land by Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “His Majesty’s Government did not prescribe and do not contemplate any stoppage or prohibition of Jewish immigration in any of its categories.”
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This statement of policy and the interpretation _(of the previous 1930 White Paper)_ seemed to be more acceptable to the Jewish Agency than it did to the various disorganized Arab observers; many of whom considered the letter to be a modification to the policy expressed in the White Paper.  The Arabs declined to participate with the High Commissioner in the decision making processes; and retarding the to development self-governing institutions.  Gradually --- over time, the Arab became a little more organized and began to collectively voice informally their interpretation of the Jewish Immigration in negative terms; describing it as colonialism, foreign invasion, and a threat to Arab civil rights.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians, five years later, pulled together five Arab political parties and presented the High commissioner memorandum demanding immediate cessation of Jewish immigration.
> 
> As usual, the Arab Palestinians failed to understand one of the principle objectives was the immigration of Jews for the establishment of a Jewish National Home.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, unable to get their demands met, ramped-up the propaganda effort to suggest that they are the virtual victims of an international conspiracy to steal the land formerly under the sovereign control of the Ottoman Empire.  And today, this allegation that they are subject to a policy of colonialism is merely an extension of the 1930s argument using contemporary terminology.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your language is very discriminatory.
> 
> You make it sound wrong for the Palestinians to defend their country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've said this many times, and I have asked you this question many times without getting a response:
> What have the Palestinians done or are doing to defend their 'country'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything Israel bitches about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Attacking Israeli children in schools is not defence, and anyone that believes it is should be hung slowly until they die knowing they supported child mass murder.
Click to expand...

*Link?*


----------



## MJB12741

aris2chat said:


> Al-Aqsa mosque just called for the death of jews and Israel.  Such peaceful loving people, and this after Israel lifted the need for palestinians over 50 from needing permits to enter Israel.
> The first step to peace is to stop the violent rhetoric and actually listen to each other.



Won't happen.  History has proven that Palestinians will be Palestinians.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were attacking and killing the Jews on the orders of the Grand Mufti, this came to a head in the Hebron massacre when Jews were killed on a LIE. This caused the Jews to set up local defence groups to combat islamonazi violence and terrorism.
> 
> 
> 
> You sure suck up that Israeli propaganda, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Again, the Arab Palestinians generally interpret most issues about the migration of Jews to the territory in which the Mandate applied.
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> The "Black Letter:"  Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald --- to --- Dr. Weizmann on the 13th February, 1931
> 
> The Mandatory Government and the Jewish Agency had a conference in November 1930, to discuss the revival of Arab antagonism and the emergence of the Palestinian Black Hand of Syrian-born Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam --- and the Arab jihadist attacks on Jewish settlers.   In part, The Prime Minister said, “will fall to be read as the authoritative interpretation of the White Paper” (pertaining to matter it discussed).  Among the issues were:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “The obligation to facilitate Jewish immigration and to encourage close settlement by Jews on the land remains a positive obligation of the Mandate, and it can be fulfilled without prejudice to the rights and position of other sections of the population of Palestine.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “The statement of policy of His Majesty’s Government did not imply a prohibition of acquisition of additional land by Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “His Majesty’s Government did not prescribe and do not contemplate any stoppage or prohibition of Jewish immigration in any of its categories.”
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This statement of policy and the interpretation _(of the previous 1930 White Paper)_ seemed to be more acceptable to the Jewish Agency than it did to the various disorganized Arab observers; many of whom considered the letter to be a modification to the policy expressed in the White Paper.  The Arabs declined to participate with the High Commissioner in the decision making processes; and retarding the to development self-governing institutions.  Gradually --- over time, the Arab became a little more organized and began to collectively voice informally their interpretation of the Jewish Immigration in negative terms; describing it as colonialism, foreign invasion, and a threat to Arab civil rights.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians, five years later, pulled together five Arab political parties and presented the High commissioner memorandum demanding immediate cessation of Jewish immigration.
> 
> As usual, the Arab Palestinians failed to understand one of the principle objectives was the immigration of Jews for the establishment of a Jewish National Home.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, unable to get their demands met, ramped-up the propaganda effort to suggest that they are the virtual victims of an international conspiracy to steal the land formerly under the sovereign control of the Ottoman Empire.  And today, this allegation that they are subject to a policy of colonialism is merely an extension of the 1930s argument using contemporary terminology.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your language is very discriminatory.
> 
> You make it sound wrong for the Palestinians to defend their country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've said this many times, and I have asked you this question many times without getting a response:
> What have the Palestinians done or are doing to defend their 'country'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything Israel bitches about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Attacking Israeli children in schools is not defence, and anyone that believes it is should be hung slowly until they die knowing they supported child mass murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Link?*
Click to expand...




Stories From The Battlefield Hamas Tunnels Used To Target Israel s Kindergartens The Daily Caller

Hamas tunnel threat at center of war with Israel - Yahoo News


----------



## theliq

aris2chat said:


> Al-Aqsa mosque just called for the death of jews and Israel.  Such peaceful loving people, and this after Israel lifted the need for palestinians over 50 from needing permits to enter Israel.
> The first step to peace is to stop the violent rhetoric and actually listen to each other.


From both sides Aris...I agree steve


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sure suck up that Israeli propaganda, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your language is very discriminatory.
> 
> You make it sound wrong for the Palestinians to defend their country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've said this many times, and I have asked you this question many times without getting a response:
> What have the Palestinians done or are doing to defend their 'country'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything Israel bitches about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Attacking Israeli children in schools is not defence, and anyone that believes it is should be hung slowly until they die knowing they supported child mass murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Link?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stories From The Battlefield Hamas Tunnels Used To Target Israel s Kindergartens The Daily Caller
> 
> Hamas tunnel threat at center of war with Israel - Yahoo News
Click to expand...

“Hamas planned these tunnels for years, and *planned to use them to kidnap soldiers,*” Israeli military spokesman Brig. Gen. Mordechai Almoz said. “[Now] they see the tunnels collapsing one after the other.”  For the last two years, the Israeli army has sought to develop skills and equipment to fight in enemy tunnels and bunkers.  Hamas and Islamic Jihad have used tunnels to operate command and control, to infiltrate Israel and *abduct soldiers*, to fire rockets and to conceal fighters amid invasion of the Gaza Strip.​


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've said this many times, and I have asked you this question many times without getting a response:
> What have the Palestinians done or are doing to defend their 'country'
> 
> 
> 
> Everything Israel bitches about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Attacking Israeli children in schools is not defence, and anyone that believes it is should be hung slowly until they die knowing they supported child mass murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Link?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stories From The Battlefield Hamas Tunnels Used To Target Israel s Kindergartens The Daily Caller
> 
> Hamas tunnel threat at center of war with Israel - Yahoo News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Hamas planned these tunnels for years, and *planned to use them to kidnap soldiers,*” Israeli military spokesman Brig. Gen. Mordechai Almoz said. “[Now] they see the tunnels collapsing one after the other.”  For the last two years, the Israeli army has sought to develop skills and equipment to fight in enemy tunnels and bunkers.  Hamas and Islamic Jihad have used tunnels to operate command and control, to infiltrate Israel and *abduct soldiers*, to fire rockets and to conceal fighters amid invasion of the Gaza Strip.​
Click to expand...





 They also used them to mine Israeli schools in southern Israel with the sole intention of mass murdering children. Then blaming Israel for the ensuing attacks on gaza that would result in tens of thousands of dead Palestinian terrorist scum.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything Israel bitches about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Attacking Israeli children in schools is not defence, and anyone that believes it is should be hung slowly until they die knowing they supported child mass murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Link?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stories From The Battlefield Hamas Tunnels Used To Target Israel s Kindergartens The Daily Caller
> 
> Hamas tunnel threat at center of war with Israel - Yahoo News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Hamas planned these tunnels for years, and *planned to use them to kidnap soldiers,*” Israeli military spokesman Brig. Gen. Mordechai Almoz said. “[Now] they see the tunnels collapsing one after the other.”  For the last two years, the Israeli army has sought to develop skills and equipment to fight in enemy tunnels and bunkers.  Hamas and Islamic Jihad have used tunnels to operate command and control, to infiltrate Israel and *abduct soldiers*, to fire rockets and to conceal fighters amid invasion of the Gaza Strip.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They also used them to mine Israeli schools in southern Israel with the sole intention of mass murdering children. Then blaming Israel for the ensuing attacks on gaza that would result in tens of thousands of dead Palestinian terrorist scum.
Click to expand...

*Link?*


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Attacking Israeli children in schools is not defence, and anyone that believes it is should be hung slowly until they die knowing they supported child mass murder.
> 
> 
> 
> *Link?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stories From The Battlefield Hamas Tunnels Used To Target Israel s Kindergartens The Daily Caller
> 
> Hamas tunnel threat at center of war with Israel - Yahoo News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Hamas planned these tunnels for years, and *planned to use them to kidnap soldiers,*” Israeli military spokesman Brig. Gen. Mordechai Almoz said. “[Now] they see the tunnels collapsing one after the other.”  For the last two years, the Israeli army has sought to develop skills and equipment to fight in enemy tunnels and bunkers.  Hamas and Islamic Jihad have used tunnels to operate command and control, to infiltrate Israel and *abduct soldiers*, to fire rockets and to conceal fighters amid invasion of the Gaza Strip.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They also used them to mine Israeli schools in southern Israel with the sole intention of mass murdering children. Then blaming Israel for the ensuing attacks on gaza that would result in tens of thousands of dead Palestinian terrorist scum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Link?*
Click to expand...




Hamas tunnel threat at center of war with Israel - Yahoo News

Hamas tunnels planned to target Israeli kindergartens. Oh by the way there are tunnels on the US border too. - Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com


----------



## MJB12741

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Link?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stories From The Battlefield Hamas Tunnels Used To Target Israel s Kindergartens The Daily Caller
> 
> Hamas tunnel threat at center of war with Israel - Yahoo News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Hamas planned these tunnels for years, and *planned to use them to kidnap soldiers,*” Israeli military spokesman Brig. Gen. Mordechai Almoz said. “[Now] they see the tunnels collapsing one after the other.”  For the last two years, the Israeli army has sought to develop skills and equipment to fight in enemy tunnels and bunkers.  Hamas and Islamic Jihad have used tunnels to operate command and control, to infiltrate Israel and *abduct soldiers*, to fire rockets and to conceal fighters amid invasion of the Gaza Strip.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They also used them to mine Israeli schools in southern Israel with the sole intention of mass murdering children. Then blaming Israel for the ensuing attacks on gaza that would result in tens of thousands of dead Palestinian terrorist scum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Link?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas tunnel threat at center of war with Israel - Yahoo News
> 
> Hamas tunnels planned to target Israeli kindergartens. Oh by the way there are tunnels on the US border too. - Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com
Click to expand...


Some things never change.  Palestinians will be Palestinians.


----------



## aris2chat

MJB12741 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stories From The Battlefield Hamas Tunnels Used To Target Israel s Kindergartens The Daily Caller
> 
> Hamas tunnel threat at center of war with Israel - Yahoo News
> 
> 
> 
> “Hamas planned these tunnels for years, and *planned to use them to kidnap soldiers,*” Israeli military spokesman Brig. Gen. Mordechai Almoz said. “[Now] they see the tunnels collapsing one after the other.”  For the last two years, the Israeli army has sought to develop skills and equipment to fight in enemy tunnels and bunkers.  Hamas and Islamic Jihad have used tunnels to operate command and control, to infiltrate Israel and *abduct soldiers*, to fire rockets and to conceal fighters amid invasion of the Gaza Strip.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They also used them to mine Israeli schools in southern Israel with the sole intention of mass murdering children. Then blaming Israel for the ensuing attacks on gaza that would result in tens of thousands of dead Palestinian terrorist scum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Link?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas tunnel threat at center of war with Israel - Yahoo News
> 
> Hamas tunnels planned to target Israeli kindergartens. Oh by the way there are tunnels on the US border too. - Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some things never change.  Palestinians will be Palestinians.
Click to expand...


hamas will be hamas


----------



## MJB12741

aris2chat said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Hamas planned these tunnels for years, and *planned to use them to kidnap soldiers,*” Israeli military spokesman Brig. Gen. Mordechai Almoz said. “[Now] they see the tunnels collapsing one after the other.”  For the last two years, the Israeli army has sought to develop skills and equipment to fight in enemy tunnels and bunkers.  Hamas and Islamic Jihad have used tunnels to operate command and control, to infiltrate Israel and *abduct soldiers*, to fire rockets and to conceal fighters amid invasion of the Gaza Strip.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They also used them to mine Israeli schools in southern Israel with the sole intention of mass murdering children. Then blaming Israel for the ensuing attacks on gaza that would result in tens of thousands of dead Palestinian terrorist scum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Link?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas tunnel threat at center of war with Israel - Yahoo News
> 
> Hamas tunnels planned to target Israeli kindergartens. Oh by the way there are tunnels on the US border too. - Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some things never change.  Palestinians will be Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hamas will be hamas
Click to expand...



Hamas has been near perfect in carrying out the Arafat tradition of keeping Palestinians living in ignorance & poverty with no hope for a Palestinian State.  LONG LIVE HAMAS!


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> They also used them to mine Israeli schools in southern Israel with the sole intention of mass murdering children. Then blaming Israel for the ensuing attacks on gaza that would result in tens of thousands of dead Palestinian terrorist scum.
> 
> 
> 
> *Link?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas tunnel threat at center of war with Israel - Yahoo News
> 
> Hamas tunnels planned to target Israeli kindergartens. Oh by the way there are tunnels on the US border too. - Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some things never change.  Palestinians will be Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hamas will be hamas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas has been near perfect in carrying out the Arafat tradition of keeping Palestinians living in ignorance & poverty with no hope for a Palestinian State.  LONG LIVE HAMAS!
Click to expand...


Is there ANYONE who disagrees that Palestinians are their own worst enemies?


----------



## MJB12741

Some things never change.

Palestinians Their Own Worst Enemy


----------



## MJB12741

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the Palestinians had their own Palestinian State with self determination far away from Israel so they would no longer have Israel to provide for them?  The question is where can this be?


----------



## montelatici

The Jews could return to Europe where they came from. That would solve the problem.  But, would the Europeans take them back?


----------



## P F Tinmore

* Nadine Sbaih*

**


----------



## eots

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians were not killing each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were attacking and killing the Jews on the orders of the Grand Mufti, this came to a head in the Hebron massacre when Jews were killed on a LIE. This caused the Jews to set up local defence groups to combat islamonazi violence and terrorism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure suck up that Israeli propaganda, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Again, the Arab Palestinians generally interpret most issues about the migration of Jews to the territory in which the Mandate applied.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the Palestinians would not cooperate with any of the colonial project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> The "Black Letter:"  Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald --- to --- Dr. Weizmann on the 13th February, 1931
> 
> The Mandatory Government and the Jewish Agency had a conference in November 1930, to discuss the revival of Arab antagonism and the emergence of the Palestinian Black Hand of Syrian-born Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam --- and the Arab jihadist attacks on Jewish settlers.   In part, The Prime Minister said, “will fall to be read as the authoritative interpretation of the White Paper” (pertaining to matter it discussed).  Among the issues were:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “The obligation to facilitate Jewish immigration and to encourage close settlement by Jews on the land remains a positive obligation of the Mandate, and it can be fulfilled without prejudice to the rights and position of other sections of the population of Palestine.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “The statement of policy of His Majesty’s Government did not imply a prohibition of acquisition of additional land by Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “His Majesty’s Government did not prescribe and do not contemplate any stoppage or prohibition of Jewish immigration in any of its categories.”
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This statement of policy and the interpretation _(of the previous 1930 White Paper)_ seemed to be more acceptable to the Jewish Agency than it did to the various disorganized Arab observers; many of whom considered the letter to be a modification to the policy expressed in the White Paper.  The Arabs declined to participate with the High Commissioner in the decision making processes; and retarding the to development self-governing institutions.  Gradually --- over time, the Arab became a little more organized and began to collectively voice informally their interpretation of the Jewish Immigration in negative terms; describing it as colonialism, foreign invasion, and a threat to Arab civil rights.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians, five years later, pulled together five Arab political parties and presented the High commissioner memorandum demanding immediate cessation of Jewish immigration.
> 
> As usual, the Arab Palestinians failed to understand one of the principle objectives was the immigration of Jews for the establishment of a Jewish National Home.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, unable to get their demands met, ramped-up the propaganda effort to suggest that they are the virtual victims of an international conspiracy to steal the land formerly under the sovereign control of the Ottoman Empire.  And today, this allegation that they are subject to a policy of colonialism is merely an extension of the 1930s argument using contemporary terminology.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your language is very discriminatory.
> 
> You make it sound wrong for the Palestinians to defend their country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've said this many times, and I have asked you this question many times without getting a response:
> What have the Palestinians done or are doing to defend their 'country'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything Israel bitches about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Attacking Israeli children in schools is not defence, and anyone that believes it is should be hung slowly until they die knowing they supported child mass murder.
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sure suck up that Israeli propaganda, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your language is very discriminatory.
> 
> You make it sound wrong for the Palestinians to defend their country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've said this many times, and I have asked you this question many times without getting a response:
> What have the Palestinians done or are doing to defend their 'country'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything Israel bitches about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Attacking Israeli children in schools is not defence, and anyone that believes it is should be hung slowly until they die knowing they supported child mass murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Link?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stories From The Battlefield Hamas Tunnels Used To Target Israel s Kindergartens The Daily Caller
> 
> Hamas tunnel threat at center of war with Israel - Yahoo News
Click to expand...


----------



## Mindful

Know your facts.  History class, children!  Look and learn.


----------



## eots

Mindful said:


> Know your facts.  History class, children!  Look and learn.


In 1920, the League of Nations' _Interim Report on the Civil Administration of Palestine_ stated that there were hardly 700,000 people living in Palestine:

There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ. Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or—a small number—are Protestants.

*The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years*. *Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.* In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. Most of them were animated by religious motives; they came to pray and to die in the Holy Land, and to be buried in its soil. After the persecutions in Russia forty years ago, the movement of the Jews to Palestine assumed larger proportions. Jewish agricultural colonies were founded. They developed the culture of oranges and gave importance to the Jaffa orange trade. They cultivated the vine, and manufactured and exported wine. They drained swamps. They planted eucalyptus trees. They practised, with modern methods, all the processes of agriculture. There are at the present time 64 of these settlements, large and small, with a population of some 15,000.[45]
By 1948, the population had risen to 1,900,000, of whom 68% were Arabs, and 32% were Jews (UNSCOP report, including bedouin).
Demographic history of Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## ChrisL

You know, all of this arguing about who was there first solves absolutely NOTHING and just adds fuel to the fire.  It's stupid.  The bottom line here is, unless the Palestinians tone down their rhetoric and stop using violence, then NOBODY is going to take them seriously.  They need to take a look at how Martin Luther King went about doing things.  THAT is what needs to happen.  They really have no one to blame but themselves for their current predicament.  Israel should stop building on Palestinian territory though.  That is also adding fuel to the fire.  They need to stop doing THAT.  America always has to be the daddy.  It's so darn tiresome.


----------



## montelatici

Martin Luther KIng was dealing with Christians.  Furthermore, how can people that were invaded (as it turned out) by European colonists be blamed for what the European colonists have done to them?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> The Jews could return to Europe where they came from. That would solve the problem.  But, would the Europeans take them back?






 And the muslims should return to Saudi were they belong, would the Saudi's take them back ?

 There would be a lot more muslim invaders being returned from the west than there would be Jews from Israel. At the last count the demographics were under 5% were not born in Israel


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> * Nadine Sbaih*
> 
> **







 And in just about every case of violence, terrorism and war there will be a muslim influence, and then you blame the Jews for it all. Shows how two faced and arrogant islam really is when it ant admit that it is the cause of the worlds problems.


----------



## Mindful

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews could return to Europe where they came from. That would solve the problem.  But, would the Europeans take them back?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the muslims should return to Saudi were they belong, would the Saudi's take them back ?
> 
> There would be a lot more muslim invaders being returned from the west than there would be Jews from Israel. At the last count the demographics were under 5% were not born in Israel
Click to expand...


That creep is offensive. 

Not right in the head, and should be treated accordingly.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Martin Luther KIng was dealing with Christians.  Furthermore, how can people that were invaded (as it turned out) by European colonists be blamed for what the European colonists have done to them?






 And we are dealing with LYING TWO FACED ARROGANT MUSLIMS who believe they own the world.  How can people who were invaded by muslims be blamed for what the muslims have done the world over. Time to take off your islamonazi goggles and see the truth. it is the muslims behind every act of violence, it is the muslims killing in the name of islam, it is the muslims raping children as a terror tactic. IT IS NOT THE EUROPEANS JEWISH OR OTHERWISE.


----------



## Phoenall

Mindful said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews could return to Europe where they came from. That would solve the problem.  But, would the Europeans take them back?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the muslims should return to Saudi were they belong, would the Saudi's take them back ?
> 
> There would be a lot more muslim invaders being returned from the west than there would be Jews from Israel. At the last count the demographics were under 5% were not born in Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That creep is offensive.
> 
> Not right in the head, and should be treated accordingly.
Click to expand...





 It is a couple that are islamonazis and share the one account, they are LIARS and CHEATS because they are told to be that way.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews could return to Europe where they came from. That would solve the problem.  But, would the Europeans take them back?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the muslims should return to Saudi were they belong, would the Saudi's take them back ?
> 
> There would be a lot more muslim invaders being returned from the west than there would be Jews from Israel. At the last count the demographics were under 5% were not born in Israel
Click to expand...

Very few Muslims have ancestors from Arabia just as very few Christians have ancestors from Palestine, where Christ was born.


----------



## Phoenall

eots said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've said this many times, and I have asked you this question many times without getting a response:
> What have the Palestinians done or are doing to defend their 'country'
> 
> 
> 
> Everything Israel bitches about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Attacking Israeli children in schools is not defence, and anyone that believes it is should be hung slowly until they die knowing they supported child mass murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Link?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stories From The Battlefield Hamas Tunnels Used To Target Israel s Kindergartens The Daily Caller
> 
> Hamas tunnel threat at center of war with Israel - Yahoo News
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...






 So who murdered 3 boys, one an American in Hebron and then fired 2000 illegal rockets at Israeli civilians. That caused the Israeli's to respond to these acts of war, or don't you see it as that ?


----------



## montelatici

Who murdered more than 1000 women and children in Gaza last summer


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews could return to Europe where they came from. That would solve the problem.  But, would the Europeans take them back?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the muslims should return to Saudi were they belong, would the Saudi's take them back ?
> 
> There would be a lot more muslim invaders being returned from the west than there would be Jews from Israel. At the last count the demographics were under 5% were not born in Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very few Muslims have ancestors from Arabia just as very few Christians have ancestors from Palestine, where Christ was born.
Click to expand...





 Very few Jews came from Europe as well, as most came from islamonazi nations when they were forcibly evicted in 1948/49 and 1967. Over 1 million Jewish refugees that are no longer refugees and have moved on, unlike the arab muslims who are still refugees after 66 years because no other nation wants them. That should tell you something about the "Palestinians" and how they are viewed by even their fellow muslims. So how will YOU decide which Jews will be deported from Israel because of their accident of birth, how far back will you go back in your RACIST and NAZI mistreatment and abuse of the Jews to fulfil your religions Jew hatred and commands to kill them all. Because the rest of the world will go back just as far with the muslims in the west and deport them straight back to were they came from. This will give back Pakistan and Bangladesh to the Indians, the horn of Africa back to the Ethiopians, Kosovo to Yugoslavia, Phillipines back to the Islanders and Europe back to the Europeans. It will also create 100 million muslim refugees with no hopes and no homes, all because of your Jew hatred and islmonazi anti semitism


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Who murdered more than 1000 women and children in Gaza last summer






 Under International law that would be hamas, as they decided to fight from civilian areas contrary to the Geneva conventions and international law. Or don't you think that such laws should apply to your fellow muslims who should be allowed to use women and children as human shields.


----------



## eots

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who murdered more than 1000 women and children in Gaza last summer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under International law that would be hamas, as they decided to fight from civilian areas contrary to the Geneva conventions and international law. Or don't you think that such laws should apply to your fellow muslims who should be allowed to use women and children as human shields.
Click to expand...


----------



## Phoenall

eots said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who murdered more than 1000 women and children in Gaza last summer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under International law that would be hamas, as they decided to fight from civilian areas contrary to the Geneva conventions and international law. Or don't you think that such laws should apply to your fellow muslims who should be allowed to use women and children as human shields.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

























Just a tiny sample of hamas using women and children as human shields


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who murdered more than 1000 women and children in Gaza last summer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under International law that would be hamas, as they decided to fight from civilian areas contrary to the Geneva conventions and international law. Or don't you think that such laws should apply to your fellow muslims who should be allowed to use women and children as human shields.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a tiny sample of hamas using women and children as human shields
Click to expand...

These propaganda pictures are too friggin funny. Everybody casually standing around like they are watching military exercises. Nobody looks like they are under any threat.


----------



## MJB12741

Yeah, what's with those Zionists seeing these adorable Palestinians as a threat?  Right Tinmore?

https://commentisfreewatch.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/al-aqsa_martyrs_brigade.jpg


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> Yeah, what's with those Zionists seeing these adorable Palestinians as a threat?  Right Tinmore?
> 
> https://commentisfreewatch.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/al-aqsa_martyrs_brigade.jpg


The Palestinians have resistance movements.

So?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who murdered more than 1000 women and children in Gaza last summer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under International law that would be hamas, as they decided to fight from civilian areas contrary to the Geneva conventions and international law. Or don't you think that such laws should apply to your fellow muslims who should be allowed to use women and children as human shields.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a tiny sample of hamas using women and children as human shields
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These propaganda pictures are too friggin funny. Everybody casually standing around like they are watching military exercises. Nobody looks like they are under any threat.
Click to expand...




 They never do as they believe the lies told by their leaders, very soon the people will realise they are being killed by their leaders and rise up against them. Would you prefer to see them laid on the floor dead and oozing blood so you an make false claims against Israel. Remember that these are valid legal military targets they are protecting, and that those people under the terms of the Geneva conventions are criminal militia. Which means if a shell exploded after the pictures were taken and they were all killed then the fault would lie with hamas for their deaths.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, what's with those Zionists seeing these adorable Palestinians as a threat?  Right Tinmore?
> 
> https://commentisfreewatch.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/al-aqsa_martyrs_brigade.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have resistance movements.
> 
> So?
Click to expand...





 They are illegal and in any fight they will be shot and you cant complain because they are breaching International law, humanitarian law, Geneva conventions and the UN charters.     SO! how do you like them apples, as it is up to you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are not members of any "resistance movement" ( read terrorist organisation )


----------



## eots

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who murdered more than 1000 women and children in Gaza last summer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under International law that would be hamas, as they decided to fight from civilian areas contrary to the Geneva conventions and international law. Or don't you think that such laws should apply to your fellow muslims who should be allowed to use women and children as human shields.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a tiny sample of hamas using women and children as human shields
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These propaganda pictures are too friggin funny. Everybody casually standing around like they are watching military exercises. Nobody looks like they are under any threat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They never do as they believe the lies told by their leaders, very soon the people will realise they are being killed by their leaders and rise up against them. Would you prefer to see them laid on the floor dead and oozing blood so you an make false claims against Israel. Remember that these are valid legal military targets they are protecting, and that those people under the terms of the Geneva conventions are criminal militia. Which means if a shell exploded after the pictures were taken and they were all killed then the fault would lie with hamas for their deaths.
Click to expand...

So Israel has no control  and holds no responsibly for whatever level of violence it reigns down on civilians ?


----------



## eots

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, what's with those Zionists seeing these adorable Palestinians as a threat?  Right Tinmore?
> 
> https://commentisfreewatch.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/al-aqsa_martyrs_brigade.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have resistance movements.
> 
> So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are illegal and in any fight they will be shot and you cant complain because they are breaching International law, humanitarian law, Geneva conventions and the UN charters.     SO! how do you like them apples, as it is up to you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are not members of any "resistance movement" ( read terrorist organisation )
Click to expand...

 Israeli settlements in West Bank violate international law,

A HRC 22 NGO 6 of 11 February 2013


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, what's with those Zionists seeing these adorable Palestinians as a threat?  Right Tinmore?
> 
> https://commentisfreewatch.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/al-aqsa_martyrs_brigade.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have resistance movements.
> 
> So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are illegal and in any fight they will be shot and you cant complain because they are breaching International law, humanitarian law, Geneva conventions and the UN charters.     SO! how do you like them apples, as it is up to you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are not members of any "resistance movement" ( read terrorist organisation )
Click to expand...

The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.


----------



## Phoenall

eots said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under International law that would be hamas, as they decided to fight from civilian areas contrary to the Geneva conventions and international law. Or don't you think that such laws should apply to your fellow muslims who should be allowed to use women and children as human shields.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a tiny sample of hamas using women and children as human shields
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These propaganda pictures are too friggin funny. Everybody casually standing around like they are watching military exercises. Nobody looks like they are under any threat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They never do as they believe the lies told by their leaders, very soon the people will realise they are being killed by their leaders and rise up against them. Would you prefer to see them laid on the floor dead and oozing blood so you an make false claims against Israel. Remember that these are valid legal military targets they are protecting, and that those people under the terms of the Geneva conventions are criminal militia. Which means if a shell exploded after the pictures were taken and they were all killed then the fault would lie with hamas for their deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So Israel has no control  and holds no responsibly for whatever level of violence it reigns down on civilians ?
Click to expand...





 Yes it does, and it weighs up the consequences before taking action. Now who should be saved an innocent Israeli child that has done no harm to anyone or a pack of terrorists of all ages acting as human shields so the innocent child can be targeted. They cease to be civilians once they engage in terrorist related actions.


----------



## Phoenall

eots said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, what's with those Zionists seeing these adorable Palestinians as a threat?  Right Tinmore?
> 
> https://commentisfreewatch.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/al-aqsa_martyrs_brigade.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have resistance movements.
> 
> So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are illegal and in any fight they will be shot and you cant complain because they are breaching International law, humanitarian law, Geneva conventions and the UN charters.     SO! how do you like them apples, as it is up to you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are not members of any "resistance movement" ( read terrorist organisation )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israeli settlements in West Bank violate international law,
> 
> A HRC 22 NGO 6 of 11 February 2013
Click to expand...




 Did you read your link, because if you did you missed this

*Joint written statement** *submitted by the Badil Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights

 Showing that it is a submission by an NGO and pro arab muslim organisation.   I would recommend you read this link regarding this group

BADIL*


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, what's with those Zionists seeing these adorable Palestinians as a threat?  Right Tinmore?
> 
> https://commentisfreewatch.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/al-aqsa_martyrs_brigade.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have resistance movements.
> 
> So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are illegal and in any fight they will be shot and you cant complain because they are breaching International law, humanitarian law, Geneva conventions and the UN charters.     SO! how do you like them apples, as it is up to you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are not members of any "resistance movement" ( read terrorist organisation )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
Click to expand...





 As do the Israelis, but targeting civilians with illegal qassam rockets is not defence it is offence and aggression.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, what's with those Zionists seeing these adorable Palestinians as a threat?  Right Tinmore?
> 
> https://commentisfreewatch.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/al-aqsa_martyrs_brigade.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have resistance movements.
> 
> So?
Click to expand...


Hey, I do give them credit where credit is do.  At least they also kill each other.  Long live Hamas & PA.


----------



## Slyhunter

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, what's with those Zionists seeing these adorable Palestinians as a threat?  Right Tinmore?
> 
> https://commentisfreewatch.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/al-aqsa_martyrs_brigade.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have resistance movements.
> 
> So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are illegal and in any fight they will be shot and you cant complain because they are breaching International law, humanitarian law, Geneva conventions and the UN charters.     SO! how do you like them apples, as it is up to you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are not members of any "resistance movement" ( read terrorist organisation )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
Click to expand...

FRom whom, not the civilians riding the buses drinking the tea in tea shops.


----------



## ChrisL

Slyhunter said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, what's with those Zionists seeing these adorable Palestinians as a threat?  Right Tinmore?
> 
> https://commentisfreewatch.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/al-aqsa_martyrs_brigade.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have resistance movements.
> 
> So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are illegal and in any fight they will be shot and you cant complain because they are breaching International law, humanitarian law, Geneva conventions and the UN charters.     SO! how do you like them apples, as it is up to you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are not members of any "resistance movement" ( read terrorist organisation )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FRom whom, not the civilians riding the buses drinking the tea in tea shops.
Click to expand...


The Palestinians are engaging in terrorism.  They are NOT defending themselves, IMO.  This needs to stop, and they need to grow the hell up.  Nobody (except a few idiots) will be on their side unless they stop doing that.


----------



## ChrisL

Can't trust a terrorist, that's for sure.  They need to get over their hatred and make some serious changes.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Slyhunter said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, what's with those Zionists seeing these adorable Palestinians as a threat?  Right Tinmore?
> 
> https://commentisfreewatch.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/al-aqsa_martyrs_brigade.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have resistance movements.
> 
> So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are illegal and in any fight they will be shot and you cant complain because they are breaching International law, humanitarian law, Geneva conventions and the UN charters.     SO! how do you like them apples, as it is up to you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are not members of any "resistance movement" ( read terrorist organisation )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FRom whom, not the civilians riding the buses drinking the tea in tea shops.
Click to expand...

Or playing on the beach or watching football in a hotel.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, what's with those Zionists seeing these adorable Palestinians as a threat?  Right Tinmore?
> 
> https://commentisfreewatch.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/al-aqsa_martyrs_brigade.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have resistance movements.
> 
> So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are illegal and in any fight they will be shot and you cant complain because they are breaching International law, humanitarian law, Geneva conventions and the UN charters.     SO! how do you like them apples, as it is up to you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are not members of any "resistance movement" ( read terrorist organisation )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
Click to expand...

I've asked you many times to give me examples of how the Palestinians have defended themselves.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, what's with those Zionists seeing these adorable Palestinians as a threat?  Right Tinmore?
> 
> https://commentisfreewatch.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/al-aqsa_martyrs_brigade.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have resistance movements.
> 
> So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are illegal and in any fight they will be shot and you cant complain because they are breaching International law, humanitarian law, Geneva conventions and the UN charters.     SO! how do you like them apples, as it is up to you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are not members of any "resistance movement" ( read terrorist organisation )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've asked you many times to give me examples of how the Palestinians have defended themselves.
Click to expand...

Anything that opposes the occupation and colonization of Palestine.


----------



## Slyhunter

P F Tinmore said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, what's with those Zionists seeing these adorable Palestinians as a threat?  Right Tinmore?
> 
> https://commentisfreewatch.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/al-aqsa_martyrs_brigade.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have resistance movements.
> 
> So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are illegal and in any fight they will be shot and you cant complain because they are breaching International law, humanitarian law, Geneva conventions and the UN charters.     SO! how do you like them apples, as it is up to you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are not members of any "resistance movement" ( read terrorist organisation )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FRom whom, not the civilians riding the buses drinking the tea in tea shops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or playing on the beach or watching football in a hotel.
Click to expand...

You understand that there is a difference between collateral damage and the target of the attack. Palestinians target civilians. Israel target terrorists and sometimes kill civilians too but the civilians weren't the target.


----------



## Slyhunter

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, what's with those Zionists seeing these adorable Palestinians as a threat?  Right Tinmore?
> 
> https://commentisfreewatch.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/al-aqsa_martyrs_brigade.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have resistance movements.
> 
> So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are illegal and in any fight they will be shot and you cant complain because they are breaching International law, humanitarian law, Geneva conventions and the UN charters.     SO! how do you like them apples, as it is up to you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are not members of any "resistance movement" ( read terrorist organisation )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've asked you many times to give me examples of how the Palestinians have defended themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything that opposes the occupation and colonization of Palestine.
Click to expand...

terrorism and resistance are two different things. Targeting, purposely, civilians is not a valid defense tactic.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Slyhunter said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have resistance movements.
> 
> So?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are illegal and in any fight they will be shot and you cant complain because they are breaching International law, humanitarian law, Geneva conventions and the UN charters.     SO! how do you like them apples, as it is up to you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are not members of any "resistance movement" ( read terrorist organisation )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've asked you many times to give me examples of how the Palestinians have defended themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything that opposes the occupation and colonization of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> terrorism and resistance are two different things. Targeting, purposely, civilians is not a valid defense tactic.
Click to expand...

Indeed, Israel bombs schools, hospitals, apartment buildings, and family homes knowing that they are primarily killing civilians.


----------



## Slyhunter

P F Tinmore said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are illegal and in any fight they will be shot and you cant complain because they are breaching International law, humanitarian law, Geneva conventions and the UN charters.     SO! how do you like them apples, as it is up to you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are not members of any "resistance movement" ( read terrorist organisation )
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've asked you many times to give me examples of how the Palestinians have defended themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything that opposes the occupation and colonization of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> terrorism and resistance are two different things. Targeting, purposely, civilians is not a valid defense tactic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, Israel bombs schools, hospitals, apartment buildings, and family homes knowing that they are primarily killing civilians.
Click to expand...

They target terrorist and kill civilians around the terrorists. The difference is who is TARGETED!!!!!!

Hamas purposely targets civilian ignoring military targets, THAT IS WHAT MAKES THEM TERRORIST!

Get it through that thick fucking skull!


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, what's with those Zionists seeing these adorable Palestinians as a threat?  Right Tinmore?
> 
> https://commentisfreewatch.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/al-aqsa_martyrs_brigade.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have resistance movements.
> 
> So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are illegal and in any fight they will be shot and you cant complain because they are breaching International law, humanitarian law, Geneva conventions and the UN charters.     SO! how do you like them apples, as it is up to you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are not members of any "resistance movement" ( read terrorist organisation )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've asked you many times to give me examples of how the Palestinians have defended themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything that opposes the occupation and colonization of Palestine.
Click to expand...



I too am opposed to the occupation.  Problem is no surrounding Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands.  Do you think maybe Mecca would be a nice place for a Palestinian State?


----------



## ChrisL

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have resistance movements.
> 
> So?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are illegal and in any fight they will be shot and you cant complain because they are breaching International law, humanitarian law, Geneva conventions and the UN charters.     SO! how do you like them apples, as it is up to you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are not members of any "resistance movement" ( read terrorist organisation )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've asked you many times to give me examples of how the Palestinians have defended themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything that opposes the occupation and colonization of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I too am opposed to the occupation.  Problem is no surrounding Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands.  Do you think maybe Mecca would be a nice place for a Palestinian State?
Click to expand...


Nobody wants them because they are the product of generations of hatred.


----------



## Challenger

ChrisL said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are illegal and in any fight they will be shot and you cant complain because they are breaching International law, humanitarian law, Geneva conventions and the UN charters.     SO! how do you like them apples, as it is up to you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are not members of any "resistance movement" ( read terrorist organisation )
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've asked you many times to give me examples of how the Palestinians have defended themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything that opposes the occupation and colonization of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I too am opposed to the occupation.  Problem is no surrounding Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands.  Do you think maybe Mecca would be a nice place for a Palestinian State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody wants them because they are the product of generations of hatred.
Click to expand...


----------



## Slyhunter

Challenger said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked you many times to give me examples of how the Palestinians have defended themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything that opposes the occupation and colonization of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I too am opposed to the occupation.  Problem is no surrounding Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands.  Do you think maybe Mecca would be a nice place for a Palestinian State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody wants them because they are the product of generations of hatred.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Then you explain why nobody wants them?
They have like 14 islamic countries, why don't they live in one of them?


----------



## montelatici

Would a country in Europe accept 6 million Christians from another country?


----------



## Slyhunter

montelatici said:


> Would a country in Europe accept 6 million Christians from another country?


Didn't they just import a load of Muslims?


----------



## ChrisL

montelatici said:


> Would a country in Europe accept 6 million Christians from another country?



They do.  All the time.  They also accept Muslims, Jews, or whomever immigrates there legally.  The fact is nobody wants the Palestinians because they are TROUBLE.


----------



## ChrisL

Challenger said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked you many times to give me examples of how the Palestinians have defended themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything that opposes the occupation and colonization of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I too am opposed to the occupation.  Problem is no surrounding Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands.  Do you think maybe Mecca would be a nice place for a Palestinian State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody wants them because they are the product of generations of hatred.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Oh really?  Why don't you explain what exactly is BS about my comment.  NOBODY wants them.  

Muslim countries don t want Syrian Palestinians Refugee Resettlement Watch

_*Lebanon has placed prohibitive restrictions on the entry of Palestinians fleeing Syria, making it almost impossible for them to take refuge in the small Mediterranean country.*_

New measures mean Palestinians fleeing Syria will not be given visas at the border, while those who are already in the country will not have their visas renewed.

In a statement posted on his Facebook page Thursday, Interior Minister Nuhad al-Mashnouq said no visas will be issued at the main Masnaa border crossing.

Palestinians living in Syria who wish to enter Lebanon must first request a visa at the Lebanese embassy in Damascus. The request will be processed by the Lebanese General Security agency.

[….]

Human rights activists say Palestinians in Syria, who once numbered 500,000, have been targeted by both sides in the conflict, making them one of the country’s most vulnerable groups.

[….]

_*Turkey and Jordan, which also host large numbers of refugees from Syria, have barred entry to Palestinians.*_

The U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees (UNRWA) said Thursday that, “since 9 am no Palestine refugees from Syria have been allowed to cross into Lebanon”.

Agency spokesman Chris Gunness appealed to Lebanese authorities not to block those in need of sanctuary.


----------



## Challenger

Slyhunter said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked you many times to give me examples of how the Palestinians have defended themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Anything that opposes the occupation and colonization of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I too am opposed to the occupation.  Problem is no surrounding Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands.  Do you think maybe Mecca would be a nice place for a Palestinian State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody wants them because they are the product of generations of hatred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you explain why nobody wants them?
> They have like 14 islamic countries, why don't they live in one of them?
Click to expand...


They have a country, it's called Palestine, currently occupied by a racist, Islamophobic regime that disposessed them. Those who want to live elsewhere have already gone to make new lives for themselves in Europe and America or wherever. The remainder wait.


----------



## ChrisL

Why Jordan Doesn t Want More Palestinians

It is no secret that many Arab countries despise Palestinians and subject them to apartheid laws and strict security measures that deny them most basic rights.

The mistreatment of Palestinians at the hands of their Arab brothers is an issue that is rarely mentioned in the mainstream media in the West. Most journalists prefer to look the other way when a story lacks an anti-Israel perspective.

A story is big only when it is Israel that arrests, kills, or deports.

When Arab countries such as Jordan, Syria and Lebanon move against Palestinians, however, foreign journalists choose to bury their heads in the sand. Such has been the case with Jordan and its mistreatment of the kingdom's Palestinian majority.

Jordan's dilemma is that if it allows more Palestinians into the country, the kingdom, which already has a Palestinian majority, would be transformed into a Palestinian state. But by mistreating the Palestinians and depriving them of basic rights, Jordan and other Arab countries are driving them into the open arms of extremists, especially Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.


----------



## ChrisL

Challenger said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything that opposes the occupation and colonization of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I too am opposed to the occupation.  Problem is no surrounding Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands.  Do you think maybe Mecca would be a nice place for a Palestinian State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody wants them because they are the product of generations of hatred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you explain why nobody wants them?
> They have like 14 islamic countries, why don't they live in one of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have a country, it's called Palestine, currently occupied by a racist, Islamophobic regime that disposessed them. Those who want to live elsewhere have already gone to make new lives for themselves in Europe and America or wherever. The remainder wait.
Click to expand...


Because they are dangerous savages, NOBODY wants them.  Until they change their ways, that is how it will remain.


----------



## ChrisL

Challenger said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything that opposes the occupation and colonization of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I too am opposed to the occupation.  Problem is no surrounding Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands.  Do you think maybe Mecca would be a nice place for a Palestinian State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody wants them because they are the product of generations of hatred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you explain why nobody wants them?
> They have like 14 islamic countries, why don't they live in one of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have a country, it's called Palestine, currently occupied by a racist, Islamophobic regime that disposessed them. Those who want to live elsewhere have already gone to make new lives for themselves in Europe and America or wherever. The remainder wait.
Click to expand...


Nope, they have no country.  They are Jordanian and Syrian Arabs.  And even THOSE people don't want them.


----------



## MJB12741

ChrisL said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked you many times to give me examples of how the Palestinians have defended themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Anything that opposes the occupation and colonization of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I too am opposed to the occupation.  Problem is no surrounding Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands.  Do you think maybe Mecca would be a nice place for a Palestinian State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody wants them because they are the product of generations of hatred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really?  Why don't you explain what exactly is BS about my comment.  NOBODY wants them.
> 
> Muslim countries don t want Syrian Palestinians Refugee Resettlement Watch
> 
> _*Lebanon has placed prohibitive restrictions on the entry of Palestinians fleeing Syria, making it almost impossible for them to take refuge in the small Mediterranean country.*_
> 
> New measures mean Palestinians fleeing Syria will not be given visas at the border, while those who are already in the country will not have their visas renewed.
> 
> In a statement posted on his Facebook page Thursday, Interior Minister Nuhad al-Mashnouq said no visas will be issued at the main Masnaa border crossing.
> 
> Palestinians living in Syria who wish to enter Lebanon must first request a visa at the Lebanese embassy in Damascus. The request will be processed by the Lebanese General Security agency.
> 
> [….]
> 
> Human rights activists say Palestinians in Syria, who once numbered 500,000, have been targeted by both sides in the conflict, making them one of the country’s most vulnerable groups.
> 
> [….]
> 
> _*Turkey and Jordan, which also host large numbers of refugees from Syria, have barred entry to Palestinians.*_
> 
> The U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees (UNRWA) said Thursday that, “since 9 am no Palestine refugees from Syria have been allowed to cross into Lebanon”.
> 
> Agency spokesman Chris Gunness appealed to Lebanese authorities not to block those in need of sanctuary.
Click to expand...


Not only that but as soon as Israel granted the Palestinians therir own Jew free Gaza, Egypt closed the border on them.


----------



## ChrisL

MJB12741 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything that opposes the occupation and colonization of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I too am opposed to the occupation.  Problem is no surrounding Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands.  Do you think maybe Mecca would be a nice place for a Palestinian State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody wants them because they are the product of generations of hatred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really?  Why don't you explain what exactly is BS about my comment.  NOBODY wants them.
> 
> Muslim countries don t want Syrian Palestinians Refugee Resettlement Watch
> 
> _*Lebanon has placed prohibitive restrictions on the entry of Palestinians fleeing Syria, making it almost impossible for them to take refuge in the small Mediterranean country.*_
> 
> New measures mean Palestinians fleeing Syria will not be given visas at the border, while those who are already in the country will not have their visas renewed.
> 
> In a statement posted on his Facebook page Thursday, Interior Minister Nuhad al-Mashnouq said no visas will be issued at the main Masnaa border crossing.
> 
> Palestinians living in Syria who wish to enter Lebanon must first request a visa at the Lebanese embassy in Damascus. The request will be processed by the Lebanese General Security agency.
> 
> [….]
> 
> Human rights activists say Palestinians in Syria, who once numbered 500,000, have been targeted by both sides in the conflict, making them one of the country’s most vulnerable groups.
> 
> [….]
> 
> _*Turkey and Jordan, which also host large numbers of refugees from Syria, have barred entry to Palestinians.*_
> 
> The U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees (UNRWA) said Thursday that, “since 9 am no Palestine refugees from Syria have been allowed to cross into Lebanon”.
> 
> Agency spokesman Chris Gunness appealed to Lebanese authorities not to block those in need of sanctuary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only that but as soon as Israel granted the Palestinians therir own Jew free Gaza, Egypt closed the border on them.
Click to expand...


Yes, it's not just Israel that "blocks" them.  The Arabs do it too because they aren't stupid.


----------



## montelatici

ChrisL said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would a country in Europe accept 6 million Christians from another country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do.  All the time.  They also accept Muslims, Jews, or whomever immigrates there legally.  The fact is nobody wants the Palestinians because they are TROUBLE.
Click to expand...


No country in Europe would accept 6 million people of any race, ethnicity or religion.  The Palestinians are just Christians and Muslims resisting occupation and oppression.  No one suggested that the South African non-whites leave South Africa to make room for the whites.  After all, white ruled South Africa was surrounded by black ruled states. What makes the Christians and Muslims of Palestine any different?


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything that opposes the occupation and colonization of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I too am opposed to the occupation.  Problem is no surrounding Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands.  Do you think maybe Mecca would be a nice place for a Palestinian State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody wants them because they are the product of generations of hatred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really?  Why don't you explain what exactly is BS about my comment.  NOBODY wants them.
> 
> Muslim countries don t want Syrian Palestinians Refugee Resettlement Watch
> 
> _*Lebanon has placed prohibitive restrictions on the entry of Palestinians fleeing Syria, making it almost impossible for them to take refuge in the small Mediterranean country.*_
> 
> New measures mean Palestinians fleeing Syria will not be given visas at the border, while those who are already in the country will not have their visas renewed.
> 
> In a statement posted on his Facebook page Thursday, Interior Minister Nuhad al-Mashnouq said no visas will be issued at the main Masnaa border crossing.
> 
> Palestinians living in Syria who wish to enter Lebanon must first request a visa at the Lebanese embassy in Damascus. The request will be processed by the Lebanese General Security agency.
> 
> [….]
> 
> Human rights activists say Palestinians in Syria, who once numbered 500,000, have been targeted by both sides in the conflict, making them one of the country’s most vulnerable groups.
> 
> [….]
> 
> _*Turkey and Jordan, which also host large numbers of refugees from Syria, have barred entry to Palestinians.*_
> 
> The U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees (UNRWA) said Thursday that, “since 9 am no Palestine refugees from Syria have been allowed to cross into Lebanon”.
> 
> Agency spokesman Chris Gunness appealed to Lebanese authorities not to block those in need of sanctuary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only that but as soon as Israel granted the Palestinians therir own Jew free Gaza, Egypt closed the border on them.
Click to expand...


Egypt closes the border or they would not receive U.S. military aid.  After the democratic elections and before the coup, the border was open.


----------



## ChrisL

montelatici said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would a country in Europe accept 6 million Christians from another country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do.  All the time.  They also accept Muslims, Jews, or whomever immigrates there legally.  The fact is nobody wants the Palestinians because they are TROUBLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No country in Europe would accept 6 million people of any race, ethnicity or religion.  The Palestinians are just Christians and Muslims resisting occupation and oppression.  No one suggested that the South African non-whites leave South Africa to make room for the whites.  After all, white ruled South Africa was surrounded by black ruled states. What makes the Christians and Muslims of Palestine any different?
Click to expand...


The Syrians and the Jordanians do not want them.  ANY of them.  The reason why they deny them from entering their country and block their passports. 

From my link:

A series of measures taken by the Jordanian authorities over the past three years serve as an indicator of Amman's increased concern over the Palestinian "threat." These measures include revoking the citizenship of many Palestinians and forcibly deporting others who are fleeing from Syria.

AND MORE . . . 

Al-Qadi, who played a key role in drafting the policy of withdrawing Jordanian citizenship from Palestinians, said he is also opposed to granting citizenship to the children of Jordanian women married to Palestinians and other non-Jordanian nationals.

*During the past three years, Jordan has received millions of Syrian refugees. But when it comes to Palestinians, the story is different.*


----------



## aris2chat

Challenger said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything that opposes the occupation and colonization of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I too am opposed to the occupation.  Problem is no surrounding Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands.  Do you think maybe Mecca would be a nice place for a Palestinian State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody wants them because they are the product of generations of hatred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you explain why nobody wants them?
> They have like 14 islamic countries, why don't they live in one of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have a country, it's called Palestine, currently occupied by a racist, Islamophobic regime that disposessed them. Those who want to live elsewhere have already gone to make new lives for themselves in Europe and America or wherever. The remainder wait.
Click to expand...


There is no such country.  There is the PA and G.  They are not a single people nor is their government united.  They each have different laws and aims.  
There was no country called palestine, only a mandated appointed by the LoN and later by the UN.
Even the name palestine or palestinians authority is foreign, it is not arab.  They do not have their language, history, religion or culture.  The land was Israel, Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Byzantine, Persian, Arab, Muslim, Mongol, Turk, Syrian but never palestinian.


----------



## ChrisL

montelatici said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would a country in Europe accept 6 million Christians from another country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do.  All the time.  They also accept Muslims, Jews, or whomever immigrates there legally.  The fact is nobody wants the Palestinians because they are TROUBLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No country in Europe would accept 6 million people of any race, ethnicity or religion.  The Palestinians are just Christians and Muslims resisting occupation and oppression.  No one suggested that the South African non-whites leave South Africa to make room for the whites.  After all, white ruled South Africa was surrounded by black ruled states. What makes the Christians and Muslims of Palestine any different?
Click to expand...


Jordan has accepted MILLIONS of Syrian refugees but will NOT accept Palestinians.  Why?  Because they are big trouble, that's why.


----------



## montelatici

ChrisL said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I too am opposed to the occupation.  Problem is no surrounding Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands.  Do you think maybe Mecca would be a nice place for a Palestinian State?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody wants them because they are the product of generations of hatred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you explain why nobody wants them?
> They have like 14 islamic countries, why don't they live in one of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have a country, it's called Palestine, currently occupied by a racist, Islamophobic regime that disposessed them. Those who want to live elsewhere have already gone to make new lives for themselves in Europe and America or wherever. The remainder wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, they have no country.  They are Jordanian and Syrian Arabs.  And even THOSE people don't want them.
Click to expand...


Who sold you that piece of bullshit.  They are Palestinian Christians and Muslims, they were there during the reign of the Romans, Western and Eastern, the reign of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and during the reign of the Ottomans.  Same people.  The Jews came from Europe in hordes to colonize Palestine.


----------



## MJB12741

aris2chat said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I too am opposed to the occupation.  Problem is no surrounding Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands.  Do you think maybe Mecca would be a nice place for a Palestinian State?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody wants them because they are the product of generations of hatred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you explain why nobody wants them?
> They have like 14 islamic countries, why don't they live in one of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have a country, it's called Palestine, currently occupied by a racist, Islamophobic regime that disposessed them. Those who want to live elsewhere have already gone to make new lives for themselves in Europe and America or wherever. The remainder wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no such country.  There is the PA and G.  They are not a single people nor is their government united.  They each have different laws and aims.
> There was no country called palestine, only a mandated appointed by the LoN and later by the UN.
> Even the name palestine or palestinians authority is foreign, it is not arab.  They do not have their language, history, religion or culture.  The land was Israel, Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Byzantine, Persian, Arab, Muslim, Mongol, Turk, Syrian but never palestinian.
Click to expand...


The question is why does Israel allow the Palestinian squatters to remain when no Arab country ever treated them like Israel does with peace offerings, a security fence & land concessions?


----------



## ChrisL

montelatici said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody wants them because they are the product of generations of hatred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you explain why nobody wants them?
> They have like 14 islamic countries, why don't they live in one of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have a country, it's called Palestine, currently occupied by a racist, Islamophobic regime that disposessed them. Those who want to live elsewhere have already gone to make new lives for themselves in Europe and America or wherever. The remainder wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, they have no country.  They are Jordanian and Syrian Arabs.  And even THOSE people don't want them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who sold you that piece of bullshit.  They are Palestinian Christians and Muslims, they were there during the reign of the Romans, Western and Eastern, the reign of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and during the reign of the Ottomans.  Same people.  The Jews came from Europe in hordes to colonize Palestine.
Click to expand...


Did you know that, according to studies of Palestinian lineage and genealogy, Jews and "Palestinians" are the same?  Yup.  What do you think of that?


----------



## ChrisL

montelatici 

Challenger 

The theory is that Jews who remained in Palestine mixed a little with Arabs but have maintained their lineage and converted to the "Muslim" religion at some time in the long ago past.  IOW, Palestinians ARE actually related to the original Jews who inhabited the area.  

I'm interested in your reactions and opinions to this.


----------



## ChrisL

montelatici said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody wants them because they are the product of generations of hatred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you explain why nobody wants them?
> They have like 14 islamic countries, why don't they live in one of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have a country, it's called Palestine, currently occupied by a racist, Islamophobic regime that disposessed them. Those who want to live elsewhere have already gone to make new lives for themselves in Europe and America or wherever. The remainder wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, they have no country.  They are Jordanian and Syrian Arabs.  And even THOSE people don't want them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who sold you that piece of bullshit.  They are Palestinian Christians and Muslims, they were there during the reign of the Romans, Western and Eastern, the reign of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and during the reign of the Ottomans.  Same people.  The Jews came from Europe in hordes to colonize Palestine.
Click to expand...


What you call "Palestine" was once a "territory" controlled by the Ottoman empire and was never a "sovereign nation."


----------



## MJB12741

ChrisL said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you explain why nobody wants them?
> They have like 14 islamic countries, why don't they live in one of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have a country, it's called Palestine, currently occupied by a racist, Islamophobic regime that disposessed them. Those who want to live elsewhere have already gone to make new lives for themselves in Europe and America or wherever. The remainder wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, they have no country.  They are Jordanian and Syrian Arabs.  And even THOSE people don't want them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who sold you that piece of bullshit.  They are Palestinian Christians and Muslims, they were there during the reign of the Romans, Western and Eastern, the reign of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and during the reign of the Ottomans.  Same people.  The Jews came from Europe in hordes to colonize Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you call "Palestine" was once a "territory" controlled by the Ottoman empire and was never a "sovereign nation."
Click to expand...


After how the Palestinians thanked Israel for granting their request for a Jew free Gaza there never should be any Palestinian State in Israel.


----------



## montelatici

ChrisL said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you explain why nobody wants them?
> They have like 14 islamic countries, why don't they live in one of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have a country, it's called Palestine, currently occupied by a racist, Islamophobic regime that disposessed them. Those who want to live elsewhere have already gone to make new lives for themselves in Europe and America or wherever. The remainder wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, they have no country.  They are Jordanian and Syrian Arabs.  And even THOSE people don't want them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who sold you that piece of bullshit.  They are Palestinian Christians and Muslims, they were there during the reign of the Romans, Western and Eastern, the reign of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and during the reign of the Ottomans.  Same people.  The Jews came from Europe in hordes to colonize Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you call "Palestine" was once a "territory" controlled by the Ottoman empire and was never a "sovereign nation."
Click to expand...


So what?


----------



## ChrisL

montelatici said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you explain why nobody wants them?
> They have like 14 islamic countries, why don't they live in one of them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have a country, it's called Palestine, currently occupied by a racist, Islamophobic regime that disposessed them. Those who want to live elsewhere have already gone to make new lives for themselves in Europe and America or wherever. The remainder wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, they have no country.  They are Jordanian and Syrian Arabs.  And even THOSE people don't want them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who sold you that piece of bullshit.  They are Palestinian Christians and Muslims, they were there during the reign of the Romans, Western and Eastern, the reign of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and during the reign of the Ottomans.  Same people.  The Jews came from Europe in hordes to colonize Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you call "Palestine" was once a "territory" controlled by the Ottoman empire and was never a "sovereign nation."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?
Click to expand...


So . . . today's "palestinian people", according to geneticists are descendants of the Jews who originally inhabited the area.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you explain why nobody wants them?
> They have like 14 islamic countries, why don't they live in one of them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have a country, it's called Palestine, currently occupied by a racist, Islamophobic regime that disposessed them. Those who want to live elsewhere have already gone to make new lives for themselves in Europe and America or wherever. The remainder wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, they have no country.  They are Jordanian and Syrian Arabs.  And even THOSE people don't want them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who sold you that piece of bullshit.  They are Palestinian Christians and Muslims, they were there during the reign of the Romans, Western and Eastern, the reign of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and during the reign of the Ottomans.  Same people.  The Jews came from Europe in hordes to colonize Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you call "Palestine" was once a "territory" controlled by the Ottoman empire and was never a "sovereign nation."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After how the Palestinians thanked Israel for granting their request for a Jew free Gaza there never should be any Palestinian State in Israel.
Click to expand...


There should never have been a Jewish State in Palestine.


----------



## ChrisL

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have a country, it's called Palestine, currently occupied by a racist, Islamophobic regime that disposessed them. Those who want to live elsewhere have already gone to make new lives for themselves in Europe and America or wherever. The remainder wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, they have no country.  They are Jordanian and Syrian Arabs.  And even THOSE people don't want them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who sold you that piece of bullshit.  They are Palestinian Christians and Muslims, they were there during the reign of the Romans, Western and Eastern, the reign of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and during the reign of the Ottomans.  Same people.  The Jews came from Europe in hordes to colonize Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you call "Palestine" was once a "territory" controlled by the Ottoman empire and was never a "sovereign nation."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After how the Palestinians thanked Israel for granting their request for a Jew free Gaza there never should be any Palestinian State in Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There should never have been a Jewish State in Palestine.
Click to expand...


Lol.    Of course there should, Palestinians were actually JEWS at one time.  Their lineage says so.


----------



## aris2chat

ChrisL said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have a country, it's called Palestine, currently occupied by a racist, Islamophobic regime that disposessed them. Those who want to live elsewhere have already gone to make new lives for themselves in Europe and America or wherever. The remainder wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, they have no country.  They are Jordanian and Syrian Arabs.  And even THOSE people don't want them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who sold you that piece of bullshit.  They are Palestinian Christians and Muslims, they were there during the reign of the Romans, Western and Eastern, the reign of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and during the reign of the Ottomans.  Same people.  The Jews came from Europe in hordes to colonize Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you call "Palestine" was once a "territory" controlled by the Ottoman empire and was never a "sovereign nation."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So . . . today's "palestinian people", according to geneticists are descendants of the Jews who originally inhabited the area.
Click to expand...


can't get away from the fact it was the land of the jews.


----------



## ChrisL

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have a country, it's called Palestine, currently occupied by a racist, Islamophobic regime that disposessed them. Those who want to live elsewhere have already gone to make new lives for themselves in Europe and America or wherever. The remainder wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, they have no country.  They are Jordanian and Syrian Arabs.  And even THOSE people don't want them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who sold you that piece of bullshit.  They are Palestinian Christians and Muslims, they were there during the reign of the Romans, Western and Eastern, the reign of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and during the reign of the Ottomans.  Same people.  The Jews came from Europe in hordes to colonize Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you call "Palestine" was once a "territory" controlled by the Ottoman empire and was never a "sovereign nation."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After how the Palestinians thanked Israel for granting their request for a Jew free Gaza there never should be any Palestinian State in Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There should never have been a Jewish State in Palestine.
Click to expand...


Also, there was no "Palestine" sovereign nation EVER.  It was just a part of the Ottoman Empire before the Brits came.


----------



## MJB12741

ChrisL said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, they have no country.  They are Jordanian and Syrian Arabs.  And even THOSE people don't want them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who sold you that piece of bullshit.  They are Palestinian Christians and Muslims, they were there during the reign of the Romans, Western and Eastern, the reign of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and during the reign of the Ottomans.  Same people.  The Jews came from Europe in hordes to colonize Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you call "Palestine" was once a "territory" controlled by the Ottoman empire and was never a "sovereign nation."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After how the Palestinians thanked Israel for granting their request for a Jew free Gaza there never should be any Palestinian State in Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There should never have been a Jewish State in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also, there was no "Palestine" sovereign nation EVER.  It was just a part of the Ottoman Empire before the Brits came.
Click to expand...


The overwhelming majority of Muslim Palestinians are just squatters on Israel's land with no titles or deeds whatsoever to the land they have stolen for generations now.


----------



## ChrisL

What the genetic findings say to me is that it was Jewish people who originally inhabited the territory.  Then, when Islam came into play, some of these Jews converted, and of course some would when given the choice of "convert or die."  Others remained faithful to their Jewish religion.  The ones who did convert are who are now known as "palestinians."  But they ALL come from the same "blood line" so to speak.  So . . . "Muslim palestinians" are descended from the Jewish people who originally inhabited the area.


----------



## Mr.Right

Penelope said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A mighty Jewish empire extended over this entire area before the Arabs and their Islam were even born!  The Jewish People have one of the most legitimate Birth Certificates of any nations in the world. And if you want to talk religion, fine.  G-d GAVE the Land of Israel to the Jewish People. And G-d does nothing by accident!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's as far as I got, a *mighty Jewish empire never existed*.
> 
> Also since most Jews in Israel are secular, we'll leave God out of it.
> 
> _(let me add, and if you insist God gave them the land, well God give it and God take it , which should be evident as no temple there, and Britain  is not God)._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And there was no arab muslim ownership of Palestine from 1099 until 1988. And there second most holy place "allegedly" was allowed to fall into ruin 3 times while islam was in control of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know what it doesn't matter, they were living there when the Zionist came so there.
Click to expand...

By your logic, a squatter that moves into your house should be allowed to stay.


----------



## ChrisL

aris2chat said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, they have no country.  They are Jordanian and Syrian Arabs.  And even THOSE people don't want them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who sold you that piece of bullshit.  They are Palestinian Christians and Muslims, they were there during the reign of the Romans, Western and Eastern, the reign of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and during the reign of the Ottomans.  Same people.  The Jews came from Europe in hordes to colonize Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you call "Palestine" was once a "territory" controlled by the Ottoman empire and was never a "sovereign nation."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So . . . today's "palestinian people", according to geneticists are descendants of the Jews who originally inhabited the area.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> can't get away from the fact it was the land of the jews.
Click to expand...


Thank you.  It's nice to see someone who understands the data and what it implicates.


----------



## aris2chat

ChrisL said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who sold you that piece of bullshit.  They are Palestinian Christians and Muslims, they were there during the reign of the Romans, Western and Eastern, the reign of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and during the reign of the Ottomans.  Same people.  The Jews came from Europe in hordes to colonize Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you call "Palestine" was once a "territory" controlled by the Ottoman empire and was never a "sovereign nation."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So . . . today's "palestinian people", according to geneticists are descendants of the Jews who originally inhabited the area.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> can't get away from the fact it was the land of the jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you.  It's nice to see someone who understands the data and what it implicates.
Click to expand...


As much as they might want, the jewish past cannot be wiped out.  Even if like ISIS the monuments and archeological evidence were destroyed, the historical documentation from other lands will still exist.  The history and genealogy will still have been recorded.  Knowledge of the jews will still live on....even within the quran


----------



## ChrisL

aris2chat said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you call "Palestine" was once a "territory" controlled by the Ottoman empire and was never a "sovereign nation."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So . . . today's "palestinian people", according to geneticists are descendants of the Jews who originally inhabited the area.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> can't get away from the fact it was the land of the jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you.  It's nice to see someone who understands the data and what it implicates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As much as they might want, the jewish past cannot be wiped out.  Even if like ISIS the monuments and archeological evidence were destroyed, the historical documentation from other lands will still exist.  The history and genealogy will still have been recorded.  Knowledge of the jews will still live on....even within the quran
Click to expand...


Another great point there.  Jewish people are mentioned in the Qu'ran, which dates back to what?  Over 1000 years ago?


----------



## aris2chat

ChrisL said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So . . . today's "palestinian people", according to geneticists are descendants of the Jews who originally inhabited the area.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> can't get away from the fact it was the land of the jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you.  It's nice to see someone who understands the data and what it implicates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As much as they might want, the jewish past cannot be wiped out.  Even if like ISIS the monuments and archeological evidence were destroyed, the historical documentation from other lands will still exist.  The history and genealogy will still have been recorded.  Knowledge of the jews will still live on....even within the quran
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another great point there.  Jewish people are mentioned in the Qu'ran, which dates back to what?  Over 1000 years ago?
Click to expand...


Where are the millennia of artifacts and global documentation of a palestine?  What is there before WWI beside rome changing the name of gaza and sinai into P-1, P-2 and P-3?  A foreign name that is not part of the arab vocabulary till the 20th C


----------



## ChrisL

aris2chat said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So . . . today's "palestinian people", according to geneticists are descendants of the Jews who originally inhabited the area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can't get away from the fact it was the land of the jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you.  It's nice to see someone who understands the data and what it implicates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As much as they might want, the jewish past cannot be wiped out.  Even if like ISIS the monuments and archeological evidence were destroyed, the historical documentation from other lands will still exist.  The history and genealogy will still have been recorded.  Knowledge of the jews will still live on....even within the quran
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another great point there.  Jewish people are mentioned in the Qu'ran, which dates back to what?  Over 1000 years ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where are the millennia of artifacts and global documentation of a palestine?  What is there before WWI beside rome changing the name of gaza and sinai into P-1, P-2 and P-3?  A foreign name that is not part of the arab vocabulary till the 20th C
Click to expand...


Obviously, Palestine was just a part of the Ottoman empire and nothing more.  It never was a sovereign nation.  The Islamic Arabs who have always hated the Jewish people, wanted to create a make-believe nation to give the Israelis a difficult time, IMO, and I think history supports that idea too.  I do not believe there is any mention of "Palestine" in the Qu'ran.


----------



## Mr.Right

ChrisL said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> can't get away from the fact it was the land of the jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.  It's nice to see someone who understands the data and what it implicates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As much as they might want, the jewish past cannot be wiped out.  Even if like ISIS the monuments and archeological evidence were destroyed, the historical documentation from other lands will still exist.  The history and genealogy will still have been recorded.  Knowledge of the jews will still live on....even within the quran
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another great point there.  Jewish people are mentioned in the Qu'ran, which dates back to what?  Over 1000 years ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where are the millennia of artifacts and global documentation of a palestine?  What is there before WWI beside rome changing the name of gaza and sinai into P-1, P-2 and P-3?  A foreign name that is not part of the arab vocabulary till the 20th C
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously, Palestine was just a part of the Ottoman empire and nothing more.  It never was a sovereign nation.  The Islamic Arabs who have always hated the Jewish people, wanted to create a make-believe nation to give the Israelis a difficult time, IMO, and I think history supports that idea too.  I do not believe there is any mention of "Palestine" in the Qu'ran.
Click to expand...

I never thought I would ever agree with you, but there it is.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who sold you that piece of bullshit.  They are Palestinian Christians and Muslims, they were there during the reign of the Romans, Western and Eastern, the reign of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and during the reign of the Ottomans.  Same people.  The Jews came from Europe in hordes to colonize Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you call "Palestine" was once a "territory" controlled by the Ottoman empire and was never a "sovereign nation."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After how the Palestinians thanked Israel for granting their request for a Jew free Gaza there never should be any Palestinian State in Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There should never have been a Jewish State in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also, there was no "Palestine" sovereign nation EVER.  It was just a part of the Ottoman Empire before the Brits came.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The overwhelming majority of Muslim Palestinians are just squatters on Israel's land with no titles or deeds whatsoever to the land they have stolen for generations now.
Click to expand...


The only squatters are the European Jews that went to Palestine from Europe.  The Christians and Muslims of Palestine have always been there whatever religion they were before.


----------



## aris2chat

sura 17:104  And We said after Pharaoh to the Children of Israel, "Dwell in the land, and when there comes the promise of the Hereafter, We will bring you forth in [one] gathering."

Palestine does not exist in arabic in any of the versions of the quran.


----------



## montelatici

ChrisL said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> can't get away from the fact it was the land of the jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.  It's nice to see someone who understands the data and what it implicates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As much as they might want, the jewish past cannot be wiped out.  Even if like ISIS the monuments and archeological evidence were destroyed, the historical documentation from other lands will still exist.  The history and genealogy will still have been recorded.  Knowledge of the jews will still live on....even within the quran
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another great point there.  Jewish people are mentioned in the Qu'ran, which dates back to what?  Over 1000 years ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where are the millennia of artifacts and global documentation of a palestine?  What is there before WWI beside rome changing the name of gaza and sinai into P-1, P-2 and P-3?  A foreign name that is not part of the arab vocabulary till the 20th C
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously, Palestine was just a part of the Ottoman empire and nothing more.  It never was a sovereign nation.  The Islamic Arabs who have always hated the Jewish people, wanted to create a make-believe nation to give the Israelis a difficult time, IMO, and I think history supports that idea too.  I do not believe there is any mention of "Palestine" in the Qu'ran.
Click to expand...


What do Palestinian Christians care about the Koran?  

King James Bible

The people shall hear, _and_ be afraid: sorrow shall take hold on the inhabitants of Palestina.

Exod 15:14


----------



## ChrisL

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you call "Palestine" was once a "territory" controlled by the Ottoman empire and was never a "sovereign nation."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After how the Palestinians thanked Israel for granting their request for a Jew free Gaza there never should be any Palestinian State in Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There should never have been a Jewish State in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also, there was no "Palestine" sovereign nation EVER.  It was just a part of the Ottoman Empire before the Brits came.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The overwhelming majority of Muslim Palestinians are just squatters on Israel's land with no titles or deeds whatsoever to the land they have stolen for generations now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only squatters are the European Jews that went to Palestine from Europe.  The Christians and Muslims of Palestine have always been there whatever religion they were before.
Click to expand...


And so have the Jews according to the Qu'ran.  Right?


----------



## Mr.Right

montelatici said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.  It's nice to see someone who understands the data and what it implicates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As much as they might want, the jewish past cannot be wiped out.  Even if like ISIS the monuments and archeological evidence were destroyed, the historical documentation from other lands will still exist.  The history and genealogy will still have been recorded.  Knowledge of the jews will still live on....even within the quran
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another great point there.  Jewish people are mentioned in the Qu'ran, which dates back to what?  Over 1000 years ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where are the millennia of artifacts and global documentation of a palestine?  What is there before WWI beside rome changing the name of gaza and sinai into P-1, P-2 and P-3?  A foreign name that is not part of the arab vocabulary till the 20th C
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously, Palestine was just a part of the Ottoman empire and nothing more.  It never was a sovereign nation.  The Islamic Arabs who have always hated the Jewish people, wanted to create a make-believe nation to give the Israelis a difficult time, IMO, and I think history supports that idea too.  I do not believe there is any mention of "Palestine" in the Qu'ran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do Palestinian Christians care about the Koran?
> 
> King James Bible
> 
> The people shall hear, _and_ be afraid: sorrow shall take hold on the inhabitants of Palestina.
> 
> Exod 15:14
Click to expand...

Just about every other Bible translation says philistia.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Mr.Right said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> As much as they might want, the jewish past cannot be wiped out.  Even if like ISIS the monuments and archeological evidence were destroyed, the historical documentation from other lands will still exist.  The history and genealogy will still have been recorded.  Knowledge of the jews will still live on....even within the quran
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another great point there.  Jewish people are mentioned in the Qu'ran, which dates back to what?  Over 1000 years ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where are the millennia of artifacts and global documentation of a palestine?  What is there before WWI beside rome changing the name of gaza and sinai into P-1, P-2 and P-3?  A foreign name that is not part of the arab vocabulary till the 20th C
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously, Palestine was just a part of the Ottoman empire and nothing more.  It never was a sovereign nation.  The Islamic Arabs who have always hated the Jewish people, wanted to create a make-believe nation to give the Israelis a difficult time, IMO, and I think history supports that idea too.  I do not believe there is any mention of "Palestine" in the Qu'ran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do Palestinian Christians care about the Koran?
> 
> King James Bible
> 
> The people shall hear, _and_ be afraid: sorrow shall take hold on the inhabitants of Palestina.
> 
> Exod 15:14
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just about every other Bible translation says philistia.
Click to expand...

The maps in my Bible call the place Palestine. The Christian programs I hear on the radio call the place Palestine.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, what's with those Zionists seeing these adorable Palestinians as a threat?  Right Tinmore?
> 
> https://commentisfreewatch.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/al-aqsa_martyrs_brigade.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have resistance movements.
> 
> So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are illegal and in any fight they will be shot and you cant complain because they are breaching International law, humanitarian law, Geneva conventions and the UN charters.     SO! how do you like them apples, as it is up to you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are not members of any "resistance movement" ( read terrorist organisation )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FRom whom, not the civilians riding the buses drinking the tea in tea shops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or playing on the beach or watching football in a hotel.
Click to expand...





 While acting as human shields of course, or not even being there and getting brought in from a hamas killing.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, what's with those Zionists seeing these adorable Palestinians as a threat?  Right Tinmore?
> 
> https://commentisfreewatch.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/al-aqsa_martyrs_brigade.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have resistance movements.
> 
> So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are illegal and in any fight they will be shot and you cant complain because they are breaching International law, humanitarian law, Geneva conventions and the UN charters.     SO! how do you like them apples, as it is up to you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are not members of any "resistance movement" ( read terrorist organisation )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've asked you many times to give me examples of how the Palestinians have defended themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything that opposes the occupation and colonization of Palestine.
Click to expand...




So targeting children is according to you defending against occupation, travelling to another nation on another continent and murdering unarmed innocent people is according to you defending against occupation.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are illegal and in any fight they will be shot and you cant complain because they are breaching International law, humanitarian law, Geneva conventions and the UN charters.     SO! how do you like them apples, as it is up to you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are not members of any "resistance movement" ( read terrorist organisation )
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've asked you many times to give me examples of how the Palestinians have defended themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything that opposes the occupation and colonization of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> terrorism and resistance are two different things. Targeting, purposely, civilians is not a valid defense tactic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, Israel bombs schools, hospitals, apartment buildings, and family homes knowing that they are primarily killing civilians.
Click to expand...





 They target military areas that are placed illegally next to hospitals, schools, apartment buildings and family homes. So under International law the onus for the deaths falls at the arab muslims feet


----------



## Challenger

ChrisL said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, they have no country.  They are Jordanian and Syrian Arabs.  And even THOSE people don't want them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who sold you that piece of bullshit.  They are Palestinian Christians and Muslims, they were there during the reign of the Romans, Western and Eastern, the reign of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and during the reign of the Ottomans.  Same people.  The Jews came from Europe in hordes to colonize Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you call "Palestine" was once a "territory" controlled by the Ottoman empire and was never a "sovereign nation."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After how the Palestinians thanked Israel for granting their request for a Jew free Gaza there never should be any Palestinian State in Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There should never have been a Jewish State in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also, there was no "Palestine" sovereign nation EVER.  It was just a part of the Ottoman Empire before the Brits came.
Click to expand...


Maybe not, but there was a sovereign Palestinian state Daher el-Omar - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another great point there.  Jewish people are mentioned in the Qu'ran, which dates back to what?  Over 1000 years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the millennia of artifacts and global documentation of a palestine?  What is there before WWI beside rome changing the name of gaza and sinai into P-1, P-2 and P-3?  A foreign name that is not part of the arab vocabulary till the 20th C
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously, Palestine was just a part of the Ottoman empire and nothing more.  It never was a sovereign nation.  The Islamic Arabs who have always hated the Jewish people, wanted to create a make-believe nation to give the Israelis a difficult time, IMO, and I think history supports that idea too.  I do not believe there is any mention of "Palestine" in the Qu'ran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do Palestinian Christians care about the Koran?
> 
> King James Bible
> 
> The people shall hear, _and_ be afraid: sorrow shall take hold on the inhabitants of Palestina.
> 
> Exod 15:14
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just about every other Bible translation says philistia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The maps in my Bible call the place Palestine. The Christian programs I hear on the radio call the place Palestine.
Click to expand...





Because that is the accepted name for the area once called the Mandate for Palestine. It does not say on your maps nation of Palestine now does it


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who sold you that piece of bullshit.  They are Palestinian Christians and Muslims, they were there during the reign of the Romans, Western and Eastern, the reign of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and during the reign of the Ottomans.  Same people.  The Jews came from Europe in hordes to colonize Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you call "Palestine" was once a "territory" controlled by the Ottoman empire and was never a "sovereign nation."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After how the Palestinians thanked Israel for granting their request for a Jew free Gaza there never should be any Palestinian State in Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There should never have been a Jewish State in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also, there was no "Palestine" sovereign nation EVER.  It was just a part of the Ottoman Empire before the Brits came.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe not, but there was a sovereign Palestinian state Daher el-Omar - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...





 Nope wrong again as your link shows

*Daher el-Omar* (also: Dhaher, Dhahar) (Arabic ظاهر آل عمر الزيداني _ẓāhir Āl ʿumar az-zaydānī_, ca. 1690 – August 21, 1775) was the autonomous Arab ruler of Northern Palestine during the mid-18th century.[1] The founder of modern Haifa, he fortified many cities, among them Acre.

 No mention of a nation of Palestine in your link.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked you many times to give me examples of how the Palestinians have defended themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything that opposes the occupation and colonization of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I too am opposed to the occupation.  Problem is no surrounding Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands.  Do you think maybe Mecca would be a nice place for a Palestinian State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody wants them because they are the product of generations of hatred.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...






 No cold hard facts, which is why Jordan has asked Israel to patrol the Jordan valley and Egypt has imposed their own blockade


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Would a country in Europe accept 6 million Christians from another country?






 Yes as we are not arab muslims, after all Europe has accepted 10 million muslims in the last year or so


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything that opposes the occupation and colonization of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I too am opposed to the occupation.  Problem is no surrounding Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands.  Do you think maybe Mecca would be a nice place for a Palestinian State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody wants them because they are the product of generations of hatred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you explain why nobody wants them?
> They have like 14 islamic countries, why don't they live in one of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have a country, it's called Palestine, currently occupied by a racist, Islamophobic regime that disposessed them. Those who want to live elsewhere have already gone to make new lives for themselves in Europe and America or wherever. The remainder wait.
Click to expand...





 Now this is BULLSHIT as they an claim that land anytime they want, yet they don't as they are not yet ready for free determination.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have resistance movements.
> 
> So?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are illegal and in any fight they will be shot and you cant complain because they are breaching International law, humanitarian law, Geneva conventions and the UN charters.     SO! how do you like them apples, as it is up to you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are not members of any "resistance movement" ( read terrorist organisation )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've asked you many times to give me examples of how the Palestinians have defended themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything that opposes the occupation and colonization of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So targeting children is according to you defending against occupation, travelling to another nation on another continent and murdering unarmed innocent people is according to you defending against occupation.
Click to expand...

Israel "defending" itself.

*Children killed*
TOTALS SINCE SEPT 2000:
Israelis: 131
Palestinians: 1656

Remember These Children


----------



## Slyhunter

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are illegal and in any fight they will be shot and you cant complain because they are breaching International law, humanitarian law, Geneva conventions and the UN charters.     SO! how do you like them apples, as it is up to you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are not members of any "resistance movement" ( read terrorist organisation )
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've asked you many times to give me examples of how the Palestinians have defended themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything that opposes the occupation and colonization of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So targeting children is according to you defending against occupation, travelling to another nation on another continent and murdering unarmed innocent people is according to you defending against occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel "defending" itself.
> 
> *Children killed*
> TOTALS SINCE SEPT 2000:
> Israelis: 131
> Palestinians: 1656
> 
> Remember These Children
Click to expand...

So you're blaming Israel because Hamas is pretty good at using civilians as shields?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Slyhunter said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked you many times to give me examples of how the Palestinians have defended themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything that opposes the occupation and colonization of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So targeting children is according to you defending against occupation, travelling to another nation on another continent and murdering unarmed innocent people is according to you defending against occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel "defending" itself.
> 
> *Children killed*
> TOTALS SINCE SEPT 2000:
> Israelis: 131
> Palestinians: 1656
> 
> Remember These Children
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're blaming Israel because Hamas is pretty good at using civilians as shields?
Click to expand...

That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would a country in Europe accept 6 million Christians from another country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do.  All the time.  They also accept Muslims, Jews, or whomever immigrates there legally.  The fact is nobody wants the Palestinians because they are TROUBLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No country in Europe would accept 6 million people of any race, ethnicity or religion.  The Palestinians are just Christians and Muslims resisting occupation and oppression.  No one suggested that the South African non-whites leave South Africa to make room for the whites.  After all, white ruled South Africa was surrounded by black ruled states. What makes the Christians and Muslims of Palestine any different?
Click to expand...





 The Christians are being ethnically cleansed form Palestine by the arab muslims. And we took over 500,000 into the UK alone last year as asylum seekers.


 And again you go OFF TOPIC by bringing another nation an ocean and a continent away


----------



## Challenger

Slyhunter said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked you many times to give me examples of how the Palestinians have defended themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything that opposes the occupation and colonization of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So targeting children is according to you defending against occupation, travelling to another nation on another continent and murdering unarmed innocent people is according to you defending against occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel "defending" itself.
> 
> *Children killed*
> TOTALS SINCE SEPT 2000:
> Israelis: 131
> Palestinians: 1656
> 
> Remember These Children
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're blaming Israel because Hamas is pretty good at using civilians as shields?
Click to expand...


No *I'm* blaming Israel because with the vast array of drones and high tech precision weapons at their disposal, they prefer to carpet bomb whole suburbs of Gaza and use artillery barrages, which aren't known for their discrimination, in one of the most densely populated areas in the world.


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would a country in Europe accept 6 million Christians from another country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do.  All the time.  They also accept Muslims, Jews, or whomever immigrates there legally.  The fact is nobody wants the Palestinians because they are TROUBLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No country in Europe would accept 6 million people of any race, ethnicity or religion.  The Palestinians are just Christians and Muslims resisting occupation and oppression.  No one suggested that the South African non-whites leave South Africa to make room for the whites.  After all, white ruled South Africa was surrounded by black ruled states. What makes the Christians and Muslims of Palestine any different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Christians are being ethnically cleansed form Palestine by the arab muslims. And we took over 500,000 into the UK alone last year as asylum seekers.
> 
> 
> And again you go OFF TOPIC by bringing another nation an ocean and a continent away
Click to expand...


We've suddenly had an influx of 500,000 Christian Palestinians in the UK last year?  Seriously, go take your meds you are totally losing the plot.


----------



## Mindful

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would a country in Europe accept 6 million Christians from another country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do.  All the time.  They also accept Muslims, Jews, or whomever immigrates there legally.  The fact is nobody wants the Palestinians because they are TROUBLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No country in Europe would accept 6 million people of any race, ethnicity or religion.  The Palestinians are just Christians and Muslims resisting occupation and oppression.  No one suggested that the South African non-whites leave South Africa to make room for the whites.  After all, white ruled South Africa was surrounded by black ruled states. What makes the Christians and Muslims of Palestine any different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Christians are being ethnically cleansed form Palestine by the arab muslims. And we took over 500,000 into the UK alone last year as asylum seekers.
> 
> 
> And again you go OFF TOPIC by bringing another nation an ocean and a continent away
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've suddenly had an influx of 500,000 Christian Palestinians in the UK last year?  Seriously, go take your meds you are totally losing the plot.
Click to expand...


Is there a point  to you? You sound like a wimp.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I too am opposed to the occupation.  Problem is no surrounding Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands.  Do you think maybe Mecca would be a nice place for a Palestinian State?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody wants them because they are the product of generations of hatred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really?  Why don't you explain what exactly is BS about my comment.  NOBODY wants them.
> 
> Muslim countries don t want Syrian Palestinians Refugee Resettlement Watch
> 
> _*Lebanon has placed prohibitive restrictions on the entry of Palestinians fleeing Syria, making it almost impossible for them to take refuge in the small Mediterranean country.*_
> 
> New measures mean Palestinians fleeing Syria will not be given visas at the border, while those who are already in the country will not have their visas renewed.
> 
> In a statement posted on his Facebook page Thursday, Interior Minister Nuhad al-Mashnouq said no visas will be issued at the main Masnaa border crossing.
> 
> Palestinians living in Syria who wish to enter Lebanon must first request a visa at the Lebanese embassy in Damascus. The request will be processed by the Lebanese General Security agency.
> 
> [….]
> 
> Human rights activists say Palestinians in Syria, who once numbered 500,000, have been targeted by both sides in the conflict, making them one of the country’s most vulnerable groups.
> 
> [….]
> 
> _*Turkey and Jordan, which also host large numbers of refugees from Syria, have barred entry to Palestinians.*_
> 
> The U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees (UNRWA) said Thursday that, “since 9 am no Palestine refugees from Syria have been allowed to cross into Lebanon”.
> 
> Agency spokesman Chris Gunness appealed to Lebanese authorities not to block those in need of sanctuary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only that but as soon as Israel granted the Palestinians therir own Jew free Gaza, Egypt closed the border on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Egypt closes the border or they would not receive U.S. military aid.  After the democratic elections and before the coup, the border was open.
Click to expand...




 They have never received any military aid from the US, just blood money. And the US told the terrorist group that if they did not stop funding hamas the blood money would stop. We all know where that blood money was going, to fund international terrorism . The west should stop all blood money to the muslims until they stop mass murdering innocents and trying to steal other peoples land.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would a country in Europe accept 6 million Christians from another country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do.  All the time.  They also accept Muslims, Jews, or whomever immigrates there legally.  The fact is nobody wants the Palestinians because they are TROUBLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No country in Europe would accept 6 million people of any race, ethnicity or religion.  The Palestinians are just Christians and Muslims resisting occupation and oppression.  No one suggested that the South African non-whites leave South Africa to make room for the whites.  After all, white ruled South Africa was surrounded by black ruled states. What makes the Christians and Muslims of Palestine any different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Christians are being ethnically cleansed form Palestine by the arab muslims. And we took over 500,000 into the UK alone last year as asylum seekers.
> 
> 
> And again you go OFF TOPIC by bringing another nation an ocean and a continent away
Click to expand...


The usual lying and  bullshitting from Phoney.

Christians are leaving Palestine because of the Israeli occupation and resultant oppression:

"The Palestinian Christians in Gaza today, they suffer as much as the Palestinian Muslims in Gaza. They are under bombardment. They have only eight hours of electricity of every 24 hours. They have a hard time getting fresh water," he said. "The Palestinian Christians, they don't live in an isolated area where oh, this is a Christian town. No, they live among the Muslims in Gaza and therefore as much as the Muslims are suffering, the Christians are suffering, not only in the Gaza strip but also in the West Bank."

Palestinian Christian Western Christians Don t Understand Gaza Israeli Conflict

There aren't 500,000 Christians in Palestine, how could the UK have taken in 500,000?


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are illegal and in any fight they will be shot and you cant complain because they are breaching International law, humanitarian law, Geneva conventions and the UN charters.     SO! how do you like them apples, as it is up to you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are not members of any "resistance movement" ( read terrorist organisation )
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've asked you many times to give me examples of how the Palestinians have defended themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything that opposes the occupation and colonization of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So targeting children is according to you defending against occupation, travelling to another nation on another continent and murdering unarmed innocent people is according to you defending against occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel "defending" itself.
> 
> *Children killed*
> TOTALS SINCE SEPT 2000:
> Israelis: 131
> Palestinians: 1656
> 
> Remember These Children
Click to expand...


Aw bless you for sharing this factual information.  Sure doesn't bode well for Palestinians being so stupid as to continue to kill Israeli's without even considering the consequences of the retaliations.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody wants them because they are the product of generations of hatred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you explain why nobody wants them?
> They have like 14 islamic countries, why don't they live in one of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have a country, it's called Palestine, currently occupied by a racist, Islamophobic regime that disposessed them. Those who want to live elsewhere have already gone to make new lives for themselves in Europe and America or wherever. The remainder wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, they have no country.  They are Jordanian and Syrian Arabs.  And even THOSE people don't want them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who sold you that piece of bullshit.  They are Palestinian Christians and Muslims, they were there during the reign of the Romans, Western and Eastern, the reign of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and during the reign of the Ottomans.  Same people.  The Jews came from Europe in hordes to colonize Palestine.
Click to expand...






 How did they manage that magic trick then Abdul seeing as muslims were not invented until 627 C.E. a full 223 years after the last Roman left. So that is LIE number 1, much touted by muslims.  Then the Christians were not invented until the 4C by Romans so they could not have existed in any numbers until then, So LIE number 2 exposed. BUT the Jews lived in Judea and Samaria for 2500 before the Roman invasion, and still live there today 2000 years after the roman invasion. 

 THE JEWS WERE INVITED BY THE LANDS LEGAL OWNERS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, FIRST THE OTTOMANS IN 1850 WHO WERE LOOKING AT GIVING THE JEWS PALESTINE AS THEIR HOMELAND. THEN THE LoN FROM 1917 WHO DID [ROMISE THE JEWS A HOMELAND IN PALESTINE.

 So Lie number 3 put to bed as well


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked you many times to give me examples of how the Palestinians have defended themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Anything that opposes the occupation and colonization of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So targeting children is according to you defending against occupation, travelling to another nation on another continent and murdering unarmed innocent people is according to you defending against occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel "defending" itself.
> 
> *Children killed*
> TOTALS SINCE SEPT 2000:
> Israelis: 131
> Palestinians: 1656
> 
> Remember These Children
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're blaming Israel because Hamas is pretty good at using civilians as shields?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.
Click to expand...





 And once again you ignore the evidence of hamas using human shields to protect terrorists that has been posted, even hamas leaders agreeing that they use human shields. This is against International Law so it seems that you advocate that muslims should ignore International law.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would a country in Europe accept 6 million Christians from another country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do.  All the time.  They also accept Muslims, Jews, or whomever immigrates there legally.  The fact is nobody wants the Palestinians because they are TROUBLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No country in Europe would accept 6 million people of any race, ethnicity or religion.  The Palestinians are just Christians and Muslims resisting occupation and oppression.  No one suggested that the South African non-whites leave South Africa to make room for the whites.  After all, white ruled South Africa was surrounded by black ruled states. What makes the Christians and Muslims of Palestine any different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Christians are being ethnically cleansed form Palestine by the arab muslims. And we took over 500,000 into the UK alone last year as asylum seekers.
> 
> 
> And again you go OFF TOPIC by bringing another nation an ocean and a continent away
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've suddenly had an influx of 500,000 Christian Palestinians in the UK last year?  Seriously, go take your meds you are totally losing the plot.
Click to expand...





We took over 500,000 asylum seekers into the UK, and promptly deported so many. Don't you ever read the newspapers or watch the News programmes. On top of this we allowed 275,000 foreign nationals to enter as immigrants.  So do the sums for the UK alone and see how easy it is to accommodate 6 million legal and/or illegal muslim immigrants



 Seriously stop flaming AND trolling


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you explain why nobody wants them?
> They have like 14 islamic countries, why don't they live in one of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have a country, it's called Palestine, currently occupied by a racist, Islamophobic regime that disposessed them. Those who want to live elsewhere have already gone to make new lives for themselves in Europe and America or wherever. The remainder wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, they have no country.  They are Jordanian and Syrian Arabs.  And even THOSE people don't want them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who sold you that piece of bullshit.  They are Palestinian Christians and Muslims, they were there during the reign of the Romans, Western and Eastern, the reign of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and during the reign of the Ottomans.  Same people.  The Jews came from Europe in hordes to colonize Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did they manage that magic trick then Abdul seeing as muslims were not invented until 627 C.E. a full 223 years after the last Roman left. So that is LIE number 1, much touted by muslims.  Then the Christians were not invented until the 4C by Romans so they could not have existed in any numbers until then, So LIE number 2 exposed. BUT the Jews lived in Judea and Samaria for 2500 before the Roman invasion, and still live there today 2000 years after the roman invasion.
> 
> THE JEWS WERE INVITED BY THE LANDS LEGAL OWNERS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, FIRST THE OTTOMANS IN 1850 WHO WERE LOOKING AT GIVING THE JEWS PALESTINE AS THEIR HOMELAND. THEN THE LoN FROM 1917 WHO DID [ROMISE THE JEWS A HOMELAND IN PALESTINE.
> 
> So Lie number 3 put to bed as well
Click to expand...


The people in Palestine were Christians before becoming Muslim and practiced the Roman state religion prior to becoming Christian when Christianity became the state religion. That's just a fact.

The Samaritans lived in Samaria before the Jews did, obviously.  That's why it is called Samaria you knucklehead.

Colonialism has been determined to be immoral by the UN so anything done by colonial powers (Ottomans and Britatin) to oppress or exploit the indigenous Christians and Muslims was an injustice:

*UN resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960*

"Convinced that all peoples have an inalienable right to complete freedom, the exercise of their sovereignty and the integrity of their national territory,

Solemnly proclaims the necessity of bringing to a speedy and unconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations;

And to this end Declares that:

1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.

2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected......................"


----------



## Slyhunter

Challenger said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked you many times to give me examples of how the Palestinians have defended themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Anything that opposes the occupation and colonization of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So targeting children is according to you defending against occupation, travelling to another nation on another continent and murdering unarmed innocent people is according to you defending against occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel "defending" itself.
> 
> *Children killed*
> TOTALS SINCE SEPT 2000:
> Israelis: 131
> Palestinians: 1656
> 
> Remember These Children
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're blaming Israel because Hamas is pretty good at using civilians as shields?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No *I'm* blaming Israel because with the vast array of drones and high tech precision weapons at their disposal, they prefer to carpet bomb whole suburbs of Gaza and use artillery barrages, which aren't known for their discrimination, in one of the most densely populated areas in the world.
Click to expand...

Worked in germany during wwii.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you explain why nobody wants them?
> They have like 14 islamic countries, why don't they live in one of them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have a country, it's called Palestine, currently occupied by a racist, Islamophobic regime that disposessed them. Those who want to live elsewhere have already gone to make new lives for themselves in Europe and America or wherever. The remainder wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, they have no country.  They are Jordanian and Syrian Arabs.  And even THOSE people don't want them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who sold you that piece of bullshit.  They are Palestinian Christians and Muslims, they were there during the reign of the Romans, Western and Eastern, the reign of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and during the reign of the Ottomans.  Same people.  The Jews came from Europe in hordes to colonize Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you call "Palestine" was once a "territory" controlled by the Ottoman empire and was never a "sovereign nation."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?
Click to expand...






 It shows that the arab muslims have no claim to the land, which is why the LoN left them out of the Mandate for Palestine. It was only the U.N. that gave in to the threats of violence and terrorism that tried to placate them with half of the Jews land. But being muslims they declined the offer and engaged in violence and terrorism anyway because their god commands it. And you follow the same commands because you are a muslim.


----------



## fanger

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have a country, it's called Palestine, currently occupied by a racist, Islamophobic regime that disposessed them. Those who want to live elsewhere have already gone to make new lives for themselves in Europe and America or wherever. The remainder wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, they have no country.  They are Jordanian and Syrian Arabs.  And even THOSE people don't want them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who sold you that piece of bullshit.  They are Palestinian Christians and Muslims, they were there during the reign of the Romans, Western and Eastern, the reign of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and during the reign of the Ottomans.  Same people.  The Jews came from Europe in hordes to colonize Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you call "Palestine" was once a "territory" controlled by the Ottoman empire and was never a "sovereign nation."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It shows that the arab muslims have no claim to the land, which is why the LoN left them out of the Mandate for Palestine. It was only the U.N. that gave in to the threats of violence and terrorism that tried to placate them with half of the Jews land. But being muslims they declined the offer and engaged in violence and terrorism anyway because their god commands it. And you follow the same commands because you are a muslim.
Click to expand...



The preamble of the mandate document declared:

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


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have a country, it's called Palestine, currently occupied by a racist, Islamophobic regime that disposessed them. Those who want to live elsewhere have already gone to make new lives for themselves in Europe and America or wherever. The remainder wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, they have no country.  They are Jordanian and Syrian Arabs.  And even THOSE people don't want them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who sold you that piece of bullshit.  They are Palestinian Christians and Muslims, they were there during the reign of the Romans, Western and Eastern, the reign of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and during the reign of the Ottomans.  Same people.  The Jews came from Europe in hordes to colonize Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you call "Palestine" was once a "territory" controlled by the Ottoman empire and was never a "sovereign nation."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After how the Palestinians thanked Israel for granting their request for a Jew free Gaza there never should be any Palestinian State in Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There should never have been a Jewish State in Palestine.
Click to expand...






 There should never have been a muslim state outside of Saudi Arabia either, but they have spread like cancer and now control the majority of the horn of Africa and the M.E.  In living memory they have stolen the land now called Pakistan, the land now called Bangladesh, Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, Kosovo, Philippines and are causing wars in Kenya and Chad hoping to take over. Then we have the influx of violent muslims into Europe hoping to get enough numbers to start civil war and demand more new nations.


----------



## aris2chat

Challenger said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who sold you that piece of bullshit.  They are Palestinian Christians and Muslims, they were there during the reign of the Romans, Western and Eastern, the reign of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and during the reign of the Ottomans.  Same people.  The Jews came from Europe in hordes to colonize Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you call "Palestine" was once a "territory" controlled by the Ottoman empire and was never a "sovereign nation."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After how the Palestinians thanked Israel for granting their request for a Jew free Gaza there never should be any Palestinian State in Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There should never have been a Jewish State in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also, there was no "Palestine" sovereign nation EVER.  It was just a part of the Ottoman Empire before the Brits came.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe not, but there was a sovereign Palestinian state Daher el-Omar - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


He was _Governor of Safad, Sheikh of Acre and Galilee, Emir of Nazareth, a feudal lord_

Druze had a few semi-automonous sanjuks under the ottomans, but they were not states.  Most of what is today Lebanon was also semi-autonomous, but when Lebanon became an actual state from the french mandate, the lines changed.
Acre was not a state let along a "palestinian" state.  It was a druze stonghold.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you explain why nobody wants them?
> They have like 14 islamic countries, why don't they live in one of them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have a country, it's called Palestine, currently occupied by a racist, Islamophobic regime that disposessed them. Those who want to live elsewhere have already gone to make new lives for themselves in Europe and America or wherever. The remainder wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, they have no country.  They are Jordanian and Syrian Arabs.  And even THOSE people don't want them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who sold you that piece of bullshit.  They are Palestinian Christians and Muslims, they were there during the reign of the Romans, Western and Eastern, the reign of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and during the reign of the Ottomans.  Same people.  The Jews came from Europe in hordes to colonize Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did they manage that magic trick then Abdul seeing as muslims were not invented until 627 C.E. a full 223 years after the last Roman left. So that is LIE number 1, much touted by muslims.  Then the Christians were not invented until the 4C by Romans so they could not have existed in any numbers until then, So LIE number 2 exposed. BUT the Jews lived in Judea and Samaria for 2500 before the Roman invasion, and still live there today 2000 years after the roman invasion.
> 
> THE JEWS WERE INVITED BY THE LANDS LEGAL OWNERS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, FIRST THE OTTOMANS IN 1850 WHO WERE LOOKING AT GIVING THE JEWS PALESTINE AS THEIR HOMELAND. THEN THE LoN FROM 1917 WHO DID [ROMISE THE JEWS A HOMELAND IN PALESTINE.
> 
> So Lie number 3 put to bed as well
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people in Palestine were Christians before becoming Muslim and practiced the Roman state religion prior to becoming Christian when Christianity became the state religion. That's just a fact.
> 
> The Samaritans lived in Samaria before the Jews did, obviously.  That's why it is called Samaria you knucklehead.
> 
> Colonialism has been determined to be immoral by the UN so anything done by colonial powers (Ottomans and Britatin) to oppress or exploit the indigenous Christians and Muslims was an injustice:
> 
> *UN resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960*
> 
> "Convinced that all peoples have an inalienable right to complete freedom, the exercise of their sovereignty and the integrity of their national territory,
> 
> Solemnly proclaims the necessity of bringing to a speedy and unconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations;
> 
> And to this end Declares that:
> 
> 1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
> 
> 2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> 3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.
> 
> 4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected......................"
Click to expand...





 COWFLOP and you know it the Christians were so thin on the Ground until at least the 4C and then they were mostly IMMIGRANTS


 You do realise that in 1948 there was no UN res 1514 so it did not apply. And that the only people subjecting the arab muslims to alien subjugation were the other arab muslims.

 The arab muslims have shown that they cant freely pursue their economic, social or cultural development. They cant even tie their own shoelaces

They are the ones delaying their independence because they know they are not ready, which is why they want a scapegoat ( the UN ) when it goes tits up.

What about armed attacks and declarations of war  then, should they be ignored completely because the perpetrators are trying to force the UN to make it easy for them to finish the final solution and mass murder all the Jews. Attack a nation and you can expect to be retaliated to, don't like seeing your people killed then stop attacking a stronger nation.


----------



## aris2chat

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would a country in Europe accept 6 million Christians from another country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do.  All the time.  They also accept Muslims, Jews, or whomever immigrates there legally.  The fact is nobody wants the Palestinians because they are TROUBLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No country in Europe would accept 6 million people of any race, ethnicity or religion.  The Palestinians are just Christians and Muslims resisting occupation and oppression.  No one suggested that the South African non-whites leave South Africa to make room for the whites.  After all, white ruled South Africa was surrounded by black ruled states. What makes the Christians and Muslims of Palestine any different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Christians are being ethnically cleansed form Palestine by the arab muslims. And we took over 500,000 into the UK alone last year as asylum seekers.
> 
> 
> And again you go OFF TOPIC by bringing another nation an ocean and a continent away
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've suddenly had an influx of 500,000 Christian Palestinians in the UK last year?  Seriously, go take your meds you are totally losing the plot.
Click to expand...


figures are from NABA


----------



## ChrisL

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have resistance movements.
> 
> So?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are illegal and in any fight they will be shot and you cant complain because they are breaching International law, humanitarian law, Geneva conventions and the UN charters.     SO! how do you like them apples, as it is up to you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are not members of any "resistance movement" ( read terrorist organisation )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've asked you many times to give me examples of how the Palestinians have defended themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything that opposes the occupation and colonization of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So targeting children is according to you defending against occupation, travelling to another nation on another continent and murdering unarmed innocent people is according to you defending against occupation.
Click to expand...


And THAT right there is the difference between "liberators" and "terrorists."  Terrorists target the innocent.  They are monsters.


----------



## ChrisL

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would a country in Europe accept 6 million Christians from another country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes as we are not arab muslims, after all Europe has accepted 10 million muslims in the last year or so
Click to expand...


I think it's a mistake.  Seems like everywhere they go, trouble follows.


----------



## Phoenall

fanger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, they have no country.  They are Jordanian and Syrian Arabs.  And even THOSE people don't want them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who sold you that piece of bullshit.  They are Palestinian Christians and Muslims, they were there during the reign of the Romans, Western and Eastern, the reign of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and during the reign of the Ottomans.  Same people.  The Jews came from Europe in hordes to colonize Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you call "Palestine" was once a "territory" controlled by the Ottoman empire and was never a "sovereign nation."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It shows that the arab muslims have no claim to the land, which is why the LoN left them out of the Mandate for Palestine. It was only the U.N. that gave in to the threats of violence and terrorism that tried to placate them with half of the Jews land. But being muslims they declined the offer and engaged in violence and terrorism anyway because their god commands it. And you follow the same commands because you are a muslim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The preamble of the mandate document declared:
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,* it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine*, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country
> British Mandate for Palestine legal instrument - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...





 And the declaration of Independence by the Jews in 1948 did not do anything to prejudice the civil and religious rights AS THEY WERE UNDERSTOOD AT THAT TIME of the non Jews.
 Stop trying to apply 2015 rules to what happened in 1948, they did not exist at that time.

 But how about saying something about the very serious breach of the Mandate when the arab muslim nations forcibly evicted the Jews and stole all their property. Any comment ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything that opposes the occupation and colonization of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So targeting children is according to you defending against occupation, travelling to another nation on another continent and murdering unarmed innocent people is according to you defending against occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel "defending" itself.
> 
> *Children killed*
> TOTALS SINCE SEPT 2000:
> Israelis: 131
> Palestinians: 1656
> 
> Remember These Children
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're blaming Israel because Hamas is pretty good at using civilians as shields?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And once again you ignore the evidence of hamas using human shields to protect terrorists that has been posted, even hamas leaders agreeing that they use human shields. This is against International Law so it seems that you advocate that muslims should ignore International law.
Click to expand...

Even the Goldstone Report found no evidence to support that hogwash.


----------



## Phoenall

MJB12741 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who sold you that piece of bullshit.  They are Palestinian Christians and Muslims, they were there during the reign of the Romans, Western and Eastern, the reign of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and during the reign of the Ottomans.  Same people.  The Jews came from Europe in hordes to colonize Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you call "Palestine" was once a "territory" controlled by the Ottoman empire and was never a "sovereign nation."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After how the Palestinians thanked Israel for granting their request for a Jew free Gaza there never should be any Palestinian State in Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There should never have been a Jewish State in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also, there was no "Palestine" sovereign nation EVER.  It was just a part of the Ottoman Empire before the Brits came.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The overwhelming majority of Muslim Palestinians are just squatters on Israel's land with no titles or deeds whatsoever to the land they have stolen for generations now.
Click to expand...





 Arafat the boy lover organised the printing of thousands of fake title deeds to land in Israel, and had thousands of keys made that never fit any lock. The fakes were easily spotted when the land registry was opened and the real owners names were found.


----------



## Phoenall

Mr.Right said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A mighty Jewish empire extended over this entire area before the Arabs and their Islam were even born!  The Jewish People have one of the most legitimate Birth Certificates of any nations in the world. And if you want to talk religion, fine.  G-d GAVE the Land of Israel to the Jewish People. And G-d does nothing by accident!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's as far as I got, a *mighty Jewish empire never existed*.
> 
> Also since most Jews in Israel are secular, we'll leave God out of it.
> 
> _(let me add, and if you insist God gave them the land, well God give it and God take it , which should be evident as no temple there, and Britain  is not God)._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And there was no arab muslim ownership of Palestine from 1099 until 1988. And there second most holy place "allegedly" was allowed to fall into ruin 3 times while islam was in control of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know what it doesn't matter, they were living there when the Zionist came so there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By your logic, a squatter that moves into your house should be allowed to stay.
Click to expand...





 that is how it was in the UK until recently, and this allowed many neo Marxists like challenger to live for free. Now the squatters can be evicted by the police and charged with burglary.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you call "Palestine" was once a "territory" controlled by the Ottoman empire and was never a "sovereign nation."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After how the Palestinians thanked Israel for granting their request for a Jew free Gaza there never should be any Palestinian State in Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There should never have been a Jewish State in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also, there was no "Palestine" sovereign nation EVER.  It was just a part of the Ottoman Empire before the Brits came.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The overwhelming majority of Muslim Palestinians are just squatters on Israel's land with no titles or deeds whatsoever to the land they have stolen for generations now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only squatters are the European Jews that went to Palestine from Europe.  The Christians and Muslims of Palestine have always been there whatever religion they were before.
Click to expand...





 Who invited the arab muslims to migrate to Palestine then, where is the treaty that says they an come and be citizens ?

 Don't forget in 1099 the Crusaders evicted the muslims and the arabs never came back until the end of the 19C, when the Jews had made the land fertile again.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> After how the Palestinians thanked Israel for granting their request for a Jew free Gaza there never should be any Palestinian State in Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There should never have been a Jewish State in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also, there was no "Palestine" sovereign nation EVER.  It was just a part of the Ottoman Empire before the Brits came.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The overwhelming majority of Muslim Palestinians are just squatters on Israel's land with no titles or deeds whatsoever to the land they have stolen for generations now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only squatters are the European Jews that went to Palestine from Europe.  The Christians and Muslims of Palestine have always been there whatever religion they were before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who invited the arab muslims to migrate to Palestine then, where is the treaty that says they an come and be citizens ?
> 
> Don't forget in 1099 the Crusaders evicted the muslims and the arabs never came back until the end of the 19C, when the Jews had made the land fertile again.
Click to expand...

Who knows, but they were Ottoman citizens. All Ottoman citizens, Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. became Palestinian citizens in 1925.


----------



## ChrisL

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> There should never have been a Jewish State in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, there was no "Palestine" sovereign nation EVER.  It was just a part of the Ottoman Empire before the Brits came.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The overwhelming majority of Muslim Palestinians are just squatters on Israel's land with no titles or deeds whatsoever to the land they have stolen for generations now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only squatters are the European Jews that went to Palestine from Europe.  The Christians and Muslims of Palestine have always been there whatever religion they were before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who invited the arab muslims to migrate to Palestine then, where is the treaty that says they an come and be citizens ?
> 
> Don't forget in 1099 the Crusaders evicted the muslims and the arabs never came back until the end of the 19C, when the Jews had made the land fertile again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who knows, but they were Ottoman citizens. All Ottoman citizens, Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. became Palestinian citizens in 1925.
Click to expand...


No they didn't.  Lies.  Is that all you can do is lie?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So targeting children is according to you defending against occupation, travelling to another nation on another continent and murdering unarmed innocent people is according to you defending against occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> Israel "defending" itself.
> 
> *Children killed*
> TOTALS SINCE SEPT 2000:
> Israelis: 131
> Palestinians: 1656
> 
> Remember These Children
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're blaming Israel because Hamas is pretty good at using civilians as shields?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And once again you ignore the evidence of hamas using human shields to protect terrorists that has been posted, even hamas leaders agreeing that they use human shields. This is against International Law so it seems that you advocate that muslims should ignore International law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even the Goldstone Report found no evidence to support that hogwash.
Click to expand...






 Here you go some links proving that it happened.

Hamas DID use schools and hospitals in Gaza Strip as human shields Daily Mail Online

Hamas admits it DID use schools and hospitals in Gaza Strip as 'human shields' to launch rocket attacks on Israel - but claims it was 'mistake'
Conclusive Proof Hamas Uses Palestinians as Human Shields Jewish Israel News Algemeiner.com

 For the past four weeks, as the war has raged in Gaza, Israel has repeatedly pointed to the Hamas strategy of using civilians as human shields. Palestinian spokesmen and supporters, in turn, have insisted that it’s “racist” to accuse Palestinian terrorists of such behaviour.

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48.pdf


*
A. Launching attacks from within civilian areas and from within


or in the immediate vicinity of protected sites
*
446. The Mission investigated two incidents in which the Government of Israel alleged that

Palestinian combatants had fired on the Israeli armed forces from within a United Nations

protected site or its immediate vicinity in densely populated urban areas. In the case of the

shelling in al-Fakhura Street by the Israeli armed forces on 6 January 2009 (chap. X), the

Mission accepted, on the basis of information in the reports it had seen, the possibility of mortar

attacks from Palestinian combatants in the vicinity of the school.


448. The Mission spoke with two witnesses who testified to the launching of rockets from

urban areas. One witness stated seeing rockets being launched from a narrow street and from a

square in Gaza City without providing further details as to when this occurred.*300 *A second


witness told the Mission that rockets may have been fired from within the Sheikh Radwan

neighbourhood north of Gaza City during the military operations in Gaza.*301*



449. The Mission found corroboration of these witness accounts in a number of reports from

international NGOs. In reports issued following Israel’s military operations in Gaza, Amnesty

International, the International Crisis Group and Human Rights Watch each determined that the

rocket units of the Palestinian armed groups operated from within populated areas.*302 *Human


Rights Watch and the International Crisis Group gathered reports from civilians about instances

in which armed groups had launched or had attempted to launch rockets near residential areas.

Human Rights Watch quoted a resident of northern Gaza as stating that, on 1 January 2009,

residents of the area prevented Palestinian fighters, who they believed were preparing to launch

rockets, from entering a garden next to the building in which they lived.*303 *The International


Crisis Group interviewed a resident of Beit Lahia who stated that fighters used his land to fire

rockets, which he did not dare to resist, as his father had previously been shot in the leg by a

member of such an armed group when he had tried to prevent them from using his land as a

rocket launching site.*304 *Amnesty International conducted interviews with residents of Gaza


who stated that they had observed Palestinian fighters firing a rocket from a courtyard of a

Government school in Gaza City at a time when the schools were closed. In another area of

Gaza City, another resident reportedly showed an Amnesty International researcher a place

from which a rocket had been launched, 50 metres from a residential building.*305*





 These are just a few of the proven cases of human shields to be found in the Glodstone report.

 WHY DO YOU LIE WHEN THE EVIDENCE IS SO EASY TO FIND.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> There should never have been a Jewish State in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, there was no "Palestine" sovereign nation EVER.  It was just a part of the Ottoman Empire before the Brits came.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The overwhelming majority of Muslim Palestinians are just squatters on Israel's land with no titles or deeds whatsoever to the land they have stolen for generations now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only squatters are the European Jews that went to Palestine from Europe.  The Christians and Muslims of Palestine have always been there whatever religion they were before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who invited the arab muslims to migrate to Palestine then, where is the treaty that says they an come and be citizens ?
> 
> Don't forget in 1099 the Crusaders evicted the muslims and the arabs never came back until the end of the 19C, when the Jews had made the land fertile again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who knows, but they were Ottoman citizens. All Ottoman citizens, Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. became Palestinian citizens in 1925.
Click to expand...





 Palestinian MANDATE citizens not Palestinian nation citizens


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.  It's nice to see someone who understands the data and what it implicates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As much as they might want, the jewish past cannot be wiped out.  Even if like ISIS the monuments and archeological evidence were destroyed, the historical documentation from other lands will still exist.  The history and genealogy will still have been recorded.  Knowledge of the jews will still live on....even within the quran
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another great point there.  Jewish people are mentioned in the Qu'ran, which dates back to what?  Over 1000 years ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where are the millennia of artifacts and global documentation of a palestine?  What is there before WWI beside rome changing the name of gaza and sinai into P-1, P-2 and P-3?  A foreign name that is not part of the arab vocabulary till the 20th C
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously, Palestine was just a part of the Ottoman empire and nothing more.  It never was a sovereign nation.  The Islamic Arabs who have always hated the Jewish people, wanted to create a make-believe nation to give the Israelis a difficult time, IMO, and I think history supports that idea too.  I do not believe there is any mention of "Palestine" in the Qu'ran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do Palestinian Christians care about the Koran?
> 
> King James Bible
> 
> The people shall hear, _and_ be afraid: sorrow shall take hold on the inhabitants of Palestina.
> 
> Exod 15:14
Click to expand...





 You do realise that the King James was written in a Language that was known to all, and at that time Palestina was in common usage.

 And why pick out the only version that says palestina when all the others say Philisia

New International Version
The nations will hear and tremble; anguish will grip the people of Philistia.New Living Translation
The peoples hear and tremble; anguish grips those who live in Philistia.English Standard Version
The peoples have heard; they tremble; pangs have seized the inhabitants of Philistia.New American Standard Bible 
"The peoples have heard, they tremble; Anguish has gripped the inhabitants of Philistia.King James Bible
When the peoples hear, they will shudder; anguish will seize the inhabitants of Philistia. International Standard Version
"The people heard and they quaked, anguish has seized the inhabitants of Philistia.NET Bible
The nations will hear and tremble; anguish will seize the inhabitants of Philistia. GOD'S WORD® Translation
People will hear of it and tremble. The people of Philistia will be in anguish.Jubilee Bible 2000
The peoples shall hear and be afraid; sorrow shall take hold on the inhabitants of Philistia.King James 2000 Bible
The people shall hear, and be afraid: sorrow shall take hold on the inhabitants of Philistia.American King James Version
The peoples have heard, they tremble: Pangs have taken hold on the inhabitants of Philistia.Douay-Rheims Bible
Nations rose up, and were angry: sorrows took hold on the inhabitants of Philisthiim. Darby Bible Translation
The peoples heard it, they were afraid: A thrill seized the inhabitants of Philistia.English Revised Version
The peoples have heard, they tremble: Pangs have taken hold on the inhabitants of Philistia.Webster's Bible Translation
The peoples have heard. They tremble. Pangs have taken hold on the inhabitants of Philistia.Young's Literal Translation
Peoples have heard, they are troubled; Pain hath seized inhabitants of Philistia.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are illegal and in any fight they will be shot and you cant complain because they are breaching International law, humanitarian law, Geneva conventions and the UN charters.     SO! how do you like them apples, as it is up to you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are not members of any "resistance movement" ( read terrorist organisation )
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've asked you many times to give me examples of how the Palestinians have defended themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything that opposes the occupation and colonization of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So targeting children is according to you defending against occupation, travelling to another nation on another continent and murdering unarmed innocent people is according to you defending against occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel "defending" itself.
> 
> *Children killed*
> TOTALS SINCE SEPT 2000:
> Israelis: 131
> Palestinians: 1656
> 
> Remember These Children
Click to expand...





 Or hamas using them as human shields, detailed in the Goldstone report.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked you many times to give me examples of how the Palestinians have defended themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Anything that opposes the occupation and colonization of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So targeting children is according to you defending against occupation, travelling to another nation on another continent and murdering unarmed innocent people is according to you defending against occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel "defending" itself.
> 
> *Children killed*
> TOTALS SINCE SEPT 2000:
> Israelis: 131
> Palestinians: 1656
> 
> Remember These Children
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're blaming Israel because Hamas is pretty good at using civilians as shields?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No *I'm* blaming Israel because with the vast array of drones and high tech precision weapons at their disposal, they prefer to carpet bomb whole suburbs of Gaza and use artillery barrages, which aren't known for their discrimination, in one of the most densely populated areas in the world.
Click to expand...





 So you don't blame hamas for breach of the Geneva conventions and International humanitarian law when they fire illegal weapons from civilian areas, schools, hospitals and mosques


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would a country in Europe accept 6 million Christians from another country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do.  All the time.  They also accept Muslims, Jews, or whomever immigrates there legally.  The fact is nobody wants the Palestinians because they are TROUBLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No country in Europe would accept 6 million people of any race, ethnicity or religion.  The Palestinians are just Christians and Muslims resisting occupation and oppression.  No one suggested that the South African non-whites leave South Africa to make room for the whites.  After all, white ruled South Africa was surrounded by black ruled states. What makes the Christians and Muslims of Palestine any different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Christians are being ethnically cleansed form Palestine by the arab muslims. And we took over 500,000 into the UK alone last year as asylum seekers.
> 
> 
> And again you go OFF TOPIC by bringing another nation an ocean and a continent away
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The usual lying and  bullshitting from Phoney.
> 
> Christians are leaving Palestine because of the Israeli occupation and resultant oppression:
> 
> "The Palestinian Christians in Gaza today, they suffer as much as the Palestinian Muslims in Gaza. They are under bombardment. They have only eight hours of electricity of every 24 hours. They have a hard time getting fresh water," he said. "The Palestinian Christians, they don't live in an isolated area where oh, this is a Christian town. No, they live among the Muslims in Gaza and therefore as much as the Muslims are suffering, the Christians are suffering, not only in the Gaza strip but also in the West Bank."
> 
> Palestinian Christian Western Christians Don t Understand Gaza Israeli Conflict
> 
> There aren't 500,000 Christians in Palestine, how could the UK have taken in 500,000?
Click to expand...






 Learn to read Abdul, you are only showing yourself up. Now where did I say we took 500,000 Christians in ? ? ? ? ?


----------



## ChrisL

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything that opposes the occupation and colonization of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So targeting children is according to you defending against occupation, travelling to another nation on another continent and murdering unarmed innocent people is according to you defending against occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel "defending" itself.
> 
> *Children killed*
> TOTALS SINCE SEPT 2000:
> Israelis: 131
> Palestinians: 1656
> 
> Remember These Children
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're blaming Israel because Hamas is pretty good at using civilians as shields?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No *I'm* blaming Israel because with the vast array of drones and high tech precision weapons at their disposal, they prefer to carpet bomb whole suburbs of Gaza and use artillery barrages, which aren't known for their discrimination, in one of the most densely populated areas in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't blame hamas for breach of the Geneva conventions and International humanitarian law when they fire illegal weapons from civilian areas, schools, hospitals and mosques
Click to expand...


I do.  They get their people killed on purpose.  I think that's obvious to pretty much everyone with a brain.


----------



## P F Tinmore

ChrisL said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, there was no "Palestine" sovereign nation EVER.  It was just a part of the Ottoman Empire before the Brits came.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The overwhelming majority of Muslim Palestinians are just squatters on Israel's land with no titles or deeds whatsoever to the land they have stolen for generations now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only squatters are the European Jews that went to Palestine from Europe.  The Christians and Muslims of Palestine have always been there whatever religion they were before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who invited the arab muslims to migrate to Palestine then, where is the treaty that says they an come and be citizens ?
> 
> Don't forget in 1099 the Crusaders evicted the muslims and the arabs never came back until the end of the 19C, when the Jews had made the land fertile again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who knows, but they were Ottoman citizens. All Ottoman citizens, Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. became Palestinian citizens in 1925.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they didn't.  Lies.  Is that all you can do is lie?
Click to expand...

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

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​-------------------
Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
Just like I said.

link: Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel


----------



## ChrisL

P F Tinmore said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The overwhelming majority of Muslim Palestinians are just squatters on Israel's land with no titles or deeds whatsoever to the land they have stolen for generations now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only squatters are the European Jews that went to Palestine from Europe.  The Christians and Muslims of Palestine have always been there whatever religion they were before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who invited the arab muslims to migrate to Palestine then, where is the treaty that says they an come and be citizens ?
> 
> Don't forget in 1099 the Crusaders evicted the muslims and the arabs never came back until the end of the 19C, when the Jews had made the land fertile again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who knows, but they were Ottoman citizens. All Ottoman citizens, Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. became Palestinian citizens in 1925.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they didn't.  Lies.  Is that all you can do is lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​-------------------
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
> Just like I said.
> 
> link: Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
Click to expand...


Look, Palestine was never a sovereign state.  They went from Ottoman rule to British rule.


----------



## P F Tinmore

ChrisL said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only squatters are the European Jews that went to Palestine from Europe.  The Christians and Muslims of Palestine have always been there whatever religion they were before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who invited the arab muslims to migrate to Palestine then, where is the treaty that says they an come and be citizens ?
> 
> Don't forget in 1099 the Crusaders evicted the muslims and the arabs never came back until the end of the 19C, when the Jews had made the land fertile again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who knows, but they were Ottoman citizens. All Ottoman citizens, Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. became Palestinian citizens in 1925.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they didn't.  Lies.  Is that all you can do is lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​-------------------
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
> Just like I said.
> 
> link: Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, Palestine was never a sovereign state.  They went from Ottoman rule to British rule.
Click to expand...

So?


----------



## ChrisL

P F Tinmore said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who invited the arab muslims to migrate to Palestine then, where is the treaty that says they an come and be citizens ?
> 
> Don't forget in 1099 the Crusaders evicted the muslims and the arabs never came back until the end of the 19C, when the Jews had made the land fertile again.
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows, but they were Ottoman citizens. All Ottoman citizens, Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. became Palestinian citizens in 1925.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they didn't.  Lies.  Is that all you can do is lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​-------------------
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
> Just like I said.
> 
> link: Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, Palestine was never a sovereign state.  They went from Ottoman rule to British rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?
Click to expand...


So?  It was under control of the Ottoman empire and just a territory.  The British came and conquered and then it was THEIR territory.  They broke it up into Israel/Palestine.  The Israelis never stole anything and have just as much right to be there as anyone.


----------



## fanger

Phoenall said:


> Learn to read Abdul, you are only showing yourself up. Now where did I say we took 500,000 Christians in ? ? ? ? ?


 Who Are The Palestinians Page 298 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
"The Christians are being ethnically cleansed form Palestine by the arab muslims. And we took over 500,000 into the UK alone last year as asylum seekers."


----------



## P F Tinmore

ChrisL said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows, but they were Ottoman citizens. All Ottoman citizens, Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. became Palestinian citizens in 1925.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't.  Lies.  Is that all you can do is lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​-------------------
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
> Just like I said.
> 
> link: Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, Palestine was never a sovereign state.  They went from Ottoman rule to British rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?  It was under control of the Ottoman empire and just a territory.  The British came and conquered and then it was THEIR territory.  They broke it up into Israel/Palestine.  The Israelis never stole anything and have just as much right to be there as anyone.
Click to expand...

When did Britain claim Possession of the territory?


----------



## ChrisL

P F Tinmore said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't.  Lies.  Is that all you can do is lie?
> 
> 
> 
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​-------------------
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
> Just like I said.
> 
> link: Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, Palestine was never a sovereign state.  They went from Ottoman rule to British rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?  It was under control of the Ottoman empire and just a territory.  The British came and conquered and then it was THEIR territory.  They broke it up into Israel/Palestine.  The Israelis never stole anything and have just as much right to be there as anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did Britain claim Possession of the territory?
Click to expand...


How is that relevant?  You will just grasp at ANY straw.  Why don't you just give it up.  

A German who hates Jews.  How quaint.  Lol.


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you explain why nobody wants them?
> They have like 14 islamic countries, why don't they live in one of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have a country, it's called Palestine, currently occupied by a racist, Islamophobic regime that disposessed them. Those who want to live elsewhere have already gone to make new lives for themselves in Europe and America or wherever. The remainder wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, they have no country.  They are Jordanian and Syrian Arabs.  And even THOSE people don't want them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who sold you that piece of bullshit.  They are Palestinian Christians and Muslims, they were there during the reign of the Romans, Western and Eastern, the reign of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and during the reign of the Ottomans.  Same people.  The Jews came from Europe in hordes to colonize Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did they manage that magic trick then Abdul seeing as muslims were not invented until 627 C.E. a full 223 years after the last Roman left. So that is LIE number 1, much touted by muslims.  Then the Christians were not invented until the 4C by Romans so they could not have existed in any numbers until then, So LIE number 2 exposed. BUT the Jews lived in Judea and Samaria for 2500 before the Roman invasion, and still live there today 2000 years after the roman invasion.
> 
> THE JEWS WERE INVITED BY THE LANDS LEGAL OWNERS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, FIRST THE OTTOMANS IN 1850 WHO WERE LOOKING AT GIVING THE JEWS PALESTINE AS THEIR HOMELAND. THEN THE LoN FROM 1917 WHO DID [ROMISE THE JEWS A HOMELAND IN PALESTINE.
> 
> So Lie number 3 put to bed as well
Click to expand...


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would a country in Europe accept 6 million Christians from another country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do.  All the time.  They also accept Muslims, Jews, or whomever immigrates there legally.  The fact is nobody wants the Palestinians because they are TROUBLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No country in Europe would accept 6 million people of any race, ethnicity or religion.  The Palestinians are just Christians and Muslims resisting occupation and oppression.  No one suggested that the South African non-whites leave South Africa to make room for the whites.  After all, white ruled South Africa was surrounded by black ruled states. What makes the Christians and Muslims of Palestine any different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Christians are being ethnically cleansed form Palestine by the arab muslims. And we took over 500,000 into the UK alone last year as asylum seekers.
> 
> 
> And again you go OFF TOPIC by bringing another nation an ocean and a continent away
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've suddenly had an influx of 500,000 Christian Palestinians in the UK last year?  Seriously, go take your meds you are totally losing the plot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We took over 500,000 asylum seekers into the UK, and promptly deported so many. Don't you ever read the newspapers or watch the News programmes. On top of this we allowed 275,000 foreign nationals to enter as immigrants.  So do the sums for the UK alone and see how easy it is to accommodate 6 million legal and/or illegal muslim immigrants
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously stop flaming AND trolling
Click to expand...


Your post:


> The Christians are being ethnically cleansed form Palestine by the arab muslims. And we took over 500,000 into the UK alone last year as asylum seekers.



Your claim clearly states 500,000 Palestinian Christians came to the UK as asylum seekers. When challenged, your response:



> We took over 500,000 asylum seekers into the UK, and promptly deported so many.









Seriously, take your meds.


----------



## Challenger

Slyhunter said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything that opposes the occupation and colonization of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So targeting children is according to you defending against occupation, travelling to another nation on another continent and murdering unarmed innocent people is according to you defending against occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel "defending" itself.
> 
> *Children killed*
> TOTALS SINCE SEPT 2000:
> Israelis: 131
> Palestinians: 1656
> 
> Remember These Children
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're blaming Israel because Hamas is pretty good at using civilians as shields?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No *I'm* blaming Israel because with the vast array of drones and high tech precision weapons at their disposal, they prefer to carpet bomb whole suburbs of Gaza and use artillery barrages, which aren't known for their discrimination, in one of the most densely populated areas in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Worked in germany during wwii.
Click to expand...


No it didn't. The Red Army defeated Germany when they took Romania, not the allied air offensive. Bombing people into the stone age doesn't make them want to give up, it just generates an abiding hatred of those doing the bombing.


----------



## Challenger

The Palestinians have every claim to their land. Jewish European colonist immigrants have no valid claim to Palestine.


----------



## Challenger

aris2chat said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you call "Palestine" was once a "territory" controlled by the Ottoman empire and was never a "sovereign nation."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After how the Palestinians thanked Israel for granting their request for a Jew free Gaza there never should be any Palestinian State in Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There should never have been a Jewish State in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also, there was no "Palestine" sovereign nation EVER.  It was just a part of the Ottoman Empire before the Brits came.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe not, but there was a sovereign Palestinian state Daher el-Omar - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was _Governor of Safad, Sheikh of Acre and Galilee, Emir of Nazareth, a feudal lord_
> 
> Druze had a few semi-automonous sanjuks under the ottomans, but they were not states.  Most of what is today Lebanon was also semi-autonomous, but when Lebanon became an actual state from the french mandate, the lines changed.
> Acre was not a state let along a "palestinian" state.  It was a druze stonghold.
Click to expand...


It was for a time an independant Muslim state in Northern Palestine, like it or not.


----------



## Challenger

aris2chat said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would a country in Europe accept 6 million Christians from another country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do.  All the time.  They also accept Muslims, Jews, or whomever immigrates there legally.  The fact is nobody wants the Palestinians because they are TROUBLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No country in Europe would accept 6 million people of any race, ethnicity or religion.  The Palestinians are just Christians and Muslims resisting occupation and oppression.  No one suggested that the South African non-whites leave South Africa to make room for the whites.  After all, white ruled South Africa was surrounded by black ruled states. What makes the Christians and Muslims of Palestine any different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Christians are being ethnically cleansed form Palestine by the arab muslims. And we took over 500,000 into the UK alone last year as asylum seekers.
> 
> 
> And again you go OFF TOPIC by bringing another nation an ocean and a continent away
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've suddenly had an influx of 500,000 Christian Palestinians in the UK last year?  Seriously, go take your meds you are totally losing the plot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> figures are from NABA
Click to expand...


Never heard of them, care to provide a link?


----------



## toastman

Challenger said:


> The Palestinians have every claim to their land. Jewish European colonist immigrants have no valid claim to Palestine.


The term colonist is part of the Palestinian propaganda campaign. 

Palestinians have their Palestine. Gaza and the West Bank. The rest is Israel. Get over it.


----------



## Challenger

toastman said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have every claim to their land. Jewish European colonist immigrants have no valid claim to Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> The term colonist is part of the Palestinian propaganda campaign.
> 
> Palestinians have their Palestine. Gaza and the West Bank. The rest is Israel. Get over it.
Click to expand...


Israel for now...there's a one state solution on the horizon and nothing is set in stone.


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who sold you that piece of bullshit.  They are Palestinian Christians and Muslims, they were there during the reign of the Romans, Western and Eastern, the reign of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and during the reign of the Ottomans.  Same people.  The Jews came from Europe in hordes to colonize Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you call "Palestine" was once a "territory" controlled by the Ottoman empire and was never a "sovereign nation."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It shows that the arab muslims have no claim to the land, which is why the LoN left them out of the Mandate for Palestine. It was only the U.N. that gave in to the threats of violence and terrorism that tried to placate them with half of the Jews land. But being muslims they declined the offer and engaged in violence and terrorism anyway because their god commands it. And you follow the same commands because you are a muslim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The preamble of the mandate document declared:
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,* it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine*, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country
> British Mandate for Palestine legal instrument - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the declaration of Independence by the Jews in 1948 did not do anything to prejudice the civil and religious rights AS THEY WERE UNDERSTOOD AT THAT TIME of the non Jews.
> Stop trying to apply 2015 rules to what happened in 1948, they did not exist at that time.
> 
> But how about saying something about the very serious breach of the Mandate when the arab muslim nations forcibly evicted the Jews and stole all their property. Any comment ?
Click to expand...


Another total re-write of history from our brain addled Phoney.


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you call "Palestine" was once a "territory" controlled by the Ottoman empire and was never a "sovereign nation."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After how the Palestinians thanked Israel for granting their request for a Jew free Gaza there never should be any Palestinian State in Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There should never have been a Jewish State in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also, there was no "Palestine" sovereign nation EVER.  It was just a part of the Ottoman Empire before the Brits came.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The overwhelming majority of Muslim Palestinians are just squatters on Israel's land with no titles or deeds whatsoever to the land they have stolen for generations now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arafat the boy lover organised the printing of thousands of fake title deeds to land in Israel, and had thousands of keys made that never fit any lock. The fakes were easily spotted when the land registry was opened and the real owners names were found.
Click to expand...


Link or citation please.


----------



## theliq

ChrisL said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are illegal and in any fight they will be shot and you cant complain because they are breaching International law, humanitarian law, Geneva conventions and the UN charters.     SO! how do you like them apples, as it is up to you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are not members of any "resistance movement" ( read terrorist organisation )
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've asked you many times to give me examples of how the Palestinians have defended themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything that opposes the occupation and colonization of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So targeting children is according to you defending against occupation, travelling to another nation on another continent and murdering unarmed innocent people is according to you defending against occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And THAT right there is the difference between "liberators" and "terrorists."  Terrorists target the innocent.  They are monsters.
Click to expand...

And that is what Stern and the Zionist were/ARE,so thanks for you input.....H.I.M.theliq


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you call "Palestine" was once a "territory" controlled by the Ottoman empire and was never a "sovereign nation."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After how the Palestinians thanked Israel for granting their request for a Jew free Gaza there never should be any Palestinian State in Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There should never have been a Jewish State in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also, there was no "Palestine" sovereign nation EVER.  It was just a part of the Ottoman Empire before the Brits came.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The overwhelming majority of Muslim Palestinians are just squatters on Israel's land with no titles or deeds whatsoever to the land they have stolen for generations now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arafat the boy lover organised the printing of thousands of fake title deeds to land in Israel, and had thousands of keys made that never fit any lock. The fakes were easily spotted when the land registry was opened and the real owners names were found.
Click to expand...

Some bullshit can be interesting but not this rubbish.......YAWN good night ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzr


----------



## montelatici

"Christians were so thin on the Ground until at least the 4C and then they were mostly IMMIGRANTS"

Usual Phoney bullshit.  He just makes things up.

"The arab muslims have shown that they cant freely pursue their economic, social or cultural development. They cant even tie their own shoelace"

The Arab Muslims of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Qatar, Dubai, Kuwait, UAE, sem to do ok.

"They are the ones delaying their independence because they know they are not ready, which is why they want a scapegoat ( the UN ) when it goes tits up."

Is the UN holding the Palestinians in the Gulags of the West bank and Gaza and is the UN controlling the land borders, air space and territorial sea of those Gulags?

"Attack a nation and you can expect to be retaliated to,"

Then, after invading, settling  and occupying Palestine (coming all the way from Europe), why are Israelis surprised that the Christians and Muslims are resisting the invasion?


----------



## toastman

Challenger said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have every claim to their land. Jewish European colonist immigrants have no valid claim to Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> The term colonist is part of the Palestinian propaganda campaign.
> 
> Palestinians have their Palestine. Gaza and the West Bank. The rest is Israel. Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel for now...there's a one state solution on the horizon and nothing is set in stone.
Click to expand...

For now forever


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> "Christians were so thin on the Ground until at least the 4C and then they were mostly IMMIGRANTS"
> 
> Usual Phoney bullshit.  He just makes things up.
> 
> "The arab muslims have shown that they cant freely pursue their economic, social or cultural development. They cant even tie their own shoelace"
> 
> The Arab Muslims of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Qatar, Dubai, Kuwait, UAE, sem to do ok.
> 
> "They are the ones delaying their independence because they know they are not ready, which is why they want a scapegoat ( the UN ) when it goes tits up."
> 
> Is the UN holding the Palestinians in the Gulags of the West bank and Gaza and is the UN controlling the land borders, air space and territorial sea of those Gulags?
> 
> "Attack a nation and you can expect to be retaliated to,"
> 
> Then, after invading, settling  and occupying Palestine (coming all the way from Europe), why are Israelis surprised that the Christians and Muslims are resisting the invasion?


Because they bever invaded Palestine. An invasion is a military offensive. 
The 'European Jewish invasion' is Palestinian propaganda.


----------



## montelatici

They came from Europe, settled an area of the Middle East then evicted the Christians and Muslims that lived in that area and took the land that the non-Jews  had lived on for thousands of years through armed conflict.  That is an invasion.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> They came from Europe, settled an area of the Middle East then evicted the Christians and Muslims that lived in that area and took the land that the non-Jews  had lived on for thousands of years through armed conflict.  That is an invasion.



Among the indigenous Palestinians were Jews.  Not a single Muslim Palestinian is a native to the land except for converts to Islam.


----------



## Challenger

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> They came from Europe, settled an area of the Middle East then evicted the Christians and Muslims that lived in that area and took the land that the non-Jews  had lived on for thousands of years through armed conflict.  That is an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Among the indigenous Palestinians were Jews.  Not a single Muslim Palestinian is a native to the land except for converts to Islam.
Click to expand...


The indigenous Palestinians were adherents to many cults and religions, including Judaism, but the area did not have a uniform or dominant religion until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman empire, and even then there were heretics a plenty in the region. When the Arabs conquered the region, only their elites settled in the estates vacated by the Byzantines; the common people remained and over time converted to Islam. Every Muslim Palestinian is a native to the land unless they are first generation immigrants.


----------



## Challenger

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Christians were so thin on the Ground until at least the 4C and then they were mostly IMMIGRANTS"
> 
> Usual Phoney bullshit.  He just makes things up.
> 
> "The arab muslims have shown that they cant freely pursue their economic, social or cultural development. They cant even tie their own shoelace"
> 
> The Arab Muslims of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Qatar, Dubai, Kuwait, UAE, sem to do ok.
> 
> "They are the ones delaying their independence because they know they are not ready, which is why they want a scapegoat ( the UN ) when it goes tits up."
> 
> Is the UN holding the Palestinians in the Gulags of the West bank and Gaza and is the UN controlling the land borders, air space and territorial sea of those Gulags?
> 
> "Attack a nation and you can expect to be retaliated to,"
> 
> Then, after invading, settling  and occupying Palestine (coming all the way from Europe), why are Israelis surprised that the Christians and Muslims are resisting the invasion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they bever invaded Palestine. An invasion is a military offensive.
> The 'European Jewish invasion' is Palestinian propaganda.
Click to expand...


Invasion =
1. An act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army.
2. The entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as in a disease.
3. Entrance as if to take possession or overrun, as in, "the annual invasion of the resort by tourists".
4. Infringement by intrusion.

Take your pick, invasions aren't necessarily military in nature.


----------



## toastman

Challenger said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Christians were so thin on the Ground until at least the 4C and then they were mostly IMMIGRANTS"
> 
> Usual Phoney bullshit.  He just makes things up.
> 
> "The arab muslims have shown that they cant freely pursue their economic, social or cultural development. They cant even tie their own shoelace"
> 
> The Arab Muslims of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Qatar, Dubai, Kuwait, UAE, sem to do ok.
> 
> "They are the ones delaying their independence because they know they are not ready, which is why they want a scapegoat ( the UN ) when it goes tits up."
> 
> Is the UN holding the Palestinians in the Gulags of the West bank and Gaza and is the UN controlling the land borders, air space and territorial sea of those Gulags?
> 
> "Attack a nation and you can expect to be retaliated to,"
> 
> Then, after invading, settling  and occupying Palestine (coming all the way from Europe), why are Israelis surprised that the Christians and Muslims are resisting the invasion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they bever invaded Palestine. An invasion is a military offensive.
> The 'European Jewish invasion' is Palestinian propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Invasion =
> 1. An act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army.
> 2. The entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as in a disease.
> 3. Entrance as if to take possession or overrun, as in, "the annual invasion of the resort by tourists".
> 4. Infringement by intrusion.
> 
> Take your pick, invasions aren't necessarily military in nature.
Click to expand...

None of those apply to European Jewish Immigration.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> They came from Europe, settled an area of the Middle East then evicted the Christians and Muslims that lived in that area and took the land that the non-Jews  had lived on for thousands of years through armed conflict.  That is an invasion.


No they didn't

They immigrated to the region, got attacked by 5 Arab armies INCLUDING the Palestinian Arabs, and then expelled some of the Palestinians, who were trying to expel the Jews..
If a European Jewish army came to Palestine through a military offensive, THAT'S an invasion. But that's not what happened,


----------



## fanger

They were_ illegal_ immigrants


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> They came from Europe, settled an area of the Middle East then evicted the Christians and Muslims that lived in that area and took the land that the non-Jews  had lived on for thousands of years through armed conflict.  That is an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Among the indigenous Palestinians were Jews.  Not a single Muslim Palestinian is a native to the land except for converts to Islam.
Click to expand...


A tiny number were indigenous Jews. The invaders were Europeans.

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

The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. *Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. ..."
*
Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921 

Nearly all Palestinian Muslims have Christian ancestors.  The Arabians were a very small population, the desert doesn't allow for large populations.  Converts were what populated the so-called "Muslim hordes".


----------



## aris2chat

Challenger said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> After how the Palestinians thanked Israel for granting their request for a Jew free Gaza there never should be any Palestinian State in Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There should never have been a Jewish State in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also, there was no "Palestine" sovereign nation EVER.  It was just a part of the Ottoman Empire before the Brits came.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe not, but there was a sovereign Palestinian state Daher el-Omar - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was _Governor of Safad, Sheikh of Acre and Galilee, Emir of Nazareth, a feudal lord_
> 
> Druze had a few semi-automonous sanjuks under the ottomans, but they were not states.  Most of what is today Lebanon was also semi-autonomous, but when Lebanon became an actual state from the french mandate, the lines changed.
> Acre was not a state let along a "palestinian" state.  It was a druze stonghold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was for a time an independant Muslim state in Northern Palestine, like it or not.
Click to expand...


ACRE was autonomous, not independent.  There was no palestine state.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The overwhelming majority of Muslim Palestinians are just squatters on Israel's land with no titles or deeds whatsoever to the land they have stolen for generations now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only squatters are the European Jews that went to Palestine from Europe.  The Christians and Muslims of Palestine have always been there whatever religion they were before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who invited the arab muslims to migrate to Palestine then, where is the treaty that says they an come and be citizens ?
> 
> Don't forget in 1099 the Crusaders evicted the muslims and the arabs never came back until the end of the 19C, when the Jews had made the land fertile again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who knows, but they were Ottoman citizens. All Ottoman citizens, Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. became Palestinian citizens in 1925.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they didn't.  Lies.  Is that all you can do is lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​-------------------
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
> Just like I said.
> 
> link: Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
Click to expand...






 But does not mention a Palestinian nation, just a Mandated citizenship. In the ase of Palestine this was British.

 Unless you can produce evidence of any Palestinian issued documents signed by the elected head of Palestine ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who invited the arab muslims to migrate to Palestine then, where is the treaty that says they an come and be citizens ?
> 
> Don't forget in 1099 the Crusaders evicted the muslims and the arabs never came back until the end of the 19C, when the Jews had made the land fertile again.
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows, but they were Ottoman citizens. All Ottoman citizens, Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. became Palestinian citizens in 1925.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they didn't.  Lies.  Is that all you can do is lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​-------------------
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
> Just like I said.
> 
> link: Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, Palestine was never a sovereign state.  They went from Ottoman rule to British rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?
Click to expand...





 It was never a nation until 1988, and what went before is their attempts at free determination.


----------



## Phoenall

fanger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Learn to read Abdul, you are only showing yourself up. Now where did I say we took 500,000 Christians in ? ? ? ? ?
> 
> 
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians Page 298 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> "The Christians are being ethnically cleansed form Palestine by the arab muslims. And we took over 500,000 into the UK alone last year as asylum seekers."
Click to expand...





 Now post the whole in context post so we can see how you manipulate the truth......................


----------



## aris2chat

Challenger said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do.  All the time.  They also accept Muslims, Jews, or whomever immigrates there legally.  The fact is nobody wants the Palestinians because they are TROUBLE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No country in Europe would accept 6 million people of any race, ethnicity or religion.  The Palestinians are just Christians and Muslims resisting occupation and oppression.  No one suggested that the South African non-whites leave South Africa to make room for the whites.  After all, white ruled South Africa was surrounded by black ruled states. What makes the Christians and Muslims of Palestine any different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Christians are being ethnically cleansed form Palestine by the arab muslims. And we took over 500,000 into the UK alone last year as asylum seekers.
> 
> 
> And again you go OFF TOPIC by bringing another nation an ocean and a continent away
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've suddenly had an influx of 500,000 Christian Palestinians in the UK last year?  Seriously, go take your meds you are totally losing the plot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> figures are from NABA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never heard of them, care to provide a link?
Click to expand...


National Association British Arabs


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't.  Lies.  Is that all you can do is lie?
> 
> 
> 
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​-------------------
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
> Just like I said.
> 
> link: Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, Palestine was never a sovereign state.  They went from Ottoman rule to British rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?  It was under control of the Ottoman empire and just a territory.  The British came and conquered and then it was THEIR territory.  They broke it up into Israel/Palestine.  The Israelis never stole anything and have just as much right to be there as anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did Britain claim Possession of the territory?
Click to expand...






 When the surrender terms were signed by the Ottomans


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you explain why nobody wants them?
> They have like 14 islamic countries, why don't they live in one of them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have a country, it's called Palestine, currently occupied by a racist, Islamophobic regime that disposessed them. Those who want to live elsewhere have already gone to make new lives for themselves in Europe and America or wherever. The remainder wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, they have no country.  They are Jordanian and Syrian Arabs.  And even THOSE people don't want them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who sold you that piece of bullshit.  They are Palestinian Christians and Muslims, they were there during the reign of the Romans, Western and Eastern, the reign of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and during the reign of the Ottomans.  Same people.  The Jews came from Europe in hordes to colonize Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did they manage that magic trick then Abdul seeing as muslims were not invented until 627 C.E. a full 223 years after the last Roman left. So that is LIE number 1, much touted by muslims.  Then the Christians were not invented until the 4C by Romans so they could not have existed in any numbers until then, So LIE number 2 exposed. BUT the Jews lived in Judea and Samaria for 2500 before the Roman invasion, and still live there today 2000 years after the roman invasion.
> 
> THE JEWS WERE INVITED BY THE LANDS LEGAL OWNERS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, FIRST THE OTTOMANS IN 1850 WHO WERE LOOKING AT GIVING THE JEWS PALESTINE AS THEIR HOMELAND. THEN THE LoN FROM 1917 WHO DID [ROMISE THE JEWS A HOMELAND IN PALESTINE.
> 
> So Lie number 3 put to bed as well
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...





 Another FLAME attack because you cant answer the points raised, typical of you neo marxists


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> They came from Europe, settled an area of the Middle East then evicted the Christians and Muslims that lived in that area and took the land that the non-Jews  had lived on for thousands of years through armed conflict.  That is an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Among the indigenous Palestinians were Jews.  Not a single Muslim Palestinian is a native to the land except for converts to Islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A tiny number were indigenous Jews. The invaders were Europeans.
> 
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. *Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems.* A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. *Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, *in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. *Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. ..."
> *
> Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
> 
> Nearly all Palestinian Muslims have Christian ancestors.  The Arabians were a very small population, the desert doesn't allow for large populations.  Converts were what populated the so-called "Muslim hordes".
Click to expand...





 Strande how many "Palestinians" have names saying they were Egyptians or Syrians isn't it. In keeping with historical norms from around the world the arab muslims adopted the same concept of naming people from their place of birth, occupation or son of. As in Ali son of Mohamed, Abdul the weaver or Hussien the Syrian.


----------



## ChrisL

theliq said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked you many times to give me examples of how the Palestinians have defended themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything that opposes the occupation and colonization of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So targeting children is according to you defending against occupation, travelling to another nation on another continent and murdering unarmed innocent people is according to you defending against occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And THAT right there is the difference between "liberators" and "terrorists."  Terrorists target the innocent.  They are monsters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that is what Stern and the Zionist were/ARE,so thanks for you input.....H.I.M.theliq
Click to expand...


Stern?  

No Israelis are not terrorists, but Palestinians are actually led by terrorists and taught to hate.  That is like the definition of terrorist.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?


----------



## Challenger

aris2chat said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> There should never have been a Jewish State in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, there was no "Palestine" sovereign nation EVER.  It was just a part of the Ottoman Empire before the Brits came.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe not, but there was a sovereign Palestinian state Daher el-Omar - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was _Governor of Safad, Sheikh of Acre and Galilee, Emir of Nazareth, a feudal lord_
> 
> Druze had a few semi-automonous sanjuks under the ottomans, but they were not states.  Most of what is today Lebanon was also semi-autonomous, but when Lebanon became an actual state from the french mandate, the lines changed.
> Acre was not a state let along a "palestinian" state.  It was a druze stonghold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was for a time an independant Muslim state in Northern Palestine, like it or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ACRE was autonomous, not independent.  There was no palestine state.
Click to expand...


Independant of Ottoman rule and supported by both Egypt and Russia from the 1760's until 1775 The ottomans recognised his rule by confering the title "Sheikh of Acre, Emir of Nazareth, Tiberias, Safed, and Sheikh of all Galilee" on him. Sheikh: "...a man of vast power, and nobility, and it is used strictly for the royal families of the middle east." "Emir": ruler of an Emirate which is  a sovereign Principality. Sounds pretty independant *and* autonomous to me.


----------



## Challenger

aris2chat said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No country in Europe would accept 6 million people of any race, ethnicity or religion.  The Palestinians are just Christians and Muslims resisting occupation and oppression.  No one suggested that the South African non-whites leave South Africa to make room for the whites.  After all, white ruled South Africa was surrounded by black ruled states. What makes the Christians and Muslims of Palestine any different?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Christians are being ethnically cleansed form Palestine by the arab muslims. And we took over 500,000 into the UK alone last year as asylum seekers.
> 
> 
> And again you go OFF TOPIC by bringing another nation an ocean and a continent away
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've suddenly had an influx of 500,000 Christian Palestinians in the UK last year?  Seriously, go take your meds you are totally losing the plot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> figures are from NABA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never heard of them, care to provide a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> National Association British Arabs
Click to expand...


OK found the site, and an article on the 2011 census, but nothing about 500,000 Christian Palestinians in the UK in 2014, care to help me out? NABA British Arabs Association


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have a country, it's called Palestine, currently occupied by a racist, Islamophobic regime that disposessed them. Those who want to live elsewhere have already gone to make new lives for themselves in Europe and America or wherever. The remainder wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, they have no country.  They are Jordanian and Syrian Arabs.  And even THOSE people don't want them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who sold you that piece of bullshit.  They are Palestinian Christians and Muslims, they were there during the reign of the Romans, Western and Eastern, the reign of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and during the reign of the Ottomans.  Same people.  The Jews came from Europe in hordes to colonize Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did they manage that magic trick then Abdul seeing as muslims were not invented until 627 C.E. a full 223 years after the last Roman left. So that is LIE number 1, much touted by muslims.  Then the Christians were not invented until the 4C by Romans so they could not have existed in any numbers until then, So LIE number 2 exposed. BUT the Jews lived in Judea and Samaria for 2500 before the Roman invasion, and still live there today 2000 years after the roman invasion.
> 
> THE JEWS WERE INVITED BY THE LANDS LEGAL OWNERS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, FIRST THE OTTOMANS IN 1850 WHO WERE LOOKING AT GIVING THE JEWS PALESTINE AS THEIR HOMELAND. THEN THE LoN FROM 1917 WHO DID [ROMISE THE JEWS A HOMELAND IN PALESTINE.
> 
> So Lie number 3 put to bed as well
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another FLAME attack because you cant answer the points raised, typical of you neo marxists
Click to expand...


I just invoked Challenger's Law ("The amount of energy necessary to refute Zionist bullshit is an order of magnitude larger that the energy required to produce it."-- Challenger's Law) and it was easier to respond as I did than waste my time debunking your B.S. which you'd ignore anyway and move the goalposts again.


----------



## ChrisL

Challenger said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Christians are being ethnically cleansed form Palestine by the arab muslims. And we took over 500,000 into the UK alone last year as asylum seekers.
> 
> 
> And again you go OFF TOPIC by bringing another nation an ocean and a continent away
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've suddenly had an influx of 500,000 Christian Palestinians in the UK last year?  Seriously, go take your meds you are totally losing the plot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> figures are from NABA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never heard of them, care to provide a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> National Association British Arabs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK found the site, and an article on the 2011 census, but nothing about 500,000 Christian Palestinians in the UK in 2014, care to help me out? NABA British Arabs Association
Click to expand...


Yeah, the National Association of British Arabs.  REAL good website there.    Oh no, they wouldn't have a biased view of anything, right?


----------



## montelatici

ChrisL said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've suddenly had an influx of 500,000 Christian Palestinians in the UK last year?  Seriously, go take your meds you are totally losing the plot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> figures are from NABA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never heard of them, care to provide a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> National Association British Arabs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK found the site, and an article on the 2011 census, but nothing about 500,000 Christian Palestinians in the UK in 2014, care to help me out? NABA British Arabs Association
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the National Association of British Arabs.  REAL good website there.    Oh no, they wouldn't have a biased view of anything, right?
Click to expand...


You do realize that the NABA site was used as "proof" by Ariscat, one of the most strident Zionist fundamentalists that post here.  You really should read the thread before having knee jerk reactions that do nothing else but confirm you are a knucklehead.  By the way, 500 thousand Palestinians did not go to Britain in 2014 as claimed by that other knucklehead, Phoney.


----------



## aris2chat

Challenger said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, there was no "Palestine" sovereign nation EVER.  It was just a part of the Ottoman Empire before the Brits came.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not, but there was a sovereign Palestinian state Daher el-Omar - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was _Governor of Safad, Sheikh of Acre and Galilee, Emir of Nazareth, a feudal lord_
> 
> Druze had a few semi-automonous sanjuks under the ottomans, but they were not states.  Most of what is today Lebanon was also semi-autonomous, but when Lebanon became an actual state from the french mandate, the lines changed.
> Acre was not a state let along a "palestinian" state.  It was a druze stonghold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was for a time an independant Muslim state in Northern Palestine, like it or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ACRE was autonomous, not independent.  There was no palestine state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Independant of Ottoman rule and supported by both Egypt and Russia from the 1760's until 1775 The ottomans recognised his rule by confering the title "Sheikh of Acre, Emir of Nazareth, Tiberias, Safed, and Sheikh of all Galilee" on him. Sheikh: "...a man of vast power, and nobility, and it is used strictly for the royal families of the middle east." "Emir": ruler of an Emirate which is  a sovereign Principality. Sounds pretty independant *and* autonomous to me.
Click to expand...


It is the title of a tribal leader, something like a "chief", "sir" or in some cases like "lord".  There are hundreds of sheiks around today through the region.
Does not make him a king of palestine it just makes him leader of the sanjuk.  They collect the taxes of the area and get a percentage before giving the taxes to the Ottoman.  It is bit like being the duke of cambridge, he gets an income from cambridge instead of being paid by the queen.

It is a feudal lord of a county, not country

Instead of understanding the system and times you (pl.) keep grasping at straws.  Acre was not palestine.

The laziness of poster to not check facts before posting is shameful.  It takes seconds.  They would rather argue about nonsense for days than learn the facts in less than a minute.

Arabia - Arab Titles of Rank - Sheyk Sheik Emeer Emir Sultan

I don't know or remember everything or not sure how to phrase certain things, but I have an advantage to know what I am looking for.  So it take others a few more seconds to check or double check before posting. It still takes less time than typing out a post or reading one.

Why should other posters do your homework for you?  Think before opening your mouth.  A political forum is not the place to be making up fiction......unless you're going to run for office 

Stick to the way things are, not the way you want them to be


----------



## Challenger

ChrisL said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've suddenly had an influx of 500,000 Christian Palestinians in the UK last year?  Seriously, go take your meds you are totally losing the plot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> figures are from NABA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never heard of them, care to provide a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> National Association British Arabs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK found the site, and an article on the 2011 census, but nothing about 500,000 Christian Palestinians in the UK in 2014, care to help me out? NABA British Arabs Association
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the National Association of British Arabs.  REAL good website there.    Oh no, they wouldn't have a biased view of anything, right?
Click to expand...


----------



## Challenger

aris2chat said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not, but there was a sovereign Palestinian state Daher el-Omar - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was _Governor of Safad, Sheikh of Acre and Galilee, Emir of Nazareth, a feudal lord_
> 
> Druze had a few semi-automonous sanjuks under the ottomans, but they were not states.  Most of what is today Lebanon was also semi-autonomous, but when Lebanon became an actual state from the french mandate, the lines changed.
> Acre was not a state let along a "palestinian" state.  It was a druze stonghold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was for a time an independant Muslim state in Northern Palestine, like it or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ACRE was autonomous, not independent.  There was no palestine state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Independant of Ottoman rule and supported by both Egypt and Russia from the 1760's until 1775 The ottomans recognised his rule by confering the title "Sheikh of Acre, Emir of Nazareth, Tiberias, Safed, and Sheikh of all Galilee" on him. Sheikh: "...a man of vast power, and nobility, and it is used strictly for the royal families of the middle east." "Emir": ruler of an Emirate which is  a sovereign Principality. Sounds pretty independant *and* autonomous to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the title of a tribal leader, something like a "chief", "sir" or in some cases like "lord".  There are hundreds of sheiks around today through the region.
> Does not make him a king of palestine it just makes him leader of the sanjuk.  They collect the taxes of the area and get a percentage before giving the taxes to the Ottoman.  It is bit like being the duke of cambridge, he gets an income from cambridge instead of being paid by the queen.
> 
> It is a feudal lord of a county, not country
> 
> Instead of understanding the system and times you (pl.) keep grasping at straws.  Acre was not palestine.
> 
> The laziness of poster to not check facts before posting is shameful.  It takes seconds.  They would rather argue about nonsense for days than learn the facts in less than a minute.
> 
> Arabia - Arab Titles of Rank - Sheyk Sheik Emeer Emir Sultan
> 
> I don't know or remember everything or not sure how to phrase certain things, but I have an advantage to know what I am looking for.  So it take others a few more seconds to check or double check before posting. It still takes less time than typing out a post or reading one.
> 
> Why should other posters do your homework for you?  Think before opening your mouth.  A political forum is not the place to be making up fiction......unless you're going to run for office
> 
> Stick to the way things are, not the way you want them to be
Click to expand...


Looks like someone's upset you. 

Regarding Sheikh, the literal meaning is "elder" someone whose hair has gone white. It is a title of respect and nowdays can apply to any "leader" of a family through to a tribe or settlement up to a full kingdom. The clue was in the title, i.e. "Sheikh of all Galilee" meant ruler of *All* Galilee. It was for a time apparently reserved strictly for royalty in the Arabian Peninsula, but to be fair I'm not sure how strict the Saudi family are about that now. There has never been any feudal connotation to the title and the leader of a Sanjak was a Bey not a Sheikh. You seem to be confusing Arab titles with Turkish ones.


----------



## ChrisL

Challenger said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> figures are from NABA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never heard of them, care to provide a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> National Association British Arabs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK found the site, and an article on the 2011 census, but nothing about 500,000 Christian Palestinians in the UK in 2014, care to help me out? NABA British Arabs Association
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the National Association of British Arabs.  REAL good website there.    Oh no, they wouldn't have a biased view of anything, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Yes, you are nuts.  I agree.


----------



## Challenger

ChrisL said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never heard of them, care to provide a link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> National Association British Arabs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK found the site, and an article on the 2011 census, but nothing about 500,000 Christian Palestinians in the UK in 2014, care to help me out? NABA British Arabs Association
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the National Association of British Arabs.  REAL good website there.    Oh no, they wouldn't have a biased view of anything, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you are nuts.  I agree.
Click to expand...

...said the pot.


----------



## ChrisL

Challenger said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> National Association British Arabs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK found the site, and an article on the 2011 census, but nothing about 500,000 Christian Palestinians in the UK in 2014, care to help me out? NABA British Arabs Association
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the National Association of British Arabs.  REAL good website there.    Oh no, they wouldn't have a biased view of anything, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you are nuts.  I agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...said the pot.
Click to expand...


I am perfectly sane, unlike yourself.  Anyone who supports terrorists are just as crazy as they are.  That is the bottom line.  If you support the use of terrorist tactics to accomplish a goal, then you are just as insane as the terrorist.


----------



## Challenger

ChrisL said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK found the site, and an article on the 2011 census, but nothing about 500,000 Christian Palestinians in the UK in 2014, care to help me out? NABA British Arabs Association
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the National Association of British Arabs.  REAL good website there.    Oh no, they wouldn't have a biased view of anything, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you are nuts.  I agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...said the pot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am perfectly sane, unlike yourself.  Anyone who supports terrorists are just as crazy as they are.  That is the bottom line.  If you support the use of terrorist tactics to accomplish a goal, then you are just as insane as the terrorist.
Click to expand...

See post #3056, I can't be bothered with you.


----------



## montelatici

ChrisL said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK found the site, and an article on the 2011 census, but nothing about 500,000 Christian Palestinians in the UK in 2014, care to help me out? NABA British Arabs Association
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the National Association of British Arabs.  REAL good website there.    Oh no, they wouldn't have a biased view of anything, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you are nuts.  I agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...said the pot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am perfectly sane, unlike yourself.  Anyone who supports terrorists are just as crazy as they are.  That is the bottom line.  If you support the use of terrorist tactics to accomplish a goal, then you are just as insane as the terrorist.
Click to expand...


The Jews in Palestine used terrorist tactics to accomplish their goals, the King David Hotel bombing is just one example. Some of their Prime Ministers had done time in prison for terrorist activities.  And clearly, current Israelis use terror to force the Palestinian to accept occupation and oppression without resisting.  Very hypocritical supporting Jewish terrorism while railing against Gentile terrorism.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the National Association of British Arabs.  REAL good website there.    Oh no, they wouldn't have a biased view of anything, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you are nuts.  I agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...said the pot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am perfectly sane, unlike yourself.  Anyone who supports terrorists are just as crazy as they are.  That is the bottom line.  If you support the use of terrorist tactics to accomplish a goal, then you are just as insane as the terrorist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Jews in Palestine used terrorist tactics to accomplish their goals, the King David Hotel bombing is just one example. Some of their Prime Ministers had done time in prison for terrorist activities.  And clearly, current Israelis use terror to force the Palestinian to accept occupation and oppression without resisting.  Very hypocritical supporting Jewish terrorism while railing against Gentile terrorism.
Click to expand...


How is retaliating against Palestinian terrorism considered terrorism ? 

The Israeli army destroys buildings with weapons, buildings with terrorists and other hostile targets. Terrorism is attacking without distinguishing between civilian and combatant in order to bring fear among people, in order to achieve a political or religious goal. Basically, EXACTLY what Hamas does.

You aren't there when the air force commanders are explaining to their pilots what targets to it. You are not there when the commanders explain the mission to their soldiers.
All you do is spew Palestinian propaganda day in day out. Not to mention you support people who cheer and hand out candy upon hearing that innocent people have been killed.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*CULTURESHOC*

**


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you are nuts.  I agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...said the pot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am perfectly sane, unlike yourself.  Anyone who supports terrorists are just as crazy as they are.  That is the bottom line.  If you support the use of terrorist tactics to accomplish a goal, then you are just as insane as the terrorist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Jews in Palestine used terrorist tactics to accomplish their goals, the King David Hotel bombing is just one example. Some of their Prime Ministers had done time in prison for terrorist activities.  And clearly, current Israelis use terror to force the Palestinian to accept occupation and oppression without resisting.  Very hypocritical supporting Jewish terrorism while railing against Gentile terrorism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is retaliating against Palestinian terrorism considered terrorism ?
> 
> The Israeli army destroys buildings with weapons, buildings with terrorists and other hostile targets. Terrorism is attacking without distinguishing between civilian and combatant in order to bring fear among people, in order to achieve a political or religious goal. Basically, EXACTLY what Hamas does.
> 
> You aren't there when the air force commanders are explaining to their pilots what targets to it. You are not there when the commanders explain the mission to their soldiers.
> All you do is spew Palestinian propaganda day in day out. Not to mention you support people who cheer and hand out candy upon hearing that innocent people have been killed.
Click to expand...


Israel bombs schools that are filled with women and children, killing thousands at a time.  That is intentional terrorism in order to terrorize the non-Jews into meekly accepting Jew oppression and occupation.

*"US 'appalled' by 'disgraceful' Israeli shelling of Gaza UN school"*

The US called that attack “totally unacceptable and totally indefensible”.

US appalled by disgraceful Israeli shelling of Gaza UN school World news The Guardian


----------



## MJB12741

ChrisL said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK found the site, and an article on the 2011 census, but nothing about 500,000 Christian Palestinians in the UK in 2014, care to help me out? NABA British Arabs Association
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the National Association of British Arabs.  REAL good website there.    Oh no, they wouldn't have a biased view of anything, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you are nuts.  I agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...said the pot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am perfectly sane, unlike yourself.  Anyone who supports terrorists are just as crazy as they are.  That is the bottom line.  If you support the use of terrorist tactics to accomplish a goal, then you are just as insane as the terrorist.
Click to expand...


But but haven't you heard the news?  You see, the noble peace loving, life loving Palestinians of Hamas & the PA are not terrorists, they're "freedom fighters."  It's called Palestinian mentality.  Heh Heh!


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you are nuts.  I agree.
> 
> 
> 
> ...said the pot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am perfectly sane, unlike yourself.  Anyone who supports terrorists are just as crazy as they are.  That is the bottom line.  If you support the use of terrorist tactics to accomplish a goal, then you are just as insane as the terrorist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Jews in Palestine used terrorist tactics to accomplish their goals, the King David Hotel bombing is just one example. Some of their Prime Ministers had done time in prison for terrorist activities.  And clearly, current Israelis use terror to force the Palestinian to accept occupation and oppression without resisting.  Very hypocritical supporting Jewish terrorism while railing against Gentile terrorism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is retaliating against Palestinian terrorism considered terrorism ?
> 
> The Israeli army destroys buildings with weapons, buildings with terrorists and other hostile targets. Terrorism is attacking without distinguishing between civilian and combatant in order to bring fear among people, in order to achieve a political or religious goal. Basically, EXACTLY what Hamas does.
> 
> You aren't there when the air force commanders are explaining to their pilots what targets to it. You are not there when the commanders explain the mission to their soldiers.
> All you do is spew Palestinian propaganda day in day out. Not to mention you support people who cheer and hand out candy upon hearing that innocent people have been killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel bombs schools that are filled with women and children, killing thousands at a time.  That is intentional terrorism in order to terrorize the non-Jews into meekly accepting Jew oppression and occupation.
> 
> *"US 'appalled' by 'disgraceful' Israeli shelling of Gaza UN school"*
> 
> The US called that attack “totally unacceptable and totally indefensible”.
> 
> US appalled by disgraceful Israeli shelling of Gaza UN school World news The Guardian
Click to expand...

The U.S has killed 500 times more civilians in a fraction of the time. Gaza is a tiny tiny slither of land. Any school that was hit was hit by an errant shell from an artillery battery or tank, not a fighter jet. Stuff like this happens, and it's tragic. 
But unlike Palestinians, Israelis don't cheer and celebrate upon hearing that innocent civilians have been killed.


----------



## Challenger

MJB12741 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the National Association of British Arabs.  REAL good website there.    Oh no, they wouldn't have a biased view of anything, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you are nuts.  I agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...said the pot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am perfectly sane, unlike yourself.  Anyone who supports terrorists are just as crazy as they are.  That is the bottom line.  If you support the use of terrorist tactics to accomplish a goal, then you are just as insane as the terrorist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But but haven't you heard the news?  You see, the noble peace loving, life loving Palestinians of Hamas & the PA are not terrorists, they're "freedom fighters."  It's called Palestinian mentality.  Heh Heh!
Click to expand...


No, it's called rational human behaviour when threatened with occupation, oppression, humiliation and brutality on a daily basis. It's what the Polish AK, French FFI and Maquis, Legion Belge, Czech UVOD, Danish Freedom Council, Greek Democratic National Army and ELAS & EDES and many, many more resistance organisations did during WW2. All of them were called Terrorists by the Nazis.


----------



## Challenger

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...said the pot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am perfectly sane, unlike yourself.  Anyone who supports terrorists are just as crazy as they are.  That is the bottom line.  If you support the use of terrorist tactics to accomplish a goal, then you are just as insane as the terrorist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Jews in Palestine used terrorist tactics to accomplish their goals, the King David Hotel bombing is just one example. Some of their Prime Ministers had done time in prison for terrorist activities.  And clearly, current Israelis use terror to force the Palestinian to accept occupation and oppression without resisting.  Very hypocritical supporting Jewish terrorism while railing against Gentile terrorism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is retaliating against Palestinian terrorism considered terrorism ?
> 
> The Israeli army destroys buildings with weapons, buildings with terrorists and other hostile targets. Terrorism is attacking without distinguishing between civilian and combatant in order to bring fear among people, in order to achieve a political or religious goal. Basically, EXACTLY what Hamas does.
> 
> You aren't there when the air force commanders are explaining to their pilots what targets to it. You are not there when the commanders explain the mission to their soldiers.
> All you do is spew Palestinian propaganda day in day out. Not to mention you support people who cheer and hand out candy upon hearing that innocent people have been killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel bombs schools that are filled with women and children, killing thousands at a time.  That is intentional terrorism in order to terrorize the non-Jews into meekly accepting Jew oppression and occupation.
> 
> *"US 'appalled' by 'disgraceful' Israeli shelling of Gaza UN school"*
> 
> The US called that attack “totally unacceptable and totally indefensible”.
> 
> US appalled by disgraceful Israeli shelling of Gaza UN school World news The Guardian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The U.S has killed 500 times more civilians in a fraction of the time. Gaza is a tiny tiny slither of land. Any school that was hit was hit by an errant shell from an artillery battery or tank, not a fighter jet. Stuff like this happens, and it's tragic.
> But unlike Palestinians, Israelis don't cheer and celebrate upon hearing that innocent civilians have been killed.
Click to expand...


Bragging that your country has killed 500 times more civillians in a fraction of the time is perhaps a true reflection of *your* mindset, but to normal people it's sickening. Oh, and Google Israelis celebrating the attack on Gaza, you'll find that your statement is at best naive, at worst an outright lie.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, there was no "Palestine" sovereign nation EVER.  It was just a part of the Ottoman Empire before the Brits came.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not, but there was a sovereign Palestinian state Daher el-Omar - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was _Governor of Safad, Sheikh of Acre and Galilee, Emir of Nazareth, a feudal lord_
> 
> Druze had a few semi-automonous sanjuks under the ottomans, but they were not states.  Most of what is today Lebanon was also semi-autonomous, but when Lebanon became an actual state from the french mandate, the lines changed.
> Acre was not a state let along a "palestinian" state.  It was a druze stonghold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was for a time an independant Muslim state in Northern Palestine, like it or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ACRE was autonomous, not independent.  There was no palestine state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Independant of Ottoman rule and supported by both Egypt and Russia from the 1760's until 1775 The ottomans recognised his rule by confering the title "Sheikh of Acre, Emir of Nazareth, Tiberias, Safed, and Sheikh of all Galilee" on him. Sheikh: "...a man of vast power, and nobility, and it is used strictly for the royal families of the middle east." "Emir": ruler of an Emirate which is  a sovereign Principality. Sounds pretty independant *and* autonomous to me.
Click to expand...






 But no mention in all that of Palestine


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> figures are from NABA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never heard of them, care to provide a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> National Association British Arabs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK found the site, and an article on the 2011 census, but nothing about 500,000 Christian Palestinians in the UK in 2014, care to help me out? NABA British Arabs Association
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the National Association of British Arabs.  REAL good website there.    Oh no, they wouldn't have a biased view of anything, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize that the NABA site was used as "proof" by Ariscat, one of the most strident Zionist fundamentalists that post here.  You really should read the thread before having knee jerk reactions that do nothing else but confirm you are a knucklehead.  By the way, 500 thousand Palestinians did not go to Britain in 2014 as claimed by that other knucklehead, Phoney.
Click to expand...




 Are you a member of Her Majesties Immigration service. There  275,000 legal immigrations last year , about double that for illegal and asylum seekers. And the majority were arabs


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was _Governor of Safad, Sheikh of Acre and Galilee, Emir of Nazareth, a feudal lord_
> 
> Druze had a few semi-automonous sanjuks under the ottomans, but they were not states.  Most of what is today Lebanon was also semi-autonomous, but when Lebanon became an actual state from the french mandate, the lines changed.
> Acre was not a state let along a "palestinian" state.  It was a druze stonghold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was for a time an independant Muslim state in Northern Palestine, like it or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ACRE was autonomous, not independent.  There was no palestine state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Independant of Ottoman rule and supported by both Egypt and Russia from the 1760's until 1775 The ottomans recognised his rule by confering the title "Sheikh of Acre, Emir of Nazareth, Tiberias, Safed, and Sheikh of all Galilee" on him. Sheikh: "...a man of vast power, and nobility, and it is used strictly for the royal families of the middle east." "Emir": ruler of an Emirate which is  a sovereign Principality. Sounds pretty independant *and* autonomous to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the title of a tribal leader, something like a "chief", "sir" or in some cases like "lord".  There are hundreds of sheiks around today through the region.
> Does not make him a king of palestine it just makes him leader of the sanjuk.  They collect the taxes of the area and get a percentage before giving the taxes to the Ottoman.  It is bit like being the duke of cambridge, he gets an income from cambridge instead of being paid by the queen.
> 
> It is a feudal lord of a county, not country
> 
> Instead of understanding the system and times you (pl.) keep grasping at straws.  Acre was not palestine.
> 
> The laziness of poster to not check facts before posting is shameful.  It takes seconds.  They would rather argue about nonsense for days than learn the facts in less than a minute.
> 
> Arabia - Arab Titles of Rank - Sheyk Sheik Emeer Emir Sultan
> 
> I don't know or remember everything or not sure how to phrase certain things, but I have an advantage to know what I am looking for.  So it take others a few more seconds to check or double check before posting. It still takes less time than typing out a post or reading one.
> 
> Why should other posters do your homework for you?  Think before opening your mouth.  A political forum is not the place to be making up fiction......unless you're going to run for office
> 
> Stick to the way things are, not the way you want them to be
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks like someone's upset you.
> 
> Regarding Sheikh, the literal meaning is "elder" someone whose hair has gone white. It is a title of respect and nowdays can apply to any "leader" of a family through to a tribe or settlement up to a full kingdom. The clue was in the title, i.e. "Sheikh of all Galilee" meant ruler of *All* Galilee. It was for a time apparently reserved strictly for royalty in the Arabian Peninsula, but to be fair I'm not sure how strict the Saudi family are about that now. There has never been any feudal connotation to the title and the leader of a Sanjak was a Bey not a Sheikh. You seem to be confusing Arab titles with Turkish ones.
Click to expand...




 But still no mention of Palestine by name


----------



## Phoenall

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was for a time an independant Muslim state in Northern Palestine, like it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ACRE was autonomous, not independent.  There was no palestine state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Independant of Ottoman rule and supported by both Egypt and Russia from the 1760's until 1775 The ottomans recognised his rule by confering the title "Sheikh of Acre, Emir of Nazareth, Tiberias, Safed, and Sheikh of all Galilee" on him. Sheikh: "...a man of vast power, and nobility, and it is used strictly for the royal families of the middle east." "Emir": ruler of an Emirate which is  a sovereign Principality. Sounds pretty independant *and* autonomous to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the title of a tribal leader, something like a "chief", "sir" or in some cases like "lord".  There are hundreds of sheiks around today through the region.
> Does not make him a king of palestine it just makes him leader of the sanjuk.  They collect the taxes of the area and get a percentage before giving the taxes to the Ottoman.  It is bit like being the duke of cambridge, he gets an income from cambridge instead of being paid by the queen.
> 
> It is a feudal lord of a county, not country
> 
> Instead of understanding the system and times you (pl.) keep grasping at straws.  Acre was not palestine.
> 
> The laziness of poster to not check facts before posting is shameful.  It takes seconds.  They would rather argue about nonsense for days than learn the facts in less than a minute.
> 
> Arabia - Arab Titles of Rank - Sheyk Sheik Emeer Emir Sultan
> 
> I don't know or remember everything or not sure how to phrase certain things, but I have an advantage to know what I am looking for.  So it take others a few more seconds to check or double check before posting. It still takes less time than typing out a post or reading one.
> 
> Why should other posters do your homework for you?  Think before opening your mouth.  A political forum is not the place to be making up fiction......unless you're going to run for office
> 
> Stick to the way things are, not the way you want them to be
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks like someone's upset you.
> 
> Regarding Sheikh, the literal meaning is "elder" someone whose hair has gone white. It is a title of respect and nowdays can apply to any "leader" of a family through to a tribe or settlement up to a full kingdom. The clue was in the title, i.e. "Sheikh of all Galilee" meant ruler of *All* Galilee. It was for a time apparently reserved strictly for royalty in the Arabian Peninsula, but to be fair I'm not sure how strict the Saudi family are about that now. There has never been any feudal connotation to the title and the leader of a Sanjak was a Bey not a Sheikh. You seem to be confusing Arab titles with Turkish ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But still no mention of Palestine by name
Click to expand...




Challenger said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you are nuts.  I agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...said the pot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am perfectly sane, unlike yourself.  Anyone who supports terrorists are just as crazy as they are.  That is the bottom line.  If you support the use of terrorist tactics to accomplish a goal, then you are just as insane as the terrorist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But but haven't you heard the news?  You see, the noble peace loving, life loving Palestinians of Hamas & the PA are not terrorists, they're "freedom fighters."  It's called Palestinian mentality.  Heh Heh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's called rational human behaviour when threatened with occupation, oppression, humiliation and brutality on a daily basis. It's what the Polish AK, French FFI and Maquis, Legion Belge, Czech UVOD, Danish Freedom Council, Greek Democratic National Army and ELAS & EDES and many, many more resistance organisations did during WW2. All of them were called Terrorists by the Nazis.
Click to expand...






 And once again you ignore the Jews who have faced just that from the arab muslims for the last 1400 years. So what the Israeli's are doig according to you is  "rational human behaviour"


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am perfectly sane, unlike yourself.  Anyone who supports terrorists are just as crazy as they are.  That is the bottom line.  If you support the use of terrorist tactics to accomplish a goal, then you are just as insane as the terrorist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews in Palestine used terrorist tactics to accomplish their goals, the King David Hotel bombing is just one example. Some of their Prime Ministers had done time in prison for terrorist activities.  And clearly, current Israelis use terror to force the Palestinian to accept occupation and oppression without resisting.  Very hypocritical supporting Jewish terrorism while railing against Gentile terrorism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is retaliating against Palestinian terrorism considered terrorism ?
> 
> The Israeli army destroys buildings with weapons, buildings with terrorists and other hostile targets. Terrorism is attacking without distinguishing between civilian and combatant in order to bring fear among people, in order to achieve a political or religious goal. Basically, EXACTLY what Hamas does.
> 
> You aren't there when the air force commanders are explaining to their pilots what targets to it. You are not there when the commanders explain the mission to their soldiers.
> All you do is spew Palestinian propaganda day in day out. Not to mention you support people who cheer and hand out candy upon hearing that innocent people have been killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel bombs schools that are filled with women and children, killing thousands at a time.  That is intentional terrorism in order to terrorize the non-Jews into meekly accepting Jew oppression and occupation.
> 
> *"US 'appalled' by 'disgraceful' Israeli shelling of Gaza UN school"*
> 
> The US called that attack “totally unacceptable and totally indefensible”.
> 
> US appalled by disgraceful Israeli shelling of Gaza UN school World news The Guardian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The U.S has killed 500 times more civilians in a fraction of the time. Gaza is a tiny tiny slither of land. Any school that was hit was hit by an errant shell from an artillery battery or tank, not a fighter jet. Stuff like this happens, and it's tragic.
> But unlike Palestinians, Israelis don't cheer and celebrate upon hearing that innocent civilians have been killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bragging that your country has killed 500 times more civillians in a fraction of the time is perhaps a true reflection of *your* mindset, but to normal people it's sickening. Oh, and Google Israelis celebrating the attack on Gaza, you'll find that your statement is at best naive, at worst an outright lie.
Click to expand...






 Wouldn't you celebrate if the constant threat of attack was lifted ? ? ? ? ? ?


----------



## Challenger

toastman said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Christians were so thin on the Ground until at least the 4C and then they were mostly IMMIGRANTS"
> 
> Usual Phoney bullshit.  He just makes things up.
> 
> "The arab muslims have shown that they cant freely pursue their economic, social or cultural development. They cant even tie their own shoelace"
> 
> The Arab Muslims of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Qatar, Dubai, Kuwait, UAE, sem to do ok.
> 
> "They are the ones delaying their independence because they know they are not ready, which is why they want a scapegoat ( the UN ) when it goes tits up."
> 
> Is the UN holding the Palestinians in the Gulags of the West bank and Gaza and is the UN controlling the land borders, air space and territorial sea of those Gulags?
> 
> "Attack a nation and you can expect to be retaliated to,"
> 
> Then, after invading, settling  and occupying Palestine (coming all the way from Europe), why are Israelis surprised that the Christians and Muslims are resisting the invasion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they bever invaded Palestine. An invasion is a military offensive.
> The 'European Jewish invasion' is Palestinian propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Invasion =
> 1. An act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army.
> 2. The entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as in a disease.
> 3. Entrance as if to take possession or overrun, as in, "the annual invasion of the resort by tourists".
> 4. Infringement by intrusion.
> 
> Take your pick, invasions aren't necessarily military in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of those apply to European Jewish Immigration.
Click to expand...


Definitions 2. and, or 3. certainly do.


----------



## Challenger

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> They came from Europe, settled an area of the Middle East then evicted the Christians and Muslims that lived in that area and took the land that the non-Jews  had lived on for thousands of years through armed conflict.  That is an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't
> 
> They immigrated to the region, got attacked by 5 Arab armies INCLUDING the Palestinian Arabs, and then expelled some of the Palestinians, who were trying to expel the Jews..
> If a European Jewish army came to Palestine through a military offensive, THAT'S an invasion. But that's not what happened,
Click to expand...


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ACRE was autonomous, not independent.  There was no palestine state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Independant of Ottoman rule and supported by both Egypt and Russia from the 1760's until 1775 The ottomans recognised his rule by confering the title "Sheikh of Acre, Emir of Nazareth, Tiberias, Safed, and Sheikh of all Galilee" on him. Sheikh: "...a man of vast power, and nobility, and it is used strictly for the royal families of the middle east." "Emir": ruler of an Emirate which is  a sovereign Principality. Sounds pretty independant *and* autonomous to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the title of a tribal leader, something like a "chief", "sir" or in some cases like "lord".  There are hundreds of sheiks around today through the region.
> Does not make him a king of palestine it just makes him leader of the sanjuk.  They collect the taxes of the area and get a percentage before giving the taxes to the Ottoman.  It is bit like being the duke of cambridge, he gets an income from cambridge instead of being paid by the queen.
> 
> It is a feudal lord of a county, not country
> 
> Instead of understanding the system and times you (pl.) keep grasping at straws.  Acre was not palestine.
> 
> The laziness of poster to not check facts before posting is shameful.  It takes seconds.  They would rather argue about nonsense for days than learn the facts in less than a minute.
> 
> Arabia - Arab Titles of Rank - Sheyk Sheik Emeer Emir Sultan
> 
> I don't know or remember everything or not sure how to phrase certain things, but I have an advantage to know what I am looking for.  So it take others a few more seconds to check or double check before posting. It still takes less time than typing out a post or reading one.
> 
> Why should other posters do your homework for you?  Think before opening your mouth.  A political forum is not the place to be making up fiction......unless you're going to run for office
> 
> Stick to the way things are, not the way you want them to be
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks like someone's upset you.
> 
> Regarding Sheikh, the literal meaning is "elder" someone whose hair has gone white. It is a title of respect and nowdays can apply to any "leader" of a family through to a tribe or settlement up to a full kingdom. The clue was in the title, i.e. "Sheikh of all Galilee" meant ruler of *All* Galilee. It was for a time apparently reserved strictly for royalty in the Arabian Peninsula, but to be fair I'm not sure how strict the Saudi family are about that now. There has never been any feudal connotation to the title and the leader of a Sanjak was a Bey not a Sheikh. You seem to be confusing Arab titles with Turkish ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But still no mention of Palestine by name
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you are nuts.  I agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...said the pot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am perfectly sane, unlike yourself.  Anyone who supports terrorists are just as crazy as they are.  That is the bottom line.  If you support the use of terrorist tactics to accomplish a goal, then you are just as insane as the terrorist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But but haven't you heard the news?  You see, the noble peace loving, life loving Palestinians of Hamas & the PA are not terrorists, they're "freedom fighters."  It's called Palestinian mentality.  Heh Heh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's called rational human behaviour when threatened with occupation, oppression, humiliation and brutality on a daily basis. It's what the Polish AK, French FFI and Maquis, Legion Belge, Czech UVOD, Danish Freedom Council, Greek Democratic National Army and ELAS & EDES and many, many more resistance organisations did during WW2. All of them were called Terrorists by the Nazis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And once again you ignore the Jews who have faced just that from the arab muslims for the last 1400 years. So what the Israeli's are doig according to you is  "rational human behaviour"
Click to expand...


----------



## rhodescholar

Challenger said:


> Bragging that your country has killed 500 times more civillians in a fraction of the time is perhaps a true reflection of *your* mindset, but to normal people it's sickening. Oh, and Google Israelis celebrating the attack on Gaza, you'll find that your statement is at best naive, at worst an outright lie.



Asshole, you're as credible as putin "demanding that iran stop the hostilities in yemen."

When I see douchebags like you spend a proportionate amount of time on the syrian mass slaughter, THEN I will give a flying fuck as to your opinion on Israel.  

For 6,000 years jews have had to deal with scumbags like this, who are using every hilarious fig leaf and sophistry (in the current days, its under the "human rights" banner) to attack them.  I'll give the jews credit, between the 5th columnist scumbags (liberal jews in the disapora who voted for obama), dung like this poster, clearly an anti-semite masquerading as a "human rights" supporter, and the 500 million arab muslims who try every day to murder them, they really do have their hands full.  Amazing how they manage...


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not, but there was a sovereign Palestinian state Daher el-Omar - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was _Governor of Safad, Sheikh of Acre and Galilee, Emir of Nazareth, a feudal lord_
> 
> Druze had a few semi-automonous sanjuks under the ottomans, but they were not states.  Most of what is today Lebanon was also semi-autonomous, but when Lebanon became an actual state from the french mandate, the lines changed.
> Acre was not a state let along a "palestinian" state.  It was a druze stonghold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was for a time an independant Muslim state in Northern Palestine, like it or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ACRE was autonomous, not independent.  There was no palestine state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Independant of Ottoman rule and supported by both Egypt and Russia from the 1760's until 1775 The ottomans recognised his rule by confering the title "Sheikh of Acre, Emir of Nazareth, Tiberias, Safed, and Sheikh of all Galilee" on him. Sheikh: "...a man of vast power, and nobility, and it is used strictly for the royal families of the middle east." "Emir": ruler of an Emirate which is  a sovereign Principality. Sounds pretty independant *and* autonomous to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But no mention in all that of Palestine
Click to expand...


Read all the posts, idiot.


----------



## Challenger

rhodescholar said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bragging that your country has killed 500 times more civillians in a fraction of the time is perhaps a true reflection of *your* mindset, but to normal people it's sickening. Oh, and Google Israelis celebrating the attack on Gaza, you'll find that your statement is at best naive, at worst an outright lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asshole, you're as credible as putin "demanding that iran stop the hostilities in yemen."
> 
> When I see douchebags like you spend a proportionate amount of time on the syrian mass slaughter, THEN I will give a flying fuck as to your opinion on Israel.
> 
> For 6,000 years jews have had to deal with scumbags like this, who are using every hilarious fig leaf and sophistry (in the current days, its under the "human rights" banner) to attack them.  I'll give the jews credit, between the 5th columnist scumbags (liberal jews in the disapora who voted for obama), dung like this poster, clearly an anti-semite masquerading as a "human rights" supporter, and the 500 million arab muslims who try every day to murder them, they really do have their hands full.  Amazing how they manage...
Click to expand...


 Your mindset, on the other hand, is clearly mired in the cesspit.


----------



## rhodescholar

Challenger said:


> No, it's called rational human behaviour when threatened with occupation, oppression, humiliation and ...



I love ***** like this who discuss the symptoms, but never the cause.

I'd normally start posting that the arabs have refused the offer of a state multiple times, but like this ****, they have no interest in creating a state of their own - their sole interest is to destroy israel, so I am not going to even bother.

The arab muslims are good at one thing, destroying what others have created.  If Israel were to be removed (as in the jews relocated) the arab muslims would stream in and we'd see war there for the next 1,000 years, at least, or until they just killed themselves.

I'd also explain that the arabs were attacking jews in israel decades and centuries before Israel was founded, so with that in mind, why would any sane human question the jews' desire to keep away from the arab muslims, who do not tolerate the sovereign rights of anyone else in the mideast.

Is there a single minority in the entire mideast not under attack by arab muslims?


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ACRE was autonomous, not independent.  There was no palestine state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Independant of Ottoman rule and supported by both Egypt and Russia from the 1760's until 1775 The ottomans recognised his rule by confering the title "Sheikh of Acre, Emir of Nazareth, Tiberias, Safed, and Sheikh of all Galilee" on him. Sheikh: "...a man of vast power, and nobility, and it is used strictly for the royal families of the middle east." "Emir": ruler of an Emirate which is  a sovereign Principality. Sounds pretty independant *and* autonomous to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the title of a tribal leader, something like a "chief", "sir" or in some cases like "lord".  There are hundreds of sheiks around today through the region.
> Does not make him a king of palestine it just makes him leader of the sanjuk.  They collect the taxes of the area and get a percentage before giving the taxes to the Ottoman.  It is bit like being the duke of cambridge, he gets an income from cambridge instead of being paid by the queen.
> 
> It is a feudal lord of a county, not country
> 
> Instead of understanding the system and times you (pl.) keep grasping at straws.  Acre was not palestine.
> 
> The laziness of poster to not check facts before posting is shameful.  It takes seconds.  They would rather argue about nonsense for days than learn the facts in less than a minute.
> 
> Arabia - Arab Titles of Rank - Sheyk Sheik Emeer Emir Sultan
> 
> I don't know or remember everything or not sure how to phrase certain things, but I have an advantage to know what I am looking for.  So it take others a few more seconds to check or double check before posting. It still takes less time than typing out a post or reading one.
> 
> Why should other posters do your homework for you?  Think before opening your mouth.  A political forum is not the place to be making up fiction......unless you're going to run for office
> 
> Stick to the way things are, not the way you want them to be
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks like someone's upset you.
> 
> Regarding Sheikh, the literal meaning is "elder" someone whose hair has gone white. It is a title of respect and nowdays can apply to any "leader" of a family through to a tribe or settlement up to a full kingdom. The clue was in the title, i.e. "Sheikh of all Galilee" meant ruler of *All* Galilee. It was for a time apparently reserved strictly for royalty in the Arabian Peninsula, but to be fair I'm not sure how strict the Saudi family are about that now. There has never been any feudal connotation to the title and the leader of a Sanjak was a Bey not a Sheikh. You seem to be confusing Arab titles with Turkish ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But still no mention of Palestine by name
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you are nuts.  I agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...said the pot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am perfectly sane, unlike yourself.  Anyone who supports terrorists are just as crazy as they are.  That is the bottom line.  If you support the use of terrorist tactics to accomplish a goal, then you are just as insane as the terrorist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But but haven't you heard the news?  You see, the noble peace loving, life loving Palestinians of Hamas & the PA are not terrorists, they're "freedom fighters."  It's called Palestinian mentality.  Heh Heh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's called rational human behaviour when threatened with occupation, oppression, humiliation and brutality on a daily basis. It's what the Polish AK, French FFI and Maquis, Legion Belge, Czech UVOD, Danish Freedom Council, Greek Democratic National Army and ELAS & EDES and many, many more resistance organisations did during WW2. All of them were called Terrorists by the Nazis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And once again you ignore the Jews who have faced just that from the arab muslims for the last 1400 years. So what the Israeli's are doig according to you is  "rational human behaviour"
Click to expand...


...and yet despite 1400 years of alleged "Muslim persecution" Jewish people still migrated to Muslim lands...clearly jewish people are all Masochists then.


----------



## rhodescholar

Challenger said:


> ...



So according to this ****, I can mass slaughter, suicide bomb, and fire rockets at all of the south american and chinese immigrants who have moved into the US.  

What is really funny is that a very large portion of Israel, almost half, are sephardic jews ethnically cleansed from arab muslim countries, but this turd of course could never grasp this simple irony.


----------



## rhodescholar

Challenger said:


> ...and yet despite 1400 years of alleged "Muslim persecution" Jewish people still migrated to Muslim lands...clearly jewish people are all Masochists then.



Amazing how assholes like this attack jews for mistreating arab muslims, but then excuse away the historical horrendous mistreatment of jews by muslims in the mideast.  Really a lot of low IQ muslims and apologists for them here.


----------



## ChrisL

Challenger said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bragging that your country has killed 500 times more civillians in a fraction of the time is perhaps a true reflection of *your* mindset, but to normal people it's sickening. Oh, and Google Israelis celebrating the attack on Gaza, you'll find that your statement is at best naive, at worst an outright lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asshole, you're as credible as putin "demanding that iran stop the hostilities in yemen."
> 
> When I see douchebags like you spend a proportionate amount of time on the syrian mass slaughter, THEN I will give a flying fuck as to your opinion on Israel.
> 
> For 6,000 years jews have had to deal with scumbags like this, who are using every hilarious fig leaf and sophistry (in the current days, its under the "human rights" banner) to attack them.  I'll give the jews credit, between the 5th columnist scumbags (liberal jews in the disapora who voted for obama), dung like this poster, clearly an anti-semite masquerading as a "human rights" supporter, and the 500 million arab muslims who try every day to murder them, they really do have their hands full.  Amazing how they manage...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your mindset, on the other hand, is clearly mired in the cesspit.
Click to expand...


You're a cess pool of bigotry.


----------



## ChrisL

rhodescholar said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and yet despite 1400 years of alleged "Muslim persecution" Jewish people still migrated to Muslim lands...clearly jewish people are all Masochists then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how assholes like this attack jews for mistreating arab muslims, but then excuse away the historical horrendous mistreatment of jews by muslims in the mideast.  Really a lot of low IQ muslims and apologists for them here.
Click to expand...


Maybe they're terrorists trying to spread their propaganda via forum posts?


----------



## toastman

Challenger said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am perfectly sane, unlike yourself.  Anyone who supports terrorists are just as crazy as they are.  That is the bottom line.  If you support the use of terrorist tactics to accomplish a goal, then you are just as insane as the terrorist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews in Palestine used terrorist tactics to accomplish their goals, the King David Hotel bombing is just one example. Some of their Prime Ministers had done time in prison for terrorist activities.  And clearly, current Israelis use terror to force the Palestinian to accept occupation and oppression without resisting.  Very hypocritical supporting Jewish terrorism while railing against Gentile terrorism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is retaliating against Palestinian terrorism considered terrorism ?
> 
> The Israeli army destroys buildings with weapons, buildings with terrorists and other hostile targets. Terrorism is attacking without distinguishing between civilian and combatant in order to bring fear among people, in order to achieve a political or religious goal. Basically, EXACTLY what Hamas does.
> 
> You aren't there when the air force commanders are explaining to their pilots what targets to it. You are not there when the commanders explain the mission to their soldiers.
> All you do is spew Palestinian propaganda day in day out. Not to mention you support people who cheer and hand out candy upon hearing that innocent people have been killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel bombs schools that are filled with women and children, killing thousands at a time.  That is intentional terrorism in order to terrorize the non-Jews into meekly accepting Jew oppression and occupation.
> 
> *"US 'appalled' by 'disgraceful' Israeli shelling of Gaza UN school"*
> 
> The US called that attack “totally unacceptable and totally indefensible”.
> 
> US appalled by disgraceful Israeli shelling of Gaza UN school World news The Guardian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The U.S has killed 500 times more civilians in a fraction of the time. Gaza is a tiny tiny slither of land. Any school that was hit was hit by an errant shell from an artillery battery or tank, not a fighter jet. Stuff like this happens, and it's tragic.
> But unlike Palestinians, Israelis don't cheer and celebrate upon hearing that innocent civilians have been killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bragging that your country has killed 500 times more civillians in a fraction of the time is perhaps a true reflection of *your* mindset, but to normal people it's sickening. Oh, and Google Israelis celebrating the attack on Gaza, you'll find that your statement is at best naive, at worst an outright lie.
Click to expand...

I'm not American, I'm Canadian and I wasn't bragging.
PleAse show me a video of Israelis cheering upon hearing thaglt civilians have been killed.


----------



## toastman

Challenger said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Christians were so thin on the Ground until at least the 4C and then they were mostly IMMIGRANTS"
> 
> Usual Phoney bullshit.  He just makes things up.
> 
> "The arab muslims have shown that they cant freely pursue their economic, social or cultural development. They cant even tie their own shoelace"
> 
> The Arab Muslims of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Qatar, Dubai, Kuwait, UAE, sem to do ok.
> 
> "They are the ones delaying their independence because they know they are not ready, which is why they want a scapegoat ( the UN ) when it goes tits up."
> 
> Is the UN holding the Palestinians in the Gulags of the West bank and Gaza and is the UN controlling the land borders, air space and territorial sea of those Gulags?
> 
> "Attack a nation and you can expect to be retaliated to,"
> 
> Then, after invading, settling  and occupying Palestine (coming all the way from Europe), why are Israelis surprised that the Christians and Muslims are resisting the invasion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they bever invaded Palestine. An invasion is a military offensive.
> The 'European Jewish invasion' is Palestinian propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Invasion =
> 1. An act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army.
> 2. The entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as in a disease.
> 3. Entrance as if to take possession or overrun, as in, "the annual invasion of the resort by tourists".
> 4. Infringement by intrusion.
> 
> Take your pick, invasions aren't necessarily military in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of those apply to European Jewish Immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Definitions 2. and, or 3. certainly do.
Click to expand...

No, they don't thise definitions came with an example.
Number 2 is for a disease and number 3 is for tourists.
You're just like Monti, you can't handle the truth.


----------



## RoccoR

rhodescholar, Challenger,  et al,

How interesting --- that you should ask this question.



rhodescholar said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's called rational human behaviour when threatened with occupation, oppression, humiliation and ...
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a single minority in the entire mideast not under attack by arab muslims?
Click to expand...

*(OBSEVATION)*



 ​
Just earlier this weak, I had coffee with a few friends, discussing the issues of the world, and a very similar question emerged.
Is it more accurate to say radical Muslims _(relates to a person who follows the religion of Islam, a monotheistic Abrahamic religion based on the Quran)_ or should it be radical Islam (Islam is a monotheistic religion _(believe to be revelations from God, as articulated by the 7th Century prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in the Koran)?_ 

*(COMMENT)*

First, on the question of rational behaviors --- a series of decision-making processes that are based on making choices that result in the most optimal level of benefit or utility for the decision makers.  In this case, the Arabs of Palestine have _(for nearly a century)_ consistently made decisions and acted upon them with less than desirable consequences.  The decision made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have resulted in outcomes that have not been the most optimal or beneficial to the greater Palestinian constituency; either politically, economically and culturally.  So I think that applying the concepts of rational behavior to the HoAP which Jihadist activity and asymmetric warfare against the territorial integrity and political independence of the UN recognized State of Israel, is inconsistent with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs for the general constituency and the central theme behind Rational Behavior.  

When one looks at the Muslim _(as the practitioner)_ or Islam _(as the religion practiced)_ relative to the number of number and magnitude of the world wide conflicts in the last five years (since 2011), one notices a distinct common thread.  But the question needs to be asked more bluntly:

1. Afghanistan Extreme radical Fundamentalist Muslim terrorist groups (Taliban, Islamic fundamentalist political movement )
2. Bosnia Serbian Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholic, Muslims 
3. Cote d'Ivoire Muslims, Indigenous, Christians 
4. Cyprus Christians & Muslims 
5. East Timor Christians & Muslims 
6. Indonesia, province of Ambon Christians & Muslims 
7. Kashmir Hindus and Muslims 
8. Kosovo Serbian Orthodox Christians, Muslims 
9. Kurdistan Christians, Muslims Assaults on Christians 
10. Macedonia Macedonian Orthodox Christians & Muslims 
11. Middle East Israel vs Palestinian Jihadist 
12. Nigeria Christians, Animists, & Muslims 
13. Pakistan Suni & Shi'ite Muslims 
14. Philippines Christians & Muslims 
15. Chechnya Russian Orthodox Christians, Muslims. 
16. Serbia, province of Vojvodina Serbian Orthodox & Roman Catholics, Muslims 
17. Sri Lanka Buddhists & Hindus Tamils, Muslims 
18. Thailand: Pattani province: Buddists and Muslims 
19. Bangladesh: Muslim-Hindu (Bengalis) and Buddists (Chakmas) 
20. Tajikistan: intra-Islamic conflict 
21. Islamic State conflicts (Syria, Iraq)​
Is it the Muslim _(as the practitioner)_ that is responsible for these radical conflicts?  Or, is it Islam _(as the religion practiced)_ that spreads the hostility and conflict?  If we adopt the one perspective --- the answer becomes:  The Islamic Koran does not kill people --- Muslims do! In the opposite perspective you see the defense that several prominent Palestinian leaders have adopted:  "The dilemma --- Does Muslim follow what believe believes to be the devine will?   Or, does the Muslims adopt a more ethical interpretation of the Koran; one less violent?  

Have Muslims _(as the practitioners)_ destroyed their ability to discern right from wrong in their activities?  Are the moral values of the Muslim so corrupted that they cannot distinguish right from wrong --- unable to challenge the inspiration of the Koran against evil deeds?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## rhodescholar

RoccoR said:


> Is it the Muslim _(as the practitioner)_ that is responsible for these radical conflicts?  Or, is it Islam _(as the religion practiced)_ that spreads the hostility and conflict?  If we adopt the one perspective --- the answer becomes:  The Islamic Koran does not kill people --- Muslims do! In the opposite perspective you see the defense that several prominent Palestinian leaders have adopted:  "The dilemma --- Does Muslim follow what believe believes to be the devine will?   Or, does the Muslims adopt a more ethical interpretation of the Koran; one less violent?
> 
> Have Muslims _(as the practitioners)_ destroyed their ability to discern right from wrong in their activities?  Are the moral values of the Muslim so corrupted that they cannot distinguish right from wrong --- unable to challenge the inspiration of the Koran against evil deeds?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R



It is certainly an interesting question, but I do not believe muslims are genetically pre-disposed to violence any more than any other humans, I believe it is the death cult of islam, its closed-mindedness, rigidity, propensity to lie and distort history and facts, that drives muslims to act with violence and try to conquer and destroy all others.

I believe it is akin to nazism; if you eliminate the underlying disease of islam, and "de-nazify" muslims, the violence and cultural sickness that permeates muslims' lives and existence across africa, the mideast and asia would wane significantly.


----------



## MJB12741

rhodescholar said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it the Muslim _(as the practitioner)_ that is responsible for these radical conflicts?  Or, is it Islam _(as the religion practiced)_ that spreads the hostility and conflict?  If we adopt the one perspective --- the answer becomes:  The Islamic Koran does not kill people --- Muslims do! In the opposite perspective you see the defense that several prominent Palestinian leaders have adopted:  "The dilemma --- Does Muslim follow what believe believes to be the devine will?   Or, does the Muslims adopt a more ethical interpretation of the Koran; one less violent?
> 
> Have Muslims _(as the practitioners)_ destroyed their ability to discern right from wrong in their activities?  Are the moral values of the Muslim so corrupted that they cannot distinguish right from wrong --- unable to challenge the inspiration of the Koran against evil deeds?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is certainly an interesting question, but I do not believe muslims are genetically pre-disposed to violence any more than any other humans, I believe it is the death cult of islam, its closed-mindedness, rigidity, propensity to lie and distort history and facts, that drives muslims to act with violence and try to conquer and destroy all others.
> 
> I believe it is akin to nazism; if you eliminate the underlying disease of islam, and "de-nazify" muslims, the violence and cultural sickness that permeates muslims' lives and existence across africa, the mideast and asia would wane significantly.
Click to expand...


Not all Muslims are world terrorists.  However, the overwhelming majority of world terrorists are Muslims.  Anyone disagree?


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Christians were so thin on the Ground until at least the 4C and then they were mostly IMMIGRANTS"
> 
> Usual Phoney bullshit.  He just makes things up.
> 
> "The arab muslims have shown that they cant freely pursue their economic, social or cultural development. They cant even tie their own shoelace"
> 
> The Arab Muslims of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Qatar, Dubai, Kuwait, UAE, sem to do ok.
> 
> "They are the ones delaying their independence because they know they are not ready, which is why they want a scapegoat ( the UN ) when it goes tits up."
> 
> Is the UN holding the Palestinians in the Gulags of the West bank and Gaza and is the UN controlling the land borders, air space and territorial sea of those Gulags?
> 
> "Attack a nation and you can expect to be retaliated to,"
> 
> Then, after invading, settling  and occupying Palestine (coming all the way from Europe), why are Israelis surprised that the Christians and Muslims are resisting the invasion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they bever invaded Palestine. An invasion is a military offensive.
> The 'European Jewish invasion' is Palestinian propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Invasion =
> 1. An act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army.
> 2. The entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as in a disease.
> 3. Entrance as if to take possession or overrun, as in, "the annual invasion of the resort by tourists".
> 4. Infringement by intrusion.
> 
> Take your pick, invasions aren't necessarily military in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of those apply to European Jewish Immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Definitions 2. and, or 3. certainly do.
Click to expand...





 WRONG AGAIN as they were invited to migrate and close settle, unlike the muslims who just arrived and claimed the land under sharia law.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> They came from Europe, settled an area of the Middle East then evicted the Christians and Muslims that lived in that area and took the land that the non-Jews  had lived on for thousands of years through armed conflict.  That is an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't
> 
> They immigrated to the region, got attacked by 5 Arab armies INCLUDING the Palestinian Arabs, and then expelled some of the Palestinians, who were trying to expel the Jews..
> If a European Jewish army came to Palestine through a military offensive, THAT'S an invasion. But that's not what happened,
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...





 Is this your only answer to reality.......................


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Independant of Ottoman rule and supported by both Egypt and Russia from the 1760's until 1775 The ottomans recognised his rule by confering the title "Sheikh of Acre, Emir of Nazareth, Tiberias, Safed, and Sheikh of all Galilee" on him. Sheikh: "...a man of vast power, and nobility, and it is used strictly for the royal families of the middle east." "Emir": ruler of an Emirate which is  a sovereign Principality. Sounds pretty independant *and* autonomous to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the title of a tribal leader, something like a "chief", "sir" or in some cases like "lord".  There are hundreds of sheiks around today through the region.
> Does not make him a king of palestine it just makes him leader of the sanjuk.  They collect the taxes of the area and get a percentage before giving the taxes to the Ottoman.  It is bit like being the duke of cambridge, he gets an income from cambridge instead of being paid by the queen.
> 
> It is a feudal lord of a county, not country
> 
> Instead of understanding the system and times you (pl.) keep grasping at straws.  Acre was not palestine.
> 
> The laziness of poster to not check facts before posting is shameful.  It takes seconds.  They would rather argue about nonsense for days than learn the facts in less than a minute.
> 
> Arabia - Arab Titles of Rank - Sheyk Sheik Emeer Emir Sultan
> 
> I don't know or remember everything or not sure how to phrase certain things, but I have an advantage to know what I am looking for.  So it take others a few more seconds to check or double check before posting. It still takes less time than typing out a post or reading one.
> 
> Why should other posters do your homework for you?  Think before opening your mouth.  A political forum is not the place to be making up fiction......unless you're going to run for office
> 
> Stick to the way things are, not the way you want them to be
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks like someone's upset you.
> 
> Regarding Sheikh, the literal meaning is "elder" someone whose hair has gone white. It is a title of respect and nowdays can apply to any "leader" of a family through to a tribe or settlement up to a full kingdom. The clue was in the title, i.e. "Sheikh of all Galilee" meant ruler of *All* Galilee. It was for a time apparently reserved strictly for royalty in the Arabian Peninsula, but to be fair I'm not sure how strict the Saudi family are about that now. There has never been any feudal connotation to the title and the leader of a Sanjak was a Bey not a Sheikh. You seem to be confusing Arab titles with Turkish ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But still no mention of Palestine by name
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...said the pot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am perfectly sane, unlike yourself.  Anyone who supports terrorists are just as crazy as they are.  That is the bottom line.  If you support the use of terrorist tactics to accomplish a goal, then you are just as insane as the terrorist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But but haven't you heard the news?  You see, the noble peace loving, life loving Palestinians of Hamas & the PA are not terrorists, they're "freedom fighters."  It's called Palestinian mentality.  Heh Heh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's called rational human behaviour when threatened with occupation, oppression, humiliation and brutality on a daily basis. It's what the Polish AK, French FFI and Maquis, Legion Belge, Czech UVOD, Danish Freedom Council, Greek Democratic National Army and ELAS & EDES and many, many more resistance organisations did during WW2. All of them were called Terrorists by the Nazis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And once again you ignore the Jews who have faced just that from the arab muslims for the last 1400 years. So what the Israeli's are doig according to you is  "rational human behaviour"
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...





 Link to what HISTORY why don't you read those books you keep linking to ?


----------



## Phoenall

rhodescholar said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bragging that your country has killed 500 times more civillians in a fraction of the time is perhaps a true reflection of *your* mindset, but to normal people it's sickening. Oh, and Google Israelis celebrating the attack on Gaza, you'll find that your statement is at best naive, at worst an outright lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asshole, you're as credible as putin "demanding that iran stop the hostilities in yemen."
> 
> When I see douchebags like you spend a proportionate amount of time on the syrian mass slaughter, THEN I will give a flying fuck as to your opinion on Israel.
> 
> For 6,000 years jews have had to deal with scumbags like this, who are using every hilarious fig leaf and sophistry (in the current days, its under the "human rights" banner) to attack them.  I'll give the jews credit, between the 5th columnist scumbags (liberal jews in the disapora who voted for obama), dung like this poster, clearly an anti-semite masquerading as a "human rights" supporter, and the 500 million arab muslims who try every day to murder them, they really do have their hands full.  Amazing how they manage...
Click to expand...





 Like all neo Marxists the only people allowed human rights are muslims, criminals and neo Marxists. Anyone else is not worthy of them


----------



## ChrisL

rhodescholar said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it the Muslim _(as the practitioner)_ that is responsible for these radical conflicts?  Or, is it Islam _(as the religion practiced)_ that spreads the hostility and conflict?  If we adopt the one perspective --- the answer becomes:  The Islamic Koran does not kill people --- Muslims do! In the opposite perspective you see the defense that several prominent Palestinian leaders have adopted:  "The dilemma --- Does Muslim follow what believe believes to be the devine will?   Or, does the Muslims adopt a more ethical interpretation of the Koran; one less violent?
> 
> Have Muslims _(as the practitioners)_ destroyed their ability to discern right from wrong in their activities?  Are the moral values of the Muslim so corrupted that they cannot distinguish right from wrong --- unable to challenge the inspiration of the Koran against evil deeds?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is certainly an interesting question, but I do not believe muslims are genetically pre-disposed to violence any more than any other humans, I believe it is the death cult of islam, its closed-mindedness, rigidity, propensity to lie and distort history and facts, that drives muslims to act with violence and try to conquer and destroy all others.
> 
> I believe it is akin to nazism; if you eliminate the underlying disease of islam, and "de-nazify" muslims, the violence and cultural sickness that permeates muslims' lives and existence across africa, the mideast and asia would wane significantly.
Click to expand...


Yes, but those who would deny there is a problem are the ones standing in the way of real progress.  They make excuses for it and that doesn't help anyone.


----------



## ChrisL

rhodescholar said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it the Muslim _(as the practitioner)_ that is responsible for these radical conflicts?  Or, is it Islam _(as the religion practiced)_ that spreads the hostility and conflict?  If we adopt the one perspective --- the answer becomes:  The Islamic Koran does not kill people --- Muslims do! In the opposite perspective you see the defense that several prominent Palestinian leaders have adopted:  "The dilemma --- Does Muslim follow what believe believes to be the devine will?   Or, does the Muslims adopt a more ethical interpretation of the Koran; one less violent?
> 
> Have Muslims _(as the practitioners)_ destroyed their ability to discern right from wrong in their activities?  Are the moral values of the Muslim so corrupted that they cannot distinguish right from wrong --- unable to challenge the inspiration of the Koran against evil deeds?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is certainly an interesting question, but I do not believe muslims are genetically pre-disposed to violence any more than any other humans, I believe it is the death cult of islam, its closed-mindedness, rigidity, propensity to lie and distort history and facts, that drives muslims to act with violence and try to conquer and destroy all others.
> 
> I believe it is akin to nazism; if you eliminate the underlying disease of islam, and "de-nazify" muslims, the violence and cultural sickness that permeates muslims' lives and existence across africa, the mideast and asia would wane significantly.
Click to expand...


Also, the fact that a lot of Muslim countries are run by dictators who do not want to allow the people to become educated or have a lot of contact with the outside world.  A good example of this is how some Muslim countries discourage women from becoming educated.  Why?  Because then these women would see and understand how they are being oppressed.  Then, daddy can't give them away to another man for a dowry (basically selling their daughters).  

I think it's a combination of a lot of different factors.


----------



## Phoenall

rhodescholar said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it the Muslim _(as the practitioner)_ that is responsible for these radical conflicts?  Or, is it Islam _(as the religion practiced)_ that spreads the hostility and conflict?  If we adopt the one perspective --- the answer becomes:  The Islamic Koran does not kill people --- Muslims do! In the opposite perspective you see the defense that several prominent Palestinian leaders have adopted:  "The dilemma --- Does Muslim follow what believe believes to be the devine will?   Or, does the Muslims adopt a more ethical interpretation of the Koran; one less violent?
> 
> Have Muslims _(as the practitioners)_ destroyed their ability to discern right from wrong in their activities?  Are the moral values of the Muslim so corrupted that they cannot distinguish right from wrong --- unable to challenge the inspiration of the Koran against evil deeds?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is certainly an interesting question, but I do not believe muslims are genetically pre-disposed to violence any more than any other humans, I believe it is the death cult of islam, its closed-mindedness, rigidity, propensity to lie and distort history and facts, that drives muslims to act with violence and try to conquer and destroy all others.
> 
> I believe it is akin to nazism; if you eliminate the underlying disease of islam, and "de-nazify" muslims, the violence and cultural sickness that permeates muslims' lives and existence across africa, the mideast and asia would wane significantly.
Click to expand...





 That would mean the muslims giving up islam as that is the fundamental aspect of the violence and aggressive nature. Throughout history islam has attracted the violent, psychotic, aggressive and unstable elements of humanity, and those would only be attracted to the next cult promising salvation that came along. Yes it is a disease, much like cancer, in that it spreads and takes over killing the host in the end. A parasite that does not care if the host dies because there will be a new one along any minute. Like cancer and parasites the only answer is to kill the culprit, wipe it out completely and eradicate it from society.


----------



## Phoenall

MJB12741 said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it the Muslim _(as the practitioner)_ that is responsible for these radical conflicts?  Or, is it Islam _(as the religion practiced)_ that spreads the hostility and conflict?  If we adopt the one perspective --- the answer becomes:  The Islamic Koran does not kill people --- Muslims do! In the opposite perspective you see the defense that several prominent Palestinian leaders have adopted:  "The dilemma --- Does Muslim follow what believe believes to be the devine will?   Or, does the Muslims adopt a more ethical interpretation of the Koran; one less violent?
> 
> Have Muslims _(as the practitioners)_ destroyed their ability to discern right from wrong in their activities?  Are the moral values of the Muslim so corrupted that they cannot distinguish right from wrong --- unable to challenge the inspiration of the Koran against evil deeds?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is certainly an interesting question, but I do not believe muslims are genetically pre-disposed to violence any more than any other humans, I believe it is the death cult of islam, its closed-mindedness, rigidity, propensity to lie and distort history and facts, that drives muslims to act with violence and try to conquer and destroy all others.
> 
> I believe it is akin to nazism; if you eliminate the underlying disease of islam, and "de-nazify" muslims, the violence and cultural sickness that permeates muslims' lives and existence across africa, the mideast and asia would wane significantly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not all Muslims are world terrorists.  However, the overwhelming majority of world terrorists are Muslims.  Anyone disagree?
Click to expand...




 I don't , and I doubt that any muslims would.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Betty Saadeh*

**


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Betty Saadeh*
> 
> **






 AND !   how many "Palestinian" women are child murderers compared to racing drivers ?


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Betty Saadeh*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AND !   how many "Palestinian" women are child murderers compared to racing drivers ?
Click to expand...

Fcukin Idiot


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> They came from Europe, settled an area of the Middle East then evicted the Christians and Muslims that lived in that area and took the land that the non-Jews  had lived on for thousands of years through armed conflict.  That is an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't
> 
> They immigrated to the region, got attacked by 5 Arab armies INCLUDING the Palestinian Arabs, and then expelled some of the Palestinians, who were trying to expel the Jews..
> If a European Jewish army came to Palestine through a military offensive, THAT'S an invasion. But that's not what happened,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this your only answer to reality.......................
Click to expand...


No it's my rational response when I read B.S. to call it what it is.


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Betty Saadeh*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AND !   how many "Palestinian" women are child murderers compared to racing drivers ?
Click to expand...


Oh, a much smaller proportion that female members of the IDF who man the remote controlled gun towers surrounding Gaza, Israel s Remote Occupation Women Drone Jockeys Kill Gazans Remotely Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bragging that your country has killed 500 times more civillians in a fraction of the time is perhaps a true reflection of *your* mindset, but to normal people it's sickening. Oh, and Google Israelis celebrating the attack on Gaza, you'll find that your statement is at best naive, at worst an outright lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asshole, you're as credible as putin "demanding that iran stop the hostilities in yemen."
> 
> When I see douchebags like you spend a proportionate amount of time on the syrian mass slaughter, THEN I will give a flying fuck as to your opinion on Israel.
> 
> For 6,000 years jews have had to deal with scumbags like this, who are using every hilarious fig leaf and sophistry (in the current days, its under the "human rights" banner) to attack them.  I'll give the jews credit, between the 5th columnist scumbags (liberal jews in the disapora who voted for obama), dung like this poster, clearly an anti-semite masquerading as a "human rights" supporter, and the 500 million arab muslims who try every day to murder them, they really do have their hands full.  Amazing how they manage...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like all neo Marxists the only people allowed human rights are muslims, criminals and neo Marxists. Anyone else is not worthy of them
Click to expand...


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the title of a tribal leader, something like a "chief", "sir" or in some cases like "lord".  There are hundreds of sheiks around today through the region.
> Does not make him a king of palestine it just makes him leader of the sanjuk.  They collect the taxes of the area and get a percentage before giving the taxes to the Ottoman.  It is bit like being the duke of cambridge, he gets an income from cambridge instead of being paid by the queen.
> 
> It is a feudal lord of a county, not country
> 
> Instead of understanding the system and times you (pl.) keep grasping at straws.  Acre was not palestine.
> 
> The laziness of poster to not check facts before posting is shameful.  It takes seconds.  They would rather argue about nonsense for days than learn the facts in less than a minute.
> 
> Arabia - Arab Titles of Rank - Sheyk Sheik Emeer Emir Sultan
> 
> I don't know or remember everything or not sure how to phrase certain things, but I have an advantage to know what I am looking for.  So it take others a few more seconds to check or double check before posting. It still takes less time than typing out a post or reading one.
> 
> Why should other posters do your homework for you?  Think before opening your mouth.  A political forum is not the place to be making up fiction......unless you're going to run for office
> 
> Stick to the way things are, not the way you want them to be
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like someone's upset you.
> 
> Regarding Sheikh, the literal meaning is "elder" someone whose hair has gone white. It is a title of respect and nowdays can apply to any "leader" of a family through to a tribe or settlement up to a full kingdom. The clue was in the title, i.e. "Sheikh of all Galilee" meant ruler of *All* Galilee. It was for a time apparently reserved strictly for royalty in the Arabian Peninsula, but to be fair I'm not sure how strict the Saudi family are about that now. There has never been any feudal connotation to the title and the leader of a Sanjak was a Bey not a Sheikh. You seem to be confusing Arab titles with Turkish ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But still no mention of Palestine by name
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am perfectly sane, unlike yourself.  Anyone who supports terrorists are just as crazy as they are.  That is the bottom line.  If you support the use of terrorist tactics to accomplish a goal, then you are just as insane as the terrorist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But but haven't you heard the news?  You see, the noble peace loving, life loving Palestinians of Hamas & the PA are not terrorists, they're "freedom fighters."  It's called Palestinian mentality.  Heh Heh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's called rational human behaviour when threatened with occupation, oppression, humiliation and brutality on a daily basis. It's what the Polish AK, French FFI and Maquis, Legion Belge, Czech UVOD, Danish Freedom Council, Greek Democratic National Army and ELAS & EDES and many, many more resistance organisations did during WW2. All of them were called Terrorists by the Nazis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And once again you ignore the Jews who have faced just that from the arab muslims for the last 1400 years. So what the Israeli's are doig according to you is  "rational human behaviour"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link to what HISTORY why don't you read those books you keep linking to ?
Click to expand...


Your unsubstantiated assertion, 





			
				Phoenall said:
			
		

> ...the Jews who have faced just that from the arab muslims for the last 1400 years.


 I asked ror a link that substantiated it. It seems you are unable to provide such a link and instead chose to prevaricate, so we can only assume this is just another of your fantasies.


----------



## Challenger

RoccoR said:


> rhodescholar, Challenger,  et al,
> 
> How interesting --- that you should ask this question.
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's called rational human behaviour when threatened with occupation, oppression, humiliation and ...
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a single minority in the entire mideast not under attack by arab muslims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSEVATION)*
> 
> View attachment 38669​
> Just earlier this weak, I had coffee with a few friends, discussing the issues of the world, and a very similar question emerged.
> Is it more accurate to say radical Muslims _(relates to a person who follows the religion of Islam, a monotheistic Abrahamic religion based on the Quran)_ or should it be radical Islam (Islam is a monotheistic religion _(believe to be revelations from God, as articulated by the 7th Century prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in the Koran)?_
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, on the question of rational behaviors --- a series of decision-making processes that are based on making choices that result in the most optimal level of benefit or utility for the decision makers.  In this case, the Arabs of Palestine have _(for nearly a century)_ consistently made decisions and acted upon them with less than desirable consequences.  The decision made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have resulted in outcomes that have not been the most optimal or beneficial to the greater Palestinian constituency; either politically, economically and culturally.  So I think that applying the concepts of rational behavior to the HoAP which Jihadist activity and asymmetric warfare against the territorial integrity and political independence of the UN recognized State of Israel, is inconsistent with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs for the general constituency and the central theme behind Rational Behavior.
> 
> When one looks at the Muslim _(as the practitioner)_ or Islam _(as the religion practiced)_ relative to the number of number and magnitude of the world wide conflicts in the last five years (since 2011), one notices a distinct common thread.  But the question needs to be asked more bluntly:
> 
> 1. Afghanistan Extreme radical Fundamentalist Muslim terrorist groups (Taliban, Islamic fundamentalist political movement )
> 2. Bosnia Serbian Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholic, Muslims
> 3. Cote d'Ivoire Muslims, Indigenous, Christians
> 4. Cyprus Christians & Muslims
> 5. East Timor Christians & Muslims
> 6. Indonesia, province of Ambon Christians & Muslims
> 7. Kashmir Hindus and Muslims
> 8. Kosovo Serbian Orthodox Christians, Muslims
> 9. Kurdistan Christians, Muslims Assaults on Christians
> 10. Macedonia Macedonian Orthodox Christians & Muslims
> 11. Middle East Israel vs Palestinian Jihadist
> 12. Nigeria Christians, Animists, & Muslims
> 13. Pakistan Suni & Shi'ite Muslims
> 14. Philippines Christians & Muslims
> 15. Chechnya Russian Orthodox Christians, Muslims.
> 16. Serbia, province of Vojvodina Serbian Orthodox & Roman Catholics, Muslims
> 17. Sri Lanka Buddhists & Hindus Tamils, Muslims
> 18. Thailand: Pattani province: Buddists and Muslims
> 19. Bangladesh: Muslim-Hindu (Bengalis) and Buddists (Chakmas)
> 20. Tajikistan: intra-Islamic conflict
> 21. Islamic State conflicts (Syria, Iraq)​
> Is it the Muslim _(as the practitioner)_ that is responsible for these radical conflicts?  Or, is it Islam _(as the religion practiced)_ that spreads the hostility and conflict?  If we adopt the one perspective --- the answer becomes:  The Islamic Koran does not kill people --- Muslims do! In the opposite perspective you see the defense that several prominent Palestinian leaders have adopted:  "The dilemma --- Does Muslim follow what believe believes to be the devine will?   Or, does the Muslims adopt a more ethical interpretation of the Koran; one less violent?
> 
> Have Muslims _(as the practitioners)_ destroyed their ability to discern right from wrong in their activities?  Are the moral values of the Muslim so corrupted that they cannot distinguish right from wrong --- unable to challenge the inspiration of the Koran against evil deeds?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Nevertheless, it remains a rational response when threatened with occupation, oppression, humiliation and brutality on a daily basis. It's what the Polish AK, French FFI and Maquis, Legion Belge, Czech UVOD, Danish Freedom Council, Greek Democratic National Army and ELAS & EDES and many, many more resistance organisations did during WW2. All of them were called Terrorists by the Nazis. The right to resist, as you well know, is enshrined in International Law included in several UN resolutions on the subject, i.e. 

"2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for
independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from
colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means,
including armed struggle" A RES 37 43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Betty Saadeh*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AND !   how many "Palestinian" women are child murderers compared to racing drivers ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fcukin Idiot
Click to expand...




 We know you are you prove it every day


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> They came from Europe, settled an area of the Middle East then evicted the Christians and Muslims that lived in that area and took the land that the non-Jews  had lived on for thousands of years through armed conflict.  That is an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't
> 
> They immigrated to the region, got attacked by 5 Arab armies INCLUDING the Palestinian Arabs, and then expelled some of the Palestinians, who were trying to expel the Jews..
> If a European Jewish army came to Palestine through a military offensive, THAT'S an invasion. But that's not what happened,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this your only answer to reality.......................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's my rational response when I read B.S. to call it what it is.
Click to expand...





 How can you be rational when you support two ideologies that accept mass murder of innocents to spread their filth around the world. Both Marxism and islam have the worst track records for mass murder, genocides and ethnic cleansing.

 Don't forget that it is only your opinion and nothing else that says reality and truth are bullshit, to the enlightened non brainwashed it is truth and reality


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Betty Saadeh*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AND !   how many "Palestinian" women are child murderers compared to racing drivers ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, a much smaller proportion that female members of the IDF who man the remote controlled gun towers surrounding Gaza, Israel s Remote Occupation Women Drone Jockeys Kill Gazans Remotely Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization
Click to expand...




 Big difference is the Israeli female IDF are defending their country and people from attack, the "Palestinian" women are just psychopathic brainwashed baby killers acting on the commands of their religion


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bragging that your country has killed 500 times more civillians in a fraction of the time is perhaps a true reflection of *your* mindset, but to normal people it's sickening. Oh, and Google Israelis celebrating the attack on Gaza, you'll find that your statement is at best naive, at worst an outright lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asshole, you're as credible as putin "demanding that iran stop the hostilities in yemen."
> 
> When I see douchebags like you spend a proportionate amount of time on the syrian mass slaughter, THEN I will give a flying fuck as to your opinion on Israel.
> 
> For 6,000 years jews have had to deal with scumbags like this, who are using every hilarious fig leaf and sophistry (in the current days, its under the "human rights" banner) to attack them.  I'll give the jews credit, between the 5th columnist scumbags (liberal jews in the disapora who voted for obama), dung like this poster, clearly an anti-semite masquerading as a "human rights" supporter, and the 500 million arab muslims who try every day to murder them, they really do have their hands full.  Amazing how they manage...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like all neo Marxists the only people allowed human rights are muslims, criminals and neo Marxists. Anyone else is not worthy of them
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...





 No a fact just look at Britain when it was under neo Marxist rule. The muslims were encouraged to migrate and rape underage schoolgirls and to be protected under human rights laws. The underage schoolgirls and their parents were threatened with arrest, and the parents were threatened with court orders to remove their other children. Or did you want that piece of information to be forgotten, if you want proof look at Rotherham and what the public are demanding be done to council officials, M.P's and police involved in the case.   95 men arrested and charged with various child sex offences


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like someone's upset you.
> 
> Regarding Sheikh, the literal meaning is "elder" someone whose hair has gone white. It is a title of respect and nowdays can apply to any "leader" of a family through to a tribe or settlement up to a full kingdom. The clue was in the title, i.e. "Sheikh of all Galilee" meant ruler of *All* Galilee. It was for a time apparently reserved strictly for royalty in the Arabian Peninsula, but to be fair I'm not sure how strict the Saudi family are about that now. There has never been any feudal connotation to the title and the leader of a Sanjak was a Bey not a Sheikh. You seem to be confusing Arab titles with Turkish ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But still no mention of Palestine by name
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But but haven't you heard the news?  You see, the noble peace loving, life loving Palestinians of Hamas & the PA are not terrorists, they're "freedom fighters."  It's called Palestinian mentality.  Heh Heh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's called rational human behaviour when threatened with occupation, oppression, humiliation and brutality on a daily basis. It's what the Polish AK, French FFI and Maquis, Legion Belge, Czech UVOD, Danish Freedom Council, Greek Democratic National Army and ELAS & EDES and many, many more resistance organisations did during WW2. All of them were called Terrorists by the Nazis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And once again you ignore the Jews who have faced just that from the arab muslims for the last 1400 years. So what the Israeli's are doig according to you is  "rational human behaviour"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link to what HISTORY why don't you read those books you keep linking to ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your unsubstantiated assertion,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...the Jews who have faced just that from the arab muslims for the last 1400 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked ror a link that substantiated it. It seems you are unable to provide such a link and instead chose to prevaricate, so we can only assume this is just another of your fantasies.
Click to expand...





 I gave you the4 same link you have peddled for the last week or so, whats wrong don't you like seeing how stupid you are,  look at amazon for the books dealing with muslim atrocities and abuse on the Jews since 635 C.E.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar, Challenger,  et al,
> 
> How interesting --- that you should ask this question.
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's called rational human behaviour when threatened with occupation, oppression, humiliation and ...
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a single minority in the entire mideast not under attack by arab muslims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSEVATION)*
> 
> View attachment 38669​
> Just earlier this weak, I had coffee with a few friends, discussing the issues of the world, and a very similar question emerged.
> Is it more accurate to say radical Muslims _(relates to a person who follows the religion of Islam, a monotheistic Abrahamic religion based on the Quran)_ or should it be radical Islam (Islam is a monotheistic religion _(believe to be revelations from God, as articulated by the 7th Century prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in the Koran)?_
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, on the question of rational behaviors --- a series of decision-making processes that are based on making choices that result in the most optimal level of benefit or utility for the decision makers.  In this case, the Arabs of Palestine have _(for nearly a century)_ consistently made decisions and acted upon them with less than desirable consequences.  The decision made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have resulted in outcomes that have not been the most optimal or beneficial to the greater Palestinian constituency; either politically, economically and culturally.  So I think that applying the concepts of rational behavior to the HoAP which Jihadist activity and asymmetric warfare against the territorial integrity and political independence of the UN recognized State of Israel, is inconsistent with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs for the general constituency and the central theme behind Rational Behavior.
> 
> When one looks at the Muslim _(as the practitioner)_ or Islam _(as the religion practiced)_ relative to the number of number and magnitude of the world wide conflicts in the last five years (since 2011), one notices a distinct common thread.  But the question needs to be asked more bluntly:
> 
> 1. Afghanistan Extreme radical Fundamentalist Muslim terrorist groups (Taliban, Islamic fundamentalist political movement )
> 2. Bosnia Serbian Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholic, Muslims
> 3. Cote d'Ivoire Muslims, Indigenous, Christians
> 4. Cyprus Christians & Muslims
> 5. East Timor Christians & Muslims
> 6. Indonesia, province of Ambon Christians & Muslims
> 7. Kashmir Hindus and Muslims
> 8. Kosovo Serbian Orthodox Christians, Muslims
> 9. Kurdistan Christians, Muslims Assaults on Christians
> 10. Macedonia Macedonian Orthodox Christians & Muslims
> 11. Middle East Israel vs Palestinian Jihadist
> 12. Nigeria Christians, Animists, & Muslims
> 13. Pakistan Suni & Shi'ite Muslims
> 14. Philippines Christians & Muslims
> 15. Chechnya Russian Orthodox Christians, Muslims.
> 16. Serbia, province of Vojvodina Serbian Orthodox & Roman Catholics, Muslims
> 17. Sri Lanka Buddhists & Hindus Tamils, Muslims
> 18. Thailand: Pattani province: Buddists and Muslims
> 19. Bangladesh: Muslim-Hindu (Bengalis) and Buddists (Chakmas)
> 20. Tajikistan: intra-Islamic conflict
> 21. Islamic State conflicts (Syria, Iraq)​
> Is it the Muslim _(as the practitioner)_ that is responsible for these radical conflicts?  Or, is it Islam _(as the religion practiced)_ that spreads the hostility and conflict?  If we adopt the one perspective --- the answer becomes:  The Islamic Koran does not kill people --- Muslims do! In the opposite perspective you see the defense that several prominent Palestinian leaders have adopted:  "The dilemma --- Does Muslim follow what believe believes to be the devine will?   Or, does the Muslims adopt a more ethical interpretation of the Koran; one less violent?
> 
> Have Muslims _(as the practitioners)_ destroyed their ability to discern right from wrong in their activities?  Are the moral values of the Muslim so corrupted that they cannot distinguish right from wrong --- unable to challenge the inspiration of the Koran against evil deeds?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, it remains a rational response when threatened with occupation, oppression, humiliation and brutality on a daily basis. It's what the Polish AK, French FFI and Maquis, Legion Belge, Czech UVOD, Danish Freedom Council, Greek Democratic National Army and ELAS & EDES and many, many more resistance organisations did during WW2. All of them were called Terrorists by the Nazis. The right to resist, as you well know, is enshrined in International Law included in several UN resolutions on the subject, i.e.
> 
> "2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for
> independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from
> colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means,
> including armed struggle" A RES 37 43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights
Click to expand...





 That does not include firing illegal weapons at children and unarmed civilians, nor does it include mining Israeli schools to mass murder thousands of innocent children. And only a lunatic would defend such an action...................


----------



## Mindful




----------



## Mindful

Can any of our resident geniuses answer ONE of these questions:

A Japanese View of the Palestinians if only our Israeli government had the guts to ask these simple questions JEWSNEWS


----------



## rhodescholar

Challenger said:


> Your unsubstantiated assertion,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...the Jews who have faced just that from the arab muslims for the last 1400 years.
> 
> 
> 
> I asked ror a link that substantiated it. It seems you are unable to provide such a link and instead chose to prevaricate, so we can only assume this is just another of your fantasies.
Click to expand...


Here you go scumbag.  Too bad we can't give you a four year college degree on mideast history in a website link, but then again, lazy, unintelligent trash like you was unlikely to ever see the inside of a college classroom.  

Minorities - Oxford Islamic Studies Online

Funny how assholes like this whine how "bad" the pals in the west bank have it, yet claim that the dhimmis of the muslim world for 1,400 years had it so "great."  The lies and hypocrisy that come from the arab muslim apologists are fucking disgusting, as most of them are.


----------



## rhodescholar

Challenger said:


> Nevertheless, it remains a rational response when threatened with occupation, oppression, humiliation and brutality on a daily basis.



The paid liar continues onward...yes, the whole fucking planet is "occupying" muslims...especially those like the yazidis and coptics, who are being ethnically cleansed out of the mideast, or in 100 other places where muslims are rampaging through non-muslim areas.  Total propagandizing fucking idiot.



> It's what the Polish AK, French FFI and Maquis, Legion Belge, Czech UVOD, Danish Freedom Council, Greek Democratic National Army and ELAS & EDES and many, many more resistance organisations did during WW2. All of them were called Terrorists by the Nazis.



Now the idiot asshole is comparing the West and civilized world to the nazis, yeah, you're credible....NOT.



> The right to resist, as you well know, is enshrined in International Law



****, when ISIS beheads women and children, or hamas suicide bombs pizza parlors, who are they "resisting," you fucking lowlife?

Fortunately, the world has just about exhausted its patience for mindless, endless terrorism and war conducted under the falsehoods and lies used by the terrorists and their scumbag apologists like yourself, such as "resistance."

It is a type of resistance alright; a resistance to facts, to rational, acceptable behavior, to modernization and resolution of real and imagined grievances through non-violent means.


----------



## Challenger

Mindful said:


> Can any of our resident geniuses answer ONE of these questions:
> 
> A Japanese View of the Palestinians if only our Israeli government had the guts to ask these simple questions JEWSNEWS



Can't be bothered, it's already been done. 

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available


----------



## Challenger

rhodescholar said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, it remains a rational response when threatened with occupation, oppression, humiliation and brutality on a daily basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The paid liar continues onward...yes, the whole fucking planet is "occupying" muslims...especially those like the yazidis and coptics, who are being ethnically cleansed out of the mideast, or in 100 other places where muslims are rampaging through non-muslim areas.  Total propagandizing fucking idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's what the Polish AK, French FFI and Maquis, Legion Belge, Czech UVOD, Danish Freedom Council, Greek Democratic National Army and ELAS & EDES and many, many more resistance organisations did during WW2. All of them were called Terrorists by the Nazis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now the idiot asshole is comparing the West and civilized world to the nazis, yeah, you're credible....NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to resist, as you well know, is enshrined in International Law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ****, when ISIS beheads women and children, or hamas suicide bombs pizza parlors, who are they "resisting," you fucking lowlife?
> 
> Fortunately, the world has just about exhausted its patience for mindless, endless terrorism and war conducted under the falsehoods and lies used by the terrorists and their scumbag apologists like yourself, such as "resistance."
> 
> It is a type of resistance alright; a resistance to facts, to rational, acceptable behavior, to modernization and resolution of real and imagined grievances through non-violent means.
Click to expand...


Immature Islamophobic ranting that, at best should be placed in the Middle East forum. Nothing to do with Israel Palestine forum, and not worthy of further response.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Betty Saadeh*
> 
> **



Who Are The Palestinians?

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=49


----------



## Challenger

rhodescholar said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your unsubstantiated assertion,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...the Jews who have faced just that from the arab muslims for the last 1400 years.
> 
> 
> 
> I asked ror a link that substantiated it. It seems you are unable to provide such a link and instead chose to prevaricate, so we can only assume this is just another of your fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you go scumbag.  Too bad we can't give you a four year college degree on mideast history in a website link, but then again, lazy, unintelligent trash like you was unlikely to ever see the inside of a college classroom.
> 
> Minorities - Oxford Islamic Studies Online
> 
> Funny how assholes like this whine how "bad" the pals in the west bank have it, yet claim that the dhimmis of the muslim world for 1,400 years had it so "great."  The lies and hypocrisy that come from the arab muslim apologists are fucking disgusting, as most of them are.
Click to expand...


You really ought to read your link before posting it. Thanks, I'll find it very useful along with the links to other related subjects it provides.


----------



## rhodescholar

Challenger said:


> Immature Islamophobic ranting that, at best should be placed in the Middle East forum. Nothing to do with Israel Palestine forum, and not worthy of further response.



Of course not, because not even the insane and stupid can defend the indefensible.  Funny how this non credible turd whines about muslims worldwide acting against "occupation," then when she gets called out on it, suddenly the topic is off-limits LOL.  This forum DESPERATELY needs better pro-arab posters.


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> But still no mention of Palestine by name
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's called rational human behaviour when threatened with occupation, oppression, humiliation and brutality on a daily basis. It's what the Polish AK, French FFI and Maquis, Legion Belge, Czech UVOD, Danish Freedom Council, Greek Democratic National Army and ELAS & EDES and many, many more resistance organisations did during WW2. All of them were called Terrorists by the Nazis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And once again you ignore the Jews who have faced just that from the arab muslims for the last 1400 years. So what the Israeli's are doig according to you is  "rational human behaviour"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link to what HISTORY why don't you read those books you keep linking to ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your unsubstantiated assertion,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...the Jews who have faced just that from the arab muslims for the last 1400 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked ror a link that substantiated it. It seems you are unable to provide such a link and instead chose to prevaricate, so we can only assume this is just another of your fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you the4 same link you have peddled for the last week or so, whats wrong don't you like seeing how stupid you are,  look at amazon for the books dealing with muslim atrocities and abuse on the Jews since 635 C.E.
Click to expand...


So that's a definitive NO you can't provide any evidence to support your assertions. Just as I thought, another Phoney fantasy.


----------



## Mindful

Challenger said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can any of our resident geniuses answer ONE of these questions:
> 
> A Japanese View of the Palestinians if only our Israeli government had the guts to ask these simple questions JEWSNEWS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't be bothered, it's already been done.
> 
> Embedded media from this media site is no longer available
Click to expand...



You're a prat.


----------



## MJB12741

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KKR55w7ow...1600/Abu+Mazen+welcomes+terrorists+130813.png


----------



## rhodescholar

Challenger said:


> You really ought to read your link before posting it. Thanks, I'll find it very useful along with the links to other related subjects it provides.



Did read it ****, and especially enjoyed the parts like this:

"Whereas relations between Muḥammad and his followers and their polytheist neighbors had almost from the outset been tense, if not openly hostile, relations with the Jews and Christians of the Arabian Peninsula passed through phases of understanding and cooperation to growing distrust, animosity, and in some cases confrontation."

And:

"When recognition of his prophethood was denied and when the political loyalty of some Jewish tribes appeared to be in doubt, Muḥammad turned against them until they had been expelled or killed."

And:

" The basic distinction was between polytheists or nonbelievers on the one hand—with whom there was to be no social interaction (e.g., shared food, intermarriage) and who were to be fought until they either converted, entered into a treaty agreeing to protect the rights of Muslims and their clients within their realms, or were killed or enslaved..."

And:

"Muslim jurists tended to translate the submission of non-Muslims to Muslim rule into the requirement of humility and humiliation...This laid down a number of restrictions regarding dress and hairstyle, worship, the construction and repairing of churches and synagogues, the height of houses, the use of animals, and so forth, which served not only to identify the _dhimmīs_, but also to discriminate against them. Shīʿī thought and law went further in that it considered non-Muslims to be ritually impure (_najis_), thereby banning (at least theoretically) social interchange and intermarriage altogether."

And:

"In Egypt, Lebanon, and Iraq, Christian and Jewish minorities were often singled out for harsh treatment, many being forced to pay _jizyah_."

Still talking, chimp?


----------



## ChrisL

Challenger said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, it remains a rational response when threatened with occupation, oppression, humiliation and brutality on a daily basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The paid liar continues onward...yes, the whole fucking planet is "occupying" muslims...especially those like the yazidis and coptics, who are being ethnically cleansed out of the mideast, or in 100 other places where muslims are rampaging through non-muslim areas.  Total propagandizing fucking idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's what the Polish AK, French FFI and Maquis, Legion Belge, Czech UVOD, Danish Freedom Council, Greek Democratic National Army and ELAS & EDES and many, many more resistance organisations did during WW2. All of them were called Terrorists by the Nazis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now the idiot asshole is comparing the West and civilized world to the nazis, yeah, you're credible....NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to resist, as you well know, is enshrined in International Law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ****, when ISIS beheads women and children, or hamas suicide bombs pizza parlors, who are they "resisting," you fucking lowlife?
> 
> Fortunately, the world has just about exhausted its patience for mindless, endless terrorism and war conducted under the falsehoods and lies used by the terrorists and their scumbag apologists like yourself, such as "resistance."
> 
> It is a type of resistance alright; a resistance to facts, to rational, acceptable behavior, to modernization and resolution of real and imagined grievances through non-violent means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immature Islamophobic ranting that, at best should be placed in the Middle East forum. Nothing to do with Israel Palestine forum, and not worthy of further response.
Click to expand...


He's right though.  Don't you agree?  You and your friends here are making excuses for terrorism.  That is horrible, just horrible, and inexcusable.  I think that says a lot about the kind of people you are.


----------



## ChrisL

rhodescholar said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really ought to read your link before posting it. Thanks, I'll find it very useful along with the links to other related subjects it provides.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did read it ****, and especially enjoyed the parts like this:
> 
> "Whereas relations between Muḥammad and his followers and their polytheist neighbors had almost from the outset been tense, if not openly hostile, relations with the Jews and Christians of the Arabian Peninsula passed through phases of understanding and cooperation to growing distrust, animosity, and in some cases confrontation."
> 
> And:
> 
> "When recognition of his prophethood was denied and when the political loyalty of some Jewish tribes appeared to be in doubt, Muḥammad turned against them until they had been expelled or killed."
> 
> And:
> 
> " The basic distinction was between polytheists or nonbelievers on the one hand—with whom there was to be no social interaction (e.g., shared food, intermarriage) and who were to be fought until they either converted, entered into a treaty agreeing to protect the rights of Muslims and their clients within their realms, or were killed or enslaved..."
> 
> And:
> 
> "Muslim jurists tended to translate the submission of non-Muslims to Muslim rule into the requirement of humility and humiliation...This laid down a number of restrictions regarding dress and hairstyle, worship, the construction and repairing of churches and synagogues, the height of houses, the use of animals, and so forth, which served not only to identify the _dhimmīs_, but also to discriminate against them. Shīʿī thought and law went further in that it considered non-Muslims to be ritually impure (_najis_), thereby banning (at least theoretically) social interchange and intermarriage altogether."
> 
> And:
> 
> "In Egypt, Lebanon, and Iraq, Christian and Jewish minorities were often singled out for harsh treatment, many being forced to pay _jizyah_."
> 
> Still talking, chimp?
Click to expand...


Chimp, yes.  A person who would make excuses for Islamic terrorism, which happens pretty much everywhere there is Islam, is very much chimp-like.


----------



## RoccoR

Challenger,  et al,

The use of this particular (Non-Binding) 1982 Resolution (A/RES/37/43) is --- all by itself --- problematic.  Thinking in terms of the reality in 1982, what did we have.  Many Palestinian groups have been involved in politically motivated violence; but none more infamous than the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO).  And the PLO organization had but one purpose --- the "liberation of Palestine" through armed struggle _(Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine; with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.)_.  This of course, meant the disillusionment of the 1948 State of Israel.  In 1982, it was the view of the PLO that the partition of Palestine in 1947, and the establishment of the State of Israel were entirely illegal.  That the UN had no right to allow and then recognize the State of Israel.  In effect the PLO view was that the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Convention, the Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void.  AND the PLO had rejected all solutions which were substitutes, or alternatives, for the total liberation of Palestine.

In 1982, the State of Palestine had not been created yet.

The PLO had not declared Independence until 1988.
​In 1982, this UN Resolution advocated the support of the PLO, a Palestinian Terrorist organization.

Airliner hijackings had been an element in the PLO's strategy since 1967. In retaliation against an attack on an El Al airliner in Athens in 1968, Israel mounted a helicopter raid against the Beirut International Airport, destroying thirteen Arab-owned aircraft. A number of deadly terrorist incidents and guerrilla attacks against Israeli West Bank settlements occurred during the 1970s. In an attempt at hostage-taking, the Black September group, an extremist faction of Al Fatah, killed eleven Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. A climax in the terrorist campaign occurred in March 1978, when Al Fatah raiders landed on the Israeli coast south of Haifa, attacking a bus and cars on the Tel Aviv-Haifa highway. Thirty-five Israelis were killed and at least seventy-four were wounded. In reaction to the highway attack, the IDF launched Operation Litani in April 1978, a three-month expedition to clear the PLO guerrillas from Lebanese border areas. Within one week, the strong IDF force had driven back The PLO and established complete control in southern Lebanon up to the Litani River.
The UN has felt the coercive impact of asymmetric Palestinian political violence and Palestinian hostile behaviors intended or calculated to provoke or alter the politics on the ground, for Palestinian political purposes.  
In 1982, the PLO was sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.​


Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar, Challenger,  et al,
> 
> How interesting --- that you should ask this question.
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's called rational human behaviour when threatened with occupation, oppression, humiliation and ...
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a single minority in the entire mideast not under attack by arab muslims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSEVATION)*
> ​Just earlier this weak, I had coffee with a few friends, discussing the issues of the world, and a very similar question emerged.
> Is it more accurate to say radical Muslims _(relates to a person who follows the religion of Islam, a monotheistic Abrahamic religion based on the Quran)_ or should it be radical Islam (Islam is a monotheistic religion _(believe to be revelations from God, as articulated by the 7th Century prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in the Koran)?_
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, on the question of rational behaviors --- a series of decision-making processes that are based on making choices that result in the most optimal level of benefit or utility for the decision makers.  In this case, the Arabs of Palestine have _(for nearly a century)_ consistently made decisions and acted upon them with less than desirable consequences.  The decision made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have resulted in outcomes that have not been the most optimal or beneficial to the greater Palestinian constituency; either politically, economically and culturally.  So I think that applying the concepts of rational behavior to the HoAP which Jihadist activity and asymmetric warfare against the territorial integrity and political independence of the UN recognized State of Israel, is inconsistent with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs for the general constituency and the central theme behind Rational Behavior.
> 
> When one looks at the Muslim _(as the practitioner)_ or Islam _(as the religion practiced)_ relative to the number of number and magnitude of the world wide conflicts in the last five years (since 2011), one notices a distinct common thread.  But the question needs to be asked more bluntly:
> 
> 1. Afghanistan Extreme radical Fundamentalist Muslim terrorist groups (Taliban, Islamic fundamentalist political movement )
> 2. Bosnia Serbian Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholic, Muslims
> 3. Cote d'Ivoire Muslims, Indigenous, Christians
> 4. Cyprus Christians & Muslims
> 5. East Timor Christians & Muslims
> 6. Indonesia, province of Ambon Christians & Muslims
> 7. Kashmir Hindus and Muslims
> 8. Kosovo Serbian Orthodox Christians, Muslims
> 9. Kurdistan Christians, Muslims Assaults on Christians
> 10. Macedonia Macedonian Orthodox Christians & Muslims
> 11. Middle East Israel vs Palestinian Jihadist
> 12. Nigeria Christians, Animists, & Muslims
> 13. Pakistan Suni & Shi'ite Muslims
> 14. Philippines Christians & Muslims
> 15. Chechnya Russian Orthodox Christians, Muslims.
> 16. Serbia, province of Vojvodina Serbian Orthodox & Roman Catholics, Muslims
> 17. Sri Lanka Buddhists & Hindus Tamils, Muslims
> 18. Thailand: Pattani province: Buddists and Muslims
> 19. Bangladesh: Muslim-Hindu (Bengalis) and Buddists (Chakmas)
> 20. Tajikistan: intra-Islamic conflict
> 21. Islamic State conflicts (Syria, Iraq)​
> Is it the Muslim _(as the practitioner)_ that is responsible for these radical conflicts?  Or, is it Islam _(as the religion practiced)_ that spreads the hostility and conflict?  If we adopt the one perspective --- the answer becomes:  The Islamic Koran does not kill people --- Muslims do! In the opposite perspective you see the defense that several prominent Palestinian leaders have adopted:  "The dilemma --- Does Muslim follow what believe believes to be the devine will?   Or, does the Muslims adopt a more ethical interpretation of the Koran; one less violent?
> 
> Have Muslims _(as the practitioners)_ destroyed their ability to discern right from wrong in their activities?  Are the moral values of the Muslim so corrupted that they cannot distinguish right from wrong --- unable to challenge the inspiration of the Koran against evil deeds?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, it remains a rational response when threatened with occupation, oppression, humiliation and brutality on a daily basis. It's what the Polish AK, French FFI and Maquis, Legion Belge, Czech UVOD, Danish Freedom Council, Greek Democratic National Army and ELAS & EDES and many, many more resistance organisations did during WW2. All of them were called Terrorists by the Nazis. The right to resist, as you well know, is enshrined in International Law included in several UN resolutions on the subject, i.e.
> 
> "2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle" A RES 37 43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

In 1982, the UN had altered its path and reverse its decision on Partition Plan of 1947 [A/RES 181(II)] due to wide spread asymmetric pressures and began to endorse violence or threats of violence by certain Palestinian actors as moral and justified; AND, to condemn an entire segment of population (the Israelis).  The UN had adopted, indirectly, the Arab League policy that:

It is the right of the people to combat foreign occupation and aggression *by whatever means, including armed struggle,* in order to liberate their territories and secure their right to self-determination, and independence and to do so in such a manner as to preserve the territorial integrity of each Arab country, of the foregoing being in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and with the Organization's resolutions.​
The clause "by whatever means, including armed struggle," or the phrase "by all available means"  are adopted by the Arabs through UN endorsement and seen in a number of UN Resolutions, leading up to 1982, including _(but not all inclusive)_:

A/RES/33/24 29 November 1978
A/RES/3382 (XXX) 10 November 1975 
A/RES/3246 (XXIX) 29 November 1974
A/RES/2955 (XXVII) 12 December 1972
A/RES/2649 (XXV) 30 November 1970
The significance of this did not go unnoticed.  The pro-Palestinians activists had manage to intimidate the UN membership through other pressure points.  The collapse of OPEC's pricing structure in December 1980 inspired the Saudis to use $32 per barrel marker, while others oil producing nations use a $36 per barrel benchmark structure.  The US had just come out of the oil crisis really began in 1973. What we see in this crisis is the fact that prices of commodities like oil play a much more vital role in our economy than most think --- and can impact political policy.   In October of 1973 OPEC stopped exports to the US and other western nations to punish the support of Israel, they realized the strong influence that they had on the world through oil. The immediate results of the Oil Crisis were dramatic. Prices of gasoline quadrupled, rising from just 25 cents to over a dollar in just a few months.  OPEC (Arab Nations) meant to punish the western nations that supported Israel, their foe (Israel), in the Yom Kippur War (Arab surprise attack in 1973), and began to really exercise the strong influence that they had on the world through oil and the cartel structure. One of the many results of the embargo was higher oil prices all throughout the western world, particularly in America.  And the US had to find some way to appease the Oil Producing Nations until the US could stabilize the situations and put in place a work-arounds.  This was the backdrop to through this 1970's period --- building toward the 1982 decolonization concepts.

One of the undesirable and unintentional consequences of the wide-spread adoption of "by any means" is its application to the justification of Arab terrorism, as a subset of the concept of: "including armed struggle," --- or --- "by all available means" as it was now being condoned by the UN.   There was an attempt by some nations to off-set and soften this precedent, on the use of force, through the adoption of the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States [A/RES/25/2625 (XXV)] the month before the adoption of [A/RES/2649 (XXV)] but it proved to be ineffective; the damage was done. By a quirk of fate, the UN had supported --- in concept --- the PLO policy that Fedayeen _(irregular insurgents)_ may take any action they deem "necessary," which constitutes the nucleus of the popular, romanticized and glorified Palestinian War of Liberation _(Islamic Martyrs)_. This induced an escalation in the comprehensive use of terrorism which would not fall under the customary international humanitarian laws.   It ever provided some legitimacy for the assassination attempts on the Hashemite King ---- and reset the insurrection of the lawful government to Jordanian Civil War that began in September 1970 and ended in July of 1971.  The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan could little afford to be one of those Governments that give the right to self-determination to the Palestinian peoples --- or recognize any entitlement to overthrow "by whatever means necessary," alien domination.

*(STATUS QUO)*

It is not likely that, with the exception of some radical elements, the Israeli conflict over the Status of the Occupied Territories is going to ignite a wider conflict.  The Arab/Muslim/Islamic world already has more than it can chew.  And it is unlikely that the continuation of the _status quo_ in the occupation Palestinian territories (oPt) _(a total of 6,020 sq km)_ will bring any more political discomfort on Israel ---- than say ---- the Russia's decision to ruled out the return of Crimea _(27, 000 sq km)_, three times larger than the oPt, back to the Ukraine. Russia annexed Crimea on March 18, 2014.   Nor is the People's Republic of China (PRC) ever going to allow the Island of Taiwan to exercise the right of self-determination.  The PRC has threatened the use of military force as a response to any formal declaration of Taiwanese independence.  Israel's actions are not without precedent.       

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Challenger

ChrisL said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, it remains a rational response when threatened with occupation, oppression, humiliation and brutality on a daily basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The paid liar continues onward...yes, the whole fucking planet is "occupying" muslims...especially those like the yazidis and coptics, who are being ethnically cleansed out of the mideast, or in 100 other places where muslims are rampaging through non-muslim areas.  Total propagandizing fucking idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's what the Polish AK, French FFI and Maquis, Legion Belge, Czech UVOD, Danish Freedom Council, Greek Democratic National Army and ELAS & EDES and many, many more resistance organisations did during WW2. All of them were called Terrorists by the Nazis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now the idiot asshole is comparing the West and civilized world to the nazis, yeah, you're credible....NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to resist, as you well know, is enshrined in International Law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ****, when ISIS beheads women and children, or hamas suicide bombs pizza parlors, who are they "resisting," you fucking lowlife?
> 
> Fortunately, the world has just about exhausted its patience for mindless, endless terrorism and war conducted under the falsehoods and lies used by the terrorists and their scumbag apologists like yourself, such as "resistance."
> 
> It is a type of resistance alright; a resistance to facts, to rational, acceptable behavior, to modernization and resolution of real and imagined grievances through non-violent means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immature Islamophobic ranting that, at best should be placed in the Middle East forum. Nothing to do with Israel Palestine forum, and not worthy of further response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's right though.  Don't you agree?  You and your friends here are making excuses for terrorism.  That is horrible, just horrible, and inexcusable.  I think that says a lot about the kind of people you are.
Click to expand...


No he's not. That's the point. He's trying to conflate Islamist fanatics in Syria, Iraq,Afghanistan etc. (who only exist because of continuous Western meddling in the M.E.) with a legitimate struggle of a brutalised, occupied and colonised people, the Palestinians, to throw off their Zionist colonisers. His whole premise has nothing to do with the Israel palestine conflict, he's just venting hatred of Muslims in general.

Remember, the people that flew planes into the World trade Centre were Saudi Arabians, America's friend and ally and partner in peace, not Palestinians. So what if a few of them were filmed celebrating the event. After 60 years of America siding with Israel, they can be forgiven a wry, "now you know how we feel" moment.


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> They came from Europe, settled an area of the Middle East then evicted the Christians and Muslims that lived in that area and took the land that the non-Jews  had lived on for thousands of years through armed conflict.  That is an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't
> 
> They immigrated to the region, got attacked by 5 Arab armies INCLUDING the Palestinian Arabs, and then expelled some of the Palestinians, who were trying to expel the Jews..
> If a European Jewish army came to Palestine through a military offensive, THAT'S an invasion. But that's not what happened,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this your only answer to reality.......................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's my rational response when I read B.S. to call it what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you be rational when you support two ideologies that accept mass murder of innocents to spread their filth around the world. Both Marxism and islam have the worst track records for mass murder, genocides and ethnic cleansing.
> 
> Don't forget that it is only your opinion and nothing else that says reality and truth are bullshit, to the enlightened non brainwashed it is truth and reality
Click to expand...


----------



## ChrisL

Challenger said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, it remains a rational response when threatened with occupation, oppression, humiliation and brutality on a daily basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The paid liar continues onward...yes, the whole fucking planet is "occupying" muslims...especially those like the yazidis and coptics, who are being ethnically cleansed out of the mideast, or in 100 other places where muslims are rampaging through non-muslim areas.  Total propagandizing fucking idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's what the Polish AK, French FFI and Maquis, Legion Belge, Czech UVOD, Danish Freedom Council, Greek Democratic National Army and ELAS & EDES and many, many more resistance organisations did during WW2. All of them were called Terrorists by the Nazis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now the idiot asshole is comparing the West and civilized world to the nazis, yeah, you're credible....NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to resist, as you well know, is enshrined in International Law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ****, when ISIS beheads women and children, or hamas suicide bombs pizza parlors, who are they "resisting," you fucking lowlife?
> 
> Fortunately, the world has just about exhausted its patience for mindless, endless terrorism and war conducted under the falsehoods and lies used by the terrorists and their scumbag apologists like yourself, such as "resistance."
> 
> It is a type of resistance alright; a resistance to facts, to rational, acceptable behavior, to modernization and resolution of real and imagined grievances through non-violent means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immature Islamophobic ranting that, at best should be placed in the Middle East forum. Nothing to do with Israel Palestine forum, and not worthy of further response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's right though.  Don't you agree?  You and your friends here are making excuses for terrorism.  That is horrible, just horrible, and inexcusable.  I think that says a lot about the kind of people you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he's not. That's the point. He's trying to conflate Islamist fanatics in Syria, Iraq,Afghanistan etc. (who only exist because of continuous Western meddling in the M.E.) with a legitimate struggle of a brutalised, occupied and colonised people, the Palestinians, to throw off their Zionist colonisers. His whole premise has nothing to do with the Israel palestine conflict, he's just venting hatred of Muslims in general.
> 
> Remember, the people that flew planes into the World trade Centre were Saudi Arabians, America's friend and ally and partner in peace, not Palestinians. So what if a few of them were filmed celebrating the event. After 60 years of America siding with Israel, they can be forgiven a wry, "now you know how we feel" moment.
Click to expand...


So . . .  basically your response is "so what?"  Lol.  Are you a Muslim?


----------



## Challenger

rhodescholar said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immature Islamophobic ranting that, at best should be placed in the Middle East forum. Nothing to do with Israel Palestine forum, and not worthy of further response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, because not even the insane and stupid can defend the indefensible.  Funny how this non credible turd whines about muslims worldwide acting against "occupation," then when she gets called out on it, suddenly the topic is off-limits LOL.  This forum DESPERATELY needs better pro-arab posters.
Click to expand...


Not off limits, just in the wrong forum.


----------



## Challenger

rhodescholar said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really ought to read your link before posting it. Thanks, I'll find it very useful along with the links to other related subjects it provides.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did read it ****, and especially enjoyed the parts like this:
> 
> "Whereas relations between Muḥammad and his followers and their polytheist neighbors had almost from the outset been tense, if not openly hostile, relations with the Jews and Christians of the Arabian Peninsula passed through phases of understanding and cooperation to growing distrust, animosity, and in some cases confrontation."
> 
> And:
> 
> "When recognition of his prophethood was denied and when the political loyalty of some Jewish tribes appeared to be in doubt, Muḥammad turned against them until they had been expelled or killed."
> 
> And:
> 
> " The basic distinction was between polytheists or nonbelievers on the one hand—with whom there was to be no social interaction (e.g., shared food, intermarriage) and who were to be fought until they either converted, entered into a treaty agreeing to protect the rights of Muslims and their clients within their realms, or were killed or enslaved..."
> 
> And:
> 
> "Muslim jurists tended to translate the submission of non-Muslims to Muslim rule into the requirement of humility and humiliation...This laid down a number of restrictions regarding dress and hairstyle, worship, the construction and repairing of churches and synagogues, the height of houses, the use of animals, and so forth, which served not only to identify the _dhimmīs_, but also to discriminate against them. Shīʿī thought and law went further in that it considered non-Muslims to be ritually impure (_najis_), thereby banning (at least theoretically) social interchange and intermarriage altogether."
> 
> And:
> 
> "In Egypt, Lebanon, and Iraq, Christian and Jewish minorities were often singled out for harsh treatment, many being forced to pay _jizyah_."
> 
> Still talking, chimp?
Click to expand...


So you claim to have reead the whole article and from that cherry picked 5 paragraphs out of context sentances comprising 249 words from an essay 15 pages long and containing 8,069 words; very "scholarly" Cecil would  be turning in his grave in shame.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And once again you ignore the Jews who have faced just that from the arab muslims for the last 1400 years. So what the Israeli's are doig according to you is  "rational human behaviour"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link to what HISTORY why don't you read those books you keep linking to ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your unsubstantiated assertion,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...the Jews who have faced just that from the arab muslims for the last 1400 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked ror a link that substantiated it. It seems you are unable to provide such a link and instead chose to prevaricate, so we can only assume this is just another of your fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you the4 same link you have peddled for the last week or so, whats wrong don't you like seeing how stupid you are,  look at amazon for the books dealing with muslim atrocities and abuse on the Jews since 635 C.E.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that's a definitive NO you can't provide any evidence to support your assertions. Just as I thought, another Phoney fantasy.
Click to expand...




 I gave you the link AMAZON  just as you did.    Does this mean that your replies also show that you don't have any evidence to support your claims when you use amazon as a  link


----------



## ChrisL

Challenger said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really ought to read your link before posting it. Thanks, I'll find it very useful along with the links to other related subjects it provides.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did read it ****, and especially enjoyed the parts like this:
> 
> "Whereas relations between Muḥammad and his followers and their polytheist neighbors had almost from the outset been tense, if not openly hostile, relations with the Jews and Christians of the Arabian Peninsula passed through phases of understanding and cooperation to growing distrust, animosity, and in some cases confrontation."
> 
> And:
> 
> "When recognition of his prophethood was denied and when the political loyalty of some Jewish tribes appeared to be in doubt, Muḥammad turned against them until they had been expelled or killed."
> 
> And:
> 
> " The basic distinction was between polytheists or nonbelievers on the one hand—with whom there was to be no social interaction (e.g., shared food, intermarriage) and who were to be fought until they either converted, entered into a treaty agreeing to protect the rights of Muslims and their clients within their realms, or were killed or enslaved..."
> 
> And:
> 
> "Muslim jurists tended to translate the submission of non-Muslims to Muslim rule into the requirement of humility and humiliation...This laid down a number of restrictions regarding dress and hairstyle, worship, the construction and repairing of churches and synagogues, the height of houses, the use of animals, and so forth, which served not only to identify the _dhimmīs_, but also to discriminate against them. Shīʿī thought and law went further in that it considered non-Muslims to be ritually impure (_najis_), thereby banning (at least theoretically) social interchange and intermarriage altogether."
> 
> And:
> 
> "In Egypt, Lebanon, and Iraq, Christian and Jewish minorities were often singled out for harsh treatment, many being forced to pay _jizyah_."
> 
> Still talking, chimp?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you claim to have reead the whole article and from that cherry picked 5 paragraphs out of context sentances comprising 249 words from an essay 15 pages long and containing 8,069 words; very "scholarly" Cecil would  be turning in his grave in shame.
Click to expand...


Soooo . . . are you a Muslim?    It's really a simple yes or no question.  Not much thought required to answer.  Why are you avoiding it?


----------



## ChrisL

Challenger said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immature Islamophobic ranting that, at best should be placed in the Middle East forum. Nothing to do with Israel Palestine forum, and not worthy of further response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, because not even the insane and stupid can defend the indefensible.  Funny how this non credible turd whines about muslims worldwide acting against "occupation," then when she gets called out on it, suddenly the topic is off-limits LOL.  This forum DESPERATELY needs better pro-arab posters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not off limits, just in the wrong forum.
Click to expand...


No it is not.  It is completely topical to this thread.  Just because you don't like what he has to say does not mean he doesn't have valid points, because he does.


----------



## ChrisL

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link to what HISTORY why don't you read those books you keep linking to ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your unsubstantiated assertion,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...the Jews who have faced just that from the arab muslims for the last 1400 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked ror a link that substantiated it. It seems you are unable to provide such a link and instead chose to prevaricate, so we can only assume this is just another of your fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you the4 same link you have peddled for the last week or so, whats wrong don't you like seeing how stupid you are,  look at amazon for the books dealing with muslim atrocities and abuse on the Jews since 635 C.E.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that's a definitive NO you can't provide any evidence to support your assertions. Just as I thought, another Phoney fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you the link AMAZON  just as you did.    Does this mean that your replies also show that you don't have any evidence to support your claims when you use amazon as a  link
Click to expand...


I know it!    Isn't it funny how they disregard links and sources that disagree with their brainwashed interpretation of things?


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't
> 
> They immigrated to the region, got attacked by 5 Arab armies INCLUDING the Palestinian Arabs, and then expelled some of the Palestinians, who were trying to expel the Jews..
> If a European Jewish army came to Palestine through a military offensive, THAT'S an invasion. But that's not what happened,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this your only answer to reality.......................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's my rational response when I read B.S. to call it what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you be rational when you support two ideologies that accept mass murder of innocents to spread their filth around the world. Both Marxism and islam have the worst track records for mass murder, genocides and ethnic cleansing.
> 
> Don't forget that it is only your opinion and nothing else that says reality and truth are bullshit, to the enlightened non brainwashed it is truth and reality
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...






 Is this your only answer to reality.......................


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Betty Saadeh*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians?
> 
> http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=49
Click to expand...

So you link to a David Whorowitz site.


----------



## MJB12741

ChrisL said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link to what HISTORY why don't you read those books you keep linking to ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your unsubstantiated assertion,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...the Jews who have faced just that from the arab muslims for the last 1400 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked ror a link that substantiated it. It seems you are unable to provide such a link and instead chose to prevaricate, so we can only assume this is just another of your fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you the4 same link you have peddled for the last week or so, whats wrong don't you like seeing how stupid you are,  look at amazon for the books dealing with muslim atrocities and abuse on the Jews since 635 C.E.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that's a definitive NO you can't provide any evidence to support your assertions. Just as I thought, another Phoney fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you the link AMAZON  just as you did.    Does this mean that your replies also show that you don't have any evidence to support your claims when you use amazon as a  link
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know it!    Isn't it funny how they disregard links and sources that disagree with their brainwashed interpretation of things?
Click to expand...


Just goes to prove one need not necessarily have to be a Palestinian to have a Palestinian mentality.


----------



## 50_RiaL

Challenger said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, it remains a rational response when threatened with occupation, oppression, humiliation and brutality on a daily basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The paid liar continues onward...yes, the whole fucking planet is "occupying" muslims...especially those like the yazidis and coptics, who are being ethnically cleansed out of the mideast, or in 100 other places where muslims are rampaging through non-muslim areas.  Total propagandizing fucking idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's what the Polish AK, French FFI and Maquis, Legion Belge, Czech UVOD, Danish Freedom Council, Greek Democratic National Army and ELAS & EDES and many, many more resistance organisations did during WW2. All of them were called Terrorists by the Nazis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now the idiot asshole is comparing the West and civilized world to the nazis, yeah, you're credible....NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to resist, as you well know, is enshrined in International Law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ****, when ISIS beheads women and children, or hamas suicide bombs pizza parlors, who are they "resisting," you fucking lowlife?
> 
> Fortunately, the world has just about exhausted its patience for mindless, endless terrorism and war conducted under the falsehoods and lies used by the terrorists and their scumbag apologists like yourself, such as "resistance."
> 
> It is a type of resistance alright; a resistance to facts, to rational, acceptable behavior, to modernization and resolution of real and imagined grievances through non-violent means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immature Islamophobic ranting that, at best should be placed in the Middle East forum. Nothing to do with Israel Palestine forum, and not worthy of further response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's right though.  Don't you agree?  You and your friends here are making excuses for terrorism.  That is horrible, just horrible, and inexcusable.  I think that says a lot about the kind of people you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he's not. That's the point. He's trying to conflate Islamist fanatics in Syria, Iraq,Afghanistan etc. (who only exist because of continuous Western meddling in the M.E.) with a legitimate struggle of a brutalised, occupied and colonised people, the Palestinians, to throw off their Zionist colonisers. His whole premise has nothing to do with the Israel palestine conflict, he's just venting hatred of Muslims in general.
> 
> Remember, the people that flew planes into the World trade Centre were Saudi Arabians, America's friend and ally and partner in peace, not Palestinians. So what if a few of them were filmed celebrating the event. After 60 years of America siding with Israel, they can be forgiven a wry, "now you know how we feel" moment.
Click to expand...


In 2003, the Arab "Palestinians" named a square in Jenin after the Iraqi suicide bomber, Ali Ja'far al Na'mani, who killed four American soldiers in Southern Iraq.

"We want to honor the brave Iraqi officer who carried out the first suicide attack against the American and British occupiers," a senior Palestinian official in Jenin told The Jerusalem Post. "We hope there will be more suicide operations in the coming days."


----------



## P F Tinmore

50_RiaL said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, it remains a rational response when threatened with occupation, oppression, humiliation and brutality on a daily basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The paid liar continues onward...yes, the whole fucking planet is "occupying" muslims...especially those like the yazidis and coptics, who are being ethnically cleansed out of the mideast, or in 100 other places where muslims are rampaging through non-muslim areas.  Total propagandizing fucking idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's what the Polish AK, French FFI and Maquis, Legion Belge, Czech UVOD, Danish Freedom Council, Greek Democratic National Army and ELAS & EDES and many, many more resistance organisations did during WW2. All of them were called Terrorists by the Nazis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now the idiot asshole is comparing the West and civilized world to the nazis, yeah, you're credible....NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to resist, as you well know, is enshrined in International Law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ****, when ISIS beheads women and children, or hamas suicide bombs pizza parlors, who are they "resisting," you fucking lowlife?
> 
> Fortunately, the world has just about exhausted its patience for mindless, endless terrorism and war conducted under the falsehoods and lies used by the terrorists and their scumbag apologists like yourself, such as "resistance."
> 
> It is a type of resistance alright; a resistance to facts, to rational, acceptable behavior, to modernization and resolution of real and imagined grievances through non-violent means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immature Islamophobic ranting that, at best should be placed in the Middle East forum. Nothing to do with Israel Palestine forum, and not worthy of further response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's right though.  Don't you agree?  You and your friends here are making excuses for terrorism.  That is horrible, just horrible, and inexcusable.  I think that says a lot about the kind of people you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he's not. That's the point. He's trying to conflate Islamist fanatics in Syria, Iraq,Afghanistan etc. (who only exist because of continuous Western meddling in the M.E.) with a legitimate struggle of a brutalised, occupied and colonised people, the Palestinians, to throw off their Zionist colonisers. His whole premise has nothing to do with the Israel palestine conflict, he's just venting hatred of Muslims in general.
> 
> Remember, the people that flew planes into the World trade Centre were Saudi Arabians, America's friend and ally and partner in peace, not Palestinians. So what if a few of them were filmed celebrating the event. After 60 years of America siding with Israel, they can be forgiven a wry, "now you know how we feel" moment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 2003, the Arab "Palestinians" named a square in Jenin after the Iraqi suicide bomber, Ali Ja'far al Na'mani, who killed four American soldiers in Southern Iraq.
> 
> "We want to honor the brave Iraqi officer who carried out the first suicide attack against the American and British occupiers," a senior Palestinian official in Jenin told The Jerusalem Post. "We hope there will be more suicide operations in the coming days."
Click to expand...

But the war machine in the US does not care who dies as long as they get our money.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Betty Saadeh*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians?
> 
> http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=49
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you link to a David Whorowitz site.
Click to expand...


Is there something in that article that you find to be incorrect ??


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Betty Saadeh*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians?
> 
> http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=49
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you link to a David Whorowitz site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there something in that article that you find to be incorrect ??
Click to expand...

He couldn't get the first sentence out without name calling. Whenever I see that I just close the Page. It is not worth reading.


----------



## rhodescholar

ChrisL said:


> I know it!    Isn't it funny how they disregard links and sources that disagree with their brainwashed interpretation of things?



A lot of them are mentally ill, haters of jews, muslims, or all 3.  Notice they never comment or post on other conflicts/situations, only on Israel.

For instance, the 40-year assad family dynasty regime severely oppressed and murdered the 85% of syria that was sunni, but not one of these pieces of shit ever complained an iota about it.  

As soon as one of these turds proclaims they whine on behalf of the pals because they are "human rights supporters," the first thing to ask them is what other issues have they ever posted on?  What is their posting history regarding the horrendous treatment of the syrian sunnis by assad?  Never a single word.  assad even bombed the shit out of the pals in Latakia, killing hundreds - but not one single one of these fucking pieces of shit said a word.

It is all garbage, just to attack jews.


----------



## ChrisL

rhodescholar said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know it!    Isn't it funny how they disregard links and sources that disagree with their brainwashed interpretation of things?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of them are mentally ill, haters of jews, muslims, or all 3.  Notice they never comment or post on other conflicts/situations, only on Israel.
> 
> For instance, the 40-year assad family dynasty regime severely oppressed and murdered the 85% of syria that was sunni, but not one of these pieces of shit ever complained an iota about it.
> 
> As soon as one of these turds proclaims they whine on behalf of the pals because they are "human rights supporters," the first thing to ask them is what other issues have they ever posted on?  What is their posting history regarding the horrendous treatment of the syrian sunnis by assad?  Never a single word.  assad even bombed the shit out of the pals in Latakia, killing hundreds - but not one single one of these fucking pieces of shit said a word.
> 
> It is all garbage, just to attack jews.
Click to expand...


Oh yes, I've noticed.  I have a feeling that a lot of these people couldn't really care less about the "people" of Palestine.  They only like that they give Israelis a difficult time.


----------



## ChrisL

50_RiaL said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, it remains a rational response when threatened with occupation, oppression, humiliation and brutality on a daily basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The paid liar continues onward...yes, the whole fucking planet is "occupying" muslims...especially those like the yazidis and coptics, who are being ethnically cleansed out of the mideast, or in 100 other places where muslims are rampaging through non-muslim areas.  Total propagandizing fucking idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's what the Polish AK, French FFI and Maquis, Legion Belge, Czech UVOD, Danish Freedom Council, Greek Democratic National Army and ELAS & EDES and many, many more resistance organisations did during WW2. All of them were called Terrorists by the Nazis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now the idiot asshole is comparing the West and civilized world to the nazis, yeah, you're credible....NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to resist, as you well know, is enshrined in International Law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ****, when ISIS beheads women and children, or hamas suicide bombs pizza parlors, who are they "resisting," you fucking lowlife?
> 
> Fortunately, the world has just about exhausted its patience for mindless, endless terrorism and war conducted under the falsehoods and lies used by the terrorists and their scumbag apologists like yourself, such as "resistance."
> 
> It is a type of resistance alright; a resistance to facts, to rational, acceptable behavior, to modernization and resolution of real and imagined grievances through non-violent means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immature Islamophobic ranting that, at best should be placed in the Middle East forum. Nothing to do with Israel Palestine forum, and not worthy of further response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's right though.  Don't you agree?  You and your friends here are making excuses for terrorism.  That is horrible, just horrible, and inexcusable.  I think that says a lot about the kind of people you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he's not. That's the point. He's trying to conflate Islamist fanatics in Syria, Iraq,Afghanistan etc. (who only exist because of continuous Western meddling in the M.E.) with a legitimate struggle of a brutalised, occupied and colonised people, the Palestinians, to throw off their Zionist colonisers. His whole premise has nothing to do with the Israel palestine conflict, he's just venting hatred of Muslims in general.
> 
> Remember, the people that flew planes into the World trade Centre were Saudi Arabians, America's friend and ally and partner in peace, not Palestinians. So what if a few of them were filmed celebrating the event. After 60 years of America siding with Israel, they can be forgiven a wry, "now you know how we feel" moment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 2003, the Arab "Palestinians" named a square in Jenin after the Iraqi suicide bomber, Ali Ja'far al Na'mani, who killed four American soldiers in Southern Iraq.
> 
> "We want to honor the brave Iraqi officer who carried out the first suicide attack against the American and British occupiers," a senior Palestinian official in Jenin told The Jerusalem Post. "We hope there will be more suicide operations in the coming days."
Click to expand...


How disgusting is that?  And people defend this crap.  I can't even believe it.  The people who post here and defend this terrorist nation must be very hateful and miserable people, is all I can figure.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Lamis Deek *

**
*AminHussain*

**
*Q&A*

**


----------



## Challenger

RoccoR said:


> Challenger,  et al,
> 
> The use of this particular (Non-Binding) 1982 Resolution (A/RES/37/43) is --- all by itself --- problematic.  Thinking in terms of the reality in 1982, what did we have.  Many Palestinian groups have been involved in politically motivated violence; but none more infamous than the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO).  And the PLO organization had but one purpose --- the "liberation of Palestine" through armed struggle _(Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine; with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.)_.  This of course, meant the disillusionment of the 1948 State of Israel.  In 1982, it was the view of the PLO that the partition of Palestine in 1947, and the establishment of the State of Israel were entirely illegal.  That the UN had no right to allow and then recognize the State of Israel.  In effect the PLO view was that the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Convention, the Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void.  AND the PLO had rejected all solutions which were substitutes, or alternatives, for the total liberation of Palestine.
> 
> In 1982, the State of Palestine had not been created yet.
> 
> The PLO had not declared Independence until 1988.
> ​In 1982, this UN Resolution advocated the support of the PLO, a Palestinian Terrorist organization.
> 
> Airliner hijackings had been an element in the PLO's strategy since 1967. In retaliation against an attack on an El Al airliner in Athens in 1968, Israel mounted a helicopter raid against the Beirut International Airport, destroying thirteen Arab-owned aircraft. A number of deadly terrorist incidents and guerrilla attacks against Israeli West Bank settlements occurred during the 1970s. In an attempt at hostage-taking, the Black September group, an extremist faction of Al Fatah, killed eleven Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. A climax in the terrorist campaign occurred in March 1978, when Al Fatah raiders landed on the Israeli coast south of Haifa, attacking a bus and cars on the Tel Aviv-Haifa highway. Thirty-five Israelis were killed and at least seventy-four were wounded. In reaction to the highway attack, the IDF launched Operation Litani in April 1978, a three-month expedition to clear the PLO guerrillas from Lebanese border areas. Within one week, the strong IDF force had driven back The PLO and established complete control in southern Lebanon up to the Litani River.
> The UN has felt the coercive impact of asymmetric Palestinian political violence and Palestinian hostile behaviors intended or calculated to provoke or alter the politics on the ground, for Palestinian political purposes.
> In 1982, the PLO was sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.​
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar, Challenger,  et al,
> 
> How interesting --- that you should ask this question.
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's called rational human behaviour when threatened with occupation, oppression, humiliation and ...
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a single minority in the entire mideast not under attack by arab muslims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSEVATION)*
> ​Just earlier this weak, I had coffee with a few friends, discussing the issues of the world, and a very similar question emerged.
> Is it more accurate to say radical Muslims _(relates to a person who follows the religion of Islam, a monotheistic Abrahamic religion based on the Quran)_ or should it be radical Islam (Islam is a monotheistic religion _(believe to be revelations from God, as articulated by the 7th Century prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in the Koran)?_
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, on the question of rational behaviors --- a series of decision-making processes that are based on making choices that result in the most optimal level of benefit or utility for the decision makers.  In this case, the Arabs of Palestine have _(for nearly a century)_ consistently made decisions and acted upon them with less than desirable consequences.  The decision made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have resulted in outcomes that have not been the most optimal or beneficial to the greater Palestinian constituency; either politically, economically and culturally.  So I think that applying the concepts of rational behavior to the HoAP which Jihadist activity and asymmetric warfare against the territorial integrity and political independence of the UN recognized State of Israel, is inconsistent with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs for the general constituency and the central theme behind Rational Behavior.
> 
> When one looks at the Muslim _(as the practitioner)_ or Islam _(as the religion practiced)_ relative to the number of number and magnitude of the world wide conflicts in the last five years (since 2011), one notices a distinct common thread.  But the question needs to be asked more bluntly:
> 
> 1. Afghanistan Extreme radical Fundamentalist Muslim terrorist groups (Taliban, Islamic fundamentalist political movement )
> 2. Bosnia Serbian Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholic, Muslims
> 3. Cote d'Ivoire Muslims, Indigenous, Christians
> 4. Cyprus Christians & Muslims
> 5. East Timor Christians & Muslims
> 6. Indonesia, province of Ambon Christians & Muslims
> 7. Kashmir Hindus and Muslims
> 8. Kosovo Serbian Orthodox Christians, Muslims
> 9. Kurdistan Christians, Muslims Assaults on Christians
> 10. Macedonia Macedonian Orthodox Christians & Muslims
> 11. Middle East Israel vs Palestinian Jihadist
> 12. Nigeria Christians, Animists, & Muslims
> 13. Pakistan Suni & Shi'ite Muslims
> 14. Philippines Christians & Muslims
> 15. Chechnya Russian Orthodox Christians, Muslims.
> 16. Serbia, province of Vojvodina Serbian Orthodox & Roman Catholics, Muslims
> 17. Sri Lanka Buddhists & Hindus Tamils, Muslims
> 18. Thailand: Pattani province: Buddists and Muslims
> 19. Bangladesh: Muslim-Hindu (Bengalis) and Buddists (Chakmas)
> 20. Tajikistan: intra-Islamic conflict
> 21. Islamic State conflicts (Syria, Iraq)​
> Is it the Muslim _(as the practitioner)_ that is responsible for these radical conflicts?  Or, is it Islam _(as the religion practiced)_ that spreads the hostility and conflict?  If we adopt the one perspective --- the answer becomes:  The Islamic Koran does not kill people --- Muslims do! In the opposite perspective you see the defense that several prominent Palestinian leaders have adopted:  "The dilemma --- Does Muslim follow what believe believes to be the devine will?   Or, does the Muslims adopt a more ethical interpretation of the Koran; one less violent?
> 
> Have Muslims _(as the practitioners)_ destroyed their ability to discern right from wrong in their activities?  Are the moral values of the Muslim so corrupted that they cannot distinguish right from wrong --- unable to challenge the inspiration of the Koran against evil deeds?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, it remains a rational response when threatened with occupation, oppression, humiliation and brutality on a daily basis. It's what the Polish AK, French FFI and Maquis, Legion Belge, Czech UVOD, Danish Freedom Council, Greek Democratic National Army and ELAS & EDES and many, many more resistance organisations did during WW2. All of them were called Terrorists by the Nazis. The right to resist, as you well know, is enshrined in International Law included in several UN resolutions on the subject, i.e.
> 
> "2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle" A RES 37 43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In 1982, the UN had altered its path and reverse its decision on Partition Plan of 1947 [A/RES 181(II)] due to wide spread asymmetric pressures and began to endorse violence or threats of violence by certain Palestinian actors as moral and justified; AND, to condemn an entire segment of population (the Israelis).  The UN had adopted, indirectly, the Arab League policy that:
> 
> It is the right of the people to combat foreign occupation and aggression *by whatever means, including armed struggle,* in order to liberate their territories and secure their right to self-determination, and independence and to do so in such a manner as to preserve the territorial integrity of each Arab country, of the foregoing being in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and with the Organization's resolutions.​
> The clause "by whatever means, including armed struggle," or the phrase "by all available means"  are adopted by the Arabs through UN endorsement and seen in a number of UN Resolutions, leading up to 1982, including _(but not all inclusive)_:
> 
> A/RES/33/24 29 November 1978
> A/RES/3382 (XXX) 10 November 1975
> A/RES/3246 (XXIX) 29 November 1974
> A/RES/2955 (XXVII) 12 December 1972
> A/RES/2649 (XXV) 30 November 1970
> The significance of this did not go unnoticed.  The pro-Palestinians activists had manage to intimidate the UN membership through other pressure points.  The collapse of OPEC's pricing structure in December 1980 inspired the Saudis to use $32 per barrel marker, while others oil producing nations use a $36 per barrel benchmark structure.  The US had just come out of the oil crisis really began in 1973. What we see in this crisis is the fact that prices of commodities like oil play a much more vital role in our economy than most think --- and can impact political policy.   In October of 1973 OPEC stopped exports to the US and other western nations to punish the support of Israel, they realized the strong influence that they had on the world through oil. The immediate results of the Oil Crisis were dramatic. Prices of gasoline quadrupled, rising from just 25 cents to over a dollar in just a few months.  OPEC (Arab Nations) meant to punish the western nations that supported Israel, their foe (Israel), in the Yom Kippur War (Arab surprise attack in 1973), and began to really exercise the strong influence that they had on the world through oil and the cartel structure. One of the many results of the embargo was higher oil prices all throughout the western world, particularly in America.  And the US had to find some way to appease the Oil Producing Nations until the US could stabilize the situations and put in place a work-arounds.  This was the backdrop to through this 1970's period --- building toward the 1982 decolonization concepts.
> 
> One of the undesirable and unintentional consequences of the wide-spread adoption of "by any means" is its application to the justification of Arab terrorism, as a subset of the concept of: "including armed struggle," --- or --- "by all available means" as it was now being condoned by the UN.   There was an attempt by some nations to off-set and soften this precedent, on the use of force, through the adoption of the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States [A/RES/25/2625 (XXV)] the month before the adoption of [A/RES/2649 (XXV)] but it proved to be ineffective; the damage was done. By a quirk of fate, the UN had supported --- in concept --- the PLO policy that Fedayeen _(irregular insurgents)_ may take any action they deem "necessary," which constitutes the nucleus of the popular, romanticized and glorified Palestinian War of Liberation _(Islamic Martyrs)_. This induced an escalation in the comprehensive use of terrorism which would not fall under the customary international humanitarian laws.   It ever provided some legitimacy for the assassination attempts on the Hashemite King ---- and reset the insurrection of the lawful government to Jordanian Civil War that began in September 1970 and ended in July of 1971.  The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan could little afford to be one of those Governments that give the right to self-determination to the Palestinian peoples --- or recognize any entitlement to overthrow "by whatever means necessary," alien domination.
> 
> *(STATUS QUO)*
> 
> It is not likely that, with the exception of some radical elements, the Israeli conflict over the Status of the Occupied Territories is going to ignite a wider conflict.  The Arab/Muslim/Islamic world already has more than it can chew.  And it is unlikely that the continuation of the _status quo_ in the occupation Palestinian territories (oPt) _(a total of 6,020 sq km)_ will bring any more political discomfort on Israel ---- than say ---- the Russia's decision to ruled out the return of Crimea _(27, 000 sq km)_, three times larger than the oPt, back to the Ukraine. Russia annexed Crimea on March 18, 2014.   Nor is the People's Republic of China (PRC) ever going to allow the Island of Taiwan to exercise the right of self-determination.  The PRC has threatened the use of military force as a response to any formal declaration of Taiwanese independence.  Israel's actions are not without precedent.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Nice bit of nuanced context thrown in there, ignoring the pressures put upon the original member states by the US to vote to recognise the 1948 partition and subsequently the state of Israel, but that's top be expected. None of the above, however invalidates the right to armed resistance against a despotic regime imposed against the will of the people. Remember this?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. *But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-*"


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link to what HISTORY why don't you read those books you keep linking to ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your unsubstantiated assertion,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...the Jews who have faced just that from the arab muslims for the last 1400 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked ror a link that substantiated it. It seems you are unable to provide such a link and instead chose to prevaricate, so we can only assume this is just another of your fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you the4 same link you have peddled for the last week or so, whats wrong don't you like seeing how stupid you are,  look at amazon for the books dealing with muslim atrocities and abuse on the Jews since 635 C.E.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that's a definitive NO you can't provide any evidence to support your assertions. Just as I thought, another Phoney fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you the link AMAZON  just as you did.    Does this mean that your replies also show that you don't have any evidence to support your claims when you use amazon as a  link
Click to expand...


You didn't provide ANY links; neither to Amazon nor anywhere else. Obviously, not taking your meds has a negative effect on your memory and cognitive abilities. Poor you.


----------



## Challenger

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Betty Saadeh*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians?
> 
> http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=49
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you link to a David Whorowitz site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there something in that article that you find to be incorrect ??
Click to expand...


Most of it. It's just another rehash of Joan Peters' discredited drivel, regurgitated by the shyster Alan Derschowitz and subsquently used by lazy, simple minded right-wingers to
 push their agenda.


----------



## ChrisL

Challenger said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Betty Saadeh*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians?
> 
> http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=49
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you link to a David Whorowitz site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there something in that article that you find to be incorrect ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of it. It's just another rehash of Joan Peters' discredited drivel, regurgitated by the shyster Alan Derschowitz and subsquently used by lazy, simple minded right-wingers to
> push their agenda.
Click to expand...


Who are the Palestinians?  Terrorists full of hate.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Betty Saadeh*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians?
> 
> http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=49
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you link to a David Whorowitz site.
Click to expand...



Isn't it funny how the honorable P F Tinmore critisizes others for "name calling."  Seriously, ya gotta love him for all the laughs he gives us.


----------



## toastman

Challenger said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Betty Saadeh*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians?
> 
> http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=49
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you link to a David Whorowitz site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there something in that article that you find to be incorrect ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of it. It's just another rehash of Joan Peters' discredited drivel, regurgitated by the shyster Alan Derschowitz and subsquently used by lazy, simple minded right-wingers to
> push their agenda.
Click to expand...

Ok , then post what you find to be incorrect and refute it.


----------



## RoccoR

Challenger,  et al,

I admire your use of the American Declaration of Independence; and your application of it in this argument.  As I said, the concept behind the undoing of colonialism _[decolonization (A/RES/37/43)]_, where Israel is accused of establishing and maintaining its domination over dependent territories _[the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt)]_ is --- all by itself --- problematic.

*THUMBNAIL FOUNDATION:*
The 1988 State of Palestine, --- [_referred to as their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967_--- in the UN Acknowledgement of 1988_, and in the_ (2012) decision to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status _in the United Nations_] --- has already exercised the capacity to conclude treaties; THEN: the Arab Palestinian has already exercised their sovereignty over their territory.  This is evidence that the State of Israel has not diminished the Arab Palestinian capacity.  It is evidence that the State of Israel has not denied the Arab Palestinian in their right to self-determination, independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from foreign occupation. 

If, on the other hand, the Arab Palestinian claim that the State of Israel has denied the people of the 1988 State of Palestine their right to self-determination, denoed their establishment of a government, stopped them from declaring national independence, or establishing territorial integrity --- and national unity and sovereignty without external interference; THEN, there is no State of Palestine, and the State of Israel holds all capacities of a state for Palestine and the people of Palestine have no territory to protect the integrity of, no sovereignty extend over undefined borders, with no legitimate government to rule.​
The Arab Palestinian cannot have it both ways.  The Arab Palestinians cannot hold the case that they have the capacity to act as an independent sovereign nation with the ability to declare independence, commit to borders, and have a defined population  and government; and simultaneously claim that all these capacities are denied by the Israeli.



Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger,  et al,
> 
> The use of this particular (Non-Binding) 1982 Resolution (A/RES/37/43) is --- all by itself --- problematic.  Thinking in terms of the reality in 1982, what did we have.  Many Palestinian groups have been involved in politically motivated violence; but none more infamous than the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO).  And the PLO organization had but one purpose --- the "liberation of Palestine" through armed struggle _(Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine; with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.)_.  This of course, meant the disillusionment of the 1948 State of Israel.  In 1982, it was the view of the PLO that the partition of Palestine in 1947, and the establishment of the State of Israel were entirely illegal.  That the UN had no right to allow and then recognize the State of Israel.  In effect the PLO view was that the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Convention, the Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void.  AND the PLO had rejected all solutions which were substitutes, or alternatives, for the total liberation of Palestine.
> 
> In 1982, the State of Palestine had not been created yet.
> 
> The PLO had not declared Independence until 1988.
> ​In 1982, this UN Resolution advocated the support of the PLO, a Palestinian Terrorist organization.
> 
> Airliner hijackings had been an element in the PLO's strategy since 1967. In retaliation against an attack on an El Al airliner in Athens in 1968, Israel mounted a helicopter raid against the Beirut International Airport, destroying thirteen Arab-owned aircraft. A number of deadly terrorist incidents and guerrilla attacks against Israeli West Bank settlements occurred during the 1970s. In an attempt at hostage-taking, the Black September group, an extremist faction of Al Fatah, killed eleven Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. A climax in the terrorist campaign occurred in March 1978, when Al Fatah raiders landed on the Israeli coast south of Haifa, attacking a bus and cars on the Tel Aviv-Haifa highway. Thirty-five Israelis were killed and at least seventy-four were wounded. In reaction to the highway attack, the IDF launched Operation Litani in April 1978, a three-month expedition to clear the PLO guerrillas from Lebanese border areas. Within one week, the strong IDF force had driven back The PLO and established complete control in southern Lebanon up to the Litani River.
> The UN has felt the coercive impact of asymmetric Palestinian political violence and Palestinian hostile behaviors intended or calculated to provoke or alter the politics on the ground, for Palestinian political purposes.
> In 1982, the PLO was sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.​
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar, Challenger,  et al,
> 
> How interesting --- that you should ask this question.
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's called rational human behaviour when threatened with occupation, oppression, humiliation and ...
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a single minority in the entire mideast not under attack by arab muslims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSEVATION)*
> ​Just earlier this weak, I had coffee with a few friends, discussing the issues of the world, and a very similar question emerged.
> Is it more accurate to say radical Muslims _(relates to a person who follows the religion of Islam, a monotheistic Abrahamic religion based on the Quran)_ or should it be radical Islam (Islam is a monotheistic religion _(believe to be revelations from God, as articulated by the 7th Century prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in the Koran)?_
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, on the question of rational behaviors --- a series of decision-making processes that are based on making choices that result in the most optimal level of benefit or utility for the decision makers.  In this case, the Arabs of Palestine have _(for nearly a century)_ consistently made decisions and acted upon them with less than desirable consequences.  The decision made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have resulted in outcomes that have not been the most optimal or beneficial to the greater Palestinian constituency; either politically, economically and culturally.  So I think that applying the concepts of rational behavior to the HoAP which Jihadist activity and asymmetric warfare against the territorial integrity and political independence of the UN recognized State of Israel, is inconsistent with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs for the general constituency and the central theme behind Rational Behavior.
> 
> When one looks at the Muslim _(as the practitioner)_ or Islam _(as the religion practiced)_ relative to the number of number and magnitude of the world wide conflicts in the last five years (since 2011), one notices a distinct common thread.  But the question needs to be asked more bluntly:
> 
> 1. Afghanistan Extreme radical Fundamentalist Muslim terrorist groups (Taliban, Islamic fundamentalist political movement )
> 2. Bosnia Serbian Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholic, Muslims
> 3. Cote d'Ivoire Muslims, Indigenous, Christians
> 4. Cyprus Christians & Muslims
> 5. East Timor Christians & Muslims
> 6. Indonesia, province of Ambon Christians & Muslims
> 7. Kashmir Hindus and Muslims
> 8. Kosovo Serbian Orthodox Christians, Muslims
> 9. Kurdistan Christians, Muslims Assaults on Christians
> 10. Macedonia Macedonian Orthodox Christians & Muslims
> 11. Middle East Israel vs Palestinian Jihadist
> 12. Nigeria Christians, Animists, & Muslims
> 13. Pakistan Suni & Shi'ite Muslims
> 14. Philippines Christians & Muslims
> 15. Chechnya Russian Orthodox Christians, Muslims.
> 16. Serbia, province of Vojvodina Serbian Orthodox & Roman Catholics, Muslims
> 17. Sri Lanka Buddhists & Hindus Tamils, Muslims
> 18. Thailand: Pattani province: Buddists and Muslims
> 19. Bangladesh: Muslim-Hindu (Bengalis) and Buddists (Chakmas)
> 20. Tajikistan: intra-Islamic conflict
> 21. Islamic State conflicts (Syria, Iraq)​
> Is it the Muslim _(as the practitioner)_ that is responsible for these radical conflicts?  Or, is it Islam _(as the religion practiced)_ that spreads the hostility and conflict?  If we adopt the one perspective --- the answer becomes:  The Islamic Koran does not kill people --- Muslims do! In the opposite perspective you see the defense that several prominent Palestinian leaders have adopted:  "The dilemma --- Does Muslim follow what believe believes to be the devine will?   Or, does the Muslims adopt a more ethical interpretation of the Koran; one less violent?
> 
> Have Muslims _(as the practitioners)_ destroyed their ability to discern right from wrong in their activities?  Are the moral values of the Muslim so corrupted that they cannot distinguish right from wrong --- unable to challenge the inspiration of the Koran against evil deeds?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, it remains a rational response when threatened with occupation, oppression, humiliation and brutality on a daily basis. It's what the Polish AK, French FFI and Maquis, Legion Belge, Czech UVOD, Danish Freedom Council, Greek Democratic National Army and ELAS & EDES and many, many more resistance organisations did during WW2. All of them were called Terrorists by the Nazis. The right to resist, as you well know, is enshrined in International Law included in several UN resolutions on the subject, i.e.
> 
> "2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle" A RES 37 43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In 1982, the UN had altered its path and reverse its decision on Partition Plan of 1947 [A/RES 181(II)] due to wide spread asymmetric pressures and began to endorse violence or threats of violence by certain Palestinian actors as moral and justified; AND, to condemn an entire segment of population (the Israelis).  The UN had adopted, indirectly, the Arab League policy that:
> 
> It is the right of the people to combat foreign occupation and aggression *by whatever means, including armed struggle,* in order to liberate their territories and secure their right to self-determination, and independence and to do so in such a manner as to preserve the territorial integrity of each Arab country, of the foregoing being in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and with the Organization's resolutions.​
> The clause "by whatever means, including armed struggle," or the phrase "by all available means"  are adopted by the Arabs through UN endorsement and seen in a number of UN Resolutions, leading up to 1982, including _(but not all inclusive)_:
> 
> A/RES/33/24 29 November 1978
> A/RES/3382 (XXX) 10 November 1975
> A/RES/3246 (XXIX) 29 November 1974
> A/RES/2955 (XXVII) 12 December 1972
> A/RES/2649 (XXV) 30 November 1970
> The significance of this did not go unnoticed.  The pro-Palestinians activists had manage to intimidate the UN membership through other pressure points.  The collapse of OPEC's pricing structure in December 1980 inspired the Saudis to use $32 per barrel marker, while others oil producing nations use a $36 per barrel benchmark structure.  The US had just come out of the oil crisis really began in 1973. What we see in this crisis is the fact that prices of commodities like oil play a much more vital role in our economy than most think --- and can impact political policy.   In October of 1973 OPEC stopped exports to the US and other western nations to punish the support of Israel, they realized the strong influence that they had on the world through oil. The immediate results of the Oil Crisis were dramatic. Prices of gasoline quadrupled, rising from just 25 cents to over a dollar in just a few months.  OPEC (Arab Nations) meant to punish the western nations that supported Israel, their foe (Israel), in the Yom Kippur War (Arab surprise attack in 1973), and began to really exercise the strong influence that they had on the world through oil and the cartel structure. One of the many results of the embargo was higher oil prices all throughout the western world, particularly in America.  And the US had to find some way to appease the Oil Producing Nations until the US could stabilize the situations and put in place a work-arounds.  This was the backdrop to through this 1970's period --- building toward the 1982 decolonization concepts.
> 
> One of the undesirable and unintentional consequences of the wide-spread adoption of "by any means" is its application to the justification of Arab terrorism, as a subset of the concept of: "including armed struggle," --- or --- "by all available means" as it was now being condoned by the UN.   There was an attempt by some nations to off-set and soften this precedent, on the use of force, through the adoption of the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States [A/RES/25/2625 (XXV)] the month before the adoption of [A/RES/2649 (XXV)] but it proved to be ineffective; the damage was done. By a quirk of fate, the UN had supported --- in concept --- the PLO policy that Fedayeen _(irregular insurgents)_ may take any action they deem "necessary," which constitutes the nucleus of the popular, romanticized and glorified Palestinian War of Liberation _(Islamic Martyrs)_. This induced an escalation in the comprehensive use of terrorism which would not fall under the customary international humanitarian laws.   It ever provided some legitimacy for the assassination attempts on the Hashemite King ---- and reset the insurrection of the lawful government to Jordanian Civil War that began in September 1970 and ended in July of 1971.  The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan could little afford to be one of those Governments that give the right to self-determination to the Palestinian peoples --- or recognize any entitlement to overthrow "by whatever means necessary," alien domination.
> 
> *(STATUS QUO)*
> 
> It is not likely that, with the exception of some radical elements, the Israeli conflict over the Status of the Occupied Territories is going to ignite a wider conflict.  The Arab/Muslim/Islamic world already has more than it can chew.  And it is unlikely that the continuation of the _status quo_ in the occupation Palestinian territories (oPt) _(a total of 6,020 sq km)_ will bring any more political discomfort on Israel ---- than say ---- the Russia's decision to ruled out the return of Crimea _(27, 000 sq km)_, three times larger than the oPt, back to the Ukraine. Russia annexed Crimea on March 18, 2014.   Nor is the People's Republic of China (PRC) ever going to allow the Island of Taiwan to exercise the right of self-determination.  The PRC has threatened the use of military force as a response to any formal declaration of Taiwanese independence.  Israel's actions are not without precedent.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice bit of nuanced context thrown in there, ignoring the pressures put upon the original member states by the US to vote to recognise the 1948 partition and subsequently the state of Israel, but that's top be expected. None of the above, however invalidates the right to armed resistance against a despotic regime imposed against the will of the people. Remember this?
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. *But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-*"
Click to expand...


*(COMMENT)*

The Arab Palestinians need to come together and effectively change their government such that peaceful negotiations might be achieved.  It is clear that IF the Arabs of Palestine wants to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," THEN they need something other than the type and kind of leadership they have had since 1948.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## rhodescholar

toastman said:


> Ok , then post what you find to be incorrect and refute it.



It's much easier to just whine and screech: "lies!" like a 4 year old, then be able to actually offer an original, rational debate point.

Like the article I linked to above, the idiot chimp thanks me for posting it, and then ignores it completely due to it obliterating the moron's entire Worldview.

This forum desperately needs better, smarter, more knowledgeable pro-arab posters, the ones here aren't capable of telling us how many suns the earth orbits.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Lamis Deek *
> 
> **
> *AminHussain*
> 
> **
> *Q&A*
> 
> **






 No such thing as right of return, it is not a legal concept


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger,  et al,
> 
> The use of this particular (Non-Binding) 1982 Resolution (A/RES/37/43) is --- all by itself --- problematic.  Thinking in terms of the reality in 1982, what did we have.  Many Palestinian groups have been involved in politically motivated violence; but none more infamous than the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO).  And the PLO organization had but one purpose --- the "liberation of Palestine" through armed struggle _(Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine; with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.)_.  This of course, meant the disillusionment of the 1948 State of Israel.  In 1982, it was the view of the PLO that the partition of Palestine in 1947, and the establishment of the State of Israel were entirely illegal.  That the UN had no right to allow and then recognize the State of Israel.  In effect the PLO view was that the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Convention, the Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void.  AND the PLO had rejected all solutions which were substitutes, or alternatives, for the total liberation of Palestine.
> 
> In 1982, the State of Palestine had not been created yet.
> 
> The PLO had not declared Independence until 1988.
> ​In 1982, this UN Resolution advocated the support of the PLO, a Palestinian Terrorist organization.
> 
> Airliner hijackings had been an element in the PLO's strategy since 1967. In retaliation against an attack on an El Al airliner in Athens in 1968, Israel mounted a helicopter raid against the Beirut International Airport, destroying thirteen Arab-owned aircraft. A number of deadly terrorist incidents and guerrilla attacks against Israeli West Bank settlements occurred during the 1970s. In an attempt at hostage-taking, the Black September group, an extremist faction of Al Fatah, killed eleven Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. A climax in the terrorist campaign occurred in March 1978, when Al Fatah raiders landed on the Israeli coast south of Haifa, attacking a bus and cars on the Tel Aviv-Haifa highway. Thirty-five Israelis were killed and at least seventy-four were wounded. In reaction to the highway attack, the IDF launched Operation Litani in April 1978, a three-month expedition to clear the PLO guerrillas from Lebanese border areas. Within one week, the strong IDF force had driven back The PLO and established complete control in southern Lebanon up to the Litani River.
> The UN has felt the coercive impact of asymmetric Palestinian political violence and Palestinian hostile behaviors intended or calculated to provoke or alter the politics on the ground, for Palestinian political purposes.
> In 1982, the PLO was sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.​
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar, Challenger,  et al,
> 
> How interesting --- that you should ask this question.
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's called rational human behaviour when threatened with occupation, oppression, humiliation and ...
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a single minority in the entire mideast not under attack by arab muslims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSEVATION)*
> ​Just earlier this weak, I had coffee with a few friends, discussing the issues of the world, and a very similar question emerged.
> Is it more accurate to say radical Muslims _(relates to a person who follows the religion of Islam, a monotheistic Abrahamic religion based on the Quran)_ or should it be radical Islam (Islam is a monotheistic religion _(believe to be revelations from God, as articulated by the 7th Century prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in the Koran)?_
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, on the question of rational behaviors --- a series of decision-making processes that are based on making choices that result in the most optimal level of benefit or utility for the decision makers.  In this case, the Arabs of Palestine have _(for nearly a century)_ consistently made decisions and acted upon them with less than desirable consequences.  The decision made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have resulted in outcomes that have not been the most optimal or beneficial to the greater Palestinian constituency; either politically, economically and culturally.  So I think that applying the concepts of rational behavior to the HoAP which Jihadist activity and asymmetric warfare against the territorial integrity and political independence of the UN recognized State of Israel, is inconsistent with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs for the general constituency and the central theme behind Rational Behavior.
> 
> When one looks at the Muslim _(as the practitioner)_ or Islam _(as the religion practiced)_ relative to the number of number and magnitude of the world wide conflicts in the last five years (since 2011), one notices a distinct common thread.  But the question needs to be asked more bluntly:
> 
> 1. Afghanistan Extreme radical Fundamentalist Muslim terrorist groups (Taliban, Islamic fundamentalist political movement )
> 2. Bosnia Serbian Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholic, Muslims
> 3. Cote d'Ivoire Muslims, Indigenous, Christians
> 4. Cyprus Christians & Muslims
> 5. East Timor Christians & Muslims
> 6. Indonesia, province of Ambon Christians & Muslims
> 7. Kashmir Hindus and Muslims
> 8. Kosovo Serbian Orthodox Christians, Muslims
> 9. Kurdistan Christians, Muslims Assaults on Christians
> 10. Macedonia Macedonian Orthodox Christians & Muslims
> 11. Middle East Israel vs Palestinian Jihadist
> 12. Nigeria Christians, Animists, & Muslims
> 13. Pakistan Suni & Shi'ite Muslims
> 14. Philippines Christians & Muslims
> 15. Chechnya Russian Orthodox Christians, Muslims.
> 16. Serbia, province of Vojvodina Serbian Orthodox & Roman Catholics, Muslims
> 17. Sri Lanka Buddhists & Hindus Tamils, Muslims
> 18. Thailand: Pattani province: Buddists and Muslims
> 19. Bangladesh: Muslim-Hindu (Bengalis) and Buddists (Chakmas)
> 20. Tajikistan: intra-Islamic conflict
> 21. Islamic State conflicts (Syria, Iraq)​
> Is it the Muslim _(as the practitioner)_ that is responsible for these radical conflicts?  Or, is it Islam _(as the religion practiced)_ that spreads the hostility and conflict?  If we adopt the one perspective --- the answer becomes:  The Islamic Koran does not kill people --- Muslims do! In the opposite perspective you see the defense that several prominent Palestinian leaders have adopted:  "The dilemma --- Does Muslim follow what believe believes to be the devine will?   Or, does the Muslims adopt a more ethical interpretation of the Koran; one less violent?
> 
> Have Muslims _(as the practitioners)_ destroyed their ability to discern right from wrong in their activities?  Are the moral values of the Muslim so corrupted that they cannot distinguish right from wrong --- unable to challenge the inspiration of the Koran against evil deeds?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, it remains a rational response when threatened with occupation, oppression, humiliation and brutality on a daily basis. It's what the Polish AK, French FFI and Maquis, Legion Belge, Czech UVOD, Danish Freedom Council, Greek Democratic National Army and ELAS & EDES and many, many more resistance organisations did during WW2. All of them were called Terrorists by the Nazis. The right to resist, as you well know, is enshrined in International Law included in several UN resolutions on the subject, i.e.
> 
> "2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle" A RES 37 43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In 1982, the UN had altered its path and reverse its decision on Partition Plan of 1947 [A/RES 181(II)] due to wide spread asymmetric pressures and began to endorse violence or threats of violence by certain Palestinian actors as moral and justified; AND, to condemn an entire segment of population (the Israelis).  The UN had adopted, indirectly, the Arab League policy that:
> 
> It is the right of the people to combat foreign occupation and aggression *by whatever means, including armed struggle,* in order to liberate their territories and secure their right to self-determination, and independence and to do so in such a manner as to preserve the territorial integrity of each Arab country, of the foregoing being in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and with the Organization's resolutions.​
> The clause "by whatever means, including armed struggle," or the phrase "by all available means"  are adopted by the Arabs through UN endorsement and seen in a number of UN Resolutions, leading up to 1982, including _(but not all inclusive)_:
> 
> A/RES/33/24 29 November 1978
> A/RES/3382 (XXX) 10 November 1975
> A/RES/3246 (XXIX) 29 November 1974
> A/RES/2955 (XXVII) 12 December 1972
> A/RES/2649 (XXV) 30 November 1970
> The significance of this did not go unnoticed.  The pro-Palestinians activists had manage to intimidate the UN membership through other pressure points.  The collapse of OPEC's pricing structure in December 1980 inspired the Saudis to use $32 per barrel marker, while others oil producing nations use a $36 per barrel benchmark structure.  The US had just come out of the oil crisis really began in 1973. What we see in this crisis is the fact that prices of commodities like oil play a much more vital role in our economy than most think --- and can impact political policy.   In October of 1973 OPEC stopped exports to the US and other western nations to punish the support of Israel, they realized the strong influence that they had on the world through oil. The immediate results of the Oil Crisis were dramatic. Prices of gasoline quadrupled, rising from just 25 cents to over a dollar in just a few months.  OPEC (Arab Nations) meant to punish the western nations that supported Israel, their foe (Israel), in the Yom Kippur War (Arab surprise attack in 1973), and began to really exercise the strong influence that they had on the world through oil and the cartel structure. One of the many results of the embargo was higher oil prices all throughout the western world, particularly in America.  And the US had to find some way to appease the Oil Producing Nations until the US could stabilize the situations and put in place a work-arounds.  This was the backdrop to through this 1970's period --- building toward the 1982 decolonization concepts.
> 
> One of the undesirable and unintentional consequences of the wide-spread adoption of "by any means" is its application to the justification of Arab terrorism, as a subset of the concept of: "including armed struggle," --- or --- "by all available means" as it was now being condoned by the UN.   There was an attempt by some nations to off-set and soften this precedent, on the use of force, through the adoption of the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States [A/RES/25/2625 (XXV)] the month before the adoption of [A/RES/2649 (XXV)] but it proved to be ineffective; the damage was done. By a quirk of fate, the UN had supported --- in concept --- the PLO policy that Fedayeen _(irregular insurgents)_ may take any action they deem "necessary," which constitutes the nucleus of the popular, romanticized and glorified Palestinian War of Liberation _(Islamic Martyrs)_. This induced an escalation in the comprehensive use of terrorism which would not fall under the customary international humanitarian laws.   It ever provided some legitimacy for the assassination attempts on the Hashemite King ---- and reset the insurrection of the lawful government to Jordanian Civil War that began in September 1970 and ended in July of 1971.  The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan could little afford to be one of those Governments that give the right to self-determination to the Palestinian peoples --- or recognize any entitlement to overthrow "by whatever means necessary," alien domination.
> 
> *(STATUS QUO)*
> 
> It is not likely that, with the exception of some radical elements, the Israeli conflict over the Status of the Occupied Territories is going to ignite a wider conflict.  The Arab/Muslim/Islamic world already has more than it can chew.  And it is unlikely that the continuation of the _status quo_ in the occupation Palestinian territories (oPt) _(a total of 6,020 sq km)_ will bring any more political discomfort on Israel ---- than say ---- the Russia's decision to ruled out the return of Crimea _(27, 000 sq km)_, three times larger than the oPt, back to the Ukraine. Russia annexed Crimea on March 18, 2014.   Nor is the People's Republic of China (PRC) ever going to allow the Island of Taiwan to exercise the right of self-determination.  The PRC has threatened the use of military force as a response to any formal declaration of Taiwanese independence.  Israel's actions are not without precedent.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice bit of nuanced context thrown in there, ignoring the pressures put upon the original member states by the US to vote to recognise the 1948 partition and subsequently the state of Israel, but that's top be expected. None of the above, however invalidates the right to armed resistance against a despotic regime imposed against the will of the people. Remember this?
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. *But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-*"
Click to expand...






 So where in international law does it say that civilians can be targeted by terrorist attacks, predominantly children. If it does then there are no such things as war crimes and Israel can not be demonised when they flatten gaza.


----------



## MJB12741

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Lamis Deek *
> 
> **
> *AminHussain*
> 
> **
> *Q&A*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as right of return, it is not a legal concept
Click to expand...



The surrounding Arab countries to Israel have proven they sure know that very well indeed.  NO RIGHT OF RETURN for their Palestinians.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Lamis Deek *
> 
> **
> *AminHussain*
> 
> **
> *Q&A*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as right of return, it is not a legal concept
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The surrounding Arab countries to Israel have proven they sure know that very well indeed.  NO RIGHT OF RETURN for their Palestinians.
Click to expand...


Since the Christians and Muslims of Palestine are indigenous to Palestine, how could they have a right of return to another country?


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Lamis Deek *
> 
> **
> *AminHussain*
> 
> **
> *Q&A*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as right of return, it is not a legal concept
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The surrounding Arab countries to Israel have proven they sure know that very well indeed.  NO RIGHT OF RETURN for their Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the Christians and Muslims of Palestine are indigenous to Palestine, how could they have a right of return to another country?
Click to expand...



LMAO!  Don't this beat all folks from Monte?  Must be a good year for them poppies.  Heh Heh!


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Lamis Deek *
> 
> **
> *AminHussain*
> 
> **
> *Q&A*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as right of return, it is not a legal concept
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The surrounding Arab countries to Israel have proven they sure know that very well indeed.  NO RIGHT OF RETURN for their Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the Christians and Muslims of Palestine are indigenous to Palestine, how could they have a right of return to another country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!  Don't this beat all folks from Monte?  Must be a good year for them poppies.  Heh Heh!
Click to expand...


When you are shown to be a propaganda monger, you really lose it, knucklehead.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Lamis Deek *
> 
> **
> *AminHussain*
> 
> **
> *Q&A*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as right of return, it is not a legal concept
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The surrounding Arab countries to Israel have proven they sure know that very well indeed.  NO RIGHT OF RETURN for their Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the Christians and Muslims of Palestine are indigenous to Palestine, how could they have a right of return to another country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!  Don't this beat all folks from Monte?  Must be a good year for them poppies.  Heh Heh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you are shown to be a propaganda monger, you really lose it, knucklehead.
Click to expand...



Now now Monte.  Don't get so upset by the truth.  When all that's left for you is to call the adversary names, you lose.  Just thank God every day for his mercy in sparing you the ravages of intelligence.


----------



## ChrisL

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Lamis Deek *
> 
> **
> *AminHussain*
> 
> **
> *Q&A*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as right of return, it is not a legal concept
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The surrounding Arab countries to Israel have proven they sure know that very well indeed.  NO RIGHT OF RETURN for their Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the Christians and Muslims of Palestine are indigenous to Palestine, how could they have a right of return to another country?
Click to expand...


And so are the Jews, as proven by lineage and genetic testing.


----------



## montelatici

ChrisL said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Lamis Deek *
> 
> **
> *AminHussain*
> 
> **
> *Q&A*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as right of return, it is not a legal concept
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The surrounding Arab countries to Israel have proven they sure know that very well indeed.  NO RIGHT OF RETURN for their Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the Christians and Muslims of Palestine are indigenous to Palestine, how could they have a right of return to another country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so are the Jews, as proven by lineage and genetic testing.
Click to expand...


No, genetic testing proves no such thing.


----------



## ChrisL

montelatici said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Lamis Deek *
> 
> **
> *AminHussain*
> 
> **
> *Q&A*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as right of return, it is not a legal concept
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The surrounding Arab countries to Israel have proven they sure know that very well indeed.  NO RIGHT OF RETURN for their Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the Christians and Muslims of Palestine are indigenous to Palestine, how could they have a right of return to another country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so are the Jews, as proven by lineage and genetic testing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, genetic testing proves no such thing.
Click to expand...


Yes it does.  Extensive testing has been done and it proves it.  Go argue with the geneticists who performed the tests, namely the University of Arizona.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Rev. Alex Awad*


----------



## Challenger

ChrisL said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as right of return, it is not a legal concept
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The surrounding Arab countries to Israel have proven they sure know that very well indeed.  NO RIGHT OF RETURN for their Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the Christians and Muslims of Palestine are indigenous to Palestine, how could they have a right of return to another country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so are the Jews, as proven by lineage and genetic testing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, genetic testing proves no such thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does.  Extensive testing has been done and it proves it.  Go argue with the geneticists who performed the tests, namely the University of Arizona.
Click to expand...


The 2000 Ostrer study is out of date. Given Zionist trace "Jewishness" through the Maternal line this 2013 study makes most Ashkenazis Europeans. 

"Overall, they claim, at least 80 percent of Ashkenazi maternal ancestry comes from women indigenous to Europe while 8 percent originated in the Near East, with the rest uncertain." Ashkenazi Jewish women descended mostly from Italian converts new study asserts Genetic Literacy Project


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Lamis Deek *
> 
> **
> *AminHussain*
> 
> **
> *Q&A*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as right of return, it is not a legal concept
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The surrounding Arab countries to Israel have proven they sure know that very well indeed.  NO RIGHT OF RETURN for their Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the Christians and Muslims of Palestine are indigenous to Palestine, how could they have a right of return to another country?
Click to expand...





 So when did these so called indigenous first start calling themselves Palestinians and not Syrians or Egyptians. As the demographics show it was a physical impossibility for the arab muslims to increase their numbers by natural means. The only way to do it was by illegal immigration.

 So do explain how girls of 12 were getting pregnant with quads every 9 months and no on was dying for 15 years ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Lamis Deek *
> 
> **
> *AminHussain*
> 
> **
> *Q&A*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as right of return, it is not a legal concept
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The surrounding Arab countries to Israel have proven they sure know that very well indeed.  NO RIGHT OF RETURN for their Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the Christians and Muslims of Palestine are indigenous to Palestine, how could they have a right of return to another country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so are the Jews, as proven by lineage and genetic testing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, genetic testing proves no such thing.
Click to expand...






 Is that because the few genetic tests done on the arab muslims show they are not from Palestine at all but from Syria and Egypt. Before those results were known team Palestine used genetic testing as a lever to remove the Jews from Israel, and it failed because the tests show they are related to the Jews who never moved.
 As I keep telling you the arab muslims a closer related to pigs, dogs apes and bananas than they are the Jews.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The surrounding Arab countries to Israel have proven they sure know that very well indeed.  NO RIGHT OF RETURN for their Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the Christians and Muslims of Palestine are indigenous to Palestine, how could they have a right of return to another country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so are the Jews, as proven by lineage and genetic testing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, genetic testing proves no such thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does.  Extensive testing has been done and it proves it.  Go argue with the geneticists who performed the tests, namely the University of Arizona.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2000 Ostrer study is out of date. Given Zionist trace "Jewishness" through the Maternal line this 2013 study makes most Ashkenazis Europeans.
> 
> "Overall, they claim, at least 80 percent of Ashkenazi maternal ancestry comes from women indigenous to Europe while 8 percent originated in the Near East, with the rest uncertain." Ashkenazi Jewish women descended mostly from Italian converts new study asserts Genetic Literacy Project
Click to expand...





 COWFLOP   I bet this took you hours to find ?


----------



## Challenger

RoccoR said:


> Challenger,  et al,
> 
> I admire your use of the American Declaration of Independence; and your application of it in this argument.  As I said, the concept behind the undoing of colonialism _[decolonization (A/RES/37/43)]_, where Israel is accused of establishing and maintaining its domination over dependent territories _[the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt)]_ is --- all by itself --- problematic.
> 
> *THUMBNAIL FOUNDATION:*
> The 1988 State of Palestine, --- [_referred to as their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967_--- in the UN Acknowledgement of 1988_, and in the_ (2012) decision to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status _in the United Nations_] --- has already exercised the capacity to conclude treaties; THEN: the Arab Palestinian has already exercised their sovereignty over their territory.  This is evidence that the State of Israel has not diminished the Arab Palestinian capacity.  It is evidence that the State of Israel has not denied the Arab Palestinian in their right to self-determination, independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from foreign occupation.
> 
> If, on the other hand, the Arab Palestinian claim that the State of Israel has denied the people of the 1988 State of Palestine their right to self-determination, denoed their establishment of a government, stopped them from declaring national independence, or establishing territorial integrity --- and national unity and sovereignty without external interference; THEN, there is no State of Palestine, and the State of Israel holds all capacities of a state for Palestine and the people of Palestine have no territory to protect the integrity of, no sovereignty extend over undefined borders, with no legitimate government to rule.​
> The Arab Palestinian cannot have it both ways.  The Arab Palestinians cannot hold the case that they have the capacity to act as an independent sovereign nation with the ability to declare independence, commit to borders, and have a defined population  and government; and simultaneously claim that all these capacities are denied by the Israeli.
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger,  et al,
> 
> The use of this particular (Non-Binding) 1982 Resolution (A/RES/37/43) is --- all by itself --- problematic.  Thinking in terms of the reality in 1982, what did we have.  Many Palestinian groups have been involved in politically motivated violence; but none more infamous than the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO).  And the PLO organization had but one purpose --- the "liberation of Palestine" through armed struggle _(Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine; with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.)_.  This of course, meant the disillusionment of the 1948 State of Israel.  In 1982, it was the view of the PLO that the partition of Palestine in 1947, and the establishment of the State of Israel were entirely illegal.  That the UN had no right to allow and then recognize the State of Israel.  In effect the PLO view was that the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Convention, the Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void.  AND the PLO had rejected all solutions which were substitutes, or alternatives, for the total liberation of Palestine.
> 
> In 1982, the State of Palestine had not been created yet.
> 
> The PLO had not declared Independence until 1988.
> ​In 1982, this UN Resolution advocated the support of the PLO, a Palestinian Terrorist organization.
> 
> Airliner hijackings had been an element in the PLO's strategy since 1967. In retaliation against an attack on an El Al airliner in Athens in 1968, Israel mounted a helicopter raid against the Beirut International Airport, destroying thirteen Arab-owned aircraft. A number of deadly terrorist incidents and guerrilla attacks against Israeli West Bank settlements occurred during the 1970s. In an attempt at hostage-taking, the Black September group, an extremist faction of Al Fatah, killed eleven Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. A climax in the terrorist campaign occurred in March 1978, when Al Fatah raiders landed on the Israeli coast south of Haifa, attacking a bus and cars on the Tel Aviv-Haifa highway. Thirty-five Israelis were killed and at least seventy-four were wounded. In reaction to the highway attack, the IDF launched Operation Litani in April 1978, a three-month expedition to clear the PLO guerrillas from Lebanese border areas. Within one week, the strong IDF force had driven back The PLO and established complete control in southern Lebanon up to the Litani River.
> The UN has felt the coercive impact of asymmetric Palestinian political violence and Palestinian hostile behaviors intended or calculated to provoke or alter the politics on the ground, for Palestinian political purposes.
> In 1982, the PLO was sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.​
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar, Challenger,  et al,
> 
> How interesting --- that you should ask this question.
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a single minority in the entire mideast not under attack by arab muslims?
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSEVATION)*
> ​Just earlier this weak, I had coffee with a few friends, discussing the issues of the world, and a very similar question emerged.
> Is it more accurate to say radical Muslims _(relates to a person who follows the religion of Islam, a monotheistic Abrahamic religion based on the Quran)_ or should it be radical Islam (Islam is a monotheistic religion _(believe to be revelations from God, as articulated by the 7th Century prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in the Koran)?_
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, on the question of rational behaviors --- a series of decision-making processes that are based on making choices that result in the most optimal level of benefit or utility for the decision makers.  In this case, the Arabs of Palestine have _(for nearly a century)_ consistently made decisions and acted upon them with less than desirable consequences.  The decision made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have resulted in outcomes that have not been the most optimal or beneficial to the greater Palestinian constituency; either politically, economically and culturally.  So I think that applying the concepts of rational behavior to the HoAP which Jihadist activity and asymmetric warfare against the territorial integrity and political independence of the UN recognized State of Israel, is inconsistent with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs for the general constituency and the central theme behind Rational Behavior.
> 
> When one looks at the Muslim _(as the practitioner)_ or Islam _(as the religion practiced)_ relative to the number of number and magnitude of the world wide conflicts in the last five years (since 2011), one notices a distinct common thread.  But the question needs to be asked more bluntly:
> 
> 1. Afghanistan Extreme radical Fundamentalist Muslim terrorist groups (Taliban, Islamic fundamentalist political movement )
> 2. Bosnia Serbian Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholic, Muslims
> 3. Cote d'Ivoire Muslims, Indigenous, Christians
> 4. Cyprus Christians & Muslims
> 5. East Timor Christians & Muslims
> 6. Indonesia, province of Ambon Christians & Muslims
> 7. Kashmir Hindus and Muslims
> 8. Kosovo Serbian Orthodox Christians, Muslims
> 9. Kurdistan Christians, Muslims Assaults on Christians
> 10. Macedonia Macedonian Orthodox Christians & Muslims
> 11. Middle East Israel vs Palestinian Jihadist
> 12. Nigeria Christians, Animists, & Muslims
> 13. Pakistan Suni & Shi'ite Muslims
> 14. Philippines Christians & Muslims
> 15. Chechnya Russian Orthodox Christians, Muslims.
> 16. Serbia, province of Vojvodina Serbian Orthodox & Roman Catholics, Muslims
> 17. Sri Lanka Buddhists & Hindus Tamils, Muslims
> 18. Thailand: Pattani province: Buddists and Muslims
> 19. Bangladesh: Muslim-Hindu (Bengalis) and Buddists (Chakmas)
> 20. Tajikistan: intra-Islamic conflict
> 21. Islamic State conflicts (Syria, Iraq)​
> Is it the Muslim _(as the practitioner)_ that is responsible for these radical conflicts?  Or, is it Islam _(as the religion practiced)_ that spreads the hostility and conflict?  If we adopt the one perspective --- the answer becomes:  The Islamic Koran does not kill people --- Muslims do! In the opposite perspective you see the defense that several prominent Palestinian leaders have adopted:  "The dilemma --- Does Muslim follow what believe believes to be the devine will?   Or, does the Muslims adopt a more ethical interpretation of the Koran; one less violent?
> 
> Have Muslims _(as the practitioners)_ destroyed their ability to discern right from wrong in their activities?  Are the moral values of the Muslim so corrupted that they cannot distinguish right from wrong --- unable to challenge the inspiration of the Koran against evil deeds?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, it remains a rational response when threatened with occupation, oppression, humiliation and brutality on a daily basis. It's what the Polish AK, French FFI and Maquis, Legion Belge, Czech UVOD, Danish Freedom Council, Greek Democratic National Army and ELAS & EDES and many, many more resistance organisations did during WW2. All of them were called Terrorists by the Nazis. The right to resist, as you well know, is enshrined in International Law included in several UN resolutions on the subject, i.e.
> 
> "2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle" A RES 37 43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In 1982, the UN had altered its path and reverse its decision on Partition Plan of 1947 [A/RES 181(II)] due to wide spread asymmetric pressures and began to endorse violence or threats of violence by certain Palestinian actors as moral and justified; AND, to condemn an entire segment of population (the Israelis).  The UN had adopted, indirectly, the Arab League policy that:
> 
> It is the right of the people to combat foreign occupation and aggression *by whatever means, including armed struggle,* in order to liberate their territories and secure their right to self-determination, and independence and to do so in such a manner as to preserve the territorial integrity of each Arab country, of the foregoing being in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and with the Organization's resolutions.​
> The clause "by whatever means, including armed struggle," or the phrase "by all available means"  are adopted by the Arabs through UN endorsement and seen in a number of UN Resolutions, leading up to 1982, including _(but not all inclusive)_:
> 
> A/RES/33/24 29 November 1978
> A/RES/3382 (XXX) 10 November 1975
> A/RES/3246 (XXIX) 29 November 1974
> A/RES/2955 (XXVII) 12 December 1972
> A/RES/2649 (XXV) 30 November 1970
> The significance of this did not go unnoticed.  The pro-Palestinians activists had manage to intimidate the UN membership through other pressure points.  The collapse of OPEC's pricing structure in December 1980 inspired the Saudis to use $32 per barrel marker, while others oil producing nations use a $36 per barrel benchmark structure.  The US had just come out of the oil crisis really began in 1973. What we see in this crisis is the fact that prices of commodities like oil play a much more vital role in our economy than most think --- and can impact political policy.   In October of 1973 OPEC stopped exports to the US and other western nations to punish the support of Israel, they realized the strong influence that they had on the world through oil. The immediate results of the Oil Crisis were dramatic. Prices of gasoline quadrupled, rising from just 25 cents to over a dollar in just a few months.  OPEC (Arab Nations) meant to punish the western nations that supported Israel, their foe (Israel), in the Yom Kippur War (Arab surprise attack in 1973), and began to really exercise the strong influence that they had on the world through oil and the cartel structure. One of the many results of the embargo was higher oil prices all throughout the western world, particularly in America.  And the US had to find some way to appease the Oil Producing Nations until the US could stabilize the situations and put in place a work-arounds.  This was the backdrop to through this 1970's period --- building toward the 1982 decolonization concepts.
> 
> One of the undesirable and unintentional consequences of the wide-spread adoption of "by any means" is its application to the justification of Arab terrorism, as a subset of the concept of: "including armed struggle," --- or --- "by all available means" as it was now being condoned by the UN.   There was an attempt by some nations to off-set and soften this precedent, on the use of force, through the adoption of the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States [A/RES/25/2625 (XXV)] the month before the adoption of [A/RES/2649 (XXV)] but it proved to be ineffective; the damage was done. By a quirk of fate, the UN had supported --- in concept --- the PLO policy that Fedayeen _(irregular insurgents)_ may take any action they deem "necessary," which constitutes the nucleus of the popular, romanticized and glorified Palestinian War of Liberation _(Islamic Martyrs)_. This induced an escalation in the comprehensive use of terrorism which would not fall under the customary international humanitarian laws.   It ever provided some legitimacy for the assassination attempts on the Hashemite King ---- and reset the insurrection of the lawful government to Jordanian Civil War that began in September 1970 and ended in July of 1971.  The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan could little afford to be one of those Governments that give the right to self-determination to the Palestinian peoples --- or recognize any entitlement to overthrow "by whatever means necessary," alien domination.
> 
> *(STATUS QUO)*
> 
> It is not likely that, with the exception of some radical elements, the Israeli conflict over the Status of the Occupied Territories is going to ignite a wider conflict.  The Arab/Muslim/Islamic world already has more than it can chew.  And it is unlikely that the continuation of the _status quo_ in the occupation Palestinian territories (oPt) _(a total of 6,020 sq km)_ will bring any more political discomfort on Israel ---- than say ---- the Russia's decision to ruled out the return of Crimea _(27, 000 sq km)_, three times larger than the oPt, back to the Ukraine. Russia annexed Crimea on March 18, 2014.   Nor is the People's Republic of China (PRC) ever going to allow the Island of Taiwan to exercise the right of self-determination.  The PRC has threatened the use of military force as a response to any formal declaration of Taiwanese independence.  Israel's actions are not without precedent.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice bit of nuanced context thrown in there, ignoring the pressures put upon the original member states by the US to vote to recognise the 1948 partition and subsequently the state of Israel, but that's top be expected. None of the above, however invalidates the right to armed resistance against a despotic regime imposed against the will of the people. Remember this?
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. *But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinians need to come together and effectively change their government such that peaceful negotiations might be achieved.  It is clear that IF the Arabs of Palestine wants to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," THEN they need something other than the type and kind of leadership they have had since 1948.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


The Palestinians have been negotiating in good faith for decades; and as has recently been confirmed by Nethanyahu, the Zionists never have.


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the Christians and Muslims of Palestine are indigenous to Palestine, how could they have a right of return to another country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so are the Jews, as proven by lineage and genetic testing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, genetic testing proves no such thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does.  Extensive testing has been done and it proves it.  Go argue with the geneticists who performed the tests, namely the University of Arizona.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2000 Ostrer study is out of date. Given Zionist trace "Jewishness" through the Maternal line this 2013 study makes most Ashkenazis Europeans.
> 
> "Overall, they claim, at least 80 percent of Ashkenazi maternal ancestry comes from women indigenous to Europe while 8 percent originated in the Near East, with the rest uncertain." Ashkenazi Jewish women descended mostly from Italian converts new study asserts Genetic Literacy Project
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> COWFLOP   I bet this took you hours to find ?
Click to expand...

Nope, I just typed in "Jewish genetic research University of Arizona" The Genetic Literacy Project is impartial, i like it's by line, "Where science trumps Ideology"


----------



## Challenger

rhodescholar said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok , then post what you find to be incorrect and refute it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's much easier to just whine and screech: "lies!" like a 4 year old, then be able to actually offer an original, rational debate point.
> 
> Like the article I linked to above, the idiot chimp thanks me for posting it, and then ignores it completely due to it obliterating the moron's entire Worldview.
> 
> This forum desperately needs better, smarter, more knowledgeable pro-arab posters, the ones here aren't capable of telling us how many suns the earth orbits.
Click to expand...


Is it disappointing for you then that my world view remains unscathed by your pathetic quoting of 5 sentances of around 250 words from a 15 page thesis of over 8000 words which basically support the historical truth that by and large Jewish people were better off in Muslim areas than they were in Christian areas. Cecil must still be writhing in his grave in shame and disgust, if that's the best his Trust can produce.


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Lamis Deek *
> 
> **
> *AminHussain*
> 
> **
> *Q&A*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as right of return, it is not a legal concept
Click to expand...


Tell that to the Zionists Israel s Law of Return Jewish Virtual Library


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as right of return, it is not a legal concept
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The surrounding Arab countries to Israel have proven they sure know that very well indeed.  NO RIGHT OF RETURN for their Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the Christians and Muslims of Palestine are indigenous to Palestine, how could they have a right of return to another country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so are the Jews, as proven by lineage and genetic testing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, genetic testing proves no such thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that because the few genetic tests done on the arab muslims show they are not from Palestine at all but from Syria and Egypt. Before those results were known team Palestine used genetic testing as a lever to remove the Jews from Israel, and it failed because the tests show they are related to the Jews who never moved.
> As I keep telling you the arab muslims a closer related to pigs, dogs apes and bananas than they are the Jews.
Click to expand...


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger,  et al,
> 
> I admire your use of the American Declaration of Independence; and your application of it in this argument.  As I said, the concept behind the undoing of colonialism _[decolonization (A/RES/37/43)]_, where Israel is accused of establishing and maintaining its domination over dependent territories _[the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt)]_ is --- all by itself --- problematic.
> 
> *THUMBNAIL FOUNDATION:*
> The 1988 State of Palestine, --- [_referred to as their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967_--- in the UN Acknowledgement of 1988_, and in the_ (2012) decision to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status _in the United Nations_] --- has already exercised the capacity to conclude treaties; THEN: the Arab Palestinian has already exercised their sovereignty over their territory.  This is evidence that the State of Israel has not diminished the Arab Palestinian capacity.  It is evidence that the State of Israel has not denied the Arab Palestinian in their right to self-determination, independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from foreign occupation.
> 
> If, on the other hand, the Arab Palestinian claim that the State of Israel has denied the people of the 1988 State of Palestine their right to self-determination, denoed their establishment of a government, stopped them from declaring national independence, or establishing territorial integrity --- and national unity and sovereignty without external interference; THEN, there is no State of Palestine, and the State of Israel holds all capacities of a state for Palestine and the people of Palestine have no territory to protect the integrity of, no sovereignty extend over undefined borders, with no legitimate government to rule.​
> The Arab Palestinian cannot have it both ways.  The Arab Palestinians cannot hold the case that they have the capacity to act as an independent sovereign nation with the ability to declare independence, commit to borders, and have a defined population  and government; and simultaneously claim that all these capacities are denied by the Israeli.
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger,  et al,
> 
> The use of this particular (Non-Binding) 1982 Resolution (A/RES/37/43) is --- all by itself --- problematic.  Thinking in terms of the reality in 1982, what did we have.  Many Palestinian groups have been involved in politically motivated violence; but none more infamous than the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO).  And the PLO organization had but one purpose --- the "liberation of Palestine" through armed struggle _(Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine; with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.)_.  This of course, meant the disillusionment of the 1948 State of Israel.  In 1982, it was the view of the PLO that the partition of Palestine in 1947, and the establishment of the State of Israel were entirely illegal.  That the UN had no right to allow and then recognize the State of Israel.  In effect the PLO view was that the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Convention, the Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void.  AND the PLO had rejected all solutions which were substitutes, or alternatives, for the total liberation of Palestine.
> 
> In 1982, the State of Palestine had not been created yet.
> 
> The PLO had not declared Independence until 1988.
> ​In 1982, this UN Resolution advocated the support of the PLO, a Palestinian Terrorist organization.
> 
> Airliner hijackings had been an element in the PLO's strategy since 1967. In retaliation against an attack on an El Al airliner in Athens in 1968, Israel mounted a helicopter raid against the Beirut International Airport, destroying thirteen Arab-owned aircraft. A number of deadly terrorist incidents and guerrilla attacks against Israeli West Bank settlements occurred during the 1970s. In an attempt at hostage-taking, the Black September group, an extremist faction of Al Fatah, killed eleven Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. A climax in the terrorist campaign occurred in March 1978, when Al Fatah raiders landed on the Israeli coast south of Haifa, attacking a bus and cars on the Tel Aviv-Haifa highway. Thirty-five Israelis were killed and at least seventy-four were wounded. In reaction to the highway attack, the IDF launched Operation Litani in April 1978, a three-month expedition to clear the PLO guerrillas from Lebanese border areas. Within one week, the strong IDF force had driven back The PLO and established complete control in southern Lebanon up to the Litani River.
> The UN has felt the coercive impact of asymmetric Palestinian political violence and Palestinian hostile behaviors intended or calculated to provoke or alter the politics on the ground, for Palestinian political purposes.
> In 1982, the PLO was sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.​
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar, Challenger,  et al,
> 
> How interesting --- that you should ask this question.
> 
> *(OBSEVATION)*
> ​Just earlier this weak, I had coffee with a few friends, discussing the issues of the world, and a very similar question emerged.
> Is it more accurate to say radical Muslims _(relates to a person who follows the religion of Islam, a monotheistic Abrahamic religion based on the Quran)_ or should it be radical Islam (Islam is a monotheistic religion _(believe to be revelations from God, as articulated by the 7th Century prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in the Koran)?_
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, on the question of rational behaviors --- a series of decision-making processes that are based on making choices that result in the most optimal level of benefit or utility for the decision makers.  In this case, the Arabs of Palestine have _(for nearly a century)_ consistently made decisions and acted upon them with less than desirable consequences.  The decision made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have resulted in outcomes that have not been the most optimal or beneficial to the greater Palestinian constituency; either politically, economically and culturally.  So I think that applying the concepts of rational behavior to the HoAP which Jihadist activity and asymmetric warfare against the territorial integrity and political independence of the UN recognized State of Israel, is inconsistent with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs for the general constituency and the central theme behind Rational Behavior.
> 
> When one looks at the Muslim _(as the practitioner)_ or Islam _(as the religion practiced)_ relative to the number of number and magnitude of the world wide conflicts in the last five years (since 2011), one notices a distinct common thread.  But the question needs to be asked more bluntly:
> 
> 1. Afghanistan Extreme radical Fundamentalist Muslim terrorist groups (Taliban, Islamic fundamentalist political movement )
> 2. Bosnia Serbian Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholic, Muslims
> 3. Cote d'Ivoire Muslims, Indigenous, Christians
> 4. Cyprus Christians & Muslims
> 5. East Timor Christians & Muslims
> 6. Indonesia, province of Ambon Christians & Muslims
> 7. Kashmir Hindus and Muslims
> 8. Kosovo Serbian Orthodox Christians, Muslims
> 9. Kurdistan Christians, Muslims Assaults on Christians
> 10. Macedonia Macedonian Orthodox Christians & Muslims
> 11. Middle East Israel vs Palestinian Jihadist
> 12. Nigeria Christians, Animists, & Muslims
> 13. Pakistan Suni & Shi'ite Muslims
> 14. Philippines Christians & Muslims
> 15. Chechnya Russian Orthodox Christians, Muslims.
> 16. Serbia, province of Vojvodina Serbian Orthodox & Roman Catholics, Muslims
> 17. Sri Lanka Buddhists & Hindus Tamils, Muslims
> 18. Thailand: Pattani province: Buddists and Muslims
> 19. Bangladesh: Muslim-Hindu (Bengalis) and Buddists (Chakmas)
> 20. Tajikistan: intra-Islamic conflict
> 21. Islamic State conflicts (Syria, Iraq)​
> Is it the Muslim _(as the practitioner)_ that is responsible for these radical conflicts?  Or, is it Islam _(as the religion practiced)_ that spreads the hostility and conflict?  If we adopt the one perspective --- the answer becomes:  The Islamic Koran does not kill people --- Muslims do! In the opposite perspective you see the defense that several prominent Palestinian leaders have adopted:  "The dilemma --- Does Muslim follow what believe believes to be the devine will?   Or, does the Muslims adopt a more ethical interpretation of the Koran; one less violent?
> 
> Have Muslims _(as the practitioners)_ destroyed their ability to discern right from wrong in their activities?  Are the moral values of the Muslim so corrupted that they cannot distinguish right from wrong --- unable to challenge the inspiration of the Koran against evil deeds?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, it remains a rational response when threatened with occupation, oppression, humiliation and brutality on a daily basis. It's what the Polish AK, French FFI and Maquis, Legion Belge, Czech UVOD, Danish Freedom Council, Greek Democratic National Army and ELAS & EDES and many, many more resistance organisations did during WW2. All of them were called Terrorists by the Nazis. The right to resist, as you well know, is enshrined in International Law included in several UN resolutions on the subject, i.e.
> 
> "2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle" A RES 37 43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In 1982, the UN had altered its path and reverse its decision on Partition Plan of 1947 [A/RES 181(II)] due to wide spread asymmetric pressures and began to endorse violence or threats of violence by certain Palestinian actors as moral and justified; AND, to condemn an entire segment of population (the Israelis).  The UN had adopted, indirectly, the Arab League policy that:
> 
> It is the right of the people to combat foreign occupation and aggression *by whatever means, including armed struggle,* in order to liberate their territories and secure their right to self-determination, and independence and to do so in such a manner as to preserve the territorial integrity of each Arab country, of the foregoing being in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and with the Organization's resolutions.​
> The clause "by whatever means, including armed struggle," or the phrase "by all available means"  are adopted by the Arabs through UN endorsement and seen in a number of UN Resolutions, leading up to 1982, including _(but not all inclusive)_:
> 
> A/RES/33/24 29 November 1978
> A/RES/3382 (XXX) 10 November 1975
> A/RES/3246 (XXIX) 29 November 1974
> A/RES/2955 (XXVII) 12 December 1972
> A/RES/2649 (XXV) 30 November 1970
> The significance of this did not go unnoticed.  The pro-Palestinians activists had manage to intimidate the UN membership through other pressure points.  The collapse of OPEC's pricing structure in December 1980 inspired the Saudis to use $32 per barrel marker, while others oil producing nations use a $36 per barrel benchmark structure.  The US had just come out of the oil crisis really began in 1973. What we see in this crisis is the fact that prices of commodities like oil play a much more vital role in our economy than most think --- and can impact political policy.   In October of 1973 OPEC stopped exports to the US and other western nations to punish the support of Israel, they realized the strong influence that they had on the world through oil. The immediate results of the Oil Crisis were dramatic. Prices of gasoline quadrupled, rising from just 25 cents to over a dollar in just a few months.  OPEC (Arab Nations) meant to punish the western nations that supported Israel, their foe (Israel), in the Yom Kippur War (Arab surprise attack in 1973), and began to really exercise the strong influence that they had on the world through oil and the cartel structure. One of the many results of the embargo was higher oil prices all throughout the western world, particularly in America.  And the US had to find some way to appease the Oil Producing Nations until the US could stabilize the situations and put in place a work-arounds.  This was the backdrop to through this 1970's period --- building toward the 1982 decolonization concepts.
> 
> One of the undesirable and unintentional consequences of the wide-spread adoption of "by any means" is its application to the justification of Arab terrorism, as a subset of the concept of: "including armed struggle," --- or --- "by all available means" as it was now being condoned by the UN.   There was an attempt by some nations to off-set and soften this precedent, on the use of force, through the adoption of the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States [A/RES/25/2625 (XXV)] the month before the adoption of [A/RES/2649 (XXV)] but it proved to be ineffective; the damage was done. By a quirk of fate, the UN had supported --- in concept --- the PLO policy that Fedayeen _(irregular insurgents)_ may take any action they deem "necessary," which constitutes the nucleus of the popular, romanticized and glorified Palestinian War of Liberation _(Islamic Martyrs)_. This induced an escalation in the comprehensive use of terrorism which would not fall under the customary international humanitarian laws.   It ever provided some legitimacy for the assassination attempts on the Hashemite King ---- and reset the insurrection of the lawful government to Jordanian Civil War that began in September 1970 and ended in July of 1971.  The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan could little afford to be one of those Governments that give the right to self-determination to the Palestinian peoples --- or recognize any entitlement to overthrow "by whatever means necessary," alien domination.
> 
> *(STATUS QUO)*
> 
> It is not likely that, with the exception of some radical elements, the Israeli conflict over the Status of the Occupied Territories is going to ignite a wider conflict.  The Arab/Muslim/Islamic world already has more than it can chew.  And it is unlikely that the continuation of the _status quo_ in the occupation Palestinian territories (oPt) _(a total of 6,020 sq km)_ will bring any more political discomfort on Israel ---- than say ---- the Russia's decision to ruled out the return of Crimea _(27, 000 sq km)_, three times larger than the oPt, back to the Ukraine. Russia annexed Crimea on March 18, 2014.   Nor is the People's Republic of China (PRC) ever going to allow the Island of Taiwan to exercise the right of self-determination.  The PRC has threatened the use of military force as a response to any formal declaration of Taiwanese independence.  Israel's actions are not without precedent.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice bit of nuanced context thrown in there, ignoring the pressures put upon the original member states by the US to vote to recognise the 1948 partition and subsequently the state of Israel, but that's top be expected. None of the above, however invalidates the right to armed resistance against a despotic regime imposed against the will of the people. Remember this?
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. *But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinians need to come together and effectively change their government such that peaceful negotiations might be achieved.  It is clear that IF the Arabs of Palestine wants to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," THEN they need something other than the type and kind of leadership they have had since 1948.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have been negotiating in good faith for decades; and as has recently been confirmed by Nethanyahu, the Zionists never have.
Click to expand...





 Show one peace talks were they have sat down and not demanded that the Israelis release proven terrorists to murder again, that illegal immigrants be allowed to enter Israel on the pretext they owned land, that Isreal moves back to 1949 cease fire lines and all this before the arab muslims will even agree to talk about talks to look at talking about peace. So it seems that you are just spouting islamonazi propaganda with no evidence to back it up.


 Now since when has the west bank been an American state ?


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so are the Jews, as proven by lineage and genetic testing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, genetic testing proves no such thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does.  Extensive testing has been done and it proves it.  Go argue with the geneticists who performed the tests, namely the University of Arizona.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2000 Ostrer study is out of date. Given Zionist trace "Jewishness" through the Maternal line this 2013 study makes most Ashkenazis Europeans.
> 
> "Overall, they claim, at least 80 percent of Ashkenazi maternal ancestry comes from women indigenous to Europe while 8 percent originated in the Near East, with the rest uncertain." Ashkenazi Jewish women descended mostly from Italian converts new study asserts Genetic Literacy Project
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> COWFLOP   I bet this took you hours to find ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, I just typed in "Jewish genetic research University of Arizona" The Genetic Literacy Project is impartial, i like it's by line, "Where science trumps Ideology"
Click to expand...





 But your line of enquiry isn't, as you singled out just one of many studies because it supported your POV


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok , then post what you find to be incorrect and refute it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's much easier to just whine and screech: "lies!" like a 4 year old, then be able to actually offer an original, rational debate point.
> 
> Like the article I linked to above, the idiot chimp thanks me for posting it, and then ignores it completely due to it obliterating the moron's entire Worldview.
> 
> This forum desperately needs better, smarter, more knowledgeable pro-arab posters, the ones here aren't capable of telling us how many suns the earth orbits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it disappointing for you then that my world view remains unscathed by your pathetic quoting of 5 sentances of around 250 words from a 15 page thesis of over 8000 words which basically support the historical truth that by and large Jewish people were better off in Muslim areas than they were in Christian areas. Cecil must still be writhing in his grave in shame and disgust, if that's the best his Trust can produce.
Click to expand...





 And the only evidence you can bring to the board is that of the muslims, now they are hardly going to say they beat the Jews, raped their women, took their daughters as sex slaves and wiped out whole communities because the blood lust came over them.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Lamis Deek *
> 
> **
> *AminHussain*
> 
> **
> *Q&A*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as right of return, it is not a legal concept
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the Zionists Israel s Law of Return Jewish Virtual Library
Click to expand...





 And it is within all international laws as it is a Law of Israel. There is no legal right for anyone to claim a right of return unless the nation involved has it as a LAW. In the case of Israel all the worlds Jews have the right of return to Israel, once they pass a few simple tests to prove they are Jews.
 I don't see you complaining about Saudi's laws regarding granting nationality to none muslims , why is that ?


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The surrounding Arab countries to Israel have proven they sure know that very well indeed.  NO RIGHT OF RETURN for their Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the Christians and Muslims of Palestine are indigenous to Palestine, how could they have a right of return to another country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so are the Jews, as proven by lineage and genetic testing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, genetic testing proves no such thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that because the few genetic tests done on the arab muslims show they are not from Palestine at all but from Syria and Egypt. Before those results were known team Palestine used genetic testing as a lever to remove the Jews from Israel, and it failed because the tests show they are related to the Jews who never moved.
> As I keep telling you the arab muslims a closer related to pigs, dogs apes and bananas than they are the Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...






 Once again you resort to immature retorts when you cant answer the points raised. The tests done show that arab muslims have an 85% match to pigs, dogs, apes and bananas, yet only an 83% match to the Jews. By the way all humans have the same DNA match to pigs, dogs, apes and bananas.


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, genetic testing proves no such thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does.  Extensive testing has been done and it proves it.  Go argue with the geneticists who performed the tests, namely the University of Arizona.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2000 Ostrer study is out of date. Given Zionist trace "Jewishness" through the Maternal line this 2013 study makes most Ashkenazis Europeans.
> 
> "Overall, they claim, at least 80 percent of Ashkenazi maternal ancestry comes from women indigenous to Europe while 8 percent originated in the Near East, with the rest uncertain." Ashkenazi Jewish women descended mostly from Italian converts new study asserts Genetic Literacy Project
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> COWFLOP   I bet this took you hours to find ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, I just typed in "Jewish genetic research University of Arizona" The Genetic Literacy Project is impartial, i like it's by line, "Where science trumps Ideology"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But your line of enquiry isn't, as you singled out just one of many studies because it supported your POV
Click to expand...


No, I singled out one of the most recent. Scientific knowledge advances, what may have been seen as true in 2000, can soon be discredited in 2013, and what's true in 2013 can be discredited in 2026, who knows.


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the Christians and Muslims of Palestine are indigenous to Palestine, how could they have a right of return to another country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so are the Jews, as proven by lineage and genetic testing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, genetic testing proves no such thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that because the few genetic tests done on the arab muslims show they are not from Palestine at all but from Syria and Egypt. Before those results were known team Palestine used genetic testing as a lever to remove the Jews from Israel, and it failed because the tests show they are related to the Jews who never moved.
> As I keep telling you the arab muslims a closer related to pigs, dogs apes and bananas than they are the Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you resort to immature retorts when you cant answer the points raised. The tests done show that arab muslims have an 85% match to pigs, dogs, apes and bananas, yet only an 83% match to the Jews. By the way all humans have the same DNA match to pigs, dogs, apes and bananas.
Click to expand...


The post was as I described it, your standard B.S. There were no points worth the effort to answer as you provided no links or evidence to back your bald assertion that, "...the few genetic tests done on the arab muslims show they are not from Palestine at all but from Syria and Egypt. Before those results were known team Palestine used genetic testing as a lever to remove the Jews from Israel, and it failed because the tests show they are related to the Jews who never moved.."


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Lamis Deek *
> 
> **
> *AminHussain*
> 
> **
> *Q&A*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as right of return, it is not a legal concept
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the Zionists Israel s Law of Return Jewish Virtual Library
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it is within all international laws as it is a Law of Israel. There is no legal right for anyone to claim a right of return unless the nation involved has it as a LAW. In the case of Israel all the worlds Jews have the right of return to Israel, once they pass a few simple tests to prove they are Jews.
> I don't see you complaining about Saudi's laws regarding granting nationality to none muslims , why is that ?
Click to expand...


So Law isn't a legal concept? Oh, and even geniune jewish people can't get in if they're not Zionists. The policies of Saudi Arabia has nothing to do with this forum unles they specificaly relate to the Palestinian conflict with Zionist israel, pose the question in Middle East - General forum, I might reply.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok , then post what you find to be incorrect and refute it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's much easier to just whine and screech: "lies!" like a 4 year old, then be able to actually offer an original, rational debate point.
> 
> Like the article I linked to above, the idiot chimp thanks me for posting it, and then ignores it completely due to it obliterating the moron's entire Worldview.
> 
> This forum desperately needs better, smarter, more knowledgeable pro-arab posters, the ones here aren't capable of telling us how many suns the earth orbits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it disappointing for you then that my world view remains unscathed by your pathetic quoting of 5 sentances of around 250 words from a 15 page thesis of over 8000 words which basically support the historical truth that by and large Jewish people were better off in Muslim areas than they were in Christian areas. Cecil must still be writhing in his grave in shame and disgust, if that's the best his Trust can produce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the only evidence you can bring to the board is that of the muslims, now they are hardly going to say they beat the Jews, raped their women, took their daughters as sex slaves and wiped out whole communities because the blood lust came over them.
Click to expand...


Muslims (the vast majority of whom were Christian converts to Islam) did no such thing to Jews.  There were no Jews to do such things to.  The people of the Roman (Byzantine) Empire, which ruled the Middle East before the Islam, were overwhelmingly Christians, as the state religion was Christianity.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does.  Extensive testing has been done and it proves it.  Go argue with the geneticists who performed the tests, namely the University of Arizona.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2000 Ostrer study is out of date. Given Zionist trace "Jewishness" through the Maternal line this 2013 study makes most Ashkenazis Europeans.
> 
> "Overall, they claim, at least 80 percent of Ashkenazi maternal ancestry comes from women indigenous to Europe while 8 percent originated in the Near East, with the rest uncertain." Ashkenazi Jewish women descended mostly from Italian converts new study asserts Genetic Literacy Project
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> COWFLOP   I bet this took you hours to find ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, I just typed in "Jewish genetic research University of Arizona" The Genetic Literacy Project is impartial, i like it's by line, "Where science trumps Ideology"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But your line of enquiry isn't, as you singled out just one of many studies because it supported your POV
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I singled out one of the most recent. Scientific knowledge advances, what may have been seen as true in 2000, can soon be discredited in 2013, and what's true in 2013 can be discredited in 2026, who knows.
Click to expand...





 And it just so happens to support your POV, when other recent studies contradict your POV. So you singled it out for one reason and one reason only, it supports your POV


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so are the Jews, as proven by lineage and genetic testing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, genetic testing proves no such thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that because the few genetic tests done on the arab muslims show they are not from Palestine at all but from Syria and Egypt. Before those results were known team Palestine used genetic testing as a lever to remove the Jews from Israel, and it failed because the tests show they are related to the Jews who never moved.
> As I keep telling you the arab muslims a closer related to pigs, dogs apes and bananas than they are the Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you resort to immature retorts when you cant answer the points raised. The tests done show that arab muslims have an 85% match to pigs, dogs, apes and bananas, yet only an 83% match to the Jews. By the way all humans have the same DNA match to pigs, dogs, apes and bananas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The post was as I described it, your standard B.S. There were no points worth the effort to answer as you provided no links or evidence to back your bald assertion that, "...the few genetic tests done on the arab muslims show they are not from Palestine at all but from Syria and Egypt. Before those results were known team Palestine used genetic testing as a lever to remove the Jews from Israel, and it failed because the tests show they are related to the Jews who never moved.."
Click to expand...





 How many6 times have I given them only to have morons ask for them again and again. They don't change overnight you know. And the fact that all humans have the same match to dogs, pigs, apes and bananas should tell even an idiot like you something about the arab muslims.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Lamis Deek *
> 
> **
> *AminHussain*
> 
> **
> *Q&A*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as right of return, it is not a legal concept
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the Zionists Israel s Law of Return Jewish Virtual Library
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it is within all international laws as it is a Law of Israel. There is no legal right for anyone to claim a right of return unless the nation involved has it as a LAW. In the case of Israel all the worlds Jews have the right of return to Israel, once they pass a few simple tests to prove they are Jews.
> I don't see you complaining about Saudi's laws regarding granting nationality to none muslims , why is that ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Law isn't a legal concept? Oh, and even geniune jewish people can't get in if they're not Zionists. The policies of Saudi Arabia has nothing to do with this forum unles they specificaly relate to the Palestinian conflict with Zionist israel, pose the question in Middle East - General forum, I might reply.
Click to expand...





 How about a link that supports your claims then ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok , then post what you find to be incorrect and refute it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's much easier to just whine and screech: "lies!" like a 4 year old, then be able to actually offer an original, rational debate point.
> 
> Like the article I linked to above, the idiot chimp thanks me for posting it, and then ignores it completely due to it obliterating the moron's entire Worldview.
> 
> This forum desperately needs better, smarter, more knowledgeable pro-arab posters, the ones here aren't capable of telling us how many suns the earth orbits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it disappointing for you then that my world view remains unscathed by your pathetic quoting of 5 sentances of around 250 words from a 15 page thesis of over 8000 words which basically support the historical truth that by and large Jewish people were better off in Muslim areas than they were in Christian areas. Cecil must still be writhing in his grave in shame and disgust, if that's the best his Trust can produce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the only evidence you can bring to the board is that of the muslims, now they are hardly going to say they beat the Jews, raped their women, took their daughters as sex slaves and wiped out whole communities because the blood lust came over them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Muslims (the vast majority of whom were Christian converts to Islam) did no such thing to Jews.  There were no Jews to do such things to.  The people of the Roman (Byzantine) Empire, which ruled the Middle East before the Islam, were overwhelmingly Christians, as the state religion was Christianity.
Click to expand...






 Try looking at the history books again Abdul as you are mixing up empires.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok , then post what you find to be incorrect and refute it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's much easier to just whine and screech: "lies!" like a 4 year old, then be able to actually offer an original, rational debate point.
> 
> Like the article I linked to above, the idiot chimp thanks me for posting it, and then ignores it completely due to it obliterating the moron's entire Worldview.
> 
> This forum desperately needs better, smarter, more knowledgeable pro-arab posters, the ones here aren't capable of telling us how many suns the earth orbits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it disappointing for you then that my world view remains unscathed by your pathetic quoting of 5 sentances of around 250 words from a 15 page thesis of over 8000 words which basically support the historical truth that by and large Jewish people were better off in Muslim areas than they were in Christian areas. Cecil must still be writhing in his grave in shame and disgust, if that's the best his Trust can produce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the only evidence you can bring to the board is that of the muslims, now they are hardly going to say they beat the Jews, raped their women, took their daughters as sex slaves and wiped out whole communities because the blood lust came over them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Muslims (the vast majority of whom were Christian converts to Islam) did no such thing to Jews.  There were no Jews to do such things to.  The people of the Roman (Byzantine) Empire, which ruled the Middle East before the Islam, were overwhelmingly Christians, as the state religion was Christianity.
Click to expand...


How do ya like that?  And here I actually believed there were Jews in what became the Roman Empire before there were Christians & even longer before Muslims.  Amazing what we can learn from Monte.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Leila Sansour*

**
**


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Leila Sansour*
> 
> **
> **






 Blame the arab muslims for it, if they did not resort to violence, terrorism and belligerence they would be allowed to move about freely


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Leila Sansour*
> 
> **
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blame the arab muslims for it, if they did not resort to violence, terrorism and belligerence they would be allowed to move about freely
Click to expand...

Bullshit, of course but go ahead and run with it.


----------



## P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Leila Sansour*
> 
> **
> **


It is a shame how Israel is destroying the Holy Land.


----------



## P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Leila Sansour*
> 
> **
> **
> 
> 
> 
> It is a shame how Israel is destroying the Holy Land.
Click to expand...


----------



## MJB12741

WHO ARE THE PALESTINIANS?

Report Hamas Used Child Labor to Build Terror Tunnels Hundreds Killed - Breitbart


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Lamis Deek *
> 
> **
> *AminHussain*
> 
> **
> *Q&A*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as right of return, it is not a legal concept
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the Zionists Israel s Law of Return Jewish Virtual Library
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it is within all international laws as it is a Law of Israel. There is no legal right for anyone to claim a right of return unless the nation involved has it as a LAW. In the case of Israel all the worlds Jews have the right of return to Israel, once they pass a few simple tests to prove they are Jews.
> I don't see you complaining about Saudi's laws regarding granting nationality to none muslims , why is that ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Law isn't a legal concept? Oh, and even geniune jewish people can't get in if they're not Zionists. The policies of Saudi Arabia has nothing to do with this forum unles they specificaly relate to the Palestinian conflict with Zionist israel, pose the question in Middle East - General forum, I might reply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about a link that supports your claims then ?
Click to expand...


Have two:
 Advertisement

Entry Denied Mondoweiss


----------



## P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Leila Sansour*
> 
> **
> **
> 
> 
> 
> It is a shame how Israel is destroying the Holy Land.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

And Israel says that it is the Muslims who are driving the Christians out of the holy land.

Like professional lying sack of shit, Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren.


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok , then post what you find to be incorrect and refute it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's much easier to just whine and screech: "lies!" like a 4 year old, then be able to actually offer an original, rational debate point.
> 
> Like the article I linked to above, the idiot chimp thanks me for posting it, and then ignores it completely due to it obliterating the moron's entire Worldview.
> 
> This forum desperately needs better, smarter, more knowledgeable pro-arab posters, the ones here aren't capable of telling us how many suns the earth orbits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it disappointing for you then that my world view remains unscathed by your pathetic quoting of 5 sentances of around 250 words from a 15 page thesis of over 8000 words which basically support the historical truth that by and large Jewish people were better off in Muslim areas than they were in Christian areas. Cecil must still be writhing in his grave in shame and disgust, if that's the best his Trust can produce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the only evidence you can bring to the board is that of the muslims, now they are hardly going to say they beat the Jews, raped their women, took their daughters as sex slaves and wiped out whole communities because the blood lust came over them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Muslims (the vast majority of whom were Christian converts to Islam) did no such thing to Jews.  There were no Jews to do such things to.  The people of the Roman (Byzantine) Empire, which ruled the Middle East before the Islam, were overwhelmingly Christians, as the state religion was Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try looking at the history books again Abdul as you are mixing up empires.
Click to expand...


Doesn't look like it to me. Are you off your meds again?


----------



## Challenger

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok , then post what you find to be incorrect and refute it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's much easier to just whine and screech: "lies!" like a 4 year old, then be able to actually offer an original, rational debate point.
> 
> Like the article I linked to above, the idiot chimp thanks me for posting it, and then ignores it completely due to it obliterating the moron's entire Worldview.
> 
> This forum desperately needs better, smarter, more knowledgeable pro-arab posters, the ones here aren't capable of telling us how many suns the earth orbits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it disappointing for you then that my world view remains unscathed by your pathetic quoting of 5 sentances of around 250 words from a 15 page thesis of over 8000 words which basically support the historical truth that by and large Jewish people were better off in Muslim areas than they were in Christian areas. Cecil must still be writhing in his grave in shame and disgust, if that's the best his Trust can produce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the only evidence you can bring to the board is that of the muslims, now they are hardly going to say they beat the Jews, raped their women, took their daughters as sex slaves and wiped out whole communities because the blood lust came over them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Muslims (the vast majority of whom were Christian converts to Islam) did no such thing to Jews.  There were no Jews to do such things to.  The people of the Roman (Byzantine) Empire, which ruled the Middle East before the Islam, were overwhelmingly Christians, as the state religion was Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do ya like that?  And here I actually believed there were Jews in what became the Roman Empire before there were Christians & even longer before Muslims.  Amazing what we can learn from Monte.
Click to expand...


Jewish Palestinians, Jewish Judeans, Jewish Samaritans, Jewish Arabs, Jewish Italians, Jewish Greeks maybe, but no Jews, they were invented much later.


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, genetic testing proves no such thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that because the few genetic tests done on the arab muslims show they are not from Palestine at all but from Syria and Egypt. Before those results were known team Palestine used genetic testing as a lever to remove the Jews from Israel, and it failed because the tests show they are related to the Jews who never moved.
> As I keep telling you the arab muslims a closer related to pigs, dogs apes and bananas than they are the Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you resort to immature retorts when you cant answer the points raised. The tests done show that arab muslims have an 85% match to pigs, dogs, apes and bananas, yet only an 83% match to the Jews. By the way all humans have the same DNA match to pigs, dogs, apes and bananas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The post was as I described it, your standard B.S. There were no points worth the effort to answer as you provided no links or evidence to back your bald assertion that, "...the few genetic tests done on the arab muslims show they are not from Palestine at all but from Syria and Egypt. Before those results were known team Palestine used genetic testing as a lever to remove the Jews from Israel, and it failed because the tests show they are related to the Jews who never moved.."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many6 times have I given them only to have morons ask for them again and again. They don't change overnight you know. And the fact that all humans have the same match to dogs, pigs, apes and bananas should tell even an idiot like you something about the arab muslims.
Click to expand...


You have never provided any links to support your theory, "...the few genetic tests done on the arab muslims show they are not from Palestine at all but from Syria and Egypt." Are you moving the goalposts again?


----------



## Challenger

MJB12741 said:


> WHO ARE THE PALESTINIANS?
> 
> Report Hamas Used Child Labor to Build Terror Tunnels Hundreds Killed - Breitbart



Breibart? Seriously? That's up there with Faux News for journalistic accuracy and integrity, just another Hasbara site.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Leila Sansour*
> 
> **
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blame the arab muslims for it, if they did not resort to violence, terrorism and belligerence they would be allowed to move about freely
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit, of course but go ahead and run with it.
Click to expand...





 No a fact that is proven when you look back to 1948 and the arab muslim invasion of Israel. That is when the problems really started and the arab muslims vowed to drive the Jews into the sea and destroy Israel. A pity that the Jews had more to fight for after all it is their land by international law.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Leila Sansour*
> 
> **
> **
> 
> 
> 
> It is a shame how Israel is destroying the Holy Land.
Click to expand...





 Its an even bigger shame that you LIE so much to demonise the Jews


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?






 Typical islamonazi propaganda, steal something and claim it for yourself.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Leila Sansour*
> 
> **
> **
> 
> 
> 
> It is a shame how Israel is destroying the Holy Land.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its an even bigger shame that you LIE so much to demonise the Jews
Click to expand...

What lie?

BTW, where do I mention Jews?


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Leila Sansour*
> 
> **
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blame the arab muslims for it, if they did not resort to violence, terrorism and belligerence they would be allowed to move about freely
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit, of course but go ahead and run with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No a fact that is proven when you look back to 1948 and the arab muslim invasion of Israel. That is when the problems really started and the arab muslims vowed to drive the Jews into the sea and destroy Israel. A pity that the Jews had more to fight for after all it is their land by international law.
Click to expand...


The invaders were Jews from Europe.  They began murdering and ethnically cleansing the Christians and Muslims (non-Jews) of Palestine and the surrounding countries tried to stop this murder and ethnic cleansing of the native people by the Europeans. The European Jews  were from another continent FFS.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as right of return, it is not a legal concept
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the Zionists Israel s Law of Return Jewish Virtual Library
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it is within all international laws as it is a Law of Israel. There is no legal right for anyone to claim a right of return unless the nation involved has it as a LAW. In the case of Israel all the worlds Jews have the right of return to Israel, once they pass a few simple tests to prove they are Jews.
> I don't see you complaining about Saudi's laws regarding granting nationality to none muslims , why is that ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Law isn't a legal concept? Oh, and even geniune jewish people can't get in if they're not Zionists. The policies of Saudi Arabia has nothing to do with this forum unles they specificaly relate to the Palestinian conflict with Zionist israel, pose the question in Middle East - General forum, I might reply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about a link that supports your claims then ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have two:
> Advertisement
> 
> Entry Denied Mondoweiss
Click to expand...





So he was not a Jew but a muslim, failed again


P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Leila Sansour*
> 
> **
> **
> 
> 
> 
> It is a shame how Israel is destroying the Holy Land.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its an even bigger shame that you LIE so much to demonise the Jews
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What lie?
> 
> BTW, where do I mention Jews?
Click to expand...





 You don't need to as your LIES do it for you.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Leila Sansour*
> 
> **
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blame the arab muslims for it, if they did not resort to violence, terrorism and belligerence they would be allowed to move about freely
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit, of course but go ahead and run with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No a fact that is proven when you look back to 1948 and the arab muslim invasion of Israel. That is when the problems really started and the arab muslims vowed to drive the Jews into the sea and destroy Israel. A pity that the Jews had more to fight for after all it is their land by international law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The invaders were Jews from Europe.  They began murdering and ethnically cleansing the Christians and Muslims (non-Jews) of Palestine and the surrounding countries tried to stop this murder and ethnic cleansing of the native people by the Europeans. The European Jews  were from another continent FFS.
Click to expand...





 How can citizens of a nation be invaders, that is a typical islamonazi OXYMORON. The only invaders were the thousands of arab muslims that invaded the Jews homeland from 1922 till the present day. These arab muslims had been murdering and eyjnically cleansing Jews from the M.E. since 630 C.E. when the inventor of islam made it a religious command. The Jews were always the native people, and the arab muslims were always the ones doing the murdering and ethnic cleansing. The arab muslims had no interest in what was happening in Palestine other than they were going to lose the land. This was shown when they told the arab muslims to move out of the way. Then later when Jordan massacred 50,000 in one month.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Leila Sansour*
> 
> **
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blame the arab muslims for it, if they did not resort to violence, terrorism and belligerence they would be allowed to move about freely
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit, of course but go ahead and run with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No a fact that is proven when you look back to 1948 and the arab muslim invasion of Israel. That is when the problems really started and the arab muslims vowed to drive the Jews into the sea and destroy Israel. A pity that the Jews had more to fight for after all it is their land by international law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The invaders were Jews from Europe.  They began murdering and ethnically cleansing the Christians and Muslims (non-Jews) of Palestine and the surrounding countries tried to stop this murder and ethnic cleansing of the native people by the Europeans. The European Jews  were from another continent FFS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can citizens of a nation be invaders, that is a typical islamonazi OXYMORON. The only invaders were the thousands of arab muslims that invaded the Jews homeland from 1922 till the present day. These arab muslims had been murdering and eyjnically cleansing Jews from the M.E. since 630 C.E. when the inventor of islam made it a religious command. The Jews were always the native people, and the arab muslims were always the ones doing the murdering and ethnic cleansing. The arab muslims had no interest in what was happening in Palestine other than they were going to lose the land. This was shown when they told the arab muslims to move out of the way. Then later when Jordan massacred 50,000 in one month.
Click to expand...

How can citizens of a nation be invaders,

Good question. How can the citizens of Palestine inside Palestine be the invaders?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blame the arab muslims for it, if they did not resort to violence, terrorism and belligerence they would be allowed to move about freely
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit, of course but go ahead and run with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No a fact that is proven when you look back to 1948 and the arab muslim invasion of Israel. That is when the problems really started and the arab muslims vowed to drive the Jews into the sea and destroy Israel. A pity that the Jews had more to fight for after all it is their land by international law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The invaders were Jews from Europe.  They began murdering and ethnically cleansing the Christians and Muslims (non-Jews) of Palestine and the surrounding countries tried to stop this murder and ethnic cleansing of the native people by the Europeans. The European Jews  were from another continent FFS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can citizens of a nation be invaders, that is a typical islamonazi OXYMORON. The only invaders were the thousands of arab muslims that invaded the Jews homeland from 1922 till the present day. These arab muslims had been murdering and eyjnically cleansing Jews from the M.E. since 630 C.E. when the inventor of islam made it a religious command. The Jews were always the native people, and the arab muslims were always the ones doing the murdering and ethnic cleansing. The arab muslims had no interest in what was happening in Palestine other than they were going to lose the land. This was shown when they told the arab muslims to move out of the way. Then later when Jordan massacred 50,000 in one month.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can citizens of a nation be invaders,
> 
> Good question. How can the citizens of Palestine inside Palestine be the invaders?
Click to expand...





 Because they were not citizens of Palestine but itinerant farm workers that followed the crops. Many were unskilled Syrian and Egyptian nomads who were offered land that was being worked by the Jews. The Grand Mufti exposed his plans in 1929 when he ordered the Hebron massacre. Many arab leaders told how the arab muslims in Palestine were not native but were travellers, what we in Europe call Roma


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit, of course but go ahead and run with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No a fact that is proven when you look back to 1948 and the arab muslim invasion of Israel. That is when the problems really started and the arab muslims vowed to drive the Jews into the sea and destroy Israel. A pity that the Jews had more to fight for after all it is their land by international law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The invaders were Jews from Europe.  They began murdering and ethnically cleansing the Christians and Muslims (non-Jews) of Palestine and the surrounding countries tried to stop this murder and ethnic cleansing of the native people by the Europeans. The European Jews  were from another continent FFS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can citizens of a nation be invaders, that is a typical islamonazi OXYMORON. The only invaders were the thousands of arab muslims that invaded the Jews homeland from 1922 till the present day. These arab muslims had been murdering and eyjnically cleansing Jews from the M.E. since 630 C.E. when the inventor of islam made it a religious command. The Jews were always the native people, and the arab muslims were always the ones doing the murdering and ethnic cleansing. The arab muslims had no interest in what was happening in Palestine other than they were going to lose the land. This was shown when they told the arab muslims to move out of the way. Then later when Jordan massacred 50,000 in one month.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can citizens of a nation be invaders,
> 
> Good question. How can the citizens of Palestine inside Palestine be the invaders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they were not citizens of Palestine but itinerant farm workers that followed the crops. Many were unskilled Syrian and Egyptian nomads who were offered land that was being worked by the Jews. The Grand Mufti exposed his plans in 1929 when he ordered the Hebron massacre. Many arab leaders told how the arab muslims in Palestine were not native but were travellers, what we in Europe call Roma
Click to expand...


You are confusing the Bedouins, who were a small portion of the population, with the Palestinians who had been living in Palestine for over 2,000 years.  And, luckily, we have film from 1896 to demonstrate how delusional you are:


----------



## rhodescholar

Challenger said:


> Breibart? Seriously? That's up there with Faux News for journalistic accuracy and integrity, just another Hasbara site.



From the worthless c-nt linking to mondoweiss.  You're as fucking stupid as they come.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No a fact that is proven when you look back to 1948 and the arab muslim invasion of Israel. That is when the problems really started and the arab muslims vowed to drive the Jews into the sea and destroy Israel. A pity that the Jews had more to fight for after all it is their land by international law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The invaders were Jews from Europe.  They began murdering and ethnically cleansing the Christians and Muslims (non-Jews) of Palestine and the surrounding countries tried to stop this murder and ethnic cleansing of the native people by the Europeans. The European Jews  were from another continent FFS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can citizens of a nation be invaders, that is a typical islamonazi OXYMORON. The only invaders were the thousands of arab muslims that invaded the Jews homeland from 1922 till the present day. These arab muslims had been murdering and eyjnically cleansing Jews from the M.E. since 630 C.E. when the inventor of islam made it a religious command. The Jews were always the native people, and the arab muslims were always the ones doing the murdering and ethnic cleansing. The arab muslims had no interest in what was happening in Palestine other than they were going to lose the land. This was shown when they told the arab muslims to move out of the way. Then later when Jordan massacred 50,000 in one month.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can citizens of a nation be invaders,
> 
> Good question. How can the citizens of Palestine inside Palestine be the invaders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OUTSTANDING POINT.  And who were those Palestinians who have been living on the land over 200 years?  Yes sir, they were JEWS!
> 
> 
> 
> Because they were not citizens of Palestine but itinerant farm workers that followed the crops. Many were unskilled Syrian and Egyptian nomads who were offered land that was being worked by the Jews. The Grand Mufti exposed his plans in 1929 when he ordered the Hebron massacre. Many arab leaders told how the arab muslims in Palestine were not native but were travellers, what we in Europe call Roma
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confusing the Bedouins, who were a small portion of the population, with the Palestinians who had been living in Palestine for over 2,000 years.  And, luckily, we have film from 1896 to demonstrate how delusional you are:
Click to expand...


----------



## montelatici

MJB the ZioNazi is speechless as he watches a real film of 1896 Palestine.  He can't believe that there are Palestinians walking around, Christians and Muslims.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No a fact that is proven when you look back to 1948 and the arab muslim invasion of Israel. That is when the problems really started and the arab muslims vowed to drive the Jews into the sea and destroy Israel. A pity that the Jews had more to fight for after all it is their land by international law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The invaders were Jews from Europe.  They began murdering and ethnically cleansing the Christians and Muslims (non-Jews) of Palestine and the surrounding countries tried to stop this murder and ethnic cleansing of the native people by the Europeans. The European Jews  were from another continent FFS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can citizens of a nation be invaders, that is a typical islamonazi OXYMORON. The only invaders were the thousands of arab muslims that invaded the Jews homeland from 1922 till the present day. These arab muslims had been murdering and eyjnically cleansing Jews from the M.E. since 630 C.E. when the inventor of islam made it a religious command. The Jews were always the native people, and the arab muslims were always the ones doing the murdering and ethnic cleansing. The arab muslims had no interest in what was happening in Palestine other than they were going to lose the land. This was shown when they told the arab muslims to move out of the way. Then later when Jordan massacred 50,000 in one month.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can citizens of a nation be invaders,
> 
> Good question. How can the citizens of Palestine inside Palestine be the invaders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they were not citizens of Palestine but itinerant farm workers that followed the crops. Many were unskilled Syrian and Egyptian nomads who were offered land that was being worked by the Jews. The Grand Mufti exposed his plans in 1929 when he ordered the Hebron massacre. Many arab leaders told how the arab muslims in Palestine were not native but were travellers, what we in Europe call Roma
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confusing the Bedouins, who were a small portion of the population, with the Palestinians who had been living in Palestine for over 2,000 years.  And, luckily, we have film from 1896 to demonstrate how delusional you are:
Click to expand...




montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No a fact that is proven when you look back to 1948 and the arab muslim invasion of Israel. That is when the problems really started and the arab muslims vowed to drive the Jews into the sea and destroy Israel. A pity that the Jews had more to fight for after all it is their land by international law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The invaders were Jews from Europe.  They began murdering and ethnically cleansing the Christians and Muslims (non-Jews) of Palestine and the surrounding countries tried to stop this murder and ethnic cleansing of the native people by the Europeans. The European Jews  were from another continent FFS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can citizens of a nation be invaders, that is a typical islamonazi OXYMORON. The only invaders were the thousands of arab muslims that invaded the Jews homeland from 1922 till the present day. These arab muslims had been murdering and eyjnically cleansing Jews from the M.E. since 630 C.E. when the inventor of islam made it a religious command. The Jews were always the native people, and the arab muslims were always the ones doing the murdering and ethnic cleansing. The arab muslims had no interest in what was happening in Palestine other than they were going to lose the land. This was shown when they told the arab muslims to move out of the way. Then later when Jordan massacred 50,000 in one month.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can citizens of a nation be invaders,
> 
> Good question. How can the citizens of Palestine inside Palestine be the invaders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they were not citizens of Palestine but itinerant farm workers that followed the crops. Many were unskilled Syrian and Egyptian nomads who were offered land that was being worked by the Jews. The Grand Mufti exposed his plans in 1929 when he ordered the Hebron massacre. Many arab leaders told how the arab muslims in Palestine were not native but were travellers, what we in Europe call Roma
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confusing the Bedouins, who were a small portion of the population, with the Palestinians who had been living in Palestine for over 2,000 years.  And, luckily, we have film from 1896 to demonstrate how delusional you are:
Click to expand...


OUTSTANDING POINT!  And who were those Palestinians that have been living on the land for over 2000 years.  Yep, they were JEWS!


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB the ZioNazi is speechless as he watches a real film of 1896 Palestine.  He can't believe that there are Palestinians walking around, Christians and Muslims.



How dare you call me off all people a ZioNazi.  I despise them with all my heart & soul for what they have done to the Palestinians with their damn Zionist agenda of peace offerings, a security fence & land concessions to provoke the Palestinians by keeping them in Israel when all they want is to be free from Israel.  Want peace?  Fist this entire Zionist agenda has to go.  Israel needs a leader like king Hussein who knew how to achieve a lasting peace from Palestinians.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The invaders were Jews from Europe.  They began murdering and ethnically cleansing the Christians and Muslims (non-Jews) of Palestine and the surrounding countries tried to stop this murder and ethnic cleansing of the native people by the Europeans. The European Jews  were from another continent FFS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can citizens of a nation be invaders, that is a typical islamonazi OXYMORON. The only invaders were the thousands of arab muslims that invaded the Jews homeland from 1922 till the present day. These arab muslims had been murdering and eyjnically cleansing Jews from the M.E. since 630 C.E. when the inventor of islam made it a religious command. The Jews were always the native people, and the arab muslims were always the ones doing the murdering and ethnic cleansing. The arab muslims had no interest in what was happening in Palestine other than they were going to lose the land. This was shown when they told the arab muslims to move out of the way. Then later when Jordan massacred 50,000 in one month.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can citizens of a nation be invaders,
> 
> Good question. How can the citizens of Palestine inside Palestine be the invaders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they were not citizens of Palestine but itinerant farm workers that followed the crops. Many were unskilled Syrian and Egyptian nomads who were offered land that was being worked by the Jews. The Grand Mufti exposed his plans in 1929 when he ordered the Hebron massacre. Many arab leaders told how the arab muslims in Palestine were not native but were travellers, what we in Europe call Roma
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confusing the Bedouins, who were a small portion of the population, with the Palestinians who had been living in Palestine for over 2,000 years.  And, luckily, we have film from 1896 to demonstrate how delusional you are:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The invaders were Jews from Europe.  They began murdering and ethnically cleansing the Christians and Muslims (non-Jews) of Palestine and the surrounding countries tried to stop this murder and ethnic cleansing of the native people by the Europeans. The European Jews  were from another continent FFS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can citizens of a nation be invaders, that is a typical islamonazi OXYMORON. The only invaders were the thousands of arab muslims that invaded the Jews homeland from 1922 till the present day. These arab muslims had been murdering and eyjnically cleansing Jews from the M.E. since 630 C.E. when the inventor of islam made it a religious command. The Jews were always the native people, and the arab muslims were always the ones doing the murdering and ethnic cleansing. The arab muslims had no interest in what was happening in Palestine other than they were going to lose the land. This was shown when they told the arab muslims to move out of the way. Then later when Jordan massacred 50,000 in one month.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can citizens of a nation be invaders,
> 
> Good question. How can the citizens of Palestine inside Palestine be the invaders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they were not citizens of Palestine but itinerant farm workers that followed the crops. Many were unskilled Syrian and Egyptian nomads who were offered land that was being worked by the Jews. The Grand Mufti exposed his plans in 1929 when he ordered the Hebron massacre. Many arab leaders told how the arab muslims in Palestine were not native but were travellers, what we in Europe call Roma
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confusing the Bedouins, who were a small portion of the population, with the Palestinians who had been living in Palestine for over 2,000 years.  And, luckily, we have film from 1896 to demonstrate how delusional you are:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OUTSTANDING POINT!  And who were those Palestinians that have been living on the land for over 2000 years.  Yep, they were JEWS!
Click to expand...


The Romans (Eastern) required adherence to Christianity, the State religion.  There were no Jews before Islam took over. The Muslims allowed the Jews to return and practice their religion, in fact, the perfidious Jews helped the Muslims defeat the Christians.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB the ZioNazi is speechless as he watches a real film of 1896 Palestine.  He can't believe that there are Palestinians walking around, Christians and Muslims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How dare you call me off all people a ZioNazi.  I despise them with all my heart & soul for what they have done to the Palestinians with their damn Zionist agenda of peace offerings, a security fence & land concessions to provoke the Palestinians by keeping them in Israel when all they want is to be free from Israel.  Want peace?  Fist this entire Zionist agenda has to go.  Israel needs a leader like king Hussein who knew how to achieve a lasting peace from Palestinians.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!
Click to expand...


What peace offerings? A thief that offers to return part of what he has stolen does not offer peace.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit, of course but go ahead and run with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No a fact that is proven when you look back to 1948 and the arab muslim invasion of Israel. That is when the problems really started and the arab muslims vowed to drive the Jews into the sea and destroy Israel. A pity that the Jews had more to fight for after all it is their land by international law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The invaders were Jews from Europe.  They began murdering and ethnically cleansing the Christians and Muslims (non-Jews) of Palestine and the surrounding countries tried to stop this murder and ethnic cleansing of the native people by the Europeans. The European Jews  were from another continent FFS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can citizens of a nation be invaders, that is a typical islamonazi OXYMORON. The only invaders were the thousands of arab muslims that invaded the Jews homeland from 1922 till the present day. These arab muslims had been murdering and eyjnically cleansing Jews from the M.E. since 630 C.E. when the inventor of islam made it a religious command. The Jews were always the native people, and the arab muslims were always the ones doing the murdering and ethnic cleansing. The arab muslims had no interest in what was happening in Palestine other than they were going to lose the land. This was shown when they told the arab muslims to move out of the way. Then later when Jordan massacred 50,000 in one month.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can citizens of a nation be invaders,
> 
> Good question. How can the citizens of Palestine inside Palestine be the invaders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they were not citizens of Palestine but itinerant farm workers that followed the crops. Many were unskilled Syrian and Egyptian nomads who were offered land that was being worked by the Jews. The Grand Mufti exposed his plans in 1929 when he ordered the Hebron massacre. Many arab leaders told how the arab muslims in Palestine were not native but were travellers, what we in Europe call Roma
Click to expand...


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Noor Harazeen*

**


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No a fact that is proven when you look back to 1948 and the arab muslim invasion of Israel. That is when the problems really started and the arab muslims vowed to drive the Jews into the sea and destroy Israel. A pity that the Jews had more to fight for after all it is their land by international law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The invaders were Jews from Europe.  They began murdering and ethnically cleansing the Christians and Muslims (non-Jews) of Palestine and the surrounding countries tried to stop this murder and ethnic cleansing of the native people by the Europeans. The European Jews  were from another continent FFS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can citizens of a nation be invaders, that is a typical islamonazi OXYMORON. The only invaders were the thousands of arab muslims that invaded the Jews homeland from 1922 till the present day. These arab muslims had been murdering and eyjnically cleansing Jews from the M.E. since 630 C.E. when the inventor of islam made it a religious command. The Jews were always the native people, and the arab muslims were always the ones doing the murdering and ethnic cleansing. The arab muslims had no interest in what was happening in Palestine other than they were going to lose the land. This was shown when they told the arab muslims to move out of the way. Then later when Jordan massacred 50,000 in one month.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can citizens of a nation be invaders,
> 
> Good question. How can the citizens of Palestine inside Palestine be the invaders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they were not citizens of Palestine but itinerant farm workers that followed the crops. Many were unskilled Syrian and Egyptian nomads who were offered land that was being worked by the Jews. The Grand Mufti exposed his plans in 1929 when he ordered the Hebron massacre. Many arab leaders told how the arab muslims in Palestine were not native but were travellers, what we in Europe call Roma
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confusing the Bedouins, who were a small portion of the population, with the Palestinians who had been living in Palestine for over 2,000 years.  And, luckily, we have film from 1896 to demonstrate how delusional you are:
Click to expand...






 Wrong again Abdul, they were a separate entity that are still nomadic to this day.  The arab muslims from Syria and Egypt that followed the crops as itinerant farm workers. The same farm workers the Ottomans tried to get to settle in Palestine and work the land 3 times. And 3 times they failed to stay longer than 6 months as they did not like the work. They preferred the life of wandering hobo's working for food and shelter .

 Like all islamonazi misfits you start to LIE as soon as the truth comes out about the arab muslims invading Palestine.  Do explain again how the arab muslims managed to produce 4 children every 9 months from every female between the ages of 12 and 50 and not one died. Or how the population had not one death from old age, disease or accident in 20 years. Or was it ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION that created the rise in population between 1922 and 1939


----------



## Phoenall

rhodescholar said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Breibart? Seriously? That's up there with Faux News for journalistic accuracy and integrity, just another Hasbara site.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the worthless c-nt linking to mondoweiss.  You're as fucking stupid as they come.
Click to expand...




 He also links to a known and proven NAZI HOLOCAUST DENIAL group.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB the ZioNazi is speechless as he watches a real film of 1896 Palestine.  He can't believe that there are Palestinians walking around, Christians and Muslims.






Only your word on that which as we know is worthless. Show some real proof for a change, like the Ottoman census from 1850 on over ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No a fact that is proven when you look back to 1948 and the arab muslim invasion of Israel. That is when the problems really started and the arab muslims vowed to drive the Jews into the sea and destroy Israel. A pity that the Jews had more to fight for after all it is their land by international law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The invaders were Jews from Europe.  They began murdering and ethnically cleansing the Christians and Muslims (non-Jews) of Palestine and the surrounding countries tried to stop this murder and ethnic cleansing of the native people by the Europeans. The European Jews  were from another continent FFS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can citizens of a nation be invaders, that is a typical islamonazi OXYMORON. The only invaders were the thousands of arab muslims that invaded the Jews homeland from 1922 till the present day. These arab muslims had been murdering and eyjnically cleansing Jews from the M.E. since 630 C.E. when the inventor of islam made it a religious command. The Jews were always the native people, and the arab muslims were always the ones doing the murdering and ethnic cleansing. The arab muslims had no interest in what was happening in Palestine other than they were going to lose the land. This was shown when they told the arab muslims to move out of the way. Then later when Jordan massacred 50,000 in one month.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can citizens of a nation be invaders,
> 
> Good question. How can the citizens of Palestine inside Palestine be the invaders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they were not citizens of Palestine but itinerant farm workers that followed the crops. Many were unskilled Syrian and Egyptian nomads who were offered land that was being worked by the Jews. The Grand Mufti exposed his plans in 1929 when he ordered the Hebron massacre. Many arab leaders told how the arab muslims in Palestine were not native but were travellers, what we in Europe call Roma
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...






 Any corroborative evidence to support this fantasy ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Noor Harazeen*
> 
> **







 Fire illegal weapons from a civilian area and you will find it loses its civilian status and becomes a valid military target. Use "civilians" as human shields and they then become militia and valid military targets. As the ICC has reported hamas was guilty of war crimes during Operation Protective Edge and the P.A. has dropped the case before they start getting arrested and dragged before the Hague.

 Any comment on JUSTICE being seen to be done, and the arab muslims finding that the UN is starting to see them as they really are ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can citizens of a nation be invaders, that is a typical islamonazi OXYMORON. The only invaders were the thousands of arab muslims that invaded the Jews homeland from 1922 till the present day. These arab muslims had been murdering and eyjnically cleansing Jews from the M.E. since 630 C.E. when the inventor of islam made it a religious command. The Jews were always the native people, and the arab muslims were always the ones doing the murdering and ethnic cleansing. The arab muslims had no interest in what was happening in Palestine other than they were going to lose the land. This was shown when they told the arab muslims to move out of the way. Then later when Jordan massacred 50,000 in one month.
> 
> 
> 
> How can citizens of a nation be invaders,
> 
> Good question. How can the citizens of Palestine inside Palestine be the invaders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they were not citizens of Palestine but itinerant farm workers that followed the crops. Many were unskilled Syrian and Egyptian nomads who were offered land that was being worked by the Jews. The Grand Mufti exposed his plans in 1929 when he ordered the Hebron massacre. Many arab leaders told how the arab muslims in Palestine were not native but were travellers, what we in Europe call Roma
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confusing the Bedouins, who were a small portion of the population, with the Palestinians who had been living in Palestine for over 2,000 years.  And, luckily, we have film from 1896 to demonstrate how delusional you are:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can citizens of a nation be invaders, that is a typical islamonazi OXYMORON. The only invaders were the thousands of arab muslims that invaded the Jews homeland from 1922 till the present day. These arab muslims had been murdering and eyjnically cleansing Jews from the M.E. since 630 C.E. when the inventor of islam made it a religious command. The Jews were always the native people, and the arab muslims were always the ones doing the murdering and ethnic cleansing. The arab muslims had no interest in what was happening in Palestine other than they were going to lose the land. This was shown when they told the arab muslims to move out of the way. Then later when Jordan massacred 50,000 in one month.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can citizens of a nation be invaders,
> 
> Good question. How can the citizens of Palestine inside Palestine be the invaders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they were not citizens of Palestine but itinerant farm workers that followed the crops. Many were unskilled Syrian and Egyptian nomads who were offered land that was being worked by the Jews. The Grand Mufti exposed his plans in 1929 when he ordered the Hebron massacre. Many arab leaders told how the arab muslims in Palestine were not native but were travellers, what we in Europe call Roma
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confusing the Bedouins, who were a small portion of the population, with the Palestinians who had been living in Palestine for over 2,000 years.  And, luckily, we have film from 1896 to demonstrate how delusional you are:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OUTSTANDING POINT!  And who were those Palestinians that have been living on the land for over 2000 years.  Yep, they were JEWS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Romans (Eastern) required adherence to Christianity, the State religion.  There were no Jews before Islam took over. The Muslims allowed the Jews to return and practice their religion, in fact, the perfidious Jews helped the Muslims defeat the Christians.
Click to expand...






 LIES  as the Jews have existed in the M.E. for over 4,500 years. You have failed to produce any evidence to disprove this, or to disprove the Ottoman census counts that show the Jews outnumbered the arab muslims every year from 1840 till the present day.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB the ZioNazi is speechless as he watches a real film of 1896 Palestine.  He can't believe that there are Palestinians walking around, Christians and Muslims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How dare you call me off all people a ZioNazi.  I despise them with all my heart & soul for what they have done to the Palestinians with their damn Zionist agenda of peace offerings, a security fence & land concessions to provoke the Palestinians by keeping them in Israel when all they want is to be free from Israel.  Want peace?  Fist this entire Zionist agenda has to go.  Israel needs a leader like king Hussein who knew how to achieve a lasting peace from Palestinians.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What peace offerings? A thief that offers to return part of what he has stolen does not offer peace.
Click to expand...





 The only thieves are the arab muslims who have stolen Jewish land since 635 C.E. International law states that the Jews are the lands owners and the arab muslims are the armed invaders. Time for the UN to step in and evict the invaders forcing their countries of origin to take them back.


----------



## MJB12741

No surrounding Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return.  They know the Palestinians very well.  How relieved they are to have Israel to have to deal with them.


----------



## RoccoR

et al,

What is the legal basis for the Palestinian "Right of Return?"



MJB12741 said:


> No surrounding Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return.  They know the Palestinians very well.  How relieved they are to have Israel to have to deal with them.


(COMMENT)

I looked at the PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department site, and  all I can find, that the really agree upon, is:


Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations (1945), requires that “[a]ll Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) emphasizes “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and calls for the “[w]ithdrawal of
Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.”
The International Court of Justice, in its July 9, 2004 Advisory Opinion, concluded that Israel in breach of international law as an occupying power by building its Wall and settlements inside the oPt.
I also notice that under the  Convention relating to the status of Stateless Persons, there may not be as many Palestinian Refugees as the UNRWA says. 

In the last couple weeks, the pro-Palestinian side has made it plain that they consider Palestinians of the 1988 State of Palestine a cohesive and permanent population.  If so, there are very few "refugees" to start with in the discussion.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> et al,
> 
> What is the legal basis for the Palestinian "Right of Return?"
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No surrounding Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return.  They know the Palestinians very well.  How relieved they are to have Israel to have to deal with them.
> 
> 
> 
> (COMMENT)
> 
> I looked at the PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department site, and  all I can find, that the really agree upon, is:
> 
> 
> Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations (1945), requires that “[a]ll Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
> UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) emphasizes “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and calls for the “[w]ithdrawal of
> Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.”
> The International Court of Justice, in its July 9, 2004 Advisory Opinion, concluded that Israel in breach of international law as an occupying power by building its Wall and settlements inside the oPt.
> I also notice that under the  Convention relating to the status of Stateless Persons, there may not be as many Palestinian Refugees as the UNRWA says.
> 
> In the last couple weeks, the pro-Palestinian side has made it plain that they consider Palestinians of the 1988 State of Palestine a cohesive and permanent population.  If so, there are very few "refugees" to start with in the discussion.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.

2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration


----------



## toastman

RoccoR said:


> et al,
> 
> What is the legal basis for the Palestinian "Right of Return?"
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No surrounding Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return.  They know the Palestinians very well.  How relieved they are to have Israel to have to deal with them.
> 
> 
> 
> (COMMENT)
> 
> I looked at the PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department site, and  all I can find, that the really agree upon, is:
> 
> 
> Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations (1945), requires that “[a]ll Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
> UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) emphasizes “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and calls for the “[w]ithdrawal of
> Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.”
> The International Court of Justice, in its July 9, 2004 Advisory Opinion, concluded that Israel in breach of international law as an occupying power by building its Wall and settlements inside the oPt.
> I also notice that under the  Convention relating to the status of Stateless Persons, there may not be as many Palestinian Refugees as the UNRWA says.
> 
> In the last couple weeks, the pro-Palestinian side has made it plain that they consider Palestinians of the 1988 State of Palestine a cohesive and permanent population.  If so, there are very few "refugees" to start with in the discussion.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

According to pro Palestinians, the offspring of the initial refugees are also refugees. As well as their offspring. And theirs.....


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, two issues.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> et al,
> 
> What is the legal basis for the Palestinian "Right of Return?"
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No surrounding Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return.  They know the Palestinians very well.  How relieved they are to have Israel to have to deal with them.
> 
> 
> 
> (COMMENT)
> 
> I looked at the PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department site, and  all I can find, that the really agree upon, is:
> 
> 
> Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations (1945), requires that “[a]ll Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
> UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) emphasizes “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and calls for the “[w]ithdrawal of
> Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.”
> The International Court of Justice, in its July 9, 2004 Advisory Opinion, concluded that Israel in breach of international law as an occupying power by building its Wall and settlements inside the oPt.
> I also notice that under the  Convention relating to the status of Stateless Persons, there may not be as many Palestinian Refugees as the UNRWA says.
> 
> In the last couple weeks, the pro-Palestinian side has made it plain that they consider Palestinians of the 1988 State of Palestine a cohesive and permanent population.  If so, there are very few "refugees" to start with in the discussion.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
> 
> 2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> 3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.
> 
> 4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
> 
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> 6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
Click to expand...

*(QUESTIONS)*

Is General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960  Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, binding?
Where is the "Right of Return" stipulated by International Law?
*(COMMENT)*

While the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1967 Protocol) is treaty like and binding, it does not give refugees a right to return. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> et al,
> 
> What is the legal basis for the Palestinian "Right of Return?"
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No surrounding Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return.  They know the Palestinians very well.  How relieved they are to have Israel to have to deal with them.
> 
> 
> 
> (COMMENT)
> 
> I looked at the PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department site, and  all I can find, that the really agree upon, is:
> 
> 
> Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations (1945), requires that “[a]ll Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
> UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) emphasizes “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and calls for the “[w]ithdrawal of
> Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.”
> The International Court of Justice, in its July 9, 2004 Advisory Opinion, concluded that Israel in breach of international law as an occupying power by building its Wall and settlements inside the oPt.
> I also notice that under the  Convention relating to the status of Stateless Persons, there may not be as many Palestinian Refugees as the UNRWA says.
> 
> In the last couple weeks, the pro-Palestinian side has made it plain that they consider Palestinians of the 1988 State of Palestine a cohesive and permanent population.  If so, there are very few "refugees" to start with in the discussion.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
> 
> 2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> 3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.
> 
> 4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
> 
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> 6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
Click to expand...





 Which is not law but just recommendations, so not relevant to the current topics


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> OK, two issues.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> et al,
> 
> What is the legal basis for the Palestinian "Right of Return?"
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No surrounding Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return.  They know the Palestinians very well.  How relieved they are to have Israel to have to deal with them.
> 
> 
> 
> (COMMENT)
> 
> I looked at the PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department site, and  all I can find, that the really agree upon, is:
> 
> 
> Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations (1945), requires that “[a]ll Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
> UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) emphasizes “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and calls for the “[w]ithdrawal of
> Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.”
> The International Court of Justice, in its July 9, 2004 Advisory Opinion, concluded that Israel in breach of international law as an occupying power by building its Wall and settlements inside the oPt.
> I also notice that under the  Convention relating to the status of Stateless Persons, there may not be as many Palestinian Refugees as the UNRWA says.
> 
> In the last couple weeks, the pro-Palestinian side has made it plain that they consider Palestinians of the 1988 State of Palestine a cohesive and permanent population.  If so, there are very few "refugees" to start with in the discussion.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
> 
> 2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> 3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.
> 
> 4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
> 
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> 6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> Is General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960  Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, binding?
> Where is the "Right of Return" stipulated by International Law?
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1967 Protocol) is treaty like and binding, it does not give refugees a right to return.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

I don't see where the right to return would be relevant. The only thing in the way is the alien domination. Without that, the right to return would not be an issue.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Oh come on now.  Be specific.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> OK, two issues.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> et al,
> 
> What is the legal basis for the Palestinian "Right of Return?"
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No surrounding Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return.  They know the Palestinians very well.  How relieved they are to have Israel to have to deal with them.
> 
> 
> 
> (COMMENT)
> 
> I looked at the PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department site, and  all I can find, that the really agree upon, is:
> 
> 
> Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations (1945), requires that “[a]ll Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
> UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) emphasizes “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and calls for the “[w]ithdrawal of
> Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.”
> The International Court of Justice, in its July 9, 2004 Advisory Opinion, concluded that Israel in breach of international law as an occupying power by building its Wall and settlements inside the oPt.
> I also notice that under the  Convention relating to the status of Stateless Persons, there may not be as many Palestinian Refugees as the UNRWA says.
> 
> In the last couple weeks, the pro-Palestinian side has made it plain that they consider Palestinians of the 1988 State of Palestine a cohesive and permanent population.  If so, there are very few "refugees" to start with in the discussion.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
> 
> 2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> 3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.
> 
> 4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
> 
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> 6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> Is General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960  Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, binding?
> Where is the "Right of Return" stipulated by International Law?
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1967 Protocol) is treaty like and binding, it does not give refugees a right to return.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see where the right to return would be relevant. The only thing in the way is the alien domination. Without that, the right to return would not be an issue.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Be specific!   What defined territory  is under "alien domination?"

Is is the territory occupied since 1967?
Is it the entirety of the territory to which the former Mandate applied?
Who is the alien?
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

The alien(s) is/are the Europeans who settled in Palestine, all of Palestine, facilitated by the European colonial power, Great Britain.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> OK, two issues.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> et al,
> 
> What is the legal basis for the Palestinian "Right of Return?"
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No surrounding Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return.  They know the Palestinians very well.  How relieved they are to have Israel to have to deal with them.
> 
> 
> 
> (COMMENT)
> 
> I looked at the PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department site, and  all I can find, that the really agree upon, is:
> 
> 
> Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations (1945), requires that “[a]ll Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
> UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) emphasizes “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and calls for the “[w]ithdrawal of
> Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.”
> The International Court of Justice, in its July 9, 2004 Advisory Opinion, concluded that Israel in breach of international law as an occupying power by building its Wall and settlements inside the oPt.
> I also notice that under the  Convention relating to the status of Stateless Persons, there may not be as many Palestinian Refugees as the UNRWA says.
> 
> In the last couple weeks, the pro-Palestinian side has made it plain that they consider Palestinians of the 1988 State of Palestine a cohesive and permanent population.  If so, there are very few "refugees" to start with in the discussion.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
> 
> 2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> 3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.
> 
> 4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
> 
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> 6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> Is General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960  Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, binding?
> Where is the "Right of Return" stipulated by International Law?
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1967 Protocol) is treaty like and binding, it does not give refugees a right to return.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see where the right to return would be relevant. The only thing in the way is the alien domination. Without that, the right to return would not be an issue.
Click to expand...


HUH???  What "alien domination" are you referring to?  Are the indigenous Palestinians who were Jews aliens?


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> et al,
> 
> What is the legal basis for the Palestinian "Right of Return?"
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No surrounding Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return.  They know the Palestinians very well.  How relieved they are to have Israel to have to deal with them.
> 
> 
> 
> (COMMENT)
> 
> I looked at the PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department site, and  all I can find, that the really agree upon, is:
> 
> 
> Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations (1945), requires that “[a]ll Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
> UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) emphasizes “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and calls for the “[w]ithdrawal of
> Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.”
> The International Court of Justice, in its July 9, 2004 Advisory Opinion, concluded that Israel in breach of international law as an occupying power by building its Wall and settlements inside the oPt.
> I also notice that under the  Convention relating to the status of Stateless Persons, there may not be as many Palestinian Refugees as the UNRWA says.
> 
> In the last couple weeks, the pro-Palestinian side has made it plain that they consider Palestinians of the 1988 State of Palestine a cohesive and permanent population.  If so, there are very few "refugees" to start with in the discussion.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
> 
> 2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> 3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.
> 
> 4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
> 
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> 6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is not law but just recommendations, so not relevant to the current topics
Click to expand...

O Yeah,like the recommendation of the UN regarding the proposed State of Israel........that was never ratified by the UN Security Council which would have made it Law, but it was not......making Israel illegal.......to this day.......


----------



## theliq

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh come on now.  Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> OK, two issues.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> et al,
> 
> What is the legal basis for the Palestinian "Right of Return?"
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No surrounding Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return.  They know the Palestinians very well.  How relieved they are to have Israel to have to deal with them.
> 
> 
> 
> (COMMENT)
> 
> I looked at the PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department site, and  all I can find, that the really agree upon, is:
> 
> 
> Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations (1945), requires that “[a]ll Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
> UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) emphasizes “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and calls for the “[w]ithdrawal of
> Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.”
> The International Court of Justice, in its July 9, 2004 Advisory Opinion, concluded that Israel in breach of international law as an occupying power by building its Wall and settlements inside the oPt.
> I also notice that under the  Convention relating to the status of Stateless Persons, there may not be as many Palestinian Refugees as the UNRWA says.
> 
> In the last couple weeks, the pro-Palestinian side has made it plain that they consider Palestinians of the 1988 State of Palestine a cohesive and permanent population.  If so, there are very few "refugees" to start with in the discussion.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
> 
> 2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> 3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.
> 
> 4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
> 
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> 6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> Is General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960  Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, binding?
> Where is the "Right of Return" stipulated by International Law?
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1967 Protocol) is treaty like and binding, it does not give refugees a right to return.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see where the right to return would be relevant. The only thing in the way is the alien domination. Without that, the right to return would not be an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Be specific!   What defined territory  is under "alien domination?"
> 
> Is is the territory occupied since 1967?
> Is it the entirety of the territory to which the former Mandate applied?
> Who is the alien?
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Israel is an ILLEGAL State,see comment above..........you are perpetuating and supporting this Illegal State........like most of your (Most Respectfully) comments,they mean nought,nothing,zilch......so STOP this erroneous commentary of yours......Resectfully or NOT


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Leila Farsakh*

**


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> OK, two issues.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> et al,
> 
> What is the legal basis for the Palestinian "Right of Return?"
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No surrounding Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return.  They know the Palestinians very well.  How relieved they are to have Israel to have to deal with them.
> 
> 
> 
> (COMMENT)
> 
> I looked at the PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department site, and  all I can find, that the really agree upon, is:
> 
> 
> Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations (1945), requires that “[a]ll Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
> UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) emphasizes “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and calls for the “[w]ithdrawal of
> Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.”
> The International Court of Justice, in its July 9, 2004 Advisory Opinion, concluded that Israel in breach of international law as an occupying power by building its Wall and settlements inside the oPt.
> I also notice that under the  Convention relating to the status of Stateless Persons, there may not be as many Palestinian Refugees as the UNRWA says.
> 
> In the last couple weeks, the pro-Palestinian side has made it plain that they consider Palestinians of the 1988 State of Palestine a cohesive and permanent population.  If so, there are very few "refugees" to start with in the discussion.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
> 
> 2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> 3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.
> 
> 4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
> 
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> 6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> Is General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960  Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, binding?
> Where is the "Right of Return" stipulated by International Law?
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1967 Protocol) is treaty like and binding, it does not give refugees a right to return.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see where the right to return would be relevant. The only thing in the way is the alien domination. Without that, the right to return would not be an issue.
Click to expand...






 It is simple the arab muslims demand a right of return that has no foundation in law. And they refuse to back down and claim that Israel is stopping the peace talks. The only alien domination is that of the arab muslims who interfered in affairs that they had no right to interfere in. Now the terrorists think they have the backing of the whole Islamic world, and they don't.


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh come on now.  Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> OK, two issues.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> et al,
> 
> What is the legal basis for the Palestinian "Right of Return?"
> 
> (COMMENT)
> 
> I looked at the PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department site, and  all I can find, that the really agree upon, is:
> 
> 
> Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations (1945), requires that “[a]ll Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
> UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) emphasizes “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and calls for the “[w]ithdrawal of
> Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.”
> The International Court of Justice, in its July 9, 2004 Advisory Opinion, concluded that Israel in breach of international law as an occupying power by building its Wall and settlements inside the oPt.
> I also notice that under the  Convention relating to the status of Stateless Persons, there may not be as many Palestinian Refugees as the UNRWA says.
> 
> In the last couple weeks, the pro-Palestinian side has made it plain that they consider Palestinians of the 1988 State of Palestine a cohesive and permanent population.  If so, there are very few "refugees" to start with in the discussion.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
> 
> 2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> 3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.
> 
> 4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
> 
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> 6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> Is General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960  Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, binding?
> Where is the "Right of Return" stipulated by International Law?
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1967 Protocol) is treaty like and binding, it does not give refugees a right to return.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see where the right to return would be relevant. The only thing in the way is the alien domination. Without that, the right to return would not be an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Be specific!   What defined territory  is under "alien domination?"
> 
> Is is the territory occupied since 1967?
> Is it the entirety of the territory to which the former Mandate applied?
> Who is the alien?
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is an ILLEGAL State,see comment above..........you are perpetuating and supporting this Illegal State........like most of your (Most Respectfully) comments,they mean nought,nothing,zilch......so STOP this erroneous commentary of yours......Resectfully or NOT
Click to expand...





 Then so are Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Iran, Saudi, Yemen, Egypt, Kuwait and the UAE as they were formed under the same mandate rules as Israel. So which is it to be, either all the M.E. states are illegal or none are. Because what ever criteria you come up with also applies to the muslim states.


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh come on now.  Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> OK, two issues.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
> 
> 2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> 3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.
> 
> 4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
> 
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> 6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> Is General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960  Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, binding?
> Where is the "Right of Return" stipulated by International Law?
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1967 Protocol) is treaty like and binding, it does not give refugees a right to return.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see where the right to return would be relevant. The only thing in the way is the alien domination. Without that, the right to return would not be an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Be specific!   What defined territory  is under "alien domination?"
> 
> Is is the territory occupied since 1967?
> Is it the entirety of the territory to which the former Mandate applied?
> Who is the alien?
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is an ILLEGAL State,see comment above..........you are perpetuating and supporting this Illegal State........like most of your (Most Respectfully) comments,they mean nought,nothing,zilch......so STOP this erroneous commentary of yours......Resectfully or NOT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then so are Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Iran, Saudi, Yemen, Egypt, Kuwait and the UAE as they were formed under the same mandate rules as Israel. So which is it to be, either all the M.E. states are illegal or none are. Because what ever criteria you come up with also applies to the muslim states.
Click to expand...

No doubt these countries had their claims ratified by the Lawful process of the UN Security Council approval by Law........ISRAEL DID NOT thus making Israel illegal by Law..................Sorry Try again but read up why only Israel is an illegal entity......Fcuk I shouldn't have to tell you this........stop fcucking around and GET REAL..steve......ever living,ever truthful,ever sure.Always


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh come on now.  Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> OK, two issues.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> et al,
> 
> What is the legal basis for the Palestinian "Right of Return?"
> 
> (COMMENT)
> 
> I looked at the PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department site, and  all I can find, that the really agree upon, is:
> 
> 
> Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations (1945), requires that “[a]ll Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
> UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) emphasizes “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and calls for the “[w]ithdrawal of
> Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.”
> The International Court of Justice, in its July 9, 2004 Advisory Opinion, concluded that Israel in breach of international law as an occupying power by building its Wall and settlements inside the oPt.
> I also notice that under the  Convention relating to the status of Stateless Persons, there may not be as many Palestinian Refugees as the UNRWA says.
> 
> In the last couple weeks, the pro-Palestinian side has made it plain that they consider Palestinians of the 1988 State of Palestine a cohesive and permanent population.  If so, there are very few "refugees" to start with in the discussion.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
> 
> 2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> 3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.
> 
> 4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
> 
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> 6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> Is General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960  Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, binding?
> Where is the "Right of Return" stipulated by International Law?
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1967 Protocol) is treaty like and binding, it does not give refugees a right to return.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see where the right to return would be relevant. The only thing in the way is the alien domination. Without that, the right to return would not be an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Be specific!   What defined territory  is under "alien domination?"
> 
> Is is the territory occupied since 1967?
> Is it the entirety of the territory to which the former Mandate applied?
> Who is the alien?
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is an ILLEGAL State,see comment above..........you are perpetuating and supporting this Illegal State........like most of your (Most Respectfully) comments,they mean nought,nothing,zilch......so STOP this erroneous commentary of yours......Resectfully or NOT
Click to expand...





 Then so are Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Iran, Saudi, Yemen, Egypt, Kuwait and the UAE as they were formed under the same mandate rules as Israel. So which is it to be, either all the M.E. states are illegal or none are. Because what ever criteria you come up with also applies to the muslim states.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Leila Farsakh*
> 
> **







 And it is the islamonazi definition of Zionism that is used, not the true one


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh come on now.  Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> OK, two issues.
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> Is General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960  Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, binding?
> Where is the "Right of Return" stipulated by International Law?
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1967 Protocol) is treaty like and binding, it does not give refugees a right to return.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see where the right to return would be relevant. The only thing in the way is the alien domination. Without that, the right to return would not be an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Be specific!   What defined territory  is under "alien domination?"
> 
> Is is the territory occupied since 1967?
> Is it the entirety of the territory to which the former Mandate applied?
> Who is the alien?
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is an ILLEGAL State,see comment above..........you are perpetuating and supporting this Illegal State........like most of your (Most Respectfully) comments,they mean nought,nothing,zilch......so STOP this erroneous commentary of yours......Resectfully or NOT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then so are Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Iran, Saudi, Yemen, Egypt, Kuwait and the UAE as they were formed under the same mandate rules as Israel. So which is it to be, either all the M.E. states are illegal or none are. Because what ever criteria you come up with also applies to the muslim states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No doubt these countries had their claims ratified by the Lawful process of the UN Security Council approval by Law........ISRAEL DID NOT thus making Israel illegal by Law..................Sorry Try again but read up why only Israel is an illegal entity......Fcuk I shouldn't have to tell you this........stop fcucking around and GET REAL..steve......ever living,ever truthful,ever sure.Always
Click to expand...





Strange then how the UN only ratified one of these nations and that was Israel, the others never did bother to have their claims ratified.

 Here is the proof

Israel Palestine and the United Nations - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


*Legality of the State of Israel[edit]*
Resolution 181 laid a foundation within international law and diplomacy[66] for the creation of the state of Israel; as it was the first formal recognition by an international body of the legitimacy of a Jewish state, to exist within a partition of the territory along with an Arab state.

The UN followed the practice of the Peace Conference of Paris and the League of Nations regarding the creation of states.[67] Religious and minority rights were placed under the protection of the United Nations and recognition of the new states was conditioned upon acceptance of a constitutional plan of legal protections.[68][69] Israel acknowledged that obligation, and Israel's declaration of independence stated that the State of Israel would ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex, and guaranteed freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture. In the hearings before the Ad Hoc Political Committee that considered Israel's application for membership in the United Nations, Abba Eban said that the rights stipulated in section C. Declaration, chapters 1 and 2 of UN resolution 181(II) had been constitutionally embodied as the fundamental law of the state of Israel as required by the resolution.[70] The instruments that he cited were the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, and various cables and letters of confirmation addressed to the Secretary General. Eban's explanations and Israel's undertakings were noted in the text of General Assembly Resolution 273 (III) Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations, May 11, 1949.,[71] The British Mandate for Palestine expired on May 15, 1948, and the UK recognized Israeli independence eight months later.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

This is often expressed by pro-Palestinian activists; trying for the appeal to emotion.



montelatici said:


> The alien(s) is/are the Europeans who settled in Palestine, all of Palestine, facilitated by the European colonial power, Great Britain.


*(COMMENT)*

In my opinion, there was to colonial activity in the Middle East.   And the application of the non-binding concepts of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples are not really applicable to the Mandate System in that:

The intention of Mandate was the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples. 
The intention of Mandate was to extend the universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,
The intention of Mandate was the creation of conditions that would advance the attainment of their independence.
Considering the important role of the League of Nations, and the UN, (the successor governments to which the Ottoman Empire and Turkey surrendered all rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction, had in the establishment of all the Arab governments in the Middle East _(territory formerly under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire)_ in assisting the various bids for independence in Trusts and Non-Self-Governing Territories, it should be noted that the nations upon which such powers of guardianship were conferred exercise them "as _Mandatories_ on behalf of the League of Nations.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MJB12741

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh come on now.  Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see where the right to return would be relevant. The only thing in the way is the alien domination. Without that, the right to return would not be an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Be specific!   What defined territory  is under "alien domination?"
> 
> Is is the territory occupied since 1967?
> Is it the entirety of the territory to which the former Mandate applied?
> Who is the alien?
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is an ILLEGAL State,see comment above..........you are perpetuating and supporting this Illegal State........like most of your (Most Respectfully) comments,they mean nought,nothing,zilch......so STOP this erroneous commentary of yours......Resectfully or NOT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then so are Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Iran, Saudi, Yemen, Egypt, Kuwait and the UAE as they were formed under the same mandate rules as Israel. So which is it to be, either all the M.E. states are illegal or none are. Because what ever criteria you come up with also applies to the muslim states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No doubt these countries had their claims ratified by the Lawful process of the UN Security Council approval by Law........ISRAEL DID NOT thus making Israel illegal by Law..................Sorry Try again but read up why only Israel is an illegal entity......Fcuk I shouldn't have to tell you this........stop fcucking around and GET REAL..steve......ever living,ever truthful,ever sure.Always
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strange then how the UN only ratified one of these nations and that was Israel, the others never did bother to have their claims ratified.
> 
> Here is the proof
> 
> Israel Palestine and the United Nations - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> *Legality of the State of Israel[edit]*
> Resolution 181 laid a foundation within international law and diplomacy[66] for the creation of the state of Israel; as it was the first formal recognition by an international body of the legitimacy of a Jewish state, to exist within a partition of the territory along with an Arab state.
> 
> The UN followed the practice of the Peace Conference of Paris and the League of Nations regarding the creation of states.[67] Religious and minority rights were placed under the protection of the United Nations and recognition of the new states was conditioned upon acceptance of a constitutional plan of legal protections.[68][69] Israel acknowledged that obligation, and Israel's declaration of independence stated that the State of Israel would ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex, and guaranteed freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture. In the hearings before the Ad Hoc Political Committee that considered Israel's application for membership in the United Nations, Abba Eban said that the rights stipulated in section C. Declaration, chapters 1 and 2 of UN resolution 181(II) had been constitutionally embodied as the fundamental law of the state of Israel as required by the resolution.[70] The instruments that he cited were the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, and various cables and letters of confirmation addressed to the Secretary General. Eban's explanations and Israel's undertakings were noted in the text of General Assembly Resolution 273 (III) Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations, May 11, 1949.,[71] The British Mandate for Palestine expired on May 15, 1948, and the UK recognized Israeli independence eight months later.
Click to expand...


Modern day Israel was legally & morally established by a vote of the member nations of the UN whereas all Muslim countries were conquered by force & stolen from the indigenous populations whereby they had to convert, leave or be killed.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> This is often expressed by pro-Palestinian activists; trying for the appeal to emotion.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The alien(s) is/are the Europeans who settled in Palestine, all of Palestine, facilitated by the European colonial power, Great Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In my opinion, there was to colonial activity in the Middle East.   And the application of the non-binding concepts of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples are not really applicable to the Mandate System in that:
> 
> The intention of Mandate was the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples.
> The intention of Mandate was to extend the universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,
> The intention of Mandate was the creation of conditions that would advance the attainment of their independence.
> Considering the important role of the League of Nations, and the UN, (the successor governments to which the Ottoman Empire and Turkey surrendered all rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction, had in the establishment of all the Arab governments in the Middle East _(territory formerly under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire)_ in assisting the various bids for independence in Trusts and Non-Self-Governing Territories, it should be noted that the nations upon which such powers of guardianship were conferred exercise them "as _Mandatories_ on behalf of the League of Nations.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

OK, but the Mandate had nothing to do with the creation of Israel.

That is not to say that the Mandate was not complicit in setting the stage for Israel's military takeover of Palestine. Britain did provide the political and military power to protect the pre state colonization of Palestine by the Zionists. Britain allowed the Zionists to create a state within a state, including a military, while denying the same to the Palestinians.

The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that was unrelated to anything else.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> This is often expressed by pro-Palestinian activists; trying for the appeal to emotion.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The alien(s) is/are the Europeans who settled in Palestine, all of Palestine, facilitated by the European colonial power, Great Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In my opinion, there was to colonial activity in the Middle East.   And the application of the non-binding concepts of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples are not really applicable to the Mandate System in that:
> 
> The intention of Mandate was the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples.
> The intention of Mandate was to extend the universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,
> The intention of Mandate was the creation of conditions that would advance the attainment of their independence.
> Considering the important role of the League of Nations, and the UN, (the successor governments to which the Ottoman Empire and Turkey surrendered all rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction, had in the establishment of all the Arab governments in the Middle East _(territory formerly under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire)_ in assisting the various bids for independence in Trusts and Non-Self-Governing Territories, it should be noted that the nations upon which such powers of guardianship were conferred exercise them "as _Mandatories_ on behalf of the League of Nations.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but the Mandate had nothing to do with the creation of Israel.
> 
> That is not to say that the Mandate was not complicit in setting the stage for Israel's military takeover of Palestine. Britain did provide the political and military power to protect the pre state colonization of Palestine by the Zionists. Britain allowed the Zionists to create a state within a state, including a military, while denying the same to the Palestinians.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that was unrelated to anything else.
Click to expand...


"Creation of Israel"?  Are you suggesting there was no Israel until 1948?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is entirely wrong.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> This is often expressed by pro-Palestinian activists; trying for the appeal to emotion.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The alien(s) is/are the Europeans who settled in Palestine, all of Palestine, facilitated by the European colonial power, Great Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In my opinion, there was to colonial activity in the Middle East.   And the application of the non-binding concepts of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples are not really applicable to the Mandate System in that:
> 
> The intention of Mandate was the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples.
> The intention of Mandate was to extend the universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,
> The intention of Mandate was the creation of conditions that would advance the attainment of their independence.
> Considering the important role of the League of Nations, and the UN, (the successor governments to which the Ottoman Empire and Turkey surrendered all rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction, had in the establishment of all the Arab governments in the Middle East _(territory formerly under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire)_ in assisting the various bids for independence in Trusts and Non-Self-Governing Territories, it should be noted that the nations upon which such powers of guardianship were conferred exercise them "as _Mandatories_ on behalf of the League of Nations.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but the Mandate had nothing to do with the creation of Israel.
> 
> That is not to say that the Mandate was not complicit in setting the stage for Israel's military takeover of Palestine. Britain did provide the political and military power to protect the pre state colonization of Palestine by the Zionists. Britain allowed the Zionists to create a state within a state, including a military, while denying the same to the Palestinians.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that was unrelated to anything else.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The Mandate set the conditions for the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
The Mandate set the conditions for the establishment of the Jewish National Home,  and the development of self-governing institutions.
The Mandate set the conditions for immigration --- such that all Jews who are willing to assist --- might be shall encouraged in the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
The Mandate set the conditions to acquire Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
There were many factor the helped set conditions favorable to the establishment of the Jewish National Home.  The Mandate was not exclusive, but it made its contribution.



			
				Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said:
			
		

> It is well known that representatives of the United Kingdom Government have stated, at various times, even before the question was submitted to the General Assembly, that the mandatory system of administration of Palestine has not justified itself and that the solution of the problem of how to deal with Palestine should be found by the United Nations. Thus, for instance, Mr. Bevin made the following statement in the House of Commons on 18 February 1947.
> 
> "We intend to place before them [the United Nations] a historical account of the way in which His Majesty's Government have discharged their trust in Palestine over the last twenty-five years. We shall explain that the mandate has proved to be unworkable in practice and that the obligations undertaken to the two communities in Palestine have been shown to be irreconcilable."  A/2/PV.77  14 May 1947


*
AND​*​


			
				Mr.  Andrei Andreyevich GROMYKO said:
			
		

> In view of the necessity of manifesting concern for the needs of the Jewish people who find themselves without homes and without means of existence, the delegation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics thinks it essential, in this connexion, to draw the attention of the General Assembly to the following important circumstance. Past experience, particularly during the Second World War, shows that no western European State was able to provide adequate assistance for the Jewish people in defending its rights and its very existence from the violence of the Hitlerites and their allies. This is an unpleasant fact, but unfortunately, like all other facts, it must be admitted.
> 
> The fact that no western European State has been able to ensure the defence of the elementary rights of the Jewish people, and to safeguard it against the violence of the fascist executioners, explains the aspirations of the Jews to establish their own State. It would be unjust not to take this into consideration and to deny the right of the Jewish people to realize this aspiration. It would be unjustifiable to deny this right to the Jewish people, particularly in view of all it has undergone during the Second World War. Consequently, the study of this aspect of the problem and the preparation of relevant proposals must constitute an important task of the special committee.
> *AND*​Neither the historic past nor the conditions prevailing in Palestine at present can justify any unilateral solution of the Palestine problem, either in favour of establishing an independent Arab State, without consideration for the legitimate rights of the Jewish people, or in favour of the establishment of an independent Jewish State, while ignoring the legitimate rights of the Arab population. Neither of these extreme decisions would achieve an equitable solution of this complicated problem, especially since neither would ensure the settlement of relations between the Arabs and the Jews, which constitutes the most important task. A/2/PV.77  14 May 1947



And finally, and probably most importantly,
(QUOTING) Mr.  Andrei Andreyevich GROMYKO, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics): 
During the last war, the Jewish people underwent exceptional sorrow and suffering. Without any exaggeration, this sorrow and suffering are indescribable. It is difficult to express them in dry statistics on the Jewish victims of the fascist aggressors. The Jews in territories where the Hitlerites held sway were subjected to almost complete physical annihilation. The total number of members of the Jewish population who perished at the hands of the nazi executioners is estimated at approximately six million. Only about a million and a half Jews in Western Europe survived the war.

It may well be asked if the United Nations, in view of the difficult situation of hundreds of thousands of the surviving Jewish population, can fail to show an interest in the situation of these people, torn away from their countries and their homes. The United Nations cannot and must not regard this situation with indifference, since this would be incompatible with the high principles proclaimed in its Charter, which provide for the defence of human rights, irrespective of race, religion or sex. *The time has come to help these people, not by word, but by deeds. *It is essential to show concern for the urgent needs of a people which has undergone such great suffering as a result of the war brought about by hitlerite Germany. This is a duty of the United Nations.

*The fact that no western European State has been able to ensure the defence of the elementary rights of the Jewish people, and to safeguard it against the violence of the fascist executioners, explains the aspirations of the Jews to establish their own State. *It would be unjust not to take this into consideration and to deny the right of the Jewish people to realize this aspiration. It would be unjustifiable to deny this right to the Jewish people, particularly in view of all it has undergone during the Second World War. Consequently, the study of this aspect of the problem and the preparation of relevant proposals must constitute an important task of the special committee.
A/2/PV.77  14 May 1947​
I normally don't quote Soviets --- in most cases, simply because we seldom agree.  But in this case, the two prevailing Superpowers of the World (in that time frame) happened to agree.

Probably the biggest reason the Mandate had an impact on the establishment of the State, might be because the Mandate illuminated the unreconcilable differences between the Arab Palestinians and the Israelis.  And it is this vast gulf of diplomacy which the Arab Palestinian seems to have no capacity to resolve.

Most Respectfully,
R  
​


----------



## RoccoR

theliq, et al,

I see nothing above that substantiates your outlandish claim that:  "Israel is an Illegal State." --- Although I see this quite often from pro-Palestinian Activist.



theliq said:


> Israel is an ILLEGAL State,see comment above..........you are perpetuating and supporting this Illegal State........like most of your (Most Respectfully) comments,they mean nought,nothing,zilch......so STOP this erroneous commentary of yours......Resectfully or NOT


*(OBSERVATIONS)*

PLAN OF PARTITION WITH ECONOMIC UNION --- PART I --- Future constitution and government of Palestine 
Section B --- STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE* --- Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly, dated 29 November 1947*
PART II --- Boundaries --- Section A. - THE ARAB STATE Section B - THE JEWISH STATE

S/747 16 May 1948 Declaration of Independence 
S/1093 29 November 1948  Application for Admission to the UN
S/RES/69 S/1277 4 March 1949  Favorable UN Security Council Recommendation
A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949 General Assembly _Decides_ to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.
*(COMMENT)*

I fail to see the justification for your comment that "Israel is an ILLEGAL State."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh come on now.  Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> OK, two issues.
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> Is General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960  Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, binding?
> Where is the "Right of Return" stipulated by International Law?
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1967 Protocol) is treaty like and binding, it does not give refugees a right to return.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see where the right to return would be relevant. The only thing in the way is the alien domination. Without that, the right to return would not be an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Be specific!   What defined territory  is under "alien domination?"
> 
> Is is the territory occupied since 1967?
> Is it the entirety of the territory to which the former Mandate applied?
> Who is the alien?
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is an ILLEGAL State,see comment above..........you are perpetuating and supporting this Illegal State........like most of your (Most Respectfully) comments,they mean nought,nothing,zilch......so STOP this erroneous commentary of yours......Resectfully or NOT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then so are Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Iran, Saudi, Yemen, Egypt, Kuwait and the UAE as they were formed under the same mandate rules as Israel. So which is it to be, either all the M.E. states are illegal or none are. Because what ever criteria you come up with also applies to the muslim states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No doubt these countries had their claims ratified by the Lawful process of the UN Security Council approval by Law........ISRAEL DID NOT thus making Israel illegal by Law..................Sorry Try again but read up why only Israel is an illegal entity......Fcuk I shouldn't have to tell you this........stop fcucking around and GET REAL..steve......ever living,ever truthful,ever sure.Always
Click to expand...


What law makes Israel illegal ??

BTW, thanks for proving that you are a two faced liar. You always tell us how you support Israel blah blah blah, and then you criticize someone for supporting an 'illegal state'

There is no such thing as an illegal sovereign state you lying demented Nazi


----------



## toastman

RoccoR said:


> theliq, et al,
> 
> I see nothing above that substantiates your outlandish claim that:  "Israel is an Illegal State." --- Although I see this quite often from pro-Palestinian Activist.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is an ILLEGAL State,see comment above..........you are perpetuating and supporting this Illegal State........like most of your (Most Respectfully) comments,they mean nought,nothing,zilch......so STOP this erroneous commentary of yours......Resectfully or NOT
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS)*
> 
> PLAN OF PARTITION WITH ECONOMIC UNION --- PART I --- Future constitution and government of Palestine
> Section B --- STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE* --- Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly, dated 29 November 1947*
> PART II --- Boundaries --- Section A. - THE ARAB STATE Section B - THE JEWISH STATE
> 
> S/747 16 May 1948 Declaration of Independence
> S/1093 29 November 1948  Application for Admission to the UN
> S/RES/69 S/1277 4 March 1949  Favorable UN Security Council Recommendation
> A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949 General Assembly _Decides_ to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I fail to see the justification for your comment that "Israel is an ILLEGAL State."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

You will fail to see any justification in any of his posts.


----------



## montelatici

The creation of a European colony in Palestine, against the wishes of the indigenous population, may not have been strictly "illegal".  Furthermore, the transfer of populations from Europe to a colony against the wishes of the indigenous people was certainly immoral.  

In any case, the Palestinian Delegation in London back in 1922, representing the Christians and Muslims of Palestine was extremely clear as to why, Britain was in contravention of the LoN Covenant, to wit:

"SIR,

We have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your favour of 1st, March, 1922,* [* No. 2.] to which we hereby reply.

(1) With reference to Articles 2 and 3 of your reply, we beg to state that the Delegation represent the mind of the whole Moslem and Christian population of Palestine. While we have never pretended to represent the Jews, still we would point out that a large section of the Jews in Palestine and the majority of the Jews of the world are not in favour of the Zionist Movement.

(2) Our statement that the People of Palestine cannot accept the creation of a National Home for the Jewish People in Palestine as a basis for negotiation, is due to the following reasons :—






*(a) In 1915, before the Balfour Declaration was published, His Majesty's Government made a pledge to the Arabs in which it undertook to recognise the independence of those Arab States which had formerly belonged to Turkey. Palestine is one of these States as is clearly seen by reference to King Hussein's letter dated 14th July, 1915, in which the Western boundary is denoted by "the Red Sea and the Mediterranean." There can be no question that Palestine comes within these boundaries.
(b) The object aimed at by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations is "the well-being and development of the people" of the land. Alien Jews not in Palestine do not come within the scope of this aim, neither is their association with Palestine more close than that of Christians and Moslems all over the world. Consequently the Jewish National Home policy is contrary to the spirit of the Covenant.*

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

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


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> This is entirely wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> This is often expressed by pro-Palestinian activists; trying for the appeal to emotion.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The alien(s) is/are the Europeans who settled in Palestine, all of Palestine, facilitated by the European colonial power, Great Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In my opinion, there was to colonial activity in the Middle East.   And the application of the non-binding concepts of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples are not really applicable to the Mandate System in that:
> 
> The intention of Mandate was the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples.
> The intention of Mandate was to extend the universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,
> The intention of Mandate was the creation of conditions that would advance the attainment of their independence.
> Considering the important role of the League of Nations, and the UN, (the successor governments to which the Ottoman Empire and Turkey surrendered all rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction, had in the establishment of all the Arab governments in the Middle East _(territory formerly under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire)_ in assisting the various bids for independence in Trusts and Non-Self-Governing Territories, it should be noted that the nations upon which such powers of guardianship were conferred exercise them "as _Mandatories_ on behalf of the League of Nations.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but the Mandate had nothing to do with the creation of Israel.
> 
> That is not to say that the Mandate was not complicit in setting the stage for Israel's military takeover of Palestine. Britain did provide the political and military power to protect the pre state colonization of Palestine by the Zionists. Britain allowed the Zionists to create a state within a state, including a military, while denying the same to the Palestinians.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that was unrelated to anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Mandate set the conditions for the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
> The Mandate set the conditions for the establishment of the Jewish National Home,  and the development of self-governing institutions.
> The Mandate set the conditions for immigration --- such that all Jews who are willing to assist --- might be shall encouraged in the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
> The Mandate set the conditions to acquire Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
> There were many factor the helped set conditions favorable to the establishment of the Jewish National Home.  The Mandate was not exclusive, but it made its contribution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is well known that representatives of the United Kingdom Government have stated, at various times, even before the question was submitted to the General Assembly, that the mandatory system of administration of Palestine has not justified itself and that the solution of the problem of how to deal with Palestine should be found by the United Nations. Thus, for instance, Mr. Bevin made the following statement in the House of Commons on 18 February 1947.
> 
> "We intend to place before them [the United Nations] a historical account of the way in which His Majesty's Government have discharged their trust in Palestine over the last twenty-five years. We shall explain that the mandate has proved to be unworkable in practice and that the obligations undertaken to the two communities in Palestine have been shown to be irreconcilable."  A/2/PV.77  14 May 1947
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> AND*​
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.  Andrei Andreyevich GROMYKO said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In view of the necessity of manifesting concern for the needs of the Jewish people who find themselves without homes and without means of existence, the delegation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics thinks it essential, in this connexion, to draw the attention of the General Assembly to the following important circumstance. Past experience, particularly during the Second World War, shows that no western European State was able to provide adequate assistance for the Jewish people in defending its rights and its very existence from the violence of the Hitlerites and their allies. This is an unpleasant fact, but unfortunately, like all other facts, it must be admitted.
> 
> The fact that no western European State has been able to ensure the defence of the elementary rights of the Jewish people, and to safeguard it against the violence of the fascist executioners, explains the aspirations of the Jews to establish their own State. It would be unjust not to take this into consideration and to deny the right of the Jewish people to realize this aspiration. It would be unjustifiable to deny this right to the Jewish people, particularly in view of all it has undergone during the Second World War. Consequently, the study of this aspect of the problem and the preparation of relevant proposals must constitute an important task of the special committee.
> *AND*​Neither the historic past nor the conditions prevailing in Palestine at present can justify any unilateral solution of the Palestine problem, either in favour of establishing an independent Arab State, without consideration for the legitimate rights of the Jewish people, or in favour of the establishment of an independent Jewish State, while ignoring the legitimate rights of the Arab population. Neither of these extreme decisions would achieve an equitable solution of this complicated problem, especially since neither would ensure the settlement of relations between the Arabs and the Jews, which constitutes the most important task. A/2/PV.77  14 May 1947
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And finally, and probably most importantly,
> (QUOTING) Mr.  Andrei Andreyevich GROMYKO, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics):
> During the last war, the Jewish people underwent exceptional sorrow and suffering. Without any exaggeration, this sorrow and suffering are indescribable. It is difficult to express them in dry statistics on the Jewish victims of the fascist aggressors. The Jews in territories where the Hitlerites held sway were subjected to almost complete physical annihilation. The total number of members of the Jewish population who perished at the hands of the nazi executioners is estimated at approximately six million. Only about a million and a half Jews in Western Europe survived the war.
> 
> It may well be asked if the United Nations, in view of the difficult situation of hundreds of thousands of the surviving Jewish population, can fail to show an interest in the situation of these people, torn away from their countries and their homes. The United Nations cannot and must not regard this situation with indifference, since this would be incompatible with the high principles proclaimed in its Charter, which provide for the defence of human rights, irrespective of race, religion or sex. *The time has come to help these people, not by word, but by deeds. *It is essential to show concern for the urgent needs of a people which has undergone such great suffering as a result of the war brought about by hitlerite Germany. This is a duty of the United Nations.
> 
> *The fact that no western European State has been able to ensure the defence of the elementary rights of the Jewish people, and to safeguard it against the violence of the fascist executioners, explains the aspirations of the Jews to establish their own State. *It would be unjust not to take this into consideration and to deny the right of the Jewish people to realize this aspiration. It would be unjustifiable to deny this right to the Jewish people, particularly in view of all it has undergone during the Second World War. Consequently, the study of this aspect of the problem and the preparation of relevant proposals must constitute an important task of the special committee.
> A/2/PV.77  14 May 1947​I normally don't quote Soviets --- in most cases, simply because we seldom agree.  But in this case, the two prevailing Superpowers of the World (in that time frame) happened to agree.
> 
> Probably the biggest reason the Mandate had an impact on the establishment of the State, might be because the Mandate illuminated the unreconcilable differences between the Arab Palestinians and the Israelis.  And it is this vast gulf of diplomacy which the Arab Palestinian seems to have no capacity to resolve.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R​
Click to expand...

We intend to place before them [the United Nations] a historical account of the way in which His Majesty's Government have discharged their trust in Palestine over the last twenty-five years.* We shall explain that the mandate has proved to be unworkable in practice and that the obligations undertaken to the two communities in Palestine have been shown to be irreconcilable."* A/2/PV.77 14 May 1947​http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/c...d41260f1132ad6be052566190059e5f0?OpenDocument

Who were these two "communities?"

1) The indigenous people of Palestine.
2) The foreign Zionist colonial project.​
Britain tried to impose this colonial project on Palestine by military force. Of course it was rejected by virtually all of the people including the native Jews.

This colonial project is still being imposed on Palestine by military force. Thus we have a war that has been brewing for a hundred years and counting.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> This is entirely wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> This is often expressed by pro-Palestinian activists; trying for the appeal to emotion.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The alien(s) is/are the Europeans who settled in Palestine, all of Palestine, facilitated by the European colonial power, Great Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In my opinion, there was to colonial activity in the Middle East.   And the application of the non-binding concepts of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples are not really applicable to the Mandate System in that:
> 
> The intention of Mandate was the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples.
> The intention of Mandate was to extend the universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,
> The intention of Mandate was the creation of conditions that would advance the attainment of their independence.
> Considering the important role of the League of Nations, and the UN, (the successor governments to which the Ottoman Empire and Turkey surrendered all rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction, had in the establishment of all the Arab governments in the Middle East _(territory formerly under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire)_ in assisting the various bids for independence in Trusts and Non-Self-Governing Territories, it should be noted that the nations upon which such powers of guardianship were conferred exercise them "as _Mandatories_ on behalf of the League of Nations.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but the Mandate had nothing to do with the creation of Israel.
> 
> That is not to say that the Mandate was not complicit in setting the stage for Israel's military takeover of Palestine. Britain did provide the political and military power to protect the pre state colonization of Palestine by the Zionists. Britain allowed the Zionists to create a state within a state, including a military, while denying the same to the Palestinians.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that was unrelated to anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Mandate set the conditions for the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
> The Mandate set the conditions for the establishment of the Jewish National Home,  and the development of self-governing institutions.
> The Mandate set the conditions for immigration --- such that all Jews who are willing to assist --- might be shall encouraged in the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
> The Mandate set the conditions to acquire Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
> There were many factor the helped set conditions favorable to the establishment of the Jewish National Home.  The Mandate was not exclusive, but it made its contribution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is well known that representatives of the United Kingdom Government have stated, at various times, even before the question was submitted to the General Assembly, that the mandatory system of administration of Palestine has not justified itself and that the solution of the problem of how to deal with Palestine should be found by the United Nations. Thus, for instance, Mr. Bevin made the following statement in the House of Commons on 18 February 1947.
> 
> "We intend to place before them [the United Nations] a historical account of the way in which His Majesty's Government have discharged their trust in Palestine over the last twenty-five years. We shall explain that the mandate has proved to be unworkable in practice and that the obligations undertaken to the two communities in Palestine have been shown to be irreconcilable."  A/2/PV.77  14 May 1947
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> AND*​
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.  Andrei Andreyevich GROMYKO said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In view of the necessity of manifesting concern for the needs of the Jewish people who find themselves without homes and without means of existence, the delegation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics thinks it essential, in this connexion, to draw the attention of the General Assembly to the following important circumstance. Past experience, particularly during the Second World War, shows that no western European State was able to provide adequate assistance for the Jewish people in defending its rights and its very existence from the violence of the Hitlerites and their allies. This is an unpleasant fact, but unfortunately, like all other facts, it must be admitted.
> 
> The fact that no western European State has been able to ensure the defence of the elementary rights of the Jewish people, and to safeguard it against the violence of the fascist executioners, explains the aspirations of the Jews to establish their own State. It would be unjust not to take this into consideration and to deny the right of the Jewish people to realize this aspiration. It would be unjustifiable to deny this right to the Jewish people, particularly in view of all it has undergone during the Second World War. Consequently, the study of this aspect of the problem and the preparation of relevant proposals must constitute an important task of the special committee.
> *AND*​Neither the historic past nor the conditions prevailing in Palestine at present can justify any unilateral solution of the Palestine problem, either in favour of establishing an independent Arab State, without consideration for the legitimate rights of the Jewish people, or in favour of the establishment of an independent Jewish State, while ignoring the legitimate rights of the Arab population. Neither of these extreme decisions would achieve an equitable solution of this complicated problem, especially since neither would ensure the settlement of relations between the Arabs and the Jews, which constitutes the most important task. A/2/PV.77  14 May 1947
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And finally, and probably most importantly,
> (QUOTING) Mr.  Andrei Andreyevich GROMYKO, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics):
> During the last war, the Jewish people underwent exceptional sorrow and suffering. Without any exaggeration, this sorrow and suffering are indescribable. It is difficult to express them in dry statistics on the Jewish victims of the fascist aggressors. The Jews in territories where the Hitlerites held sway were subjected to almost complete physical annihilation. The total number of members of the Jewish population who perished at the hands of the nazi executioners is estimated at approximately six million. Only about a million and a half Jews in Western Europe survived the war.
> 
> It may well be asked if the United Nations, in view of the difficult situation of hundreds of thousands of the surviving Jewish population, can fail to show an interest in the situation of these people, torn away from their countries and their homes. The United Nations cannot and must not regard this situation with indifference, since this would be incompatible with the high principles proclaimed in its Charter, which provide for the defence of human rights, irrespective of race, religion or sex. *The time has come to help these people, not by word, but by deeds. *It is essential to show concern for the urgent needs of a people which has undergone such great suffering as a result of the war brought about by hitlerite Germany. This is a duty of the United Nations.
> 
> *The fact that no western European State has been able to ensure the defence of the elementary rights of the Jewish people, and to safeguard it against the violence of the fascist executioners, explains the aspirations of the Jews to establish their own State. *It would be unjust not to take this into consideration and to deny the right of the Jewish people to realize this aspiration. It would be unjustifiable to deny this right to the Jewish people, particularly in view of all it has undergone during the Second World War. Consequently, the study of this aspect of the problem and the preparation of relevant proposals must constitute an important task of the special committee.
> A/2/PV.77  14 May 1947​I normally don't quote Soviets --- in most cases, simply because we seldom agree.  But in this case, the two prevailing Superpowers of the World (in that time frame) happened to agree.
> 
> Probably the biggest reason the Mandate had an impact on the establishment of the State, might be because the Mandate illuminated the unreconcilable differences between the Arab Palestinians and the Israelis.  And it is this vast gulf of diplomacy which the Arab Palestinian seems to have no capacity to resolve.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We intend to place before them [the United Nations] a historical account of the way in which His Majesty's Government have discharged their trust in Palestine over the last twenty-five years.* We shall explain that the mandate has proved to be unworkable in practice and that the obligations undertaken to the two communities in Palestine have been shown to be irreconcilable."* A/2/PV.77 14 May 1947​
> Who were these two "communities?"
> 
> 1) The indigenous people of Palestine.
> 2) The foreign Zionist colonial project.​
> Britain tried to impose this colonial project on Palestine by military force. Of course it was rejected by virtually all of the people including the native Jews.
> 
> This colonial project is still being imposed on Palestine by military force. Thus we have a war that has been brewing for a hundred years and counting.
Click to expand...


The 'foreign Zionist colonial project' is Palestinian propaganda.


----------



## montelatici

What do you call settling Europeans in Palestine, evicting the natives and creating a state?  A picnic?


----------



## montelatici

What do you call settling people from another continent on land that the people living there were opposed to?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> This is often expressed by pro-Palestinian activists; trying for the appeal to emotion.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The alien(s) is/are the Europeans who settled in Palestine, all of Palestine, facilitated by the European colonial power, Great Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In my opinion, there was to colonial activity in the Middle East.   And the application of the non-binding concepts of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples are not really applicable to the Mandate System in that:
> 
> The intention of Mandate was the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples.
> The intention of Mandate was to extend the universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,
> The intention of Mandate was the creation of conditions that would advance the attainment of their independence.
> Considering the important role of the League of Nations, and the UN, (the successor governments to which the Ottoman Empire and Turkey surrendered all rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction, had in the establishment of all the Arab governments in the Middle East _(territory formerly under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire)_ in assisting the various bids for independence in Trusts and Non-Self-Governing Territories, it should be noted that the nations upon which such powers of guardianship were conferred exercise them "as _Mandatories_ on behalf of the League of Nations.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but the Mandate had nothing to do with the creation of Israel.
> 
> That is not to say that the Mandate was not complicit in setting the stage for Israel's military takeover of Palestine. Britain did provide the political and military power to protect the pre state colonization of Palestine by the Zionists. Britain allowed the Zionists to create a state within a state, including a military, while denying the same to the Palestinians.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that was unrelated to anything else.
Click to expand...






 BULLSHIT

 The Mandate for Palestine was set up primarily to enable the Jews to set up their National Home. It even says so in the first 10 articles, or don't you read the links you keep demanding


----------



## Challenger

RoccoR said:


> theliq, et al,
> 
> I see nothing above that substantiates your outlandish claim that:  "Israel is an Illegal State." --- Although I see this quite often from pro-Palestinian Activist.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is an ILLEGAL State,see comment above..........you are perpetuating and supporting this Illegal State........like most of your (Most Respectfully) comments,they mean nought,nothing,zilch......so STOP this erroneous commentary of yours......Resectfully or NOT
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS)*
> 
> PLAN OF PARTITION WITH ECONOMIC UNION --- PART I --- Future constitution and government of Palestine
> Section B --- STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE* --- Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly, dated 29 November 1947*
> PART II --- Boundaries --- Section A. - THE ARAB STATE Section B - THE JEWISH STATE
> 
> S/747 16 May 1948 Declaration of Independence
> S/1093 29 November 1948  Application for Admission to the UN
> S/RES/69 S/1277 4 March 1949  Favorable UN Security Council Recommendation
> A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949 General Assembly _Decides_ to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I fail to see the justification for your comment that "Israel is an ILLEGAL State."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


It's an illegal state because it was created in direct violation of the will of the majority of the population of Palestine, and it's admission to the UN was based on Israel's adherance to two UN resolutions.

"_Recalling_ its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanationsmade by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the _ad hoc_ Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,"

Which it has failed to do.


----------



## Challenger

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> This is entirely wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> This is often expressed by pro-Palestinian activists; trying for the appeal to emotion.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The alien(s) is/are the Europeans who settled in Palestine, all of Palestine, facilitated by the European colonial power, Great Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In my opinion, there was to colonial activity in the Middle East.   And the application of the non-binding concepts of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples are not really applicable to the Mandate System in that:
> 
> The intention of Mandate was the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples.
> The intention of Mandate was to extend the universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,
> The intention of Mandate was the creation of conditions that would advance the attainment of their independence.
> Considering the important role of the League of Nations, and the UN, (the successor governments to which the Ottoman Empire and Turkey surrendered all rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction, had in the establishment of all the Arab governments in the Middle East _(territory formerly under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire)_ in assisting the various bids for independence in Trusts and Non-Self-Governing Territories, it should be noted that the nations upon which such powers of guardianship were conferred exercise them "as _Mandatories_ on behalf of the League of Nations.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but the Mandate had nothing to do with the creation of Israel.
> 
> That is not to say that the Mandate was not complicit in setting the stage for Israel's military takeover of Palestine. Britain did provide the political and military power to protect the pre state colonization of Palestine by the Zionists. Britain allowed the Zionists to create a state within a state, including a military, while denying the same to the Palestinians.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that was unrelated to anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Mandate set the conditions for the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
> The Mandate set the conditions for the establishment of the Jewish National Home,  and the development of self-governing institutions.
> The Mandate set the conditions for immigration --- such that all Jews who are willing to assist --- might be shall encouraged in the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
> The Mandate set the conditions to acquire Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
> There were many factor the helped set conditions favorable to the establishment of the Jewish National Home.  The Mandate was not exclusive, but it made its contribution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is well known that representatives of the United Kingdom Government have stated, at various times, even before the question was submitted to the General Assembly, that the mandatory system of administration of Palestine has not justified itself and that the solution of the problem of how to deal with Palestine should be found by the United Nations. Thus, for instance, Mr. Bevin made the following statement in the House of Commons on 18 February 1947.
> 
> "We intend to place before them [the United Nations] a historical account of the way in which His Majesty's Government have discharged their trust in Palestine over the last twenty-five years. We shall explain that the mandate has proved to be unworkable in practice and that the obligations undertaken to the two communities in Palestine have been shown to be irreconcilable."  A/2/PV.77  14 May 1947
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> AND*​
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.  Andrei Andreyevich GROMYKO said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In view of the necessity of manifesting concern for the needs of the Jewish people who find themselves without homes and without means of existence, the delegation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics thinks it essential, in this connexion, to draw the attention of the General Assembly to the following important circumstance. Past experience, particularly during the Second World War, shows that no western European State was able to provide adequate assistance for the Jewish people in defending its rights and its very existence from the violence of the Hitlerites and their allies. This is an unpleasant fact, but unfortunately, like all other facts, it must be admitted.
> 
> The fact that no western European State has been able to ensure the defence of the elementary rights of the Jewish people, and to safeguard it against the violence of the fascist executioners, explains the aspirations of the Jews to establish their own State. It would be unjust not to take this into consideration and to deny the right of the Jewish people to realize this aspiration. It would be unjustifiable to deny this right to the Jewish people, particularly in view of all it has undergone during the Second World War. Consequently, the study of this aspect of the problem and the preparation of relevant proposals must constitute an important task of the special committee.
> *AND*​Neither the historic past nor the conditions prevailing in Palestine at present can justify any unilateral solution of the Palestine problem, either in favour of establishing an independent Arab State, without consideration for the legitimate rights of the Jewish people, or in favour of the establishment of an independent Jewish State, while ignoring the legitimate rights of the Arab population. Neither of these extreme decisions would achieve an equitable solution of this complicated problem, especially since neither would ensure the settlement of relations between the Arabs and the Jews, which constitutes the most important task. A/2/PV.77  14 May 1947
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And finally, and probably most importantly,
> (QUOTING) Mr.  Andrei Andreyevich GROMYKO, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics):
> During the last war, the Jewish people underwent exceptional sorrow and suffering. Without any exaggeration, this sorrow and suffering are indescribable. It is difficult to express them in dry statistics on the Jewish victims of the fascist aggressors. The Jews in territories where the Hitlerites held sway were subjected to almost complete physical annihilation. The total number of members of the Jewish population who perished at the hands of the nazi executioners is estimated at approximately six million. Only about a million and a half Jews in Western Europe survived the war.
> 
> It may well be asked if the United Nations, in view of the difficult situation of hundreds of thousands of the surviving Jewish population, can fail to show an interest in the situation of these people, torn away from their countries and their homes. The United Nations cannot and must not regard this situation with indifference, since this would be incompatible with the high principles proclaimed in its Charter, which provide for the defence of human rights, irrespective of race, religion or sex. *The time has come to help these people, not by word, but by deeds. *It is essential to show concern for the urgent needs of a people which has undergone such great suffering as a result of the war brought about by hitlerite Germany. This is a duty of the United Nations.
> 
> *The fact that no western European State has been able to ensure the defence of the elementary rights of the Jewish people, and to safeguard it against the violence of the fascist executioners, explains the aspirations of the Jews to establish their own State. *It would be unjust not to take this into consideration and to deny the right of the Jewish people to realize this aspiration. It would be unjustifiable to deny this right to the Jewish people, particularly in view of all it has undergone during the Second World War. Consequently, the study of this aspect of the problem and the preparation of relevant proposals must constitute an important task of the special committee.
> A/2/PV.77  14 May 1947​I normally don't quote Soviets --- in most cases, simply because we seldom agree.  But in this case, the two prevailing Superpowers of the World (in that time frame) happened to agree.
> 
> Probably the biggest reason the Mandate had an impact on the establishment of the State, might be because the Mandate illuminated the unreconcilable differences between the Arab Palestinians and the Israelis.  And it is this vast gulf of diplomacy which the Arab Palestinian seems to have no capacity to resolve.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R ​
Click to expand...


The soviets were working to their own agenda at the time, they wanted Britain out and hoped that a "Socialist" Israel would become a Soviet ally or "satellite" state in the region. Remember the Soviets were Israel's main arms supplier at the time via Czechoslovakia and other Eastern bloc states. Significantly the speech ignores the huge Jewish populationof the United States, which still has 40% of all the World's Jewish population.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> This is entirely wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> This is often expressed by pro-Palestinian activists; trying for the appeal to emotion.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The alien(s) is/are the Europeans who settled in Palestine, all of Palestine, facilitated by the European colonial power, Great Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In my opinion, there was to colonial activity in the Middle East.   And the application of the non-binding concepts of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples are not really applicable to the Mandate System in that:
> 
> The intention of Mandate was the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples.
> The intention of Mandate was to extend the universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,
> The intention of Mandate was the creation of conditions that would advance the attainment of their independence.
> Considering the important role of the League of Nations, and the UN, (the successor governments to which the Ottoman Empire and Turkey surrendered all rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction, had in the establishment of all the Arab governments in the Middle East _(territory formerly under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire)_ in assisting the various bids for independence in Trusts and Non-Self-Governing Territories, it should be noted that the nations upon which such powers of guardianship were conferred exercise them "as _Mandatories_ on behalf of the League of Nations.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but the Mandate had nothing to do with the creation of Israel.
> 
> That is not to say that the Mandate was not complicit in setting the stage for Israel's military takeover of Palestine. Britain did provide the political and military power to protect the pre state colonization of Palestine by the Zionists. Britain allowed the Zionists to create a state within a state, including a military, while denying the same to the Palestinians.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that was unrelated to anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Mandate set the conditions for the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
> The Mandate set the conditions for the establishment of the Jewish National Home,  and the development of self-governing institutions.
> The Mandate set the conditions for immigration --- such that all Jews who are willing to assist --- might be shall encouraged in the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
> The Mandate set the conditions to acquire Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
> There were many factor the helped set conditions favorable to the establishment of the Jewish National Home.  The Mandate was not exclusive, but it made its contribution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is well known that representatives of the United Kingdom Government have stated, at various times, even before the question was submitted to the General Assembly, that the mandatory system of administration of Palestine has not justified itself and that the solution of the problem of how to deal with Palestine should be found by the United Nations. Thus, for instance, Mr. Bevin made the following statement in the House of Commons on 18 February 1947.
> 
> "We intend to place before them [the United Nations] a historical account of the way in which His Majesty's Government have discharged their trust in Palestine over the last twenty-five years. We shall explain that the mandate has proved to be unworkable in practice and that the obligations undertaken to the two communities in Palestine have been shown to be irreconcilable."  A/2/PV.77  14 May 1947
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> AND*​
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.  Andrei Andreyevich GROMYKO said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In view of the necessity of manifesting concern for the needs of the Jewish people who find themselves without homes and without means of existence, the delegation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics thinks it essential, in this connexion, to draw the attention of the General Assembly to the following important circumstance. Past experience, particularly during the Second World War, shows that no western European State was able to provide adequate assistance for the Jewish people in defending its rights and its very existence from the violence of the Hitlerites and their allies. This is an unpleasant fact, but unfortunately, like all other facts, it must be admitted.
> 
> The fact that no western European State has been able to ensure the defence of the elementary rights of the Jewish people, and to safeguard it against the violence of the fascist executioners, explains the aspirations of the Jews to establish their own State. It would be unjust not to take this into consideration and to deny the right of the Jewish people to realize this aspiration. It would be unjustifiable to deny this right to the Jewish people, particularly in view of all it has undergone during the Second World War. Consequently, the study of this aspect of the problem and the preparation of relevant proposals must constitute an important task of the special committee.
> *AND*​Neither the historic past nor the conditions prevailing in Palestine at present can justify any unilateral solution of the Palestine problem, either in favour of establishing an independent Arab State, without consideration for the legitimate rights of the Jewish people, or in favour of the establishment of an independent Jewish State, while ignoring the legitimate rights of the Arab population. Neither of these extreme decisions would achieve an equitable solution of this complicated problem, especially since neither would ensure the settlement of relations between the Arabs and the Jews, which constitutes the most important task. A/2/PV.77  14 May 1947
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And finally, and probably most importantly,
> (QUOTING) Mr.  Andrei Andreyevich GROMYKO, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics):
> During the last war, the Jewish people underwent exceptional sorrow and suffering. Without any exaggeration, this sorrow and suffering are indescribable. It is difficult to express them in dry statistics on the Jewish victims of the fascist aggressors. The Jews in territories where the Hitlerites held sway were subjected to almost complete physical annihilation. The total number of members of the Jewish population who perished at the hands of the nazi executioners is estimated at approximately six million. Only about a million and a half Jews in Western Europe survived the war.
> 
> It may well be asked if the United Nations, in view of the difficult situation of hundreds of thousands of the surviving Jewish population, can fail to show an interest in the situation of these people, torn away from their countries and their homes. The United Nations cannot and must not regard this situation with indifference, since this would be incompatible with the high principles proclaimed in its Charter, which provide for the defence of human rights, irrespective of race, religion or sex. *The time has come to help these people, not by word, but by deeds. *It is essential to show concern for the urgent needs of a people which has undergone such great suffering as a result of the war brought about by hitlerite Germany. This is a duty of the United Nations.
> 
> *The fact that no western European State has been able to ensure the defence of the elementary rights of the Jewish people, and to safeguard it against the violence of the fascist executioners, explains the aspirations of the Jews to establish their own State. *It would be unjust not to take this into consideration and to deny the right of the Jewish people to realize this aspiration. It would be unjustifiable to deny this right to the Jewish people, particularly in view of all it has undergone during the Second World War. Consequently, the study of this aspect of the problem and the preparation of relevant proposals must constitute an important task of the special committee.
> A/2/PV.77  14 May 1947​I normally don't quote Soviets --- in most cases, simply because we seldom agree.  But in this case, the two prevailing Superpowers of the World (in that time frame) happened to agree.
> 
> Probably the biggest reason the Mandate had an impact on the establishment of the State, might be because the Mandate illuminated the unreconcilable differences between the Arab Palestinians and the Israelis.  And it is this vast gulf of diplomacy which the Arab Palestinian seems to have no capacity to resolve.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We intend to place before them [the United Nations] a historical account of the way in which His Majesty's Government have discharged their trust in Palestine over the last twenty-five years.* We shall explain that the mandate has proved to be unworkable in practice and that the obligations undertaken to the two communities in Palestine have been shown to be irreconcilable."* A/2/PV.77 14 May 1947​
> Who were these two "communities?"
> 
> 1) The indigenous people of Palestine.
> 2) The foreign Zionist colonial project.​
> Britain tried to impose this colonial project on Palestine by military force. Of course it was rejected by virtually all of the people including the native Jews.
> 
> This colonial project is still being imposed on Palestine by military force. Thus we have a war that has been brewing for a hundred years and counting.
Click to expand...






 No the arab muslims from the whole of the M.E and the Jews from the whole of the M.E. and Europe. Don't forget the muslims have a history of land grabs, illegal immigration and violence that is still evident today.


----------



## Phoenall

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> This is entirely wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> This is often expressed by pro-Palestinian activists; trying for the appeal to emotion.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The alien(s) is/are the Europeans who settled in Palestine, all of Palestine, facilitated by the European colonial power, Great Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In my opinion, there was to colonial activity in the Middle East.   And the application of the non-binding concepts of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples are not really applicable to the Mandate System in that:
> 
> The intention of Mandate was the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples.
> The intention of Mandate was to extend the universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,
> The intention of Mandate was the creation of conditions that would advance the attainment of their independence.
> Considering the important role of the League of Nations, and the UN, (the successor governments to which the Ottoman Empire and Turkey surrendered all rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction, had in the establishment of all the Arab governments in the Middle East _(territory formerly under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire)_ in assisting the various bids for independence in Trusts and Non-Self-Governing Territories, it should be noted that the nations upon which such powers of guardianship were conferred exercise them "as _Mandatories_ on behalf of the League of Nations.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but the Mandate had nothing to do with the creation of Israel.
> 
> That is not to say that the Mandate was not complicit in setting the stage for Israel's military takeover of Palestine. Britain did provide the political and military power to protect the pre state colonization of Palestine by the Zionists. Britain allowed the Zionists to create a state within a state, including a military, while denying the same to the Palestinians.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that was unrelated to anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Mandate set the conditions for the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
> The Mandate set the conditions for the establishment of the Jewish National Home,  and the development of self-governing institutions.
> The Mandate set the conditions for immigration --- such that all Jews who are willing to assist --- might be shall encouraged in the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
> The Mandate set the conditions to acquire Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
> There were many factor the helped set conditions favorable to the establishment of the Jewish National Home.  The Mandate was not exclusive, but it made its contribution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is well known that representatives of the United Kingdom Government have stated, at various times, even before the question was submitted to the General Assembly, that the mandatory system of administration of Palestine has not justified itself and that the solution of the problem of how to deal with Palestine should be found by the United Nations. Thus, for instance, Mr. Bevin made the following statement in the House of Commons on 18 February 1947.
> 
> "We intend to place before them [the United Nations] a historical account of the way in which His Majesty's Government have discharged their trust in Palestine over the last twenty-five years. We shall explain that the mandate has proved to be unworkable in practice and that the obligations undertaken to the two communities in Palestine have been shown to be irreconcilable."  A/2/PV.77  14 May 1947
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> AND*​
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.  Andrei Andreyevich GROMYKO said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In view of the necessity of manifesting concern for the needs of the Jewish people who find themselves without homes and without means of existence, the delegation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics thinks it essential, in this connexion, to draw the attention of the General Assembly to the following important circumstance. Past experience, particularly during the Second World War, shows that no western European State was able to provide adequate assistance for the Jewish people in defending its rights and its very existence from the violence of the Hitlerites and their allies. This is an unpleasant fact, but unfortunately, like all other facts, it must be admitted.
> 
> The fact that no western European State has been able to ensure the defence of the elementary rights of the Jewish people, and to safeguard it against the violence of the fascist executioners, explains the aspirations of the Jews to establish their own State. It would be unjust not to take this into consideration and to deny the right of the Jewish people to realize this aspiration. It would be unjustifiable to deny this right to the Jewish people, particularly in view of all it has undergone during the Second World War. Consequently, the study of this aspect of the problem and the preparation of relevant proposals must constitute an important task of the special committee.
> *AND*​Neither the historic past nor the conditions prevailing in Palestine at present can justify any unilateral solution of the Palestine problem, either in favour of establishing an independent Arab State, without consideration for the legitimate rights of the Jewish people, or in favour of the establishment of an independent Jewish State, while ignoring the legitimate rights of the Arab population. Neither of these extreme decisions would achieve an equitable solution of this complicated problem, especially since neither would ensure the settlement of relations between the Arabs and the Jews, which constitutes the most important task. A/2/PV.77  14 May 1947
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And finally, and probably most importantly,
> (QUOTING) Mr.  Andrei Andreyevich GROMYKO, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics):
> During the last war, the Jewish people underwent exceptional sorrow and suffering. Without any exaggeration, this sorrow and suffering are indescribable. It is difficult to express them in dry statistics on the Jewish victims of the fascist aggressors. The Jews in territories where the Hitlerites held sway were subjected to almost complete physical annihilation. The total number of members of the Jewish population who perished at the hands of the nazi executioners is estimated at approximately six million. Only about a million and a half Jews in Western Europe survived the war.
> 
> It may well be asked if the United Nations, in view of the difficult situation of hundreds of thousands of the surviving Jewish population, can fail to show an interest in the situation of these people, torn away from their countries and their homes. The United Nations cannot and must not regard this situation with indifference, since this would be incompatible with the high principles proclaimed in its Charter, which provide for the defence of human rights, irrespective of race, religion or sex. *The time has come to help these people, not by word, but by deeds. *It is essential to show concern for the urgent needs of a people which has undergone such great suffering as a result of the war brought about by hitlerite Germany. This is a duty of the United Nations.
> 
> *The fact that no western European State has been able to ensure the defence of the elementary rights of the Jewish people, and to safeguard it against the violence of the fascist executioners, explains the aspirations of the Jews to establish their own State. *It would be unjust not to take this into consideration and to deny the right of the Jewish people to realize this aspiration. It would be unjustifiable to deny this right to the Jewish people, particularly in view of all it has undergone during the Second World War. Consequently, the study of this aspect of the problem and the preparation of relevant proposals must constitute an important task of the special committee.
> A/2/PV.77  14 May 1947​I normally don't quote Soviets --- in most cases, simply because we seldom agree.  But in this case, the two prevailing Superpowers of the World (in that time frame) happened to agree.
> 
> Probably the biggest reason the Mandate had an impact on the establishment of the State, might be because the Mandate illuminated the unreconcilable differences between the Arab Palestinians and the Israelis.  And it is this vast gulf of diplomacy which the Arab Palestinian seems to have no capacity to resolve.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We intend to place before them [the United Nations] a historical account of the way in which His Majesty's Government have discharged their trust in Palestine over the last twenty-five years.* We shall explain that the mandate has proved to be unworkable in practice and that the obligations undertaken to the two communities in Palestine have been shown to be irreconcilable."* A/2/PV.77 14 May 1947​
> Who were these two "communities?"
> 
> 1) The indigenous people of Palestine.
> 2) The foreign Zionist colonial project.​
> Britain tried to impose this colonial project on Palestine by military force. Of course it was rejected by virtually all of the people including the native Jews.
> 
> This colonial project is still being imposed on Palestine by military force. Thus we have a war that has been brewing for a hundred years and counting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'foreign Zionist colonial project' is Palestinian propaganda.
Click to expand...






 It is worse than that it is islamonazi Jew hatred and racist lies.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> What do you call settling Europeans in Palestine, evicting the natives and creating a state?  A picnic?





 No an islamonazi racist LIE     as The Europeans were invited to settle in Palestine after the arab muslims had been given the lions share.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> What do you call settling people from another continent on land that the people living there were opposed to?







 Islamonazi illegal immigration which is happening in Europe, Africa, America and Australia. Care to explain why you are blind to these illegal colonial settling by your fellow muslims ?


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq, et al,
> 
> I see nothing above that substantiates your outlandish claim that:  "Israel is an Illegal State." --- Although I see this quite often from pro-Palestinian Activist.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is an ILLEGAL State,see comment above..........you are perpetuating and supporting this Illegal State........like most of your (Most Respectfully) comments,they mean nought,nothing,zilch......so STOP this erroneous commentary of yours......Resectfully or NOT
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS)*
> 
> PLAN OF PARTITION WITH ECONOMIC UNION --- PART I --- Future constitution and government of Palestine
> Section B --- STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE* --- Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly, dated 29 November 1947*
> PART II --- Boundaries --- Section A. - THE ARAB STATE Section B - THE JEWISH STATE
> 
> S/747 16 May 1948 Declaration of Independence
> S/1093 29 November 1948  Application for Admission to the UN
> S/RES/69 S/1277 4 March 1949  Favorable UN Security Council Recommendation
> A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949 General Assembly _Decides_ to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I fail to see the justification for your comment that "Israel is an ILLEGAL State."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an illegal state because it was created in direct violation of the will of the majority of the population of Palestine, and it's admission to the UN was based on Israel's adherance to two UN resolutions.
> 
> "_Recalling_ its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanationsmade by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the _ad hoc_ Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,"
> 
> Which it has failed to do.
Click to expand...





 Not at the time the National Home for the Jews was first put into International law, as then the population of Palestine was majority Jewish. It was only after the arab muslims illegally migrated and stole the land that the problems started.
 But if you want to play them games then Pakistan and Bangladesh are illegal states as the majority of population of India. Just as the many Islamic nations in Africa are also illegal as they were created against the wishes of the population.


 Now when did UN resolutions become legal and binding, and which two were not adhered to by the Israeli's. And then explain why the arab muslims ignored International law in regards to Jerusalem and the eviction of 1 million Jews by force of arms.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> This is entirely wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> This is often expressed by pro-Palestinian activists; trying for the appeal to emotion.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The alien(s) is/are the Europeans who settled in Palestine, all of Palestine, facilitated by the European colonial power, Great Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In my opinion, there was to colonial activity in the Middle East.   And the application of the non-binding concepts of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples are not really applicable to the Mandate System in that:
> 
> The intention of Mandate was the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples.
> The intention of Mandate was to extend the universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,
> The intention of Mandate was the creation of conditions that would advance the attainment of their independence.
> Considering the important role of the League of Nations, and the UN, (the successor governments to which the Ottoman Empire and Turkey surrendered all rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction, had in the establishment of all the Arab governments in the Middle East _(territory formerly under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire)_ in assisting the various bids for independence in Trusts and Non-Self-Governing Territories, it should be noted that the nations upon which such powers of guardianship were conferred exercise them "as _Mandatories_ on behalf of the League of Nations.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but the Mandate had nothing to do with the creation of Israel.
> 
> That is not to say that the Mandate was not complicit in setting the stage for Israel's military takeover of Palestine. Britain did provide the political and military power to protect the pre state colonization of Palestine by the Zionists. Britain allowed the Zionists to create a state within a state, including a military, while denying the same to the Palestinians.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that was unrelated to anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Mandate set the conditions for the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
> The Mandate set the conditions for the establishment of the Jewish National Home,  and the development of self-governing institutions.
> The Mandate set the conditions for immigration --- such that all Jews who are willing to assist --- might be shall encouraged in the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
> The Mandate set the conditions to acquire Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
> There were many factor the helped set conditions favorable to the establishment of the Jewish National Home.  The Mandate was not exclusive, but it made its contribution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is well known that representatives of the United Kingdom Government have stated, at various times, even before the question was submitted to the General Assembly, that the mandatory system of administration of Palestine has not justified itself and that the solution of the problem of how to deal with Palestine should be found by the United Nations. Thus, for instance, Mr. Bevin made the following statement in the House of Commons on 18 February 1947.
> 
> "We intend to place before them [the United Nations] a historical account of the way in which His Majesty's Government have discharged their trust in Palestine over the last twenty-five years. We shall explain that the mandate has proved to be unworkable in practice and that the obligations undertaken to the two communities in Palestine have been shown to be irreconcilable."  A/2/PV.77  14 May 1947
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> AND*​
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.  Andrei Andreyevich GROMYKO said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In view of the necessity of manifesting concern for the needs of the Jewish people who find themselves without homes and without means of existence, the delegation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics thinks it essential, in this connexion, to draw the attention of the General Assembly to the following important circumstance. Past experience, particularly during the Second World War, shows that no western European State was able to provide adequate assistance for the Jewish people in defending its rights and its very existence from the violence of the Hitlerites and their allies. This is an unpleasant fact, but unfortunately, like all other facts, it must be admitted.
> 
> The fact that no western European State has been able to ensure the defence of the elementary rights of the Jewish people, and to safeguard it against the violence of the fascist executioners, explains the aspirations of the Jews to establish their own State. It would be unjust not to take this into consideration and to deny the right of the Jewish people to realize this aspiration. It would be unjustifiable to deny this right to the Jewish people, particularly in view of all it has undergone during the Second World War. Consequently, the study of this aspect of the problem and the preparation of relevant proposals must constitute an important task of the special committee.
> *AND*​Neither the historic past nor the conditions prevailing in Palestine at present can justify any unilateral solution of the Palestine problem, either in favour of establishing an independent Arab State, without consideration for the legitimate rights of the Jewish people, or in favour of the establishment of an independent Jewish State, while ignoring the legitimate rights of the Arab population. Neither of these extreme decisions would achieve an equitable solution of this complicated problem, especially since neither would ensure the settlement of relations between the Arabs and the Jews, which constitutes the most important task. A/2/PV.77  14 May 1947
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And finally, and probably most importantly,
> (QUOTING) Mr.  Andrei Andreyevich GROMYKO, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics):
> During the last war, the Jewish people underwent exceptional sorrow and suffering. Without any exaggeration, this sorrow and suffering are indescribable. It is difficult to express them in dry statistics on the Jewish victims of the fascist aggressors. The Jews in territories where the Hitlerites held sway were subjected to almost complete physical annihilation. The total number of members of the Jewish population who perished at the hands of the nazi executioners is estimated at approximately six million. Only about a million and a half Jews in Western Europe survived the war.
> 
> It may well be asked if the United Nations, in view of the difficult situation of hundreds of thousands of the surviving Jewish population, can fail to show an interest in the situation of these people, torn away from their countries and their homes. The United Nations cannot and must not regard this situation with indifference, since this would be incompatible with the high principles proclaimed in its Charter, which provide for the defence of human rights, irrespective of race, religion or sex. *The time has come to help these people, not by word, but by deeds. *It is essential to show concern for the urgent needs of a people which has undergone such great suffering as a result of the war brought about by hitlerite Germany. This is a duty of the United Nations.
> 
> *The fact that no western European State has been able to ensure the defence of the elementary rights of the Jewish people, and to safeguard it against the violence of the fascist executioners, explains the aspirations of the Jews to establish their own State. *It would be unjust not to take this into consideration and to deny the right of the Jewish people to realize this aspiration. It would be unjustifiable to deny this right to the Jewish people, particularly in view of all it has undergone during the Second World War. Consequently, the study of this aspect of the problem and the preparation of relevant proposals must constitute an important task of the special committee.
> A/2/PV.77  14 May 1947​I normally don't quote Soviets --- in most cases, simply because we seldom agree.  But in this case, the two prevailing Superpowers of the World (in that time frame) happened to agree.
> 
> Probably the biggest reason the Mandate had an impact on the establishment of the State, might be because the Mandate illuminated the unreconcilable differences between the Arab Palestinians and the Israelis.  And it is this vast gulf of diplomacy which the Arab Palestinian seems to have no capacity to resolve.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The soviets were working to their own agenda at the time, they wanted Britain out and hoped that a "Socialist" Israel would become a Soviet ally or "satellite" state in the region. Remember the Soviets were Israel's main arms supplier at the time via Czechoslovakia and other Eastern bloc states. Significantly the speech ignores the huge Jewish populationof the United States, which still has 40% of all the World's Jewish population.
Click to expand...







Because the soviets were losing so many intelligent people to Israel  had nothing to do with it did it. Just as the soviets and US kidnapping thousands of Germany's scientists at the end of WW2 did not take place. You really need to stop reading what your handler tells you is the truth and look at the reality.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> This is often expressed by pro-Palestinian activists; trying for the appeal to emotion.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The alien(s) is/are the Europeans who settled in Palestine, all of Palestine, facilitated by the European colonial power, Great Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In my opinion, there was to colonial activity in the Middle East.   And the application of the non-binding concepts of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples are not really applicable to the Mandate System in that:
> 
> The intention of Mandate was the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples.
> The intention of Mandate was to extend the universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,
> The intention of Mandate was the creation of conditions that would advance the attainment of their independence.
> Considering the important role of the League of Nations, and the UN, (the successor governments to which the Ottoman Empire and Turkey surrendered all rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction, had in the establishment of all the Arab governments in the Middle East _(territory formerly under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire)_ in assisting the various bids for independence in Trusts and Non-Self-Governing Territories, it should be noted that the nations upon which such powers of guardianship were conferred exercise them "as _Mandatories_ on behalf of the League of Nations.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but the Mandate had nothing to do with the creation of Israel.
> 
> That is not to say that the Mandate was not complicit in setting the stage for Israel's military takeover of Palestine. Britain did provide the political and military power to protect the pre state colonization of Palestine by the Zionists. Britain allowed the Zionists to create a state within a state, including a military, while denying the same to the Palestinians.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that was unrelated to anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT
> 
> The Mandate for Palestine was set up primarily to enable the Jews to set up their National Home. It even says so in the first 10 articles, or don't you read the links you keep demanding
Click to expand...

I have.

Where does it conflict with my post?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> This is often expressed by pro-Palestinian activists; trying for the appeal to emotion.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The alien(s) is/are the Europeans who settled in Palestine, all of Palestine, facilitated by the European colonial power, Great Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In my opinion, there was to colonial activity in the Middle East.   And the application of the non-binding concepts of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples are not really applicable to the Mandate System in that:
> 
> The intention of Mandate was the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples.
> The intention of Mandate was to extend the universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,
> The intention of Mandate was the creation of conditions that would advance the attainment of their independence.
> Considering the important role of the League of Nations, and the UN, (the successor governments to which the Ottoman Empire and Turkey surrendered all rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction, had in the establishment of all the Arab governments in the Middle East _(territory formerly under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire)_ in assisting the various bids for independence in Trusts and Non-Self-Governing Territories, it should be noted that the nations upon which such powers of guardianship were conferred exercise them "as _Mandatories_ on behalf of the League of Nations.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but the Mandate had nothing to do with the creation of Israel.
> 
> That is not to say that the Mandate was not complicit in setting the stage for Israel's military takeover of Palestine. Britain did provide the political and military power to protect the pre state colonization of Palestine by the Zionists. Britain allowed the Zionists to create a state within a state, including a military, while denying the same to the Palestinians.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that was unrelated to anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT
> 
> The Mandate for Palestine was set up primarily to enable the Jews to set up their National Home. It even says so in the first 10 articles, or don't you read the links you keep demanding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have.
> 
> Where does it conflict with my post?
Click to expand...





 Then maybe it needs to be translated for you as you seem to have a problem with understanding English. The Mandate for Palestine states that Palestine is for the Jews national home.   You claim that the mandate had nothing to do with setting up Israel.setting


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> This is often expressed by pro-Palestinian activists; trying for the appeal to emotion.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The alien(s) is/are the Europeans who settled in Palestine, all of Palestine, facilitated by the European colonial power, Great Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In my opinion, there was to colonial activity in the Middle East.   And the application of the non-binding concepts of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples are not really applicable to the Mandate System in that:
> 
> The intention of Mandate was the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples.
> The intention of Mandate was to extend the universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,
> The intention of Mandate was the creation of conditions that would advance the attainment of their independence.
> Considering the important role of the League of Nations, and the UN, (the successor governments to which the Ottoman Empire and Turkey surrendered all rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction, had in the establishment of all the Arab governments in the Middle East _(territory formerly under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire)_ in assisting the various bids for independence in Trusts and Non-Self-Governing Territories, it should be noted that the nations upon which such powers of guardianship were conferred exercise them "as _Mandatories_ on behalf of the League of Nations.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but the Mandate had nothing to do with the creation of Israel.
> 
> That is not to say that the Mandate was not complicit in setting the stage for Israel's military takeover of Palestine. Britain did provide the political and military power to protect the pre state colonization of Palestine by the Zionists. Britain allowed the Zionists to create a state within a state, including a military, while denying the same to the Palestinians.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that was unrelated to anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT
> 
> The Mandate for Palestine was set up primarily to enable the Jews to set up their National Home. It even says so in the first 10 articles, or don't you read the links you keep demanding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have.
> 
> Where does it conflict with my post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then maybe it needs to be translated for you as you seem to have a problem with understanding English. The Mandate for Palestine states that Palestine is for the Jews national home.   You claim that the mandate had nothing to do with setting up Israel.setting
Click to expand...

Where was the Mandate when Israel claimed its independence and what role did it play in the declaration?


----------



## fanger

[QUOTE="Phoenall, post: 11111339, member: 35705"



Then maybe it needs to be translated for you as you seem to have a problem with understanding English. The Mandate for Palestine states that Palestine is for the Jews national home.   You claim that the mandate had nothing to do with setting up Israel.setting[/QUOTE]

you always leave this part out...* it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,*


----------



## MJB12741

fanger said:


> [QUOTE="Phoenall, post: 11111339, member: 35705"
> 
> 
> 
> Then maybe it needs to be translated for you as you seem to have a problem with understanding English. The Mandate for Palestine states that Palestine is for the Jews national home.   You claim that the mandate had nothing to do with setting up Israel.setting



you always leave this part out...* it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,*[/QUOTE]


Kill Israeli's & Israel will retaliate against the "civil & religious rights of existing non Jewish communities in Palestine".  It's that simple.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> This is often expressed by pro-Palestinian activists; trying for the appeal to emotion.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In my opinion, there was to colonial activity in the Middle East.   And the application of the non-binding concepts of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples are not really applicable to the Mandate System in that:
> 
> The intention of Mandate was the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples.
> The intention of Mandate was to extend the universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,
> The intention of Mandate was the creation of conditions that would advance the attainment of their independence.
> Considering the important role of the League of Nations, and the UN, (the successor governments to which the Ottoman Empire and Turkey surrendered all rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction, had in the establishment of all the Arab governments in the Middle East _(territory formerly under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire)_ in assisting the various bids for independence in Trusts and Non-Self-Governing Territories, it should be noted that the nations upon which such powers of guardianship were conferred exercise them "as _Mandatories_ on behalf of the League of Nations.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but the Mandate had nothing to do with the creation of Israel.
> 
> That is not to say that the Mandate was not complicit in setting the stage for Israel's military takeover of Palestine. Britain did provide the political and military power to protect the pre state colonization of Palestine by the Zionists. Britain allowed the Zionists to create a state within a state, including a military, while denying the same to the Palestinians.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that was unrelated to anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT
> 
> The Mandate for Palestine was set up primarily to enable the Jews to set up their National Home. It even says so in the first 10 articles, or don't you read the links you keep demanding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have.
> 
> Where does it conflict with my post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then maybe it needs to be translated for you as you seem to have a problem with understanding English. The Mandate for Palestine states that Palestine is for the Jews national home.   You claim that the mandate had nothing to do with setting up Israel.setting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where was the Mandate when Israel claimed its independence and what role did it play in the declaration?
Click to expand...






It is still in existence as part of the land is still unclaimed, it had everything to do with the declaration as it set the steps to be followed, Why do you think Jordan, Syria and Iran was not set free until Israel declared independence ?


----------



## Phoenall

fanger said:


> [QUOTE="Phoenall, post: 11111339, member: 35705"
> 
> 
> 
> Then maybe it needs to be translated for you as you seem to have a problem with understanding English. The Mandate for Palestine states that Palestine is for the Jews national home.   You claim that the mandate had nothing to do with setting up Israel.setting



you always leave this part out...* it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,*[/QUOTE]




 WRONG AGAIN as I always include it when I quote the Mandate, now why do you always leave out the parts dealing with the Jews rights ?


----------



## fanger

You didnt that time did you?


----------



## Phoenall

fanger said:


> You didnt that time did you?







 Did I quote the Mandate and give a link, or did I just mention in passing whet the mandate says in general.

 So easy to make a fool look an even bigger fool


----------



## fanger

"whet the mandate says" bigger fool?


----------



## Phoenall

fanger said:


> "whet the mandate says" bigger fool?







 And the grasper of straws goes against zone 2 rules when a typo is made, keep on topic and debate the post not the person.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

No matter what you may think, it was not a "unilateral move that was unrelated to anything else;"  meaning performed by Jewish population without the agreement of UN _(successor to the League of Nations)_ or the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) _(successor government to the Mandatory)_.  

First, there was a UN Special Commission on Palestine recommendation (both a Majority version and a Minority version). 
THEN, the was the General Assembly Recommendation 181(II) itself, which included the partitioning of a Jewish State.
THEN there was the general coordination between the Jewish Agency and the UNPC in the completion of the Step Preparatory to Independence. 
THEN there was the 14 May Jewish Agency Coordination with the UNPC on the announcement of "Independence."
THEN there was the official Public Announcement by the UN:



			
				EXCERPT from UN PRESS RELEASE PAL169 said:
			
		

> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. *In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."*
> 
> Dr. Paul Diez de Medina (Bolivia) said that the Assembly last Friday did only two things. First, he said, *"it appointed a mediator between the parties and that in itself is reaffirmation of partition."* The second part of the reference to the Commission expressed appreciation for the work performed, and that, he said, was also reaffirmation for partition.  PAL169 17 MAY 48





P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> This is often expressed by pro-Palestinian activists; trying for the appeal to emotion.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The alien(s) is/are the Europeans who settled in Palestine, all of Palestine, facilitated by the European colonial power, Great Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In my opinion, there was to colonial activity in the Middle East.   And the application of the non-binding concepts of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples are not really applicable to the Mandate System in that:
> 
> The intention of Mandate was the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples.
> The intention of Mandate was to extend the universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,
> The intention of Mandate was the creation of conditions that would advance the attainment of their independence.
> Considering the important role of the League of Nations, and the UN, (the successor governments to which the Ottoman Empire and Turkey surrendered all rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction, had in the establishment of all the Arab governments in the Middle East _(territory formerly under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire)_ in assisting the various bids for independence in Trusts and Non-Self-Governing Territories, it should be noted that the nations upon which such powers of guardianship were conferred exercise them "as _Mandatories_ on behalf of the League of Nations.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but the Mandate had nothing to do with the creation of Israel.
> 
> That is not to say that the Mandate was not complicit in setting the stage for Israel's military takeover of Palestine. Britain did provide the political and military power to protect the pre state colonization of Palestine by the Zionists. Britain allowed the Zionists to create a state within a state, including a military, while denying the same to the Palestinians.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that was unrelated to anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BULLSHIT
> 
> The Mandate for Palestine was set up primarily to enable the Jews to set up their National Home. It even says so in the first 10 articles, or don't you read the links you keep demanding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have.
> 
> Where does it conflict with my post?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*



			
				A/RES/181 (II) said:
			
		

> F. ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED NATIONS
> When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.



There was no such thing as "unilateral" action.  The Jewish Agency did it all in the open light of day, with the UN onboard with every action.

Most Respectfully,
R

\


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you call settling people from another continent on land that the people living there were opposed to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Islamonazi illegal immigration which is happening in Europe, Africa, America and Australia. Care to explain why you are blind to these illegal colonial settling by your fellow muslims ?
Click to expand...


I am against allowing Muslims to immigrate freely to Europe in great numbers.  I want to keep Europe European and Christian as much as possible. But, what does that have to do with hordes of Europeans (Zionists) settling in Palestine and and evicting the local people?


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="Phoenall, post: 11111339, member: 35705"
> 
> 
> 
> Then maybe it needs to be translated for you as you seem to have a problem with understanding English. The Mandate for Palestine states that Palestine is for the Jews national home.   You claim that the mandate had nothing to do with setting up Israel.setting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you always leave this part out...* it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,*
Click to expand...





WRONG AGAIN as I always include it when I quote the Mandate, now why do you always leave out the parts dealing with the Jews rights ?[/QUOTE]

Colonial settler's "rights" are an absurd construction.  Colonization and eviction of local people, as a result of the colonization, is a crime, regardless of what religion the colonizers are.


----------



## toastman

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq, et al,
> 
> I see nothing above that substantiates your outlandish claim that:  "Israel is an Illegal State." --- Although I see this quite often from pro-Palestinian Activist.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is an ILLEGAL State,see comment above..........you are perpetuating and supporting this Illegal State........like most of your (Most Respectfully) comments,they mean nought,nothing,zilch......so STOP this erroneous commentary of yours......Resectfully or NOT
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS)*
> 
> PLAN OF PARTITION WITH ECONOMIC UNION --- PART I --- Future constitution and government of Palestine
> Section B --- STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE* --- Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly, dated 29 November 1947*
> PART II --- Boundaries --- Section A. - THE ARAB STATE Section B - THE JEWISH STATE
> 
> S/747 16 May 1948 Declaration of Independence
> S/1093 29 November 1948  Application for Admission to the UN
> S/RES/69 S/1277 4 March 1949  Favorable UN Security Council Recommendation
> A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949 General Assembly _Decides_ to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I fail to see the justification for your comment that "Israel is an ILLEGAL State."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an illegal state because it was created in direct violation of the will of the majority of the population of Palestine, and it's admission to the UN was based on Israel's adherance to two UN resolutions.
> 
> "_Recalling_ its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanationsmade by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the _ad hoc_ Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,"
> 
> Which it has failed to do.
Click to expand...


Again, 'Palestine' used 181 in 1988 to declare independence.


----------



## toastman

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq, et al,
> 
> I see nothing above that substantiates your outlandish claim that:  "Israel is an Illegal State." --- Although I see this quite often from pro-Palestinian Activist.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is an ILLEGAL State,see comment above..........you are perpetuating and supporting this Illegal State........like most of your (Most Respectfully) comments,they mean nought,nothing,zilch......so STOP this erroneous commentary of yours......Resectfully or NOT
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS)*
> 
> PLAN OF PARTITION WITH ECONOMIC UNION --- PART I --- Future constitution and government of Palestine
> Section B --- STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE* --- Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly, dated 29 November 1947*
> PART II --- Boundaries --- Section A. - THE ARAB STATE Section B - THE JEWISH STATE
> 
> S/747 16 May 1948 Declaration of Independence
> S/1093 29 November 1948  Application for Admission to the UN
> S/RES/69 S/1277 4 March 1949  Favorable UN Security Council Recommendation
> A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949 General Assembly _Decides_ to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I fail to see the justification for your comment that "Israel is an ILLEGAL State."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an illegal state because it was created in direct violation of the will of the majority of the population of Palestine, and it's admission to the UN was based on Israel's adherance to two UN resolutions.
> 
> "_Recalling_ its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanationsmade by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the _ad hoc_ Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,"
> 
> Which it has failed to do.
Click to expand...


BTW, you have zero evidence that shows Israel is illegal "it was created in direct violation of the will of the majority of the population of Palestine, and it's admission to the UN was based on Israel's adherance to two UN resolutions"

This is complete bullshit. You make up jibberish like this because of your hatred for Israel. If Israel was not allowed to become a country because of your stupid reasons, then the U.N would not have fully recognized Israel AND give her full UN membership.


----------



## aris2chat

fanger said:


> [QUOTE="Phoenall, post: 11111339, member: 35705"
> 
> 
> 
> Then maybe it needs to be translated for you as you seem to have a problem with understanding English. The Mandate for Palestine states that Palestine is for the Jews national home.   You claim that the mandate had nothing to do with setting up Israel.setting



you always leave this part out...* it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,*[/QUOTE]

They were free to practice their faith, they still are.

When jordan held Jerusalem, it was not so.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

Refresh my memory.



montelatici said:


> Colonial settler's "rights" are an absurd construction.  Colonization and eviction of local people, as a result of the colonization, is a crime, regardless of what religion the colonizers are.


*(QUESTION)*

Exactly what law specifies this "crime" you are talking about?
Currently there is a Treaty between Israel and the States of Egypt and Jordan.  Which treaty is being violated?  Which settlers are violating what particular borders?

*(COMMENT)
*
Rather difficult to apply the GCIV to the 1948 War when the GCIV did not come into effect until August 1949.  AND, the GCIV proscribes "forcible" actions.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Article 49​


Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

You cannot be applying Article 8; Paragraph 2b(viii) - Rome Statues,


(viii)  The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;
Israel is not a signatory to this convention.  The Rome Statutes did not become applicable to the territory to which the former Mandate applied, until the Rome Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002. The Arab Palestinians were not a party to the conflict between Israel and the neighboring aggressor states of Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria.

Israel did not deportation or transfer the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory; after 1967.

Currently there is a Treaty between Israel and the States of Egypt and Jordan.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

Britain facilitated and abetted the transfer of Europeans to Palestine, while fully cognizant that the transfer would result in the displacement of the local people.  They had no intention adhering to the Mandate which stated that "nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine".  Since the establishment of a European state in Palestine seriously prejudiced and civil and religious rights of the *existing (note the word existing) *non-Jewish communities in Palestine, the terms of the Mandate were not followed.  Hence, the illegality.

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


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you call settling people from another continent on land that the people living there were opposed to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Islamonazi illegal immigration which is happening in Europe, Africa, America and Australia. Care to explain why you are blind to these illegal colonial settling by your fellow muslims ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am against allowing Muslims to immigrate freely to Europe in great numbers.  I want to keep Europe European and Christian as much as possible. But, what does that have to do with hordes of Europeans (Zionists) settling in Palestine and and evicting the local people?
Click to expand...





 What hordes of Europeans settling in Palestine and evicting local people.    The people most evicted were the Jews when over 1 million were brutally dragged from their homes, beaten, raped and some murdered by arab muslims and forced to flee for their lives.

 REMEMBER THE JEWS WERE RETURNING HOME TO LAND GIVEN TO THEM BY THE LEGAL OWNERS. FROM 1922 UNCLAIMED LAND BECAME THE PROPERTY OF THE NEW LAND OWNERS AND NOT THE ILLEGAL ARAB MUSLIM IMMIGRANTS.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="Phoenall, post: 11111339, member: 35705"
> 
> 
> 
> Then maybe it needs to be translated for you as you seem to have a problem with understanding English. The Mandate for Palestine states that Palestine is for the Jews national home.   You claim that the mandate had nothing to do with setting up Israel.setting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you always leave this part out...* it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG AGAIN as I always include it when I quote the Mandate, now why do you always leave out the parts dealing with the Jews rights ?
Click to expand...


Colonial settler's "rights" are an absurd construction.  Colonization and eviction of local people, as a result of the colonization, is a crime, regardless of what religion the colonizers are.[/QUOTE]




WRONG as International law says the Jews were the lands legal owners and the arab muslims are illegal immigrants.

 Now why do you always defend the mass expulsions and massacres of the Jews from the M.E. and claim they were the ones doing the murders and evictions.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> No matter what you may think, it was not a "unilateral move that was unrelated to anything else;"  meaning performed by Jewish population without the agreement of UN _(successor to the League of Nations)_ or the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) _(successor government to the Mandatory)_.
> 
> First, there was a UN Special Commission on Palestine recommendation (both a Majority version and a Minority version).
> THEN, the was the General Assembly Recommendation 181(II) itself, which included the partitioning of a Jewish State.
> THEN there was the general coordination between the Jewish Agency and the UNPC in the completion of the Step Preparatory to Independence.
> THEN there was the 14 May Jewish Agency Coordination with the UNPC on the announcement of "Independence."
> THEN there was the official Public Announcement by the UN:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXCERPT from UN PRESS RELEASE PAL169 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. *In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."*
> 
> Dr. Paul Diez de Medina (Bolivia) said that the Assembly last Friday did only two things. First, he said, *"it appointed a mediator between the parties and that in itself is reaffirmation of partition."* The second part of the reference to the Commission expressed appreciation for the work performed, and that, he said, was also reaffirmation for partition.  PAL169 17 MAY 48
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> This is often expressed by pro-Palestinian activists; trying for the appeal to emotion.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The alien(s) is/are the Europeans who settled in Palestine, all of Palestine, facilitated by the European colonial power, Great Britain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In my opinion, there was to colonial activity in the Middle East.   And the application of the non-binding concepts of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples are not really applicable to the Mandate System in that:
> 
> The intention of Mandate was the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples.
> The intention of Mandate was to extend the universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,
> The intention of Mandate was the creation of conditions that would advance the attainment of their independence.
> Considering the important role of the League of Nations, and the UN, (the successor governments to which the Ottoman Empire and Turkey surrendered all rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction, had in the establishment of all the Arab governments in the Middle East _(territory formerly under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire)_ in assisting the various bids for independence in Trusts and Non-Self-Governing Territories, it should be noted that the nations upon which such powers of guardianship were conferred exercise them "as _Mandatories_ on behalf of the League of Nations.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but the Mandate had nothing to do with the creation of Israel.
> 
> That is not to say that the Mandate was not complicit in setting the stage for Israel's military takeover of Palestine. Britain did provide the political and military power to protect the pre state colonization of Palestine by the Zionists. Britain allowed the Zionists to create a state within a state, including a military, while denying the same to the Palestinians.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that was unrelated to anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BULLSHIT
> 
> The Mandate for Palestine was set up primarily to enable the Jews to set up their National Home. It even says so in the first 10 articles, or don't you read the links you keep demanding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have.
> 
> Where does it conflict with my post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A/RES/181 (II) said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> F. ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED NATIONS
> When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no such thing as "unilateral" action.  The Jewish Agency did it all in the open light of day, with the UN onboard with every action.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> \
Click to expand...

What were the issues that they discusses? Were there any compromises?
Were there agreements on the peoples rights and defined borders?

Surely you can document these things.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Britain facilitated and abetted the transfer of Europeans to Palestine, while fully cognizant that the transfer would result in the displacement of the local people.  They had no intention adhering to the Mandate which stated that "nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine".  Since the establishment of a European state in Palestine seriously prejudiced and civil and religious rights of the *existing (note the word existing) *non-Jewish communities in Palestine, the terms of the Mandate were not followed.  Hence, the illegality.
> 
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922







 Remember that 1922 civil and religious rights are what you need to look at here and not UN charters or resolutions. So what civil and religious rights as they were in 1922 did the non Jewish communities lose. The Jews lost more rights when they were forcibly evicted, abused, beaten, raped and murdered by the arab muslims who breached this part of the same International law

* or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country

As for you link it is not a legally binding document , just a preamble to a future change in policy. Now were is the change in policy and when did it take place.    ( by the way I hold a white paper and the change in policy which are dated 18 months apart, the white paper details proposed changes in the Telecommunications acts that require users of telecommunications equipment to reach certain criteria and to give a fair representation of themselves. We were invited to give out views on the proposals and succeeded in having many of the unfair and unworkable aspects removed or re-written. The white paper was not law, and was never intended to be law, just a set of proposals. That is how it was originally set out all those years ago )*


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain facilitated and abetted the transfer of Europeans to Palestine, while fully cognizant that the transfer would result in the displacement of the local people.  They had no intention adhering to the Mandate which stated that "nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine".  Since the establishment of a European state in Palestine seriously prejudiced and civil and religious rights of the *existing (note the word existing) *non-Jewish communities in Palestine, the terms of the Mandate were not followed.  Hence, the illegality.
> 
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that 1922 civil and religious rights are what you need to look at here and not UN charters or resolutions. So what civil and religious rights as they were in 1922 did the non Jewish communities lose. The Jews lost more rights when they were forcibly evicted, abused, beaten, raped and murdered by the arab muslims who breached this part of the same International law
> 
> * or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country
> 
> As for you link it is not a legally binding document , just a preamble to a future change in policy. Now were is the change in policy and when did it take place.    ( by the way I hold a white paper and the change in policy which are dated 18 months apart, the white paper details proposed changes in the Telecommunications acts that require users of telecommunications equipment to reach certain criteria and to give a fair representation of themselves. We were invited to give out views on the proposals and succeeded in having many of the unfair and unworkable aspects removed or re-written. The white paper was not law, and was never intended to be law, just a set of proposals. That is how it was originally set out all those years ago )*
Click to expand...

The Jews lost more rights when they were forcibly evicted, abused, beaten, raped and murdered by the arab muslims who breached this part of the same International law​
OK, but the Palestinians had nothing to do with that.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I have given you this any number of times.  The documentation is found at:

Documents Distributed to, the Commission, 9 January-17 February 1948. Annotated Check List. 18 February 1948.
Documents Distributed to the Commission, 18 February-8 March 1948. Annotated Check List. 9 March 1948.
Documents Distributed to the Commission, 9 March-24 March 1948. Annotated Check List. 25 March 1948. 
Documents distributed to the Commission, 25 March-11 May 1948. Annotated Check List, 12 May 1948
I find it interesting that you (personally) challenge the these various organs of statecraft to your standard personal standard and not the reality of that day; as if that actually impacts their true accomplishment and disputes their validity.



P F Tinmore said:


> What were the issues that they discusses? Were there any compromises?
> Were there agreements on the peoples rights and defined borders?
> 
> Surely you can document these things.


*(COMMENT)*

There are any number of thing that were discussed --- covering a wide range of issues (matters of State) --- for which the Arab Higher Committee had declined to include their voice.  And so they were not consulted.  These include, but are not limited to:  _(One and half month sample)_

05/14/1948 A/AC.21/UK/144 UN Palestine Commission - Food supplies for Palestine - Letter from United Kingdom





05/14/1948 A/AC.21/UK/143 UN Palestine Commission - Release of Sterling balances - Letter from United Kingdom
05/11/1948 A/AC.21/UK/141 UN Palestine Commission - Palestine Currency Board - Letter from United Kingdom




05/11/1948 A/AC.21/SR.75 UN Palestine Commission - Postal services, Government of Palestine records, GoP civil servants - UNPC 75th mtg. - Summary record
04/26/1948 A/AC.21/JA/40 UN Palestine Commission - Free Sterling allocations - Communication from the Jewish Agency for Palestine




04/26/1948 A/AC.21/UK/125 UN Palestine Commission - Fuel situation in Jerusalem - Letter from United Kingdom




04/26/1948 A/AC.21/UK/127 UN Palestine Commission - Loans from Bearer Bond Balances - Letter from United Kingdom




04/26/1948 A/AC.21/UK/126 UN Palestine Commission - Situation in Haifa - Letter from United Kingdom




04/24/1948 A/AC.21/UK/124 UN Palestine Commission - Situation in Haifa/Urgent matters - Letter from United Kingdom




04/24/1948 A/AC.21/UK/122 UN Palestine Commission - Postal Services in Palestine - Letter from United Kingdom




04/23/1948 A/AC.21/UK/123 UN Palestine Commission - Situation in Haifa - Letter from United Kingdom
General Headings were:

I. Administrative and Legal, including
(a) Planning in conjunction with the Mandatory Power the transfer of the Administration of Palestine from the Mandatory Power to the Commission and eventually to the two States and to the City of Jerusalem.
(b) Effecting the same transfer and assisting in the setting up of the two States and the City.
(c) Co-ordinating the operation of the two Provisional Councils of Government. This item would involve questions relating to the administration of justice, prisons, municipal law-in-force, establishment and supervision of administrative organs of control and local, government, electoral laws, supervision of elections, citizenship.​II. Economic and Financial, including
(a) The establishment of the Economic Union and the Joint Economic Board by the Preparatory Economic Commission.
(b) The preparation of the draft undertaking regarding Economic Union and Freedom of Transit.
(c) The maintenance of essential economic services in the transitional period before the States and the Economic Union are fully functioning.
(d) Allocation and distribution of assets.​III. Security, including
(a) Political and military control over militia in each of the States, including selection of the high command.
(b) Questions of public order,​IV. Boundaries, including
The definition and establishment of boundaries.​V. Social Cultural and Religious, including
(a) The maintenance of adequate standards of public health and education.
(b) The protection of Holy Places,​VI. Preparation for Application of United Nations Statute for City of Jerusalem​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MJB12741

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I have given you this any number of times.  The documentation is found at:
> 
> Documents Distributed to, the Commission, 9 January-17 February 1948. Annotated Check List. 18 February 1948.
> Documents Distributed to the Commission, 18 February-8 March 1948. Annotated Check List. 9 March 1948.
> Documents Distributed to the Commission, 9 March-24 March 1948. Annotated Check List. 25 March 1948.
> Documents distributed to the Commission, 25 March-11 May 1948. Annotated Check List, 12 May 1948
> I find it interesting that you (personally) challenge the these various organs of statecraft to your standard personal standard and not the reality of that day; as if that actually impacts their true accomplishment and disputes their validity.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What were the issues that they discusses? Were there any compromises?
> Were there agreements on the peoples rights and defined borders?
> 
> Surely you can document these things.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are any number of thing that were discussed --- covering a wide range of issues (matters of State) --- for which the Arab Higher Committee had declined to include their voice.  And so they were not consulted.  These include, but are not limited to:  _(One and half month sample)_
> 
> 05/14/1948 A/AC.21/UK/144 UN Palestine Commission - Food supplies for Palestine - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 05/14/1948 A/AC.21/UK/143 UN Palestine Commission - Release of Sterling balances - Letter from United Kingdom
> 05/11/1948 A/AC.21/UK/141 UN Palestine Commission - Palestine Currency Board - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 05/11/1948 A/AC.21/SR.75 UN Palestine Commission - Postal services, Government of Palestine records, GoP civil servants - UNPC 75th mtg. - Summary record
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/JA/40 UN Palestine Commission - Free Sterling allocations - Communication from the Jewish Agency for Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/UK/125 UN Palestine Commission - Fuel situation in Jerusalem - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/UK/127 UN Palestine Commission - Loans from Bearer Bond Balances - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/UK/126 UN Palestine Commission - Situation in Haifa - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/24/1948 A/AC.21/UK/124 UN Palestine Commission - Situation in Haifa/Urgent matters - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/24/1948 A/AC.21/UK/122 UN Palestine Commission - Postal Services in Palestine - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/23/1948 A/AC.21/UK/123 UN Palestine Commission - Situation in Haifa - Letter from United Kingdom
> General Headings were:
> 
> I. Administrative and Legal, including
> (a) Planning in conjunction with the Mandatory Power the transfer of the Administration of Palestine from the Mandatory Power to the Commission and eventually to the two States and to the City of Jerusalem.
> (b) Effecting the same transfer and assisting in the setting up of the two States and the City.
> (c) Co-ordinating the operation of the two Provisional Councils of Government. This item would involve questions relating to the administration of justice, prisons, municipal law-in-force, establishment and supervision of administrative organs of control and local, government, electoral laws, supervision of elections, citizenship.​II. Economic and Financial, including
> (a) The establishment of the Economic Union and the Joint Economic Board by the Preparatory Economic Commission.
> (b) The preparation of the draft undertaking regarding Economic Union and Freedom of Transit.
> (c) The maintenance of essential economic services in the transitional period before the States and the Economic Union are fully functioning.
> (d) Allocation and distribution of assets.​III. Security, including
> (a) Political and military control over militia in each of the States, including selection of the high command.
> (b) Questions of public order,​IV. Boundaries, including
> The definition and establishment of boundaries.​V. Social Cultural and Religious, including
> (a) The maintenance of adequate standards of public health and education.
> (b) The protection of Holy Places,​VI. Preparation for Application of United Nations Statute for City of Jerusalem​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...



Uh oh!.  This reply by RoccoR is so well documented with unbiased facts I fear it will piss off the Pali supporters.  Sure hope they don't leave this board.  Where would we go for fun & laughs if they ever do?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I have given you this any number of times.  The documentation is found at:
> 
> Documents Distributed to, the Commission, 9 January-17 February 1948. Annotated Check List. 18 February 1948.
> Documents Distributed to the Commission, 18 February-8 March 1948. Annotated Check List. 9 March 1948.
> Documents Distributed to the Commission, 9 March-24 March 1948. Annotated Check List. 25 March 1948.
> Documents distributed to the Commission, 25 March-11 May 1948. Annotated Check List, 12 May 1948
> I find it interesting that you (personally) challenge the these various organs of statecraft to your standard personal standard and not the reality of that day; as if that actually impacts their true accomplishment and disputes their validity.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What were the issues that they discusses? Were there any compromises?
> Were there agreements on the peoples rights and defined borders?
> 
> Surely you can document these things.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are any number of thing that were discussed --- covering a wide range of issues (matters of State) --- for which the Arab Higher Committee had declined to include their voice.  And so they were not consulted.  These include, but are not limited to:  _(One and half month sample)_
> 
> 05/14/1948 A/AC.21/UK/144 UN Palestine Commission - Food supplies for Palestine - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 05/14/1948 A/AC.21/UK/143 UN Palestine Commission - Release of Sterling balances - Letter from United Kingdom
> 05/11/1948 A/AC.21/UK/141 UN Palestine Commission - Palestine Currency Board - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 05/11/1948 A/AC.21/SR.75 UN Palestine Commission - Postal services, Government of Palestine records, GoP civil servants - UNPC 75th mtg. - Summary record
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/JA/40 UN Palestine Commission - Free Sterling allocations - Communication from the Jewish Agency for Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/UK/125 UN Palestine Commission - Fuel situation in Jerusalem - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/UK/127 UN Palestine Commission - Loans from Bearer Bond Balances - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/UK/126 UN Palestine Commission - Situation in Haifa - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/24/1948 A/AC.21/UK/124 UN Palestine Commission - Situation in Haifa/Urgent matters - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/24/1948 A/AC.21/UK/122 UN Palestine Commission - Postal Services in Palestine - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/23/1948 A/AC.21/UK/123 UN Palestine Commission - Situation in Haifa - Letter from United Kingdom
> General Headings were:
> 
> I. Administrative and Legal, including
> (a) Planning in conjunction with the Mandatory Power the transfer of the Administration of Palestine from the Mandatory Power to the Commission and eventually to the two States and to the City of Jerusalem.
> (b) Effecting the same transfer and assisting in the setting up of the two States and the City.
> (c) Co-ordinating the operation of the two Provisional Councils of Government. This item would involve questions relating to the administration of justice, prisons, municipal law-in-force, establishment and supervision of administrative organs of control and local, government, electoral laws, supervision of elections, citizenship.​II. Economic and Financial, including
> (a) The establishment of the Economic Union and the Joint Economic Board by the Preparatory Economic Commission.
> (b) The preparation of the draft undertaking regarding Economic Union and Freedom of Transit.
> (c) The maintenance of essential economic services in the transitional period before the States and the Economic Union are fully functioning.
> (d) Allocation and distribution of assets.​III. Security, including
> (a) Political and military control over militia in each of the States, including selection of the high command.
> (b) Questions of public order,​IV. Boundaries, including
> The definition and establishment of boundaries.​V. Social Cultural and Religious, including
> (a) The maintenance of adequate standards of public health and education.
> (b) The protection of Holy Places,​VI. Preparation for Application of United Nations Statute for City of Jerusalem​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Lots of smoke there, Rocco.

None of all of that answered my questions.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I have given you this any number of times.  The documentation is found at:
> 
> Documents Distributed to, the Commission, 9 January-17 February 1948. Annotated Check List. 18 February 1948.
> Documents Distributed to the Commission, 18 February-8 March 1948. Annotated Check List. 9 March 1948.
> Documents Distributed to the Commission, 9 March-24 March 1948. Annotated Check List. 25 March 1948.
> Documents distributed to the Commission, 25 March-11 May 1948. Annotated Check List, 12 May 1948
> I find it interesting that you (personally) challenge the these various organs of statecraft to your standard personal standard and not the reality of that day; as if that actually impacts their true accomplishment and disputes their validity.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What were the issues that they discusses? Were there any compromises?
> Were there agreements on the peoples rights and defined borders?
> 
> Surely you can document these things.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are any number of thing that were discussed --- covering a wide range of issues (matters of State) --- for which the Arab Higher Committee had declined to include their voice.  And so they were not consulted.  These include, but are not limited to:  _(One and half month sample)_
> 
> 05/14/1948 A/AC.21/UK/144 UN Palestine Commission - Food supplies for Palestine - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 05/14/1948 A/AC.21/UK/143 UN Palestine Commission - Release of Sterling balances - Letter from United Kingdom
> 05/11/1948 A/AC.21/UK/141 UN Palestine Commission - Palestine Currency Board - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 05/11/1948 A/AC.21/SR.75 UN Palestine Commission - Postal services, Government of Palestine records, GoP civil servants - UNPC 75th mtg. - Summary record
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/JA/40 UN Palestine Commission - Free Sterling allocations - Communication from the Jewish Agency for Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/UK/125 UN Palestine Commission - Fuel situation in Jerusalem - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/UK/127 UN Palestine Commission - Loans from Bearer Bond Balances - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/UK/126 UN Palestine Commission - Situation in Haifa - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/24/1948 A/AC.21/UK/124 UN Palestine Commission - Situation in Haifa/Urgent matters - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/24/1948 A/AC.21/UK/122 UN Palestine Commission - Postal Services in Palestine - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/23/1948 A/AC.21/UK/123 UN Palestine Commission - Situation in Haifa - Letter from United Kingdom
> General Headings were:
> 
> I. Administrative and Legal, including
> (a) Planning in conjunction with the Mandatory Power the transfer of the Administration of Palestine from the Mandatory Power to the Commission and eventually to the two States and to the City of Jerusalem.
> (b) Effecting the same transfer and assisting in the setting up of the two States and the City.
> (c) Co-ordinating the operation of the two Provisional Councils of Government. This item would involve questions relating to the administration of justice, prisons, municipal law-in-force, establishment and supervision of administrative organs of control and local, government, electoral laws, supervision of elections, citizenship.​II. Economic and Financial, including
> (a) The establishment of the Economic Union and the Joint Economic Board by the Preparatory Economic Commission.
> (b) The preparation of the draft undertaking regarding Economic Union and Freedom of Transit.
> (c) The maintenance of essential economic services in the transitional period before the States and the Economic Union are fully functioning.
> (d) Allocation and distribution of assets.​III. Security, including
> (a) Political and military control over militia in each of the States, including selection of the high command.
> (b) Questions of public order,​IV. Boundaries, including
> The definition and establishment of boundaries.​V. Social Cultural and Religious, including
> (a) The maintenance of adequate standards of public health and education.
> (b) The protection of Holy Places,​VI. Preparation for Application of United Nations Statute for City of Jerusalem​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lots of smoke there, Rocco.
> 
> None of all of that answered my questions.
Click to expand...



Nice duck Tinmore.  No one expects a rebuttal from you when well documented, unbiased facts are presented.  Ain't life a bitch Tinmore?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> No matter what you may think, it was not a "unilateral move that was unrelated to anything else;"  meaning performed by Jewish population without the agreement of UN _(successor to the League of Nations)_ or the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) _(successor government to the Mandatory)_.
> 
> First, there was a UN Special Commission on Palestine recommendation (both a Majority version and a Minority version).
> THEN, the was the General Assembly Recommendation 181(II) itself, which included the partitioning of a Jewish State.
> THEN there was the general coordination between the Jewish Agency and the UNPC in the completion of the Step Preparatory to Independence.
> THEN there was the 14 May Jewish Agency Coordination with the UNPC on the announcement of "Independence."
> THEN there was the official Public Announcement by the UN:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXCERPT from UN PRESS RELEASE PAL169 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. *In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."*
> 
> Dr. Paul Diez de Medina (Bolivia) said that the Assembly last Friday did only two things. First, he said, *"it appointed a mediator between the parties and that in itself is reaffirmation of partition."* The second part of the reference to the Commission expressed appreciation for the work performed, and that, he said, was also reaffirmation for partition.  PAL169 17 MAY 48
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> This is often expressed by pro-Palestinian activists; trying for the appeal to emotion.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In my opinion, there was to colonial activity in the Middle East.   And the application of the non-binding concepts of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples are not really applicable to the Mandate System in that:
> 
> The intention of Mandate was the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples.
> The intention of Mandate was to extend the universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,
> The intention of Mandate was the creation of conditions that would advance the attainment of their independence.
> Considering the important role of the League of Nations, and the UN, (the successor governments to which the Ottoman Empire and Turkey surrendered all rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction, had in the establishment of all the Arab governments in the Middle East _(territory formerly under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire)_ in assisting the various bids for independence in Trusts and Non-Self-Governing Territories, it should be noted that the nations upon which such powers of guardianship were conferred exercise them "as _Mandatories_ on behalf of the League of Nations.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but the Mandate had nothing to do with the creation of Israel.
> 
> That is not to say that the Mandate was not complicit in setting the stage for Israel's military takeover of Palestine. Britain did provide the political and military power to protect the pre state colonization of Palestine by the Zionists. Britain allowed the Zionists to create a state within a state, including a military, while denying the same to the Palestinians.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that was unrelated to anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BULLSHIT
> 
> The Mandate for Palestine was set up primarily to enable the Jews to set up their National Home. It even says so in the first 10 articles, or don't you read the links you keep demanding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have.
> 
> Where does it conflict with my post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A/RES/181 (II) said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> F. ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED NATIONS
> When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no such thing as "unilateral" action.  The Jewish Agency did it all in the open light of day, with the UN onboard with every action.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> \
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What were the issues that they discusses? Were there any compromises?
> Were there agreements on the peoples rights and defined borders?
> 
> Surely you can document these things.
Click to expand...





UN res 181, better known as the partition plan was the compromise. The arab muslims rejected it out of hand


P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain facilitated and abetted the transfer of Europeans to Palestine, while fully cognizant that the transfer would result in the displacement of the local people.  They had no intention adhering to the Mandate which stated that "nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine".  Since the establishment of a European state in Palestine seriously prejudiced and civil and religious rights of the *existing (note the word existing) *non-Jewish communities in Palestine, the terms of the Mandate were not followed.  Hence, the illegality.
> 
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that 1922 civil and religious rights are what you need to look at here and not UN charters or resolutions. So what civil and religious rights as they were in 1922 did the non Jewish communities lose. The Jews lost more rights when they were forcibly evicted, abused, beaten, raped and murdered by the arab muslims who breached this part of the same International law
> 
> * or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country
> 
> As for you link it is not a legally binding document , just a preamble to a future change in policy. Now were is the change in policy and when did it take place.    ( by the way I hold a white paper and the change in policy which are dated 18 months apart, the white paper details proposed changes in the Telecommunications acts that require users of telecommunications equipment to reach certain criteria and to give a fair representation of themselves. We were invited to give out views on the proposals and succeeded in having many of the unfair and unworkable aspects removed or re-written. The white paper was not law, and was never intended to be law, just a set of proposals. That is how it was originally set out all those years ago )*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jews lost more rights when they were forcibly evicted, abused, beaten, raped and murdered by the arab muslims who breached this part of the same International law​
> OK, but the Palestinians had nothing to do with that.
Click to expand...





 It was Palestine that they were forcibly evicted from by the arab muslims calling themselves Palestinians in 1949. Or didn't you know about the million plus Jewish refugees that were forced out of their homelands and property in 1949 by all the arab muslims including the Palestinian scum. Why do you think the Jews are building settlements in the west bank and Jerusalem, they have reclaimed the land they hold title to


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I have given you this any number of times.  The documentation is found at:
> 
> Documents Distributed to, the Commission, 9 January-17 February 1948. Annotated Check List. 18 February 1948.
> Documents Distributed to the Commission, 18 February-8 March 1948. Annotated Check List. 9 March 1948.
> Documents Distributed to the Commission, 9 March-24 March 1948. Annotated Check List. 25 March 1948.
> Documents distributed to the Commission, 25 March-11 May 1948. Annotated Check List, 12 May 1948
> I find it interesting that you (personally) challenge the these various organs of statecraft to your standard personal standard and not the reality of that day; as if that actually impacts their true accomplishment and disputes their validity.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What were the issues that they discusses? Were there any compromises?
> Were there agreements on the peoples rights and defined borders?
> 
> Surely you can document these things.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are any number of thing that were discussed --- covering a wide range of issues (matters of State) --- for which the Arab Higher Committee had declined to include their voice.  And so they were not consulted.  These include, but are not limited to:  _(One and half month sample)_
> 
> 05/14/1948 A/AC.21/UK/144 UN Palestine Commission - Food supplies for Palestine - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 05/14/1948 A/AC.21/UK/143 UN Palestine Commission - Release of Sterling balances - Letter from United Kingdom
> 05/11/1948 A/AC.21/UK/141 UN Palestine Commission - Palestine Currency Board - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 05/11/1948 A/AC.21/SR.75 UN Palestine Commission - Postal services, Government of Palestine records, GoP civil servants - UNPC 75th mtg. - Summary record
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/JA/40 UN Palestine Commission - Free Sterling allocations - Communication from the Jewish Agency for Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/UK/125 UN Palestine Commission - Fuel situation in Jerusalem - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/UK/127 UN Palestine Commission - Loans from Bearer Bond Balances - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/UK/126 UN Palestine Commission - Situation in Haifa - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/24/1948 A/AC.21/UK/124 UN Palestine Commission - Situation in Haifa/Urgent matters - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/24/1948 A/AC.21/UK/122 UN Palestine Commission - Postal Services in Palestine - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/23/1948 A/AC.21/UK/123 UN Palestine Commission - Situation in Haifa - Letter from United Kingdom
> General Headings were:
> 
> I. Administrative and Legal, including
> (a) Planning in conjunction with the Mandatory Power the transfer of the Administration of Palestine from the Mandatory Power to the Commission and eventually to the two States and to the City of Jerusalem.
> (b) Effecting the same transfer and assisting in the setting up of the two States and the City.
> (c) Co-ordinating the operation of the two Provisional Councils of Government. This item would involve questions relating to the administration of justice, prisons, municipal law-in-force, establishment and supervision of administrative organs of control and local, government, electoral laws, supervision of elections, citizenship.​II. Economic and Financial, including
> (a) The establishment of the Economic Union and the Joint Economic Board by the Preparatory Economic Commission.
> (b) The preparation of the draft undertaking regarding Economic Union and Freedom of Transit.
> (c) The maintenance of essential economic services in the transitional period before the States and the Economic Union are fully functioning.
> (d) Allocation and distribution of assets.​III. Security, including
> (a) Political and military control over militia in each of the States, including selection of the high command.
> (b) Questions of public order,​IV. Boundaries, including
> The definition and establishment of boundaries.​V. Social Cultural and Religious, including
> (a) The maintenance of adequate standards of public health and education.
> (b) The protection of Holy Places,​VI. Preparation for Application of United Nations Statute for City of Jerusalem​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lots of smoke there, Rocco.
> 
> None of all of that answered my questions.
Click to expand...






 It answers them in full, just that you don't want to read them.   Every question you ask is answered in full and you ask the same questions time after time after time as if the answers will be different.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

On the First of July 1922, before the Mandate for Palestine is finalized, and even before the Palestine Order in Council was approved and published, the question arises:  What was meant by the "civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine?"

The Progressive Era _(generally thought of as about 1890-to-1920)_, there was not clear definition of "Civil Rights" --- particularly when it came to self-determination.  In fact, most Western and European nations established sovereignty _(not through self-determination but)_ by either Right of Discovery and/or the Right of Conquest.  At the beginning of the Progressive era, most of the world was sovereign under the rule of a Dynasty by to an Empire.

Just to name a very few from the Progressive Era are:  Please notice that several of the Principle Allied Powers of the Great War (WWI) were empires.  Also noting that four of the defeated Empires _(Russian, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman and Germany)_ fell during this period.

_The Austro-Hungarian Empire (1867-1918)_
_The Belgian Colonial Empire (1901-1962)_
_The British Empire (1603-1997)_
_The Danish colonial empire (1350-1953)_
_The Dutch Empire (1568-1975)_
_The French colonial empires (1534-1980)_
_The German Empire (1871-1918)_
_The Italian Colonial Empire (1885-1943)_
_The Empire of Japan (1868-1947)_
_The Korean Empire (1897-1910)_
_The Nguyen Dynasty (Vietnam)(1802-1945)_
_The Omani Empire (Oman)(1698-1959)_
_The Ottoman Empire (1299-1922)_
_The Oyo Empire (Nigeria) (1400-1905)_
_The Persian Qajar Dynasty (1794-1925)_
_The Qing Dynasty (1644-1912)_
_The Russian Empire (Romanov) (1721-1917)_
_The Zulu Empire (1818-1897)_
The term 'subject' _(as in describing citizenship:  ie: British Subject French Subject)_ was used rather than 'citizen' because in a monarchy --- the monarch is the source of authority in whose name all legal power in civil and military law is exercised.  When in 1918, aboard the British Battleship HMS _Agamemnon_, at the Aegean port of Mudros --- the Ottoman Empire sign an armistice/treaty _(Ending Ottoman participation in the First World War)_;  and Turkey renounced all rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction in favor of the Principle Allied Powers _(the four Principal Allied Powers of World War I who were represented by the prime ministers of *Britain* (David Lloyd George), *France* (Alexandre Millerand) and *Italy *(Francesco Nitti) and by *Japan'*s Ambassador K. Matsui)_ three of the four allies were either Kingdoms or Empires in 1920.  It should be remembered that none of the Principle Allied Powers _(three with Monarchs King George V, Alexandre Millerand, King Victor Emmanuel III,  Emperor Taishō)_ did not really foster the right of self-determination when it came to national sovereignty.  What little discussion there was on the "right of self-determination" --- it was only applicable in local conditions, but not a justification for open rebellion.



montelatici said:


> Britain facilitated and abetted the transfer of Europeans to Palestine, while fully cognizant that the transfer would result in the displacement of the local people.  They had no intention adhering to the Mandate which stated that "nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine".  Since the establishment of a European state in Palestine seriously prejudiced and civil and religious rights of the *existing (note the word existing) *non-Jewish communities in Palestine, the terms of the Mandate were not followed.  Hence, the illegality.
> 
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922


*(COMMENT)*

The allegation must be supported by some common law understanding as to what constitutes "civil and religious rights" on the Progressive Era.  And that is simply difficult to do.  Given the type kind and number of Kingdoms and Empires, it is not likely that you will find support for the concept that the people have some right to determine the destiny of the entire sovereignty for generations to come.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

No smoke at all.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I have given you this any number of times.  The documentation is found at:
> 
> Documents Distributed to, the Commission, 9 January-17 February 1948. Annotated Check List. 18 February 1948.
> Documents Distributed to the Commission, 18 February-8 March 1948. Annotated Check List. 9 March 1948.
> Documents Distributed to the Commission, 9 March-24 March 1948. Annotated Check List. 25 March 1948.
> Documents distributed to the Commission, 25 March-11 May 1948. Annotated Check List, 12 May 1948
> I find it interesting that you (personally) challenge the these various organs of statecraft to your standard personal standard and not the reality of that day; as if that actually impacts their true accomplishment and disputes their validity.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What were the issues that they discusses? Were there any compromises?
> Were there agreements on the peoples rights and defined borders?
> 
> Surely you can document these things.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are any number of thing that were discussed --- covering a wide range of issues (matters of State) --- for which the Arab Higher Committee had declined to include their voice.  And so they were not consulted.  These include, but are not limited to:  _(One and half month sample)_
> 
> 05/14/1948 A/AC.21/UK/144 UN Palestine Commission - Food supplies for Palestine - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 05/14/1948 A/AC.21/UK/143 UN Palestine Commission - Release of Sterling balances - Letter from United Kingdom
> 05/11/1948 A/AC.21/UK/141 UN Palestine Commission - Palestine Currency Board - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 05/11/1948 A/AC.21/SR.75 UN Palestine Commission - Postal services, Government of Palestine records, GoP civil servants - UNPC 75th mtg. - Summary record
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/JA/40 UN Palestine Commission - Free Sterling allocations - Communication from the Jewish Agency for Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/UK/125 UN Palestine Commission - Fuel situation in Jerusalem - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/UK/127 UN Palestine Commission - Loans from Bearer Bond Balances - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/UK/126 UN Palestine Commission - Situation in Haifa - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/24/1948 A/AC.21/UK/124 UN Palestine Commission - Situation in Haifa/Urgent matters - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/24/1948 A/AC.21/UK/122 UN Palestine Commission - Postal Services in Palestine - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/23/1948 A/AC.21/UK/123 UN Palestine Commission - Situation in Haifa - Letter from United Kingdom
> General Headings were:
> 
> I. Administrative and Legal, including
> (a) Planning in conjunction with the Mandatory Power the transfer of the Administration of Palestine from the Mandatory Power to the Commission and eventually to the two States and to the City of Jerusalem.
> (b) Effecting the same transfer and assisting in the setting up of the two States and the City.
> (c) Co-ordinating the operation of the two Provisional Councils of Government. This item would involve questions relating to the administration of justice, prisons, municipal law-in-force, establishment and supervision of administrative organs of control and local, government, electoral laws, supervision of elections, citizenship.​II. Economic and Financial, including
> (a) The establishment of the Economic Union and the Joint Economic Board by the Preparatory Economic Commission.
> (b) The preparation of the draft undertaking regarding Economic Union and Freedom of Transit.
> (c) The maintenance of essential economic services in the transitional period before the States and the Economic Union are fully functioning.
> (d) Allocation and distribution of assets.​III. Security, including
> (a) Political and military control over militia in each of the States, including selection of the high command.
> (b) Questions of public order,​IV. Boundaries, including
> The definition and establishment of boundaries.​V. Social Cultural and Religious, including
> (a) The maintenance of adequate standards of public health and education.
> (b) The protection of Holy Places,​VI. Preparation for Application of United Nations Statute for City of Jerusalem​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lots of smoke there, Rocco.
> 
> None of all of that answered my questions.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

You asked:


What were the issues that they discusses?
I gave links for major issues discussed.

Were there any compromises?
Compromise requires a good faith effort by more than one party. 
The Arab Palestinian decline to participate.
No issue was raised by the Arab Palestinians because they rejected the offer to participate.

Were there agreements on the peoples rights and defined borders?
No rights issue were raised by the Arab Palestinian during the processing of Steps Preparatory to Independence.
External Influences by invading Arab Armies truncated these discussions.
External Influences attempting to undermine the decisions of the General Assembly.


You said: "Surely you can document these things."  There are links to over 45 documents there.  

Everything about has a supporting link.  It is all documented.
The Arab Palestinian purposely attempted to corrupt the process by which independence was established.  The General Assembly acknowledged the Declaration of Independence, submitted the application to the Security Council, the Security Council favorably recommended the Jewish State for admission, AND the General Assembly decided to skip the P F Tinmore requirements and admit Israel to the UN.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> No smoke at all.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I have given you this any number of times.  The documentation is found at:
> 
> Documents Distributed to, the Commission, 9 January-17 February 1948. Annotated Check List. 18 February 1948.
> Documents Distributed to the Commission, 18 February-8 March 1948. Annotated Check List. 9 March 1948.
> Documents Distributed to the Commission, 9 March-24 March 1948. Annotated Check List. 25 March 1948.
> Documents distributed to the Commission, 25 March-11 May 1948. Annotated Check List, 12 May 1948
> I find it interesting that you (personally) challenge the these various organs of statecraft to your standard personal standard and not the reality of that day; as if that actually impacts their true accomplishment and disputes their validity.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What were the issues that they discusses? Were there any compromises?
> Were there agreements on the peoples rights and defined borders?
> 
> Surely you can document these things.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are any number of thing that were discussed --- covering a wide range of issues (matters of State) --- for which the Arab Higher Committee had declined to include their voice.  And so they were not consulted.  These include, but are not limited to:  _(One and half month sample)_
> 
> 05/14/1948 A/AC.21/UK/144 UN Palestine Commission - Food supplies for Palestine - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 05/14/1948 A/AC.21/UK/143 UN Palestine Commission - Release of Sterling balances - Letter from United Kingdom
> 05/11/1948 A/AC.21/UK/141 UN Palestine Commission - Palestine Currency Board - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 05/11/1948 A/AC.21/SR.75 UN Palestine Commission - Postal services, Government of Palestine records, GoP civil servants - UNPC 75th mtg. - Summary record
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/JA/40 UN Palestine Commission - Free Sterling allocations - Communication from the Jewish Agency for Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/UK/125 UN Palestine Commission - Fuel situation in Jerusalem - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/UK/127 UN Palestine Commission - Loans from Bearer Bond Balances - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/UK/126 UN Palestine Commission - Situation in Haifa - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/24/1948 A/AC.21/UK/124 UN Palestine Commission - Situation in Haifa/Urgent matters - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/24/1948 A/AC.21/UK/122 UN Palestine Commission - Postal Services in Palestine - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/23/1948 A/AC.21/UK/123 UN Palestine Commission - Situation in Haifa - Letter from United Kingdom
> General Headings were:
> 
> I. Administrative and Legal, including
> (a) Planning in conjunction with the Mandatory Power the transfer of the Administration of Palestine from the Mandatory Power to the Commission and eventually to the two States and to the City of Jerusalem.
> (b) Effecting the same transfer and assisting in the setting up of the two States and the City.
> (c) Co-ordinating the operation of the two Provisional Councils of Government. This item would involve questions relating to the administration of justice, prisons, municipal law-in-force, establishment and supervision of administrative organs of control and local, government, electoral laws, supervision of elections, citizenship.​II. Economic and Financial, including
> (a) The establishment of the Economic Union and the Joint Economic Board by the Preparatory Economic Commission.
> (b) The preparation of the draft undertaking regarding Economic Union and Freedom of Transit.
> (c) The maintenance of essential economic services in the transitional period before the States and the Economic Union are fully functioning.
> (d) Allocation and distribution of assets.​III. Security, including
> (a) Political and military control over militia in each of the States, including selection of the high command.
> (b) Questions of public order,​IV. Boundaries, including
> The definition and establishment of boundaries.​V. Social Cultural and Religious, including
> (a) The maintenance of adequate standards of public health and education.
> (b) The protection of Holy Places,​VI. Preparation for Application of United Nations Statute for City of Jerusalem​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lots of smoke there, Rocco.
> 
> None of all of that answered my questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You asked:
> 
> 
> What were the issues that they discusses?
> I gave links for major issues discussed.
> 
> Were there any compromises?
> Compromise requires a good faith effort by more than one party.
> The Arab Palestinian decline to participate.
> No issue was raised by the Arab Palestinians because they rejected the offer to participate.
> 
> Were there agreements on the peoples rights and defined borders?
> No rights issue were raised by the Arab Palestinian during the processing of Steps Preparatory to Independence.
> External Influences by invading Arab Armies truncated these discussions.
> External Influences attempting to undermine the decisions of the General Assembly.
> 
> 
> You said: "Surely you can document these things."  There are links to over 45 documents there.
> 
> Everything about has a supporting link.  It is all documented.
> The Arab Palestinian purposely attempted to corrupt the process by which independence was established.  The General Assembly acknowledged the Declaration of Independence, submitted the application to the Security Council, the Security Council favorably recommended the Jewish State for admission, AND the General Assembly decided to skip the P F Tinmore requirements and admit Israel to the UN.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

You are still not answering the questions.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I've more than answered your question.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> No smoke at all.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I have given you this any number of times.  The documentation is found at:
> 
> Documents Distributed to, the Commission, 9 January-17 February 1948. Annotated Check List. 18 February 1948.
> Documents Distributed to the Commission, 18 February-8 March 1948. Annotated Check List. 9 March 1948.
> Documents Distributed to the Commission, 9 March-24 March 1948. Annotated Check List. 25 March 1948.
> Documents distributed to the Commission, 25 March-11 May 1948. Annotated Check List, 12 May 1948
> I find it interesting that you (personally) challenge the these various organs of statecraft to your standard personal standard and not the reality of that day; as if that actually impacts their true accomplishment and disputes their validity.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What were the issues that they discusses? Were there any compromises?
> Were there agreements on the peoples rights and defined borders?
> 
> Surely you can document these things.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are any number of thing that were discussed --- covering a wide range of issues (matters of State) --- for which the Arab Higher Committee had declined to include their voice.  And so they were not consulted.  These include, but are not limited to:  _(One and half month sample)_
> 
> 05/14/1948 A/AC.21/UK/144 UN Palestine Commission - Food supplies for Palestine - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 05/14/1948 A/AC.21/UK/143 UN Palestine Commission - Release of Sterling balances - Letter from United Kingdom
> 05/11/1948 A/AC.21/UK/141 UN Palestine Commission - Palestine Currency Board - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 05/11/1948 A/AC.21/SR.75 UN Palestine Commission - Postal services, Government of Palestine records, GoP civil servants - UNPC 75th mtg. - Summary record
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/JA/40 UN Palestine Commission - Free Sterling allocations - Communication from the Jewish Agency for Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/UK/125 UN Palestine Commission - Fuel situation in Jerusalem - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/UK/127 UN Palestine Commission - Loans from Bearer Bond Balances - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/UK/126 UN Palestine Commission - Situation in Haifa - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/24/1948 A/AC.21/UK/124 UN Palestine Commission - Situation in Haifa/Urgent matters - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/24/1948 A/AC.21/UK/122 UN Palestine Commission - Postal Services in Palestine - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/23/1948 A/AC.21/UK/123 UN Palestine Commission - Situation in Haifa - Letter from United Kingdom
> General Headings were:
> 
> I. Administrative and Legal, including
> (a) Planning in conjunction with the Mandatory Power the transfer of the Administration of Palestine from the Mandatory Power to the Commission and eventually to the two States and to the City of Jerusalem.
> (b) Effecting the same transfer and assisting in the setting up of the two States and the City.
> (c) Co-ordinating the operation of the two Provisional Councils of Government. This item would involve questions relating to the administration of justice, prisons, municipal law-in-force, establishment and supervision of administrative organs of control and local, government, electoral laws, supervision of elections, citizenship.​II. Economic and Financial, including
> (a) The establishment of the Economic Union and the Joint Economic Board by the Preparatory Economic Commission.
> (b) The preparation of the draft undertaking regarding Economic Union and Freedom of Transit.
> (c) The maintenance of essential economic services in the transitional period before the States and the Economic Union are fully functioning.
> (d) Allocation and distribution of assets.​III. Security, including
> (a) Political and military control over militia in each of the States, including selection of the high command.
> (b) Questions of public order,​IV. Boundaries, including
> The definition and establishment of boundaries.​V. Social Cultural and Religious, including
> (a) The maintenance of adequate standards of public health and education.
> (b) The protection of Holy Places,​VI. Preparation for Application of United Nations Statute for City of Jerusalem​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lots of smoke there, Rocco.
> 
> None of all of that answered my questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You asked:
> 
> 
> What were the issues that they discusses?
> I gave links for major issues discussed.
> 
> Were there any compromises?
> Compromise requires a good faith effort by more than one party.
> The Arab Palestinian decline to participate.
> No issue was raised by the Arab Palestinians because they rejected the offer to participate.
> 
> Were there agreements on the peoples rights and defined borders?
> No rights issue were raised by the Arab Palestinian during the processing of Steps Preparatory to Independence.
> External Influences by invading Arab Armies truncated these discussions.
> External Influences attempting to undermine the decisions of the General Assembly.
> 
> 
> You said: "Surely you can document these things."  There are links to over 45 documents there.
> 
> Everything about has a supporting link.  It is all documented.
> The Arab Palestinian purposely attempted to corrupt the process by which independence was established.  The General Assembly acknowledged the Declaration of Independence, submitted the application to the Security Council, the Security Council favorably recommended the Jewish State for admission, AND the General Assembly decided to skip the P F Tinmore requirements and admit Israel to the UN.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are still not answering the questions.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

You are just being argumentative.  Pretending like you have some special understanding.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Dogmaphobe

RoccoR said:


> .


*(COMMENT)*

You are just being argumentative.  Pretending like you have some special understanding.

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]


Tinmore may not have a special understanding, but he does have special needs, so you should treat him accordingly.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> No smoke at all.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I have given you this any number of times.  The documentation is found at:
> 
> Documents Distributed to, the Commission, 9 January-17 February 1948. Annotated Check List. 18 February 1948.
> Documents Distributed to the Commission, 18 February-8 March 1948. Annotated Check List. 9 March 1948.
> Documents Distributed to the Commission, 9 March-24 March 1948. Annotated Check List. 25 March 1948.
> Documents distributed to the Commission, 25 March-11 May 1948. Annotated Check List, 12 May 1948
> I find it interesting that you (personally) challenge the these various organs of statecraft to your standard personal standard and not the reality of that day; as if that actually impacts their true accomplishment and disputes their validity.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What were the issues that they discusses? Were there any compromises?
> Were there agreements on the peoples rights and defined borders?
> 
> Surely you can document these things.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are any number of thing that were discussed --- covering a wide range of issues (matters of State) --- for which the Arab Higher Committee had declined to include their voice.  And so they were not consulted.  These include, but are not limited to:  _(One and half month sample)_
> 
> 05/14/1948 A/AC.21/UK/144 UN Palestine Commission - Food supplies for Palestine - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 05/14/1948 A/AC.21/UK/143 UN Palestine Commission - Release of Sterling balances - Letter from United Kingdom
> 05/11/1948 A/AC.21/UK/141 UN Palestine Commission - Palestine Currency Board - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 05/11/1948 A/AC.21/SR.75 UN Palestine Commission - Postal services, Government of Palestine records, GoP civil servants - UNPC 75th mtg. - Summary record
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/JA/40 UN Palestine Commission - Free Sterling allocations - Communication from the Jewish Agency for Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/UK/125 UN Palestine Commission - Fuel situation in Jerusalem - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/UK/127 UN Palestine Commission - Loans from Bearer Bond Balances - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/UK/126 UN Palestine Commission - Situation in Haifa - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/24/1948 A/AC.21/UK/124 UN Palestine Commission - Situation in Haifa/Urgent matters - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/24/1948 A/AC.21/UK/122 UN Palestine Commission - Postal Services in Palestine - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/23/1948 A/AC.21/UK/123 UN Palestine Commission - Situation in Haifa - Letter from United Kingdom
> General Headings were:
> 
> I. Administrative and Legal, including
> (a) Planning in conjunction with the Mandatory Power the transfer of the Administration of Palestine from the Mandatory Power to the Commission and eventually to the two States and to the City of Jerusalem.
> (b) Effecting the same transfer and assisting in the setting up of the two States and the City.
> (c) Co-ordinating the operation of the two Provisional Councils of Government. This item would involve questions relating to the administration of justice, prisons, municipal law-in-force, establishment and supervision of administrative organs of control and local, government, electoral laws, supervision of elections, citizenship.​II. Economic and Financial, including
> (a) The establishment of the Economic Union and the Joint Economic Board by the Preparatory Economic Commission.
> (b) The preparation of the draft undertaking regarding Economic Union and Freedom of Transit.
> (c) The maintenance of essential economic services in the transitional period before the States and the Economic Union are fully functioning.
> (d) Allocation and distribution of assets.​III. Security, including
> (a) Political and military control over militia in each of the States, including selection of the high command.
> (b) Questions of public order,​IV. Boundaries, including
> The definition and establishment of boundaries.​V. Social Cultural and Religious, including
> (a) The maintenance of adequate standards of public health and education.
> (b) The protection of Holy Places,​VI. Preparation for Application of United Nations Statute for City of Jerusalem​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lots of smoke there, Rocco.
> 
> None of all of that answered my questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You asked:
> 
> 
> What were the issues that they discusses?
> I gave links for major issues discussed.
> 
> Were there any compromises?
> Compromise requires a good faith effort by more than one party.
> The Arab Palestinian decline to participate.
> No issue was raised by the Arab Palestinians because they rejected the offer to participate.
> 
> Were there agreements on the peoples rights and defined borders?
> No rights issue were raised by the Arab Palestinian during the processing of Steps Preparatory to Independence.
> External Influences by invading Arab Armies truncated these discussions.
> External Influences attempting to undermine the decisions of the General Assembly.
> 
> 
> You said: "Surely you can document these things."  There are links to over 45 documents there.
> 
> Everything about has a supporting link.  It is all documented.
> The Arab Palestinian purposely attempted to corrupt the process by which independence was established.  The General Assembly acknowledged the Declaration of Independence, submitted the application to the Security Council, the Security Council favorably recommended the Jewish State for admission, AND the General Assembly decided to skip the P F Tinmore requirements and admit Israel to the UN.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are still not answering the questions.
Click to expand...


Ummm, yes he did. \you should be thanking him for providing you with all that information.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> No smoke at all.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I have given you this any number of times.  The documentation is found at:
> 
> Documents Distributed to, the Commission, 9 January-17 February 1948. Annotated Check List. 18 February 1948.
> Documents Distributed to the Commission, 18 February-8 March 1948. Annotated Check List. 9 March 1948.
> Documents Distributed to the Commission, 9 March-24 March 1948. Annotated Check List. 25 March 1948.
> Documents distributed to the Commission, 25 March-11 May 1948. Annotated Check List, 12 May 1948
> I find it interesting that you (personally) challenge the these various organs of statecraft to your standard personal standard and not the reality of that day; as if that actually impacts their true accomplishment and disputes their validity.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What were the issues that they discusses? Were there any compromises?
> Were there agreements on the peoples rights and defined borders?
> 
> Surely you can document these things.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are any number of thing that were discussed --- covering a wide range of issues (matters of State) --- for which the Arab Higher Committee had declined to include their voice.  And so they were not consulted.  These include, but are not limited to:  _(One and half month sample)_
> 
> 05/14/1948 A/AC.21/UK/144 UN Palestine Commission - Food supplies for Palestine - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 05/14/1948 A/AC.21/UK/143 UN Palestine Commission - Release of Sterling balances - Letter from United Kingdom
> 05/11/1948 A/AC.21/UK/141 UN Palestine Commission - Palestine Currency Board - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 05/11/1948 A/AC.21/SR.75 UN Palestine Commission - Postal services, Government of Palestine records, GoP civil servants - UNPC 75th mtg. - Summary record
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/JA/40 UN Palestine Commission - Free Sterling allocations - Communication from the Jewish Agency for Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/UK/125 UN Palestine Commission - Fuel situation in Jerusalem - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/UK/127 UN Palestine Commission - Loans from Bearer Bond Balances - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/UK/126 UN Palestine Commission - Situation in Haifa - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/24/1948 A/AC.21/UK/124 UN Palestine Commission - Situation in Haifa/Urgent matters - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/24/1948 A/AC.21/UK/122 UN Palestine Commission - Postal Services in Palestine - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/23/1948 A/AC.21/UK/123 UN Palestine Commission - Situation in Haifa - Letter from United Kingdom
> General Headings were:
> 
> I. Administrative and Legal, including
> (a) Planning in conjunction with the Mandatory Power the transfer of the Administration of Palestine from the Mandatory Power to the Commission and eventually to the two States and to the City of Jerusalem.
> (b) Effecting the same transfer and assisting in the setting up of the two States and the City.
> (c) Co-ordinating the operation of the two Provisional Councils of Government. This item would involve questions relating to the administration of justice, prisons, municipal law-in-force, establishment and supervision of administrative organs of control and local, government, electoral laws, supervision of elections, citizenship.​II. Economic and Financial, including
> (a) The establishment of the Economic Union and the Joint Economic Board by the Preparatory Economic Commission.
> (b) The preparation of the draft undertaking regarding Economic Union and Freedom of Transit.
> (c) The maintenance of essential economic services in the transitional period before the States and the Economic Union are fully functioning.
> (d) Allocation and distribution of assets.​III. Security, including
> (a) Political and military control over militia in each of the States, including selection of the high command.
> (b) Questions of public order,​IV. Boundaries, including
> The definition and establishment of boundaries.​V. Social Cultural and Religious, including
> (a) The maintenance of adequate standards of public health and education.
> (b) The protection of Holy Places,​VI. Preparation for Application of United Nations Statute for City of Jerusalem​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lots of smoke there, Rocco.
> 
> None of all of that answered my questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You asked:
> 
> 
> What were the issues that they discusses?
> I gave links for major issues discussed.
> 
> Were there any compromises?
> Compromise requires a good faith effort by more than one party.
> The Arab Palestinian decline to participate.
> No issue was raised by the Arab Palestinians because they rejected the offer to participate.
> 
> Were there agreements on the peoples rights and defined borders?
> No rights issue were raised by the Arab Palestinian during the processing of Steps Preparatory to Independence.
> External Influences by invading Arab Armies truncated these discussions.
> External Influences attempting to undermine the decisions of the General Assembly.
> 
> 
> You said: "Surely you can document these things."  There are links to over 45 documents there.
> 
> Everything about has a supporting link.  It is all documented.
> The Arab Palestinian purposely attempted to corrupt the process by which independence was established.  The General Assembly acknowledged the Declaration of Independence, submitted the application to the Security Council, the Security Council favorably recommended the Jewish State for admission, AND the General Assembly decided to skip the P F Tinmore requirements and admit Israel to the UN.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are still not answering the questions.
Click to expand...






 Do explain in full detail how you arrive at that conclusion, as the posts answer your questions in great detail.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I've more than answered your question.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> No smoke at all.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I have given you this any number of times.  The documentation is found at:
> 
> Documents Distributed to, the Commission, 9 January-17 February 1948. Annotated Check List. 18 February 1948.
> Documents Distributed to the Commission, 18 February-8 March 1948. Annotated Check List. 9 March 1948.
> Documents Distributed to the Commission, 9 March-24 March 1948. Annotated Check List. 25 March 1948.
> Documents distributed to the Commission, 25 March-11 May 1948. Annotated Check List, 12 May 1948
> I find it interesting that you (personally) challenge the these various organs of statecraft to your standard personal standard and not the reality of that day; as if that actually impacts their true accomplishment and disputes their validity.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What were the issues that they discusses? Were there any compromises?
> Were there agreements on the peoples rights and defined borders?
> 
> Surely you can document these things.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are any number of thing that were discussed --- covering a wide range of issues (matters of State) --- for which the Arab Higher Committee had declined to include their voice.  And so they were not consulted.  These include, but are not limited to:  _(One and half month sample)_
> 
> 05/14/1948 A/AC.21/UK/144 UN Palestine Commission - Food supplies for Palestine - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 05/14/1948 A/AC.21/UK/143 UN Palestine Commission - Release of Sterling balances - Letter from United Kingdom
> 05/11/1948 A/AC.21/UK/141 UN Palestine Commission - Palestine Currency Board - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 05/11/1948 A/AC.21/SR.75 UN Palestine Commission - Postal services, Government of Palestine records, GoP civil servants - UNPC 75th mtg. - Summary record
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/JA/40 UN Palestine Commission - Free Sterling allocations - Communication from the Jewish Agency for Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/UK/125 UN Palestine Commission - Fuel situation in Jerusalem - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/UK/127 UN Palestine Commission - Loans from Bearer Bond Balances - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/UK/126 UN Palestine Commission - Situation in Haifa - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/24/1948 A/AC.21/UK/124 UN Palestine Commission - Situation in Haifa/Urgent matters - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/24/1948 A/AC.21/UK/122 UN Palestine Commission - Postal Services in Palestine - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/23/1948 A/AC.21/UK/123 UN Palestine Commission - Situation in Haifa - Letter from United Kingdom
> General Headings were:
> 
> I. Administrative and Legal, including
> (a) Planning in conjunction with the Mandatory Power the transfer of the Administration of Palestine from the Mandatory Power to the Commission and eventually to the two States and to the City of Jerusalem.
> (b) Effecting the same transfer and assisting in the setting up of the two States and the City.
> (c) Co-ordinating the operation of the two Provisional Councils of Government. This item would involve questions relating to the administration of justice, prisons, municipal law-in-force, establishment and supervision of administrative organs of control and local, government, electoral laws, supervision of elections, citizenship.​II. Economic and Financial, including
> (a) The establishment of the Economic Union and the Joint Economic Board by the Preparatory Economic Commission.
> (b) The preparation of the draft undertaking regarding Economic Union and Freedom of Transit.
> (c) The maintenance of essential economic services in the transitional period before the States and the Economic Union are fully functioning.
> (d) Allocation and distribution of assets.​III. Security, including
> (a) Political and military control over militia in each of the States, including selection of the high command.
> (b) Questions of public order,​IV. Boundaries, including
> The definition and establishment of boundaries.​V. Social Cultural and Religious, including
> (a) The maintenance of adequate standards of public health and education.
> (b) The protection of Holy Places,​VI. Preparation for Application of United Nations Statute for City of Jerusalem​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lots of smoke there, Rocco.
> 
> None of all of that answered my questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You asked:
> 
> 
> What were the issues that they discusses?
> I gave links for major issues discussed.
> 
> Were there any compromises?
> Compromise requires a good faith effort by more than one party.
> The Arab Palestinian decline to participate.
> No issue was raised by the Arab Palestinians because they rejected the offer to participate.
> 
> Were there agreements on the peoples rights and defined borders?
> No rights issue were raised by the Arab Palestinian during the processing of Steps Preparatory to Independence.
> External Influences by invading Arab Armies truncated these discussions.
> External Influences attempting to undermine the decisions of the General Assembly.
> 
> 
> You said: "Surely you can document these things."  There are links to over 45 documents there.
> 
> Everything about has a supporting link.  It is all documented.
> The Arab Palestinian purposely attempted to corrupt the process by which independence was established.  The General Assembly acknowledged the Declaration of Independence, submitted the application to the Security Council, the Security Council favorably recommended the Jewish State for admission, AND the General Assembly decided to skip the P F Tinmore requirements and admit Israel to the UN.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are still not answering the questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You are just being argumentative.  Pretending like you have some special understanding.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Not at all. You posted many things that they *wanted* to do. There was nothing about what *was* done.

That was my question that you are dodging.


----------



## toastman

Rocco don't fall for Tinmore's tricks. He's playing with your head. 

This is one of the tactics he uses when he loses the argument and has his back to the wall....he deflects.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

I have seen this complaint before.  The Arab attempt to obstruct the implementation process by having a coordinated attack by four Arab Armies on the very day of independence, then criticize governmental activities _(like the UNPC)_ for not being able to complete nation build in the middle of a War of Independence the Arabs started in the first place.

REMEBER:

The UN Palestine Commission was never permitted to complete it mission because of the initiation of hostilities by the Arab Nations adjacent to Palestine to implement the resolution. On February 16, 1948, the Commission reported to the Security Council:

Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.
Para 3c, A/AC.21/9 S/676 16 February 1948​


P F Tinmore said:


> Not at all. You posted many things that they *wanted* to do. There was nothing about what *was* done.
> 
> That was my question that you are dodging.


*(COMMENT)*

There were *(YES!)* many things that the successor government _(the UNPC)_ wanted to do --- but had to abort or give-up --- do to the Arab Invasion _(external influences)_.  Whatever had befell the Arab after the failed attempt to unravel the creation of the independent Jewish State of Israel, they deserve.  The Arab Palestinian has absolutely no right to criticize the UNPC --- even if the UNPC never accomplished a thing.  The UNPC was not answerable to the Arab Palestinians at all:


You can lay directly at the feet of the Arabs the discrepancy between what the UNPC "*wanted* to do" --- and what the Arab sabotaging  "what *was* done."

The text of this resolution [A/RES/181 (II)] was communicated by the Secretary-General on 9 January to the Government of the United Kingdom, as the Mandatory Power, to the Arab Higher Committee, and to the Jewish Agency for Palestine. The invitation extended by the resolution was promptly accepted by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, both of which designated representatives to assist the commission. The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”​
*No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission.* The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.  A/AC.21/7  29 January 1948​Let there be no mistake --- the Arabs in representing the Palestinian people (The Arab Higher Committee of the Arab League) cut the lines of communications with the Arab Palestinian Community.  The UNPC was still talking and coordination with the Jewish Agency on matters pertaining tot the Steps Preparatory to Independence.  And since that time, no matter who is involved and no matter what arrangements have been made, in the end --- the Arab Palestinian _(playing the roll of perpetual victim)_ sabotage any negation effort which generally collapse.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

The attempt at preventing the massacre and ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims that were left behind in the area illegally given to Europeans, was not an attack.  It was a regional coalition that was attempting to prevent a crime against humanity.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> The attempt at preventing the massacre and ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims that were left behind in the area illegally given to Europeans, *was not an attack*.  It was a regional coalition that was attempting to prevent a crime against humanity.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I've more than answered your question.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> No smoke at all.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I have given you this any number of times.  The documentation is found at:
> 
> Documents Distributed to, the Commission, 9 January-17 February 1948. Annotated Check List. 18 February 1948.
> Documents Distributed to the Commission, 18 February-8 March 1948. Annotated Check List. 9 March 1948.
> Documents Distributed to the Commission, 9 March-24 March 1948. Annotated Check List. 25 March 1948.
> Documents distributed to the Commission, 25 March-11 May 1948. Annotated Check List, 12 May 1948
> I find it interesting that you (personally) challenge the these various organs of statecraft to your standard personal standard and not the reality of that day; as if that actually impacts their true accomplishment and disputes their validity.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are any number of thing that were discussed --- covering a wide range of issues (matters of State) --- for which the Arab Higher Committee had declined to include their voice.  And so they were not consulted.  These include, but are not limited to:  _(One and half month sample)_
> 
> 05/14/1948 A/AC.21/UK/144 UN Palestine Commission - Food supplies for Palestine - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 05/14/1948 A/AC.21/UK/143 UN Palestine Commission - Release of Sterling balances - Letter from United Kingdom
> 05/11/1948 A/AC.21/UK/141 UN Palestine Commission - Palestine Currency Board - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 05/11/1948 A/AC.21/SR.75 UN Palestine Commission - Postal services, Government of Palestine records, GoP civil servants - UNPC 75th mtg. - Summary record
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/JA/40 UN Palestine Commission - Free Sterling allocations - Communication from the Jewish Agency for Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/UK/125 UN Palestine Commission - Fuel situation in Jerusalem - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/UK/127 UN Palestine Commission - Loans from Bearer Bond Balances - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/26/1948 A/AC.21/UK/126 UN Palestine Commission - Situation in Haifa - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/24/1948 A/AC.21/UK/124 UN Palestine Commission - Situation in Haifa/Urgent matters - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/24/1948 A/AC.21/UK/122 UN Palestine Commission - Postal Services in Palestine - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 04/23/1948 A/AC.21/UK/123 UN Palestine Commission - Situation in Haifa - Letter from United Kingdom
> General Headings were:
> 
> I. Administrative and Legal, including
> (a) Planning in conjunction with the Mandatory Power the transfer of the Administration of Palestine from the Mandatory Power to the Commission and eventually to the two States and to the City of Jerusalem.
> (b) Effecting the same transfer and assisting in the setting up of the two States and the City.
> (c) Co-ordinating the operation of the two Provisional Councils of Government. This item would involve questions relating to the administration of justice, prisons, municipal law-in-force, establishment and supervision of administrative organs of control and local, government, electoral laws, supervision of elections, citizenship.​II. Economic and Financial, including
> (a) The establishment of the Economic Union and the Joint Economic Board by the Preparatory Economic Commission.
> (b) The preparation of the draft undertaking regarding Economic Union and Freedom of Transit.
> (c) The maintenance of essential economic services in the transitional period before the States and the Economic Union are fully functioning.
> (d) Allocation and distribution of assets.​III. Security, including
> (a) Political and military control over militia in each of the States, including selection of the high command.
> (b) Questions of public order,​IV. Boundaries, including
> The definition and establishment of boundaries.​V. Social Cultural and Religious, including
> (a) The maintenance of adequate standards of public health and education.
> (b) The protection of Holy Places,​VI. Preparation for Application of United Nations Statute for City of Jerusalem​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of smoke there, Rocco.
> 
> None of all of that answered my questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You asked:
> 
> 
> What were the issues that they discusses?
> I gave links for major issues discussed.
> 
> Were there any compromises?
> Compromise requires a good faith effort by more than one party.
> The Arab Palestinian decline to participate.
> No issue was raised by the Arab Palestinians because they rejected the offer to participate.
> 
> Were there agreements on the peoples rights and defined borders?
> No rights issue were raised by the Arab Palestinian during the processing of Steps Preparatory to Independence.
> External Influences by invading Arab Armies truncated these discussions.
> External Influences attempting to undermine the decisions of the General Assembly.
> 
> 
> You said: "Surely you can document these things."  There are links to over 45 documents there.
> 
> Everything about has a supporting link.  It is all documented.
> The Arab Palestinian purposely attempted to corrupt the process by which independence was established.  The General Assembly acknowledged the Declaration of Independence, submitted the application to the Security Council, the Security Council favorably recommended the Jewish State for admission, AND the General Assembly decided to skip the P F Tinmore requirements and admit Israel to the UN.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are still not answering the questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You are just being argumentative.  Pretending like you have some special understanding.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all. You posted many things that they *wanted* to do. There was nothing about what *was* done.
> 
> That was my question that you are dodging.
Click to expand...





Clutching at straws now aren't you after having the evidence produced. It was the arab muslims that refused to deal with the situation, and like petulant schoolchildren they wanted it all and cried when they couldn't get it. They are still crying now only this time it is because they are getting their butts whipped all the time


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> The attempt at preventing the massacre and ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims that were left behind in the area illegally given to Europeans, was not an attack.  It was a regional coalition that was attempting to prevent a crime against humanity.







It was an attack and only a braindead islamonazi propagandist could say otherwise. They threatened an attack if the Jews declared independence, and did not give a damn about the Christians who were herded in front of the brave muslims to deflect the bullets. The only crimes against humanity were the beatings, rapes, forcible evictions and property thefts of the Jews by arab muslims. Over 1 million Jews lost everything to arab nationalism and YOU don't care about the breach of International law by arab muslims that took place. The world should be demanding compensation for the Jews as a result of the arab muslims attacks and handing the land to The Jews



 By the way which international law was breached when the land was given to the Jews ? Seeing as you see it as being illegal.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I have seen this complaint before.  The Arab attempt to obstruct the implementation process by having a coordinated attack by four Arab Armies on the very day of independence, then criticize governmental activities _(like the UNPC)_ for not being able to complete nation build in the middle of a War of Independence the Arabs started in the first place.
> 
> REMEBER:
> 
> The UN Palestine Commission was never permitted to complete it mission because of the initiation of hostilities by the Arab Nations adjacent to Palestine to implement the resolution. On February 16, 1948, the Commission reported to the Security Council:
> 
> Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.
> Para 3c, A/AC.21/9 S/676 16 February 1948​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. You posted many things that they *wanted* to do. There was nothing about what *was* done.
> 
> That was my question that you are dodging.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There were *(YES!)* many things that the successor government _(the UNPC)_ wanted to do --- but had to abort or give-up --- do to the Arab Invasion _(external influences)_.  Whatever had befell the Arab after the failed attempt to unravel the creation of the independent Jewish State of Israel, they deserve.  The Arab Palestinian has absolutely no right to criticize the UNPC --- even if the UNPC never accomplished a thing.  The UNPC was not answerable to the Arab Palestinians at all:
> 
> 
> You can lay directly at the feet of the Arabs the discrepancy between what the UNPC "*wanted* to do" --- and what the Arab sabotaging  "what *was* done."
> 
> The text of this resolution [A/RES/181 (II)] was communicated by the Secretary-General on 9 January to the Government of the United Kingdom, as the Mandatory Power, to the Arab Higher Committee, and to the Jewish Agency for Palestine. The invitation extended by the resolution was promptly accepted by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, both of which designated representatives to assist the commission. The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:
> 
> “ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”​*No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission.* The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.  A/AC.21/7  29 January 1948​Let there be no mistake --- the Arabs in representing the Palestinian people (The Arab Higher Committee of the Arab League) cut the lines of communications with the Arab Palestinian Community.  The UNPC was still talking and coordination with the Jewish Agency on matters pertaining tot the Steps Preparatory to Independence.  And since that time, no matter who is involved and no matter what arrangements have been made, in the end --- the Arab Palestinian _(playing the roll of perpetual victim)_ sabotage any negation effort which generally collapse.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.​
That they had every right to do. They had, and still have, the right to resist the colonization of their country.

The British and the UN knew exactly what the problem was but the assholes continued with their stupid plan to impose the colonization of Palestine by military force. A plan that continues to today.

The solution is well known and already defined. It is here:

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

The solution is already imbedded in international law and reiterated in this resolution.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

With respect to *General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 *--- it is a non-binding recommendation.  And the recommendation came well after the Mandate and subsequent Independence of Israel.  What is done is done!  As I have stated before (several times), you have to stretch some in order to get the Decolonization protocol to even fit the ground truth of the current State of Palestine ---- or even ---- the territory to which the former Mandate was applied.



			
				World Encyclopedia of Law:  [SIZE=4 said:
			
		

> Introduction to Decolonization][/SIZE]
> At the end of World War II (1939-1945), the great powers held vast colonial empires in the developing world. One goal of the UN charter was decolonization-ending the practice of colonialism. The Trusteeship Council was established as the UN organ to aid in the decolonization process. As colonies gained their independence in the mid-20th century, one of their first steps was to join the UN. This act announced their arrival on the international stage as a full-fledged member of the international community. The Trusteeship Council served as a transitional authority to help a country make the transition from colony to independent nation. In 1994 the last colony gained its independence and the Trusteeship Council suspended its operations.”  Decolonization





P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I have seen this complaint before.  The Arab attempt to obstruct the implementation process by having a coordinated attack by four Arab Armies on the very day of independence, then criticize governmental activities _(like the UNPC)_ for not being able to complete nation build in the middle of a War of Independence the Arabs started in the first place.
> 
> REMEBER:
> 
> The UN Palestine Commission was never permitted to complete it mission because of the initiation of hostilities by the Arab Nations adjacent to Palestine to implement the resolution. On February 16, 1948, the Commission reported to the Security Council:
> 
> Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.
> Para 3c, A/AC.21/9 S/676 16 February 1948​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. You posted many things that they *wanted* to do. There was nothing about what *was* done.
> 
> That was my question that you are dodging.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There were *(YES!)* many things that the successor government _(the UNPC)_ wanted to do --- but had to abort or give-up --- do to the Arab Invasion _(external influences)_.  Whatever had befell the Arab after the failed attempt to unravel the creation of the independent Jewish State of Israel, they deserve.  The Arab Palestinian has absolutely no right to criticize the UNPC --- even if the UNPC never accomplished a thing.  The UNPC was not answerable to the Arab Palestinians at all:
> 
> 
> You can lay directly at the feet of the Arabs the discrepancy between what the UNPC "*wanted* to do" --- and what the Arab sabotaging  "what *was* done."
> 
> The text of this resolution [A/RES/181 (II)] was communicated by the Secretary-General on 9 January to the Government of the United Kingdom, as the Mandatory Power, to the Arab Higher Committee, and to the Jewish Agency for Palestine. The invitation extended by the resolution was promptly accepted by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, both of which designated representatives to assist the commission. The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:
> 
> “ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”​*No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission.* The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.  A/AC.21/7  29 January 1948​
> Let there be no mistake --- the Arabs in representing the Palestinian people (The Arab Higher Committee of the Arab League) cut the lines of communications with the Arab Palestinian Community.  The UNPC was still talking and coordination with the Jewish Agency on matters pertaining tot the Steps Preparatory to Independence.  And since that time, no matter who is involved and no matter what arrangements have been made, in the end --- the Arab Palestinian _(playing the roll of perpetual victim)_ sabotage any negation effort which generally collapse.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.​
> That they had every right to do. They had, and still have, the right to resist the colonization of their country.
> 
> The British and the UN knew exactly what the problem was but the assholes continued with their stupid plan to impose the colonization of Palestine by military force. A plan that continues to today.
> 
> The solution is well known and already defined. It is here:
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
> 
> The solution is already imbedded in international law and reiterated in this resolution.
Click to expand...

*(QUESTION)*

Where is "decolonization" imbedded in "International Law?"

*(COMMENT)*

Decolonization and matters of State Succession are not codified into International Law.  In most cases the issues are documented by treaties, or defended under the "Right of Conquest" or the "Right of Discovery."

*International Law - conquest and discovery; colonization*
famguardian.org/Publications/PropertyRights/R5Conq.html
"The English possessions in America were not claimed by right of conquest, but by rightof discovery. For, ... CONQUEST, international law.
About 80 former colonies have gained independence since the creation of the United Nations.  Currently, there are 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGTs) across the globe that the UN considers as subjects for decolonization; BUT Palestine is not considered a NSGT.



​
A continuing dialogue among the administering Allied Powers is required.   The Special Committee on Decolonization _(Committee of 24 or C-24)_, and the peoples of the territories, in accordance with the relevant UN resolutions on decolonization must engage in negotiations.  However, there are some territories that have decided that they are much better-off as a territory administered by one of the Allied Powers then to go fully independent and stand-alone.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

As if the "right of discovery" has anything to do with reality.  Only the looney brained believe that the Incas were somehow "discovered".


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> As if the "right of discovery" has anything to do with reality.  Only the looney brained believe that the Incas were somehow "discovered".


Only the looney brained will say that what the 5 Arab states did to Israel in 1948 wasn't an attack


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I have seen this complaint before.  The Arab attempt to obstruct the implementation process by having a coordinated attack by four Arab Armies on the very day of independence, then criticize governmental activities _(like the UNPC)_ for not being able to complete nation build in the middle of a War of Independence the Arabs started in the first place.
> 
> REMEBER:
> 
> The UN Palestine Commission was never permitted to complete it mission because of the initiation of hostilities by the Arab Nations adjacent to Palestine to implement the resolution. On February 16, 1948, the Commission reported to the Security Council:
> 
> Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.
> Para 3c, A/AC.21/9 S/676 16 February 1948​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. You posted many things that they *wanted* to do. There was nothing about what *was* done.
> 
> That was my question that you are dodging.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There were *(YES!)* many things that the successor government _(the UNPC)_ wanted to do --- but had to abort or give-up --- do to the Arab Invasion _(external influences)_.  Whatever had befell the Arab after the failed attempt to unravel the creation of the independent Jewish State of Israel, they deserve.  The Arab Palestinian has absolutely no right to criticize the UNPC --- even if the UNPC never accomplished a thing.  The UNPC was not answerable to the Arab Palestinians at all:
> 
> 
> You can lay directly at the feet of the Arabs the discrepancy between what the UNPC "*wanted* to do" --- and what the Arab sabotaging  "what *was* done."
> 
> The text of this resolution [A/RES/181 (II)] was communicated by the Secretary-General on 9 January to the Government of the United Kingdom, as the Mandatory Power, to the Arab Higher Committee, and to the Jewish Agency for Palestine. The invitation extended by the resolution was promptly accepted by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, both of which designated representatives to assist the commission. The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:
> 
> “ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”​*No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission.* The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.  A/AC.21/7  29 January 1948​Let there be no mistake --- the Arabs in representing the Palestinian people (The Arab Higher Committee of the Arab League) cut the lines of communications with the Arab Palestinian Community.  The UNPC was still talking and coordination with the Jewish Agency on matters pertaining tot the Steps Preparatory to Independence.  And since that time, no matter who is involved and no matter what arrangements have been made, in the end --- the Arab Palestinian _(playing the roll of perpetual victim)_ sabotage any negation effort which generally collapse.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.​
> That they had every right to do. They had, and still have, the right to resist the colonization of their country.
> 
> The British and the UN knew exactly what the problem was but the assholes continued with their stupid plan to impose the colonization of Palestine by military force. A plan that continues to today.
> 
> The solution is well known and already defined. It is here:
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
> 
> The solution is already imbedded in international law and reiterated in this resolution.
Click to expand...






 It had not been their country since 1099, so they did not have the right to murder innocent people.

 The British had nothing to do with it as it was the LoN that set up the Mandate for Palestine.

 The solution is for the UN to impose International law and evict all the violent, belligerent, aggressive islamonazi terrorists and implement the Mandate for Palestine.

 What International law would that be then ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> As if the "right of discovery" has anything to do with reality.  Only the looney brained believe that the Incas were somehow "discovered".






 And just the same with the islamonazi right by previous conquest is now no longer seen as valid, and so they try to re- conquer the lands they lost.    Dar al Harb  is how you see the world outside of islamonazi influence.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> The attempt at preventing the massacre and ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims that were left behind in the area illegally given to Europeans, was not an attack.  It was a regional coalition that was attempting to prevent a crime against humanity.



LOL!  Them poppies must be good this year.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> With respect to *General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 *--- it is a non-binding recommendation.  And the recommendation came well after the Mandate and subsequent Independence of Israel.  What is done is done!  As I have stated before (several times), you have to stretch some in order to get the Decolonization protocol to even fit the ground truth of the current State of Palestine ---- or even ---- the territory to which the former Mandate was applied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> World Encyclopedia of Law:  [SIZE=4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Introduction to Decolonization][/SIZE]
> At the end of World War II (1939-1945), the great powers held vast colonial empires in the developing world. One goal of the UN charter was decolonization-ending the practice of colonialism. The Trusteeship Council was established as the UN organ to aid in the decolonization process. As colonies gained their independence in the mid-20th century, one of their first steps was to join the UN. This act announced their arrival on the international stage as a full-fledged member of the international community. The Trusteeship Council served as a transitional authority to help a country make the transition from colony to independent nation. In 1994 the last colony gained its independence and the Trusteeship Council suspended its operations.”  Decolonization
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I have seen this complaint before.  The Arab attempt to obstruct the implementation process by having a coordinated attack by four Arab Armies on the very day of independence, then criticize governmental activities _(like the UNPC)_ for not being able to complete nation build in the middle of a War of Independence the Arabs started in the first place.
> 
> REMEBER:
> 
> The UN Palestine Commission was never permitted to complete it mission because of the initiation of hostilities by the Arab Nations adjacent to Palestine to implement the resolution. On February 16, 1948, the Commission reported to the Security Council:
> 
> Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.
> Para 3c, A/AC.21/9 S/676 16 February 1948​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. You posted many things that they *wanted* to do. There was nothing about what *was* done.
> 
> That was my question that you are dodging.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There were *(YES!)* many things that the successor government _(the UNPC)_ wanted to do --- but had to abort or give-up --- do to the Arab Invasion _(external influences)_.  Whatever had befell the Arab after the failed attempt to unravel the creation of the independent Jewish State of Israel, they deserve.  The Arab Palestinian has absolutely no right to criticize the UNPC --- even if the UNPC never accomplished a thing.  The UNPC was not answerable to the Arab Palestinians at all:
> 
> 
> You can lay directly at the feet of the Arabs the discrepancy between what the UNPC "*wanted* to do" --- and what the Arab sabotaging  "what *was* done."
> 
> The text of this resolution [A/RES/181 (II)] was communicated by the Secretary-General on 9 January to the Government of the United Kingdom, as the Mandatory Power, to the Arab Higher Committee, and to the Jewish Agency for Palestine. The invitation extended by the resolution was promptly accepted by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, both of which designated representatives to assist the commission. The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:
> 
> “ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”​*No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission.* The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.  A/AC.21/7  29 January 1948​
> Let there be no mistake --- the Arabs in representing the Palestinian people (The Arab Higher Committee of the Arab League) cut the lines of communications with the Arab Palestinian Community.  The UNPC was still talking and coordination with the Jewish Agency on matters pertaining tot the Steps Preparatory to Independence.  And since that time, no matter who is involved and no matter what arrangements have been made, in the end --- the Arab Palestinian _(playing the roll of perpetual victim)_ sabotage any negation effort which generally collapse.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.​
> That they had every right to do. They had, and still have, the right to resist the colonization of their country.
> 
> The British and the UN knew exactly what the problem was but the assholes continued with their stupid plan to impose the colonization of Palestine by military force. A plan that continues to today.
> 
> The solution is well known and already defined. It is here:
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
> 
> The solution is already imbedded in international law and reiterated in this resolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> Where is "decolonization" imbedded in "International Law?"
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Decolonization and matters of State Succession are not codified into International Law.  In most cases the issues are documented by treaties, or defended under the "Right of Conquest" or the "Right of Discovery."
> 
> *International Law - conquest and discovery; colonization*
> famguardian.org/Publications/PropertyRights/R5Conq.html
> "The English possessions in America were not claimed by right of conquest, but by rightof discovery. For, ... CONQUEST, international law.
> About 80 former colonies have gained independence since the creation of the United Nations.  Currently, there are 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGTs) across the globe that the UN considers as subjects for decolonization; BUT Palestine is not considered a NSGT.
> 
> View attachment 39036​
> A continuing dialogue among the administering Allied Powers is required.   The Special Committee on Decolonization _(Committee of 24 or C-24)_, and the peoples of the territories, in accordance with the relevant UN resolutions on decolonization must engage in negotiations.  However, there are some territories that have decided that they are much better-off as a territory administered by one of the Allied Powers then to go fully independent and stand-alone.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

And the recommendation came well after the Mandate and subsequent Independence of Israel. What is done is done!

About 80 former colonies have gained independence since the creation of the United Nations.​
Evidently not.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't understand.



P F Tinmore said:


> And the recommendation came well after the Mandate and subsequent Independence of Israel. What is done is done!
> 
> About 80 former colonies have gained independence since the creation of the United Nations.​
> Evidently not.


*(COMMENT)*

I'm not sure what you are contesting...

Are you challenging the status of the occupied Palestinian territories, relative to falling under "decolonization?"
Are you suggesting that C-24's figures are incorrect.  That 80 former colonies have gone independent since 1945?
Are you challenging the fact that "decolonization" is not covered over International or Customary Law?

What are you saying?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> With respect to *General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 *--- it is a non-binding recommendation.  And the recommendation came well after the Mandate and subsequent Independence of Israel.  What is done is done!  As I have stated before (several times), you have to stretch some in order to get the Decolonization protocol to even fit the ground truth of the current State of Palestine ---- or even ---- the territory to which the former Mandate was applied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> World Encyclopedia of Law:  [SIZE=4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Introduction to Decolonization][/SIZE]
> At the end of World War II (1939-1945), the great powers held vast colonial empires in the developing world. One goal of the UN charter was decolonization-ending the practice of colonialism. The Trusteeship Council was established as the UN organ to aid in the decolonization process. As colonies gained their independence in the mid-20th century, one of their first steps was to join the UN. This act announced their arrival on the international stage as a full-fledged member of the international community. The Trusteeship Council served as a transitional authority to help a country make the transition from colony to independent nation. In 1994 the last colony gained its independence and the Trusteeship Council suspended its operations.”  Decolonization
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I have seen this complaint before.  The Arab attempt to obstruct the implementation process by having a coordinated attack by four Arab Armies on the very day of independence, then criticize governmental activities _(like the UNPC)_ for not being able to complete nation build in the middle of a War of Independence the Arabs started in the first place.
> 
> REMEBER:
> 
> The UN Palestine Commission was never permitted to complete it mission because of the initiation of hostilities by the Arab Nations adjacent to Palestine to implement the resolution. On February 16, 1948, the Commission reported to the Security Council:
> 
> Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.
> Para 3c, A/AC.21/9 S/676 16 February 1948​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. You posted many things that they *wanted* to do. There was nothing about what *was* done.
> 
> That was my question that you are dodging.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There were *(YES!)* many things that the successor government _(the UNPC)_ wanted to do --- but had to abort or give-up --- do to the Arab Invasion _(external influences)_.  Whatever had befell the Arab after the failed attempt to unravel the creation of the independent Jewish State of Israel, they deserve.  The Arab Palestinian has absolutely no right to criticize the UNPC --- even if the UNPC never accomplished a thing.  The UNPC was not answerable to the Arab Palestinians at all:
> 
> 
> You can lay directly at the feet of the Arabs the discrepancy between what the UNPC "*wanted* to do" --- and what the Arab sabotaging  "what *was* done."
> 
> The text of this resolution [A/RES/181 (II)] was communicated by the Secretary-General on 9 January to the Government of the United Kingdom, as the Mandatory Power, to the Arab Higher Committee, and to the Jewish Agency for Palestine. The invitation extended by the resolution was promptly accepted by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, both of which designated representatives to assist the commission. The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:
> 
> “ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”​*No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission.* The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.  A/AC.21/7  29 January 1948​
> Let there be no mistake --- the Arabs in representing the Palestinian people (The Arab Higher Committee of the Arab League) cut the lines of communications with the Arab Palestinian Community.  The UNPC was still talking and coordination with the Jewish Agency on matters pertaining tot the Steps Preparatory to Independence.  And since that time, no matter who is involved and no matter what arrangements have been made, in the end --- the Arab Palestinian _(playing the roll of perpetual victim)_ sabotage any negation effort which generally collapse.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.​
> That they had every right to do. They had, and still have, the right to resist the colonization of their country.
> 
> The British and the UN knew exactly what the problem was but the assholes continued with their stupid plan to impose the colonization of Palestine by military force. A plan that continues to today.
> 
> The solution is well known and already defined. It is here:
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
> 
> The solution is already imbedded in international law and reiterated in this resolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> Where is "decolonization" imbedded in "International Law?"
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Decolonization and matters of State Succession are not codified into International Law.  In most cases the issues are documented by treaties, or defended under the "Right of Conquest" or the "Right of Discovery."
> 
> *International Law - conquest and discovery; colonization*
> famguardian.org/Publications/PropertyRights/R5Conq.html
> "The English possessions in America were not claimed by right of conquest, but by rightof discovery. For, ... CONQUEST, international law.
> About 80 former colonies have gained independence since the creation of the United Nations.  Currently, there are 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGTs) across the globe that the UN considers as subjects for decolonization; BUT Palestine is not considered a NSGT.
> 
> View attachment 39036​
> A continuing dialogue among the administering Allied Powers is required.   The Special Committee on Decolonization _(Committee of 24 or C-24)_, and the peoples of the territories, in accordance with the relevant UN resolutions on decolonization must engage in negotiations.  However, there are some territories that have decided that they are much better-off as a territory administered by one of the Allied Powers then to go fully independent and stand-alone.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Wasn't Palestine a non self governing, trust territory under UNSCOP after the British Mandate left in 1948?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I don't understand.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the recommendation came well after the Mandate and subsequent Independence of Israel. What is done is done!
> 
> About 80 former colonies have gained independence since the creation of the United Nations.​
> Evidently not.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I'm not sure what you are contesting...
> 
> Are you challenging the status of the occupied Palestinian territories, relative to falling under About 80 former colonies have gained independence since the creation of the United Nations. ?"
> Are you suggesting that C-24's figures are incorrect.  That 80 former colonies have gone independent since 1945?
> Are you challenging the fact that About 80 former colonies have gained independence since the creation of the United Nations. is not covered over International or Customary Law?
> 
> What are you saying?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I don't understand.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the recommendation came well after the Mandate and subsequent Independence of Israel. What is done is done!
> 
> About 80 former colonies have gained independence since the creation of the United Nations.​
> Evidently not.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I'm not sure what you are contesting...
> 
> Are you challenging the status of the occupied Palestinian territories, relative to falling under "decolonization?"
> Are you suggesting that C-24's figures are incorrect.  That 80 former colonies have gone independent since 1945?
> Are you challenging the fact that "decolonization" is not covered over International or Customary Law?
> 
> What are you saying?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


I am not challenging anything. Palestine falls squarely into the definition of a colonized country, or non self governing territory if you will.

I don't believe that "decolonization" is a part of international law. The term does, however, embody a set of rights that are part of international law.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​
These rights are violated under colonization. These are Palestinian rights as per UN resolutions.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As if the "right of discovery" has anything to do with reality.  Only the looney brained believe that the Incas were somehow "discovered".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And just the same with the islamonazi right by previous conquest is now no longer seen as valid, and so they try to re- conquer the lands they lost.    Dar al Harb  is how you see the world outside of islamonazi influence.
Click to expand...


But the land was lost by the Christians to the Muslims.  What do European Jews have to do with it?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

The UNSCOP dissolved after the General Assembly adopted Resolution 181(II).  The Resolution created the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) as the successor goverment to the Mandatory over Palestine.



P F Tinmore said:


> Wasn't Palestine a non self governing, trust territory under UNSCOP after the British Mandate left in 1948?


*(COMMENT)*

There is a difference between a Mandate/Trusteeship, an Occupation and a Colonial Settlement.  In fact, the Mandate and Trusteeships actually prohibit Colonization outside the guidance of the League of Nations/UN.  The has been no Allied Power that has establish and maintained a colony in the Middle East.

Israel, a partition of the territory to which the Mandate once applied, became a self-governing institution in 1948.  The remained of the territory still fell under the Resolution as an unapportioned Non-governing --- having had an offer of self-government rejected by the Arab Palestinians (the was a negative form of self-determination).  In 1988, the UN acknowledged the Declaration of Independence by the PLO, creating the State of Palestine over the territory remaining after the armistice (Gaza Strip and West Bank). Thus, there has not been any territory in the region of the former Mandate for Palestine that has not been allocated.

As you can see from the link to C-24 --- the committee does not consider 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK we agree that there is no International Law pertaining to the establishment and maintenance of a Colony.  We agree that the Committee of 24 (Special Committee on Decolonization) and its Bureau are assisted by the Decolonization Unit  does not consider the State of Palestine as a candidate for UN decolonization.

Currently, their is no territory in the Middle East considered as a  Non-Self-Governing Territory (NSGT).  See the C-24 Table:




 ​


P F Tinmore said:


> I am not challenging anything. Palestine falls squarely into the definition of a colonized country, or non self governing territory if you will.
> 
> I don't believe that "decolonization" is a part of international law. The term does, however, embody a set of rights that are part of international law.
> 
> The right to self determination without external interference.
> 
> The right to independence and sovereignty.
> 
> The right to territorial integrity.​
> These rights are violated under colonization. These are Palestinian rights as per UN resolutions.


*(COMMENT)*

P F Tinmore:  The right to self determination without external interference.
R:  The Palestinians have used the "right to self determination" several time (negatively and positive), with the last time being in 1988.​P F Tinmore:  The right to independence and sovereignty. 
R:  The right to independence and sovereignty has been quasi-negotiated through the Oslo Accords and pending further negotiations under the Article V (Permanent Status Negotiations).  The PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department has stipulated that currently "The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt."​P F Tinmore:  The right to territorial integrity.
R:  The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are considered a single territorial unit, the integrity and status of which will be preserved during the interim period of the Oslo Accords under the applicable Articles detailing Areas "A" - "B" - "C".​P F Tinmore:   I am not challenging anything. Palestine falls squarely into the definition of a colonized country, or non self governing territory if you will. 
R:  The C-24 efforts are basically derived from the Charter's principle of “equal rights" and "self-determination;" including three Charter Chapters devoted to the interests of dependent peoples:​

Chapter XI: Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories
Chapter XII: International Trusteeship System
Chapter XIII: The Trusteeship Council

Well, I'm not sure how "Palestine falls squarely into the definition of a colonized country" since you cannot define a "Colonial Territory."  It would be hard just to define the territory under the definition.  Normally, you could not be both "Occupied" and "Colonized" simultaneously.  It is one of the other.

Most Respectfully,
R
​


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> OK we agree that there is no International Law pertaining to the establishment and maintenance of a Colony.  We agree that the Committee of 24 (Special Committee on Decolonization) and its Bureau are assisted by the Decolonization Unit  does not consider the State of Palestine as a candidate for UN decolonization.
> 
> Currently, their is no territory in the Middle East considered as a  Non-Self-Governing Territory (NSGT).  See the C-24 Table:
> 
> View attachment 39078​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not challenging anything. Palestine falls squarely into the definition of a colonized country, or non self governing territory if you will.
> 
> I don't believe that "decolonization" is a part of international law. The term does, however, embody a set of rights that are part of international law.
> 
> The right to self determination without external interference.
> 
> The right to independence and sovereignty.
> 
> The right to territorial integrity.​
> These rights are violated under colonization. These are Palestinian rights as per UN resolutions.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> P F Tinmore:  The right to self determination without external interference.
> R:  The Palestinians have used the "right to self determination" several time (negatively and positive), with the last time being in 1988.​P F Tinmore:  The right to independence and sovereignty.
> R:  The right to independence and sovereignty has been quasi-negotiated through the Oslo Accords and pending further negotiations under the Article V (Permanent Status Negotiations).  The PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department has stipulated that currently "The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt."​P F Tinmore:  The right to territorial integrity.
> R:  The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are considered a single territorial unit, the integrity and status of which will be preserved during the interim period of the Oslo Accords under the applicable Articles detailing Areas "A" - "B" - "C".​P F Tinmore:   I am not challenging anything. Palestine falls squarely into the definition of a colonized country, or non self governing territory if you will.
> R:  The C-24 efforts are basically derived from the Charter's principle of “equal rights" and "self-determination;" including three Charter Chapters devoted to the interests of dependent peoples:​
> 
> Chapter XI: Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories
> Chapter XII: International Trusteeship System
> Chapter XIII: The Trusteeship Council
> 
> Well, I'm not sure how "Palestine falls squarely into the definition of a colonized country" since you cannot define a "Colonial Territory."  It would be hard just to define the territory under the definition.  Normally, you could not be both "Occupied" and "Colonized" simultaneously.  It is one of the other.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> ​
Click to expand...

P F Tinmore: The right to territorial integrity.
R: The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are considered a single territorial unit, the integrity and status of which will be preserved during the interim period of the Oslo Accords under the applicable Articles detailing Areas "A" - "B" - "C".​
I don't believe that "territory" is defined by non borders, like armistice lines. It is defined by actual international borders.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Fatin Jarara*

**


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> OK we agree that there is no International Law pertaining to the establishment and maintenance of a Colony.  We agree that the Committee of 24 (Special Committee on Decolonization) and its Bureau are assisted by the Decolonization Unit  does not consider the State of Palestine as a candidate for UN decolonization.
> 
> Currently, their is no territory in the Middle East considered as a  Non-Self-Governing Territory (NSGT).  See the C-24 Table:
> 
> View attachment 39078​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not challenging anything. Palestine falls squarely into the definition of a colonized country, or non self governing territory if you will.
> 
> I don't believe that "decolonization" is a part of international law. The term does, however, embody a set of rights that are part of international law.
> 
> The right to self determination without external interference.
> 
> The right to independence and sovereignty.
> 
> The right to territorial integrity.​
> These rights are violated under colonization. These are Palestinian rights as per UN resolutions.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> P F Tinmore:  The right to self determination without external interference.
> R:  The Palestinians have used the "right to self determination" several time (negatively and positive), with the last time being in 1988.​P F Tinmore:  The right to independence and sovereignty.
> R:  The right to independence and sovereignty has been quasi-negotiated through the Oslo Accords and pending further negotiations under the Article V (Permanent Status Negotiations).  The PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department has stipulated that currently "The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt."​P F Tinmore:  The right to territorial integrity.
> R:  The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are considered a single territorial unit, the integrity and status of which will be preserved during the interim period of the Oslo Accords under the applicable Articles detailing Areas "A" - "B" - "C".​P F Tinmore:   I am not challenging anything. Palestine falls squarely into the definition of a colonized country, or non self governing territory if you will.
> R:  The C-24 efforts are basically derived from the Charter's principle of “equal rights" and "self-determination;" including three Charter Chapters devoted to the interests of dependent peoples:​
> 
> Chapter XI: Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories
> Chapter XII: International Trusteeship System
> Chapter XIII: The Trusteeship Council
> 
> Well, I'm not sure how "Palestine falls squarely into the definition of a colonized country" since you cannot define a "Colonial Territory."  It would be hard just to define the territory under the definition.  Normally, you could not be both "Occupied" and "Colonized" simultaneously.  It is one of the other.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> ​
Click to expand...

You must be joking.

P F Tinmore: The right to self determination without external interference.
R: The Palestinians have used the "right to self determination" several time (negatively and positive), with the last time being in 1988.​
Palestine was born under occupation and that has continued through today.

Palestine is the poster child of illegal external interference.


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> OK we agree that there is no International Law pertaining to the establishment and maintenance of a Colony.  We agree that the Committee of 24 (Special Committee on Decolonization) and its Bureau are assisted by the Decolonization Unit  does not consider the State of Palestine as a candidate for UN decolonization.
> 
> Currently, their is no territory in the Middle East considered as a  Non-Self-Governing Territory (NSGT).  See the C-24 Table:
> 
> View attachment 39078​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not challenging anything. Palestine falls squarely into the definition of a colonized country, or non self governing territory if you will.
> 
> I don't believe that "decolonization" is a part of international law. The term does, however, embody a set of rights that are part of international law.
> 
> The right to self determination without external interference.
> 
> The right to independence and sovereignty.
> 
> The right to territorial integrity.​
> These rights are violated under colonization. These are Palestinian rights as per UN resolutions.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> P F Tinmore:  The right to self determination without external interference.
> R:  The Palestinians have used the "right to self determination" several time (negatively and positive), with the last time being in 1988.​P F Tinmore:  The right to independence and sovereignty.
> R:  The right to independence and sovereignty has been quasi-negotiated through the Oslo Accords and pending further negotiations under the Article V (Permanent Status Negotiations).  The PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department has stipulated that currently "The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt."​P F Tinmore:  The right to territorial integrity.
> R:  The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are considered a single territorial unit, the integrity and status of which will be preserved during the interim period of the Oslo Accords under the applicable Articles detailing Areas "A" - "B" - "C".​P F Tinmore:   I am not challenging anything. Palestine falls squarely into the definition of a colonized country, or non self governing territory if you will.
> R:  The C-24 efforts are basically derived from the Charter's principle of “equal rights" and "self-determination;" including three Charter Chapters devoted to the interests of dependent peoples:​
> 
> Chapter XI: Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories
> Chapter XII: International Trusteeship System
> Chapter XIII: The Trusteeship Council
> 
> Well, I'm not sure how "Palestine falls squarely into the definition of a colonized country" since you cannot define a "Colonial Territory."  It would be hard just to define the territory under the definition.  Normally, you could not be both "Occupied" and "Colonized" simultaneously.  It is one of the other.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> ​
Click to expand...


"Well, I'm not sure how "Palestine falls squarely into the definition of a colonized country" since you cannot define a "Colonial Territory." It would be hard just to define the territory under the definition. Normally, you could not be both "Occupied" and "Colonized" simultaneously. It is one of the other."

Well,  people from Europe (facilitated by a colonial power) went to another continent, settled the land evicted (or killed) a large part of the local people and declared the land their own.  How is that not colonialism?  





















"


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Territory and borders ---  these are key issues;  subject to the permanent status of negotiations.



P F Tinmore said:


> I don't believe that "territory" is defined by non borders, like armistice lines. It is defined by actual international borders.


*(COMMENT)*

Actual borders are actually defined by enforcement criteria.  What you call the actual line is unimportant for argumentative sake.  What is understood universally is the actual perimeter of the border controls.  In the case of Israel 're' Palestine, the continuous border control barriers and the enforcement of border crossing control criteria, protocols and requirements define where the boundary is.  

Your consideration is noted, and if all things were ideal and equal, your "I don't believe that "territory" is defined by non borders" might mean something.  As it is --- it is merely an academic thought.  The physical checkpoint crossing or the physical barrier is the reality of what is enforced and recognized.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Territory and borders ---  these are key issues;  subject to the permanent status of negotiations.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that "territory" is defined by non borders, like armistice lines. It is defined by actual international borders.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Actual borders are actually defined by enforcement criteria.  What you call the actual line is unimportant for argumentative sake.  What is understood universally is the actual perimeter of the border controls.  In the case of Israel 're' Palestine, the continuous border control barriers and the enforcement of border crossing control criteria, protocols and requirements define where the boundary is.
> 
> Your consideration is noted, and if all things were ideal and equal, your "I don't believe that "territory" is defined by non borders" might mean something.  As it is --- it is merely an academic thought.  The physical checkpoint crossing or the physical barrier is the reality of what is enforced and recognized.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

International borders are defined by treaties as Palestine's were.

They can only be changed be a treaty with Palestine.

Control is a defining factor of occupation.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> With respect to *General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 *--- it is a non-binding recommendation.  And the recommendation came well after the Mandate and subsequent Independence of Israel.  What is done is done!  As I have stated before (several times), you have to stretch some in order to get the Decolonization protocol to even fit the ground truth of the current State of Palestine ---- or even ---- the territory to which the former Mandate was applied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> World Encyclopedia of Law:  [SIZE=4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Introduction to Decolonization][/SIZE]
> At the end of World War II (1939-1945), the great powers held vast colonial empires in the developing world. One goal of the UN charter was decolonization-ending the practice of colonialism. The Trusteeship Council was established as the UN organ to aid in the decolonization process. As colonies gained their independence in the mid-20th century, one of their first steps was to join the UN. This act announced their arrival on the international stage as a full-fledged member of the international community. The Trusteeship Council served as a transitional authority to help a country make the transition from colony to independent nation. In 1994 the last colony gained its independence and the Trusteeship Council suspended its operations.”  Decolonization
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I have seen this complaint before.  The Arab attempt to obstruct the implementation process by having a coordinated attack by four Arab Armies on the very day of independence, then criticize governmental activities _(like the UNPC)_ for not being able to complete nation build in the middle of a War of Independence the Arabs started in the first place.
> 
> REMEBER:
> 
> The UN Palestine Commission was never permitted to complete it mission because of the initiation of hostilities by the Arab Nations adjacent to Palestine to implement the resolution. On February 16, 1948, the Commission reported to the Security Council:
> 
> Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.
> Para 3c, A/AC.21/9 S/676 16 February 1948​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. You posted many things that they *wanted* to do. There was nothing about what *was* done.
> 
> That was my question that you are dodging.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There were *(YES!)* many things that the successor government _(the UNPC)_ wanted to do --- but had to abort or give-up --- do to the Arab Invasion _(external influences)_.  Whatever had befell the Arab after the failed attempt to unravel the creation of the independent Jewish State of Israel, they deserve.  The Arab Palestinian has absolutely no right to criticize the UNPC --- even if the UNPC never accomplished a thing.  The UNPC was not answerable to the Arab Palestinians at all:
> 
> 
> You can lay directly at the feet of the Arabs the discrepancy between what the UNPC "*wanted* to do" --- and what the Arab sabotaging  "what *was* done."
> 
> The text of this resolution [A/RES/181 (II)] was communicated by the Secretary-General on 9 January to the Government of the United Kingdom, as the Mandatory Power, to the Arab Higher Committee, and to the Jewish Agency for Palestine. The invitation extended by the resolution was promptly accepted by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, both of which designated representatives to assist the commission. The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:
> 
> “ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”​*No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission.* The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.  A/AC.21/7  29 January 1948​
> Let there be no mistake --- the Arabs in representing the Palestinian people (The Arab Higher Committee of the Arab League) cut the lines of communications with the Arab Palestinian Community.  The UNPC was still talking and coordination with the Jewish Agency on matters pertaining tot the Steps Preparatory to Independence.  And since that time, no matter who is involved and no matter what arrangements have been made, in the end --- the Arab Palestinian _(playing the roll of perpetual victim)_ sabotage any negation effort which generally collapse.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.​
> That they had every right to do. They had, and still have, the right to resist the colonization of their country.
> 
> The British and the UN knew exactly what the problem was but the assholes continued with their stupid plan to impose the colonization of Palestine by military force. A plan that continues to today.
> 
> The solution is well known and already defined. It is here:
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
> 
> The solution is already imbedded in international law and reiterated in this resolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> Where is "decolonization" imbedded in "International Law?"
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Decolonization and matters of State Succession are not codified into International Law.  In most cases the issues are documented by treaties, or defended under the "Right of Conquest" or the "Right of Discovery."
> 
> *International Law - conquest and discovery; colonization*
> famguardian.org/Publications/PropertyRights/R5Conq.html
> "The English possessions in America were not claimed by right of conquest, but by rightof discovery. For, ... CONQUEST, international law.
> About 80 former colonies have gained independence since the creation of the United Nations.  Currently, there are 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGTs) across the globe that the UN considers as subjects for decolonization; BUT Palestine is not considered a NSGT.
> 
> View attachment 39036​
> A continuing dialogue among the administering Allied Powers is required.   The Special Committee on Decolonization _(Committee of 24 or C-24)_, and the peoples of the territories, in accordance with the relevant UN resolutions on decolonization must engage in negotiations.  However, there are some territories that have decided that they are much better-off as a territory administered by one of the Allied Powers then to go fully independent and stand-alone.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the recommendation came well after the Mandate and subsequent Independence of Israel. What is done is done!
> 
> About 80 former colonies have gained independence since the creation of the United Nations.​
> Evidently not.
Click to expand...






 YES so did not and do not apply to Israel


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> With respect to *General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 *--- it is a non-binding recommendation.  And the recommendation came well after the Mandate and subsequent Independence of Israel.  What is done is done!  As I have stated before (several times), you have to stretch some in order to get the Decolonization protocol to even fit the ground truth of the current State of Palestine ---- or even ---- the territory to which the former Mandate was applied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> World Encyclopedia of Law:  [SIZE=4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Introduction to Decolonization][/SIZE]
> At the end of World War II (1939-1945), the great powers held vast colonial empires in the developing world. One goal of the UN charter was decolonization-ending the practice of colonialism. The Trusteeship Council was established as the UN organ to aid in the decolonization process. As colonies gained their independence in the mid-20th century, one of their first steps was to join the UN. This act announced their arrival on the international stage as a full-fledged member of the international community. The Trusteeship Council served as a transitional authority to help a country make the transition from colony to independent nation. In 1994 the last colony gained its independence and the Trusteeship Council suspended its operations.”  Decolonization
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I have seen this complaint before.  The Arab attempt to obstruct the implementation process by having a coordinated attack by four Arab Armies on the very day of independence, then criticize governmental activities _(like the UNPC)_ for not being able to complete nation build in the middle of a War of Independence the Arabs started in the first place.
> 
> REMEBER:
> 
> The UN Palestine Commission was never permitted to complete it mission because of the initiation of hostilities by the Arab Nations adjacent to Palestine to implement the resolution. On February 16, 1948, the Commission reported to the Security Council:
> 
> Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.
> Para 3c, A/AC.21/9 S/676 16 February 1948​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. You posted many things that they *wanted* to do. There was nothing about what *was* done.
> 
> That was my question that you are dodging.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There were *(YES!)* many things that the successor government _(the UNPC)_ wanted to do --- but had to abort or give-up --- do to the Arab Invasion _(external influences)_.  Whatever had befell the Arab after the failed attempt to unravel the creation of the independent Jewish State of Israel, they deserve.  The Arab Palestinian has absolutely no right to criticize the UNPC --- even if the UNPC never accomplished a thing.  The UNPC was not answerable to the Arab Palestinians at all:
> 
> 
> You can lay directly at the feet of the Arabs the discrepancy between what the UNPC "*wanted* to do" --- and what the Arab sabotaging  "what *was* done."
> 
> The text of this resolution [A/RES/181 (II)] was communicated by the Secretary-General on 9 January to the Government of the United Kingdom, as the Mandatory Power, to the Arab Higher Committee, and to the Jewish Agency for Palestine. The invitation extended by the resolution was promptly accepted by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, both of which designated representatives to assist the commission. The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:
> 
> “ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”​*No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission.* The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.  A/AC.21/7  29 January 1948​
> Let there be no mistake --- the Arabs in representing the Palestinian people (The Arab Higher Committee of the Arab League) cut the lines of communications with the Arab Palestinian Community.  The UNPC was still talking and coordination with the Jewish Agency on matters pertaining tot the Steps Preparatory to Independence.  And since that time, no matter who is involved and no matter what arrangements have been made, in the end --- the Arab Palestinian _(playing the roll of perpetual victim)_ sabotage any negation effort which generally collapse.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.​
> That they had every right to do. They had, and still have, the right to resist the colonization of their country.
> 
> The British and the UN knew exactly what the problem was but the assholes continued with their stupid plan to impose the colonization of Palestine by military force. A plan that continues to today.
> 
> The solution is well known and already defined. It is here:
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
> 
> The solution is already imbedded in international law and reiterated in this resolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> Where is "decolonization" imbedded in "International Law?"
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Decolonization and matters of State Succession are not codified into International Law.  In most cases the issues are documented by treaties, or defended under the "Right of Conquest" or the "Right of Discovery."
> 
> *International Law - conquest and discovery; colonization*
> famguardian.org/Publications/PropertyRights/R5Conq.html
> "The English possessions in America were not claimed by right of conquest, but by rightof discovery. For, ... CONQUEST, international law.
> About 80 former colonies have gained independence since the creation of the United Nations.  Currently, there are 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGTs) across the globe that the UN considers as subjects for decolonization; BUT Palestine is not considered a NSGT.
> 
> View attachment 39036​
> A continuing dialogue among the administering Allied Powers is required.   The Special Committee on Decolonization _(Committee of 24 or C-24)_, and the peoples of the territories, in accordance with the relevant UN resolutions on decolonization must engage in negotiations.  However, there are some territories that have decided that they are much better-off as a territory administered by one of the Allied Powers then to go fully independent and stand-alone.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wasn't Palestine a non self governing, trust territory under UNSCOP after the British Mandate left in 1948?
Click to expand...





 NOPE it was annexed by Jordan with the consent of the inhabitants, this meant they were no longer refugees but citizens of Jordan. They shit in their own nest and ended up being relieved of Jordanian citizenship and self determination.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I don't understand.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the recommendation came well after the Mandate and subsequent Independence of Israel. What is done is done!
> 
> About 80 former colonies have gained independence since the creation of the United Nations.​
> Evidently not.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I'm not sure what you are contesting...
> 
> Are you challenging the status of the occupied Palestinian territories, relative to falling under About 80 former colonies have gained independence since the creation of the United Nations. ?"
> Are you suggesting that C-24's figures are incorrect.  That 80 former colonies have gone independent since 1945?
> Are you challenging the fact that About 80 former colonies have gained independence since the creation of the United Nations. is not covered over International or Customary Law?
> 
> What are you saying?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I don't understand.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the recommendation came well after the Mandate and subsequent Independence of Israel. What is done is done!
> 
> About 80 former colonies have gained independence since the creation of the United Nations.​
> Evidently not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I'm not sure what you are contesting...
> 
> Are you challenging the status of the occupied Palestinian territories, relative to falling under "decolonization?"
> Are you suggesting that C-24's figures are incorrect.  That 80 former colonies have gone independent since 1945?
> Are you challenging the fact that "decolonization" is not covered over International or Customary Law?
> 
> What are you saying?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not challenging anything. Palestine falls squarely into the definition of a colonized country, or non self governing territory if you will.
> 
> I don't believe that "decolonization" is a part of international law. The term does, however, embody a set of rights that are part of international law.
> 
> The right to self determination without external interference.
> 
> The right to independence and sovereignty.
> 
> The right to territorial integrity.​
> These rights are violated under colonization. These are Palestinian rights as per UN resolutions.
Click to expand...






 Then show who colonises it, and under what law this is seen as colonisation.

 They have that yet fail to put it in place

 They have that and refuse to put it in place

Who violates these rights when they are clearly seen to be in evidence


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As if the "right of discovery" has anything to do with reality.  Only the looney brained believe that the Incas were somehow "discovered".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And just the same with the islamonazi right by previous conquest is now no longer seen as valid, and so they try to re- conquer the lands they lost.    Dar al Harb  is how you see the world outside of islamonazi influence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the land was lost by the Christians to the Muslims.  What do European Jews have to do with it?
Click to expand...





 Ottoman muslims, not arab muslims. The later lost the claim to the land in 1099 and have not managed to reclaim it since. The Ottoman muslims lost the land to the LoN who gave the land to the worlds Jews, and in the process made it International law. So the arab muslims are actually in breach of International law AGAIN by claiming ownership of the land, and trying to use recent laws to overturn International law retrospectively.

 So by what law are the arab muslims claiming ownership of Palestine over the Jewish rights under International law.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Territory and borders ---  these are key issues;  subject to the permanent status of negotiations.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that "territory" is defined by non borders, like armistice lines. It is defined by actual international borders.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Actual borders are actually defined by enforcement criteria.  What you call the actual line is unimportant for argumentative sake.  What is understood universally is the actual perimeter of the border controls.  In the case of Israel 're' Palestine, the continuous border control barriers and the enforcement of border crossing control criteria, protocols and requirements define where the boundary is.
> 
> Your consideration is noted, and if all things were ideal and equal, your "I don't believe that "territory" is defined by non borders" might mean something.  As it is --- it is merely an academic thought.  The physical checkpoint crossing or the physical barrier is the reality of what is enforced and recognized.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> International borders are defined by treaties as Palestine's were.
> 
> They can only be changed be a treaty with Palestine.
> 
> Control is a defining factor of occupation.
Click to expand...







 As the treaty stipulating the borders says MANDATE FOR PALESTINE, it does not say state or nation of Palestine. But another aspect of that treaty does stipulate the borders of the National home of the Jews in Palestine.   As this shows


*Delineating the final geographical area of Palestine designated for the Jewish National Home on September 16, 1922, as described by the Mandatory*


PALESTINE


INTRODUCTORY.


POSITION, ETC.


Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between Latitude 30º N. and 33º N., Longitude 34º 30’ E. and 35º 30’ E.

On the North it is bounded by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and Lebanon, on the East by Syria and Trans-Jordan, on the South-west by the Egyptian province of Sinai, on the South-east by the Gulf of Aqaba and on the West by the Mediterranean. The frontier with Syria was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Briefly stated, the boundaries are as follows: -

_ North_. – From Ras en Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to a point west of Qadas, thence in a northerly direction to Metulla, thence east to a point west of Banias.

_ East_. – From Banias in a southerly direction east of Lake Hula to Jisr Banat Ya’pub, thence along a line east of the Jordan and the Lake of Tiberias and on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line, thence along the centre of the river Yarmuq to its confluence with the Jordan, thence along the centres of the Jordan, the Dead Sea and the Wadi Araba to a point on the Gulf of Aqaba two miles west of the town of Aqaba, thence along the shore of the Gulf of Aqaba to Ras Jaba.

_ South_. – From Ras Jaba in a generally north-westerly direction to the junction of the Neki-Aqaba and Gaza-Aqaba Roads, thence to a point west-north-west of Ain Maghara and thence to a point on the Mediterranean coast north-west of Rafa.

_ West_. – The Mediterranean Sea.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> OK we agree that there is no International Law pertaining to the establishment and maintenance of a Colony.  We agree that the Committee of 24 (Special Committee on Decolonization) and its Bureau are assisted by the Decolonization Unit  does not consider the State of Palestine as a candidate for UN decolonization.
> 
> Currently, their is no territory in the Middle East considered as a  Non-Self-Governing Territory (NSGT).  See the C-24 Table:
> 
> View attachment 39078​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not challenging anything. Palestine falls squarely into the definition of a colonized country, or non self governing territory if you will.
> 
> I don't believe that "decolonization" is a part of international law. The term does, however, embody a set of rights that are part of international law.
> 
> The right to self determination without external interference.
> 
> The right to independence and sovereignty.
> 
> The right to territorial integrity.​
> These rights are violated under colonization. These are Palestinian rights as per UN resolutions.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> P F Tinmore:  The right to self determination without external interference.
> R:  The Palestinians have used the "right to self determination" several time (negatively and positive), with the last time being in 1988.​P F Tinmore:  The right to independence and sovereignty.
> R:  The right to independence and sovereignty has been quasi-negotiated through the Oslo Accords and pending further negotiations under the Article V (Permanent Status Negotiations).  The PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department has stipulated that currently "The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt."​P F Tinmore:  The right to territorial integrity.
> R:  The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are considered a single territorial unit, the integrity and status of which will be preserved during the interim period of the Oslo Accords under the applicable Articles detailing Areas "A" - "B" - "C".​P F Tinmore:   I am not challenging anything. Palestine falls squarely into the definition of a colonized country, or non self governing territory if you will.
> R:  The C-24 efforts are basically derived from the Charter's principle of “equal rights" and "self-determination;" including three Charter Chapters devoted to the interests of dependent peoples:​
> 
> Chapter XI: Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories
> Chapter XII: International Trusteeship System
> Chapter XIII: The Trusteeship Council
> 
> Well, I'm not sure how "Palestine falls squarely into the definition of a colonized country" since you cannot define a "Colonial Territory."  It would be hard just to define the territory under the definition.  Normally, you could not be both "Occupied" and "Colonized" simultaneously.  It is one of the other.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> P F Tinmore: The right to territorial integrity.
> R: The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are considered a single territorial unit, the integrity and status of which will be preserved during the interim period of the Oslo Accords under the applicable Articles detailing Areas "A" - "B" - "C".​
> I don't believe that "territory" is defined by non borders, like armistice lines. It is defined by actual international borders.
Click to expand...





 So what borders have the Palestinians signed for in treaties with their neighbours, as those are the defining factors. They cant use the borders of the Mandate for Palestine as they were just for outlining the Mandates influence


----------



## Phoenall

So who were the legal land owners at the time the Jews migrated to Palestine and had the legal right under International law at the time to give the land to anyone they so wished ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Territory and borders ---  these are key issues;  subject to the permanent status of negotiations.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that "territory" is defined by non borders, like armistice lines. It is defined by actual international borders.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Actual borders are actually defined by enforcement criteria.  What you call the actual line is unimportant for argumentative sake.  What is understood universally is the actual perimeter of the border controls.  In the case of Israel 're' Palestine, the continuous border control barriers and the enforcement of border crossing control criteria, protocols and requirements define where the boundary is.
> 
> Your consideration is noted, and if all things were ideal and equal, your "I don't believe that "territory" is defined by non borders" might mean something.  As it is --- it is merely an academic thought.  The physical checkpoint crossing or the physical barrier is the reality of what is enforced and recognized.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> International borders are defined by treaties as Palestine's were.
> 
> They can only be changed be a treaty with Palestine.
> 
> Control is a defining factor of occupation.
Click to expand...





 And Palestine has refused to negotiate such a treaty, wanting instead for an illegal outside influence to determine the borders for them.

 The nation of Palestine has no borders set by treaty and until they do they will never be accepted for full membership of the UN


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As if the "right of discovery" has anything to do with reality.  Only the looney brained believe that the Incas were somehow "discovered".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And just the same with the islamonazi right by previous conquest is now no longer seen as valid, and so they try to re- conquer the lands they lost.    Dar al Harb  is how you see the world outside of islamonazi influence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the land was lost by the Christians to the Muslims.  What do European Jews have to do with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ottoman muslims, not arab muslims. The later lost the claim to the land in 1099 and have not managed to reclaim it since. The Ottoman muslims lost the land to the LoN who gave the land to the worlds Jews, and in the process made it International law. So the arab muslims are actually in breach of International law AGAIN by claiming ownership of the land, and trying to use recent laws to overturn International law retrospectively.
> 
> So by what law are the arab muslims claiming ownership of Palestine over the Jewish rights under International law.
Click to expand...


No, the Christians did not lose the lands to the Ottomans you dimwit.  Shows what ignorant ass you are.  The Christians and Muslims claimed ownership of Palestine by being the indigenous people, the overwhelming majority (before subsequent  invasions) and by owning almost all the land in Palestine, over 85% of it.

Furthermore, the UN itself was in breach of International law when it breached Articles 55 and 73 of the Charter of the U.N. when it did not respect the racial (ethnic) and religious rights of the Christians and Muslims forcing them to submit to Jewish European rule.  

*Article 55 *
"With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:


higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation; and
universal respect for, and observance of, *human rights and fundamental freedoms for all *without distinction as to race, sex, language, or *religion.*
*Article 73*
*Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount*, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:


*to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;"*
*Obviously the UN did not force the UK  (as it should have by the Charter) "to promote the well-being of of the Inhabitants (Christian and Muslim. ed.) or  "to ensure with due respect for culture" of the Christian and Muslim Arabs"
*
Charter of the United Nations Chapter XI Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As if the "right of discovery" has anything to do with reality.  Only the looney brained believe that the Incas were somehow "discovered".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And just the same with the islamonazi right by previous conquest is now no longer seen as valid, and so they try to re- conquer the lands they lost.    Dar al Harb  is how you see the world outside of islamonazi influence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the land was lost by the Christians to the Muslims.  What do European Jews have to do with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ottoman muslims, not arab muslims. The later lost the claim to the land in 1099 and have not managed to reclaim it since. The Ottoman muslims lost the land to the LoN who gave the land to the worlds Jews, and in the process made it International law. So the arab muslims are actually in breach of International law AGAIN by claiming ownership of the land, and trying to use recent laws to overturn International law retrospectively.
> 
> So by what law are the arab muslims claiming ownership of Palestine over the Jewish rights under International law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the Christians did not lose the lands to the Ottomans you dimwit.  Shows what ignorant ass you are.  The Christians and Muslims claimed ownership of Palestine by being the indigenous people, the overwhelming majority (before subsequent  invasions) and by owning almost all the land in Palestine, over 85% of it.
> 
> Furthermore, the UN itself was in breach of International law when it breached Articles 55 and 73 of the Charter of the U.N. when it did not respect the racial (ethnic) and religious rights of the Christians and Muslims forcing them to submit to Jewish European rule.
> 
> *Article 55 *
> "With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
> 
> 
> higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
> solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation; and
> universal respect for, and observance of, *human rights and fundamental freedoms for all *without distinction as to race, sex, language, or *religion.*
> *Article 73*
> *Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount*, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:
> 
> 
> *to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;"*
> *Obviously the UN did not force the UK  (as it should have by the Charter) "to promote the well-being of of the Inhabitants (Christian and Muslim. ed.) or  "to ensure with due respect for culture" of the Christian and Muslim Arabs"
> *
> Charter of the United Nations Chapter XI Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories
Click to expand...


OMG, how do ya like that?  Muslims were "indigenous" people in Palestine.  And here I truly believed there were no Muslims at all anywhere until after the 7th century AD.  So you see, there were no people in the land until after the 7th century AD.  Amazing what we can learn from the wisdom of Monte.


----------



## montelatici

Of course the Muslims (and Christians) living in Palestine are the indigenous people of Palestine.  What does religion have to do with who is indigenous.  Just because many Native Americans may be Christians today, it doesn't make them any less indigenous you moron.  But, you are good for laughs, your ignorance is entertaining.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You are close, but not correct --- not at all --- especially as it pertains to the Palestine Territory.



P F Tinmore said:


> International borders are defined by treaties as Palestine's were.
> 
> They can only be changed be a treaty with Palestine.
> 
> Control is a defining factor of occupation.


*(REFRESH REFERENCE)*

Post #489, Free-Palestine Thread (MAR 25)

*(COMMENT)*

Once again,* in 1923* --- before there were the States of Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, the British/French Boundary Commission _(Under the Leadership of: French Lieutenant Colonel N. Paulet and British Lieutenant Colonel __S. F. Newcombe__) _set the Northern Boundary between the French Mandate and the British Mandate; essentially a fixed the line of the Syrian-Palestinian border _(now the Syrian-Israeli border)_ between the Mediterranean Sea and the town of el-Hamma. The Eastern Boundary was the final demarcation of the Mandate for Mesopotamia (Iraq)_(between British Mandate and Occupied territory)_, and the Southern Boundary was established by a previous 1906 British-Ottoman Agreement.

In general, the Territory to which the Mandate applied in 1922/23 is expressed as; "the south it is bounded by Egyptian and Saudi Arabian territory, on the east by Trans-Jordan, on the north by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and the Lebanon, and on the west by the Mediterranean."

A border or international boundary, and other Line of Demarcation can be established in a number of different ways.  The 1922/23 Northern Boundary for the Mandate of Palestine was established by and recorded as Diplomatic Note signed by LTC Newcombe:  

No. 565. — EXCHANGE OF NOTES * CONSTITUTING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BRITISH AND FRENCH GOVERNMENTS RESPECTING THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN SYRIA AND PALESTINE FROM THE MEDITERRANEAN TO EL HAMMÉ. PARIS MARCH 7, 1923.​
There have of course, been a number of additional agreements that have altered these arrangements; but at the time --- this is how it was done.  In contemporary times --- the borders between the States of Israel with Egypt and with Jordan have now been formalized by Treaties treaties.  For political reasons Lebanon the 1949 Armistice Agreement. The border with Syria is still not settled. The border between Israel and thePalestinian territories is also still to be negotiated.

You will note that the Agreements are between Allied Powers, as the Ottoman Empire surrendered to the Allied Powers the sovereignty of this territory under such boundaries as may be decided by the Allies.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Of course the Muslims (and Christians) living in Palestine are the indigenous people of Palestine.  What does religion have to do with who is indigenous.  Just because many Native Americans may be Christians today, it doesn't make them any less indigenous you moron.  But, you are good for laughs, your ignorance is entertaining.



But but Monte.  If as you say religion doesn't matter than who was the imbecile who stated "Muslims (and Christians) living in Palestine are the indigenous people of Palestine"?  And when did the Jews first arrive in the land to steal it from the indigenous Palestinians?


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> So who were the legal land owners at the time the Jews migrated to Palestine and had the legal right under International law at the time to give the land to anyone they so wished ?



The owners of the land were the indigenous Christian,Muslim and Jewish Arab home owners and land owners (a very small minority of indigenous Arab Jews lived in Palestine too). Just as this 1896 documentary confirms.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the Muslims (and Christians) living in Palestine are the indigenous people of Palestine.  What does religion have to do with who is indigenous.  Just because many Native Americans may be Christians today, it doesn't make them any less indigenous you moron.  But, you are good for laughs, your ignorance is entertaining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But but Monte.  If as you say religion doesn't matter than who was the imbecile who stated "Muslims (and Christians) living in Palestine are the indigenous people of Palestine"?  And when did the Jews first arrive in the land to steal it from the indigenous Palestinians?
Click to expand...


To differentiate them from the European colonists who were Jewish.  The European Jews began their invasion/colonization in the mid-late 1800s.  This film shows Palestine about 40 years into the European colonization, as stated, the vast majority of the people (over 95%) were the indigenous Arabs in 1896.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As if the "right of discovery" has anything to do with reality.  Only the looney brained believe that the Incas were somehow "discovered".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And just the same with the islamonazi right by previous conquest is now no longer seen as valid, and so they try to re- conquer the lands they lost.    Dar al Harb  is how you see the world outside of islamonazi influence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the land was lost by the Christians to the Muslims.  What do European Jews have to do with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ottoman muslims, not arab muslims. The later lost the claim to the land in 1099 and have not managed to reclaim it since. The Ottoman muslims lost the land to the LoN who gave the land to the worlds Jews, and in the process made it International law. So the arab muslims are actually in breach of International law AGAIN by claiming ownership of the land, and trying to use recent laws to overturn International law retrospectively.
> 
> So by what law are the arab muslims claiming ownership of Palestine over the Jewish rights under International law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the Christians did not lose the lands to the Ottomans you dimwit.  Shows what ignorant ass you are.  The Christians and Muslims claimed ownership of Palestine by being the indigenous people, the overwhelming majority (before subsequent  invasions) and by owning almost all the land in Palestine, over 85% of it.
> 
> Furthermore, the UN itself was in breach of International law when it breached Articles 55 and 73 of the Charter of the U.N. when it did not respect the racial (ethnic) and religious rights of the Christians and Muslims forcing them to submit to Jewish European rule.
> 
> *Article 55 *
> "With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
> 
> 
> higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
> solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation; and
> universal respect for, and observance of, *human rights and fundamental freedoms for all *without distinction as to race, sex, language, or *religion.*
> *Article 73*
> *Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount*, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:
> 
> 
> *to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;"*
> *Obviously the UN did not force the UK  (as it should have by the Charter) "to promote the well-being of of the Inhabitants (Christian and Muslim. ed.) or  "to ensure with due respect for culture" of the Christian and Muslim Arabs"
> *
> Charter of the United Nations Chapter XI Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories
Click to expand...






 Keep trying Abdul one day you might get it right, and the Jews and Christiains were always persecuted by the Muslims

 The UN was not even formed when the LoN ( not the UK or Britain ) created the space for the National home of the Jews on just 2% of the land after giving 98% to the arab muslims.

Arab muslims were driven out in 1099 leaving the Christians and the Jews in Palestine, then the Ottomans took over after beating the Crusaders. The arab muslims had no control of the land since 1099 and in 1917 the Ottomans lost control.

The UN charter did not exist in 1922 when the treaty giving the land to the worlds Jews was ratified and signed, so you can retrospectively bring it into force. Nor can a UN resolution breach International law so you can forget the UN charter until the arab muslims decide to abide by it.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Of course the Muslims (and Christians) living in Palestine are the indigenous people of Palestine.  What does religion have to do with who is indigenous.  Just because many Native Americans may be Christians today, it doesn't make them any less indigenous you moron.  But, you are good for laughs, your ignorance is entertaining.






 A lot when the term was not coined until 627 C.E.   So the muslims are the recent arrivals after the Christians, who arrived after the Jews who had already been there for 2,500 years. So Christians arrived in the 4C, muslims in the 7C and ottomans in the 11C.  So you see the demographics of the area show that the Jews have the greater claim by longevity, followed by the Christians and the last in the line is the arab muslims. So just because you HATE THE JEWS THAT MUCH THAT YOU WANT THEM WIPING FROM THE PAGES OF HISTORY DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY ARE INDIGENOUS TO THE AREA IRRESPECTIVE OF HOW MANY OR HOW FEW OF THEM LIVED IN THE PLACE. THEY WERE THE LANDS LEGAL OWNERS FROM 1922 AND NOT THE ARAB MUSLIMS OR THE CHRISTIANS. IT IS YOU THAT IS DELIBERATELY IGNORANT OF THE FACTS BECAUSE OF YOUR ISLAMONAZI BRAINWASHING


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As if the "right of discovery" has anything to do with reality.  Only the looney brained believe that the Incas were somehow "discovered".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And just the same with the islamonazi right by previous conquest is now no longer seen as valid, and so they try to re- conquer the lands they lost.    Dar al Harb  is how you see the world outside of islamonazi influence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the land was lost by the Christians to the Muslims.  What do European Jews have to do with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ottoman muslims, not arab muslims. The later lost the claim to the land in 1099 and have not managed to reclaim it since. The Ottoman muslims lost the land to the LoN who gave the land to the worlds Jews, and in the process made it International law. So the arab muslims are actually in breach of International law AGAIN by claiming ownership of the land, and trying to use recent laws to overturn International law retrospectively.
> 
> So by what law are the arab muslims claiming ownership of Palestine over the Jewish rights under International law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the Christians did not lose the lands to the Ottomans you dimwit.  Shows what ignorant ass you are.  The Christians and Muslims claimed ownership of Palestine by being the indigenous people, the overwhelming majority (before subsequent  invasions) and by owning almost all the land in Palestine, over 85% of it.
> 
> Furthermore, the UN itself was in breach of International law when it breached Articles 55 and 73 of the Charter of the U.N. when it did not respect the racial (ethnic) and religious rights of the Christians and Muslims forcing them to submit to Jewish European rule.
> 
> *Article 55 *
> "With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
> 
> 
> higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
> solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation; and
> universal respect for, and observance of, *human rights and fundamental freedoms for all *without distinction as to race, sex, language, or *religion.*
> *Article 73*
> *Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount*, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:
> 
> 
> *to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;"*
> *Obviously the UN did not force the UK  (as it should have by the Charter) "to promote the well-being of of the Inhabitants (Christian and Muslim. ed.) or  "to ensure with due respect for culture" of the Christian and Muslim Arabs"
> *
> Charter of the United Nations Chapter XI Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep trying Abdul one day you might get it right, and the Jews and Christiains were always persecuted by the Muslims
> 
> The UN was not even formed when the LoN ( not the UK or Britain ) created the space for the National home of the Jews on just 2% of the land after giving 98% to the arab muslims.
> 
> Arab muslims were driven out in 1099 leaving the Christians and the Jews in Palestine, then the Ottomans took over after beating the Crusaders. The arab muslims had no control of the land since 1099 and in 1917 the Ottomans lost control.
> 
> The UN charter did not exist in 1922 when the treaty giving the land to the worlds Jews was ratified and signed, so you can retrospectively bring it into force. Nor can a UN resolution breach International law so you can forget the UN charter until the arab muslims decide to abide by it.
Click to expand...



The Treaty in 1922 specifically did not give land to the Jews to create a separate state, as the British reinforced this fact in a subsequent letter to the Zionist Organization.  So please cut the bullshit.




*The Colonial Office to the Zionist Organisation.*

DOWNING STREET,
3rd _June, _1922.


"The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned, are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917. *Unauthorised statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." *His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab Delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that *such a Home should be founded *_*in Palestine...................*it has been observed with satisfaction that at the meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organisation, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of the peoples an undisturbed national development."

It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organisation in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the Organisation may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its Government.

*Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status."

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922 *_

_*
*_


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the Muslims (and Christians) living in Palestine are the indigenous people of Palestine.  What does religion have to do with who is indigenous.  Just because many Native Americans may be Christians today, it doesn't make them any less indigenous you moron.  But, you are good for laughs, your ignorance is entertaining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot when the term was not coined until 627 C.E.   So the muslims are the recent arrivals after the Christians, who arrived after the Jews who had already been there for 2,500 years. So Christians arrived in the 4C, muslims in the 7C and ottomans in the 11C.  So you see the demographics of the area show that the Jews have the greater claim by longevity, followed by the Christians and the last in the line is the arab muslims. So just because you HATE THE JEWS THAT MUCH THAT YOU WANT THEM WIPING FROM THE PAGES OF HISTORY DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY ARE INDIGENOUS TO THE AREA IRRESPECTIVE OF HOW MANY OR HOW FEW OF THEM LIVED IN THE PLACE. THEY WERE THE LANDS LEGAL OWNERS FROM 1922 AND NOT THE ARAB MUSLIMS OR THE CHRISTIANS. IT IS YOU THAT IS DELIBERATELY IGNORANT OF THE FACTS BECAUSE OF YOUR ISLAMONAZI BRAINWASHING
Click to expand...


People change religions all the time moron.  The only brainwashing is your ZioNazi propaganda schooling.  The demographics of the area demonstrate that there were only a handful of Jews in Palestine prior to 1850.  Europeans do not have a greater claim to a place on another continent, regardless of religion you dope.  Jews were not the legal owners from 1922 you ignorant bullshitter, the British made that perfectly in a letter to the Zionist Organization that had been trying to make the same claim you are making.  

Let's read the letter again knucklehead:



*The Colonial Office to the Zionist Organisation.*

DOWNING STREET,
3rd _June, _1922.


"The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned, are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917. *Unauthorised statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." *His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab Delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that *such a Home should be founded *_*in Palestine...................*it has been observed with satisfaction that at the meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organisation, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of the peoples an undisturbed national development."

It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organisation in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the Organisation may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its Government.

*Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status."

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922 *_


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who were the legal land owners at the time the Jews migrated to Palestine and had the legal right under International law at the time to give the land to anyone they so wished ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The owners of the land were the indigenous Christian,Muslim and Jewish Arab home owners and land owners (a very small minority of indigenous Arab Jews lived in Palestine too). Just as this 1896 documentary confirms.
Click to expand...




 Proves no such thing, but the Ottoman census does prove that the Jews outnumbered the arab muslims and Christians in Palestine. Here are the figures for Jerusalem alone


CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Jerusalem After 1291 

"...Present condition of the City: (1907 edition)

Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. The total population is estimated at 66,000. *The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures:
Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000;* Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the Nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly Half the present population...""

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Growth of Jerusalem 1838-Present

....... Jews Muslims Christians Total
1838 6,000 5,000 3,000 14,000
*1844 7,120 5,760 3,390 16,270 ..... ..The First Official Ottoman Census *
1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030 .... .....Second """"""""""
1905 40,000 8,000 10,900 58,900 ....... Third/last, detailed in CathEncyc above
1948 99,320 36,680 31,300 167,300
1990 353,200 124,200 14,000 491,400
1992 385,000 150,000 15,000 550,000

http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm


Nearly 6 times the numbers of Jews to arab muslims

 So the numbers you produce must include ILLEGAL ARAB MUSLIM IMMIGRANTS
 And even in 1948 before the expulsion of indigenous Jews from Palestine there were 3 times as many Jews as there was  arab muslims.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the Muslims (and Christians) living in Palestine are the indigenous people of Palestine.  What does religion have to do with who is indigenous.  Just because many Native Americans may be Christians today, it doesn't make them any less indigenous you moron.  But, you are good for laughs, your ignorance is entertaining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But but Monte.  If as you say religion doesn't matter than who was the imbecile who stated "Muslims (and Christians) living in Palestine are the indigenous people of Palestine"?  And when did the Jews first arrive in the land to steal it from the indigenous Palestinians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To differentiate them from the European colonists who were Jewish.  The European Jews began their invasion/colonization in the mid-late 1800s.  This film shows Palestine about 40 years into the European colonization, as stated, the vast majority of the people (over 95%) were the indigenous Arabs in 1896.
Click to expand...





 Not according to the official Ottoman census


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> So who were the legal land owners at the time the Jews migrated to Palestine and had the legal right under International law at the time to give the land to anyone they so wished ?


The mandate system was a compromise between the Allies’ wish to retain the former German and Turkish colonies and their pre-Armistice declaration (November 5, 1918) *that annexation of territory was not their aim in the war. *The mandates were divided into three groups on the basis of their location and their level of political and economic development and were then assigned to individual Allied victors (mandatory powers, or mandatories). Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. These territories were considered sufficiently advanced that their provisional independence was recognized, though they were still subject to* Allied administrative control until they were fully able to stand alone.*

mandate League of Nations Encyclopedia Britannica


Following WWI, the League of Nations established a system of "Mandates." In theory, the Mandate system had the benevolent intention of *preparing the "natives" of various regions for self government.*

The League of Nations Mandate Provision​
The League of Nations Covenant regularly mention the people. That the inhabitants would be the beneficiaries of the actions of the Mandates and that they would stand alone as independent states.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just the same with the islamonazi right by previous conquest is now no longer seen as valid, and so they try to re- conquer the lands they lost.    Dar al Harb  is how you see the world outside of islamonazi influence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the land was lost by the Christians to the Muslims.  What do European Jews have to do with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ottoman muslims, not arab muslims. The later lost the claim to the land in 1099 and have not managed to reclaim it since. The Ottoman muslims lost the land to the LoN who gave the land to the worlds Jews, and in the process made it International law. So the arab muslims are actually in breach of International law AGAIN by claiming ownership of the land, and trying to use recent laws to overturn International law retrospectively.
> 
> So by what law are the arab muslims claiming ownership of Palestine over the Jewish rights under International law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the Christians did not lose the lands to the Ottomans you dimwit.  Shows what ignorant ass you are.  The Christians and Muslims claimed ownership of Palestine by being the indigenous people, the overwhelming majority (before subsequent  invasions) and by owning almost all the land in Palestine, over 85% of it.
> 
> Furthermore, the UN itself was in breach of International law when it breached Articles 55 and 73 of the Charter of the U.N. when it did not respect the racial (ethnic) and religious rights of the Christians and Muslims forcing them to submit to Jewish European rule.
> 
> *Article 55 *
> "With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
> 
> 
> higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
> solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation; and
> universal respect for, and observance of, *human rights and fundamental freedoms for all *without distinction as to race, sex, language, or *religion.*
> *Article 73*
> *Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount*, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:
> 
> 
> *to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;"*
> *Obviously the UN did not force the UK  (as it should have by the Charter) "to promote the well-being of of the Inhabitants (Christian and Muslim. ed.) or  "to ensure with due respect for culture" of the Christian and Muslim Arabs"
> *
> Charter of the United Nations Chapter XI Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep trying Abdul one day you might get it right, and the Jews and Christiains were always persecuted by the Muslims
> 
> The UN was not even formed when the LoN ( not the UK or Britain ) created the space for the National home of the Jews on just 2% of the land after giving 98% to the arab muslims.
> 
> Arab muslims were driven out in 1099 leaving the Christians and the Jews in Palestine, then the Ottomans took over after beating the Crusaders. The arab muslims had no control of the land since 1099 and in 1917 the Ottomans lost control.
> 
> The UN charter did not exist in 1922 when the treaty giving the land to the worlds Jews was ratified and signed, so you can retrospectively bring it into force. Nor can a UN resolution breach International law so you can forget the UN charter until the arab muslims decide to abide by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Treaty in 1922 specifically did not give land to the Jews to create a separate state, as the British reinforced this fact in a subsequent letter to the Zionist Organization.  So please cut the bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Colonial Office to the Zionist Organisation.*
> 
> DOWNING STREET,
> 3rd _June, _1922.
> 
> 
> "The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned, are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917. *Unauthorised statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." *His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab Delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that *such a Home should be founded *_*in Palestine...................*it has been observed with satisfaction that at the meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organisation, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of the peoples an undisturbed national development."
> 
> It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organisation in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the Organisation may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its Government.
> 
> *Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status."
> 
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922 *_
Click to expand...





 Not an official document that went into law, it was never acted on and so is worthless as evidence of anything.

 The Mandate for Palestine set in stone and International law the following

 Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers,* in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country*; and Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country


_Article 1_
 The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate.

_Article 2_
* The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble,* and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

_Article 3_
 The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy.

_Article 4_
* An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country.
*
 The Zionist Organisation, so long as its organisation and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

_Article 5_
 The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power.

_Article 6_
* The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.*

_ Article 7_
* The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.*


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who were the legal land owners at the time the Jews migrated to Palestine and had the legal right under International law at the time to give the land to anyone they so wished ?
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate system was a compromise between the Allies’ wish to retain the former German and Turkish colonies and their pre-Armistice declaration (November 5, 1918) *that annexation of territory was not their aim in the war. *The mandates were divided into three groups on the basis of their location and their level of political and economic development and were then assigned to individual Allied victors (mandatory powers, or mandatories). Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. These territories were considered sufficiently advanced that their provisional independence was recognized, though they were still subject to* Allied administrative control until they were fully able to stand alone.*
> 
> mandate League of Nations Encyclopedia Britannica
> 
> 
> Following WWI, the League of Nations established a system of "Mandates." In theory, the Mandate system had the benevolent intention of *preparing the "natives" of various regions for self government.*
> 
> The League of Nations Mandate Provision​
> The League of Nations Covenant regularly mention the people. That the inhabitants would be the beneficiaries of the actions of the Mandates and that they would stand alone as independent states.
Click to expand...






 And were was this not in evidence ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?







 WHATS WRONG AFRAID TO ANSWER A DIRECT QUESTION ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHATS WRONG AFRAID TO ANSWER A DIRECT QUESTION ?
Click to expand...

What is "this?" Your question was unclear.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You just cut'n'pasted excerpts from a (very poorly written) Encyclopedia Britannica entry.  And this does not answer the question. 



P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who were the legal land owners at the time the Jews migrated to Palestine and had the legal right under International law at the time to give the land to anyone they so wished ?
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate system was a compromise between the Allies’ wish to retain the former German and Turkish colonies and their pre-Armistice declaration (November 5, 1918) *that annexation of territory was not their aim in the war. *The mandates were divided into three groups on the basis of their location and their level of political and economic development and were then assigned to individual Allied victors (mandatory powers, or mandatories). Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. These territories were considered sufficiently advanced that their provisional independence was recognized, though they were still subject to* Allied administrative control until they were fully able to stand alone.*
> 
> mandate League of Nations Encyclopedia Britannica
> 
> 
> Following WWI, the League of Nations established a system of "Mandates." In theory, the Mandate system had the benevolent intention of *preparing the "natives" of various regions for self government.*
> 
> The League of Nations Mandate Provision​
> The League of Nations Covenant regularly mention the people. That the inhabitants would be the beneficiaries of the actions of the Mandates and that they would stand alone as independent states.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

But as the Encyclopedia Britannica entry says:  "Iraq and Palestine (including modernJordan and Israel) were assigned to Great Britain, while Turkish-ruled Syria and Lebanon went to France."

*(TO THE QUESTION) * =  So who were the legal land owners at the time the Jews migrated to Palestine and had the legal right under International law at the time to give the land to anyone they so wished ?

"Who were the legal land owners?"
ANSWER:  The indigenous population.

"Who had the legal right under International law?"
ANSWER:  The legal sovereign authority --- the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey (successor government to the Ottoman) relinquished their authority in favor of the Allied Powers; first by Armitice/Treaty and then two successive Treaties. 

The Ottoman/Turkish Empire maintained the sovereignty of the region until it surrendered that authority (in two parts) to the Allied Powers:  *(From your source!)*

FIRST:  _Encyclopedia Britannica Entry Link_

*Armistice of Mudros,* (*Oct. 30, 1918*), pact signed at the port of Mudros, _(abroad the HMS Agamemnon)_ on the Aegean island of Lemnos, between the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain (representing the Allied powers) marking the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I (1914–18).

Under the terms of the armistice, the* Ottomans surrendered their remaining garrisons* in Hejaz, Yemen, *Syria,* Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica; the Allies were to occupy the Straits of the Dardanelles and the Bosporus, Batum (now in southwest Georgia), and the Taurus tunnel system; and the Allies won the right to occupy “in case of disorder” the six Armenian provinces in Anatolia and to seize “any strategic points” in case of a threat to Allied security. The Ottoman army was demobilized, and Turkish ports, railways, and other strategic points were made available for use by the Allies.​
SECOND:

*Treaty of Sèvres,* (*Aug. 10, 1920*), post-World War I pact between the victorious Allied powers and representatives of the government of Ottoman Turkey. The treaty* abolished the Ottoman Empire and obliged Turkey to renounce all rights over Arab Asia and North Africa*. The pact also provided for an independent Armenia, for an autonomous Kurdistan, and for a Greek presence in eastern Thrace and on the Anatolian west coast, as well as Greek control over the Aegean islands commanding the Dardanelles. Rejected by the new Turkish nationalist regime, the Treaty of Sèvres was replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.

*Treaty of Lausanne,* (1923), final treaty concluding World War I. It was signed by representatives of Turkey (successor to the Ottoman Empire) on one side and by Britain,France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (Yugoslavia) on the other. The treaty was signed at Lausanne, Switz., on July 24, 1923, after a seven-month conference.

The treaty recognized the boundaries of the modern state of Turkey. Turkey made no claim to its former Arab provinces and recognized Cyprus and Italian possession of the Dodecanese. The Allies dropped their demands of autonomy for Turkish Kurdistan and Turkish cession of territory to Armenia, abandoned claims to spheres of influence in Turkey, and imposed no controls over Turkey’s finances or armed forces. The Turkish straits between the Aegean Sea and the Black Sea were declared open to all shipping.

*ARTICLE 16*.  Treaty of Lausanne *JULY 24, 1923*

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

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighborly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​Without regard to what you've been told, this sequence of events sets the legitimate authority and control of the region in the hands of the Allied Powers; and NOT in the hands of any particular group of Arab Land owners.  Land ownership, as the question implies, has no impact on at all on territorial sovereignty.  

Once the Class "A" Mandate instruments were in place, the associated Mandatories became the government for the territory.  Representatives of the victorious Allies in World War I meet in San Remo, Italy from April 19-26, 1920.  The focus of the conference is the future status of former Ottoman Empire territories in the Middle East.   The same day that the resolution is passed (*Conference of San Remo*), British Prime Minister David Lloyd George asks Samuel to become the first High Commissioner of Palestine.  Samuel will govern as Britain’s highest official in Palestine until 1925.

It should be noted that between 1920 and 1923, the High Commissioner of Palestine attempted to entice the indigenous Arab into the self-government process.   

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

“The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”​In practice it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHATS WRONG AFRAID TO ANSWER A DIRECT QUESTION ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is "this?" Your question was unclear.
Click to expand...





 Not really as you constantly ignore questions and try and derail threads


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You just cut'n'pasted excerpts from a (very poorly written) Encyclopedia Britannica entry.  And this does not answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who were the legal land owners at the time the Jews migrated to Palestine and had the legal right under International law at the time to give the land to anyone they so wished ?
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate system was a compromise between the Allies’ wish to retain the former German and Turkish colonies and their pre-Armistice declaration (November 5, 1918) *that annexation of territory was not their aim in the war. *The mandates were divided into three groups on the basis of their location and their level of political and economic development and were then assigned to individual Allied victors (mandatory powers, or mandatories). Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. These territories were considered sufficiently advanced that their provisional independence was recognized, though they were still subject to* Allied administrative control until they were fully able to stand alone.*
> 
> mandate League of Nations Encyclopedia Britannica
> 
> 
> Following WWI, the League of Nations established a system of "Mandates." In theory, the Mandate system had the benevolent intention of *preparing the "natives" of various regions for self government.*
> 
> The League of Nations Mandate Provision​
> The League of Nations Covenant regularly mention the people. That the inhabitants would be the beneficiaries of the actions of the Mandates and that they would stand alone as independent states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> But as the Encyclopedia Britannica entry says:  "Iraq and Palestine (including modernJordan and Israel) were assigned to Great Britain, while Turkish-ruled Syria and Lebanon went to France."
> 
> *(TO THE QUESTION) * =  So who were the legal land owners at the time the Jews migrated to Palestine and had the legal right under International law at the time to give the land to anyone they so wished ?
> 
> "Who were the legal land owners?"
> ANSWER:  The indigenous population.
> 
> "Who had the legal right under International law?"
> ANSWER:  The legal sovereign authority --- the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey (successor government to the Ottoman) relinquished their authority in favor of the Allied Powers; first by Armitice/Treaty and then two successive Treaties.
> 
> The Ottoman/Turkish Empire maintained the sovereignty of the region until it surrendered that authority (in two parts) to the Allied Powers:  *(From your source!)*
> 
> FIRST:  _Encyclopedia Britannica Entry Link_
> 
> *Armistice of Mudros,* (*Oct. 30, 1918*), pact signed at the port of Mudros, _(abroad the HMS Agamemnon)_ on the Aegean island of Lemnos, between the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain (representing the Allied powers) marking the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I (1914–18).
> 
> Under the terms of the armistice, the* Ottomans surrendered their remaining garrisons* in Hejaz, Yemen, *Syria,* Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica; the Allies were to occupy the Straits of the Dardanelles and the Bosporus, Batum (now in southwest Georgia), and the Taurus tunnel system; and the Allies won the right to occupy “in case of disorder” the six Armenian provinces in Anatolia and to seize “any strategic points” in case of a threat to Allied security. The Ottoman army was demobilized, and Turkish ports, railways, and other strategic points were made available for use by the Allies.​
> SECOND:
> 
> *Treaty of Sèvres,* (*Aug. 10, 1920*), post-World War I pact between the victorious Allied powers and representatives of the government of Ottoman Turkey. The treaty* abolished the Ottoman Empire and obliged Turkey to renounce all rights over Arab Asia and North Africa*. The pact also provided for an independent Armenia, for an autonomous Kurdistan, and for a Greek presence in eastern Thrace and on the Anatolian west coast, as well as Greek control over the Aegean islands commanding the Dardanelles. Rejected by the new Turkish nationalist regime, the Treaty of Sèvres was replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.
> 
> *Treaty of Lausanne,* (1923), final treaty concluding World War I. It was signed by representatives of Turkey (successor to the Ottoman Empire) on one side and by Britain,France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (Yugoslavia) on the other. The treaty was signed at Lausanne, Switz., on July 24, 1923, after a seven-month conference.
> 
> The treaty recognized the boundaries of the modern state of Turkey. Turkey made no claim to its former Arab provinces and recognized Cyprus and Italian possession of the Dodecanese. The Allies dropped their demands of autonomy for Turkish Kurdistan and Turkish cession of territory to Armenia, abandoned claims to spheres of influence in Turkey, and imposed no controls over Turkey’s finances or armed forces. The Turkish straits between the Aegean Sea and the Black Sea were declared open to all shipping.
> 
> *ARTICLE 16*.  Treaty of Lausanne *JULY 24, 1923*
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
> 
> The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighborly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​Without regard to what you've been told, this sequence of events sets the legitimate authority and control of the region in the hands of the Allied Powers; and NOT in the hands of any particular group of Arab Land owners.  Land ownership, as the question implies, has no impact on at all on territorial sovereignty.
> 
> Once the Class "A" Mandate instruments were in place, the associated Mandatories became the government for the territory.  Representatives of the victorious Allies in World War I meet in San Remo, Italy from April 19-26, 1920.  The focus of the conference is the future status of former Ottoman Empire territories in the Middle East.   The same day that the resolution is passed (*Conference of San Remo*), British Prime Minister David Lloyd George asks Samuel to become the first High Commissioner of Palestine.  Samuel will govern as Britain’s highest official in Palestine until 1925.
> 
> It should be noted that between 1920 and 1923, the High Commissioner of Palestine attempted to entice the indigenous Arab into the self-government process.
> 
> 22. Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.
> 
> “The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”​In practice it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


"It should be noted that between 1920 and 1923, the High Commissioner of Palestine attempted to entice the indigenous Arab into the self-government process."

*Absolute bullshit from a liar,* as proven in official correspondence between the Palestine Delegation and the Colonial Office (Churchill).  Where the Palestinians (Christian and Muslims) pleaded for the acceptance of a constitution and their independence to the British.  To wit:

*PALESTINE.*
CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE PALESTINE ARAB 
DELEGATION AND THE ZIONIST ORGANISATION.


No. 1.
*The Palestine Arab Delegation to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.*


HOTEL CECIL,
London, W.C.,
_February 21st, _1922.
Sir,
We wish to express our thanks to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for his courtesy in allowing us to see the draft of a proposed Palestine Order in Council embodying a scheme of Government for Palestine, and to discuss the same in our capacity of representatives of the Arab People of Palestine........"If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist _con-dominium, _put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere.* If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration....
For these reasons we find that no useful purpose would be served by discussing in detail the draft of "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

The Delegation requests that the constitution for Palestine should—




(1) Safeguard the civil, political and economic interests of the People.
(2) Provide for the creation of a national independent Government in accordance with the spirit of paragraph 4, Article 22, of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

(3) Safeguard the legal rights of foreigners.

(4) Guarantee religious equality to all peoples.

(5) Guarantee the rights of minorities.

(6) Guarantee the rights of the Assisting Power.



The British answer:

"—Mr. Churchill has already explained in paragraph 4 of this letter why His Majesty's Government are not prepared at the present stage to provide for the creation of a national independent Government in Palestine, ..."

So stop with your propagandizing bullshit Rocco.

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


*
*


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?




Who Are The Palestinians?

Take your pick.  Hamas terrorists or the PA terrorists?

Hamas blames Palestinian Authority for Gaza violence - Yahoo News


----------



## Challenger

toastman said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq, et al,
> 
> I see nothing above that substantiates your outlandish claim that:  "Israel is an Illegal State." --- Although I see this quite often from pro-Palestinian Activist.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is an ILLEGAL State,see comment above..........you are perpetuating and supporting this Illegal State........like most of your (Most Respectfully) comments,they mean nought,nothing,zilch......so STOP this erroneous commentary of yours......Resectfully or NOT
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS)*
> 
> PLAN OF PARTITION WITH ECONOMIC UNION --- PART I --- Future constitution and government of Palestine
> Section B --- STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE* --- Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly, dated 29 November 1947*
> PART II --- Boundaries --- Section A. - THE ARAB STATE Section B - THE JEWISH STATE
> 
> S/747 16 May 1948 Declaration of Independence
> S/1093 29 November 1948  Application for Admission to the UN
> S/RES/69 S/1277 4 March 1949  Favorable UN Security Council Recommendation
> A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949 General Assembly _Decides_ to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I fail to see the justification for your comment that "Israel is an ILLEGAL State."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an illegal state because it was created in direct violation of the will of the majority of the population of Palestine, and it's admission to the UN was based on Israel's adherance to two UN resolutions.
> 
> "_Recalling_ its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanationsmade by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the _ad hoc_ Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,"
> 
> Which it has failed to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BTW, you have zero evidence that shows Israel is illegal "it was created in direct violation of the will of the majority of the population of Palestine, and it's admission to the UN was based on Israel's adherance to two UN resolutions"
> 
> This is complete bullshit. You make up jibberish like this because of your hatred for Israel. If Israel was not allowed to become a country because of your stupid reasons, then the U.N would not have fully recognized Israel AND give her full UN membership.
Click to expand...


Sadly, the only one making up the bullshit here is Toastman who is terrified of the fact that the more and more people look into the circumstsnces of the birth of the "Zionist Paradise" the more problematic they see it is. The majority population of Palestine even in 1948 were Arabised Muslims and Christians, they were uniformly against any form of partition and refused to co-operate with proceedings they saw were illegal, based on the UN Charter.

This essay puts forward the facts of the case succinctly and clearly, 

"In sum, the popular claim that the U.N. “created” Israel is a myth, and Israel’s own claim in its founding document that U.N. Resolution 181 constituted legal authority for Israel’s creation, or otherwise constituted “recognition” by the U.N. of the “right” of the Zionist Jews to expropriate for themselves Arab land and deny to the majority Arab population of that land their own right to self-determination, is a patent fraud." 
The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel - Jeremy R. Hammond


----------



## MJB12741

Challenger said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq, et al,
> 
> I see nothing above that substantiates your outlandish claim that:  "Israel is an Illegal State." --- Although I see this quite often from pro-Palestinian Activist.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is an ILLEGAL State,see comment above..........you are perpetuating and supporting this Illegal State........like most of your (Most Respectfully) comments,they mean nought,nothing,zilch......so STOP this erroneous commentary of yours......Resectfully or NOT
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS)*
> 
> PLAN OF PARTITION WITH ECONOMIC UNION --- PART I --- Future constitution and government of Palestine
> Section B --- STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE* --- Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly, dated 29 November 1947*
> PART II --- Boundaries --- Section A. - THE ARAB STATE Section B - THE JEWISH STATE
> 
> S/747 16 May 1948 Declaration of Independence
> S/1093 29 November 1948  Application for Admission to the UN
> S/RES/69 S/1277 4 March 1949  Favorable UN Security Council Recommendation
> A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949 General Assembly _Decides_ to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I fail to see the justification for your comment that "Israel is an ILLEGAL State."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an illegal state because it was created in direct violation of the will of the majority of the population of Palestine, and it's admission to the UN was based on Israel's adherance to two UN resolutions.
> 
> "_Recalling_ its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanationsmade by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the _ad hoc_ Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,"
> 
> Which it has failed to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BTW, you have zero evidence that shows Israel is illegal "it was created in direct violation of the will of the majority of the population of Palestine, and it's admission to the UN was based on Israel's adherance to two UN resolutions"
> 
> This is complete bullshit. You make up jibberish like this because of your hatred for Israel. If Israel was not allowed to become a country because of your stupid reasons, then the U.N would not have fully recognized Israel AND give her full UN membership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly, the only one making up the bullshit here is Toastman who is terrified of the fact that the more and more people look into the circumstsnces of the birth of the "Zionist Paradise" the more problematic they see it is. The majority population of Palestine even in 1948 were Arabised Muslims and Christians, they were uniformly against any form of partition and refused to co-operate with proceedings they saw were illegal, based on the UN Charter.
> 
> This essay puts forward the facts of the case succinctly and clearly,
> 
> "In sum, the popular claim that the U.N. “created” Israel is a myth, and Israel’s own claim in its founding document that U.N. Resolution 181 constituted legal authority for Israel’s creation, or otherwise constituted “recognition” by the U.N. of the “right” of the Zionist Jews to expropriate for themselves Arab land and deny to the majority Arab population of that land their own right to self-determination, is a patent fraud."
> The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel - Jeremy R. Hammond
Click to expand...



When did Israel's land since antiquity become this "Arab land" you refer to?  Or do you believe there was no Israel until 1948?


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who were the legal land owners at the time the Jews migrated to Palestine and had the legal right under International law at the time to give the land to anyone they so wished ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The owners of the land were the indigenous Christian,Muslim and Jewish Arab home owners and land owners (a very small minority of indigenous Arab Jews lived in Palestine too). Just as this 1896 documentary confirms.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proves no such thing, but the Ottoman census does prove that the Jews outnumbered the arab muslims and Christians in Palestine. Here are the figures for Jerusalem alone
> 
> 
> CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Jerusalem After 1291
> 
> "...Present condition of the City: (1907 edition)
> 
> Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. The total population is estimated at 66,000. *The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures:
> Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000;* Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the Nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly Half the present population...""
> 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> 
> Growth of Jerusalem 1838-Present
> 
> ....... Jews Muslims Christians Total
> 1838 6,000 5,000 3,000 14,000
> *1844 7,120 5,760 3,390 16,270 ..... ..The First Official Ottoman Census *
> 1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030 .... .....Second """"""""""
> 1905 40,000 8,000 10,900 58,900 ....... Third/last, detailed in CathEncyc above
> 1948 99,320 36,680 31,300 167,300
> 1990 353,200 124,200 14,000 491,400
> 1992 385,000 150,000 15,000 550,000
> 
> http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm
> 
> 
> Nearly 6 times the numbers of Jews to arab muslims
> 
> So the numbers you produce must include ILLEGAL ARAB MUSLIM IMMIGRANTS
> And even in 1948 before the expulsion of indigenous Jews from Palestine there were 3 times as many Jews as there was  arab muslims.
Click to expand...


You are such an idiot. The population you are quoting is for Jerusalem alone. Not Palestine. LOL 

The official numbers for Palestine are as reported by the British.  The only illegal or legal immigrants were European Jews they represented 90% of the migrants.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You just cut'n'pasted excerpts from a (very poorly written) Encyclopedia Britannica entry.  And this does not answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who were the legal land owners at the time the Jews migrated to Palestine and had the legal right under International law at the time to give the land to anyone they so wished ?
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate system was a compromise between the Allies’ wish to retain the former German and Turkish colonies and their pre-Armistice declaration (November 5, 1918) *that annexation of territory was not their aim in the war. *The mandates were divided into three groups on the basis of their location and their level of political and economic development and were then assigned to individual Allied victors (mandatory powers, or mandatories). Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. These territories were considered sufficiently advanced that their provisional independence was recognized, though they were still subject to* Allied administrative control until they were fully able to stand alone.*
> 
> mandate League of Nations Encyclopedia Britannica
> 
> 
> Following WWI, the League of Nations established a system of "Mandates." In theory, the Mandate system had the benevolent intention of *preparing the "natives" of various regions for self government.*
> 
> The League of Nations Mandate Provision​
> The League of Nations Covenant regularly mention the people. That the inhabitants would be the beneficiaries of the actions of the Mandates and that they would stand alone as independent states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> But as the Encyclopedia Britannica entry says:  "Iraq and Palestine (including modernJordan and Israel) were assigned to Great Britain, while Turkish-ruled Syria and Lebanon went to France."
> 
> *(TO THE QUESTION) * =  So who were the legal land owners at the time the Jews migrated to Palestine and had the legal right under International law at the time to give the land to anyone they so wished ?
> 
> "Who were the legal land owners?"
> ANSWER:  The indigenous population.
> 
> "Who had the legal right under International law?"
> ANSWER:  The legal sovereign authority --- the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey (successor government to the Ottoman) relinquished their authority in favor of the Allied Powers; first by Armitice/Treaty and then two successive Treaties.
> 
> The Ottoman/Turkish Empire maintained the sovereignty of the region until it surrendered that authority (in two parts) to the Allied Powers:  *(From your source!)*
> 
> FIRST:  _Encyclopedia Britannica Entry Link_
> 
> *Armistice of Mudros,* (*Oct. 30, 1918*), pact signed at the port of Mudros, _(abroad the HMS Agamemnon)_ on the Aegean island of Lemnos, between the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain (representing the Allied powers) marking the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I (1914–18).
> 
> Under the terms of the armistice, the* Ottomans surrendered their remaining garrisons* in Hejaz, Yemen, *Syria,* Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica; the Allies were to occupy the Straits of the Dardanelles and the Bosporus, Batum (now in southwest Georgia), and the Taurus tunnel system; and the Allies won the right to occupy “in case of disorder” the six Armenian provinces in Anatolia and to seize “any strategic points” in case of a threat to Allied security. The Ottoman army was demobilized, and Turkish ports, railways, and other strategic points were made available for use by the Allies.​
> SECOND:
> 
> *Treaty of Sèvres,* (*Aug. 10, 1920*), post-World War I pact between the victorious Allied powers and representatives of the government of Ottoman Turkey. The treaty* abolished the Ottoman Empire and obliged Turkey to renounce all rights over Arab Asia and North Africa*. The pact also provided for an independent Armenia, for an autonomous Kurdistan, and for a Greek presence in eastern Thrace and on the Anatolian west coast, as well as Greek control over the Aegean islands commanding the Dardanelles. Rejected by the new Turkish nationalist regime, the Treaty of Sèvres was replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.
> 
> *Treaty of Lausanne,* (1923), final treaty concluding World War I. It was signed by representatives of Turkey (successor to the Ottoman Empire) on one side and by Britain,France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (Yugoslavia) on the other. The treaty was signed at Lausanne, Switz., on July 24, 1923, after a seven-month conference.
> 
> The treaty recognized the boundaries of the modern state of Turkey. Turkey made no claim to its former Arab provinces and recognized Cyprus and Italian possession of the Dodecanese. The Allies dropped their demands of autonomy for Turkish Kurdistan and Turkish cession of territory to Armenia, abandoned claims to spheres of influence in Turkey, and imposed no controls over Turkey’s finances or armed forces. The Turkish straits between the Aegean Sea and the Black Sea were declared open to all shipping.
> 
> *ARTICLE 16*.  Treaty of Lausanne *JULY 24, 1923*
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
> 
> The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighborly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​Without regard to what you've been told, this sequence of events sets the legitimate authority and control of the region in the hands of the Allied Powers; and NOT in the hands of any particular group of Arab Land owners.  Land ownership, as the question implies, has no impact on at all on territorial sovereignty.
> 
> Once the Class "A" Mandate instruments were in place, the associated Mandatories became the government for the territory.  Representatives of the victorious Allies in World War I meet in San Remo, Italy from April 19-26, 1920.  The focus of the conference is the future status of former Ottoman Empire territories in the Middle East.   The same day that the resolution is passed (*Conference of San Remo*), British Prime Minister David Lloyd George asks Samuel to become the first High Commissioner of Palestine.  Samuel will govern as Britain’s highest official in Palestine until 1925.
> 
> It should be noted that between 1920 and 1923, the High Commissioner of Palestine attempted to entice the indigenous Arab into the self-government process.
> 
> 22. Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.
> 
> “The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”​In practice it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Perhaps this will respond to your post better than a few simple soundbites.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the land was lost by the Christians to the Muslims.  What do European Jews have to do with it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ottoman muslims, not arab muslims. The later lost the claim to the land in 1099 and have not managed to reclaim it since. The Ottoman muslims lost the land to the LoN who gave the land to the worlds Jews, and in the process made it International law. So the arab muslims are actually in breach of International law AGAIN by claiming ownership of the land, and trying to use recent laws to overturn International law retrospectively.
> 
> So by what law are the arab muslims claiming ownership of Palestine over the Jewish rights under International law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the Christians did not lose the lands to the Ottomans you dimwit.  Shows what ignorant ass you are.  The Christians and Muslims claimed ownership of Palestine by being the indigenous people, the overwhelming majority (before subsequent  invasions) and by owning almost all the land in Palestine, over 85% of it.
> 
> Furthermore, the UN itself was in breach of International law when it breached Articles 55 and 73 of the Charter of the U.N. when it did not respect the racial (ethnic) and religious rights of the Christians and Muslims forcing them to submit to Jewish European rule.
> 
> *Article 55 *
> "With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
> 
> 
> higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
> solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation; and
> universal respect for, and observance of, *human rights and fundamental freedoms for all *without distinction as to race, sex, language, or *religion.*
> *Article 73*
> *Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount*, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:
> 
> 
> *to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;"*
> *Obviously the UN did not force the UK  (as it should have by the Charter) "to promote the well-being of of the Inhabitants (Christian and Muslim. ed.) or  "to ensure with due respect for culture" of the Christian and Muslim Arabs"
> *
> Charter of the United Nations Chapter XI Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep trying Abdul one day you might get it right, and the Jews and Christiains were always persecuted by the Muslims
> 
> The UN was not even formed when the LoN ( not the UK or Britain ) created the space for the National home of the Jews on just 2% of the land after giving 98% to the arab muslims.
> 
> Arab muslims were driven out in 1099 leaving the Christians and the Jews in Palestine, then the Ottomans took over after beating the Crusaders. The arab muslims had no control of the land since 1099 and in 1917 the Ottomans lost control.
> 
> The UN charter did not exist in 1922 when the treaty giving the land to the worlds Jews was ratified and signed, so you can retrospectively bring it into force. Nor can a UN resolution breach International law so you can forget the UN charter until the arab muslims decide to abide by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Treaty in 1922 specifically did not give land to the Jews to create a separate state, as the British reinforced this fact in a subsequent letter to the Zionist Organization.  So please cut the bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Colonial Office to the Zionist Organisation.*
> 
> DOWNING STREET,
> 3rd _June, _1922.
> 
> 
> "The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned, are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917. *Unauthorised statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." *His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab Delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that *such a Home should be founded *_*in Palestine...................*it has been observed with satisfaction that at the meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organisation, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of the peoples an undisturbed national development."
> 
> It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organisation in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the Organisation may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its Government.
> 
> *Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status."
> 
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922 *_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not an official document that went into law, it was never acted on and so is worthless as evidence of anything.
> 
> The Mandate for Palestine set in stone and International law the following
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers,* in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country*; and Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country
> 
> 
> _Article 1_
> The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate.
> 
> _Article 2_
> * The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble,* and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.
> 
> _Article 3_
> The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy.
> 
> _Article 4_
> * An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country.
> *
> The Zionist Organisation, so long as its organisation and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
> 
> _Article 5_
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power.
> 
> _Article 6_
> * The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.*
> 
> _ Article 7_
> * The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.*
Click to expand...


*No. 5.*




*The Colonial Office to the Zionist Organisation.*

*DOWNING STREET,*
*3rd June, 1922.*


*"Unauthorised statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab Delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded in Palestine"

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


*


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You just cut'n'pasted excerpts from a (very poorly written) Encyclopedia Britannica entry.  And this does not answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who were the legal land owners at the time the Jews migrated to Palestine and had the legal right under International law at the time to give the land to anyone they so wished ?
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate system was a compromise between the Allies’ wish to retain the former German and Turkish colonies and their pre-Armistice declaration (November 5, 1918) *that annexation of territory was not their aim in the war. *The mandates were divided into three groups on the basis of their location and their level of political and economic development and were then assigned to individual Allied victors (mandatory powers, or mandatories). Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. These territories were considered sufficiently advanced that their provisional independence was recognized, though they were still subject to* Allied administrative control until they were fully able to stand alone.*
> 
> mandate League of Nations Encyclopedia Britannica
> 
> 
> Following WWI, the League of Nations established a system of "Mandates." In theory, the Mandate system had the benevolent intention of *preparing the "natives" of various regions for self government.*
> 
> The League of Nations Mandate Provision​
> The League of Nations Covenant regularly mention the people. That the inhabitants would be the beneficiaries of the actions of the Mandates and that they would stand alone as independent states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> But as the Encyclopedia Britannica entry says:  "Iraq and Palestine (including modernJordan and Israel) were assigned to Great Britain, while Turkish-ruled Syria and Lebanon went to France."
> 
> *(TO THE QUESTION) * =  So who were the legal land owners at the time the Jews migrated to Palestine and had the legal right under International law at the time to give the land to anyone they so wished ?
> 
> "Who were the legal land owners?"
> ANSWER:  The indigenous population.
> 
> "Who had the legal right under International law?"
> ANSWER:  The legal sovereign authority --- the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey (successor government to the Ottoman) relinquished their authority in favor of the Allied Powers; first by Armitice/Treaty and then two successive Treaties.
> 
> The Ottoman/Turkish Empire maintained the sovereignty of the region until it surrendered that authority (in two parts) to the Allied Powers:  *(From your source!)*
> 
> FIRST:  _Encyclopedia Britannica Entry Link_
> 
> *Armistice of Mudros,* (*Oct. 30, 1918*), pact signed at the port of Mudros, _(abroad the HMS Agamemnon)_ on the Aegean island of Lemnos, between the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain (representing the Allied powers) marking the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I (1914–18).
> 
> Under the terms of the armistice, the* Ottomans surrendered their remaining garrisons* in Hejaz, Yemen, *Syria,* Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica; the Allies were to occupy the Straits of the Dardanelles and the Bosporus, Batum (now in southwest Georgia), and the Taurus tunnel system; and the Allies won the right to occupy “in case of disorder” the six Armenian provinces in Anatolia and to seize “any strategic points” in case of a threat to Allied security. The Ottoman army was demobilized, and Turkish ports, railways, and other strategic points were made available for use by the Allies.​
> SECOND:
> 
> *Treaty of Sèvres,* (*Aug. 10, 1920*), post-World War I pact between the victorious Allied powers and representatives of the government of Ottoman Turkey. The treaty* abolished the Ottoman Empire and obliged Turkey to renounce all rights over Arab Asia and North Africa*. The pact also provided for an independent Armenia, for an autonomous Kurdistan, and for a Greek presence in eastern Thrace and on the Anatolian west coast, as well as Greek control over the Aegean islands commanding the Dardanelles. Rejected by the new Turkish nationalist regime, the Treaty of Sèvres was replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.
> 
> *Treaty of Lausanne,* (1923), final treaty concluding World War I. It was signed by representatives of Turkey (successor to the Ottoman Empire) on one side and by Britain,France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (Yugoslavia) on the other. The treaty was signed at Lausanne, Switz., on July 24, 1923, after a seven-month conference.
> 
> The treaty recognized the boundaries of the modern state of Turkey. Turkey made no claim to its former Arab provinces and recognized Cyprus and Italian possession of the Dodecanese. The Allies dropped their demands of autonomy for Turkish Kurdistan and Turkish cession of territory to Armenia, abandoned claims to spheres of influence in Turkey, and imposed no controls over Turkey’s finances or armed forces. The Turkish straits between the Aegean Sea and the Black Sea were declared open to all shipping.
> 
> *ARTICLE 16*.  Treaty of Lausanne *JULY 24, 1923*
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
> 
> The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighborly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​Without regard to what you've been told, this sequence of events sets the legitimate authority and control of the region in the hands of the Allied Powers; and NOT in the hands of any particular group of Arab Land owners.  Land ownership, as the question implies, has no impact on at all on territorial sovereignty.
> 
> Once the Class "A" Mandate instruments were in place, the associated Mandatories became the government for the territory.  Representatives of the victorious Allies in World War I meet in San Remo, Italy from April 19-26, 1920.  The focus of the conference is the future status of former Ottoman Empire territories in the Middle East.   The same day that the resolution is passed (*Conference of San Remo*), British Prime Minister David Lloyd George asks Samuel to become the first High Commissioner of Palestine.  Samuel will govern as Britain’s highest official in Palestine until 1925.
> 
> It should be noted that between 1920 and 1923, the High Commissioner of Palestine attempted to entice the indigenous Arab into the self-government process.
> 
> 22. Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.
> 
> “The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”​In practice it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "It should be noted that between 1920 and 1923, the High Commissioner of Palestine attempted to entice the indigenous Arab into the self-government process."
> 
> *Absolute bullshit from a liar,* as proven in official correspondence between the Palestine Delegation and the Colonial Office (Churchill).  Where the Palestinians (Christian and Muslims) pleaded for the acceptance of a constitution and their independence to the British.  To wit:
> 
> *PALESTINE.*
> CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE PALESTINE ARAB
> DELEGATION AND THE ZIONIST ORGANISATION.
> 
> 
> No. 1.
> *The Palestine Arab Delegation to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.*
> 
> 
> HOTEL CECIL,
> London, W.C.,
> _February 21st, _1922.
> Sir,
> We wish to express our thanks to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for his courtesy in allowing us to see the draft of a proposed Palestine Order in Council embodying a scheme of Government for Palestine, and to discuss the same in our capacity of representatives of the Arab People of Palestine........"If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist _con-dominium, _put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere.* If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration....
> For these reasons we find that no useful purpose would be served by discussing in detail the draft of "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
> 
> The Delegation requests that the constitution for Palestine should—
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> (1) Safeguard the civil, political and economic interests of the People.
> (2) Provide for the creation of a national independent Government in accordance with the spirit of paragraph 4, Article 22, of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
> 
> (3) Safeguard the legal rights of foreigners.
> 
> (4) Guarantee religious equality to all peoples.
> 
> (5) Guarantee the rights of minorities.
> 
> (6) Guarantee the rights of the Assisting Power.
> *
> *
> The British answer:
> 
> "—Mr. Churchill has already explained in paragraph 4 of this letter why His Majesty's Government are not prepared at the present stage to provide for the creation of a national independent Government in Palestine, ..."
> 
> So stop with your propagandizing bullshit Rocco.
> 
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922 *
Click to expand...





 And if you read your cut and paste you will see that the arab muslims from outside the area decided what would be done for the arab muslim illegal immigrants.   And if you look at the subsequent history you will find that the arab muslims repeatedly denied the following to the Jews and Christians

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

(3) Safeguard the legal rights of foreigners.

(4) Guarantee religious equality to all peoples.

(5) Guarantee the rights of minorities.*


 Like you they just want to have everything and take by force what is not theirs, and in this case they have lost badly 5 times


----------



## montelatici

What are you talking about you knucklehead, you make no sense.  The only mass of  immigrants (90%) between 1920 and 1946, legal or illegal ,were the Jews.  

In any case, the post was to prove, through official correspondence, in writing,  that the Christians and Muslims desired a constitution and independence as early as 1922 and the British formally denied them in writing.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq, et al,
> 
> I see nothing above that substantiates your outlandish claim that:  "Israel is an Illegal State." --- Although I see this quite often from pro-Palestinian Activist.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is an ILLEGAL State,see comment above..........you are perpetuating and supporting this Illegal State........like most of your (Most Respectfully) comments,they mean nought,nothing,zilch......so STOP this erroneous commentary of yours......Resectfully or NOT
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS)*
> 
> PLAN OF PARTITION WITH ECONOMIC UNION --- PART I --- Future constitution and government of Palestine
> Section B --- STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE* --- Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly, dated 29 November 1947*
> PART II --- Boundaries --- Section A. - THE ARAB STATE Section B - THE JEWISH STATE
> 
> S/747 16 May 1948 Declaration of Independence
> S/1093 29 November 1948  Application for Admission to the UN
> S/RES/69 S/1277 4 March 1949  Favorable UN Security Council Recommendation
> A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949 General Assembly _Decides_ to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I fail to see the justification for your comment that "Israel is an ILLEGAL State."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an illegal state because it was created in direct violation of the will of the majority of the population of Palestine, and it's admission to the UN was based on Israel's adherance to two UN resolutions.
> 
> "_Recalling_ its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanationsmade by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the _ad hoc_ Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,"
> 
> Which it has failed to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BTW, you have zero evidence that shows Israel is illegal "it was created in direct violation of the will of the majority of the population of Palestine, and it's admission to the UN was based on Israel's adherance to two UN resolutions"
> 
> This is complete bullshit. You make up jibberish like this because of your hatred for Israel. If Israel was not allowed to become a country because of your stupid reasons, then the U.N would not have fully recognized Israel AND give her full UN membership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly, the only one making up the bullshit here is Toastman who is terrified of the fact that the more and more people look into the circumstsnces of the birth of the "Zionist Paradise" the more problematic they see it is. The majority population of Palestine even in 1948 were Arabised Muslims and Christians, they were uniformly against any form of partition and refused to co-operate with proceedings they saw were illegal, based on the UN Charter.
> 
> This essay puts forward the facts of the case succinctly and clearly,
> 
> "In sum, the popular claim that the U.N. “created” Israel is a myth, and Israel’s own claim in its founding document that U.N. Resolution 181 constituted legal authority for Israel’s creation, or otherwise constituted “recognition” by the U.N. of the “right” of the Zionist Jews to expropriate for themselves Arab land and deny to the majority Arab population of that land their own right to self-determination, is a patent fraud."
> The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel - Jeremy R. Hammond
Click to expand...






 So this means that the nation of Palestine is illegal as well, as they used the same UN resolution 181 as their legal authority for their creation. As the Ottoman census shows the majority population was Jewish, and at the time of transfer of the land they still where. It was only when the arab muslims started an illegal migration to swell their numbers that they gained a demographic advantage that they failed to do anything with.

 Isnt this right yappy dog ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You just cut'n'pasted excerpts from a (very poorly written) Encyclopedia Britannica entry.  And this does not answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who were the legal land owners at the time the Jews migrated to Palestine and had the legal right under International law at the time to give the land to anyone they so wished ?
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate system was a compromise between the Allies’ wish to retain the former German and Turkish colonies and their pre-Armistice declaration (November 5, 1918) *that annexation of territory was not their aim in the war. *The mandates were divided into three groups on the basis of their location and their level of political and economic development and were then assigned to individual Allied victors (mandatory powers, or mandatories). Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. These territories were considered sufficiently advanced that their provisional independence was recognized, though they were still subject to* Allied administrative control until they were fully able to stand alone.*
> 
> mandate League of Nations Encyclopedia Britannica
> 
> 
> Following WWI, the League of Nations established a system of "Mandates." In theory, the Mandate system had the benevolent intention of *preparing the "natives" of various regions for self government.*
> 
> The League of Nations Mandate Provision​
> The League of Nations Covenant regularly mention the people. That the inhabitants would be the beneficiaries of the actions of the Mandates and that they would stand alone as independent states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> But as the Encyclopedia Britannica entry says:  "Iraq and Palestine (including modernJordan and Israel) were assigned to Great Britain, while Turkish-ruled Syria and Lebanon went to France."
> 
> *(TO THE QUESTION) * =  So who were the legal land owners at the time the Jews migrated to Palestine and had the legal right under International law at the time to give the land to anyone they so wished ?
> 
> "Who were the legal land owners?"
> ANSWER:  The indigenous population.
> 
> "Who had the legal right under International law?"
> ANSWER:  The legal sovereign authority --- the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey (successor government to the Ottoman) relinquished their authority in favor of the Allied Powers; first by Armitice/Treaty and then two successive Treaties.
> 
> The Ottoman/Turkish Empire maintained the sovereignty of the region until it surrendered that authority (in two parts) to the Allied Powers:  *(From your source!)*
> 
> FIRST:  _Encyclopedia Britannica Entry Link_
> 
> *Armistice of Mudros,* (*Oct. 30, 1918*), pact signed at the port of Mudros, _(abroad the HMS Agamemnon)_ on the Aegean island of Lemnos, between the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain (representing the Allied powers) marking the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I (1914–18).
> 
> Under the terms of the armistice, the* Ottomans surrendered their remaining garrisons* in Hejaz, Yemen, *Syria,* Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica; the Allies were to occupy the Straits of the Dardanelles and the Bosporus, Batum (now in southwest Georgia), and the Taurus tunnel system; and the Allies won the right to occupy “in case of disorder” the six Armenian provinces in Anatolia and to seize “any strategic points” in case of a threat to Allied security. The Ottoman army was demobilized, and Turkish ports, railways, and other strategic points were made available for use by the Allies.​
> SECOND:
> 
> *Treaty of Sèvres,* (*Aug. 10, 1920*), post-World War I pact between the victorious Allied powers and representatives of the government of Ottoman Turkey. The treaty* abolished the Ottoman Empire and obliged Turkey to renounce all rights over Arab Asia and North Africa*. The pact also provided for an independent Armenia, for an autonomous Kurdistan, and for a Greek presence in eastern Thrace and on the Anatolian west coast, as well as Greek control over the Aegean islands commanding the Dardanelles. Rejected by the new Turkish nationalist regime, the Treaty of Sèvres was replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.
> 
> *Treaty of Lausanne,* (1923), final treaty concluding World War I. It was signed by representatives of Turkey (successor to the Ottoman Empire) on one side and by Britain,France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (Yugoslavia) on the other. The treaty was signed at Lausanne, Switz., on July 24, 1923, after a seven-month conference.
> 
> The treaty recognized the boundaries of the modern state of Turkey. Turkey made no claim to its former Arab provinces and recognized Cyprus and Italian possession of the Dodecanese. The Allies dropped their demands of autonomy for Turkish Kurdistan and Turkish cession of territory to Armenia, abandoned claims to spheres of influence in Turkey, and imposed no controls over Turkey’s finances or armed forces. The Turkish straits between the Aegean Sea and the Black Sea were declared open to all shipping.
> 
> *ARTICLE 16*.  Treaty of Lausanne *JULY 24, 1923*
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
> 
> The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighborly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​Without regard to what you've been told, this sequence of events sets the legitimate authority and control of the region in the hands of the Allied Powers; and NOT in the hands of any particular group of Arab Land owners.  Land ownership, as the question implies, has no impact on at all on territorial sovereignty.
> 
> Once the Class "A" Mandate instruments were in place, the associated Mandatories became the government for the territory.  Representatives of the victorious Allies in World War I meet in San Remo, Italy from April 19-26, 1920.  The focus of the conference is the future status of former Ottoman Empire territories in the Middle East.   The same day that the resolution is passed (*Conference of San Remo*), British Prime Minister David Lloyd George asks Samuel to become the first High Commissioner of Palestine.  Samuel will govern as Britain’s highest official in Palestine until 1925.
> 
> It should be noted that between 1920 and 1923, the High Commissioner of Palestine attempted to entice the indigenous Arab into the self-government process.
> 
> 22. Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.
> 
> “The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”​In practice it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps this will respond to your post better than a few simple soundbites.
Click to expand...






 Means absolutely nothing as the British did not call the shots until 1945 when the UN took over. Until then it was the LoN  who told the British what to do. It is all spelt out in the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE, a legal document that ended up as INTERNATIONAL LAW.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ottoman muslims, not arab muslims. The later lost the claim to the land in 1099 and have not managed to reclaim it since. The Ottoman muslims lost the land to the LoN who gave the land to the worlds Jews, and in the process made it International law. So the arab muslims are actually in breach of International law AGAIN by claiming ownership of the land, and trying to use recent laws to overturn International law retrospectively.
> 
> So by what law are the arab muslims claiming ownership of Palestine over the Jewish rights under International law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the Christians did not lose the lands to the Ottomans you dimwit.  Shows what ignorant ass you are.  The Christians and Muslims claimed ownership of Palestine by being the indigenous people, the overwhelming majority (before subsequent  invasions) and by owning almost all the land in Palestine, over 85% of it.
> 
> Furthermore, the UN itself was in breach of International law when it breached Articles 55 and 73 of the Charter of the U.N. when it did not respect the racial (ethnic) and religious rights of the Christians and Muslims forcing them to submit to Jewish European rule.
> 
> *Article 55 *
> "With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
> 
> 
> higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
> solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation; and
> universal respect for, and observance of, *human rights and fundamental freedoms for all *without distinction as to race, sex, language, or *religion.*
> *Article 73*
> *Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount*, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:
> 
> 
> *to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;"*
> *Obviously the UN did not force the UK  (as it should have by the Charter) "to promote the well-being of of the Inhabitants (Christian and Muslim. ed.) or  "to ensure with due respect for culture" of the Christian and Muslim Arabs"
> *
> Charter of the United Nations Chapter XI Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep trying Abdul one day you might get it right, and the Jews and Christiains were always persecuted by the Muslims
> 
> The UN was not even formed when the LoN ( not the UK or Britain ) created the space for the National home of the Jews on just 2% of the land after giving 98% to the arab muslims.
> 
> Arab muslims were driven out in 1099 leaving the Christians and the Jews in Palestine, then the Ottomans took over after beating the Crusaders. The arab muslims had no control of the land since 1099 and in 1917 the Ottomans lost control.
> 
> The UN charter did not exist in 1922 when the treaty giving the land to the worlds Jews was ratified and signed, so you can retrospectively bring it into force. Nor can a UN resolution breach International law so you can forget the UN charter until the arab muslims decide to abide by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Treaty in 1922 specifically did not give land to the Jews to create a separate state, as the British reinforced this fact in a subsequent letter to the Zionist Organization.  So please cut the bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Colonial Office to the Zionist Organisation.*
> 
> DOWNING STREET,
> 3rd _June, _1922.
> 
> 
> "The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned, are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917. *Unauthorised statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." *His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab Delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that *such a Home should be founded *_*in Palestine...................*it has been observed with satisfaction that at the meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organisation, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of the peoples an undisturbed national development."
> 
> It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organisation in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the Organisation may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its Government.
> 
> *Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status."
> 
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922 *_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not an official document that went into law, it was never acted on and so is worthless as evidence of anything.
> 
> The Mandate for Palestine set in stone and International law the following
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers,* in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country*; and Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country
> 
> 
> _Article 1_
> The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate.
> 
> _Article 2_
> * The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble,* and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.
> 
> _Article 3_
> The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy.
> 
> _Article 4_
> * An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country.
> *
> The Zionist Organisation, so long as its organisation and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
> 
> _Article 5_
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power.
> 
> _Article 6_
> * The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.*
> 
> _ Article 7_
> * The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No. 5.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Colonial Office to the Zionist Organisation.*
> 
> *DOWNING STREET,*
> *3rd June, 1922.*
> 
> 
> *"Unauthorised statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab Delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded in Palestine"
> 
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922
> 
> *
Click to expand...





 And an arab muslim Palestine was created on 78% of the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE land called Trans Jordan.

 Have you got it yet the arab muslims received the lions share of the many MANDATES in operation at the time for the M.E.      So you can repeat this as many times as you want it wont alter International Law or history, and the Jews/Zionists agreed to the 78/22 split. Now why did your fellow muslims refuse the concession and arbitrary good faith of the Jews/Zionists ?


----------



## Challenger

montelatici said:


> What are you talking about you knucklehead, you make no sense.  The only mass of  immigrants (90%) between 1920 and 1946, legal or illegal ,were the Jews.
> 
> In any case, the post was to prove, through official correspondence, in writing,  that the Christians and Muslims desired a constitution and independence as early as 1922 and the British formally denied them in writing.



He's just trolling.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> What are you talking about you knucklehead, you make no sense.  The only mass of  immigrants (90%) between 1920 and 1946, legal or illegal ,were the Jews.
> 
> In any case, the post was to prove, through official correspondence, in writing,  that the Christians and Muslims desired a constitution and independence as early as 1922 and the British formally denied them in writing.






 I am talking about the facts and reality that you ignore from none other than Winston Churchill who stood up in the house of Commons and tol;d the M.P's that arab muslims were flooding into Palestine. You know the same person who you link to when it meets with your islamonazi propaganda, lies and blood libels.  

 No mention of the Christians in the above just the arab muslims, and they wanted to freeze out the Jews and Christians and have the land all to themselves, and they cant so they are getting morons like you to LIE on message boards.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about you knucklehead, you make no sense.  The only mass of  immigrants (90%) between 1920 and 1946, legal or illegal ,were the Jews.
> 
> In any case, the post was to prove, through official correspondence, in writing,  that the Christians and Muslims desired a constitution and independence as early as 1922 and the British formally denied them in writing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's just trolling.
Click to expand...






 Isnt that why you have been banned from other boards jappy dog, for trolling. Do you still have the Cerise ballgown so you can flounce of in style...............


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq, et al,
> 
> I see nothing above that substantiates your outlandish claim that:  "Israel is an Illegal State." --- Although I see this quite often from pro-Palestinian Activist.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is an ILLEGAL State,see comment above..........you are perpetuating and supporting this Illegal State........like most of your (Most Respectfully) comments,they mean nought,nothing,zilch......so STOP this erroneous commentary of yours......Resectfully or NOT
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS)*
> 
> PLAN OF PARTITION WITH ECONOMIC UNION --- PART I --- Future constitution and government of Palestine
> Section B --- STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE* --- Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly, dated 29 November 1947*
> PART II --- Boundaries --- Section A. - THE ARAB STATE Section B - THE JEWISH STATE
> 
> S/747 16 May 1948 Declaration of Independence
> S/1093 29 November 1948  Application for Admission to the UN
> S/RES/69 S/1277 4 March 1949  Favorable UN Security Council Recommendation
> A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949 General Assembly _Decides_ to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I fail to see the justification for your comment that "Israel is an ILLEGAL State."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an illegal state because it was created in direct violation of the will of the majority of the population of Palestine, and it's admission to the UN was based on Israel's adherance to two UN resolutions.
> 
> "_Recalling_ its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanationsmade by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the _ad hoc_ Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,"
> 
> Which it has failed to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BTW, you have zero evidence that shows Israel is illegal "it was created in direct violation of the will of the majority of the population of Palestine, and it's admission to the UN was based on Israel's adherance to two UN resolutions"
> 
> This is complete bullshit. You make up jibberish like this because of your hatred for Israel. If Israel was not allowed to become a country because of your stupid reasons, then the U.N would not have fully recognized Israel AND give her full UN membership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly, the only one making up the bullshit here is Toastman who is terrified of the fact that the more and more people look into the circumstsnces of the birth of the "Zionist Paradise" the more problematic they see it is. The majority population of Palestine even in 1948 were Arabised Muslims and Christians, they were uniformly against any form of partition and refused to co-operate with proceedings they saw were illegal, based on the UN Charter.
> 
> This essay puts forward the facts of the case succinctly and clearly,
> 
> "In sum, the popular claim that the U.N. “created” Israel is a myth, and Israel’s own claim in its founding document that U.N. Resolution 181 constituted legal authority for Israel’s creation, or otherwise constituted “recognition” by the U.N. of the “right” of the Zionist Jews to expropriate for themselves Arab land and deny to the majority Arab population of that land their own right to self-determination, is a patent fraud."
> The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel - Jeremy R. Hammond
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So this means that the nation of Palestine is illegal as well, as they used the same UN resolution 181 as their legal authority for their creation. As the Ottoman census shows the majority population was Jewish, and at the time of transfer of the land they still where. It was only when the arab muslims started an illegal migration to swell their numbers that they gained a demographic advantage that they failed to do anything with.
> 
> Isnt this right yappy dog ?
Click to expand...


No. 

No Ottoman census I've ever seen shows Jewish people as a majority population of Palestine. If you have, prove it with a link to the census that makes your point. I won't hold my breath. Have you actually read the Palestinian Declaration of Independence? Care to show me where they use GA resolution 181 as the basis of their declaration? I'll make it easy for you, here's the link to the document. A 43 827-S 20278 of 18 November 1988


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about you knucklehead, you make no sense.  The only mass of  immigrants (90%) between 1920 and 1946, legal or illegal ,were the Jews.
> 
> In any case, the post was to prove, through official correspondence, in writing,  that the Christians and Muslims desired a constitution and independence as early as 1922 and the British formally denied them in writing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's just trolling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isnt that why you have been banned from other boards jappy dog, for trolling. Do you still have the Cerise ballgown so you can flounce of in style...............
Click to expand...


Now he's PUI trolling.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq, et al,
> 
> I see nothing above that substantiates your outlandish claim that:  "Israel is an Illegal State." --- Although I see this quite often from pro-Palestinian Activist.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is an ILLEGAL State,see comment above..........you are perpetuating and supporting this Illegal State........like most of your (Most Respectfully) comments,they mean nought,nothing,zilch......so STOP this erroneous commentary of yours......Resectfully or NOT
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS)*
> 
> PLAN OF PARTITION WITH ECONOMIC UNION --- PART I --- Future constitution and government of Palestine
> Section B --- STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE* --- Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly, dated 29 November 1947*
> PART II --- Boundaries --- Section A. - THE ARAB STATE Section B - THE JEWISH STATE
> 
> S/747 16 May 1948 Declaration of Independence
> S/1093 29 November 1948  Application for Admission to the UN
> S/RES/69 S/1277 4 March 1949  Favorable UN Security Council Recommendation
> A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949 General Assembly _Decides_ to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I fail to see the justification for your comment that "Israel is an ILLEGAL State."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an illegal state because it was created in direct violation of the will of the majority of the population of Palestine, and it's admission to the UN was based on Israel's adherance to two UN resolutions.
> 
> "_Recalling_ its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanationsmade by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the _ad hoc_ Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,"
> 
> Which it has failed to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, you have zero evidence that shows Israel is illegal "it was created in direct violation of the will of the majority of the population of Palestine, and it's admission to the UN was based on Israel's adherance to two UN resolutions"
> 
> This is complete bullshit. You make up jibberish like this because of your hatred for Israel. If Israel was not allowed to become a country because of your stupid reasons, then the U.N would not have fully recognized Israel AND give her full UN membership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly, the only one making up the bullshit here is Toastman who is terrified of the fact that the more and more people look into the circumstsnces of the birth of the "Zionist Paradise" the more problematic they see it is. The majority population of Palestine even in 1948 were Arabised Muslims and Christians, they were uniformly against any form of partition and refused to co-operate with proceedings they saw were illegal, based on the UN Charter.
> 
> This essay puts forward the facts of the case succinctly and clearly,
> 
> "In sum, the popular claim that the U.N. “created” Israel is a myth, and Israel’s own claim in its founding document that U.N. Resolution 181 constituted legal authority for Israel’s creation, or otherwise constituted “recognition” by the U.N. of the “right” of the Zionist Jews to expropriate for themselves Arab land and deny to the majority Arab population of that land their own right to self-determination, is a patent fraud."
> The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel - Jeremy R. Hammond
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So this means that the nation of Palestine is illegal as well, as they used the same UN resolution 181 as their legal authority for their creation. As the Ottoman census shows the majority population was Jewish, and at the time of transfer of the land they still where. It was only when the arab muslims started an illegal migration to swell their numbers that they gained a demographic advantage that they failed to do anything with.
> 
> Isnt this right yappy dog ?
Click to expand...


The only illegal immigrants were the European Jews.  The Arab Muslims and Christians were the vast majority (95%) in Palestine until recently.  That is just a fact.  You can continue making things up and misrepresenting the population of Jerusalem as the population of Palestine, but no one believes you.  You are perceived as a clown.  Don't you get it?  

But, let's repeat the documentary which states clearly what the population was in Palestine in 1896.  It is consistent  with  the British  figures for 1921 below

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

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

Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921 
*
And the above is consistent with the Ottoman census reports used  to in the documentary of 1896 Palestine below:


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about you knucklehead, you make no sense.  The only mass of  immigrants (90%) between 1920 and 1946, legal or illegal ,were the Jews.
> 
> In any case, the post was to prove, through official correspondence, in writing,  that the Christians and Muslims desired a constitution and independence as early as 1922 and the British formally denied them in writing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's just trolling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isnt that why you have been banned from other boards jappy dog, for trolling. Do you still have the Cerise ballgown so you can flounce of in style...............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now he's PUI trolling.
Click to expand...





 Then report me so I can give the Mods your IP address and full name to see who is telling the truth ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq, et al,
> 
> I see nothing above that substantiates your outlandish claim that:  "Israel is an Illegal State." --- Although I see this quite often from pro-Palestinian Activist.
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS)*
> 
> PLAN OF PARTITION WITH ECONOMIC UNION --- PART I --- Future constitution and government of Palestine
> Section B --- STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE* --- Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly, dated 29 November 1947*
> PART II --- Boundaries --- Section A. - THE ARAB STATE Section B - THE JEWISH STATE
> 
> S/747 16 May 1948 Declaration of Independence
> S/1093 29 November 1948  Application for Admission to the UN
> S/RES/69 S/1277 4 March 1949  Favorable UN Security Council Recommendation
> A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949 General Assembly _Decides_ to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I fail to see the justification for your comment that "Israel is an ILLEGAL State."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's an illegal state because it was created in direct violation of the will of the majority of the population of Palestine, and it's admission to the UN was based on Israel's adherance to two UN resolutions.
> 
> "_Recalling_ its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanationsmade by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the _ad hoc_ Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,"
> 
> Which it has failed to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, you have zero evidence that shows Israel is illegal "it was created in direct violation of the will of the majority of the population of Palestine, and it's admission to the UN was based on Israel's adherance to two UN resolutions"
> 
> This is complete bullshit. You make up jibberish like this because of your hatred for Israel. If Israel was not allowed to become a country because of your stupid reasons, then the U.N would not have fully recognized Israel AND give her full UN membership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly, the only one making up the bullshit here is Toastman who is terrified of the fact that the more and more people look into the circumstsnces of the birth of the "Zionist Paradise" the more problematic they see it is. The majority population of Palestine even in 1948 were Arabised Muslims and Christians, they were uniformly against any form of partition and refused to co-operate with proceedings they saw were illegal, based on the UN Charter.
> 
> This essay puts forward the facts of the case succinctly and clearly,
> 
> "In sum, the popular claim that the U.N. “created” Israel is a myth, and Israel’s own claim in its founding document that U.N. Resolution 181 constituted legal authority for Israel’s creation, or otherwise constituted “recognition” by the U.N. of the “right” of the Zionist Jews to expropriate for themselves Arab land and deny to the majority Arab population of that land their own right to self-determination, is a patent fraud."
> The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel - Jeremy R. Hammond
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So this means that the nation of Palestine is illegal as well, as they used the same UN resolution 181 as their legal authority for their creation. As the Ottoman census shows the majority population was Jewish, and at the time of transfer of the land they still where. It was only when the arab muslims started an illegal migration to swell their numbers that they gained a demographic advantage that they failed to do anything with.
> 
> Isnt this right yappy dog ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only illegal immigrants were the European Jews.  The Arab Muslims and Christians were the vast majority (95%) in Palestine until recently.  That is just a fact.  You can continue making things up and misrepresenting the population of Jerusalem as the population of Palestine, but no one believes you.  You are perceived as a clown.  Don't you get it?
> 
> But, let's repeat the documentary which states clearly what the population was in Palestine in 1896.  It is consistent  with  the British  figures for 1921 below
> 
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. *Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems.* A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some *77,000 of the population are Christians*, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. *Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.
> 
> Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
> *
> And the above is consistent with the Ottoman census reports used  to in the documentary of 1896 Palestine below:
Click to expand...







 Which is an ANTI SEMITIC hatchet job by people in the pay of arab muslims. And is just an interim report that was superseded by the proper report that you never seem to link to. Why is this Abdul ?


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's an illegal state because it was created in direct violation of the will of the majority of the population of Palestine, and it's admission to the UN was based on Israel's adherance to two UN resolutions.
> 
> "_Recalling_ its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanationsmade by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the _ad hoc_ Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,"
> 
> Which it has failed to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, you have zero evidence that shows Israel is illegal "it was created in direct violation of the will of the majority of the population of Palestine, and it's admission to the UN was based on Israel's adherance to two UN resolutions"
> 
> This is complete bullshit. You make up jibberish like this because of your hatred for Israel. If Israel was not allowed to become a country because of your stupid reasons, then the U.N would not have fully recognized Israel AND give her full UN membership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly, the only one making up the bullshit here is Toastman who is terrified of the fact that the more and more people look into the circumstsnces of the birth of the "Zionist Paradise" the more problematic they see it is. The majority population of Palestine even in 1948 were Arabised Muslims and Christians, they were uniformly against any form of partition and refused to co-operate with proceedings they saw were illegal, based on the UN Charter.
> 
> This essay puts forward the facts of the case succinctly and clearly,
> 
> "In sum, the popular claim that the U.N. “created” Israel is a myth, and Israel’s own claim in its founding document that U.N. Resolution 181 constituted legal authority for Israel’s creation, or otherwise constituted “recognition” by the U.N. of the “right” of the Zionist Jews to expropriate for themselves Arab land and deny to the majority Arab population of that land their own right to self-determination, is a patent fraud."
> The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel - Jeremy R. Hammond
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So this means that the nation of Palestine is illegal as well, as they used the same UN resolution 181 as their legal authority for their creation. As the Ottoman census shows the majority population was Jewish, and at the time of transfer of the land they still where. It was only when the arab muslims started an illegal migration to swell their numbers that they gained a demographic advantage that they failed to do anything with.
> 
> Isnt this right yappy dog ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only illegal immigrants were the European Jews.  The Arab Muslims and Christians were the vast majority (95%) in Palestine until recently.  That is just a fact.  You can continue making things up and misrepresenting the population of Jerusalem as the population of Palestine, but no one believes you.  You are perceived as a clown.  Don't you get it?
> 
> But, let's repeat the documentary which states clearly what the population was in Palestine in 1896.  It is consistent  with  the British  figures for 1921 below
> 
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. *Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems.* A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some *77,000 of the population are Christians*, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. *Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.
> 
> Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
> *
> And the above is consistent with the Ottoman census reports used  to in the documentary of 1896 Palestine below:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is an ANTI SEMITIC hatchet job by people in the pay of arab muslims. And is just an interim report that was superseded by the proper report that you never seem to link to. Why is this Abdul ?
Click to expand...


Lumiere documentaries are not "antisemitic" hatchet jobs, they just present facts and the earliest "moving pictures" of Palestine.

No, the yearly reports of the Mandatory were all called interim reports until the final report was issued at the end of the mandate, it was called the Survey of Palestine and it was the last report.  I know you are familiar with it and I have linked it many times.

You are simply in denial and continue making a fool of yourself.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, you have zero evidence that shows Israel is illegal "it was created in direct violation of the will of the majority of the population of Palestine, and it's admission to the UN was based on Israel's adherance to two UN resolutions"
> 
> This is complete bullshit. You make up jibberish like this because of your hatred for Israel. If Israel was not allowed to become a country because of your stupid reasons, then the U.N would not have fully recognized Israel AND give her full UN membership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, the only one making up the bullshit here is Toastman who is terrified of the fact that the more and more people look into the circumstsnces of the birth of the "Zionist Paradise" the more problematic they see it is. The majority population of Palestine even in 1948 were Arabised Muslims and Christians, they were uniformly against any form of partition and refused to co-operate with proceedings they saw were illegal, based on the UN Charter.
> 
> This essay puts forward the facts of the case succinctly and clearly,
> 
> "In sum, the popular claim that the U.N. “created” Israel is a myth, and Israel’s own claim in its founding document that U.N. Resolution 181 constituted legal authority for Israel’s creation, or otherwise constituted “recognition” by the U.N. of the “right” of the Zionist Jews to expropriate for themselves Arab land and deny to the majority Arab population of that land their own right to self-determination, is a patent fraud."
> The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel - Jeremy R. Hammond
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So this means that the nation of Palestine is illegal as well, as they used the same UN resolution 181 as their legal authority for their creation. As the Ottoman census shows the majority population was Jewish, and at the time of transfer of the land they still where. It was only when the arab muslims started an illegal migration to swell their numbers that they gained a demographic advantage that they failed to do anything with.
> 
> Isnt this right yappy dog ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only illegal immigrants were the European Jews.  The Arab Muslims and Christians were the vast majority (95%) in Palestine until recently.  That is just a fact.  You can continue making things up and misrepresenting the population of Jerusalem as the population of Palestine, but no one believes you.  You are perceived as a clown.  Don't you get it?
> 
> But, let's repeat the documentary which states clearly what the population was in Palestine in 1896.  It is consistent  with  the British  figures for 1921 below
> 
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. *Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems.* A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some *77,000 of the population are Christians*, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. *Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.
> 
> Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
> *
> And the above is consistent with the Ottoman census reports used  to in the documentary of 1896 Palestine below:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is an ANTI SEMITIC hatchet job by people in the pay of arab muslims. And is just an interim report that was superseded by the proper report that you never seem to link to. Why is this Abdul ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lumiere documentaries are not "antisemitic" hatchet jobs, they just present facts and the earliest "moving pictures" of Palestine.
> 
> No, the yearly reports of the Mandatory were all called interim reports until the final report was issued at the end of the mandate, it was called the Survey of Palestine and it was the last report.  I know you are familiar with it and I have linked it many times.
> 
> You are simply in denial and continue making a fool of yourself.
Click to expand...






 The report is the anti semitic hatchet job, and the video could have any dialogue superimposed on it by anyone making it inadmissible as evidence. I could alter it to show that the Jews were in fact the majority and the arab muslms non existent


----------



## toastman

Challenger said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq, et al,
> 
> I see nothing above that substantiates your outlandish claim that:  "Israel is an Illegal State." --- Although I see this quite often from pro-Palestinian Activist.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is an ILLEGAL State,see comment above..........you are perpetuating and supporting this Illegal State........like most of your (Most Respectfully) comments,they mean nought,nothing,zilch......so STOP this erroneous commentary of yours......Resectfully or NOT
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS)*
> 
> PLAN OF PARTITION WITH ECONOMIC UNION --- PART I --- Future constitution and government of Palestine
> Section B --- STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE* --- Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly, dated 29 November 1947*
> PART II --- Boundaries --- Section A. - THE ARAB STATE Section B - THE JEWISH STATE
> 
> S/747 16 May 1948 Declaration of Independence
> S/1093 29 November 1948  Application for Admission to the UN
> S/RES/69 S/1277 4 March 1949  Favorable UN Security Council Recommendation
> A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949 General Assembly _Decides_ to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I fail to see the justification for your comment that "Israel is an ILLEGAL State."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an illegal state because it was created in direct violation of the will of the majority of the population of Palestine, and it's admission to the UN was based on Israel's adherance to two UN resolutions.
> 
> "_Recalling_ its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanationsmade by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the _ad hoc_ Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,"
> 
> Which it has failed to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BTW, you have zero evidence that shows Israel is illegal "it was created in direct violation of the will of the majority of the population of Palestine, and it's admission to the UN was based on Israel's adherance to two UN resolutions"
> 
> This is complete bullshit. You make up jibberish like this because of your hatred for Israel. If Israel was not allowed to become a country because of your stupid reasons, then the U.N would not have fully recognized Israel AND give her full UN membership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly, the only one making up the bullshit here is Toastman who is terrified of the fact that the more and more people look into the circumstsnces of the birth of the "Zionist Paradise" the more problematic they see it is. The majority population of Palestine even in 1948 were Arabised Muslims and Christians, they were uniformly against any form of partition and refused to co-operate with proceedings they saw were illegal, based on the UN Charter.
> 
> This essay puts forward the facts of the case succinctly and clearly,
> 
> "In sum, the popular claim that the U.N. “created” Israel is a myth, and Israel’s own claim in its founding document that U.N. Resolution 181 constituted legal authority for Israel’s creation, or otherwise constituted “recognition” by the U.N. of the “right” of the Zionist Jews to expropriate for themselves Arab land and deny to the majority Arab population of that land their own right to self-determination, is a patent fraud."
> The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel - Jeremy R. Hammond
Click to expand...


Translation: "I have no proof to back up my claim"

You're forgetting that 'Palestine' declared independence in 1988 the SAME WAY that Israel did, by using resolution 181 as a basis.

"more and more people look into the circumstsnces of the birth of the "Zionist Paradise"

I love how these deluded pro Palestinians think they speak for everyone else. Oh, and BTW, even the state of Palestine recognizes Israel. Whoops, forgot about that, didn't you ?

Read carefully: Israel exists, will always exist and there is NOTHING you or your deluded brainwashed propagandist friends can do about it


----------



## RoccoR

_et al,_

None of this has made sense in terms of the Arab Palestinian "DEMANDS" for acceptance of their "Constitution" and their rejection to participate in any phased process to attain self-government (See Post #3365).  The Arab Palestinians had no authority to demand anything that did not conform to the desired process to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages….  The Arab Palestinians were not promised anything, and the Mandatory was not likely to accept demands from the disrespectful and ill mannered Arab Delegation _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_.  The arrogant tone of the correspondence between the Arab Delegation and the Secretary of State for the Colonies merely demonstrates that while the Arab Delegation declined to participate in the self-governance process, they demand that change be made to the Palestine Order in Council because the Delegation considered it "wholly unsatisfactory;" and stipulating that no useful purpose would be served by discussing in detail the draft of "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."  The Arab Delegation did not want to establish a counterpart voice _(an Arab Agency)_ to the Jewish Agency at the Territorial Level in Palestine with the High Commissioner.  But then complained that they were denied their rights and that they were unfairly administered when the outcome of the process favors the Jewish constituency _(who had the Jewish Agency as a voice)_.  The idea that the Council should stand in support of Arab Domination over the territory flies in the face of the stated principle objective:  "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."

The absurd idea that the Arab Delegation, in the era of 1922, could guarantee _(for any reasonable amount of time_) that "national home for the Jewish people" would be preserved in tact and NOT under the pressures of the Radical Islamic Fundamentalism that was brewing even then; with Grand Mufti of Jerusalem pushing for the independence of Palestine as an Arab state and Amin al-Husseini _(Grand Mufti)_ actively supporting violent riots that broke out over one of the principle goals in the Mandate --- establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. 

Which Arab Country in the region includes these rights in their Constitution:


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

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

(3) Safeguard the legal rights of foreigners.

(4) Guarantee religious equality to all peoples.

(5) Guarantee the rights of minorities.

(6) Guarantee the rights of the Assisting Power.
The Guide to Human Rights in Arab Countries is at this link.  There was no reasonable expectation then --- and their is no reasonable expectation now, that any Arab Nation could protect and preserve the Jewish National Home.  In effect what the Arab Delegation demanded is the ability to crush the concept.  Just as the 1920's Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (Amin al-Husseini) was violently opposed to the Jews, so it is today --- that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem:

"In the course of his visit to Israel and the Palestinian Authority next week, as a matter of protocol, Pope Francis, the most senior figure in the Catholic Church, is scheduled to meet with Israel's two chief rabbis as well as the most senior religious figure in the PA, the Mufti Sheikh Muhammad Hussein. What Pope Francis may not be aware of is that the Mufti has an ongoing record of vicious Antisemitic hate speech, which has been condemned internationally. In 2012, the Mufti preached that it is Muslim destiny to kill the Jews. On a different occasion, in the Al-Aqsa Mosque, he taught that Jews were "enemies of Allah," and in another speech he said that the souls of suicide bombers "tell us to follow in their path."  SOURCE:  Pope to visit PA Mufti who preached Jews are enemies of Allah destined to be exterminated by Muslims // 19 May 2014."​
Today, the world has to be very careful of the outbreak of Radical Islamic Views that are held by politically motivated movements.  They fight and kill in the name of their religion, killing more Arabs (Sunni or Shi'ite) than any outside western power ever thought about.  There is no expectation that these groups will ever truly become a useful and productive asset the the greater Arab Community or the Islamic Community.

This idea that the Arab were not treated fairly, is an uneducated perspective in history.  The Arabs were treated no differently than any other losing cultures in a major war.  Today --- the Arab in some naive sense, wants to argue the correctness and fairness of the Partition Plan.  They believe that they had some innate authority or  provocative right that suggests they should have had a political voice in the matter of the Israels self-determination.  The territories were surrendered to the Allied Powers for whatever disposition that they may determine is best.  And the sovereignty to be divide in whatever manner the Allied Powers considered the best.  This --- without regard to whatever the Arabs may deem unsatisfactory.  The decisions --- were a determination made by the Allied Powers; and NOT the Arab Delegation _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_. 

As you can see, a half dozen Arab Countries were created from the territories to which one of the Mandates applied.  The smallest remaining subdivision is still in contention because of the love the Arab Palestinians have for asymmetric activities and insurrectionist causes to oppose the Jewish National Home (Israel).   The remaining territory, known as the State of Palestine (AKA: the occupied Palestinian territory), has not made any significant cultural or economic advances since the 1949 Armistice to the Arab Invasion that ignited the Israel War of Independence.  The Arab Palestinian has focused on conflict and belligerence since that time and not on any nation build or major domestic infrastructure improvements.  Instead of working to become a useful and productive regional influence, they are the poster image of a fail nation that is totally dependent on donor contributions and an economic parasite to the international community.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, the only one making up the bullshit here is Toastman who is terrified of the fact that the more and more people look into the circumstsnces of the birth of the "Zionist Paradise" the more problematic they see it is. The majority population of Palestine even in 1948 were Arabised Muslims and Christians, they were uniformly against any form of partition and refused to co-operate with proceedings they saw were illegal, based on the UN Charter.
> 
> This essay puts forward the facts of the case succinctly and clearly,
> 
> "In sum, the popular claim that the U.N. “created” Israel is a myth, and Israel’s own claim in its founding document that U.N. Resolution 181 constituted legal authority for Israel’s creation, or otherwise constituted “recognition” by the U.N. of the “right” of the Zionist Jews to expropriate for themselves Arab land and deny to the majority Arab population of that land their own right to self-determination, is a patent fraud."
> The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel - Jeremy R. Hammond
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So this means that the nation of Palestine is illegal as well, as they used the same UN resolution 181 as their legal authority for their creation. As the Ottoman census shows the majority population was Jewish, and at the time of transfer of the land they still where. It was only when the arab muslims started an illegal migration to swell their numbers that they gained a demographic advantage that they failed to do anything with.
> 
> Isnt this right yappy dog ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only illegal immigrants were the European Jews.  The Arab Muslims and Christians were the vast majority (95%) in Palestine until recently.  That is just a fact.  You can continue making things up and misrepresenting the population of Jerusalem as the population of Palestine, but no one believes you.  You are perceived as a clown.  Don't you get it?
> 
> But, let's repeat the documentary which states clearly what the population was in Palestine in 1896.  It is consistent  with  the British  figures for 1921 below
> 
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. *Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems.* A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some *77,000 of the population are Christians*, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. *Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.
> 
> Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
> *
> And the above is consistent with the Ottoman census reports used  to in the documentary of 1896 Palestine below:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is an ANTI SEMITIC hatchet job by people in the pay of arab muslims. And is just an interim report that was superseded by the proper report that you never seem to link to. Why is this Abdul ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lumiere documentaries are not "antisemitic" hatchet jobs, they just present facts and the earliest "moving pictures" of Palestine.
> 
> No, the yearly reports of the Mandatory were all called interim reports until the final report was issued at the end of the mandate, it was called the Survey of Palestine and it was the last report.  I know you are familiar with it and I have linked it many times.
> 
> You are simply in denial and continue making a fool of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The report is the anti semitic hatchet job, and the video could have any dialogue superimposed on it by anyone making it inadmissible as evidence. I could alter it to show that the Jews were in fact the majority and the arab muslms non existent
Click to expand...



So the Report of the Mandatory submitted to the LoN on an annual basis a Mandatory that was denying the non-Jews, in writing, the right of becoming an independent state in order to facilitate the creation of a "Jewish Home in Palestine" is an antisemitic hatchet job?  You are so delusional.  And the late 1920s/ early 1930s BBC voice over is also a British antisemitic plot.


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> _et al,_
> 
> None of this has made sense in terms of the Arab Palestinian "DEMANDS" for acceptance of their "Constitution" and their rejection to participate in any phased process to attain self-government (See Post #3365).  The Arab Palestinians had no authority to demand anything that did not conform to the desired process to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages….  The Arab Palestinians were not promised anything, and the Mandatory was not likely to accept demands from the disrespectful and ill mannered Arab Delegation _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_.  The arrogant tone of the correspondence between the Arab Delegation and the Secretary of State for the Colonies merely demonstrates that while the Arab Delegation declined to participate in the self-governance process, they demand that change be made to the Palestine Order in Council because the Delegation considered it "wholly unsatisfactory;" and stipulating that no useful purpose would be served by discussing in detail the draft of "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."  The Arab Delegation did not want to establish a counterpart voice _(an Arab Agency)_ to the Jewish Agency at the Territorial Level in Palestine with the High Commissioner.  But then complained that they were denied their rights and that they were unfairly administered when the outcome of the process favors the Jewish constituency _(who had the Jewish Agency as a voice)_.  The idea that the Council should stand in support of Arab Domination over the territory flies in the face of the stated principle objective:  "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."
> 
> The absurd idea that the Arab Delegation, in the era of 1922, could guarantee _(for any reasonable amount of time_) that "national home for the Jewish people" would be preserved in tact and NOT under the pressures of the Radical Islamic Fundamentalism that was brewing even then; with Grand Mufti of Jerusalem pushing for the independence of Palestine as an Arab state and Amin al-Husseini _(Grand Mufti)_ actively supporting violent riots that broke out over one of the principle goals in the Mandate --- establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.
> 
> Which Arab Country in the region includes these rights in their Constitution:
> 
> 
> (1) Safeguard the civil, political and economic interests of the People.
> 
> (2) Provide for the creation of a national independent Government in accordance with the spirit of paragraph 4, Article 22, of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
> 
> (3) Safeguard the legal rights of foreigners.
> 
> (4) Guarantee religious equality to all peoples.
> 
> (5) Guarantee the rights of minorities.
> 
> (6) Guarantee the rights of the Assisting Power.
> The Guide to Human Rights in Arab Countries is at this link.  There was no reasonable expectation then --- and their is no reasonable expectation now, that any Arab Nation could protect and preserve the Jewish National Home.  In effect what the Arab Delegation demanded is the ability to crush the concept.  Just as the 1920's Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (Amin al-Husseini) was violently opposed to the Jews, so it is today --- that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem:
> 
> "In the course of his visit to Israel and the Palestinian Authority next week, as a matter of protocol, Pope Francis, the most senior figure in the Catholic Church, is scheduled to meet with Israel's two chief rabbis as well as the most senior religious figure in the PA, the Mufti Sheikh Muhammad Hussein. What Pope Francis may not be aware of is that the Mufti has an ongoing record of vicious Antisemitic hate speech, which has been condemned internationally. In 2012, the Mufti preached that it is Muslim destiny to kill the Jews. On a different occasion, in the Al-Aqsa Mosque, he taught that Jews were "enemies of Allah," and in another speech he said that the souls of suicide bombers "tell us to follow in their path."  SOURCE:  Pope to visit PA Mufti who preached Jews are enemies of Allah destined to be exterminated by Muslims // 19 May 2014."​
> Today, the world has to be very careful of the outbreak of Radical Islamic Views that are held by politically motivated movements.  They fight and kill in the name of their religion, killing more Arabs (Sunni or Shi'ite) than any outside western power ever thought about.  There is no expectation that these groups will ever truly become a useful and productive asset the the greater Arab Community or the Islamic Community.
> 
> This idea that the Arab were not treated fairly, is an uneducated perspective in history.  The Arabs were treated no differently than any other losing cultures in a major war.  Today --- the Arab in some naive sense, wants to argue the correctness and fairness of the Partition Plan.  They believe that they had some innate authority or  provocative right that suggests they should have had a political voice in the matter of the Israels self-determination.  The territories were surrendered to the Allied Powers for whatever disposition that they may determine is best.  And the sovereignty to be divide in whatever manner the Allied Powers considered the best.  This --- without regard to whatever the Arabs may deem unsatisfactory.  The decisions --- were a determination made by the Allied Powers; and NOT the Arab Delegation _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_.
> 
> As you can see, a half dozen Arab Countries were created from the territories to which one of the Mandates applied.  The smallest remaining subdivision is still in contention because of the love the Arab Palestinians have for asymmetric activities and insurrectionist causes to oppose the Jewish National Home (Israel).   The remaining territory, known as the State of Palestine (AKA: the occupied Palestinian territory), has not made any significant cultural or economic advances since the 1949 Armistice to the Arab Invasion that ignited the Israel War of Independence.  The Arab Palestinian has focused on conflict and belligerence since that time and not on any nation build or major domestic infrastructure improvements.  Instead of working to become a useful and productive regional influence, they are the poster image of a fail nation that is totally dependent on donor contributions and an economic parasite to the international community.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R



_(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_.

No, the Arab Delegation was made up of Christians and Muslims whose people had  supported the British against the Axis powers.  Ever watched Lawrence of Arabia you ignoramus.  And, they were, in fact, promised independence for their support.

_"They believe that they had some innate authority or  provocative right that suggests they should have had a political voice in the matter of the Israels self-determination."
_
Of course they had an innate authority to defend their land from British colonialism.  The Jews were Europeans, from another continent, who had every intention of evicting the indigenous people and colonizing the area, in contravention of the LoN Covenant, for example (and there are many others):


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

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

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

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

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations
*
The British ignored the Covenant completely when it came to the Christians and Muslims of Palestine.

Nonetheless, your contention that the Palestinians made no effort to achieve independence is total bullshit coming from a bullshitter.  Don't think I can read the seething racism you have for Arabs in your writing.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So this means that the nation of Palestine is illegal as well, as they used the same UN resolution 181 as their legal authority for their creation. As the Ottoman census shows the majority population was Jewish, and at the time of transfer of the land they still where. It was only when the arab muslims started an illegal migration to swell their numbers that they gained a demographic advantage that they failed to do anything with.
> 
> Isnt this right yappy dog ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only illegal immigrants were the European Jews.  The Arab Muslims and Christians were the vast majority (95%) in Palestine until recently.  That is just a fact.  You can continue making things up and misrepresenting the population of Jerusalem as the population of Palestine, but no one believes you.  You are perceived as a clown.  Don't you get it?
> 
> But, let's repeat the documentary which states clearly what the population was in Palestine in 1896.  It is consistent  with  the British  figures for 1921 below
> 
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. *Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems.* A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some *77,000 of the population are Christians*, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. *Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.
> 
> Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
> *
> And the above is consistent with the Ottoman census reports used  to in the documentary of 1896 Palestine below:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is an ANTI SEMITIC hatchet job by people in the pay of arab muslims. And is just an interim report that was superseded by the proper report that you never seem to link to. Why is this Abdul ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lumiere documentaries are not "antisemitic" hatchet jobs, they just present facts and the earliest "moving pictures" of Palestine.
> 
> No, the yearly reports of the Mandatory were all called interim reports until the final report was issued at the end of the mandate, it was called the Survey of Palestine and it was the last report.  I know you are familiar with it and I have linked it many times.
> 
> You are simply in denial and continue making a fool of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The report is the anti semitic hatchet job, and the video could have any dialogue superimposed on it by anyone making it inadmissible as evidence. I could alter it to show that the Jews were in fact the majority and the arab muslms non existent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So the Report of the Mandatory submitted to the LoN on an annual basis a Mandatory that was denying the non-Jews, in writing, the right of becoming an independent state in order to facilitate the creation of a "Jewish Home in Palestine" is an antisemitic hatchet job?  You are so delusional.  And the late 1920s/ early 1930s BBC voice over is also a British antisemitic plot.
Click to expand...






 They already had a Palestinian state in the form of Trans Jordan that was dedicated for their use, the only reason they wanted the 22% dedicated to the Jews was pure jealousy and greed.

 If you post it then it is bound to be an islamonazi LIE, PROPAGANDA or BLOOD LIBEL


----------



## montelatici

Trans-Jordan had nothing to do with Palestine geographically, as stated in the definition of the two areas in the Mandate, there was a specific definition of the area of Trans-Jordan and the people,  and it was not called Palestine,. Quit making things up. See below.

"Included in the area of the Palestine Mandate is the territory of Trans-Jordania. It is bounded on the north by the frontier of Syria, placed under the mandate of France; on the south by the kingdom of the Hejaz; and on the west by the line of the Jordan and the Dead Sea; while on the east it stretches into the desert and ends--the boundary is not yet defined--where Mesopotamia begins. Trans-Jordania has a population of probably 350,000 people. It contains a few small towns and large areas of fertile land, producing excellent wheat and barley. The people are partly settled townsmen and agriculturists, partly wandering Bedouin; the latter, however, cultivate areas, more or less fixed, during certain seasons of the year."

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


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> _et al,_
> 
> None of this has made sense in terms of the Arab Palestinian "DEMANDS" for acceptance of their "Constitution" and their rejection to participate in any phased process to attain self-government (See Post #3365).  The Arab Palestinians had no authority to demand anything that did not conform to the desired process to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages….  The Arab Palestinians were not promised anything, and the Mandatory was not likely to accept demands from the disrespectful and ill mannered Arab Delegation _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_.  The arrogant tone of the correspondence between the Arab Delegation and the Secretary of State for the Colonies merely demonstrates that while the Arab Delegation declined to participate in the self-governance process, they demand that change be made to the Palestine Order in Council because the Delegation considered it "wholly unsatisfactory;" and stipulating that no useful purpose would be served by discussing in detail the draft of "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."  The Arab Delegation did not want to establish a counterpart voice _(an Arab Agency)_ to the Jewish Agency at the Territorial Level in Palestine with the High Commissioner.  But then complained that they were denied their rights and that they were unfairly administered when the outcome of the process favors the Jewish constituency _(who had the Jewish Agency as a voice)_.  The idea that the Council should stand in support of Arab Domination over the territory flies in the face of the stated principle objective:  "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."
> 
> The absurd idea that the Arab Delegation, in the era of 1922, could guarantee _(for any reasonable amount of time_) that "national home for the Jewish people" would be preserved in tact and NOT under the pressures of the Radical Islamic Fundamentalism that was brewing even then; with Grand Mufti of Jerusalem pushing for the independence of Palestine as an Arab state and Amin al-Husseini _(Grand Mufti)_ actively supporting violent riots that broke out over one of the principle goals in the Mandate --- establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.
> 
> Which Arab Country in the region includes these rights in their Constitution:
> 
> 
> (1) Safeguard the civil, political and economic interests of the People.
> 
> (2) Provide for the creation of a national independent Government in accordance with the spirit of paragraph 4, Article 22, of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
> 
> (3) Safeguard the legal rights of foreigners.
> 
> (4) Guarantee religious equality to all peoples.
> 
> (5) Guarantee the rights of minorities.
> 
> (6) Guarantee the rights of the Assisting Power.
> The Guide to Human Rights in Arab Countries is at this link.  There was no reasonable expectation then --- and their is no reasonable expectation now, that any Arab Nation could protect and preserve the Jewish National Home.  In effect what the Arab Delegation demanded is the ability to crush the concept.  Just as the 1920's Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (Amin al-Husseini) was violently opposed to the Jews, so it is today --- that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem:
> 
> "In the course of his visit to Israel and the Palestinian Authority next week, as a matter of protocol, Pope Francis, the most senior figure in the Catholic Church, is scheduled to meet with Israel's two chief rabbis as well as the most senior religious figure in the PA, the Mufti Sheikh Muhammad Hussein. What Pope Francis may not be aware of is that the Mufti has an ongoing record of vicious Antisemitic hate speech, which has been condemned internationally. In 2012, the Mufti preached that it is Muslim destiny to kill the Jews. On a different occasion, in the Al-Aqsa Mosque, he taught that Jews were "enemies of Allah," and in another speech he said that the souls of suicide bombers "tell us to follow in their path."  SOURCE:  Pope to visit PA Mufti who preached Jews are enemies of Allah destined to be exterminated by Muslims // 19 May 2014."​
> Today, the world has to be very careful of the outbreak of Radical Islamic Views that are held by politically motivated movements.  They fight and kill in the name of their religion, killing more Arabs (Sunni or Shi'ite) than any outside western power ever thought about.  There is no expectation that these groups will ever truly become a useful and productive asset the the greater Arab Community or the Islamic Community.
> 
> This idea that the Arab were not treated fairly, is an uneducated perspective in history.  The Arabs were treated no differently than any other losing cultures in a major war.  Today --- the Arab in some naive sense, wants to argue the correctness and fairness of the Partition Plan.  They believe that they had some innate authority or  provocative right that suggests they should have had a political voice in the matter of the Israels self-determination.  The territories were surrendered to the Allied Powers for whatever disposition that they may determine is best.  And the sovereignty to be divide in whatever manner the Allied Powers considered the best.  This --- without regard to whatever the Arabs may deem unsatisfactory.  The decisions --- were a determination made by the Allied Powers; and NOT the Arab Delegation _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_.
> 
> As you can see, a half dozen Arab Countries were created from the territories to which one of the Mandates applied.  The smallest remaining subdivision is still in contention because of the love the Arab Palestinians have for asymmetric activities and insurrectionist causes to oppose the Jewish National Home (Israel).   The remaining territory, known as the State of Palestine (AKA: the occupied Palestinian territory), has not made any significant cultural or economic advances since the 1949 Armistice to the Arab Invasion that ignited the Israel War of Independence.  The Arab Palestinian has focused on conflict and belligerence since that time and not on any nation build or major domestic infrastructure improvements.  Instead of working to become a useful and productive regional influence, they are the poster image of a fail nation that is totally dependent on donor contributions and an economic parasite to the international community.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_.
> 
> No, the Arab Delegation was made up of Christians and Muslims whose people had  supported the British against the Axis powers.  Ever watched Lawrence of Arabia you ignoramus.  And, they were, in fact, promised independence for their support.
> 
> _"They believe that they had some innate authority or  provocative right that suggests they should have had a political voice in the matter of the Israels self-determination."
> _
> Of course they had an innate authority to defend their land from British colonialism.  The Jews were Europeans, from another continent, who had every intention of evicting the indigenous people and colonizing the area, in contravention of the LoN Covenant, for example (and there are many others):
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 22.*
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, *there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.*
> 
> The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.
> 
> The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.
> 
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. *The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."
> 
> Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations
> *
> The British ignored the Covenant completely when it came to the Christians and Muslims of Palestine.
> 
> Nonetheless, your contention that the Palestinians made no effort to achieve independence is total bullshit coming from a bullshitter.  Don't think I can read the seething racism you have for Arabs in your writing.
Click to expand...






 How about a link showing the Christian members the arab delegation then Abdul.

 And they got their independence or haven't you heard of Iran, Syria, Iraq, Jordan etc.   Or are you a complete moron and done realise that those were the independent states promised by the British.


 How about a contemporary link to prove your claim that the European Jews were colonists out to evict the non Jews from the land.

 As you have been told before the laws of today can not be applied retrospectively, and you MUST apply the laws extant at the time. So the laws of the time of the LoN covenant were never breached by the granting of the land to the Jews.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Trans-Jordan had nothing to do with Palestine geographically, as stated in the definition of the two areas in the Mandate, there was a specific definition of the area of Trans-Jordan and the people,  and it was not called Palestine,. Quit making things up. See below.
> 
> "Included in the area of the Palestine Mandate is the territory of Trans-Jordania. It is bounded on the north by the frontier of Syria, placed under the mandate of France; on the south by the kingdom of the Hejaz; and on the west by the line of the Jordan and the Dead Sea; while on the east it stretches into the desert and ends--the boundary is not yet defined--where Mesopotamia begins. Trans-Jordania has a population of probably 350,000 people. It contains a few small towns and large areas of fertile land, producing excellent wheat and barley. The people are partly settled townsmen and agriculturists, partly wandering Bedouin; the latter, however, cultivate areas, more or less fixed, during certain seasons of the year."
> 
> Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921







 WRONG AGAIN Abdul  as the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE details the area it covers, and how they made provision for part of Palestine to be used for an arab muslim nation.

British Mandate for Palestine legal instrument - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


*Article 25 and Transjordan memorandum[edit]*
Article 25 of the mandate recognised the McMahon-Hussein correspondence.[54] It permitted the mandatory to "postpone or withhold application of such provisions of the mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions" in that region.

The final text of the Mandate includes an Article 25 which states:

*"In the territories lying between the Jordan [river] and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions*"[55]

On submission of the memorandum to the Council of the League of Nations, Balfour explained the background as recorded in the minutes: "Lord Balfour reminded his colleagues that Article 25 of the mandate for Palestine as approved by the Council in London on July 24th, 1922, *provides that the territories in Palestine which lie east of the Jordan should be under a somewhat different regime from the rest of Palestine*. ... The British Government now merely proposed to carry out this article. It had always been part of the policy contemplated by the League and accepted by the British Government, and the latter now desired to carry it into effect. In pursuance of the policy, embodied in Article 25, Lord Balfour invited the Council to pass a series of resolutions which modified the mandate as regards those territories. The object of these resolutions was to withdraw from Trans-Jordania the special provisions which were intended to provide a national home for the Jews west of the Jordan."[56]




 I bet you feel a right idiot now don't you Abdul.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici, et al,

I think you are confused.



RoccoR said:


> Arab Delegation _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_.


*(COMMENT)*

Who are you trying to kid????

_(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_​
Musa Kazim al-Husayni, who signed the correspondence you cited,  held a series of senior posts in the Ottoman administration. He belonged to the prominent al-Husayni family and was mayor of Jerusalem (1918-1920). He was dismissed as mayor by the British authorities and became head of the nationalist Executive Committee of the Palestine Arab Congress from 1922 until 1934.
These were former Ottoman puppets and soon to be stone cold terrorists, in league with the Mufti and associated with Izz ad-din al-Qassam (Palestinian Black Hand). He belonged to the prominent al-Husayni family and was mayor of Jerusalem.  While there is no doubt that at least some of the Arab Delegation might have represented the Christian segment, there was not prominent person noted nor a Christian oriented request made by the Delegation.

Remember, the British governed Palestine through a military administration known as *Occupied Enemy Territory Administration* (OETA); a joint British and French military administration over Levantine and Mesopotamian provinces of the former Ottoman Empire.



montelatici said:


> _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_.
> 
> No, the Arab Delegation was made up of Christians and Muslims whose people had  supported the British against the Axis powers.  Ever watched Lawrence of Arabia you ignoramus.  And, they were, in fact, promised independence for their support.
> 
> _"They believe that they had some innate authority or  provocative right that suggests they should have had a political voice in the matter of the Israels self-determination."
> _
> Of course they had an innate authority to defend their land from British colonialism.  The Jews were Europeans, from another continent, who had every intention of evicting the indigenous people and colonizing the area, in contravention of the LoN Covenant, for example (and there are many others):


*(COMMENT)*

To make a couple of points:

Look at the timeline.  At the time the Arab Delegation was corresponding with the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1920-1925) the Jewish were not evicting anyone from the territory under the Mandate.  

Sovereignty and immigration was a matter for the Government of Palestine _(ie the UK High Commissioner)_ and the League of Nations Palestinian Council to be concerned about; not an issue for the Arab Palestinian to be concerned.  

There had been no grand strategy pertaining to the distribution of the Jewish Immigrants yet formulated.  This did not really come about until after the Arab Palestinians became violent and riotous.  With prominent Arab-Palestinians _(former enemy citizenry)_ like the Gand Mufti of Jerusalem openly participating in the incitement activities.  It was well known that al-Husseini exercised total control over the secret society, _Al-Fida’iyya_ _(The Self-Sacrificers)_, which, together with _al-Ikha’ wal-‘Afaf _(Brotherhood and Purity), played an important role in clandestine anti-British and anti-Zionist activities, and, via members in the gendarmerie, had engaged in riotous activities as early as April 1920.  Palestinian nationalism emerged, during the time between the initial OETA and the Mandate, in response to Zionist immigration and settlement.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

Rocco you posted the same thing 5 times


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> montelatici, et al,
> 
> I think you are confused.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arab Delegation _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Who are you trying to kid????
> 
> _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_​
> Musa Kazim al-Husayni, who signed the correspondence you cited,  held a series of senior posts in the Ottoman administration. He belonged to the prominent al-Husayni family and was mayor of Jerusalem (1918-1920). He was dismissed as mayor by the British authorities and became head of the nationalist Executive Committee of the Palestine Arab Congress from 1922 until 1934.
> These were former Ottoman puppets and soon to be stone cold terrorists, in league with the Mufti and associated with Izz ad-din al-Qassam (Palestinian Black Hand). He belonged to the prominent al-Husayni family and was mayor of Jerusalem.  While there is no doubt that at least some of the Arab Delegation might have represented the Christian segment, there was not prominent person noted nor a Christian oriented request made by the Delegation.
> 
> Remember, the British governed Palestine through a military administration known as *Occupied Enemy Territory Administration* (OETA); a joint British and French military administration over Levantine and Mesopotamian provinces of the former Ottoman Empire.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_.
> 
> No, the Arab Delegation was made up of Christians and Muslims whose people had  supported the British against the Axis powers.  Ever watched Lawrence of Arabia you ignoramus.  And, they were, in fact, promised independence for their support.
> 
> _"They believe that they had some innate authority or  provocative right that suggests they should have had a political voice in the matter of the Israels self-determination."
> _
> Of course they had an innate authority to defend their land from British colonialism.  The Jews were Europeans, from another continent, who had every intention of evicting the indigenous people and colonizing the area, in contravention of the LoN Covenant, for example (and there are many others):
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> To make a couple of points:
> 
> Look at the timeline.  At the time the Arab Delegation was corresponding with the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1920-1925) the Jewish were not evicting anyone from the territory under the Mandate.
> 
> Sovereignty and immigration was a matter for the Government of Palestine _(ie the UK High Commissioner)_ and the League of Nations Palestinian Council to be concerned about; not an issue for the Arab Palestinian to be concerned.
> 
> There had been no grand strategy pertaining to the distribution of the Jewish Immigrants yet formulated.  This did not really come about until after the Arab Palestinians became violent and riotous.  With prominent Arab-Palestinians _(former enemy citizenry)_ like the Gand Mufti of Jerusalem openly participating in the incitement activities.  It was well known that al-Husseini exercised total control over the secret society, _Al-Fida’iyya_ _(The Self-Sacrificers)_, which, together with _al-Ikha’ wal-‘Afaf _(Brotherhood and Purity), played an important role in clandestine anti-British and anti-Zionist activities, and, via members in the gendarmerie, had engaged in riotous activities as early as April 1920.  Palestinian nationalism emerged, during the time between the initial OETA and the Mandate, in response to Zionist immigration and settlement.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Holy smokescreen, Batman. You are solid into Israeli propaganda.

Here is something from a neutral (Italian) source.


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici, et al,
> 
> I think you are confused.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arab Delegation _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Who are you trying to kid????
> 
> _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_​
> Musa Kazim al-Husayni, who signed the correspondence you cited,  held a series of senior posts in the Ottoman administration. He belonged to the prominent al-Husayni family and was mayor of Jerusalem (1918-1920). He was dismissed as mayor by the British authorities and became head of the nationalist Executive Committee of the Palestine Arab Congress from 1922 until 1934.
> These were former Ottoman puppets and soon to be stone cold terrorists, in league with the Mufti and associated with Izz ad-din al-Qassam (Palestinian Black Hand). He belonged to the prominent al-Husayni family and was mayor of Jerusalem.  While there is no doubt that at least some of the Arab Delegation might have represented the Christian segment, there was not prominent person noted nor a Christian oriented request made by the Delegation.
> 
> Remember, the British governed Palestine through a military administration known as *Occupied Enemy Territory Administration* (OETA); a joint British and French military administration over Levantine and Mesopotamian provinces of the former Ottoman Empire.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_.
> 
> No, the Arab Delegation was made up of Christians and Muslims whose people had  supported the British against the Axis powers.  Ever watched Lawrence of Arabia you ignoramus.  And, they were, in fact, promised independence for their support.
> 
> _"They believe that they had some innate authority or  provocative right that suggests they should have had a political voice in the matter of the Israels self-determination."
> _
> Of course they had an innate authority to defend their land from British colonialism.  The Jews were Europeans, from another continent, who had every intention of evicting the indigenous people and colonizing the area, in contravention of the LoN Covenant, for example (and there are many others):
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> To make a couple of points:
> 
> Look at the timeline.  At the time the Arab Delegation was corresponding with the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1920-1925) the Jewish were not evicting anyone from the territory under the Mandate.
> 
> Sovereignty and immigration was a matter for the Government of Palestine _(ie the UK High Commissioner)_ and the League of Nations Palestinian Council to be concerned about; not an issue for the Arab Palestinian to be concerned.
> 
> There had been no grand strategy pertaining to the distribution of the Jewish Immigrants yet formulated.  This did not really come about until after the Arab Palestinians became violent and riotous.  With prominent Arab-Palestinians _(former enemy citizenry)_ like the Gand Mufti of Jerusalem openly participating in the incitement activities.  It was well known that al-Husseini exercised total control over the secret society, _Al-Fida’iyya_ _(The Self-Sacrificers)_, which, together with _al-Ikha’ wal-‘Afaf _(Brotherhood and Purity), played an important role in clandestine anti-British and anti-Zionist activities, and, via members in the gendarmerie, had engaged in riotous activities as early as April 1920.  Palestinian nationalism emerged, during the time between the initial OETA and the Mandate, in response to Zionist immigration and settlement.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...



"Look at the timeline. At the time the Arab Delegation was corresponding with the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1920-1925) the Jewish were not evicting anyone from the territory under the Mandate. "

Look at the facts.  The British knew what the Jews were up to at the beginning of the Mandate.  Below is a UN document. A communication from Britain to the UN in 1947.  Perhaps they were trying to wash their hands of the affair or they felt guilty for what they did allowed to happen to their fellow Christians and the Muslims in Palestine.  It is a formal UN document.  


*UNITED NATIONS*

*A*







*General Assembly*
















A/AC.14/82 October 1947
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH

*AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION COMMUNICATION FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM DELEGATION TOTHE UNITED NATIONS*


*“The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase.”
*
A AC.14 8 of 2 October 1947


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici, et al,
> 
> I think you are confused.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arab Delegation _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Who are you trying to kid????
> 
> _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_​
> Musa Kazim al-Husayni, who signed the correspondence you cited,  held a series of senior posts in the Ottoman administration. He belonged to the prominent al-Husayni family and was mayor of Jerusalem (1918-1920). He was dismissed as mayor by the British authorities and became head of the nationalist Executive Committee of the Palestine Arab Congress from 1922 until 1934.
> These were former Ottoman puppets and soon to be stone cold terrorists, in league with the Mufti and associated with Izz ad-din al-Qassam (Palestinian Black Hand). He belonged to the prominent al-Husayni family and was mayor of Jerusalem.  While there is no doubt that at least some of the Arab Delegation might have represented the Christian segment, there was not prominent person noted nor a Christian oriented request made by the Delegation.
> 
> Remember, the British governed Palestine through a military administration known as *Occupied Enemy Territory Administration* (OETA); a joint British and French military administration over Levantine and Mesopotamian provinces of the former Ottoman Empire.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_.
> 
> No, the Arab Delegation was made up of Christians and Muslims whose people had  supported the British against the Axis powers.  Ever watched Lawrence of Arabia you ignoramus.  And, they were, in fact, promised independence for their support.
> 
> _"They believe that they had some innate authority or  provocative right that suggests they should have had a political voice in the matter of the Israels self-determination."
> _
> Of course they had an innate authority to defend their land from British colonialism.  The Jews were Europeans, from another continent, who had every intention of evicting the indigenous people and colonizing the area, in contravention of the LoN Covenant, for example (and there are many others):
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> To make a couple of points:
> 
> Look at the timeline.  At the time the Arab Delegation was corresponding with the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1920-1925) the Jewish were not evicting anyone from the territory under the Mandate.
> 
> Sovereignty and immigration was a matter for the Government of Palestine _(ie the UK High Commissioner)_ and the League of Nations Palestinian Council to be concerned about; not an issue for the Arab Palestinian to be concerned.
> 
> There had been no grand strategy pertaining to the distribution of the Jewish Immigrants yet formulated.  This did not really come about until after the Arab Palestinians became violent and riotous.  With prominent Arab-Palestinians _(former enemy citizenry)_ like the Gand Mufti of Jerusalem openly participating in the incitement activities.  It was well known that al-Husseini exercised total control over the secret society, _Al-Fida’iyya_ _(The Self-Sacrificers)_, which, together with _al-Ikha’ wal-‘Afaf _(Brotherhood and Purity), played an important role in clandestine anti-British and anti-Zionist activities, and, via members in the gendarmerie, had engaged in riotous activities as early as April 1920.  Palestinian nationalism emerged, during the time between the initial OETA and the Mandate, in response to Zionist immigration and settlement.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


You are full of shit.  See the British communication to the UN of 2 Oct. 1947 linked below.  Makes all your bullshit irrelevant.


----------



## montelatici

The first Palestinian Delegation to London.  2 of the 6 members were Christian Palestinians. 






The First Palestinian Delegation to the United Kingdom in working session in London, 1921. Two of the six-man delegation (first and fourth left) were Christian Palestinians. The delegation was elected by the Fourth Palestinian National Congress. Third left is Musa Kazim Pasha al-Husseini  fourth left is Shibli Jamal. This was the first of four Palestinian delegations to London undertaken during the period 1921-30 to explain Arab fears of the consequences of Zionist policies in Palestine.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici, et al,
> 
> I think you are confused.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arab Delegation _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Who are you trying to kid????
> 
> _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_​
> Musa Kazim al-Husayni, who signed the correspondence you cited,  held a series of senior posts in the Ottoman administration. He belonged to the prominent al-Husayni family and was mayor of Jerusalem (1918-1920). He was dismissed as mayor by the British authorities and became head of the nationalist Executive Committee of the Palestine Arab Congress from 1922 until 1934.
> These were former Ottoman puppets and soon to be stone cold terrorists, in league with the Mufti and associated with Izz ad-din al-Qassam (Palestinian Black Hand). He belonged to the prominent al-Husayni family and was mayor of Jerusalem.  While there is no doubt that at least some of the Arab Delegation might have represented the Christian segment, there was not prominent person noted nor a Christian oriented request made by the Delegation.
> 
> Remember, the British governed Palestine through a military administration known as *Occupied Enemy Territory Administration* (OETA); a joint British and French military administration over Levantine and Mesopotamian provinces of the former Ottoman Empire.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_.
> 
> No, the Arab Delegation was made up of Christians and Muslims whose people had  supported the British against the Axis powers.  Ever watched Lawrence of Arabia you ignoramus.  And, they were, in fact, promised independence for their support.
> 
> _"They believe that they had some innate authority or  provocative right that suggests they should have had a political voice in the matter of the Israels self-determination."
> _
> Of course they had an innate authority to defend their land from British colonialism.  The Jews were Europeans, from another continent, who had every intention of evicting the indigenous people and colonizing the area, in contravention of the LoN Covenant, for example (and there are many others):
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> To make a couple of points:
> 
> Look at the timeline.  At the time the Arab Delegation was corresponding with the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1920-1925) the Jewish were not evicting anyone from the territory under the Mandate.
> 
> Sovereignty and immigration was a matter for the Government of Palestine _(ie the UK High Commissioner)_ and the League of Nations Palestinian Council to be concerned about; not an issue for the Arab Palestinian to be concerned.
> 
> There had been no grand strategy pertaining to the distribution of the Jewish Immigrants yet formulated.  This did not really come about until after the Arab Palestinians became violent and riotous.  With prominent Arab-Palestinians _(former enemy citizenry)_ like the Gand Mufti of Jerusalem openly participating in the incitement activities.  It was well known that al-Husseini exercised total control over the secret society, _Al-Fida’iyya_ _(The Self-Sacrificers)_, which, together with _al-Ikha’ wal-‘Afaf _(Brotherhood and Purity), played an important role in clandestine anti-British and anti-Zionist activities, and, via members in the gendarmerie, had engaged in riotous activities as early as April 1920.  Palestinian nationalism emerged, during the time between the initial OETA and the Mandate, in response to Zionist immigration and settlement.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy smokescreen, Batman. You are solid into Israeli propaganda.
> 
> Here is something from a neutral (Italian) source.
Click to expand...


What did Rocco say that is false ?


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici, et al,
> 
> I think you are confused.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arab Delegation _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Who are you trying to kid????
> 
> _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_​
> Musa Kazim al-Husayni, who signed the correspondence you cited,  held a series of senior posts in the Ottoman administration. He belonged to the prominent al-Husayni family and was mayor of Jerusalem (1918-1920). He was dismissed as mayor by the British authorities and became head of the nationalist Executive Committee of the Palestine Arab Congress from 1922 until 1934.
> These were former Ottoman puppets and soon to be stone cold terrorists, in league with the Mufti and associated with Izz ad-din al-Qassam (Palestinian Black Hand). He belonged to the prominent al-Husayni family and was mayor of Jerusalem.  While there is no doubt that at least some of the Arab Delegation might have represented the Christian segment, there was not prominent person noted nor a Christian oriented request made by the Delegation.
> 
> Remember, the British governed Palestine through a military administration known as *Occupied Enemy Territory Administration* (OETA); a joint British and French military administration over Levantine and Mesopotamian provinces of the former Ottoman Empire.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_.
> 
> No, the Arab Delegation was made up of Christians and Muslims whose people had  supported the British against the Axis powers.  Ever watched Lawrence of Arabia you ignoramus.  And, they were, in fact, promised independence for their support.
> 
> _"They believe that they had some innate authority or  provocative right that suggests they should have had a political voice in the matter of the Israels self-determination."
> _
> Of course they had an innate authority to defend their land from British colonialism.  The Jews were Europeans, from another continent, who had every intention of evicting the indigenous people and colonizing the area, in contravention of the LoN Covenant, for example (and there are many others):
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> To make a couple of points:
> 
> Look at the timeline.  At the time the Arab Delegation was corresponding with the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1920-1925) the Jewish were not evicting anyone from the territory under the Mandate.
> 
> Sovereignty and immigration was a matter for the Government of Palestine _(ie the UK High Commissioner)_ and the League of Nations Palestinian Council to be concerned about; not an issue for the Arab Palestinian to be concerned.
> 
> There had been no grand strategy pertaining to the distribution of the Jewish Immigrants yet formulated.  This did not really come about until after the Arab Palestinians became violent and riotous.  With prominent Arab-Palestinians _(former enemy citizenry)_ like the Gand Mufti of Jerusalem openly participating in the incitement activities.  It was well known that al-Husseini exercised total control over the secret society, _Al-Fida’iyya_ _(The Self-Sacrificers)_, which, together with _al-Ikha’ wal-‘Afaf _(Brotherhood and Purity), played an important role in clandestine anti-British and anti-Zionist activities, and, via members in the gendarmerie, had engaged in riotous activities as early as April 1920.  Palestinian nationalism emerged, during the time between the initial OETA and the Mandate, in response to Zionist immigration and settlement.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are full of shit.  See the British communication to the UN of 2 Oct. 1947 linked below.  Makes all your bullshit irrelevant.
Click to expand...


You're such an immature little child Monti. Rocco responds politely to you and because you can't handle the truth, you resort to cursing at him. Grow up little boy


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici, et al,
> 
> I think you are confused.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arab Delegation _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Who are you trying to kid????
> 
> _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_​
> Musa Kazim al-Husayni, who signed the correspondence you cited,  held a series of senior posts in the Ottoman administration. He belonged to the prominent al-Husayni family and was mayor of Jerusalem (1918-1920). He was dismissed as mayor by the British authorities and became head of the nationalist Executive Committee of the Palestine Arab Congress from 1922 until 1934.
> These were former Ottoman puppets and soon to be stone cold terrorists, in league with the Mufti and associated with Izz ad-din al-Qassam (Palestinian Black Hand). He belonged to the prominent al-Husayni family and was mayor of Jerusalem.  While there is no doubt that at least some of the Arab Delegation might have represented the Christian segment, there was not prominent person noted nor a Christian oriented request made by the Delegation.
> 
> Remember, the British governed Palestine through a military administration known as *Occupied Enemy Territory Administration* (OETA); a joint British and French military administration over Levantine and Mesopotamian provinces of the former Ottoman Empire.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_.
> 
> No, the Arab Delegation was made up of Christians and Muslims whose people had  supported the British against the Axis powers.  Ever watched Lawrence of Arabia you ignoramus.  And, they were, in fact, promised independence for their support.
> 
> _"They believe that they had some innate authority or  provocative right that suggests they should have had a political voice in the matter of the Israels self-determination."
> _
> Of course they had an innate authority to defend their land from British colonialism.  The Jews were Europeans, from another continent, who had every intention of evicting the indigenous people and colonizing the area, in contravention of the LoN Covenant, for example (and there are many others):
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> To make a couple of points:
> 
> Look at the timeline.  At the time the Arab Delegation was corresponding with the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1920-1925) the Jewish were not evicting anyone from the territory under the Mandate.
> 
> Sovereignty and immigration was a matter for the Government of Palestine _(ie the UK High Commissioner)_ and the League of Nations Palestinian Council to be concerned about; not an issue for the Arab Palestinian to be concerned.
> 
> There had been no grand strategy pertaining to the distribution of the Jewish Immigrants yet formulated.  This did not really come about until after the Arab Palestinians became violent and riotous.  With prominent Arab-Palestinians _(former enemy citizenry)_ like the Gand Mufti of Jerusalem openly participating in the incitement activities.  It was well known that al-Husseini exercised total control over the secret society, _Al-Fida’iyya_ _(The Self-Sacrificers)_, which, together with _al-Ikha’ wal-‘Afaf _(Brotherhood and Purity), played an important role in clandestine anti-British and anti-Zionist activities, and, via members in the gendarmerie, had engaged in riotous activities as early as April 1920.  Palestinian nationalism emerged, during the time between the initial OETA and the Mandate, in response to Zionist immigration and settlement.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy smokescreen, Batman. You are solid into Israeli propaganda.
> 
> Here is something from a neutral (Italian) source.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did Rocco say that is false ?
Click to expand...


Everything.  He is just spouting propaganda.  Easy to detect for someone with even a basic education on the subject.


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici, et al,
> 
> I think you are confused.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arab Delegation _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Who are you trying to kid????
> 
> _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_​
> Musa Kazim al-Husayni, who signed the correspondence you cited,  held a series of senior posts in the Ottoman administration. He belonged to the prominent al-Husayni family and was mayor of Jerusalem (1918-1920). He was dismissed as mayor by the British authorities and became head of the nationalist Executive Committee of the Palestine Arab Congress from 1922 until 1934.
> These were former Ottoman puppets and soon to be stone cold terrorists, in league with the Mufti and associated with Izz ad-din al-Qassam (Palestinian Black Hand). He belonged to the prominent al-Husayni family and was mayor of Jerusalem.  While there is no doubt that at least some of the Arab Delegation might have represented the Christian segment, there was not prominent person noted nor a Christian oriented request made by the Delegation.
> 
> Remember, the British governed Palestine through a military administration known as *Occupied Enemy Territory Administration* (OETA); a joint British and French military administration over Levantine and Mesopotamian provinces of the former Ottoman Empire.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_.
> 
> No, the Arab Delegation was made up of Christians and Muslims whose people had  supported the British against the Axis powers.  Ever watched Lawrence of Arabia you ignoramus.  And, they were, in fact, promised independence for their support.
> 
> _"They believe that they had some innate authority or  provocative right that suggests they should have had a political voice in the matter of the Israels self-determination."
> _
> Of course they had an innate authority to defend their land from British colonialism.  The Jews were Europeans, from another continent, who had every intention of evicting the indigenous people and colonizing the area, in contravention of the LoN Covenant, for example (and there are many others):
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> To make a couple of points:
> 
> Look at the timeline.  At the time the Arab Delegation was corresponding with the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1920-1925) the Jewish were not evicting anyone from the territory under the Mandate.
> 
> Sovereignty and immigration was a matter for the Government of Palestine _(ie the UK High Commissioner)_ and the League of Nations Palestinian Council to be concerned about; not an issue for the Arab Palestinian to be concerned.
> 
> There had been no grand strategy pertaining to the distribution of the Jewish Immigrants yet formulated.  This did not really come about until after the Arab Palestinians became violent and riotous.  With prominent Arab-Palestinians _(former enemy citizenry)_ like the Gand Mufti of Jerusalem openly participating in the incitement activities.  It was well known that al-Husseini exercised total control over the secret society, _Al-Fida’iyya_ _(The Self-Sacrificers)_, which, together with _al-Ikha’ wal-‘Afaf _(Brotherhood and Purity), played an important role in clandestine anti-British and anti-Zionist activities, and, via members in the gendarmerie, had engaged in riotous activities as early as April 1920.  Palestinian nationalism emerged, during the time between the initial OETA and the Mandate, in response to Zionist immigration and settlement.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are full of shit.  See the British communication to the UN of 2 Oct. 1947 linked below.  Makes all your bullshit irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're such an immature little child Monti. Rocco responds politely to you and because you can't handle the truth, you resort to cursing at him. Grow up little boy
Click to expand...


I don't take kindly to people that insult my intelligence.  He posts nonsense thinking I am your average poster.  I am not.  I am an expert in Middle East history.  That is why I can refer to source documents which disprove his (and your) Zionist propaganda.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici, et al,
> 
> I think you are confused.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arab Delegation _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Who are you trying to kid????
> 
> _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_​
> Musa Kazim al-Husayni, who signed the correspondence you cited,  held a series of senior posts in the Ottoman administration. He belonged to the prominent al-Husayni family and was mayor of Jerusalem (1918-1920). He was dismissed as mayor by the British authorities and became head of the nationalist Executive Committee of the Palestine Arab Congress from 1922 until 1934.
> These were former Ottoman puppets and soon to be stone cold terrorists, in league with the Mufti and associated with Izz ad-din al-Qassam (Palestinian Black Hand). He belonged to the prominent al-Husayni family and was mayor of Jerusalem.  While there is no doubt that at least some of the Arab Delegation might have represented the Christian segment, there was not prominent person noted nor a Christian oriented request made by the Delegation.
> 
> Remember, the British governed Palestine through a military administration known as *Occupied Enemy Territory Administration* (OETA); a joint British and French military administration over Levantine and Mesopotamian provinces of the former Ottoman Empire.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_.
> 
> No, the Arab Delegation was made up of Christians and Muslims whose people had  supported the British against the Axis powers.  Ever watched Lawrence of Arabia you ignoramus.  And, they were, in fact, promised independence for their support.
> 
> _"They believe that they had some innate authority or  provocative right that suggests they should have had a political voice in the matter of the Israels self-determination."
> _
> Of course they had an innate authority to defend their land from British colonialism.  The Jews were Europeans, from another continent, who had every intention of evicting the indigenous people and colonizing the area, in contravention of the LoN Covenant, for example (and there are many others):
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> To make a couple of points:
> 
> Look at the timeline.  At the time the Arab Delegation was corresponding with the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1920-1925) the Jewish were not evicting anyone from the territory under the Mandate.
> 
> Sovereignty and immigration was a matter for the Government of Palestine _(ie the UK High Commissioner)_ and the League of Nations Palestinian Council to be concerned about; not an issue for the Arab Palestinian to be concerned.
> 
> There had been no grand strategy pertaining to the distribution of the Jewish Immigrants yet formulated.  This did not really come about until after the Arab Palestinians became violent and riotous.  With prominent Arab-Palestinians _(former enemy citizenry)_ like the Gand Mufti of Jerusalem openly participating in the incitement activities.  It was well known that al-Husseini exercised total control over the secret society, _Al-Fida’iyya_ _(The Self-Sacrificers)_, which, together with _al-Ikha’ wal-‘Afaf _(Brotherhood and Purity), played an important role in clandestine anti-British and anti-Zionist activities, and, via members in the gendarmerie, had engaged in riotous activities as early as April 1920.  Palestinian nationalism emerged, during the time between the initial OETA and the Mandate, in response to Zionist immigration and settlement.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are full of shit.  See the British communication to the UN of 2 Oct. 1947 linked below.  Makes all your bullshit irrelevant.
Click to expand...


BTW, you are just like Tinmore. You respond to his post without refuting anything.

The only thing


montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici, et al,
> 
> I think you are confused.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arab Delegation _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Who are you trying to kid????
> 
> _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_​
> Musa Kazim al-Husayni, who signed the correspondence you cited,  held a series of senior posts in the Ottoman administration. He belonged to the prominent al-Husayni family and was mayor of Jerusalem (1918-1920). He was dismissed as mayor by the British authorities and became head of the nationalist Executive Committee of the Palestine Arab Congress from 1922 until 1934.
> These were former Ottoman puppets and soon to be stone cold terrorists, in league with the Mufti and associated with Izz ad-din al-Qassam (Palestinian Black Hand). He belonged to the prominent al-Husayni family and was mayor of Jerusalem.  While there is no doubt that at least some of the Arab Delegation might have represented the Christian segment, there was not prominent person noted nor a Christian oriented request made by the Delegation.
> 
> Remember, the British governed Palestine through a military administration known as *Occupied Enemy Territory Administration* (OETA); a joint British and French military administration over Levantine and Mesopotamian provinces of the former Ottoman Empire.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_.
> 
> No, the Arab Delegation was made up of Christians and Muslims whose people had  supported the British against the Axis powers.  Ever watched Lawrence of Arabia you ignoramus.  And, they were, in fact, promised independence for their support.
> 
> _"They believe that they had some innate authority or  provocative right that suggests they should have had a political voice in the matter of the Israels self-determination."
> _
> Of course they had an innate authority to defend their land from British colonialism.  The Jews were Europeans, from another continent, who had every intention of evicting the indigenous people and colonizing the area, in contravention of the LoN Covenant, for example (and there are many others):
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> To make a couple of points:
> 
> Look at the timeline.  At the time the Arab Delegation was corresponding with the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1920-1925) the Jewish were not evicting anyone from the territory under the Mandate.
> 
> Sovereignty and immigration was a matter for the Government of Palestine _(ie the UK High Commissioner)_ and the League of Nations Palestinian Council to be concerned about; not an issue for the Arab Palestinian to be concerned.
> 
> There had been no grand strategy pertaining to the distribution of the Jewish Immigrants yet formulated.  This did not really come about until after the Arab Palestinians became violent and riotous.  With prominent Arab-Palestinians _(former enemy citizenry)_ like the Gand Mufti of Jerusalem openly participating in the incitement activities.  It was well known that al-Husseini exercised total control over the secret society, _Al-Fida’iyya_ _(The Self-Sacrificers)_, which, together with _al-Ikha’ wal-‘Afaf _(Brotherhood and Purity), played an important role in clandestine anti-British and anti-Zionist activities, and, via members in the gendarmerie, had engaged in riotous activities as early as April 1920.  Palestinian nationalism emerged, during the time between the initial OETA and the Mandate, in response to Zionist immigration and settlement.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy smokescreen, Batman. You are solid into Israeli propaganda.
> 
> Here is something from a neutral (Italian) source.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did Rocco say that is false ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything.  He is just spouting propaganda.  Easy to detect for someone with even a basic education on the subject.
Click to expand...


Be more specific little boy. Refute what he posted, if you can


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici, et al,
> 
> I think you are confused.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arab Delegation _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Who are you trying to kid????
> 
> _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_​
> Musa Kazim al-Husayni, who signed the correspondence you cited,  held a series of senior posts in the Ottoman administration. He belonged to the prominent al-Husayni family and was mayor of Jerusalem (1918-1920). He was dismissed as mayor by the British authorities and became head of the nationalist Executive Committee of the Palestine Arab Congress from 1922 until 1934.
> These were former Ottoman puppets and soon to be stone cold terrorists, in league with the Mufti and associated with Izz ad-din al-Qassam (Palestinian Black Hand). He belonged to the prominent al-Husayni family and was mayor of Jerusalem.  While there is no doubt that at least some of the Arab Delegation might have represented the Christian segment, there was not prominent person noted nor a Christian oriented request made by the Delegation.
> 
> Remember, the British governed Palestine through a military administration known as *Occupied Enemy Territory Administration* (OETA); a joint British and French military administration over Levantine and Mesopotamian provinces of the former Ottoman Empire.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_.
> 
> No, the Arab Delegation was made up of Christians and Muslims whose people had  supported the British against the Axis powers.  Ever watched Lawrence of Arabia you ignoramus.  And, they were, in fact, promised independence for their support.
> 
> _"They believe that they had some innate authority or  provocative right that suggests they should have had a political voice in the matter of the Israels self-determination."
> _
> Of course they had an innate authority to defend their land from British colonialism.  The Jews were Europeans, from another continent, who had every intention of evicting the indigenous people and colonizing the area, in contravention of the LoN Covenant, for example (and there are many others):
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> To make a couple of points:
> 
> Look at the timeline.  At the time the Arab Delegation was corresponding with the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1920-1925) the Jewish were not evicting anyone from the territory under the Mandate.
> 
> Sovereignty and immigration was a matter for the Government of Palestine _(ie the UK High Commissioner)_ and the League of Nations Palestinian Council to be concerned about; not an issue for the Arab Palestinian to be concerned.
> 
> There had been no grand strategy pertaining to the distribution of the Jewish Immigrants yet formulated.  This did not really come about until after the Arab Palestinians became violent and riotous.  With prominent Arab-Palestinians _(former enemy citizenry)_ like the Gand Mufti of Jerusalem openly participating in the incitement activities.  It was well known that al-Husseini exercised total control over the secret society, _Al-Fida’iyya_ _(The Self-Sacrificers)_, which, together with _al-Ikha’ wal-‘Afaf _(Brotherhood and Purity), played an important role in clandestine anti-British and anti-Zionist activities, and, via members in the gendarmerie, had engaged in riotous activities as early as April 1920.  Palestinian nationalism emerged, during the time between the initial OETA and the Mandate, in response to Zionist immigration and settlement.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are full of shit.  See the British communication to the UN of 2 Oct. 1947 linked below.  Makes all your bullshit irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're such an immature little child Monti. Rocco responds politely to you and because you can't handle the truth, you resort to cursing at him. Grow up little boy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't take kindly to people that insult my intelligence.  He posts nonsense thinking I am your average poster.  I am not.  I am an expert in Middle East history.  That is why I can refer to source documents which disprove his (and your) Zionist propaganda.
Click to expand...


You're an immature little boy who can't handle that the truth does not abide by your bullshit Palestinians propaganda agenda. 
When you respond to someones post by using personal attacks , accusing him of propaganda but WITHOUT refuting anything, it shows you are full of crap and cannot handle the truth. Which of course we already knew. 

"I am an expert in Middle East history"


----------



## montelatici

I only post the truth.  I have refuted everything he has claimed.  With links to source data.  You are just too stupid to realize it. Just shut up, you are making a fool of yourself.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> I only post the truth.  I have refuted everything he has claimed.  With links to source data.  You are just too stupid to realize it. Just shut up, you are making a fool of yourself.



Haha it's fun watching you get angry because someone posted the truth which you are clearly 100% allergic to. 

Please show me where you refuted his post??


----------



## montelatici

No, I just have a very good bullshit radar.  Just shut up, you continue to make a fool of yourself.

If you can't figure out how I dismantled his claim that the Jews were not intent on dispossessing the non-Jews, stated clearly in a UN document written by the British to the UN in 1947, and how I completely dismantled is claim that the Christians and Muslims did not attempt to gain independence as written in correspondence between the Palestine Delegation and the British colonial office in 1921, then take a reading comprehension course you moron.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> No, I just have a very good bullshit radar.  Just shut up, you continue to make a fool of yourself.
> 
> If you can't figure out how I dismantled his claim that the Jews were not intent on dispossessing the non-Jews, stated clearly in a UN document written by the British to the UN in 1947, and how I completely dismantled is claim that the Christians and Muslims did not attempt to gain independence as written in correspondence between the Palestine Delegation and the British colonial office in 1921, then take a reading comprehension course you moron.


 
Well of course you're going to claim that you refuted his post . You're too immature to have a normal debate with someone who has opposing views.

Look, it's not my fault that the truth hurts you, so don't take it out on me or Rocco. That's just the way you are and no matter how hard you try to deny it, it won't change a thing Monti.
Do you think you are some one of a kind poster? You are a dime a dozen Lying Palestinian propagandist that we have seen so many of here. 

"I just have a very good bullshit radar"

Well then it must be going off all the time since you are full of bullshit. 
.


----------



## montelatici

My responses and the source documentation that support my responses are irreproachable. The bullshit comes from the other side.  But, continue deludng yourself.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici, et al,
> 
> I think you are confused.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arab Delegation _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Who are you trying to kid????
> 
> _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_​
> Musa Kazim al-Husayni, who signed the correspondence you cited,  held a series of senior posts in the Ottoman administration. He belonged to the prominent al-Husayni family and was mayor of Jerusalem (1918-1920). He was dismissed as mayor by the British authorities and became head of the nationalist Executive Committee of the Palestine Arab Congress from 1922 until 1934.
> These were former Ottoman puppets and soon to be stone cold terrorists, in league with the Mufti and associated with Izz ad-din al-Qassam (Palestinian Black Hand). He belonged to the prominent al-Husayni family and was mayor of Jerusalem.  While there is no doubt that at least some of the Arab Delegation might have represented the Christian segment, there was not prominent person noted nor a Christian oriented request made by the Delegation.
> 
> Remember, the British governed Palestine through a military administration known as *Occupied Enemy Territory Administration* (OETA); a joint British and French military administration over Levantine and Mesopotamian provinces of the former Ottoman Empire.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_.
> 
> No, the Arab Delegation was made up of Christians and Muslims whose people had  supported the British against the Axis powers.  Ever watched Lawrence of Arabia you ignoramus.  And, they were, in fact, promised independence for their support.
> 
> _"They believe that they had some innate authority or  provocative right that suggests they should have had a political voice in the matter of the Israels self-determination."
> _
> Of course they had an innate authority to defend their land from British colonialism.  The Jews were Europeans, from another continent, who had every intention of evicting the indigenous people and colonizing the area, in contravention of the LoN Covenant, for example (and there are many others):
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> To make a couple of points:
> 
> Look at the timeline.  At the time the Arab Delegation was corresponding with the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1920-1925) the Jewish were not evicting anyone from the territory under the Mandate.
> 
> Sovereignty and immigration was a matter for the Government of Palestine _(ie the UK High Commissioner)_ and the League of Nations Palestinian Council to be concerned about; not an issue for the Arab Palestinian to be concerned.
> 
> There had been no grand strategy pertaining to the distribution of the Jewish Immigrants yet formulated.  This did not really come about until after the Arab Palestinians became violent and riotous.  With prominent Arab-Palestinians _(former enemy citizenry)_ like the Gand Mufti of Jerusalem openly participating in the incitement activities.  It was well known that al-Husseini exercised total control over the secret society, _Al-Fida’iyya_ _(The Self-Sacrificers)_, which, together with _al-Ikha’ wal-‘Afaf _(Brotherhood and Purity), played an important role in clandestine anti-British and anti-Zionist activities, and, via members in the gendarmerie, had engaged in riotous activities as early as April 1920.  Palestinian nationalism emerged, during the time between the initial OETA and the Mandate, in response to Zionist immigration and settlement.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy smokescreen, Batman. You are solid into Israeli propaganda.
> 
> Here is something from a neutral (Italian) source.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did Rocco say that is false ?
Click to expand...

Rocco always starts with the false premise that the Palestinian resistance to occupation and colonization is aggression. Then his posts go downhill from there.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici, et al,
> 
> I think you are confused.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arab Delegation _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Who are you trying to kid????
> 
> _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_​
> Musa Kazim al-Husayni, who signed the correspondence you cited,  held a series of senior posts in the Ottoman administration. He belonged to the prominent al-Husayni family and was mayor of Jerusalem (1918-1920). He was dismissed as mayor by the British authorities and became head of the nationalist Executive Committee of the Palestine Arab Congress from 1922 until 1934.
> These were former Ottoman puppets and soon to be stone cold terrorists, in league with the Mufti and associated with Izz ad-din al-Qassam (Palestinian Black Hand). He belonged to the prominent al-Husayni family and was mayor of Jerusalem.  While there is no doubt that at least some of the Arab Delegation might have represented the Christian segment, there was not prominent person noted nor a Christian oriented request made by the Delegation.
> 
> Remember, the British governed Palestine through a military administration known as *Occupied Enemy Territory Administration* (OETA); a joint British and French military administration over Levantine and Mesopotamian provinces of the former Ottoman Empire.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_.
> 
> No, the Arab Delegation was made up of Christians and Muslims whose people had  supported the British against the Axis powers.  Ever watched Lawrence of Arabia you ignoramus.  And, they were, in fact, promised independence for their support.
> 
> _"They believe that they had some innate authority or  provocative right that suggests they should have had a political voice in the matter of the Israels self-determination."
> _
> Of course they had an innate authority to defend their land from British colonialism.  The Jews were Europeans, from another continent, who had every intention of evicting the indigenous people and colonizing the area, in contravention of the LoN Covenant, for example (and there are many others):
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> To make a couple of points:
> 
> Look at the timeline.  At the time the Arab Delegation was corresponding with the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1920-1925) the Jewish were not evicting anyone from the territory under the Mandate.
> 
> Sovereignty and immigration was a matter for the Government of Palestine _(ie the UK High Commissioner)_ and the League of Nations Palestinian Council to be concerned about; not an issue for the Arab Palestinian to be concerned.
> 
> There had been no grand strategy pertaining to the distribution of the Jewish Immigrants yet formulated.  This did not really come about until after the Arab Palestinians became violent and riotous.  With prominent Arab-Palestinians _(former enemy citizenry)_ like the Gand Mufti of Jerusalem openly participating in the incitement activities.  It was well known that al-Husseini exercised total control over the secret society, _Al-Fida’iyya_ _(The Self-Sacrificers)_, which, together with _al-Ikha’ wal-‘Afaf _(Brotherhood and Purity), played an important role in clandestine anti-British and anti-Zionist activities, and, via members in the gendarmerie, had engaged in riotous activities as early as April 1920.  Palestinian nationalism emerged, during the time between the initial OETA and the Mandate, in response to Zionist immigration and settlement.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy smokescreen, Batman. You are solid into Israeli propaganda.
> 
> Here is something from a neutral (Italian) source.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did Rocco say that is false ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco always starts with the false premise that the Palestinian resistance to occupation and colonization is aggression. Then his posts go downhill from there.
Click to expand...

Rocco has refuted so many of your posts Tinmore. You've never won a debate with him and you know that.

Can you give me a few examples of Palestinians resisting ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici, et al,
> 
> I think you are confused.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arab Delegation _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Who are you trying to kid????
> 
> _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_​
> Musa Kazim al-Husayni, who signed the correspondence you cited,  held a series of senior posts in the Ottoman administration. He belonged to the prominent al-Husayni family and was mayor of Jerusalem (1918-1920). He was dismissed as mayor by the British authorities and became head of the nationalist Executive Committee of the Palestine Arab Congress from 1922 until 1934.
> These were former Ottoman puppets and soon to be stone cold terrorists, in league with the Mufti and associated with Izz ad-din al-Qassam (Palestinian Black Hand). He belonged to the prominent al-Husayni family and was mayor of Jerusalem.  While there is no doubt that at least some of the Arab Delegation might have represented the Christian segment, there was not prominent person noted nor a Christian oriented request made by the Delegation.
> 
> Remember, the British governed Palestine through a military administration known as *Occupied Enemy Territory Administration* (OETA); a joint British and French military administration over Levantine and Mesopotamian provinces of the former Ottoman Empire.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_.
> 
> No, the Arab Delegation was made up of Christians and Muslims whose people had  supported the British against the Axis powers.  Ever watched Lawrence of Arabia you ignoramus.  And, they were, in fact, promised independence for their support.
> 
> _"They believe that they had some innate authority or  provocative right that suggests they should have had a political voice in the matter of the Israels self-determination."
> _
> Of course they had an innate authority to defend their land from British colonialism.  The Jews were Europeans, from another continent, who had every intention of evicting the indigenous people and colonizing the area, in contravention of the LoN Covenant, for example (and there are many others):
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> To make a couple of points:
> 
> Look at the timeline.  At the time the Arab Delegation was corresponding with the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1920-1925) the Jewish were not evicting anyone from the territory under the Mandate.
> 
> Sovereignty and immigration was a matter for the Government of Palestine _(ie the UK High Commissioner)_ and the League of Nations Palestinian Council to be concerned about; not an issue for the Arab Palestinian to be concerned.
> 
> There had been no grand strategy pertaining to the distribution of the Jewish Immigrants yet formulated.  This did not really come about until after the Arab Palestinians became violent and riotous.  With prominent Arab-Palestinians _(former enemy citizenry)_ like the Gand Mufti of Jerusalem openly participating in the incitement activities.  It was well known that al-Husseini exercised total control over the secret society, _Al-Fida’iyya_ _(The Self-Sacrificers)_, which, together with _al-Ikha’ wal-‘Afaf _(Brotherhood and Purity), played an important role in clandestine anti-British and anti-Zionist activities, and, via members in the gendarmerie, had engaged in riotous activities as early as April 1920.  Palestinian nationalism emerged, during the time between the initial OETA and the Mandate, in response to Zionist immigration and settlement.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy smokescreen, Batman. You are solid into Israeli propaganda.
> 
> Here is something from a neutral (Italian) source.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did Rocco say that is false ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco always starts with the false premise that the Palestinian resistance to occupation and colonization is aggression. Then his posts go downhill from there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco has refuted so many of your posts Tinmore. You've never won a debate with him and you know that.
> 
> Can you give me a few examples of Palestinians resisting ?
Click to expand...

Rocco has refuted so many of your posts Tinmore.​
Name one.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici, et al,
> 
> I think you are confused.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Who are you trying to kid????
> 
> _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_​
> Musa Kazim al-Husayni, who signed the correspondence you cited,  held a series of senior posts in the Ottoman administration. He belonged to the prominent al-Husayni family and was mayor of Jerusalem (1918-1920). He was dismissed as mayor by the British authorities and became head of the nationalist Executive Committee of the Palestine Arab Congress from 1922 until 1934.
> These were former Ottoman puppets and soon to be stone cold terrorists, in league with the Mufti and associated with Izz ad-din al-Qassam (Palestinian Black Hand). He belonged to the prominent al-Husayni family and was mayor of Jerusalem.  While there is no doubt that at least some of the Arab Delegation might have represented the Christian segment, there was not prominent person noted nor a Christian oriented request made by the Delegation.
> 
> Remember, the British governed Palestine through a military administration known as *Occupied Enemy Territory Administration* (OETA); a joint British and French military administration over Levantine and Mesopotamian provinces of the former Ottoman Empire.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> To make a couple of points:
> 
> Look at the timeline.  At the time the Arab Delegation was corresponding with the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1920-1925) the Jewish were not evicting anyone from the territory under the Mandate.
> 
> Sovereignty and immigration was a matter for the Government of Palestine _(ie the UK High Commissioner)_ and the League of Nations Palestinian Council to be concerned about; not an issue for the Arab Palestinian to be concerned.
> 
> There had been no grand strategy pertaining to the distribution of the Jewish Immigrants yet formulated.  This did not really come about until after the Arab Palestinians became violent and riotous.  With prominent Arab-Palestinians _(former enemy citizenry)_ like the Gand Mufti of Jerusalem openly participating in the incitement activities.  It was well known that al-Husseini exercised total control over the secret society, _Al-Fida’iyya_ _(The Self-Sacrificers)_, which, together with _al-Ikha’ wal-‘Afaf _(Brotherhood and Purity), played an important role in clandestine anti-British and anti-Zionist activities, and, via members in the gendarmerie, had engaged in riotous activities as early as April 1920.  Palestinian nationalism emerged, during the time between the initial OETA and the Mandate, in response to Zionist immigration and settlement.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Holy smokescreen, Batman. You are solid into Israeli propaganda.
> 
> Here is something from a neutral (Italian) source.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did Rocco say that is false ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco always starts with the false premise that the Palestinian resistance to occupation and colonization is aggression. Then his posts go downhill from there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco has refuted so many of your posts Tinmore. You've never won a debate with him and you know that.
> 
> Can you give me a few examples of Palestinians resisting ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco has refuted so many of your posts Tinmore.​
> Name one.
Click to expand...


Every time he has quoted your post to refute it, he refuted it. 

So are you going to give me specific examples of Palestinians defending themselves or resisting ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici, et al,
> 
> I think you are confused.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arab Delegation _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Who are you trying to kid????
> 
> _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_​
> Musa Kazim al-Husayni, who signed the correspondence you cited,  held a series of senior posts in the Ottoman administration. He belonged to the prominent al-Husayni family and was mayor of Jerusalem (1918-1920). He was dismissed as mayor by the British authorities and became head of the nationalist Executive Committee of the Palestine Arab Congress from 1922 until 1934.
> These were former Ottoman puppets and soon to be stone cold terrorists, in league with the Mufti and associated with Izz ad-din al-Qassam (Palestinian Black Hand). He belonged to the prominent al-Husayni family and was mayor of Jerusalem.  While there is no doubt that at least some of the Arab Delegation might have represented the Christian segment, there was not prominent person noted nor a Christian oriented request made by the Delegation.
> 
> Remember, the British governed Palestine through a military administration known as *Occupied Enemy Territory Administration* (OETA); a joint British and French military administration over Levantine and Mesopotamian provinces of the former Ottoman Empire.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_.
> 
> No, the Arab Delegation was made up of Christians and Muslims whose people had  supported the British against the Axis powers.  Ever watched Lawrence of Arabia you ignoramus.  And, they were, in fact, promised independence for their support.
> 
> _"They believe that they had some innate authority or  provocative right that suggests they should have had a political voice in the matter of the Israels self-determination."
> _
> Of course they had an innate authority to defend their land from British colonialism.  The Jews were Europeans, from another continent, who had every intention of evicting the indigenous people and colonizing the area, in contravention of the LoN Covenant, for example (and there are many others):
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> To make a couple of points:
> 
> Look at the timeline.  At the time the Arab Delegation was corresponding with the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1920-1925) the Jewish were not evicting anyone from the territory under the Mandate.
> 
> Sovereignty and immigration was a matter for the Government of Palestine _(ie the UK High Commissioner)_ and the League of Nations Palestinian Council to be concerned about; not an issue for the Arab Palestinian to be concerned.
> 
> There had been no grand strategy pertaining to the distribution of the Jewish Immigrants yet formulated.  This did not really come about until after the Arab Palestinians became violent and riotous.  With prominent Arab-Palestinians _(former enemy citizenry)_ like the Gand Mufti of Jerusalem openly participating in the incitement activities.  It was well known that al-Husseini exercised total control over the secret society, _Al-Fida’iyya_ _(The Self-Sacrificers)_, which, together with _al-Ikha’ wal-‘Afaf _(Brotherhood and Purity), played an important role in clandestine anti-British and anti-Zionist activities, and, via members in the gendarmerie, had engaged in riotous activities as early as April 1920.  Palestinian nationalism emerged, during the time between the initial OETA and the Mandate, in response to Zionist immigration and settlement.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy smokescreen, Batman. You are solid into Israeli propaganda.
> 
> Here is something from a neutral (Italian) source.
Click to expand...





 Do you think we are all as stupid as you trying to pass off "Palestine diary" as a neutral source. It is out and out NAZI JEW HATRED, all that you ever post.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici, et al,
> 
> I think you are confused.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arab Delegation _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Who are you trying to kid????
> 
> _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_​
> Musa Kazim al-Husayni, who signed the correspondence you cited,  held a series of senior posts in the Ottoman administration. He belonged to the prominent al-Husayni family and was mayor of Jerusalem (1918-1920). He was dismissed as mayor by the British authorities and became head of the nationalist Executive Committee of the Palestine Arab Congress from 1922 until 1934.
> These were former Ottoman puppets and soon to be stone cold terrorists, in league with the Mufti and associated with Izz ad-din al-Qassam (Palestinian Black Hand). He belonged to the prominent al-Husayni family and was mayor of Jerusalem.  While there is no doubt that at least some of the Arab Delegation might have represented the Christian segment, there was not prominent person noted nor a Christian oriented request made by the Delegation.
> 
> Remember, the British governed Palestine through a military administration known as *Occupied Enemy Territory Administration* (OETA); a joint British and French military administration over Levantine and Mesopotamian provinces of the former Ottoman Empire.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_.
> 
> No, the Arab Delegation was made up of Christians and Muslims whose people had  supported the British against the Axis powers.  Ever watched Lawrence of Arabia you ignoramus.  And, they were, in fact, promised independence for their support.
> 
> _"They believe that they had some innate authority or  provocative right that suggests they should have had a political voice in the matter of the Israels self-determination."
> _
> Of course they had an innate authority to defend their land from British colonialism.  The Jews were Europeans, from another continent, who had every intention of evicting the indigenous people and colonizing the area, in contravention of the LoN Covenant, for example (and there are many others):
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> To make a couple of points:
> 
> Look at the timeline.  At the time the Arab Delegation was corresponding with the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1920-1925) the Jewish were not evicting anyone from the territory under the Mandate.
> 
> Sovereignty and immigration was a matter for the Government of Palestine _(ie the UK High Commissioner)_ and the League of Nations Palestinian Council to be concerned about; not an issue for the Arab Palestinian to be concerned.
> 
> There had been no grand strategy pertaining to the distribution of the Jewish Immigrants yet formulated.  This did not really come about until after the Arab Palestinians became violent and riotous.  With prominent Arab-Palestinians _(former enemy citizenry)_ like the Gand Mufti of Jerusalem openly participating in the incitement activities.  It was well known that al-Husseini exercised total control over the secret society, _Al-Fida’iyya_ _(The Self-Sacrificers)_, which, together with _al-Ikha’ wal-‘Afaf _(Brotherhood and Purity), played an important role in clandestine anti-British and anti-Zionist activities, and, via members in the gendarmerie, had engaged in riotous activities as early as April 1920.  Palestinian nationalism emerged, during the time between the initial OETA and the Mandate, in response to Zionist immigration and settlement.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Look at the timeline. At the time the Arab Delegation was corresponding with the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1920-1925) the Jewish were not evicting anyone from the territory under the Mandate. "
> 
> Look at the facts.  The British knew what the Jews were up to at the beginning of the Mandate.  Below is a UN document. A communication from Britain to the UN in 1947.  Perhaps they were trying to wash their hands of the affair or they felt guilty for what they did allowed to happen to their fellow Christians and the Muslims in Palestine.  It is a formal UN document.
> 
> 
> *UNITED NATIONS*
> 
> *A*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *General Assembly*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A/AC.14/82 October 1947
> ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
> 
> *AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION COMMUNICATION FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM DELEGATION TOTHE UNITED NATIONS*
> 
> 
> *“The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase.”
> *
> A AC.14 8 of 2 October 1947
Click to expand...






 Do you know what AD HOC means Abdul, I would look it up is I was you before you drop yourself any deeper in the shit.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici, et al,
> 
> I think you are confused.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Who are you trying to kid????
> 
> _(formerly the enemy indigenous population supporting the Axis Powers and the Ottoman Empire)_​
> Musa Kazim al-Husayni, who signed the correspondence you cited,  held a series of senior posts in the Ottoman administration. He belonged to the prominent al-Husayni family and was mayor of Jerusalem (1918-1920). He was dismissed as mayor by the British authorities and became head of the nationalist Executive Committee of the Palestine Arab Congress from 1922 until 1934.
> These were former Ottoman puppets and soon to be stone cold terrorists, in league with the Mufti and associated with Izz ad-din al-Qassam (Palestinian Black Hand). He belonged to the prominent al-Husayni family and was mayor of Jerusalem.  While there is no doubt that at least some of the Arab Delegation might have represented the Christian segment, there was not prominent person noted nor a Christian oriented request made by the Delegation.
> 
> Remember, the British governed Palestine through a military administration known as *Occupied Enemy Territory Administration* (OETA); a joint British and French military administration over Levantine and Mesopotamian provinces of the former Ottoman Empire.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> To make a couple of points:
> 
> Look at the timeline.  At the time the Arab Delegation was corresponding with the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1920-1925) the Jewish were not evicting anyone from the territory under the Mandate.
> 
> Sovereignty and immigration was a matter for the Government of Palestine _(ie the UK High Commissioner)_ and the League of Nations Palestinian Council to be concerned about; not an issue for the Arab Palestinian to be concerned.
> 
> There had been no grand strategy pertaining to the distribution of the Jewish Immigrants yet formulated.  This did not really come about until after the Arab Palestinians became violent and riotous.  With prominent Arab-Palestinians _(former enemy citizenry)_ like the Gand Mufti of Jerusalem openly participating in the incitement activities.  It was well known that al-Husseini exercised total control over the secret society, _Al-Fida’iyya_ _(The Self-Sacrificers)_, which, together with _al-Ikha’ wal-‘Afaf _(Brotherhood and Purity), played an important role in clandestine anti-British and anti-Zionist activities, and, via members in the gendarmerie, had engaged in riotous activities as early as April 1920.  Palestinian nationalism emerged, during the time between the initial OETA and the Mandate, in response to Zionist immigration and settlement.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Holy smokescreen, Batman. You are solid into Israeli propaganda.
> 
> Here is something from a neutral (Italian) source.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did Rocco say that is false ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco always starts with the false premise that the Palestinian resistance to occupation and colonization is aggression. Then his posts go downhill from there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco has refuted so many of your posts Tinmore. You've never won a debate with him and you know that.
> 
> Can you give me a few examples of Palestinians resisting ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco has refuted so many of your posts Tinmore.​
> Name one.
Click to expand...






 Every one you have made against Israel for starters


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy smokescreen, Batman. You are solid into Israeli propaganda.
> 
> Here is something from a neutral (Italian) source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did Rocco say that is false ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco always starts with the false premise that the Palestinian resistance to occupation and colonization is aggression. Then his posts go downhill from there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco has refuted so many of your posts Tinmore. You've never won a debate with him and you know that.
> 
> Can you give me a few examples of Palestinians resisting ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco has refuted so many of your posts Tinmore.​
> Name one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every one you have made against Israel for starters
Click to expand...

IOW, you don't have jack shit.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did Rocco say that is false ?
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco always starts with the false premise that the Palestinian resistance to occupation and colonization is aggression. Then his posts go downhill from there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco has refuted so many of your posts Tinmore. You've never won a debate with him and you know that.
> 
> Can you give me a few examples of Palestinians resisting ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco has refuted so many of your posts Tinmore.​
> Name one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every one you have made against Israel for starters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IOW, you don't have jack shit.
Click to expand...






 I know more than you as I am not blinded by islamonazi propaganda


----------



## montelatici

Fact is not propaganda.  You have never quite figured out that everything you claim is, or is based on, propaganda created to support the Zionist myth.  Stop your phoenalling!  Love the Sink or Swim forum.  You've made one heck of a name for yourself there too. LOL


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco always starts with the false premise that the Palestinian resistance to occupation and colonization is aggression. Then his posts go downhill from there.
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco has refuted so many of your posts Tinmore. You've never won a debate with him and you know that.
> 
> Can you give me a few examples of Palestinians resisting ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco has refuted so many of your posts Tinmore.​
> Name one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every one you have made against Israel for starters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IOW, you don't have jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know more than you as I am not blinded by islamonazi propaganda
Click to expand...

Are you kidding?

If it isn't from www,israelibullshit.il you don't know anything about it.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco has refuted so many of your posts Tinmore. You've never won a debate with him and you know that.
> 
> Can you give me a few examples of Palestinians resisting ?
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco has refuted so many of your posts Tinmore.​
> Name one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every one you have made against Israel for starters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IOW, you don't have jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know more than you as I am not blinded by islamonazi propaganda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you kidding?
> 
> If it isn't from www,israelibullshit.il you don't know anything about it.
Click to expand...




 So the UN archives and Yale U are no longer valid sources of information ?    But islamonazis-r-us. org is


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco has refuted so many of your posts Tinmore.​
> Name one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every one you have made against Israel for starters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IOW, you don't have jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know more than you as I am not blinded by islamonazi propaganda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you kidding?
> 
> If it isn't from www,israelibullshit.il you don't know anything about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the UN archives and Yale U are no longer valid sources of information ?    But islamonazis-r-us. org is
Click to expand...


You do not use anything but Hasbara sites.  What are you talking about.  You deny anything contained in non-partisan academic or governmental archives is valid.


----------



## RoccoR

TINMORE, montelatici, et al,

I'm not sure which Posting you are referring to; and what incorrect proposition you have identified that forms the basis of an argument.



P F Tinmore said:


> Rocco always starts with the false premise that the Palestinian resistance to occupation and colonization is aggression. Then his posts go downhill from there.


*(OBSERVATIONs)*

There are two posting that you could be referring to:

Posting #3390:  The Demands made by the Arab Palestinian Delegation for near immediate independence of the entire area, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, to the Arab Palestinian. 

Posting #3397:  Which was a direct response to "montelatici's" Posting #3392, that challenged my description of the the Palestinian Arab Delegation.  Wherein montelatici claims the Arab Palestinian Delegation: "No, the Arab Delegation was made up of Christians and Muslims whose people had supported the British against the Axis powers. Ever watched Lawrence of Arabia you ignoramus. And, they were, in fact, promised independence for their support."
*(COMMENT)*

I'm going to assume that you are suggesting that the Premise in Posting 3397 is the target since that is where montelatici's comment rests.  

First, I know who COL T.E. Lawrence CB DSO, a British Intelligence Officer in World War I, and one of the key organizers of the Arab Revolt against Ottoman Turks.  And COL Lawrence eventually made contact with Prince Faisal and the Hashemite Bedouins.   That is not the same as the many many Christian-Muslims like your hero Musa Kazim al-Husayni who held office and position under the Ottoman Empire.   Husayni who signed the correspondence you cited, held a series of senior posts in the Ottoman administration; including a period when he voluntarily joined the Ottoman Army during the First World War as an artillery officer.   He belonged to the prominent al-Husayni family and was mayor of Jerusalem (1918-1920); both his grandfather (Mustafa) and half-brother (Kamal) having been muftis of Jerusalem. He was dismissed as mayor by the British authorities for corruption and malfeasance in office.  He later became head of the nationalist Executive Committee of the Palestine Arab Congress from 1922 until 1934; and he rejected Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate in Palestine.  These Arabs believed that the indigenous population had some special authority over the arbitrarily established Palestine.

The *McMahon–Hussein Correspondence*, or the *Hussein–McMahon Correspondence*, was an exchange of letters (14 July 1915 to 30 January 1916) during World War I, between the Sharif of Mecca, Husayn bin Ali, and Sir Henry McMahon, British High Commissioner in Egypt, concerning the political status of lands under the Ottoman Empire. The Arab side was already looking toward a large revolt against the Ottoman Empire; the British encouraged the Arabs to revolt and thus hamper the Ottoman Empire, *which had become a German ally in the War after November 1914*.  McMahon Hussein Correspondence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​
I sense that you are making the assumption that the High Commissioner and the Mandate Administration did not know the character of the Arab Delegation; unpleasantly proud, unreliable, and parasitic.  


Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every one you have made against Israel for starters
> 
> 
> 
> IOW, you don't have jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know more than you as I am not blinded by islamonazi propaganda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you kidding?
> 
> If it isn't from www,israelibullshit.il you don't know anything about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the UN archives and Yale U are no longer valid sources of information ?    But islamonazis-r-us. org is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not use anything but Hasbara sites.  What are you talking about.  You deny anything contained in non-partisan academic or governmental archives is valid.
Click to expand...






 Because not everything in their archives is true, as I have shown with your booklet that was collated from many sources is not a source document for that reason as the actual source is not given.
 Now go away and stick your arse in the air as you prostrate yourself to shaitan


----------



## montelatici

The Survey of Palestine is the ultimate source document for the the history of the Mandate.  The source was the official Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry, chartered by the U.S. and UK Governments.  It is an official U.S. Government document published by the U.S. Government Printing office. Interestingly, there is a UN Resolution in the form of a letter from the UK government to the UN, which summarizes the facts in the Survey.  

*UNITED*
*NATIONS
A*







*General Assembly*













 A/AC.14/8
2 October 1947

ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
*AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION*
*COMMUNICATION FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM DELEGATION TO *
*THE UNITED NATIONS*

The following letter has been received from the United Kingdom Delegation to the United Nations:


United Kingdom Delegation to the 
United Nations, New York
18 August 1947

Sir:

I have the honour to forward to Your Excellency herewith a memorandum by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom entitled "Political History of Palestine under British Administration".


Now, stop your phoenalling.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  ET AL,

Just a minor correction.



montelatici said:


> The Survey of Palestine is the ultimate source document for the the history of the Mandate.  The source was the official Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry, chartered by the U.S. and UK Governments.  It is an official U.S. Government document published by the U.S. Government Printing office. Interestingly, there is a UN Resolution in the form of a letter from the UK government to the UN, which summarizes the facts in the Survey.
> 
> *UNITED
> NATIONS
> A*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *General Assembly*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A/AC.14/8
> 2 October 1947
> 
> ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
> *AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION
> COMMUNICATION FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM DELEGATION TO
> THE UNITED NATIONS*
> 
> The following letter has been received from the United Kingdom Delegation to the United Nations:
> 
> 
> United Kingdom Delegation to the
> United Nations, New York
> 18 August 1947
> 
> Sir:
> 
> I have the honour to forward to Your Excellency herewith a memorandum by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom entitled "Political History of Palestine under British Administration".
> 
> 
> Now, stop your phoenalling.


*(COMMENT)*

There is no "UN Resolution" contained here; in any form.  It is a run of the mill Document.

The Document Number (A/AC.14.8) indicates that it is a General Assembly -- ad Hoc Committee --- Palestine --- Series 8.

UN Resolutions have a different number sequence and format.

It is a very good document for UK Perspective, but it is not ultimate source.  I have used it quite extensively over the years.

It seems that you might be confusing two documents:


A/AC.14/8  2 October 1947  Political History of Palestine under British Administration

British Mandate: A Survey of Palestine --- prepared by Government of Palestinian (then under British military occupation/Mandate) for the United Nation Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) in 1946
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> IOW, you don't have jack shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know more than you as I am not blinded by islamonazi propaganda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you kidding?
> 
> If it isn't from www,israelibullshit.il you don't know anything about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the UN archives and Yale U are no longer valid sources of information ?    But islamonazis-r-us. org is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not use anything but Hasbara sites.  What are you talking about.  You deny anything contained in non-partisan academic or governmental archives is valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because not everything in their archives is true, as I have shown with your booklet that was collated from many sources is not a source document for that reason as the actual source is not given.
> Now go away and stick your arse in the air as you prostrate yourself to shaitan
Click to expand...


Who would you say is a bigger Palestinian Propagadist, Tinmore or Monti ?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco has refuted so many of your posts Tinmore. You've never won a debate with him and you know that.
> 
> Can you give me a few examples of Palestinians resisting ?
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco has refuted so many of your posts Tinmore.​
> Name one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every one you have made against Israel for starters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IOW, you don't have jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know more than you as I am not blinded by islamonazi propaganda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you kidding?
> 
> If it isn't from www,israelibullshit.il you don't know anything about it.
Click to expand...


That link doesn't work....


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  ET AL,
> 
> Just a minor correction.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Survey of Palestine is the ultimate source document for the the history of the Mandate.  The source was the official Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry, chartered by the U.S. and UK Governments.  It is an official U.S. Government document published by the U.S. Government Printing office. Interestingly, there is a UN Resolution in the form of a letter from the UK government to the UN, which summarizes the facts in the Survey.
> 
> *UNITED
> NATIONS
> A*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *General Assembly*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A/AC.14/8
> 2 October 1947
> 
> ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
> *AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION
> COMMUNICATION FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM DELEGATION TO
> THE UNITED NATIONS*
> 
> The following letter has been received from the United Kingdom Delegation to the United Nations:
> 
> 
> United Kingdom Delegation to the
> United Nations, New York
> 18 August 1947
> 
> Sir:
> 
> I have the honour to forward to Your Excellency herewith a memorandum by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom entitled "Political History of Palestine under British Administration".
> 
> 
> Now, stop your phoenalling.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is no "UN Resolution" contained here; in any form.  It is a run of the mill Document.
> 
> The Document Number (A/AC.14.8) indicates that it is a General Assembly -- ad Hoc Committee --- Palestine --- Series 8.
> 
> UN Resolutions have a different number sequence and format.
> 
> It is a very good document for UK Perspective, but it is not ultimate source.  I have used it quite extensively over the years.
> 
> It seems that you might be confusing two documents:
> 
> 
> A/AC.14/8  2 October 1947  Political History of Palestine under British Administration
> 
> British Mandate: A Survey of Palestine --- prepared by Government of Palestinian (then under British military occupation/Mandate) for the United Nation Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) in 1946
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

From your link:

(i) They were the same underlying causes as those which brought about the “disturbances” of 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1933.​
So they knew what the problem was for 15 years and the assholes did nothing about it. And this report was in 1947 and they were still sitting around saying "duh, what do we do?"

Stupid won the day and there has been war ever since.


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know more than you as I am not blinded by islamonazi propaganda
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding?
> 
> If it isn't from www,israelibullshit.il you don't know anything about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the UN archives and Yale U are no longer valid sources of information ?    But islamonazis-r-us. org is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not use anything but Hasbara sites.  What are you talking about.  You deny anything contained in non-partisan academic or governmental archives is valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because not everything in their archives is true, as I have shown with your booklet that was collated from many sources is not a source document for that reason as the actual source is not given.
> Now go away and stick your arse in the air as you prostrate yourself to shaitan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who would you say is a bigger Palestinian Propagadist, Tinmore or Monti ?
Click to expand...


The Duke  of Hasbara propagandists (King Ruddy and Queen Phoney) can't even spell propagandist.  Figures.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Hummm ---  in a way, your analysis is partially correct.  They did know what the scope and nature of both the cause and the resulting problem was. 



P F Tinmore said:


> From your link:
> 
> (i) They were the same underlying causes as those which brought about the “disturbances” of 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1933.​
> So they knew what the problem was for 15 years and the assholes did nothing about it. And this report was in 1947 and they were still sitting around saying "duh, what do we do?"
> 
> Stupid won the day and there has been war ever since.


*(COMMENT)*

There are two things here that should be said.

There was never a way to calculate the persistence of the Arab Palestinian resistance.  No one ever thought that the Palestinians would give-up on nation building and national aspirations and opt instead to go into a continuous losing War mode.

While the regional adjacent Arab States have pretty much decided not to pursue hostilities, it is the Hostile Palestinian that has lost all national aspirations.  
Just as none of the major powers will interfere in the annexation by the Russian Federation of the internationally recognized Ukrainian territory of Crimea _(10,425 sq mi)(about the size of Massachusetts)_; March 2014 --- It is just as likely that, as long as Israel can contain the Hostile Arab Palestinian, none of the Regional Powers will go to war again over the West Bank and Gaza Strip _(2,317 sq mi)(about the size of the Everglades)_. 

Stupid did not win the day.  The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating and were not entitled to sovereignty, having rejected a number of overtures from the Government of Palestine, the International Community moved on with the more cooperative --- the consequences are clear.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

The Palestinians tried starting from the 1920s to gain independence.  They proposed a constitution that was secular giving all confessions equal rights.  The British refused because their goal was to implement Jew rule over non-Jews, in contravention of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the terms of the Mandate and the Charter of the United Nations.  They more or less said so in their final letter to the UN regarding Palestine.

*UNITED*
*NATIONS
A*






*General Assembly*













 A/AC.14/8
2 October 1947

ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
*AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION*
*COMMUNICATION FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM DELEGATION TO *
*THE UNITED NATIONS*

The following letter has been received from the United Kingdom Delegation to the United Nations:


United Kingdom Delegation to the 
United Nations, New York
18 August 1947

Sir:

I have the honour to forward to Your Excellency herewith a memorandum by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom entitled "Political History of Palestine under British Administration".

This memorandum constitutes His Majesty's Government's account of their administration of the league of Nations mandate in Palestine, and is sent to you in accordance with the undertaking given in my note of 2nd April, in which I had the honour to request that the problem of Palestine should be placed on the Agenda of the General Assembly at its next regular session. I shall be grateful, therefore, if you will arrange for this document to be issued as an Assembly document in connexion with Item 21 of the Provisional Agenda of the Second Regular Session of the General Assembly, which was circulated on the 18th July last.

I should call your attention to the fact that this memorandum has already been made available to the Special Committee on Palestine established by the Special Session of the General Assembly called at the request of the United Kingdom Government and which met on April 28th last. His Majesty's Government thought it advisable that the memorandum be communicated to the Special Committee since, as I had the honour to inform the Special Assembly, my Government wished to be entirely at the disposal of the Committee and to give it all the information that it might require.

...............12. Foremost among the exponents of Zionism at that time was Dr. Weizmann. When a Zionist delegation appeared at the Peace Conference in 1919, the American Secretary of State (Mr. Lansing) asked them exactly what was meant by the phrase, a Jewish national home. Dr. Weizmann answered him as follows:-


“The Zionist organization did not want an autonomous Jewish Government, but merely to establish in Palestine, under a mandatory Power, an administration not necessarily Jewish, which would render it possible to send into Palestine 70 to 80,000 Jews annually. The Zionist Association would require to have permission at the same time to build Jewish schools, where Hebrew would be taught, and in that was to build up gradually a nationality which would be as Jewish as the French nation was French and the British nation British. Later on, when the Jews formed the large majority, they would be ripe to establish such a Government as would answer to the state of the development of the country and to their ideals.”13. The King-Crane Commission, touring Palestine later in the same years, found that the Jewish colonists were similarly looking to a radical transformation of the country:

*“The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine....."*


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Hummm ---  in a way, your analysis is partially correct.  They did know what the scope and nature of both the cause and the resulting problem was.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your link:
> 
> (i) They were the same underlying causes as those which brought about the “disturbances” of 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1933.​
> So they knew what the problem was for 15 years and the assholes did nothing about it. And this report was in 1947 and they were still sitting around saying "duh, what do we do?"
> 
> Stupid won the day and there has been war ever since.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are two things here that should be said.
> 
> There was never a way to calculate the persistence of the Arab Palestinian resistance.  No one ever thought that the Palestinians would give-up on nation building and national aspirations and opt instead to go into a continuous losing War mode.
> 
> While the regional adjacent Arab States have pretty much decided not to pursue hostilities, it is the Hostile Palestinian that has lost all national aspirations.
> Just as none of the major powers will interfere in the annexation by the Russian Federation of the internationally recognized Ukrainian territory of Crimea _(10,425 sq mi)(about the size of Massachusetts)_; March 2014 --- It is just as likely that, as long as Israel can contain the Hostile Arab Palestinian, none of the Regional Powers will go to war again over the West Bank and Gaza Strip _(2,317 sq mi)(about the size of the Everglades)_.
> 
> Stupid did not win the day.  The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating and were not entitled to sovereignty, having rejected a number of overtures from the Government of Palestine, the International Community moved on with the more cooperative --- the consequences are clear.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Stupid did not win the day.​
Are you kidding? Starting a hundred year (and counting) war when the solution was at their fingertips was not stupid? It was the epitome of stupid.

And Britain still wants to continue the war.

The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating...​
Indeed, and they are still rejecting the Zionist's colonial project. Perhaps the Zionists should have picked a more docile people to colonize.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

It is not about the people (Arabs, Muslims, Islamic radicals) --- it was never about the people.  It is about the culture and the preservation of ancient beliefs.



P F Tinmore said:


> Stupid did not win the day.​
> Are you kidding? Starting a hundred year (and counting) war when the solution was at their fingertips was not stupid? It was the epitome of stupid.
> 
> And Britain still wants to continue the war.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating...​
> Indeed, and they are still rejecting the Zionist's colonial project. Perhaps the Zionists should have picked a more docile people to colonize.


*(COMMENT)*

Well, the war has lasted almost a century, if we start counting from the time of the *Sykes-Picot Agreement *(16 May 1916)*,* and with Arab Revolt which began on (5 June 1916). Forces commanded by Sharif Hussein ibn Ali’s sons, the Emirs Ali and Feisal, attacked the Ottoman garrison at Medina.   Certainly, if not by then --- then the Balfour Declaration was the start of the fire (2 November 1917). 

But as Wars go, this was not of the magnitude or scope and nature that worried the Allied Powers or the UN.  If the status quo can be maintained for another half century, most of the issues will have been resolved.

The solution was never at their finger tips.  The objective was to create a Jewish National Home.  There was never an objective to placate the Arab Palestinian.  Those were ancillary compromises.   The longer the Arab Palestinian waits to enter into good faith negotiations --- the more Area "C" will be developed by the Israelis.  The Arab Palestinian is just another substandard culture left behind because they could not adapt, were too violent and unproductive.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> It is not about the people (Arabs, Muslims, Islamic radicals) --- it was never about the people.  It is about the culture and the preservation of ancient beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid did not win the day.​
> Are you kidding? Starting a hundred year (and counting) war when the solution was at their fingertips was not stupid? It was the epitome of stupid.
> 
> And Britain still wants to continue the war.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating...​
> Indeed, and they are still rejecting the Zionist's colonial project. Perhaps the Zionists should have picked a more docile people to colonize.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, the war has lasted almost a century, if we start counting from the time of the *Sykes-Picot Agreement *(16 May 1916)*,* and with Arab Revolt which began on (5 June 1916). Forces commanded by Sharif Hussein ibn Ali’s sons, the Emirs Ali and Feisal, attacked the Ottoman garrison at Medina.   Certainly, if not by then --- then the Balfour Declaration was the start of the fire (2 November 1917).
> 
> But as Wars go, this was not of the magnitude or scope and nature that worried the Allied Powers or the UN.  If the status quo can be maintained for another half century, most of the issues will have been resolved.
> 
> The solution was never at their finger tips.  The objective was to create a Jewish National Home.  There was never an objective to placate the Arab Palestinian.  Those were ancillary compromises.   The longer the Arab Palestinian waits to enter into good faith negotiations --- the more Area "C" will be developed by the Israelis.  The Arab Palestinian is just another substandard culture left behind because they could not adapt, were too violent and unproductive.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

87. The members of the Peel Commission were led by their diagnosis of the situation in Palestine to the conclusion that the obligations imposed upon the Mandatory by the terms of the Mandate were mutually irreconcilable.​
That was the story for three decades.

People had been telling them for years that their stupid plan was not going to work. The facts on the ground said that their stupid plan was not working.

So they went ahead anyway and started a hundred year (and counting) war.

Stupid won the day.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding?
> 
> If it isn't from www,israelibullshit.il you don't know anything about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the UN archives and Yale U are no longer valid sources of information ?    But islamonazis-r-us. org is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not use anything but Hasbara sites.  What are you talking about.  You deny anything contained in non-partisan academic or governmental archives is valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because not everything in their archives is true, as I have shown with your booklet that was collated from many sources is not a source document for that reason as the actual source is not given.
> Now go away and stick your arse in the air as you prostrate yourself to shaitan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who would you say is a bigger Palestinian Propagadist, Tinmore or Monti ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Duke  of Hasbara propagandists (King Ruddy and Queen Phoney) can't even spell propagandist.  Figures.
Click to expand...


Bringing up a typo, that's low even for you Monti. 

BTW, how long have you been an expert propagandist for ? Judging by the immense amount that you spew on a daily basis, I would say for quite a while.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Hummm ---  in a way, your analysis is partially correct.  They did know what the scope and nature of both the cause and the resulting problem was.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your link:
> 
> (i) They were the same underlying causes as those which brought about the “disturbances” of 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1933.​
> So they knew what the problem was for 15 years and the assholes did nothing about it. And this report was in 1947 and they were still sitting around saying "duh, what do we do?"
> 
> Stupid won the day and there has been war ever since.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are two things here that should be said.
> 
> There was never a way to calculate the persistence of the Arab Palestinian resistance.  No one ever thought that the Palestinians would give-up on nation building and national aspirations and opt instead to go into a continuous losing War mode.
> 
> While the regional adjacent Arab States have pretty much decided not to pursue hostilities, it is the Hostile Palestinian that has lost all national aspirations.
> Just as none of the major powers will interfere in the annexation by the Russian Federation of the internationally recognized Ukrainian territory of Crimea _(10,425 sq mi)(about the size of Massachusetts)_; March 2014 --- It is just as likely that, as long as Israel can contain the Hostile Arab Palestinian, none of the Regional Powers will go to war again over the West Bank and Gaza Strip _(2,317 sq mi)(about the size of the Everglades)_.
> 
> Stupid did not win the day.  The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating and were not entitled to sovereignty, having rejected a number of overtures from the Government of Palestine, the International Community moved on with the more cooperative --- the consequences are clear.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stupid did not win the day.​
> Are you kidding? Starting a hundred year (and counting) war when the solution was at their fingertips was not stupid? It was the epitome of stupid.
> 
> And Britain still wants to continue the war.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating...​
> Indeed, and they are still rejecting the Zionist's colonial project. Perhaps the Zionists should have picked a more docile people to colonize.
Click to expand...


The 'Palestinians' have made some seriously stupid decisions that have made their situation even worse. They have been digging themselves a deeper and deeper hole for the last 70 years.


----------



## montelatici

The Christians and Muslims of Palestine are just people that did not accept European colonization.  They continue to resist.  It's the right decision.  Eventually they will overcome.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> The Christians and Muslims of Palestine are just people that did not accept European colonization.  They continue to resist.  It's the right decision.  Eventually they will overcome.


Can you give me some specific examples of how the Palestinians have 'resisted'


----------



## theliq

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Hummm ---  in a way, your analysis is partially correct.  They did know what the scope and nature of both the cause and the resulting problem was.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your link:
> 
> (i) They were the same underlying causes as those which brought about the “disturbances” of 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1933.​
> So they knew what the problem was for 15 years and the assholes did nothing about it. And this report was in 1947 and they were still sitting around saying "duh, what do we do?"
> 
> Stupid won the day and there has been war ever since.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are two things here that should be said.
> 
> There was never a way to calculate the persistence of the Arab Palestinian resistance.  No one ever thought that the Palestinians would give-up on nation building and national aspirations and opt instead to go into a continuous losing War mode.
> 
> While the regional adjacent Arab States have pretty much decided not to pursue hostilities, it is the Hostile Palestinian that has lost all national aspirations.
> Just as none of the major powers will interfere in the annexation by the Russian Federation of the internationally recognized Ukrainian territory of Crimea _(10,425 sq mi)(about the size of Massachusetts)_; March 2014 --- It is just as likely that, as long as Israel can contain the Hostile Arab Palestinian, none of the Regional Powers will go to war again over the West Bank and Gaza Strip _(2,317 sq mi)(about the size of the Everglades)_.
> 
> Stupid did not win the day.  The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating and were not entitled to sovereignty, having rejected a number of overtures from the Government of Palestine, the International Community moved on with the more cooperative --- the consequences are clear.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Considering that the land given to make "Israel" was never ratified by the UN security council.....DEEMS ISRAEL Illegal.

Anyhow Why should the Palestinians accept the theft of their Land.....by a load of Illegal Immigrants....it's like saying the Mexicans should have part of America because they were there first,and they have done exactly done the same as the Jews...Illegally entered and stayed in another country.

Just sayin  Not that respectfully,steve


----------



## theliq

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> It is not about the people (Arabs, Muslims, Islamic radicals) --- it was never about the people.  It is about the culture and the preservation of ancient beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid did not win the day.​
> Are you kidding? Starting a hundred year (and counting) war when the solution was at their fingertips was not stupid? It was the epitome of stupid.
> 
> And Britain still wants to continue the war.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating...​
> Indeed, and they are still rejecting the Zionist's colonial project. Perhaps the Zionists should have picked a more docile people to colonize.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, the war has lasted almost a century, if we start counting from the time of the *Sykes-Picot Agreement *(16 May 1916)*,* and with Arab Revolt which began on (5 June 1916). Forces commanded by Sharif Hussein ibn Ali’s sons, the Emirs Ali and Feisal, attacked the Ottoman garrison at Medina.   Certainly, if not by then --- then the Balfour Declaration was the start of the fire (2 November 1917).
> 
> But as Wars go, this was not of the magnitude or scope and nature that worried the Allied Powers or the UN.  If the status quo can be maintained for another half century, most of the issues will have been resolved.
> 
> The solution was never at their finger tips.  The objective was to create a Jewish National Home.  There was never an objective to placate the Arab Palestinian.  Those were ancillary compromises.   The longer the Arab Palestinian waits to enter into good faith negotiations --- the more Area "C" will be developed by the Israelis.  The Arab Palestinian is just another substandard culture left behind because they could not adapt, were too violent and unproductive.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

What adapt to VIOLENCE AND MURDER BY ZIONIST TERRORISTS.............you need a bloody good shake,!!!!!!!They were too violent and unproductive.....Fcuck you Spew a lot of SHIT.....Rocco you are a Straw Man indeed


----------



## MJB12741

theliq said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> It is not about the people (Arabs, Muslims, Islamic radicals) --- it was never about the people.  It is about the culture and the preservation of ancient beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid did not win the day.​
> Are you kidding? Starting a hundred year (and counting) war when the solution was at their fingertips was not stupid? It was the epitome of stupid.
> 
> And Britain still wants to continue the war.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating...​
> Indeed, and they are still rejecting the Zionist's colonial project. Perhaps the Zionists should have picked a more docile people to colonize.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, the war has lasted almost a century, if we start counting from the time of the *Sykes-Picot Agreement *(16 May 1916)*,* and with Arab Revolt which began on (5 June 1916). Forces commanded by Sharif Hussein ibn Ali’s sons, the Emirs Ali and Feisal, attacked the Ottoman garrison at Medina.   Certainly, if not by then --- then the Balfour Declaration was the start of the fire (2 November 1917).
> 
> But as Wars go, this was not of the magnitude or scope and nature that worried the Allied Powers or the UN.  If the status quo can be maintained for another half century, most of the issues will have been resolved.
> 
> The solution was never at their finger tips.  The objective was to create a Jewish National Home.  There was never an objective to placate the Arab Palestinian.  Those were ancillary compromises.   The longer the Arab Palestinian waits to enter into good faith negotiations --- the more Area "C" will be developed by the Israelis.  The Arab Palestinian is just another substandard culture left behind because they could not adapt, were too violent and unproductive.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What adapt to VIOLENCE AND MURDER BY ZIONIST TERRORISTS.............you need a bloody good shake,!!!!!!!They were too violent and unproductive.....Fcuck you Spew a lot of SHIT.....Rocco you are a Straw Man indeed
Click to expand...



Now now Theliq, please calm down.  You'll give yourself a stroke or something & we need you here for laughs.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> The Palestinians tried starting from the 1920s to gain independence.  They proposed a constitution that was secular giving all confessions equal rights.  The British refused because their goal was to implement Jew rule over non-Jews, in contravention of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the terms of the Mandate and the Charter of the United Nations.  They more or less said so in their final letter to the UN regarding Palestine.
> 
> *UNITED
> NATIONS
> A*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *General Assembly*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A/AC.14/8
> 2 October 1947
> 
> ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
> *AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION
> COMMUNICATION FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM DELEGATION TO
> THE UNITED NATIONS*
> 
> The following letter has been received from the United Kingdom Delegation to the United Nations:
> 
> 
> United Kingdom Delegation to the
> United Nations, New York
> 18 August 1947
> 
> Sir:
> 
> I have the honour to forward to Your Excellency herewith a memorandum by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom entitled "Political History of Palestine under British Administration".
> 
> This memorandum constitutes His Majesty's Government's account of their administration of the league of Nations mandate in Palestine, and is sent to you in accordance with the undertaking given in my note of 2nd April, in which I had the honour to request that the problem of Palestine should be placed on the Agenda of the General Assembly at its next regular session. I shall be grateful, therefore, if you will arrange for this document to be issued as an Assembly document in connexion with Item 21 of the Provisional Agenda of the Second Regular Session of the General Assembly, which was circulated on the 18th July last.
> 
> I should call your attention to the fact that this memorandum has already been made available to the Special Committee on Palestine established by the Special Session of the General Assembly called at the request of the United Kingdom Government and which met on April 28th last. His Majesty's Government thought it advisable that the memorandum be communicated to the Special Committee since, as I had the honour to inform the Special Assembly, my Government wished to be entirely at the disposal of the Committee and to give it all the information that it might require.
> 
> ...............12. Foremost among the exponents of Zionism at that time was Dr. Weizmann. When a Zionist delegation appeared at the Peace Conference in 1919, the American Secretary of State (Mr. Lansing) asked them exactly what was meant by the phrase, a Jewish national home. Dr. Weizmann answered him as follows:-
> 
> 
> “The Zionist organization did not want an autonomous Jewish Government, but merely to establish in Palestine, under a mandatory Power, an administration not necessarily Jewish, which would render it possible to send into Palestine 70 to 80,000 Jews annually. The Zionist Association would require to have permission at the same time to build Jewish schools, where Hebrew would be taught, and in that was to build up gradually a nationality which would be as Jewish as the French nation was French and the British nation British. Later on, when the Jews formed the large majority, they would be ripe to establish such a Government as would answer to the state of the development of the country and to their ideals.”13. The King-Crane Commission, touring Palestine later in the same years, found that the Jewish colonists were similarly looking to a radical transformation of the country:
> 
> *“The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine....."*





 How was it any different to the Jewish version, apart from who would be in charge. As history shows the arab muslims would have just treated the Jews and Christians as 4th class citizens eventually ethnically cleansing them from the M.E. Stopping them from going to their holy sites, imposing Jizya and dhimmi laws on them.  And don't say they wouldn't as the Jordanians treatment of Jews and Christians from 1949 till 1967 tell the above story. And as evidence shows the arab muslims are not yet ready for nation building and don't have the intelligence to achieve anything worthwhile, so it would have been a puppet regime of the arab league.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Hummm ---  in a way, your analysis is partially correct.  They did know what the scope and nature of both the cause and the resulting problem was.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your link:
> 
> (i) They were the same underlying causes as those which brought about the “disturbances” of 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1933.​
> So they knew what the problem was for 15 years and the assholes did nothing about it. And this report was in 1947 and they were still sitting around saying "duh, what do we do?"
> 
> Stupid won the day and there has been war ever since.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are two things here that should be said.
> 
> There was never a way to calculate the persistence of the Arab Palestinian resistance.  No one ever thought that the Palestinians would give-up on nation building and national aspirations and opt instead to go into a continuous losing War mode.
> 
> While the regional adjacent Arab States have pretty much decided not to pursue hostilities, it is the Hostile Palestinian that has lost all national aspirations.
> Just as none of the major powers will interfere in the annexation by the Russian Federation of the internationally recognized Ukrainian territory of Crimea _(10,425 sq mi)(about the size of Massachusetts)_; March 2014 --- It is just as likely that, as long as Israel can contain the Hostile Arab Palestinian, none of the Regional Powers will go to war again over the West Bank and Gaza Strip _(2,317 sq mi)(about the size of the Everglades)_.
> 
> Stupid did not win the day.  The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating and were not entitled to sovereignty, having rejected a number of overtures from the Government of Palestine, the International Community moved on with the more cooperative --- the consequences are clear.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stupid did not win the day.​
> Are you kidding? Starting a hundred year (and counting) war when the solution was at their fingertips was not stupid? It was the epitome of stupid.
> 
> And Britain still wants to continue the war.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating...​
> Indeed, and they are still rejecting the Zionist's colonial project. Perhaps the Zionists should have picked a more docile people to colonize.
Click to expand...






 But it wasn't a 100 years war was it, but  a 1400 years war started by a mentally deranged psychopath who told the muslims that god had given them the world


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Christians and Muslims of Palestine are just people that did not accept European colonization.  They continue to resist.  It's the right decision.  Eventually they will overcome.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give me some specific examples of how the Palestinians have 'resisted'
Click to expand...


Do you post just to see your nonsense in writing?  What kind of question is that?  "How have the Palestinians resisted" sheesh.  It's like you've been sleeping for 50 years.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Hummm ---  in a way, your analysis is partially correct.  They did know what the scope and nature of both the cause and the resulting problem was.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your link:
> 
> (i) They were the same underlying causes as those which brought about the “disturbances” of 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1933.​
> So they knew what the problem was for 15 years and the assholes did nothing about it. And this report was in 1947 and they were still sitting around saying "duh, what do we do?"
> 
> Stupid won the day and there has been war ever since.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are two things here that should be said.
> 
> There was never a way to calculate the persistence of the Arab Palestinian resistance.  No one ever thought that the Palestinians would give-up on nation building and national aspirations and opt instead to go into a continuous losing War mode.
> 
> While the regional adjacent Arab States have pretty much decided not to pursue hostilities, it is the Hostile Palestinian that has lost all national aspirations.
> Just as none of the major powers will interfere in the annexation by the Russian Federation of the internationally recognized Ukrainian territory of Crimea _(10,425 sq mi)(about the size of Massachusetts)_; March 2014 --- It is just as likely that, as long as Israel can contain the Hostile Arab Palestinian, none of the Regional Powers will go to war again over the West Bank and Gaza Strip _(2,317 sq mi)(about the size of the Everglades)_.
> 
> Stupid did not win the day.  The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating and were not entitled to sovereignty, having rejected a number of overtures from the Government of Palestine, the International Community moved on with the more cooperative --- the consequences are clear.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stupid did not win the day.​
> Are you kidding? Starting a hundred year (and counting) war when the solution was at their fingertips was not stupid? It was the epitome of stupid.
> 
> And Britain still wants to continue the war.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating...​
> Indeed, and they are still rejecting the Zionist's colonial project. Perhaps the Zionists should have picked a more docile people to colonize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it wasn't a 100 years war was it, but  a 1400 years war started by a mentally deranged psychopath who told the muslims that god had given them the world
Click to expand...


Even if we agree with the silly notion that the war for Palestine started 1400 years  ago, what does it have to do with Jews.  The people in Palestine were Roman citizens and Christians at the time, there weren't any Jews, the Romans made sure of it.


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Hummm ---  in a way, your analysis is partially correct.  They did know what the scope and nature of both the cause and the resulting problem was.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your link:
> 
> (i) They were the same underlying causes as those which brought about the “disturbances” of 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1933.​
> So they knew what the problem was for 15 years and the assholes did nothing about it. And this report was in 1947 and they were still sitting around saying "duh, what do we do?"
> 
> Stupid won the day and there has been war ever since.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are two things here that should be said.
> 
> There was never a way to calculate the persistence of the Arab Palestinian resistance.  No one ever thought that the Palestinians would give-up on nation building and national aspirations and opt instead to go into a continuous losing War mode.
> 
> While the regional adjacent Arab States have pretty much decided not to pursue hostilities, it is the Hostile Palestinian that has lost all national aspirations.
> Just as none of the major powers will interfere in the annexation by the Russian Federation of the internationally recognized Ukrainian territory of Crimea _(10,425 sq mi)(about the size of Massachusetts)_; March 2014 --- It is just as likely that, as long as Israel can contain the Hostile Arab Palestinian, none of the Regional Powers will go to war again over the West Bank and Gaza Strip _(2,317 sq mi)(about the size of the Everglades)_.
> 
> Stupid did not win the day.  The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating and were not entitled to sovereignty, having rejected a number of overtures from the Government of Palestine, the International Community moved on with the more cooperative --- the consequences are clear.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Considering that the land given to make "Israel" was never ratified by the UN security council.....DEEMS ISRAEL Illegal.
> 
> Anyhow Why should the Palestinians accept the theft of their Land.....by a load of Illegal Immigrants....it's like saying the Mexicans should have part of America because they were there first,and they have done exactly done the same as the Jews...Illegally entered and stayed in another country.
> 
> Just sayin  Not that respectfully,steve
Click to expand...






 Nope as International law from 1922 had already given the land to Israel.  It is Palestine that is illegal as the UN never ratified the original resolution that the arab muslims are using as the basis of their claim.

 It was never their land for close on 1000 years. It certainly wasn't their land in 1917 when the Ottomans signed a surrender treaty, and it still wasn't their land in 1918 when the Turks ratified the surrender terms. So when did they acquire title to the land if the LoN did not sign it over to them via a treaty or MANDATE ?

 It is the arab muslims that are illegal immigrants as shown by the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE which did not include them in the 22% of Palestine destined to be the Jewish national home.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Hummm ---  in a way, your analysis is partially correct.  They did know what the scope and nature of both the cause and the resulting problem was.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your link:
> 
> (i) They were the same underlying causes as those which brought about the “disturbances” of 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1933.​
> So they knew what the problem was for 15 years and the assholes did nothing about it. And this report was in 1947 and they were still sitting around saying "duh, what do we do?"
> 
> Stupid won the day and there has been war ever since.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are two things here that should be said.
> 
> There was never a way to calculate the persistence of the Arab Palestinian resistance.  No one ever thought that the Palestinians would give-up on nation building and national aspirations and opt instead to go into a continuous losing War mode.
> 
> While the regional adjacent Arab States have pretty much decided not to pursue hostilities, it is the Hostile Palestinian that has lost all national aspirations.
> Just as none of the major powers will interfere in the annexation by the Russian Federation of the internationally recognized Ukrainian territory of Crimea _(10,425 sq mi)(about the size of Massachusetts)_; March 2014 --- It is just as likely that, as long as Israel can contain the Hostile Arab Palestinian, none of the Regional Powers will go to war again over the West Bank and Gaza Strip _(2,317 sq mi)(about the size of the Everglades)_.
> 
> Stupid did not win the day.  The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating and were not entitled to sovereignty, having rejected a number of overtures from the Government of Palestine, the International Community moved on with the more cooperative --- the consequences are clear.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stupid did not win the day.​
> Are you kidding? Starting a hundred year (and counting) war when the solution was at their fingertips was not stupid? It was the epitome of stupid.
> 
> And Britain still wants to continue the war.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating...​
> Indeed, and they are still rejecting the Zionist's colonial project. Perhaps the Zionists should have picked a more docile people to colonize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it wasn't a 100 years war was it, but  a 1400 years war started by a mentally deranged psychopath who told the muslims that god had given them the world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if we agree with the silly notion that the war for Palestine started 1400 years  ago, what does it have to do with Jews.  The people in Palestine were Roman citizens and Christians at the time, there weren't any Jews, the Romans made sure of it.
Click to expand...






And you have proven this how, as no evidence exists that says the Jews died out in Palestine under Roman rule.

What a LYING POS ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDIST you are Abdul


By the way where did the Jews come from 1400 years ago that were massacred by Mohamed. Take a look at the hadiths for their numbers and explain them ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Christians and Muslims of Palestine are just people that did not accept European colonization.  They continue to resist.  It's the right decision.  Eventually they will overcome.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give me some specific examples of how the Palestinians have 'resisted'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you post just to see your nonsense in writing?  What kind of question is that?  "How have the Palestinians resisted" sheesh.  It's like you've been sleeping for 50 years.
Click to expand...





 Then give some specific examples ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Hummm ---  in a way, your analysis is partially correct.  They did know what the scope and nature of both the cause and the resulting problem was.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your link:
> 
> (i) They were the same underlying causes as those which brought about the “disturbances” of 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1933.​
> So they knew what the problem was for 15 years and the assholes did nothing about it. And this report was in 1947 and they were still sitting around saying "duh, what do we do?"
> 
> Stupid won the day and there has been war ever since.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are two things here that should be said.
> 
> There was never a way to calculate the persistence of the Arab Palestinian resistance.  No one ever thought that the Palestinians would give-up on nation building and national aspirations and opt instead to go into a continuous losing War mode.
> 
> While the regional adjacent Arab States have pretty much decided not to pursue hostilities, it is the Hostile Palestinian that has lost all national aspirations.
> Just as none of the major powers will interfere in the annexation by the Russian Federation of the internationally recognized Ukrainian territory of Crimea _(10,425 sq mi)(about the size of Massachusetts)_; March 2014 --- It is just as likely that, as long as Israel can contain the Hostile Arab Palestinian, none of the Regional Powers will go to war again over the West Bank and Gaza Strip _(2,317 sq mi)(about the size of the Everglades)_.
> 
> Stupid did not win the day.  The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating and were not entitled to sovereignty, having rejected a number of overtures from the Government of Palestine, the International Community moved on with the more cooperative --- the consequences are clear.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stupid did not win the day.​
> Are you kidding? Starting a hundred year (and counting) war when the solution was at their fingertips was not stupid? It was the epitome of stupid.
> 
> And Britain still wants to continue the war.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating...​
> Indeed, and they are still rejecting the Zionist's colonial project. Perhaps the Zionists should have picked a more docile people to colonize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it wasn't a 100 years war was it, but  a 1400 years war started by a mentally deranged psychopath who told the muslims that god had given them the world
Click to expand...

In less than ten years three serious attacks have been made by Arabs on Jews. Fore eighty years before the first of these attacks there is no recorded instance of any similar incidents.

A AC.14 8 of 2 October 1947


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Hummm ---  in a way, your analysis is partially correct.  They did know what the scope and nature of both the cause and the resulting problem was.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your link:
> 
> (i) They were the same underlying causes as those which brought about the “disturbances” of 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1933.​
> So they knew what the problem was for 15 years and the assholes did nothing about it. And this report was in 1947 and they were still sitting around saying "duh, what do we do?"
> 
> Stupid won the day and there has been war ever since.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are two things here that should be said.
> 
> There was never a way to calculate the persistence of the Arab Palestinian resistance.  No one ever thought that the Palestinians would give-up on nation building and national aspirations and opt instead to go into a continuous losing War mode.
> 
> While the regional adjacent Arab States have pretty much decided not to pursue hostilities, it is the Hostile Palestinian that has lost all national aspirations.
> Just as none of the major powers will interfere in the annexation by the Russian Federation of the internationally recognized Ukrainian territory of Crimea _(10,425 sq mi)(about the size of Massachusetts)_; March 2014 --- It is just as likely that, as long as Israel can contain the Hostile Arab Palestinian, none of the Regional Powers will go to war again over the West Bank and Gaza Strip _(2,317 sq mi)(about the size of the Everglades)_.
> 
> Stupid did not win the day.  The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating and were not entitled to sovereignty, having rejected a number of overtures from the Government of Palestine, the International Community moved on with the more cooperative --- the consequences are clear.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stupid did not win the day.​
> Are you kidding? Starting a hundred year (and counting) war when the solution was at their fingertips was not stupid? It was the epitome of stupid.
> 
> And Britain still wants to continue the war.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating...​
> Indeed, and they are still rejecting the Zionist's colonial project. Perhaps the Zionists should have picked a more docile people to colonize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it wasn't a 100 years war was it, but  a 1400 years war started by a mentally deranged psychopath who told the muslims that god had given them the world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if we agree with the silly notion that the war for Palestine started 1400 years  ago, what does it have to do with Jews.  The people in Palestine were Roman citizens and Christians at the time, there weren't any Jews, the Romans made sure of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you have proven this how, as no evidence exists that says the Jews died out in Palestine under Roman rule.
> 
> What a LYING POS ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDIST you are Abdul
> 
> 
> By the way where did the Jews come from 1400 years ago that were massacred by Mohamed. Take a look at the hadiths for their numbers and explain them ?
Click to expand...


They certainly were not in Palestine.  Maybe in Mecca or Medina.  Not part of the Roman Empire.

Palestine was a Roman province.  The Roman state religion had been Christianity for centuries at the time.  The Jews were purged from Palestine much earlier by the Romans who at the time worshipped Roman Gods.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Christians and Muslims of Palestine are just people that did not accept European colonization.  They continue to resist.  It's the right decision.  Eventually they will overcome.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give me some specific examples of how the Palestinians have 'resisted'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you post just to see your nonsense in writing?  What kind of question is that?  "How have the Palestinians resisted" sheesh.  It's like you've been sleeping for 50 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then give some specific examples ?
Click to expand...


How about a word.  INTIFADA.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Hummm ---  in a way, your analysis is partially correct.  They did know what the scope and nature of both the cause and the resulting problem was.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your link:
> 
> (i) They were the same underlying causes as those which brought about the “disturbances” of 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1933.​
> So they knew what the problem was for 15 years and the assholes did nothing about it. And this report was in 1947 and they were still sitting around saying "duh, what do we do?"
> 
> Stupid won the day and there has been war ever since.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are two things here that should be said.
> 
> There was never a way to calculate the persistence of the Arab Palestinian resistance.  No one ever thought that the Palestinians would give-up on nation building and national aspirations and opt instead to go into a continuous losing War mode.
> 
> While the regional adjacent Arab States have pretty much decided not to pursue hostilities, it is the Hostile Palestinian that has lost all national aspirations.
> Just as none of the major powers will interfere in the annexation by the Russian Federation of the internationally recognized Ukrainian territory of Crimea _(10,425 sq mi)(about the size of Massachusetts)_; March 2014 --- It is just as likely that, as long as Israel can contain the Hostile Arab Palestinian, none of the Regional Powers will go to war again over the West Bank and Gaza Strip _(2,317 sq mi)(about the size of the Everglades)_.
> 
> Stupid did not win the day.  The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating and were not entitled to sovereignty, having rejected a number of overtures from the Government of Palestine, the International Community moved on with the more cooperative --- the consequences are clear.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Considering that the land given to make "Israel" was never ratified by the UN security council.....DEEMS ISRAEL Illegal.
> 
> Anyhow Why should the Palestinians accept the theft of their Land.....by a load of Illegal Immigrants....it's like saying the Mexicans should have part of America because they were there first,and they have done exactly done the same as the Jews...Illegally entered and stayed in another country.
> 
> Just sayin  Not that respectfully,steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope as International law from 1922 had already given the land to Israel.  It is Palestine that is illegal as the UN never ratified the original resolution that the arab muslims are using as the basis of their claim.
> 
> It was never their land for close on 1000 years. It certainly wasn't their land in 1917 when the Ottomans signed a surrender treaty, and it still wasn't their land in 1918 when the Turks ratified the surrender terms. So when did they acquire title to the land if the LoN did not sign it over to them via a treaty or MANDATE ?
> 
> It is the arab muslims that are illegal immigrants as shown by the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE which did not include them in the 22% of Palestine destined to be the Jewish national home.
Click to expand...



Since there was no Israel in 1922, land could not have been given to Israel in 1922.  Sovereignty over the former colonies/territories of Turkey (Class A Mandates) was transferred to the inhabitants through provisional statehood (administered by a Mandatory), via the Treaty of Versailles Article 22. 


"To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.....Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development *where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised *subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory..."

The Avalon Project The Versailles Treaty June 28 1919


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Hummm ---  in a way, your analysis is partially correct.  They did know what the scope and nature of both the cause and the resulting problem was.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your link:
> 
> (i) They were the same underlying causes as those which brought about the “disturbances” of 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1933.​
> So they knew what the problem was for 15 years and the assholes did nothing about it. And this report was in 1947 and they were still sitting around saying "duh, what do we do?"
> 
> Stupid won the day and there has been war ever since.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are two things here that should be said.
> 
> There was never a way to calculate the persistence of the Arab Palestinian resistance.  No one ever thought that the Palestinians would give-up on nation building and national aspirations and opt instead to go into a continuous losing War mode.
> 
> While the regional adjacent Arab States have pretty much decided not to pursue hostilities, it is the Hostile Palestinian that has lost all national aspirations.
> Just as none of the major powers will interfere in the annexation by the Russian Federation of the internationally recognized Ukrainian territory of Crimea _(10,425 sq mi)(about the size of Massachusetts)_; March 2014 --- It is just as likely that, as long as Israel can contain the Hostile Arab Palestinian, none of the Regional Powers will go to war again over the West Bank and Gaza Strip _(2,317 sq mi)(about the size of the Everglades)_.
> 
> Stupid did not win the day.  The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating and were not entitled to sovereignty, having rejected a number of overtures from the Government of Palestine, the International Community moved on with the more cooperative --- the consequences are clear.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stupid did not win the day.​
> Are you kidding? Starting a hundred year (and counting) war when the solution was at their fingertips was not stupid? It was the epitome of stupid.
> 
> And Britain still wants to continue the war.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating...​
> Indeed, and they are still rejecting the Zionist's colonial project. Perhaps the Zionists should have picked a more docile people to colonize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it wasn't a 100 years war was it, but  a 1400 years war started by a mentally deranged psychopath who told the muslims that god had given them the world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In less than ten years three serious attacks have been made by Arabs on Jews. Fore eighty years before the first of these attacks there is no recorded instance of any similar incidents.
> 
> A AC.14 8 of 2 October 1947
Click to expand...




 Apart from the attacks in Hebron 1929, the civil war of 1930. Then the next civil war of 1933 followed by a scattering of smaller attacks up until 1947 when the arab league declared war and invaded to attack and wipe out the Jews.   Do you want the rest of the attacks by arab muslims on the Jews. Or are you going to do an Ostrich and bury your head in the sand


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Hummm ---  in a way, your analysis is partially correct.  They did know what the scope and nature of both the cause and the resulting problem was.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are two things here that should be said.
> 
> There was never a way to calculate the persistence of the Arab Palestinian resistance.  No one ever thought that the Palestinians would give-up on nation building and national aspirations and opt instead to go into a continuous losing War mode.
> 
> While the regional adjacent Arab States have pretty much decided not to pursue hostilities, it is the Hostile Palestinian that has lost all national aspirations.
> Just as none of the major powers will interfere in the annexation by the Russian Federation of the internationally recognized Ukrainian territory of Crimea _(10,425 sq mi)(about the size of Massachusetts)_; March 2014 --- It is just as likely that, as long as Israel can contain the Hostile Arab Palestinian, none of the Regional Powers will go to war again over the West Bank and Gaza Strip _(2,317 sq mi)(about the size of the Everglades)_.
> 
> Stupid did not win the day.  The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating and were not entitled to sovereignty, having rejected a number of overtures from the Government of Palestine, the International Community moved on with the more cooperative --- the consequences are clear.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid did not win the day.​
> Are you kidding? Starting a hundred year (and counting) war when the solution was at their fingertips was not stupid? It was the epitome of stupid.
> 
> And Britain still wants to continue the war.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating...​
> Indeed, and they are still rejecting the Zionist's colonial project. Perhaps the Zionists should have picked a more docile people to colonize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it wasn't a 100 years war was it, but  a 1400 years war started by a mentally deranged psychopath who told the muslims that god had given them the world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if we agree with the silly notion that the war for Palestine started 1400 years  ago, what does it have to do with Jews.  The people in Palestine were Roman citizens and Christians at the time, there weren't any Jews, the Romans made sure of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you have proven this how, as no evidence exists that says the Jews died out in Palestine under Roman rule.
> 
> What a LYING POS ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDIST you are Abdul
> 
> 
> By the way where did the Jews come from 1400 years ago that were massacred by Mohamed. Take a look at the hadiths for their numbers and explain them ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They certainly were not in Palestine.  Maybe in Mecca or Medina.  Not part of the Roman Empire.
> 
> Palestine was a Roman province.  The Roman state religion had been Christianity for centuries at the time.  The Jews were purged from Palestine much earlier by the Romans who at the time worshipped Roman Gods.
Click to expand...





Then produce the evidence from a non partisan source that state the Jews were wiped out in Palestine by the Romans, and that would be Roman Palestine and not the Palestine that exists today.


 ONCE AGAIN YOU SHOW YOU ARE A LYING POS ISLAMONAZI RACIST


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid did not win the day.​
> Are you kidding? Starting a hundred year (and counting) war when the solution was at their fingertips was not stupid? It was the epitome of stupid.
> 
> And Britain still wants to continue the war.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating...​
> Indeed, and they are still rejecting the Zionist's colonial project. Perhaps the Zionists should have picked a more docile people to colonize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it wasn't a 100 years war was it, but  a 1400 years war started by a mentally deranged psychopath who told the muslims that god had given them the world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if we agree with the silly notion that the war for Palestine started 1400 years  ago, what does it have to do with Jews.  The people in Palestine were Roman citizens and Christians at the time, there weren't any Jews, the Romans made sure of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you have proven this how, as no evidence exists that says the Jews died out in Palestine under Roman rule.
> 
> What a LYING POS ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDIST you are Abdul
> 
> 
> By the way where did the Jews come from 1400 years ago that were massacred by Mohamed. Take a look at the hadiths for their numbers and explain them ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They certainly were not in Palestine.  Maybe in Mecca or Medina.  Not part of the Roman Empire.
> 
> Palestine was a Roman province.  The Roman state religion had been Christianity for centuries at the time.  The Jews were purged from Palestine much earlier by the Romans who at the time worshipped Roman Gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then produce the evidence from a non partisan source that state the Jews were wiped out in Palestine by the Romans, and that would be Roman Palestine and not the Palestine that exists today.
> 
> 
> ONCE AGAIN YOU SHOW YOU ARE A LYING POS ISLAMONAZI RACIST
Click to expand...


Is the Jewish Virtual Library a "LYING POS ISLAMONAZI RACIST" publication?  It would seem so, according to you. LOL

" In 73 AD, the last of the revolutionaries were holed up in a mountain fort called Masada; the Romans had besieged the fort for two years, and the 1,000 men, women, and children inside were beginning to starve. In desperation, the Jewish revolutionaries killed themselves rather than surrender to the Romans. The Romans then destroyed Jerusalem, annexed Judaea as a Roman province, and systematically drove the Jews from Palestine. After 73 AD, Hebrew history would only be the history of the Diaspora as the Jews and their world view spread over Africa, Asia, and Europe."

The Diaspora Jewish Virtual Library


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Hummm ---  in a way, your analysis is partially correct.  They did know what the scope and nature of both the cause and the resulting problem was.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your link:
> 
> (i) They were the same underlying causes as those which brought about the “disturbances” of 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1933.​
> So they knew what the problem was for 15 years and the assholes did nothing about it. And this report was in 1947 and they were still sitting around saying "duh, what do we do?"
> 
> Stupid won the day and there has been war ever since.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are two things here that should be said.
> 
> There was never a way to calculate the persistence of the Arab Palestinian resistance.  No one ever thought that the Palestinians would give-up on nation building and national aspirations and opt instead to go into a continuous losing War mode.
> 
> While the regional adjacent Arab States have pretty much decided not to pursue hostilities, it is the Hostile Palestinian that has lost all national aspirations.
> Just as none of the major powers will interfere in the annexation by the Russian Federation of the internationally recognized Ukrainian territory of Crimea _(10,425 sq mi)(about the size of Massachusetts)_; March 2014 --- It is just as likely that, as long as Israel can contain the Hostile Arab Palestinian, none of the Regional Powers will go to war again over the West Bank and Gaza Strip _(2,317 sq mi)(about the size of the Everglades)_.
> 
> Stupid did not win the day.  The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating and were not entitled to sovereignty, having rejected a number of overtures from the Government of Palestine, the International Community moved on with the more cooperative --- the consequences are clear.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stupid did not win the day.​
> Are you kidding? Starting a hundred year (and counting) war when the solution was at their fingertips was not stupid? It was the epitome of stupid.
> 
> And Britain still wants to continue the war.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating...​
> Indeed, and they are still rejecting the Zionist's colonial project. Perhaps the Zionists should have picked a more docile people to colonize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it wasn't a 100 years war was it, but  a 1400 years war started by a mentally deranged psychopath who told the muslims that god had given them the world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In less than ten years three serious attacks have been made by Arabs on Jews. Fore eighty years before the first of these attacks there is no recorded instance of any similar incidents.
> 
> A AC.14 8 of 2 October 1947
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from the attacks in Hebron 1929, the civil war of 1930. Then the next civil war of 1933 followed by a scattering of smaller attacks up until 1947 when the arab league declared war and invaded to attack and wipe out the Jews.   Do you want the rest of the attacks by arab muslims on the Jews. Or are you going to do an Ostrich and bury your head in the sand
Click to expand...


Why wouldn't colonized people attack the colonists?  It happened in almost all European colonies.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Hummm ---  in a way, your analysis is partially correct.  They did know what the scope and nature of both the cause and the resulting problem was.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your link:
> 
> (i) They were the same underlying causes as those which brought about the “disturbances” of 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1933.​
> So they knew what the problem was for 15 years and the assholes did nothing about it. And this report was in 1947 and they were still sitting around saying "duh, what do we do?"
> 
> Stupid won the day and there has been war ever since.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are two things here that should be said.
> 
> There was never a way to calculate the persistence of the Arab Palestinian resistance.  No one ever thought that the Palestinians would give-up on nation building and national aspirations and opt instead to go into a continuous losing War mode.
> 
> While the regional adjacent Arab States have pretty much decided not to pursue hostilities, it is the Hostile Palestinian that has lost all national aspirations.
> Just as none of the major powers will interfere in the annexation by the Russian Federation of the internationally recognized Ukrainian territory of Crimea _(10,425 sq mi)(about the size of Massachusetts)_; March 2014 --- It is just as likely that, as long as Israel can contain the Hostile Arab Palestinian, none of the Regional Powers will go to war again over the West Bank and Gaza Strip _(2,317 sq mi)(about the size of the Everglades)_.
> 
> Stupid did not win the day.  The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating and were not entitled to sovereignty, having rejected a number of overtures from the Government of Palestine, the International Community moved on with the more cooperative --- the consequences are clear.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stupid did not win the day.​
> Are you kidding? Starting a hundred year (and counting) war when the solution was at their fingertips was not stupid? It was the epitome of stupid.
> 
> And Britain still wants to continue the war.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating...​
> Indeed, and they are still rejecting the Zionist's colonial project. Perhaps the Zionists should have picked a more docile people to colonize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it wasn't a 100 years war was it, but  a 1400 years war started by a mentally deranged psychopath who told the muslims that god had given them the world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In less than ten years three serious attacks have been made by Arabs on Jews. Fore eighty years before the first of these attacks there is no recorded instance of any similar incidents.
> 
> A AC.14 8 of 2 October 1947
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from the attacks in Hebron 1929, the civil war of 1930. Then the next civil war of 1933 followed by a scattering of smaller attacks up until 1947 when the arab league declared war and invaded to attack and wipe out the Jews.   Do you want the rest of the attacks by arab muslims on the Jews. Or are you going to do an Ostrich and bury your head in the sand
Click to expand...

Indeed, those were the attacks that they were talking about that happened after the Zionist invasion.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Hummm ---  in a way, your analysis is partially correct.  They did know what the scope and nature of both the cause and the resulting problem was.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are two things here that should be said.
> 
> There was never a way to calculate the persistence of the Arab Palestinian resistance.  No one ever thought that the Palestinians would give-up on nation building and national aspirations and opt instead to go into a continuous losing War mode.
> 
> While the regional adjacent Arab States have pretty much decided not to pursue hostilities, it is the Hostile Palestinian that has lost all national aspirations.
> Just as none of the major powers will interfere in the annexation by the Russian Federation of the internationally recognized Ukrainian territory of Crimea _(10,425 sq mi)(about the size of Massachusetts)_; March 2014 --- It is just as likely that, as long as Israel can contain the Hostile Arab Palestinian, none of the Regional Powers will go to war again over the West Bank and Gaza Strip _(2,317 sq mi)(about the size of the Everglades)_.
> 
> Stupid did not win the day.  The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating and were not entitled to sovereignty, having rejected a number of overtures from the Government of Palestine, the International Community moved on with the more cooperative --- the consequences are clear.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid did not win the day.​
> Are you kidding? Starting a hundred year (and counting) war when the solution was at their fingertips was not stupid? It was the epitome of stupid.
> 
> And Britain still wants to continue the war.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating...​
> Indeed, and they are still rejecting the Zionist's colonial project. Perhaps the Zionists should have picked a more docile people to colonize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it wasn't a 100 years war was it, but  a 1400 years war started by a mentally deranged psychopath who told the muslims that god had given them the world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In less than ten years three serious attacks have been made by Arabs on Jews. Fore eighty years before the first of these attacks there is no recorded instance of any similar incidents.
> 
> A AC.14 8 of 2 October 1947
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from the attacks in Hebron 1929, the civil war of 1930. Then the next civil war of 1933 followed by a scattering of smaller attacks up until 1947 when the arab league declared war and invaded to attack and wipe out the Jews.   Do you want the rest of the attacks by arab muslims on the Jews. Or are you going to do an Ostrich and bury your head in the sand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, those were the attacks that they were talking about that happened after the Zionist invasion.
Click to expand...

. 
First off, their was no 'Zionist Invasion' That's a Palestinian propaganda myth that you love to pimp.
Second, what does it matter when the attacks took place ? Arabs massacred Jews several times before any Arab was killed
Finally, the Jews killed in the Hebron massacre were native Jews.


----------



## montelatici

People from Europe went to Palestine, a place on another continent, to dispossess the people living in Palestine of their land and replace them as the inhabitants of Palestine, creating a state of their own religion.  How is that any different from European settlers colonizing other places?


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid did not win the day.​
> Are you kidding? Starting a hundred year (and counting) war when the solution was at their fingertips was not stupid? It was the epitome of stupid.
> 
> And Britain still wants to continue the war.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating...​
> Indeed, and they are still rejecting the Zionist's colonial project. Perhaps the Zionists should have picked a more docile people to colonize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it wasn't a 100 years war was it, but  a 1400 years war started by a mentally deranged psychopath who told the muslims that god had given them the world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In less than ten years three serious attacks have been made by Arabs on Jews. Fore eighty years before the first of these attacks there is no recorded instance of any similar incidents.
> 
> A AC.14 8 of 2 October 1947
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from the attacks in Hebron 1929, the civil war of 1930. Then the next civil war of 1933 followed by a scattering of smaller attacks up until 1947 when the arab league declared war and invaded to attack and wipe out the Jews.   Do you want the rest of the attacks by arab muslims on the Jews. Or are you going to do an Ostrich and bury your head in the sand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, those were the attacks that they were talking about that happened after the Zionist invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> First off, their was no 'Zionist Invasion' That's a Palestinian propaganda myth that you love to pimp.
> Second, what does it matter when the attacks took place ? Arabs massacred Jews several times before any Arab was killed
> Finally, the Jews killed in the Hebron massacre were native Jews.
Click to expand...



_"The Jews killed in the Hebron massacre were native Jews."
_
The Arab Jews were not targeted, the European colonists were the targets.

"Soon after news of the first victim had spread, forty people assembled in the house of Eliezer Dan Slonim. Slonim, the son of the Rabbi of Hebron, was a member on the city council and a director of the Anglo-Palestine Bank. He had excellent relations with the British and the Arabs and those seeking refuge with him were confident they would come to no harm. When the mob approached his door, t*hey offered to spare the Sephardi community if he would hand over all the Ashkenazi yeshiva students.* He refused, saying "we are all one people," whereupon he was shot dead along with his wife and 4-year-old son.[34] From the contemporary Hebrew press it appears that the rioters targeted the Zionist community for their massacre. *Four-fifths of the victims were Ashkenazi Jews, "

1929 Hebron massacre - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia*


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes, may be...




P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> It is not about the people (Arabs, Muslims, Islamic radicals) --- it was never about the people.  It is about the culture and the preservation of ancient beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid did not win the day.​
> Are you kidding? Starting a hundred year (and counting) war when the solution was at their fingertips was not stupid? It was the epitome of stupid.
> 
> And Britain still wants to continue the war.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating...​
> Indeed, and they are still rejecting the Zionist's colonial project. Perhaps the Zionists should have picked a more docile people to colonize.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, the war has lasted almost a century, if we start counting from the time of the *Sykes-Picot Agreement *(16 May 1916)*,* and with Arab Revolt which began on (5 June 1916). Forces commanded by Sharif Hussein ibn Ali’s sons, the Emirs Ali and Feisal, attacked the Ottoman garrison at Medina.   Certainly, if not by then --- then the Balfour Declaration was the start of the fire (2 November 1917).
> 
> But as Wars go, this was not of the magnitude or scope and nature that worried the Allied Powers or the UN.  If the status quo can be maintained for another half century, most of the issues will have been resolved.
> 
> The solution was never at their finger tips.  The objective was to create a Jewish National Home.  There was never an objective to placate the Arab Palestinian.  Those were ancillary compromises.   The longer the Arab Palestinian waits to enter into good faith negotiations --- the more Area "C" will be developed by the Israelis.  The Arab Palestinian is just another substandard culture left behind because they could not adapt, were too violent and unproductive.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 87. The members of the Peel Commission were led by their diagnosis of the situation in Palestine to the conclusion that the obligations imposed upon the Mandatory by the terms of the Mandate were mutually irreconcilable.​
> That was the story for three decades.
> 
> People had been telling them for years that their stupid plan was not going to work. The facts on the ground said that their stupid plan was not working.
> 
> So they went ahead anyway and started a hundred year (and counting) war.
> 
> Stupid won the day.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

If we assume that the Peel Commission  ---  YOUR proposition, represents findings and a practical view that the differences between the Jewish and Arab are so vast from each other that they cannot be made compatible and no solution exists, that any alternative solution approach will result in one of the following conditions:

The Jewish will be satisfied and the Arab will be disappointed.
The Arab will be satisfied and the Jewish will be disappointed.
Both the Arab and Jewish will be disappointed to one degree or another.
All that needs to be considered is the degree of disappointment and the magnitude of the effort and means to mitigate the adverse consequences.

Since (under your premise that) the Allied Powers are prevented from developing a solution which would have satisfied both side, the Allied Powers (or in this case the post-1945 UN) would have to decide which of the original objectives they are legally or morally bound to as a course of action.

Obviously, on the acceptance of the UNSCOP recommendation, the UN General Assembly made the determination in favor of the admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations.   After more than a half century, the Arab Palestinians who do not recognize "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine (HAMAS Political Position 2013 by Khaled Meshal) are still trying to undermine the will if the General Assembly.

The only outcome that would have satisfied the Arab would have been to place the preservation and security of the Jewish National Home under an Arab Muslim umbrella.  And that would have had no reasonable expectation that the culture would have survived.

Thus, given that the intent was to provide such an environment that the Jewish National Home would have a reasonable chance at survival, the decision was made.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, may be...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> It is not about the people (Arabs, Muslims, Islamic radicals) --- it was never about the people.  It is about the culture and the preservation of ancient beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid did not win the day.​
> Are you kidding? Starting a hundred year (and counting) war when the solution was at their fingertips was not stupid? It was the epitome of stupid.
> 
> And Britain still wants to continue the war.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating...​
> Indeed, and they are still rejecting the Zionist's colonial project. Perhaps the Zionists should have picked a more docile people to colonize.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, the war has lasted almost a century, if we start counting from the time of the *Sykes-Picot Agreement *(16 May 1916)*,* and with Arab Revolt which began on (5 June 1916). Forces commanded by Sharif Hussein ibn Ali’s sons, the Emirs Ali and Feisal, attacked the Ottoman garrison at Medina.   Certainly, if not by then --- then the Balfour Declaration was the start of the fire (2 November 1917).
> 
> But as Wars go, this was not of the magnitude or scope and nature that worried the Allied Powers or the UN.  If the status quo can be maintained for another half century, most of the issues will have been resolved.
> 
> The solution was never at their finger tips.  The objective was to create a Jewish National Home.  There was never an objective to placate the Arab Palestinian.  Those were ancillary compromises.   The longer the Arab Palestinian waits to enter into good faith negotiations --- the more Area "C" will be developed by the Israelis.  The Arab Palestinian is just another substandard culture left behind because they could not adapt, were too violent and unproductive.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 87. The members of the Peel Commission were led by their diagnosis of the situation in Palestine to the conclusion that the obligations imposed upon the Mandatory by the terms of the Mandate were mutually irreconcilable.​
> That was the story for three decades.
> 
> People had been telling them for years that their stupid plan was not going to work. The facts on the ground said that their stupid plan was not working.
> 
> So they went ahead anyway and started a hundred year (and counting) war.
> 
> Stupid won the day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If we assume that the Peel Commission  ---  YOUR proposition, represents findings and a practical view that the differences between the Jewish and Arab are so vast from each other that they cannot be made compatible and no solution exists, that any alternative solution approach will result in one of the following conditions:
> 
> The Jewish will be satisfied and the Arab will be disappointed.
> The Arab will be satisfied and the Jewish will be disappointed.
> Both the Arab and Jewish will be disappointed to one degree or another.
> All that needs to be considered is the degree of disappointment and the magnitude of the effort and means to mitigate the adverse consequences.
> 
> Since (under your premise that) the Allied Powers are prevented from developing a solution which would have satisfied both side, the Allied Powers (or in this case the post-1945 UN) would have to decide which of the original objectives they are legally or morally bound to as a course of action.
> 
> Obviously, on the acceptance of the UNSCOP recommendation, the UN General Assembly made the determination in favor of the admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations.   After more than a half century, the Arab Palestinians who do not recognize "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine (HAMAS Political Position 2013 by Khaled Meshal) are still trying to undermine the will if the General Assembly.
> 
> The only outcome that would have satisfied the Arab would have been to place the preservation and security of the Jewish National Home under an Arab Muslim umbrella.  And that would have had no reasonable expectation that the culture would have survived.
> 
> Thus, given that the intent was to provide such an environment that the Jewish National Home would have a reasonable chance at survival, the decision was made.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


While there had been European colonial successes in the Americas, Oceania etc.  Those successes were predicated on the elimination of the local culture and most of the population.  After WW2 and perhaps earlier, European colonialism had been determined to be morally questionable and not practical politically and economically.  France was holding on to Algeria and Vietnam, but Britain was leaving India and elsewhere.  It boggles the mind that the UN could have thought, given the times,  that somehow another colonial enterprise would not have caused serious problems.  It was cognitive dissonance.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

Yes, there were new lines of thought circulating.  But in the past, colonialism was the power resettling and expanding their own population for the good of the Empire.  The resettlement of the Jewish Population was not a World Power introducing is own populations, but several world powers that had concluded that a special effort _(recognized at the turn of the century)_ was need for the sake of humanity, to protect and preserve a specifically identifiable segment of the species that was in danger.



montelatici said:


> While there had been European colonial successes in the Americas, Oceania etc.  Those successes were predicated on the elimination of the local culture and most of the population.  After WW2 and perhaps earlier, European colonialism had been determined to be morally questionable and not practical politically and economically.  France was holding on to Algeria and Vietnam, but Britain was leaving India and elsewhere.  It boggles the mind that the UN could have thought, given the times,  that somehow another colonial enterprise would not have caused serious problems.  It was cognitive dissonance.


*(COMMENT)*

I don't think that any of the world powers _(either pre-WWI or post-WWII)_ were foolish enough to believe that the Arabs would ever appreciate the mission of resettling the Jewish Population, in their ancient point of origin, --- a population that had just undergone the most fiery of crucibles since the destruction of Carthage.   Considering the cultural barriers and traditional selfishness of the culture.  

This view has not changed much in over a 100 years.  The description has just become more refined and politically correct so as to not invite terrorist Arab Backlash as so often happens when their feelings are hurt.



			
				Centered on Civil Liberties said:
			
		

> Many nationalists and cultural trustees of the Arab world, for instance, condemn the influences of globalization on their culture. Conservative Arab nationalists and fundamentalists argue that their culture cannot adhere to many globalized notions. For them any claim to the contrary is just an inspiration to degrade other cultures in favor of a dominant one, or an attempt to certify the domination of one culture, mainly the modern version of Western culture, over the others.  *SOURCE:* The Middle East Tribune   By: *Mohammad S. Moussalli *




Given that the post WWII Allied Powers had just experienced --- first hand --- and recognized a period in which the peaceful and somewhat docile culture of the Jewish People had just come through a systematic, popularly supported, state-sponsored, persecution of _(approximately)_ six million Jews by the German regime _(successor to the Weimar Republic) _and its collaborators in nearly every European state; there was a genuine concern for the continuation of the culture and the moral obligation to insure that every reasonable effort be made for their settlement into a safe haven.  Arab support for the persecutions had not gone unnoticed then, or now:



			
				[SIZE=4 said:
			
		

> PLO Official: We Supported the Nazis in WWII][/SIZE]
> If anyone has had doubts about the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) support for the Nazis, recent remarks by one of its leaders should make things clearer.
> 
> In an interview with _Russia Today TV_ on December 7, Farouq Qaddoumi, the former political bureau head of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), said that Arabs were “enthusiastic supporters” of the Nazis during World War II.
> 
> The remarks were translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).
> 
> PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has consistently said that any future Palestinian state would be free of Israelis and Jews, much like the Nazis wanted Germany to be “Judenrein” (free of Jews).​
> _*SOURCE:*_   Arutz Sheva 7  By Elad Benari  First Publish: 12/19/2013



This was a different kind of decision the Allied Powers and the International Community had to make.  What set of decisions gives the best chance for the success of the Jewish National Home.  In the end, the Partition Plan was decided upon.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

Whether the colonizers were from many European countries or just one, makes very little difference to the colonized.  Tunisia had more Italian colonists than French colonists, for example.  The French facilitated the colonization.  

The decision to place a home for Europeans of a particular religion in Palestine was a crazy idea from the start, but to insist upon it after the second world war was the most notable example of cognitive dissonance.  Germany and Germans killed most of the Jews, why wasn't an area of Germany carved out for the Jews?  Why punish the Christians and Muslims of Palestine?  And, the British knew that the Jews were intent on dispossessing the non-Jews of Palestine.  Their official communications to the UN said as much in writing in A/AC.14/8 of 
2 October 1947.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Whether the colonizers were from many European countries or just one, makes very little difference to the colonized.  Tunisia had more Italian colonists than French colonists, for example.  The French facilitated the colonization.
> 
> The decision to place a home for Europeans of a particular religion in Palestine was a crazy idea from the start, but to insist upon it after the second world war was the most notable example of cognitive dissonance.  Germany and Germans killed most of the Jews, why wasn't an area of Germany carved out for the Jews?  Why punish the Christians and Muslims of Palestine?  And, the British knew that the Jews were intent on dispossessing the non-Jews of Palestine.  Their official communications to the UN said as much in writing in A/AC.14/8 of
> 2 October 1947.




Bottom line is Israel is there. It isn't going away. And Israel has the capability to annihilate the Palestinians.  Do you think maybe now might be a good time for the Palestinian squatters to end there vow to annihilate Israel & instead work for peace?


----------



## montelatici

I think the Palestinians should continue doing what they are doing unless Israel agrees to the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state.  Since it is clear that the Israelis will not allow the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state, the only solutions available are the eviction of all the non-Jews from the areas under Israeli control, the creation of a secular state for all the inhabitants of Palestine or the continuation of a state with separate development wherein the majority of the  non-Jews under Israeli control are not enfranchised, that some call Apartheid.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it wasn't a 100 years war was it, but  a 1400 years war started by a mentally deranged psychopath who told the muslims that god had given them the world
> 
> 
> 
> In less than ten years three serious attacks have been made by Arabs on Jews. Fore eighty years before the first of these attacks there is no recorded instance of any similar incidents.
> 
> A AC.14 8 of 2 October 1947
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from the attacks in Hebron 1929, the civil war of 1930. Then the next civil war of 1933 followed by a scattering of smaller attacks up until 1947 when the arab league declared war and invaded to attack and wipe out the Jews.   Do you want the rest of the attacks by arab muslims on the Jews. Or are you going to do an Ostrich and bury your head in the sand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, those were the attacks that they were talking about that happened after the Zionist invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> First off, their was no 'Zionist Invasion' That's a Palestinian propaganda myth that you love to pimp.
> Second, what does it matter when the attacks took place ? Arabs massacred Jews several times before any Arab was killed
> Finally, the Jews killed in the Hebron massacre were native Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _"The Jews killed in the Hebron massacre were native Jews."
> _
> The Arab Jews were not targeted, the European colonists were the targets.
> 
> "Soon after news of the first victim had spread, forty people assembled in the house of Eliezer Dan Slonim. Slonim, the son of the Rabbi of Hebron, was a member on the city council and a director of the Anglo-Palestine Bank. He had excellent relations with the British and the Arabs and those seeking refuge with him were confident they would come to no harm. When the mob approached his door, t*hey offered to spare the Sephardi community if he would hand over all the Ashkenazi yeshiva students.* He refused, saying "we are all one people," whereupon he was shot dead along with his wife and 4-year-old son.[34] From the contemporary Hebrew press it appears that the rioters targeted the Zionist community for their massacre. *Four-fifths of the victims were Ashkenazi Jews, "
> 
> 1929 Hebron massacre - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia*
Click to expand...

Both were targeted and killed. Your link proves nothing.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, may be...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> It is not about the people (Arabs, Muslims, Islamic radicals) --- it was never about the people.  It is about the culture and the preservation of ancient beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid did not win the day.​
> Are you kidding? Starting a hundred year (and counting) war when the solution was at their fingertips was not stupid? It was the epitome of stupid.
> 
> And Britain still wants to continue the war.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating...​
> Indeed, and they are still rejecting the Zionist's colonial project. Perhaps the Zionists should have picked a more docile people to colonize.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, the war has lasted almost a century, if we start counting from the time of the *Sykes-Picot Agreement *(16 May 1916)*,* and with Arab Revolt which began on (5 June 1916). Forces commanded by Sharif Hussein ibn Ali’s sons, the Emirs Ali and Feisal, attacked the Ottoman garrison at Medina.   Certainly, if not by then --- then the Balfour Declaration was the start of the fire (2 November 1917).
> 
> But as Wars go, this was not of the magnitude or scope and nature that worried the Allied Powers or the UN.  If the status quo can be maintained for another half century, most of the issues will have been resolved.
> 
> The solution was never at their finger tips.  The objective was to create a Jewish National Home.  There was never an objective to placate the Arab Palestinian.  Those were ancillary compromises.   The longer the Arab Palestinian waits to enter into good faith negotiations --- the more Area "C" will be developed by the Israelis.  The Arab Palestinian is just another substandard culture left behind because they could not adapt, were too violent and unproductive.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 87. The members of the Peel Commission were led by their diagnosis of the situation in Palestine to the conclusion that the obligations imposed upon the Mandatory by the terms of the Mandate were mutually irreconcilable.​
> That was the story for three decades.
> 
> People had been telling them for years that their stupid plan was not going to work. The facts on the ground said that their stupid plan was not working.
> 
> So they went ahead anyway and started a hundred year (and counting) war.
> 
> Stupid won the day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If we assume that the Peel Commission  ---  YOUR proposition, represents findings and a practical view that the differences between the Jewish and Arab are so vast from each other that they cannot be made compatible and no solution exists, that any alternative solution approach will result in one of the following conditions:
> 
> The Jewish will be satisfied and the Arab will be disappointed.
> The Arab will be satisfied and the Jewish will be disappointed.
> Both the Arab and Jewish will be disappointed to one degree or another.
> All that needs to be considered is the degree of disappointment and the magnitude of the effort and means to mitigate the adverse consequences.
> 
> Since (under your premise that) the Allied Powers are prevented from developing a solution which would have satisfied both side, the Allied Powers (or in this case the post-1945 UN) would have to decide which of the original objectives they are legally or morally bound to as a course of action.
> 
> Obviously, on the acceptance of the UNSCOP recommendation, the UN General Assembly made the determination in favor of the admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations.   After more than a half century, the Arab Palestinians who do not recognize "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine (HAMAS Political Position 2013 by Khaled Meshal) are still trying to undermine the will if the General Assembly.
> 
> The only outcome that would have satisfied the Arab would have been to place the preservation and security of the Jewish National Home under an Arab Muslim umbrella.  And that would have had no reasonable expectation that the culture would have survived.
> 
> Thus, given that the intent was to provide such an environment that the Jewish National Home would have a reasonable chance at survival, the decision was made.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


----------



## montelatici

montelatici said:


> I think the Palestinians should continue doing what they are doing unless Israel agrees to the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state.  Since it is clear that the Israelis will not allow the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state, the only solutions available are the eviction of all the non-Jews from the areas under Israeli control, the creation of a secular state for all the inhabitants of Palestine or the continuation of a state with separate development wherein the majority of the  non-Jews under Israeli control are not enfranchised, that some call Apartheid.





toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> In less than ten years three serious attacks have been made by Arabs on Jews. Fore eighty years before the first of these attacks there is no recorded instance of any similar incidents.
> 
> A AC.14 8 of 2 October 1947
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from the attacks in Hebron 1929, the civil war of 1930. Then the next civil war of 1933 followed by a scattering of smaller attacks up until 1947 when the arab league declared war and invaded to attack and wipe out the Jews.   Do you want the rest of the attacks by arab muslims on the Jews. Or are you going to do an Ostrich and bury your head in the sand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, those were the attacks that they were talking about that happened after the Zionist invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> First off, their was no 'Zionist Invasion' That's a Palestinian propaganda myth that you love to pimp.
> Second, what does it matter when the attacks took place ? Arabs massacred Jews several times before any Arab was killed
> Finally, the Jews killed in the Hebron massacre were native Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _"The Jews killed in the Hebron massacre were native Jews."
> _
> The Arab Jews were not targeted, the European colonists were the targets.
> 
> "Soon after news of the first victim had spread, forty people assembled in the house of Eliezer Dan Slonim. Slonim, the son of the Rabbi of Hebron, was a member on the city council and a director of the Anglo-Palestine Bank. He had excellent relations with the British and the Arabs and those seeking refuge with him were confident they would come to no harm. When the mob approached his door, t*hey offered to spare the Sephardi community if he would hand over all the Ashkenazi yeshiva students.* He refused, saying "we are all one people," whereupon he was shot dead along with his wife and 4-year-old son.[34] From the contemporary Hebrew press it appears that the rioters targeted the Zionist community for their massacre. *Four-fifths of the victims were Ashkenazi Jews, "
> 
> 1929 Hebron massacre - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both were targeted and killed. Your link proves nothing.
Click to expand...


It proves that the non-Jews only had a problem with the colonizers, not the indigenous Jews.


----------



## Phoenall

Now where does it say that all the Jews were expelled from Palestine in your cut and paste. It doesn't does it so once again proving that you are a RACIST LIAR that cant support your claims. So I will ask again for a non partisan link to your false claim that the Romans expelled every last Jews from Roman Palestine.   A tip would be to first find out what Roman Palestine was.

 By the way you do know that Jesus died at Masada don't you fighting the Romans, the evidence was found there by some archaeologists and whisked away to the Vatican.


 YETY ANOTHER MASSIVE FAIL BY YOU TRYING TO TRICK PEOPLE


----------



## Phoenall

Now where does it say that all the Jews were expelled from Palestine in your cut and paste. It doesn't does it so once again proving that you are a RACIST LIAR that cant support your claims. So I will ask again for a non partisan link to your false claim that the Romans expelled every last Jews from Roman Palestine.   A tip would be to first find out what Roman Palestine was.

 By the way you do know that Jesus died at Masada don't you fighting the Romans, the evidence was found there by some archaeologists and whisked away to the Vatican.


 YETY ANOTHER MASSIVE FAIL BY YOU TRYING TO TRICK PEOPLE


----------



## Phoenall

Now where does it say that all the Jews were expelled from Palestine in your cut and paste. It doesn't does it so once again proving that you are a RACIST LIAR that cant support your claims. So I will ask again for a non partisan link to your false claim that the Romans expelled every last Jews from Roman Palestine.   A tip would be to first find out what Roman Palestine was.

 By the way you do know that Jesus died at Masada don't you fighting the Romans, the evidence was found there by some archaeologists and whisked away to the Vatican.


 YET ANOTHER MASSIVE FAIL BY YOU TRYING TO TRICK PEOPLE


----------



## Challenger

It's OK Phoney, we heard you the first time. Still trolling but now repeating himself.


----------



## Phoenall

Now where does it say that all the Jews were expelled from Palestine in your cut and paste. It doesn't does it so once again proving that you are a RACIST LIAR that cant support your claims. So I will ask again for a non partisan link to your false claim that the Romans expelled every last Jews from Roman Palestine.   A tip would be to first find out what Roman Palestine was.

 By the way you do know that Jesus died at Masada don't you fighting the Romans, the evidence was found there by some archaeologists and whisked away to the Vatican.


 YET ANOTHER MASSIVE FAIL BY YOU TRYING TO TRICK PEOPLE


----------



## Phoenall

Now where does it say that all the Jews were expelled from Palestine in your cut and paste. It doesn't does it so once again proving that you are a RACIST LIAR that cant support your claims. So I will ask again for a non partisan link to your false claim that the Romans expelled every last Jews from Roman Palestine.   A tip would be to first find out what Roman Palestine was.

 By the way you do know that Jesus died at Masada don't you fighting the Romans, the evidence was found there by some archaeologists and whisked away to the Vatican.


 YET ANOTHER MASSIVE FAIL BY YOU TRYING TO TRICK PEOPLE


----------



## Phoenall

Now where does it say that all the Jews were expelled from Palestine in your cut and paste. It doesn't does it so once again proving that you are a RACIST LIAR that cant support your claims. So I will ask again for a non partisan link to your false claim that the Romans expelled every last Jews from Roman Palestine.   A tip would be to first find out what Roman Palestine was.

 By the way you do know that Jesus died at Masada don't you fighting the Romans, the evidence was found there by some archaeologists and whisked away to the Vatican.


 YET ANOTHER MASSIVE FAIL BY YOU TRYING TO TRICK PEOPLE


----------



## Phoenall

Now where does it say that all the Jews were expelled from Palestine in your cut and paste. It doesn't does it so once again proving that you are a RACIST LIAR that cant support your claims. So I will ask again for a non partisan link to your false claim that the Romans expelled every last Jews from Roman Palestine.   A tip would be to first find out what Roman Palestine was.

 By the way you do know that Jesus died at Masada don't you fighting the Romans, the evidence was found there by some archaeologists and whisked away to the Vatican.


 YET ANOTHER MASSIVE FAIL BY YOU TRYING TO TRICK PEOPLE


----------



## Phoenall

Now where does it say that all the Jews were expelled from Palestine in your cut and paste. It doesn't does it so once again proving that you are a RACIST LIAR that cant support your claims. So I will ask again for a non partisan link to your false claim that the Romans expelled every last Jews from Roman Palestine.   A tip would be to first find out what Roman Palestine was.

 By the way you do know that Jesus died at Masada don't you fighting the Romans, the evidence was found there by some archaeologists and whisked away to the Vatican.


 YET ANOTHER MASSIVE FAIL BY YOU TRYING TO TRICK PEOPLE


----------



## Phoenall

Now where does it say that all the Jews were expelled from Palestine in your cut and paste. It doesn't does it so once again proving that you are a RACIST LIAR that cant support your claims. So I will ask again for a non partisan link to your false claim that the Romans expelled every last Jews from Roman Palestine.   A tip would be to first find out what Roman Palestine was.

 By the way you do know that Jesus died at Masada don't you fighting the Romans, the evidence was found there by some archaeologists and whisked away to the Vatican.


 YET ANOTHER MASSIVE FAIL BY YOU TRYING TO TRICK PEOPLE


----------



## Phoenall

Now where does it say that all the Jews were expelled from Palestine in your cut and paste. It doesn't does it so once again proving that you are a RACIST LIAR that cant support your claims. So I will ask again for a non partisan link to your false claim that the Romans expelled every last Jews from Roman Palestine.   A tip would be to first find out what Roman Palestine was.

 By the way you do know that Jesus died at Masada don't you fighting the Romans, the evidence was found there by some archaeologists and whisked away to the Vatican.


 YET ANOTHER MASSIVE FAIL BY YOU TRYING TO TRICK PEOPLE


----------



## Phoenall

Now where does it say that all the Jews were expelled from Palestine in your cut and paste. It doesn't does it so once again proving that you are a RACIST LIAR that cant support your claims. So I will ask again for a non partisan link to your false claim that the Romans expelled every last Jews from Roman Palestine.   A tip would be to first find out what Roman Palestine was.

 By the way you do know that Jesus died at Masada don't you fighting the Romans, the evidence was found there by some archaeologists and whisked away to the Vatican.


 YET ANOTHER MASSIVE FAIL BY YOU TRYING TO TRICK PEOPLE


----------



## Phoenall

Now where does it say that all the Jews were expelled from Palestine in your cut and paste. It doesn't does it so once again proving that you are a RACIST LIAR that cant support your claims. So I will ask again for a non partisan link to your false claim that the Romans expelled every last Jews from Roman Palestine.   A tip would be to first find out what Roman Palestine was.

 By the way you do know that Jesus died at Masada don't you fighting the Romans, the evidence was found there by some archaeologists and whisked away to the Vatican.


 YET ANOTHER MASSIVE FAIL BY YOU TRYING TO TRICK PEOPLE


----------



## Phoenall

Now where does it say that all the Jews were expelled from Palestine in your cut and paste. It doesn't does it so once again proving that you are a RACIST LIAR that cant support your claims. So I will ask again for a non partisan link to your false claim that the Romans expelled every last Jews from Roman Palestine.   A tip would be to first find out what Roman Palestine was.

 By the way you do know that Jesus died at Masada don't you fighting the Romans, the evidence was found there by some archaeologists and whisked away to the Vatican.


 YET ANOTHER MASSIVE FAIL BY YOU TRYING TO TRICK PEOPLE


----------



## Phoenall

Now where does it say that all the Jews were expelled from Palestine in your cut and paste. It doesn't does it so once again proving that you are a RACIST LIAR that cant support your claims. So I will ask again for a non partisan link to your false claim that the Romans expelled every last Jews from Roman Palestine.   A tip would be to first find out what Roman Palestine was.

 By the way you do know that Jesus died at Masada don't you fighting the Romans, the evidence was found there by some archaeologists and whisked away to the Vatican.


 YET ANOTHER MASSIVE FAIL BY YOU TRYING TO TRICK PEOPLE


----------



## montelatici

As they say on another forum Phoenall is well known on, he often has meltdowns.  They call it "phoenalling".  Now, he claims that Jesus Christ died fighting the Romans at Massada. Pontius Pilate was governor of Palestine 26-36 AD, the Jews at Masada were defeated by the Romans in 73 AD.  So Jesus Christ was at Masada a few decades after his Crucifixion. Leave it to Phoney.


----------



## MJB12741

WHO ARE THE PALESTINIANS?  This article was written in 2007.  Some things never change much over time.  Palestinians will be Palestinians.

The Radical Evil Of The Palestinian Arab Population by Ben Shapiro on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent


----------



## montelatici

Now you present the rantings of a right-wing virtually fascist, commentator who happens to be a Jew,  as reliable facts.  Sheesh.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Now you present the rantings of a right-wing virtually fascist, commentator who happens to be a Jew,  as reliable facts.  Sheesh.




I see.  So tell us Monte what is not accurate & true in the article by this right wing fasciest Jew?  Atta boy!

The Radical Evil Of The Palestinian Arab Population by Ben Shapiro on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent


----------



## montelatici

"Shapiro, who has positioned himself as a stalwart defender of Israel and of the Jewish people,* has expressed views that place him squarely in the fascist camp,*" Goldberg explains. "Not only is he to the right of Chuck Hagel and Barack Obama, he is to the right of the mainstream pro-Israel community; of the right-wing  Zionist Organization of America; the Likud Party; and the governing body of the West Bank settlement movement."

"Shapiro is the one who seems completely divorced from Jewish values," Goldberg concludes. "His leadership role in the dump-Hagel movement reflects well on Barack Obama."

Jeffrey Goldberg

Goldberg Breitbart s Ben Shapiro fascist - POLITICO.com


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> "Shapiro, who has positioned himself as a stalwart defender of Israel and of the Jewish people,* has expressed views that place him squarely in the fascist camp,*" Goldberg explains. "Not only is he to the right of Chuck Hagel and Barack Obama, he is to the right of the mainstream pro-Israel community; of the right-wing  Zionist Organization of America; the Likud Party; and the governing body of the West Bank settlement movement."
> 
> "Shapiro is the one who seems completely divorced from Jewish values," Goldberg concludes. "His leadership role in the dump-Hagel movement reflects well on Barack Obama."
> 
> Jeffrey Goldberg
> 
> Goldberg Breitbart s Ben Shapiro fascist - POLITICO.com



LMAO!  Good one Monte.  THAT"S funny.  He is even "to the right of Barak Obama."  Monte, I think I love you.  Heh Heh.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> WHO ARE THE PALESTINIANS?  This article was written in 2007.  Some things never change much over time.  Palestinians will be Palestinians.
> 
> The Radical Evil Of The Palestinian Arab Population by Ben Shapiro on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent


Last week, the extremists, led by Holocaust denier and Fatah strongman Mahmoud Abbas, were ousted in a bloody coup by the radical extremists, Islamist terrorist group Hamas.​
A lie in the first paragraph.

Why should I read farther?


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Shapiro, who has positioned himself as a stalwart defender of Israel and of the Jewish people,* has expressed views that place him squarely in the fascist camp,*" Goldberg explains. "Not only is he to the right of Chuck Hagel and Barack Obama, he is to the right of the mainstream pro-Israel community; of the right-wing  Zionist Organization of America; the Likud Party; and the governing body of the West Bank settlement movement."
> 
> "Shapiro is the one who seems completely divorced from Jewish values," Goldberg concludes. "His leadership role in the dump-Hagel movement reflects well on Barack Obama."
> 
> Jeffrey Goldberg
> 
> Goldberg Breitbart s Ben Shapiro fascist - POLITICO.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!  Good one Monte.  THAT"S funny.  He is even "to the right of Barak Obama."  Monte, I think I love you.  Heh Heh.
Click to expand...


LMAO, MJ has reading comprehension issues.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Hummm ---  in a way, your analysis is partially correct.  They did know what the scope and nature of both the cause and the resulting problem was.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are two things here that should be said.
> 
> There was never a way to calculate the persistence of the Arab Palestinian resistance.  No one ever thought that the Palestinians would give-up on nation building and national aspirations and opt instead to go into a continuous losing War mode.
> 
> While the regional adjacent Arab States have pretty much decided not to pursue hostilities, it is the Hostile Palestinian that has lost all national aspirations.
> Just as none of the major powers will interfere in the annexation by the Russian Federation of the internationally recognized Ukrainian territory of Crimea _(10,425 sq mi)(about the size of Massachusetts)_; March 2014 --- It is just as likely that, as long as Israel can contain the Hostile Arab Palestinian, none of the Regional Powers will go to war again over the West Bank and Gaza Strip _(2,317 sq mi)(about the size of the Everglades)_.
> 
> Stupid did not win the day.  The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating and were not entitled to sovereignty, having rejected a number of overtures from the Government of Palestine, the International Community moved on with the more cooperative --- the consequences are clear.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid did not win the day.​
> Are you kidding? Starting a hundred year (and counting) war when the solution was at their fingertips was not stupid? It was the epitome of stupid.
> 
> And Britain still wants to continue the war.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating...​
> Indeed, and they are still rejecting the Zionist's colonial project. Perhaps the Zionists should have picked a more docile people to colonize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it wasn't a 100 years war was it, but  a 1400 years war started by a mentally deranged psychopath who told the muslims that god had given them the world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In less than ten years three serious attacks have been made by Arabs on Jews. Fore eighty years before the first of these attacks there is no recorded instance of any similar incidents.
> 
> A AC.14 8 of 2 October 1947
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from the attacks in Hebron 1929, the civil war of 1930. Then the next civil war of 1933 followed by a scattering of smaller attacks up until 1947 when the arab league declared war and invaded to attack and wipe out the Jews.   Do you want the rest of the attacks by arab muslims on the Jews. Or are you going to do an Ostrich and bury your head in the sand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't colonized people attack the colonists?  It happened in almost all European colonies.
Click to expand...






 And your Grand Mufti has stated on oath that this is not the case


_MUFTI: A large part of these lands belong to absentee landlords who sold the land over the heads of their tenants, 

SIR L. HAMMOND: I ask him now this: does he think that as compared with the standard of life under the Turkish rule the position of the fellahin in the villages has improved or deteriorated? 

SIR L. HAMMOND: Is taxation heavier or lighter? 

MUFTI: Taxation was much heavier then, but now there are additional burdens. 

SIR L. HAMMOND: I am asking him if it is now, the present day, as we are sitting together here, is it a fact that the fellahin has a much lighter tax than he had under the Turkish rule? Or is he taxed more heavily? 

MUFTI: The present taxation is lighter, but the Arabs nevertheless have now other taxation, for instance, customs. 

LORD PEEL: And the condition of the fellahin as regards, for example, education. Are there more schools or fewer schools now? 

MUFTI: They may have more schools, comparatively, but at the same time there has been an increase in their numbers. _


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Hummm ---  in a way, your analysis is partially correct.  They did know what the scope and nature of both the cause and the resulting problem was.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are two things here that should be said.
> 
> There was never a way to calculate the persistence of the Arab Palestinian resistance.  No one ever thought that the Palestinians would give-up on nation building and national aspirations and opt instead to go into a continuous losing War mode.
> 
> While the regional adjacent Arab States have pretty much decided not to pursue hostilities, it is the Hostile Palestinian that has lost all national aspirations.
> Just as none of the major powers will interfere in the annexation by the Russian Federation of the internationally recognized Ukrainian territory of Crimea _(10,425 sq mi)(about the size of Massachusetts)_; March 2014 --- It is just as likely that, as long as Israel can contain the Hostile Arab Palestinian, none of the Regional Powers will go to war again over the West Bank and Gaza Strip _(2,317 sq mi)(about the size of the Everglades)_.
> 
> Stupid did not win the day.  The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating and were not entitled to sovereignty, having rejected a number of overtures from the Government of Palestine, the International Community moved on with the more cooperative --- the consequences are clear.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid did not win the day.​
> Are you kidding? Starting a hundred year (and counting) war when the solution was at their fingertips was not stupid? It was the epitome of stupid.
> 
> And Britain still wants to continue the war.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians were not cooperating...​
> Indeed, and they are still rejecting the Zionist's colonial project. Perhaps the Zionists should have picked a more docile people to colonize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it wasn't a 100 years war was it, but  a 1400 years war started by a mentally deranged psychopath who told the muslims that god had given them the world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In less than ten years three serious attacks have been made by Arabs on Jews. Fore eighty years before the first of these attacks there is no recorded instance of any similar incidents.
> 
> A AC.14 8 of 2 October 1947
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from the attacks in Hebron 1929, the civil war of 1930. Then the next civil war of 1933 followed by a scattering of smaller attacks up until 1947 when the arab league declared war and invaded to attack and wipe out the Jews.   Do you want the rest of the attacks by arab muslims on the Jews. Or are you going to do an Ostrich and bury your head in the sand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, those were the attacks that they were talking about that happened after the Zionist invasion.
Click to expand...






 No Zionist invasion according to the Grand mufti, you know the leader of Palestine.  Who stated on Oath



_MUFTI: In one case they sold about 400,000 dunams in one lot. _

_SIR L. HAMMOND: Who? An Arab? _

_MUFTI: Sarsuk. An Arab of Beyrouth. _

_SIR L. HAMMOND: His Eminence gave us a picture of the Arabs being evicted from their land and villages being wiped out. What I want to know is, did the Government of Palestine, the Administration, acquire the land and then hand it over to the Jews? _

_MUFTI: In most cases the lands were acquired. _

_SIR L. HAMMOND: I mean forcibly acquired-compulsory acquisition as land would be acquired for public purposes? _

_MUFTI: No, it wasn’t. _

_*SIR L. HAMMOND: Not taken by compulsory acquisition? *_
*
*
_*MUFTI: No. *_


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> People from Europe went to Palestine, a place on another continent, to dispossess the people living in Palestine of their land and replace them as the inhabitants of Palestine, creating a state of their own religion.  How is that any different from European settlers colonizing other places?








 LIAR   as the Grand mufti proves on Oath



_*MUFTI: In one case they sold about 400,000 dunams in one lot. *_

_*SIR L. HAMMOND: Who? An Arab? *_

_*MUFTI: Sarsuk. An Arab of Beyrouth. *_

_SIR L. HAMMOND: His Eminence gave us a picture of the Arabs being evicted from their land and villages being wiped out. What I want to know is, did the Government of Palestine, the Administration, acquire the land and then hand it over to the Jews? _

_MUFTI: In most cases the lands were acquired. _

_SIR L. HAMMOND: I mean forcibly acquired-compulsory acquisition as land would be acquired for public purposes? _

_MUFTI: No, it wasn’t. _

_*SIR L. HAMMOND: Not taken by compulsory acquisition? *_
*
*
_*MUFTI: No.* _


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it wasn't a 100 years war was it, but  a 1400 years war started by a mentally deranged psychopath who told the muslims that god had given them the world
> 
> 
> 
> In less than ten years three serious attacks have been made by Arabs on Jews. Fore eighty years before the first of these attacks there is no recorded instance of any similar incidents.
> 
> A AC.14 8 of 2 October 1947
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from the attacks in Hebron 1929, the civil war of 1930. Then the next civil war of 1933 followed by a scattering of smaller attacks up until 1947 when the arab league declared war and invaded to attack and wipe out the Jews.   Do you want the rest of the attacks by arab muslims on the Jews. Or are you going to do an Ostrich and bury your head in the sand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, those were the attacks that they were talking about that happened after the Zionist invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> First off, their was no 'Zionist Invasion' That's a Palestinian propaganda myth that you love to pimp.
> Second, what does it matter when the attacks took place ? Arabs massacred Jews several times before any Arab was killed
> Finally, the Jews killed in the Hebron massacre were native Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _"The Jews killed in the Hebron massacre were native Jews."
> _
> The Arab Jews were not targeted, the European colonists were the targets.
> 
> "Soon after news of the first victim had spread, forty people assembled in the house of Eliezer Dan Slonim. Slonim, the son of the Rabbi of Hebron, was a member on the city council and a director of the Anglo-Palestine Bank. He had excellent relations with the British and the Arabs and those seeking refuge with him were confident they would come to no harm. When the mob approached his door, t*hey offered to spare the Sephardi community if he would hand over all the Ashkenazi yeshiva students.* He refused, saying "we are all one people," whereupon he was shot dead along with his wife and 4-year-old son.[34] From the contemporary Hebrew press it appears that the rioters targeted the Zionist community for their massacre. *Four-fifths of the victims were Ashkenazi Jews, "
> 
> 1929 Hebron massacre - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia*
Click to expand...






 They were still Jews as proven by the DNA links to Sephardic Jews. Would it matter if there were only gazan arab muslims getting killed and not west bank arab muslims ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHO ARE THE PALESTINIANS?  This article was written in 2007.  Some things never change much over time.  Palestinians will be Palestinians.
> 
> The Radical Evil Of The Palestinian Arab Population by Ben Shapiro on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent
> 
> 
> 
> Last week, the extremists, led by Holocaust denier and Fatah strongman Mahmoud Abbas, were ousted in a bloody coup by the radical extremists, Islamist terrorist group Hamas.​
> A lie in the first paragraph.
> 
> Why should I read farther?
Click to expand...





 Where is the LIE and show how it is a LIE


----------



## montelatici

They were colonists from Europe whether they were Jews, Christians or Hindus.  The local Palestinians were not targeting local  Arab Jews who were not considered colonists.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> They were colonists from Europe whether they were Jews, Christians or Hindus.  The local Palestinians were not targeting local  Arab Jews who were not considered colonists.




Oh now I get it.  You mean like at the Hebron massacre of 1929.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHO ARE THE PALESTINIANS?  This article was written in 2007.  Some things never change much over time.  Palestinians will be Palestinians.
> 
> The Radical Evil Of The Palestinian Arab Population by Ben Shapiro on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent
> 
> 
> 
> Last week, the extremists, led by Holocaust denier and Fatah strongman Mahmoud Abbas, were ousted in a bloody coup by the radical extremists, Islamist terrorist group Hamas.​
> A lie in the first paragraph.
> 
> Why should I read farther?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the LIE and show how it is a LIE
Click to expand...

The bloody coup is a lie.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I'm not even sure you guys know want a "lie" is, let alone the concepts that distinguish a coup d'état _(an illegal seizure of power)_ from a armed internal conflict / civil war or traitors takeover.  



P F Tinmore said:


> The bloody coup is a lie.


*(PERSPECTIVE)*

Hamas has pledged a takeover of Judea-Samaria Saturday, after one of its leaders declared "the liberation of all Palestine" - including the Palestinian Authority (PA) - a strategic area of utmost importance in implementing long-term objectives of the terror group. (Publish: 3/21/2015)

JERUSALEM, June 12 2007 -- Gunmen loyal to the two main Palestinian parties fought street battles in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday that increasingly bore the hallmarks of civil war, as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, a Fatah leader, warned that the rival Hamas movement was attempting a coup.

*(COMMENT)*

This is all a matter of perspective and the interpretation.  "Lying" doesn't enter into it.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> They were colonists from Europe whether they were Jews, Christians or Hindus.  The local Palestinians were not targeting local  Arab Jews who were not considered colonists.


They were immigrants, not colonists


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I'm not even sure you guys know want a "lie" is, let alone the concepts that distinguish a coup d'état _(an illegal seizure of power)_ from a armed internal conflict / civil war or traitors takeover.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bloody coup is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> *(PERSPECTIVE)*
> 
> Hamas has pledged a takeover of Judea-Samaria Saturday, after one of its leaders declared "the liberation of all Palestine" - including the Palestinian Authority (PA) - a strategic area of utmost importance in implementing long-term objectives of the terror group. (Publish: 3/21/2015)
> 
> JERUSALEM, June 12 2007 -- Gunmen loyal to the two main Palestinian parties fought street battles in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday that increasingly bore the hallmarks of civil war, as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, a Fatah leader, warned that the rival Hamas movement was attempting a coup.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is all a matter of perspective and the interpretation.  "Lying" doesn't enter into it.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

All well and good, Rocco, but look at the facts. After the supposed coup:

The President was still the President.
The Prime Minister was still the Prime Minister.
None of the cabinet members were changed.
No members of parliament were changed.
The judiciary remained the same.
No laws were changed.
The constitution remained in force.

So, what bloody coup are the liars talking about?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes, --- it is important to not try and exaggerate. 



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I'm not even sure you guys know want a "lie" is, let alone the concepts that distinguish a coup d'état _(an illegal seizure of power)_ from a armed internal conflict / civil war or traitors takeover.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bloody coup is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> *(PERSPECTIVE)*
> 
> Hamas has pledged a takeover of Judea-Samaria Saturday, after one of its leaders declared "the liberation of all Palestine" - including the Palestinian Authority (PA) - a strategic area of utmost importance in implementing long-term objectives of the terror group. (Publish: 3/21/2015)
> 
> JERUSALEM, June 12 2007 -- Gunmen loyal to the two main Palestinian parties fought street battles in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday that increasingly bore the hallmarks of civil war, as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, a Fatah leader, warned that the rival Hamas movement was attempting a coup.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is all a matter of perspective and the interpretation.  "Lying" doesn't enter into it.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All well and good, Rocco, but look at the facts. After the supposed coup:
> 
> The President was still the President.
> The Prime Minister was still the Prime Minister.
> None of the cabinet members were changed.
> No members of parliament were changed.
> The judiciary remained the same.
> No laws were changed.
> The constitution remained in force.
> 
> So, what bloody coup are the liars talking about?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

IT's all relative. It's a matter of perspective.

The question is:

What is the legitimate government?
What is the relationship between the HAMAS and Fatah?
Is there a discrepancy between who is in-charge and who should be in-charge?
I remember, some time ago, you explained to me that HAMAS was the legitimate government, having won the election.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, --- it is important to not try and exaggerate.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I'm not even sure you guys know want a "lie" is, let alone the concepts that distinguish a coup d'état _(an illegal seizure of power)_ from a armed internal conflict / civil war or traitors takeover.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bloody coup is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> *(PERSPECTIVE)*
> 
> Hamas has pledged a takeover of Judea-Samaria Saturday, after one of its leaders declared "the liberation of all Palestine" - including the Palestinian Authority (PA) - a strategic area of utmost importance in implementing long-term objectives of the terror group. (Publish: 3/21/2015)
> 
> JERUSALEM, June 12 2007 -- Gunmen loyal to the two main Palestinian parties fought street battles in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday that increasingly bore the hallmarks of civil war, as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, a Fatah leader, warned that the rival Hamas movement was attempting a coup.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is all a matter of perspective and the interpretation.  "Lying" doesn't enter into it.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All well and good, Rocco, but look at the facts. After the supposed coup:
> 
> The President was still the President.
> The Prime Minister was still the Prime Minister.
> None of the cabinet members were changed.
> No members of parliament were changed.
> The judiciary remained the same.
> No laws were changed.
> The constitution remained in force.
> 
> So, what bloody coup are the liars talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> IT's all relative. It's a matter of perspective.
> 
> The question is:
> 
> What is the legitimate government?
> What is the relationship between the HAMAS and Fatah?
> Is there a discrepancy between who is in-charge and who should be in-charge?
> I remember, some time ago, you explained to me that HAMAS was the legitimate government, having won the election.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Answers:

The last legitimate government in Palestine was the unity government of 2007.

Fatah lost the elections.

There is.

Respectively.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

What are the salient points?



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, --- it is important to not try and exaggerate.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I'm not even sure you guys know want a "lie" is, let alone the concepts that distinguish a coup d'état _(an illegal seizure of power)_ from a armed internal conflict / civil war or traitors takeover.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bloody coup is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> *(PERSPECTIVE)*
> 
> Hamas has pledged a takeover of Judea-Samaria Saturday, after one of its leaders declared "the liberation of all Palestine" - including the Palestinian Authority (PA) - a strategic area of utmost importance in implementing long-term objectives of the terror group. (Publish: 3/21/2015)
> 
> JERUSALEM, June 12 2007 -- Gunmen loyal to the two main Palestinian parties fought street battles in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday that increasingly bore the hallmarks of civil war, as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, a Fatah leader, warned that the rival Hamas movement was attempting a coup.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is all a matter of perspective and the interpretation.  "Lying" doesn't enter into it.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All well and good, Rocco, but look at the facts. After the supposed coup:
> 
> The President was still the President.
> The Prime Minister was still the Prime Minister.
> None of the cabinet members were changed.
> No members of parliament were changed.
> The judiciary remained the same.
> No laws were changed.
> The constitution remained in force.
> 
> So, what bloody coup are the liars talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> IT's all relative. It's a matter of perspective.
> 
> The question is:
> 
> What is the legitimate government?
> What is the relationship between the HAMAS and Fatah?
> Is there a discrepancy between who is in-charge and who should be in-charge?
> I remember, some time ago, you explained to me that HAMAS was the legitimate government, having won the election.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answers:
> 
> The last legitimate government in Palestine was the unity government of 2007.
> 
> Fatah lost the elections.
> 
> There is.
> 
> Respectively.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

And there we are:  

In your perspective and from your vantage point, Fatah lost the ('07) elections.

A _coup d'état_ does not require the use of force to be a _coup._  It can be a sudden and decisive action resulting in an illegal change in government.  If the properly elected government cannot assume its responsibilities and is set aside by a losing political entity, then that is an illegal change in government.

Based on figures provided by hospitals and emergency services on 15 June, the ICRC estimates that over 550 people have been wounded and at least 116 killed in the fighting of the previous week.   Gaza-Westbank – ICRC Bulletin No. 22 / 2007 

For most analyst, 550 killed in a Fatah HAMAS clash is not considered "bloody."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I'm not even sure you guys know want a "lie" is, let alone the concepts that distinguish a coup d'état _(an illegal seizure of power)_ from a armed internal conflict / civil war or traitors takeover.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bloody coup is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> *(PERSPECTIVE)*
> 
> Hamas has pledged a takeover of Judea-Samaria Saturday, after one of its leaders declared "the liberation of all Palestine" - including the Palestinian Authority (PA) - a strategic area of utmost importance in implementing long-term objectives of the terror group. (Publish: 3/21/2015)
> 
> JERUSALEM, June 12 2007 -- Gunmen loyal to the two main Palestinian parties fought street battles in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday that increasingly bore the hallmarks of civil war, as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, a Fatah leader, warned that the rival Hamas movement was attempting a coup.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is all a matter of perspective and the interpretation.  "Lying" doesn't enter into it.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All well and good, Rocco, but look at the facts. After the supposed coup:
> 
> The President was still the President.
> The Prime Minister was still the Prime Minister.
> None of the cabinet members were changed.
> No members of parliament were changed.
> The judiciary remained the same.
> No laws were changed.
> The constitution remained in force.
> 
> So, what bloody coup are the liars talking about?
Click to expand...


The one you refuse to believe


P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, --- it is important to not try and exaggerate.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I'm not even sure you guys know want a "lie" is, let alone the concepts that distinguish a coup d'état _(an illegal seizure of power)_ from a armed internal conflict / civil war or traitors takeover.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bloody coup is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> *(PERSPECTIVE)*
> 
> Hamas has pledged a takeover of Judea-Samaria Saturday, after one of its leaders declared "the liberation of all Palestine" - including the Palestinian Authority (PA) - a strategic area of utmost importance in implementing long-term objectives of the terror group. (Publish: 3/21/2015)
> 
> JERUSALEM, June 12 2007 -- Gunmen loyal to the two main Palestinian parties fought street battles in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday that increasingly bore the hallmarks of civil war, as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, a Fatah leader, warned that the rival Hamas movement was attempting a coup.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is all a matter of perspective and the interpretation.  "Lying" doesn't enter into it.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All well and good, Rocco, but look at the facts. After the supposed coup:
> 
> The President was still the President.
> The Prime Minister was still the Prime Minister.
> None of the cabinet members were changed.
> No members of parliament were changed.
> The judiciary remained the same.
> No laws were changed.
> The constitution remained in force.
> 
> So, what bloody coup are the liars talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> IT's all relative. It's a matter of perspective.
> 
> The question is:
> 
> What is the legitimate government?
> What is the relationship between the HAMAS and Fatah?
> Is there a discrepancy between who is in-charge and who should be in-charge?
> I remember, some time ago, you explained to me that HAMAS was the legitimate government, having won the election.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answers:
> 
> The last legitimate government in Palestine was the unity government of 2007.
> 
> Fatah lost the elections.
> 
> There is.
> 
> Respectively.
Click to expand...

Battle of Gaza 2007 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

*As a result of the battle, Hamas got complete control of Gaza*


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> What are the salient points?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, --- it is important to not try and exaggerate.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I'm not even sure you guys know want a "lie" is, let alone the concepts that distinguish a coup d'état _(an illegal seizure of power)_ from a armed internal conflict / civil war or traitors takeover.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bloody coup is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> *(PERSPECTIVE)*
> 
> Hamas has pledged a takeover of Judea-Samaria Saturday, after one of its leaders declared "the liberation of all Palestine" - including the Palestinian Authority (PA) - a strategic area of utmost importance in implementing long-term objectives of the terror group. (Publish: 3/21/2015)
> 
> JERUSALEM, June 12 2007 -- Gunmen loyal to the two main Palestinian parties fought street battles in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday that increasingly bore the hallmarks of civil war, as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, a Fatah leader, warned that the rival Hamas movement was attempting a coup.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is all a matter of perspective and the interpretation.  "Lying" doesn't enter into it.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All well and good, Rocco, but look at the facts. After the supposed coup:
> 
> The President was still the President.
> The Prime Minister was still the Prime Minister.
> None of the cabinet members were changed.
> No members of parliament were changed.
> The judiciary remained the same.
> No laws were changed.
> The constitution remained in force.
> 
> So, what bloody coup are the liars talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> IT's all relative. It's a matter of perspective.
> 
> The question is:
> 
> What is the legitimate government?
> What is the relationship between the HAMAS and Fatah?
> Is there a discrepancy between who is in-charge and who should be in-charge?
> I remember, some time ago, you explained to me that HAMAS was the legitimate government, having won the election.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answers:
> 
> The last legitimate government in Palestine was the unity government of 2007.
> 
> Fatah lost the elections.
> 
> There is.
> 
> Respectively.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> And there we are:
> 
> In your perspective and from your vantage point, Fatah lost the ('07) elections.
> 
> A _coup d'état_ does not require the use of force to be a _coup._  It can be a sudden and decisive action resulting in an illegal change in government.  If the properly elected government cannot assume its responsibilities and is set aside by a losing political entity, then that is an illegal change in government.
> 
> Based on figures provided by hospitals and emergency services on 15 June, the ICRC estimates that over 550 people have been wounded and at least 116 killed in the fighting of the previous week.   Gaza-Westbank – ICRC Bulletin No. 22 / 2007
> 
> For most analyst, 550 killed in a Fatah HAMAS clash is not considered "bloody."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

We need a little history. In February of 2007 Fatah and Hamas met in Mecca and agreed to form a unity government. Abbas appointed Heniya to be prime minister and he selected his cabinet. The PLC (parliament) rendered their approval, as required by their constitution, and Abbas swore in the new unity government in March, 2007. The headquarters for this government was in Gaza.

The US did not like this government so it armed, paid, and trained Fatah security forces, under Abbas, to overthrow the Unity Government and put Fatah in power. Hamas ran these forces out of Gaza in June of 2007 leaving the legally elected and constituted government in place.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> They were colonists from Europe whether they were Jews, Christians or Hindus.  The local Palestinians were not targeting local  Arab Jews who were not considered colonists.







 So why did they kill so many of them over the years then Abdul. Or are you going to ignore the truth again.

 The Grand mufti told the arab muslims to attack and mass murder the Jews on a BLOOD LIBEL, he did not tell them to single out any particular group. The British should have razed the arab quarter of Jerusalem and evicted the muslims straighjt away


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHO ARE THE PALESTINIANS?  This article was written in 2007.  Some things never change much over time.  Palestinians will be Palestinians.
> 
> The Radical Evil Of The Palestinian Arab Population by Ben Shapiro on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent
> 
> 
> 
> Last week, the extremists, led by Holocaust denier and Fatah strongman Mahmoud Abbas, were ousted in a bloody coup by the radical extremists, Islamist terrorist group Hamas.​
> A lie in the first paragraph.
> 
> Why should I read farther?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the LIE and show how it is a LIE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bloody coup is a lie.
Click to expand...





 Only according to you, but then you do defend fatah terrorists don't you


----------



## Mindful

_The Arab media usually takes an extremely negative stance towards Israel, but regarding Israel’s treatment of its Palestinian workers, there is only praise.  _

The Palestinian Authority (PA)-controlled media is notorious for its publishing of incitement and lies against Israel, but there is always an exception to every rule. An article recently published by the PA official daily _Al-Hayat Al-Jadida_ lauds Israel and Israeli employers of Palestinians for their positive employment ethics towards their workers, Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) reports.

Arab Media Praises Israel s Treatment of Palestinian Workers United with Israel


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> What are the salient points?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, --- it is important to not try and exaggerate.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I'm not even sure you guys know want a "lie" is, let alone the concepts that distinguish a coup d'état _(an illegal seizure of power)_ from a armed internal conflict / civil war or traitors takeover.
> 
> *(PERSPECTIVE)*
> 
> Hamas has pledged a takeover of Judea-Samaria Saturday, after one of its leaders declared "the liberation of all Palestine" - including the Palestinian Authority (PA) - a strategic area of utmost importance in implementing long-term objectives of the terror group. (Publish: 3/21/2015)
> 
> JERUSALEM, June 12 2007 -- Gunmen loyal to the two main Palestinian parties fought street battles in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday that increasingly bore the hallmarks of civil war, as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, a Fatah leader, warned that the rival Hamas movement was attempting a coup.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is all a matter of perspective and the interpretation.  "Lying" doesn't enter into it.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> All well and good, Rocco, but look at the facts. After the supposed coup:
> 
> The President was still the President.
> The Prime Minister was still the Prime Minister.
> None of the cabinet members were changed.
> No members of parliament were changed.
> The judiciary remained the same.
> No laws were changed.
> The constitution remained in force.
> 
> So, what bloody coup are the liars talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> IT's all relative. It's a matter of perspective.
> 
> The question is:
> 
> What is the legitimate government?
> What is the relationship between the HAMAS and Fatah?
> Is there a discrepancy between who is in-charge and who should be in-charge?
> I remember, some time ago, you explained to me that HAMAS was the legitimate government, having won the election.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answers:
> 
> The last legitimate government in Palestine was the unity government of 2007.
> 
> Fatah lost the elections.
> 
> There is.
> 
> Respectively.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> And there we are:
> 
> In your perspective and from your vantage point, Fatah lost the ('07) elections.
> 
> A _coup d'état_ does not require the use of force to be a _coup._  It can be a sudden and decisive action resulting in an illegal change in government.  If the properly elected government cannot assume its responsibilities and is set aside by a losing political entity, then that is an illegal change in government.
> 
> Based on figures provided by hospitals and emergency services on 15 June, the ICRC estimates that over 550 people have been wounded and at least 116 killed in the fighting of the previous week.   Gaza-Westbank – ICRC Bulletin No. 22 / 2007
> 
> For most analyst, 550 killed in a Fatah HAMAS clash is not considered "bloody."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need a little history. In February of 2007 Fatah and Hamas met in Mecca and agreed to form a unity government. Abbas appointed Heniya to be prime minister and he selected his cabinet. The PLC (parliament) rendered their approval, as required by their constitution, and Abbas swore in the new unity government in March, 2007. The headquarters for this government was in Gaza.
> 
> The US did not like this government so it armed, paid, and trained Fatah security forces, under Abbas, to overthrow the Unity Government and put Fatah in power. Hamas ran these forces out of Gaza in June of 2007 leaving the legally elected and constituted government in place.
Click to expand...


I certainly love & support Hamas over Fatah.  Hamas gets Palestinians killed. The funny part is that Tinmore also supports Hamas over Fatah. LONG LIVE HAMAS!

Gazans Speak Out Hamas War Crimes


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were colonists from Europe whether they were Jews, Christians or Hindus.  The local Palestinians were not targeting local  Arab Jews who were not considered colonists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why did they kill so many of them over the years then Abdul. Or are you going to ignore the truth again.
> 
> The Grand mufti told the arab muslims to attack and mass murder the Jews on a BLOOD LIBEL, he did not tell them to single out any particular group. The British should have razed the arab quarter of Jerusalem and evicted the muslims straighjt away
Click to expand...


All colonized people have killed the colonizer as the colonizer has killed the colonized.  Why do you believe the Palestinians should behave any differently than other colonized people?


----------



## Mindful

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were colonists from Europe whether they were Jews, Christians or Hindus.  The local Palestinians were not targeting local  Arab Jews who were not considered colonists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why did they kill so many of them over the years then Abdul. Or are you going to ignore the truth again.
> 
> The Grand mufti told the arab muslims to attack and mass murder the Jews on a BLOOD LIBEL, he did not tell them to single out any particular group. The British should have razed the arab quarter of Jerusalem and evicted the muslims straighjt away
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All colonized people have killed the colonizer as the colonizer has killed the colonized.  Why do you believe the Palestinians should behave any differently than other colonized people?
Click to expand...



Just one thing.   You  are arguing a false premise. They are not being colonised.


----------



## aris2chat

the rumors fly about hamas negotiation for it's own state in gaza, but say that it would be only a first step to getting all palestine back with the rifle.  The supposition is that if the gaza is a state than Israel will keep all of the WB.
The PA on the other hand wants a state in the WB but will likely only get area A & B, leaving C in the hands of Israel.  Gaza would be just a terrorist state forcing Israel to conquer it and eliminate hamas there.
Everyone has their crazy twists to what they want the future to look like but they are not really negotiating or compromising to bring a settlement about that would result in peace for the area.
Israel cannot afford an Iranian agent so close threatening it's security.


----------



## fanger

aris2chat said:


> the rumors fly about hamas negotiation for it's own state in gaza, but say that it would be only a first step to getting all palestine back with the rifle.  The supposition is that if the gaza is a state than Israel will keep all of the WB.
> The PA on the other hand wants a state in the WB but will likely only get area A & B, leaving C in the hands of Israel.  Gaza would be just a terrorist state forcing Israel to conquer it and eliminate hamas there.
> Everyone has their crazy twists to what they want the future to look like but they are not really negotiating or compromising to bring a settlement about that would result in peace for the area.
> Israel cannot afford an Iranian agent so close threatening it's security.


Then move back to where they came from


----------



## aris2chat

fanger said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> the rumors fly about hamas negotiation for it's own state in gaza, but say that it would be only a first step to getting all palestine back with the rifle.  The supposition is that if the gaza is a state than Israel will keep all of the WB.
> The PA on the other hand wants a state in the WB but will likely only get area A & B, leaving C in the hands of Israel.  Gaza would be just a terrorist state forcing Israel to conquer it and eliminate hamas there.
> Everyone has their crazy twists to what they want the future to look like but they are not really negotiating or compromising to bring a settlement about that would result in peace for the area.
> Israel cannot afford an Iranian agent so close threatening it's security.
> 
> 
> 
> Then move back to where they came from
Click to expand...


they are Israeli, that is where they come from be they jews, christians or muslim


----------



## P F Tinmore

aris2chat said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> the rumors fly about hamas negotiation for it's own state in gaza, but say that it would be only a first step to getting all palestine back with the rifle.  The supposition is that if the gaza is a state than Israel will keep all of the WB.
> The PA on the other hand wants a state in the WB but will likely only get area A & B, leaving C in the hands of Israel.  Gaza would be just a terrorist state forcing Israel to conquer it and eliminate hamas there.
> Everyone has their crazy twists to what they want the future to look like but they are not really negotiating or compromising to bring a settlement about that would result in peace for the area.
> Israel cannot afford an Iranian agent so close threatening it's security.
> 
> 
> 
> Then move back to where they came from
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they are Israeli, that is where they come from be they jews, christians or muslim
Click to expand...

Indeed, but the Muslims, Christians, and even some of the Jews were Palestinians before they were incorporated into Israel against their will.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> the rumors fly about hamas negotiation for it's own state in gaza, but say that it would be only a first step to getting all palestine back with the rifle.  The supposition is that if the gaza is a state than Israel will keep all of the WB.
> The PA on the other hand wants a state in the WB but will likely only get area A & B, leaving C in the hands of Israel.  Gaza would be just a terrorist state forcing Israel to conquer it and eliminate hamas there.
> Everyone has their crazy twists to what they want the future to look like but they are not really negotiating or compromising to bring a settlement about that would result in peace for the area.
> Israel cannot afford an Iranian agent so close threatening it's security.
> 
> 
> 
> Then move back to where they came from
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they are Israeli, that is where they come from be they jews, christians or muslim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, but the Muslims, Christians, and even some of the Jews were Palestinians before they were incorporated into Israel against their will.
Click to expand...

And before they were Palestinians, they were Ottomans...


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> the rumors fly about hamas negotiation for it's own state in gaza, but say that it would be only a first step to getting all palestine back with the rifle.  The supposition is that if the gaza is a state than Israel will keep all of the WB.
> The PA on the other hand wants a state in the WB but will likely only get area A & B, leaving C in the hands of Israel.  Gaza would be just a terrorist state forcing Israel to conquer it and eliminate hamas there.
> Everyone has their crazy twists to what they want the future to look like but they are not really negotiating or compromising to bring a settlement about that would result in peace for the area.
> Israel cannot afford an Iranian agent so close threatening it's security.
> 
> 
> 
> Then move back to where they came from
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they are Israeli, that is where they come from be they jews, christians or muslim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, but the Muslims, Christians, and even some of the Jews were Palestinians before they were incorporated into Israel against their will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And before they were Palestinians, they were Ottomans...
Click to expand...

They were changed from Ottoman subjects to Palestinians by treaties that released them from Ottoman rule.

Then they were forced to Israeli rule at the point of a gun against their will.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> the rumors fly about hamas negotiation for it's own state in gaza, but say that it would be only a first step to getting all palestine back with the rifle.  The supposition is that if the gaza is a state than Israel will keep all of the WB.
> The PA on the other hand wants a state in the WB but will likely only get area A & B, leaving C in the hands of Israel.  Gaza would be just a terrorist state forcing Israel to conquer it and eliminate hamas there.
> Everyone has their crazy twists to what they want the future to look like but they are not really negotiating or compromising to bring a settlement about that would result in peace for the area.
> Israel cannot afford an Iranian agent so close threatening it's security.
> 
> 
> 
> Then move back to where they came from
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they are Israeli, that is where they come from be they jews, christians or muslim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, but the Muslims, Christians, and even some of the Jews were Palestinians before they were incorporated into Israel against their will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And before they were Palestinians, they were Ottomans...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were changed from Ottoman subjects to Palestinians by treaties that released them from Ottoman rule.
> 
> Then they were forced to Israeli rule at the point of a gun against their will.
Click to expand...

What were they before Ottomans ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then move back to where they came from
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they are Israeli, that is where they come from be they jews, christians or muslim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, but the Muslims, Christians, and even some of the Jews were Palestinians before they were incorporated into Israel against their will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And before they were Palestinians, they were Ottomans...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were changed from Ottoman subjects to Palestinians by treaties that released them from Ottoman rule.
> 
> Then they were forced to Israeli rule at the point of a gun against their will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What were they before Ottomans ?
Click to expand...

Not born yet.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> What are the salient points?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, --- it is important to not try and exaggerate.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I'm not even sure you guys know want a "lie" is, let alone the concepts that distinguish a coup d'état _(an illegal seizure of power)_ from a armed internal conflict / civil war or traitors takeover.
> 
> *(PERSPECTIVE)*
> 
> Hamas has pledged a takeover of Judea-Samaria Saturday, after one of its leaders declared "the liberation of all Palestine" - including the Palestinian Authority (PA) - a strategic area of utmost importance in implementing long-term objectives of the terror group. (Publish: 3/21/2015)
> 
> JERUSALEM, June 12 2007 -- Gunmen loyal to the two main Palestinian parties fought street battles in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday that increasingly bore the hallmarks of civil war, as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, a Fatah leader, warned that the rival Hamas movement was attempting a coup.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is all a matter of perspective and the interpretation.  "Lying" doesn't enter into it.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> All well and good, Rocco, but look at the facts. After the supposed coup:
> 
> The President was still the President.
> The Prime Minister was still the Prime Minister.
> None of the cabinet members were changed.
> No members of parliament were changed.
> The judiciary remained the same.
> No laws were changed.
> The constitution remained in force.
> 
> So, what bloody coup are the liars talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> IT's all relative. It's a matter of perspective.
> 
> The question is:
> 
> What is the legitimate government?
> What is the relationship between the HAMAS and Fatah?
> Is there a discrepancy between who is in-charge and who should be in-charge?
> I remember, some time ago, you explained to me that HAMAS was the legitimate government, having won the election.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answers:
> 
> The last legitimate government in Palestine was the unity government of 2007.
> 
> Fatah lost the elections.
> 
> There is.
> 
> Respectively.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> And there we are:
> 
> In your perspective and from your vantage point, Fatah lost the ('07) elections.
> 
> A _coup d'état_ does not require the use of force to be a _coup._  It can be a sudden and decisive action resulting in an illegal change in government.  If the properly elected government cannot assume its responsibilities and is set aside by a losing political entity, then that is an illegal change in government.
> 
> Based on figures provided by hospitals and emergency services on 15 June, the ICRC estimates that over 550 people have been wounded and at least 116 killed in the fighting of the previous week.   Gaza-Westbank – ICRC Bulletin No. 22 / 2007
> 
> For most analyst, 550 killed in a Fatah HAMAS clash is not considered "bloody."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need a little history. In February of 2007 Fatah and Hamas met in Mecca and agreed to form a unity government. Abbas appointed Heniya to be prime minister and he selected his cabinet. The PLC (parliament) rendered their approval, as required by their constitution, and Abbas swore in the new unity government in March, 2007. The headquarters for this government was in Gaza.
> 
> The US did not like this government so it armed, paid, and trained Fatah security forces, under Abbas, to overthrow the Unity Government and put Fatah in power. Hamas ran these forces out of Gaza in June of 2007 leaving the legally elected and constituted government in place.
Click to expand...



I'm for Hamas.  They get far more Palestinians killed than Israeli's.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were colonists from Europe whether they were Jews, Christians or Hindus.  The local Palestinians were not targeting local  Arab Jews who were not considered colonists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why did they kill so many of them over the years then Abdul. Or are you going to ignore the truth again.
> 
> The Grand mufti told the arab muslims to attack and mass murder the Jews on a BLOOD LIBEL, he did not tell them to single out any particular group. The British should have razed the arab quarter of Jerusalem and evicted the muslims straighjt away
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All colonized people have killed the colonizer as the colonizer has killed the colonized.  Why do you believe the Palestinians should behave any differently than other colonized people?
Click to expand...





 Then show where the first nations people fired rockets at European children in schools in Europe. Or attacked innocent civilians in their own country.

 You are defending and supporting islamonazi terrorism again, and trying to wrap it up in pretty paper. It wont work as it is not defending against colonisation because that has never taken place outside of islamonazi fantasies and lies


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> they are Israeli, that is where they come from be they jews, christians or muslim
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, but the Muslims, Christians, and even some of the Jews were Palestinians before they were incorporated into Israel against their will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And before they were Palestinians, they were Ottomans...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were changed from Ottoman subjects to Palestinians by treaties that released them from Ottoman rule.
> 
> Then they were forced to Israeli rule at the point of a gun against their will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What were they before Ottomans ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not born yet.
Click to expand...




 So they have no claim to the land then as they were never born there


----------



## Phoenall

fanger said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> the rumors fly about hamas negotiation for it's own state in gaza, but say that it would be only a first step to getting all palestine back with the rifle.  The supposition is that if the gaza is a state than Israel will keep all of the WB.
> The PA on the other hand wants a state in the WB but will likely only get area A & B, leaving C in the hands of Israel.  Gaza would be just a terrorist state forcing Israel to conquer it and eliminate hamas there.
> Everyone has their crazy twists to what they want the future to look like but they are not really negotiating or compromising to bring a settlement about that would result in peace for the area.
> Israel cannot afford an Iranian agent so close threatening it's security.
> 
> 
> 
> Then move back to where they came from
Click to expand...






 They have it is called Israel.  Now why don't the arab muslims move back to Mecca or Medina where they ame from ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> the rumors fly about hamas negotiation for it's own state in gaza, but say that it would be only a first step to getting all palestine back with the rifle.  The supposition is that if the gaza is a state than Israel will keep all of the WB.
> The PA on the other hand wants a state in the WB but will likely only get area A & B, leaving C in the hands of Israel.  Gaza would be just a terrorist state forcing Israel to conquer it and eliminate hamas there.
> Everyone has their crazy twists to what they want the future to look like but they are not really negotiating or compromising to bring a settlement about that would result in peace for the area.
> Israel cannot afford an Iranian agent so close threatening it's security.
> 
> 
> 
> Then move back to where they came from
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they are Israeli, that is where they come from be they jews, christians or muslim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, but the Muslims, Christians, and even some of the Jews were Palestinians before they were incorporated into Israel against their will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And before they were Palestinians, they were Ottomans...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were changed from Ottoman subjects to Palestinians by treaties that released them from Ottoman rule.
> 
> Then they were forced to Israeli rule at the point of a gun against their will.
Click to expand...





 Mandate for Palestine subjects as no nation of Palestine was even invented before 1988


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> the rumors fly about hamas negotiation for it's own state in gaza, but say that it would be only a first step to getting all palestine back with the rifle.  The supposition is that if the gaza is a state than Israel will keep all of the WB.
> The PA on the other hand wants a state in the WB but will likely only get area A & B, leaving C in the hands of Israel.  Gaza would be just a terrorist state forcing Israel to conquer it and eliminate hamas there.
> Everyone has their crazy twists to what they want the future to look like but they are not really negotiating or compromising to bring a settlement about that would result in peace for the area.
> Israel cannot afford an Iranian agent so close threatening it's security.
> 
> 
> 
> Then move back to where they came from
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they are Israeli, that is where they come from be they jews, christians or muslim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, but the Muslims, Christians, and even some of the Jews were Palestinians before they were incorporated into Israel against their will.
Click to expand...





 So you an prove they were incorporated into Israel against their will can you, when according to you lot many were forced not to be incorporated


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> the rumors fly about hamas negotiation for it's own state in gaza, but say that it would be only a first step to getting all palestine back with the rifle.  The supposition is that if the gaza is a state than Israel will keep all of the WB.
> The PA on the other hand wants a state in the WB but will likely only get area A & B, leaving C in the hands of Israel.  Gaza would be just a terrorist state forcing Israel to conquer it and eliminate hamas there.
> Everyone has their crazy twists to what they want the future to look like but they are not really negotiating or compromising to bring a settlement about that would result in peace for the area.
> Israel cannot afford an Iranian agent so close threatening it's security.
> 
> 
> 
> Then move back to where they came from
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they are Israeli, that is where they come from be they jews, christians or muslim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, but the Muslims, Christians, and even some of the Jews were Palestinians before they were incorporated into Israel against their will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you an prove they were incorporated into Israel against their will can you, when according to you lot many were forced not to be incorporated
Click to expand...

Nazareth, Jaffa, etc. were incorporated into Israel without the people's consent.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then move back to where they came from
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they are Israeli, that is where they come from be they jews, christians or muslim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, but the Muslims, Christians, and even some of the Jews were Palestinians before they were incorporated into Israel against their will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And before they were Palestinians, they were Ottomans...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were changed from Ottoman subjects to Palestinians by treaties that released them from Ottoman rule.
> 
> Then they were forced to Israeli rule at the point of a gun against their will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mandate for Palestine subjects as no nation of Palestine was even invented before 1988
Click to expand...

The Mandate was not a place. It was a temporarily assigned administration.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Susan Abulhawa*

****


----------



## MJB12741

WHO ARE THE PALESTINIANS

*Palestinian groups involved in political violence[edit]*

Hamas
Founded in 1987 by Ahmed Yassin and Mohammad Taha as an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas' goal is the establishment of a Palestinian state.[153]
Armed wing is the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades; the sole target of its suicide bombings and missile attacks is Israel.[153]
Took part in 2006 elections and won. After the 2007 Battle of Gaza the Hamas government was disbanded by Mahmoud Abbas but remained de facto rulers of the Gaza Strip.
Currently led by Khaled Mashaal and Ismail Haniyeh


Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) (founded 1970s)
Formed by Fathi Shaqaqi as a branch of Egyptian Islamic Jihad
Goal is the destruction of the state of Israel and replacement with an Islamist state[_citation needed_]
Armed wing is the Al-Quds Brigades (Jerusalem brigades)
Currently led by Ramadan Shallah, the Secretary General and Abd Al Aziz Awda

The Popular Resistance Committees
Islamist
Founded in 2000 by Jamal Abu Samhadana who led the group until he was killed in 2006.
Hamas linked group, based in the Gaza Strip

Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) (founded June 1964)
Formed as the political representation of the Palestinian people
Currently led by Mahmoud Abbas

*Sub-groups of the PLO[edit]*

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) (founded 1967)
Left-wing
Joined the PLO in 1968 and became the second-largest PLO faction, after Arafat's al-Fatah, but withdrew in 1974, accusing the group of moving away from the goal of abolishing the State of Israel. It was led by Abu Ali Mustapha until his assassination in 2001.[154][155][156]
Armed wing is the Abu Ali Mustapha Brigades and Jihad Jibril Brigades[157]
Currently led by Ahmad Sa'adat

Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) (founded 1969)
Marxist-Leninist group that believes Palestinian national goals can be achieved only through revolution of the masses. Split into two factions in 1991; Nayif Hawatmah leads the majority and more hard-line faction, which continue to dominate the group. Joined with other rejectionist groups to form the Alliance of Palestinian Forces (APF) to oppose the Declaration of Principles signed in 1993. Broke from the APF – along with the PFLP – over ideological differences. Has made limited moves towards merging with the PFLP since the mid-1990s.

Abu Nidal organization (ANO), also known as Fatah - the Revolutionary Council (FRC), (founded 1974)
Split from PLO; part of the so-called rejectionist front, the ANO is a secular, nationalist group. Was led by Abu Nidal, widely regarded as the most ruthless of the Palestinian leaders, until his death in August 2002. According to Kameel Nasr, _Arab and Israeli Terrorism_, The group was infiltrated and influenced by Israeli security.

Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)
Minor Left wing faction
Founded in 196 by Ahmed Jibril and Shafiq al-Hout, re established in 1977 by Abu Abbas

Arab Liberation Front (ALF)
Minor faction tied to the Iraqi Ba'ath Party
Founded in 1969, first leader was Zeid Heidar
Currently led by Rakad Salem

As-Sa'iqa (VPLW)
Palestinian branch of the Syrian Ba'ath Party
Founded in 1966 as alternative to Fatah, organisation boycotts Palestinian National Authority and is opposed to Oslo Accords
Organisation was not active during the Second Intifada
Currently led by Farhan Abu Al-Hayja.

Palestinian Popular Struggle Front (PPSF)
Minor Socialist faction formerly led by Samir Ghawshah

Palestinian Arab Front (PAF)
Minor Arab Nationalist faction

Originally part of the ALF, split from the ALF in 1993
Supports the Palestinian right of return and creation of Palestinian state within 1967 borders
Currently led by Jameel Shihadeh.

Fatah (founded early 1960s)[158]
Palestinian nationalist political party
Reverse acronym for "Harekat at-Tahrir al-Wataniyyeh al-Falastiniyyeh" ("Palestinian National Liberation Movement" in Arabic)
Also known as the Movement for the National Liberation of Palestine
Founded by Yasser Arafat in 1959. Took control of the PLO in 1968, with Arafat as chairman.
Currently led by Mahmoud Abbas

*Groups associated with Fatah[edit]*

Tanzim (founded 1995)
Means "organization" in Arabic
Loosely organized Fatah militia
Led by Marwan Barghouti until his arrest in 2002.

Force 17 (early 1970s–2007)
Elite unit of the PLO once under Yasser Arafat's direct guidance.
Acts as a versatile unit for combat and intelligence-gathering.
Dismantled in 2007 and incorporated into the Palestinian Presidential Guard.

Fatah Special Operations Group (Fatah-SOG)
Founded in the early 1970s by Col. Abdullah Abd al-Hamid Labib
Also known as the Martyrs of Tel Al Za'atar, Hawari, and Amn Araissi.
Recently inactive (as of 2004)

Ahmed Abu Reish Brigade
Extremist off-shoot of Fatah.
Was involved in July 17, 2004 kidnappings in the Gaza Strip.
Possibly linked to the Popular Resistance Committees
Led by Ahmed Abu Reish

Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
Responsible for many suicide bombings and shootings of Israeli civilians
Responsible for executing suspected conspirators and leaders of opposition against Arafat
Funded by Fatah and the Palestinian Authority[_citation needed_]
Offshoot of this group, Fatah Hawks, has carried out guerrilla attacks against Israeli military personnel in the Gaza Strip.

Black September Organization (1970–1973)
Began as a small cell of Fatah men determined to take revenge upon King Hussein and the Jordanian army for Black September in Jordan. Recruits from the PFLP, as-Sa'iqa, and other groups also joined.
Carried out Munich Massacre.
Carried out Attack on the Saudi embassy in Khartoum

*Splinter groups of the PLO[edit]*

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLP-GC) (founded 1968)
Splinter group from the PFLP, founded by Ahmed Jibril. Declared its focus would be military, not political. Was a member of the PLO, but left in 1974 for the same reasons as PFLP.

*al-Qaeda linked groups[edit]*

Army of Islam (Jaysh al-Islam)
Also known as the Tawhid and Jihad Brigades and al-Qaeda in Palestine
The group are an armed Gaza clan named Doghmush who are affiliated with al-Qaeda and Abu Qatada

Abdullah Azzam Brigades
Jund Ansar Allah (2008–)
al-Qaeda-affiliated group in the Gaza Strip, founded in November 2008 by Abdel Latif Moussa
In August 2009, the group proclaimed the creation of an Islamic emirate in Gaza and led an armed rebellion against Hamas.
The group's leader Abdel Latif Moussa was killed during that rebellion.

Fatah al-Islam (2006–)
al-Qaeda-affiliated group involved in a conflict with the Lebanese army in 2007 over control of Palestinian refugee camps, which caused the death of nearly 500 people.
The group was established in 2006 by Shaker al-Abssi who led the group until killed by Lebanese forces in 2007.
Abu Mohamad Awad succeeded al-Abbsi as the group's leader.

Jund al-Sham (1999–2008)
Radical Islamist group set up by Palestinians and Syrians which operated in different areas of the Middle East.
The group's leader Abu Youssef Sharqieh was captured by Lebanese forces during the 2007 conflict in Palestinian refugee camps.
The group was disbanded in 2008 as its members joined Lebanese al-Qaeda affiliated group Osbat al-Ansar.

Jaljalat (2006–)
A Hamas-splinter organisation founded in 2006 by Mahmoud Taleb, a former al-Qassam Brigades commander, after he opposed Hamas joining the 2006 elections
The group is affiliated with both Jund Ansar Allah and al-Qaeda

Jahafil Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad fi Filastin (2008–)
al-Qaeda-affiliated group in the Gaza Strip, founded in November 2008 by Abu al-Walid al-Maqdisi

*Notable attacks[edit]*
Main article: List of massacres in Israel

1974 Japanese Embassy attack in Kuwait
1979 Nahariya attack
1980 Paris synagogue bombing
1981 Antwerp bombing
2000 Ramallah lynching
2004 Sinai bombings
2008 Dimona suicide bombing
2011 Itmar attack
Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy
Attack on the Saudi embassy in Khartoum
Avivim school bus massacre
Beit Lid massacre
Coastal Road massacre
Dizengoff Street bus bombing
Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing
EgyptAir Flight 648
Har Nof synagogue massacre
Hebrew University massacre
Hijacking of Achille Lauro
Jaffa Road bus bombings
Jerusalem bus 19 suicide bombing
Karkur junction suicide bombing
Kiryat Menachem bus bombing
Lod Airport massacre
Ma'ale Akrabim massacre
Ma'alot massacre
Maxim restaurant suicide bombing
Mercaz HaRav massacre
Munich massacre
Night of the Gliders
Pan Am Flight 110 Rome - Italy
Passover massacre
Pi Glilot bombing
Rome and Vienna airport attacks
Sabena Flight 571
Savoy Hotel Attack
Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing
Shawarma restaurant bombing
Swissair Flight 330
*See also*


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> the rumors fly about hamas negotiation for it's own state in gaza, but say that it would be only a first step to getting all palestine back with the rifle.  The supposition is that if the gaza is a state than Israel will keep all of the WB.
> The PA on the other hand wants a state in the WB but will likely only get area A & B, leaving C in the hands of Israel.  Gaza would be just a terrorist state forcing Israel to conquer it and eliminate hamas there.
> Everyone has their crazy twists to what they want the future to look like but they are not really negotiating or compromising to bring a settlement about that would result in peace for the area.
> Israel cannot afford an Iranian agent so close threatening it's security.
> 
> 
> 
> Then move back to where they came from
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they are Israeli, that is where they come from be they jews, christians or muslim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, but the Muslims, Christians, and even some of the Jews were Palestinians before they were incorporated into Israel against their will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you an prove they were incorporated into Israel against their will can you, when according to you lot many were forced not to be incorporated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nazareth, Jaffa, etc. were incorporated into Israel without the people's consent.
Click to expand...





 So where is the non partisan proof of this, as your word is not accepted by anyone.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> they are Israeli, that is where they come from be they jews, christians or muslim
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, but the Muslims, Christians, and even some of the Jews were Palestinians before they were incorporated into Israel against their will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And before they were Palestinians, they were Ottomans...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were changed from Ottoman subjects to Palestinians by treaties that released them from Ottoman rule.
> 
> Then they were forced to Israeli rule at the point of a gun against their will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mandate for Palestine subjects as no nation of Palestine was even invented before 1988
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Mandate was not a place. It was a temporarily assigned administration.
Click to expand...



 Yes the British Mandate was just that, the Mandate for Palestine was much more. It gave Jordan to a minor Saudi princeling and made a new nation of Trans Jordan for arab muslims in Palestine.   It also forced the British to take control of the people and make them BRITISH Palestinian citizens. Read what it says on the passports ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Susan Abulhawa*
> 
> ****







Irrelevant and off topic


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> WHO ARE THE PALESTINIANS
> 
> *Palestinian groups involved in political violence[edit]*
> 
> Hamas
> Founded in 1987 by Ahmed Yassin and Mohammad Taha as an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas' goal is the establishment of a Palestinian state.[153]
> Armed wing is the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades; the sole target of its suicide bombings and missile attacks is Israel.[153]
> Took part in 2006 elections and won. After the 2007 Battle of Gaza the Hamas government was disbanded by Mahmoud Abbas but remained de facto rulers of the Gaza Strip.
> Currently led by Khaled Mashaal and Ismail Haniyeh
> 
> 
> Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) (founded 1970s)
> Formed by Fathi Shaqaqi as a branch of Egyptian Islamic Jihad
> Goal is the destruction of the state of Israel and replacement with an Islamist state[_citation needed_]
> Armed wing is the Al-Quds Brigades (Jerusalem brigades)
> Currently led by Ramadan Shallah, the Secretary General and Abd Al Aziz Awda
> 
> The Popular Resistance Committees
> Islamist
> Founded in 2000 by Jamal Abu Samhadana who led the group until he was killed in 2006.
> Hamas linked group, based in the Gaza Strip
> 
> Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) (founded June 1964)
> Formed as the political representation of the Palestinian people
> Currently led by Mahmoud Abbas
> 
> *Sub-groups of the PLO[edit]*
> 
> Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) (founded 1967)
> Left-wing
> Joined the PLO in 1968 and became the second-largest PLO faction, after Arafat's al-Fatah, but withdrew in 1974, accusing the group of moving away from the goal of abolishing the State of Israel. It was led by Abu Ali Mustapha until his assassination in 2001.[154][155][156]
> Armed wing is the Abu Ali Mustapha Brigades and Jihad Jibril Brigades[157]
> Currently led by Ahmad Sa'adat
> 
> Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) (founded 1969)
> Marxist-Leninist group that believes Palestinian national goals can be achieved only through revolution of the masses. Split into two factions in 1991; Nayif Hawatmah leads the majority and more hard-line faction, which continue to dominate the group. Joined with other rejectionist groups to form the Alliance of Palestinian Forces (APF) to oppose the Declaration of Principles signed in 1993. Broke from the APF – along with the PFLP – over ideological differences. Has made limited moves towards merging with the PFLP since the mid-1990s.
> 
> Abu Nidal organization (ANO), also known as Fatah - the Revolutionary Council (FRC), (founded 1974)
> Split from PLO; part of the so-called rejectionist front, the ANO is a secular, nationalist group. Was led by Abu Nidal, widely regarded as the most ruthless of the Palestinian leaders, until his death in August 2002. According to Kameel Nasr, _Arab and Israeli Terrorism_, The group was infiltrated and influenced by Israeli security.
> 
> Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)
> Minor Left wing faction
> Founded in 196 by Ahmed Jibril and Shafiq al-Hout, re established in 1977 by Abu Abbas
> 
> Arab Liberation Front (ALF)
> Minor faction tied to the Iraqi Ba'ath Party
> Founded in 1969, first leader was Zeid Heidar
> Currently led by Rakad Salem
> 
> As-Sa'iqa (VPLW)
> Palestinian branch of the Syrian Ba'ath Party
> Founded in 1966 as alternative to Fatah, organisation boycotts Palestinian National Authority and is opposed to Oslo Accords
> Organisation was not active during the Second Intifada
> Currently led by Farhan Abu Al-Hayja.
> 
> Palestinian Popular Struggle Front (PPSF)
> Minor Socialist faction formerly led by Samir Ghawshah
> 
> Palestinian Arab Front (PAF)
> Minor Arab Nationalist faction
> 
> Originally part of the ALF, split from the ALF in 1993
> Supports the Palestinian right of return and creation of Palestinian state within 1967 borders
> Currently led by Jameel Shihadeh.
> 
> Fatah (founded early 1960s)[158]
> Palestinian nationalist political party
> Reverse acronym for "Harekat at-Tahrir al-Wataniyyeh al-Falastiniyyeh" ("Palestinian National Liberation Movement" in Arabic)
> Also known as the Movement for the National Liberation of Palestine
> Founded by Yasser Arafat in 1959. Took control of the PLO in 1968, with Arafat as chairman.
> Currently led by Mahmoud Abbas
> 
> *Groups associated with Fatah[edit]*
> 
> Tanzim (founded 1995)
> Means "organization" in Arabic
> Loosely organized Fatah militia
> Led by Marwan Barghouti until his arrest in 2002.
> 
> Force 17 (early 1970s–2007)
> Elite unit of the PLO once under Yasser Arafat's direct guidance.
> Acts as a versatile unit for combat and intelligence-gathering.
> Dismantled in 2007 and incorporated into the Palestinian Presidential Guard.
> 
> Fatah Special Operations Group (Fatah-SOG)
> Founded in the early 1970s by Col. Abdullah Abd al-Hamid Labib
> Also known as the Martyrs of Tel Al Za'atar, Hawari, and Amn Araissi.
> Recently inactive (as of 2004)
> 
> Ahmed Abu Reish Brigade
> Extremist off-shoot of Fatah.
> Was involved in July 17, 2004 kidnappings in the Gaza Strip.
> Possibly linked to the Popular Resistance Committees
> Led by Ahmed Abu Reish
> 
> Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
> Responsible for many suicide bombings and shootings of Israeli civilians
> Responsible for executing suspected conspirators and leaders of opposition against Arafat
> Funded by Fatah and the Palestinian Authority[_citation needed_]
> Offshoot of this group, Fatah Hawks, has carried out guerrilla attacks against Israeli military personnel in the Gaza Strip.
> 
> Black September Organization (1970–1973)
> Began as a small cell of Fatah men determined to take revenge upon King Hussein and the Jordanian army for Black September in Jordan. Recruits from the PFLP, as-Sa'iqa, and other groups also joined.
> Carried out Munich Massacre.
> Carried out Attack on the Saudi embassy in Khartoum
> 
> *Splinter groups of the PLO[edit]*
> 
> Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLP-GC) (founded 1968)
> Splinter group from the PFLP, founded by Ahmed Jibril. Declared its focus would be military, not political. Was a member of the PLO, but left in 1974 for the same reasons as PFLP.
> 
> *al-Qaeda linked groups[edit]*
> 
> Army of Islam (Jaysh al-Islam)
> Also known as the Tawhid and Jihad Brigades and al-Qaeda in Palestine
> The group are an armed Gaza clan named Doghmush who are affiliated with al-Qaeda and Abu Qatada
> 
> Abdullah Azzam Brigades
> Jund Ansar Allah (2008–)
> al-Qaeda-affiliated group in the Gaza Strip, founded in November 2008 by Abdel Latif Moussa
> In August 2009, the group proclaimed the creation of an Islamic emirate in Gaza and led an armed rebellion against Hamas.
> The group's leader Abdel Latif Moussa was killed during that rebellion.
> 
> Fatah al-Islam (2006–)
> al-Qaeda-affiliated group involved in a conflict with the Lebanese army in 2007 over control of Palestinian refugee camps, which caused the death of nearly 500 people.
> The group was established in 2006 by Shaker al-Abssi who led the group until killed by Lebanese forces in 2007.
> Abu Mohamad Awad succeeded al-Abbsi as the group's leader.
> 
> Jund al-Sham (1999–2008)
> Radical Islamist group set up by Palestinians and Syrians which operated in different areas of the Middle East.
> The group's leader Abu Youssef Sharqieh was captured by Lebanese forces during the 2007 conflict in Palestinian refugee camps.
> The group was disbanded in 2008 as its members joined Lebanese al-Qaeda affiliated group Osbat al-Ansar.
> 
> Jaljalat (2006–)
> A Hamas-splinter organisation founded in 2006 by Mahmoud Taleb, a former al-Qassam Brigades commander, after he opposed Hamas joining the 2006 elections
> The group is affiliated with both Jund Ansar Allah and al-Qaeda
> 
> Jahafil Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad fi Filastin (2008–)
> al-Qaeda-affiliated group in the Gaza Strip, founded in November 2008 by Abu al-Walid al-Maqdisi
> 
> *Notable attacks[edit]*
> Main article: List of massacres in Israel
> 
> 1974 Japanese Embassy attack in Kuwait
> 1979 Nahariya attack
> 1980 Paris synagogue bombing
> 1981 Antwerp bombing
> 2000 Ramallah lynching
> 2004 Sinai bombings
> 2008 Dimona suicide bombing
> 2011 Itmar attack
> Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy
> Attack on the Saudi embassy in Khartoum
> Avivim school bus massacre
> Beit Lid massacre
> Coastal Road massacre
> Dizengoff Street bus bombing
> Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing
> EgyptAir Flight 648
> Har Nof synagogue massacre
> Hebrew University massacre
> Hijacking of Achille Lauro
> Jaffa Road bus bombings
> Jerusalem bus 19 suicide bombing
> Karkur junction suicide bombing
> Kiryat Menachem bus bombing
> Lod Airport massacre
> Ma'ale Akrabim massacre
> Ma'alot massacre
> Maxim restaurant suicide bombing
> Mercaz HaRav massacre
> Munich massacre
> Night of the Gliders
> Pan Am Flight 110 Rome - Italy
> Passover massacre
> Pi Glilot bombing
> Rome and Vienna airport attacks
> Sabena Flight 571
> Savoy Hotel Attack
> Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing
> Shawarma restaurant bombing
> Swissair Flight 330
> *See also*


The boogyman will getcha.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, but the Muslims, Christians, and even some of the Jews were Palestinians before they were incorporated into Israel against their will.
> 
> 
> 
> And before they were Palestinians, they were Ottomans...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were changed from Ottoman subjects to Palestinians by treaties that released them from Ottoman rule.
> 
> Then they were forced to Israeli rule at the point of a gun against their will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mandate for Palestine subjects as no nation of Palestine was even invented before 1988
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Mandate was not a place. It was a temporarily assigned administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the British Mandate was just that, the Mandate for Palestine was much more. It gave Jordan to a minor Saudi princeling and made a new nation of Trans Jordan for arab muslims in Palestine.   It also forced the British to take control of the people and make them BRITISH Palestinian citizens. Read what it says on the passports ?
Click to expand...

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

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


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHO ARE THE PALESTINIANS
> 
> *Palestinian groups involved in political violence[edit]*
> 
> Hamas
> Founded in 1987 by Ahmed Yassin and Mohammad Taha as an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas' goal is the establishment of a Palestinian state.[153]
> Armed wing is the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades; the sole target of its suicide bombings and missile attacks is Israel.[153]
> Took part in 2006 elections and won. After the 2007 Battle of Gaza the Hamas government was disbanded by Mahmoud Abbas but remained de facto rulers of the Gaza Strip.
> Currently led by Khaled Mashaal and Ismail Haniyeh
> 
> 
> Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) (founded 1970s)
> Formed by Fathi Shaqaqi as a branch of Egyptian Islamic Jihad
> Goal is the destruction of the state of Israel and replacement with an Islamist state[_citation needed_]
> Armed wing is the Al-Quds Brigades (Jerusalem brigades)
> Currently led by Ramadan Shallah, the Secretary General and Abd Al Aziz Awda
> 
> The Popular Resistance Committees
> Islamist
> Founded in 2000 by Jamal Abu Samhadana who led the group until he was killed in 2006.
> Hamas linked group, based in the Gaza Strip
> 
> Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) (founded June 1964)
> Formed as the political representation of the Palestinian people
> Currently led by Mahmoud Abbas
> 
> *Sub-groups of the PLO[edit]*
> 
> Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) (founded 1967)
> Left-wing
> Joined the PLO in 1968 and became the second-largest PLO faction, after Arafat's al-Fatah, but withdrew in 1974, accusing the group of moving away from the goal of abolishing the State of Israel. It was led by Abu Ali Mustapha until his assassination in 2001.[154][155][156]
> Armed wing is the Abu Ali Mustapha Brigades and Jihad Jibril Brigades[157]
> Currently led by Ahmad Sa'adat
> 
> Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) (founded 1969)
> Marxist-Leninist group that believes Palestinian national goals can be achieved only through revolution of the masses. Split into two factions in 1991; Nayif Hawatmah leads the majority and more hard-line faction, which continue to dominate the group. Joined with other rejectionist groups to form the Alliance of Palestinian Forces (APF) to oppose the Declaration of Principles signed in 1993. Broke from the APF – along with the PFLP – over ideological differences. Has made limited moves towards merging with the PFLP since the mid-1990s.
> 
> Abu Nidal organization (ANO), also known as Fatah - the Revolutionary Council (FRC), (founded 1974)
> Split from PLO; part of the so-called rejectionist front, the ANO is a secular, nationalist group. Was led by Abu Nidal, widely regarded as the most ruthless of the Palestinian leaders, until his death in August 2002. According to Kameel Nasr, _Arab and Israeli Terrorism_, The group was infiltrated and influenced by Israeli security.
> 
> Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)
> Minor Left wing faction
> Founded in 196 by Ahmed Jibril and Shafiq al-Hout, re established in 1977 by Abu Abbas
> 
> Arab Liberation Front (ALF)
> Minor faction tied to the Iraqi Ba'ath Party
> Founded in 1969, first leader was Zeid Heidar
> Currently led by Rakad Salem
> 
> As-Sa'iqa (VPLW)
> Palestinian branch of the Syrian Ba'ath Party
> Founded in 1966 as alternative to Fatah, organisation boycotts Palestinian National Authority and is opposed to Oslo Accords
> Organisation was not active during the Second Intifada
> Currently led by Farhan Abu Al-Hayja.
> 
> Palestinian Popular Struggle Front (PPSF)
> Minor Socialist faction formerly led by Samir Ghawshah
> 
> Palestinian Arab Front (PAF)
> Minor Arab Nationalist faction
> 
> Originally part of the ALF, split from the ALF in 1993
> Supports the Palestinian right of return and creation of Palestinian state within 1967 borders
> Currently led by Jameel Shihadeh.
> 
> Fatah (founded early 1960s)[158]
> Palestinian nationalist political party
> Reverse acronym for "Harekat at-Tahrir al-Wataniyyeh al-Falastiniyyeh" ("Palestinian National Liberation Movement" in Arabic)
> Also known as the Movement for the National Liberation of Palestine
> Founded by Yasser Arafat in 1959. Took control of the PLO in 1968, with Arafat as chairman.
> Currently led by Mahmoud Abbas
> 
> *Groups associated with Fatah[edit]*
> 
> Tanzim (founded 1995)
> Means "organization" in Arabic
> Loosely organized Fatah militia
> Led by Marwan Barghouti until his arrest in 2002.
> 
> Force 17 (early 1970s–2007)
> Elite unit of the PLO once under Yasser Arafat's direct guidance.
> Acts as a versatile unit for combat and intelligence-gathering.
> Dismantled in 2007 and incorporated into the Palestinian Presidential Guard.
> 
> Fatah Special Operations Group (Fatah-SOG)
> Founded in the early 1970s by Col. Abdullah Abd al-Hamid Labib
> Also known as the Martyrs of Tel Al Za'atar, Hawari, and Amn Araissi.
> Recently inactive (as of 2004)
> 
> Ahmed Abu Reish Brigade
> Extremist off-shoot of Fatah.
> Was involved in July 17, 2004 kidnappings in the Gaza Strip.
> Possibly linked to the Popular Resistance Committees
> Led by Ahmed Abu Reish
> 
> Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
> Responsible for many suicide bombings and shootings of Israeli civilians
> Responsible for executing suspected conspirators and leaders of opposition against Arafat
> Funded by Fatah and the Palestinian Authority[_citation needed_]
> Offshoot of this group, Fatah Hawks, has carried out guerrilla attacks against Israeli military personnel in the Gaza Strip.
> 
> Black September Organization (1970–1973)
> Began as a small cell of Fatah men determined to take revenge upon King Hussein and the Jordanian army for Black September in Jordan. Recruits from the PFLP, as-Sa'iqa, and other groups also joined.
> Carried out Munich Massacre.
> Carried out Attack on the Saudi embassy in Khartoum
> 
> *Splinter groups of the PLO[edit]*
> 
> Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLP-GC) (founded 1968)
> Splinter group from the PFLP, founded by Ahmed Jibril. Declared its focus would be military, not political. Was a member of the PLO, but left in 1974 for the same reasons as PFLP.
> 
> *al-Qaeda linked groups[edit]*
> 
> Army of Islam (Jaysh al-Islam)
> Also known as the Tawhid and Jihad Brigades and al-Qaeda in Palestine
> The group are an armed Gaza clan named Doghmush who are affiliated with al-Qaeda and Abu Qatada
> 
> Abdullah Azzam Brigades
> Jund Ansar Allah (2008–)
> al-Qaeda-affiliated group in the Gaza Strip, founded in November 2008 by Abdel Latif Moussa
> In August 2009, the group proclaimed the creation of an Islamic emirate in Gaza and led an armed rebellion against Hamas.
> The group's leader Abdel Latif Moussa was killed during that rebellion.
> 
> Fatah al-Islam (2006–)
> al-Qaeda-affiliated group involved in a conflict with the Lebanese army in 2007 over control of Palestinian refugee camps, which caused the death of nearly 500 people.
> The group was established in 2006 by Shaker al-Abssi who led the group until killed by Lebanese forces in 2007.
> Abu Mohamad Awad succeeded al-Abbsi as the group's leader.
> 
> Jund al-Sham (1999–2008)
> Radical Islamist group set up by Palestinians and Syrians which operated in different areas of the Middle East.
> The group's leader Abu Youssef Sharqieh was captured by Lebanese forces during the 2007 conflict in Palestinian refugee camps.
> The group was disbanded in 2008 as its members joined Lebanese al-Qaeda affiliated group Osbat al-Ansar.
> 
> Jaljalat (2006–)
> A Hamas-splinter organisation founded in 2006 by Mahmoud Taleb, a former al-Qassam Brigades commander, after he opposed Hamas joining the 2006 elections
> The group is affiliated with both Jund Ansar Allah and al-Qaeda
> 
> Jahafil Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad fi Filastin (2008–)
> al-Qaeda-affiliated group in the Gaza Strip, founded in November 2008 by Abu al-Walid al-Maqdisi
> 
> *Notable attacks[edit]*
> Main article: List of massacres in Israel
> 
> 1974 Japanese Embassy attack in Kuwait
> 1979 Nahariya attack
> 1980 Paris synagogue bombing
> 1981 Antwerp bombing
> 2000 Ramallah lynching
> 2004 Sinai bombings
> 2008 Dimona suicide bombing
> 2011 Itmar attack
> Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy
> Attack on the Saudi embassy in Khartoum
> Avivim school bus massacre
> Beit Lid massacre
> Coastal Road massacre
> Dizengoff Street bus bombing
> Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing
> EgyptAir Flight 648
> Har Nof synagogue massacre
> Hebrew University massacre
> Hijacking of Achille Lauro
> Jaffa Road bus bombings
> Jerusalem bus 19 suicide bombing
> Karkur junction suicide bombing
> Kiryat Menachem bus bombing
> Lod Airport massacre
> Ma'ale Akrabim massacre
> Ma'alot massacre
> Maxim restaurant suicide bombing
> Mercaz HaRav massacre
> Munich massacre
> Night of the Gliders
> Pan Am Flight 110 Rome - Italy
> Passover massacre
> Pi Glilot bombing
> Rome and Vienna airport attacks
> Sabena Flight 571
> Savoy Hotel Attack
> Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing
> Shawarma restaurant bombing
> Swissair Flight 330
> *See also*
> 
> 
> 
> The boogyman will getcha.
Click to expand...






 Not before the IDF get the islamonazi terrorists


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And before they were Palestinians, they were Ottomans...
> 
> 
> 
> They were changed from Ottoman subjects to Palestinians by treaties that released them from Ottoman rule.
> 
> Then they were forced to Israeli rule at the point of a gun against their will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mandate for Palestine subjects as no nation of Palestine was even invented before 1988
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Mandate was not a place. It was a temporarily assigned administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the British Mandate was just that, the Mandate for Palestine was much more. It gave Jordan to a minor Saudi princeling and made a new nation of Trans Jordan for arab muslims in Palestine.   It also forced the British to take control of the people and make them BRITISH Palestinian citizens. Read what it says on the passports ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:
> 
> “(1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
> (2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them…”92​
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
Click to expand...





 Which they didn't as they were not and never could be British citizens. But they were British Palestinian citizens.   Just look at the passports issued


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHO ARE THE PALESTINIANS
> 
> *Palestinian groups involved in political violence[edit]*
> 
> Hamas
> Founded in 1987 by Ahmed Yassin and Mohammad Taha as an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas' goal is the establishment of a Palestinian state.[153]
> Armed wing is the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades; the sole target of its suicide bombings and missile attacks is Israel.[153]
> Took part in 2006 elections and won. After the 2007 Battle of Gaza the Hamas government was disbanded by Mahmoud Abbas but remained de facto rulers of the Gaza Strip.
> Currently led by Khaled Mashaal and Ismail Haniyeh
> 
> 
> Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) (founded 1970s)
> Formed by Fathi Shaqaqi as a branch of Egyptian Islamic Jihad
> Goal is the destruction of the state of Israel and replacement with an Islamist state[_citation needed_]
> Armed wing is the Al-Quds Brigades (Jerusalem brigades)
> Currently led by Ramadan Shallah, the Secretary General and Abd Al Aziz Awda
> 
> The Popular Resistance Committees
> Islamist
> Founded in 2000 by Jamal Abu Samhadana who led the group until he was killed in 2006.
> Hamas linked group, based in the Gaza Strip
> 
> Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) (founded June 1964)
> Formed as the political representation of the Palestinian people
> Currently led by Mahmoud Abbas
> 
> *Sub-groups of the PLO[edit]*
> 
> Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) (founded 1967)
> Left-wing
> Joined the PLO in 1968 and became the second-largest PLO faction, after Arafat's al-Fatah, but withdrew in 1974, accusing the group of moving away from the goal of abolishing the State of Israel. It was led by Abu Ali Mustapha until his assassination in 2001.[154][155][156]
> Armed wing is the Abu Ali Mustapha Brigades and Jihad Jibril Brigades[157]
> Currently led by Ahmad Sa'adat
> 
> Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) (founded 1969)
> Marxist-Leninist group that believes Palestinian national goals can be achieved only through revolution of the masses. Split into two factions in 1991; Nayif Hawatmah leads the majority and more hard-line faction, which continue to dominate the group. Joined with other rejectionist groups to form the Alliance of Palestinian Forces (APF) to oppose the Declaration of Principles signed in 1993. Broke from the APF – along with the PFLP – over ideological differences. Has made limited moves towards merging with the PFLP since the mid-1990s.
> 
> Abu Nidal organization (ANO), also known as Fatah - the Revolutionary Council (FRC), (founded 1974)
> Split from PLO; part of the so-called rejectionist front, the ANO is a secular, nationalist group. Was led by Abu Nidal, widely regarded as the most ruthless of the Palestinian leaders, until his death in August 2002. According to Kameel Nasr, _Arab and Israeli Terrorism_, The group was infiltrated and influenced by Israeli security.
> 
> Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)
> Minor Left wing faction
> Founded in 196 by Ahmed Jibril and Shafiq al-Hout, re established in 1977 by Abu Abbas
> 
> Arab Liberation Front (ALF)
> Minor faction tied to the Iraqi Ba'ath Party
> Founded in 1969, first leader was Zeid Heidar
> Currently led by Rakad Salem
> 
> As-Sa'iqa (VPLW)
> Palestinian branch of the Syrian Ba'ath Party
> Founded in 1966 as alternative to Fatah, organisation boycotts Palestinian National Authority and is opposed to Oslo Accords
> Organisation was not active during the Second Intifada
> Currently led by Farhan Abu Al-Hayja.
> 
> Palestinian Popular Struggle Front (PPSF)
> Minor Socialist faction formerly led by Samir Ghawshah
> 
> Palestinian Arab Front (PAF)
> Minor Arab Nationalist faction
> 
> Originally part of the ALF, split from the ALF in 1993
> Supports the Palestinian right of return and creation of Palestinian state within 1967 borders
> Currently led by Jameel Shihadeh.
> 
> Fatah (founded early 1960s)[158]
> Palestinian nationalist political party
> Reverse acronym for "Harekat at-Tahrir al-Wataniyyeh al-Falastiniyyeh" ("Palestinian National Liberation Movement" in Arabic)
> Also known as the Movement for the National Liberation of Palestine
> Founded by Yasser Arafat in 1959. Took control of the PLO in 1968, with Arafat as chairman.
> Currently led by Mahmoud Abbas
> 
> *Groups associated with Fatah[edit]*
> 
> Tanzim (founded 1995)
> Means "organization" in Arabic
> Loosely organized Fatah militia
> Led by Marwan Barghouti until his arrest in 2002.
> 
> Force 17 (early 1970s–2007)
> Elite unit of the PLO once under Yasser Arafat's direct guidance.
> Acts as a versatile unit for combat and intelligence-gathering.
> Dismantled in 2007 and incorporated into the Palestinian Presidential Guard.
> 
> Fatah Special Operations Group (Fatah-SOG)
> Founded in the early 1970s by Col. Abdullah Abd al-Hamid Labib
> Also known as the Martyrs of Tel Al Za'atar, Hawari, and Amn Araissi.
> Recently inactive (as of 2004)
> 
> Ahmed Abu Reish Brigade
> Extremist off-shoot of Fatah.
> Was involved in July 17, 2004 kidnappings in the Gaza Strip.
> Possibly linked to the Popular Resistance Committees
> Led by Ahmed Abu Reish
> 
> Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
> Responsible for many suicide bombings and shootings of Israeli civilians
> Responsible for executing suspected conspirators and leaders of opposition against Arafat
> Funded by Fatah and the Palestinian Authority[_citation needed_]
> Offshoot of this group, Fatah Hawks, has carried out guerrilla attacks against Israeli military personnel in the Gaza Strip.
> 
> Black September Organization (1970–1973)
> Began as a small cell of Fatah men determined to take revenge upon King Hussein and the Jordanian army for Black September in Jordan. Recruits from the PFLP, as-Sa'iqa, and other groups also joined.
> Carried out Munich Massacre.
> Carried out Attack on the Saudi embassy in Khartoum
> 
> *Splinter groups of the PLO[edit]*
> 
> Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLP-GC) (founded 1968)
> Splinter group from the PFLP, founded by Ahmed Jibril. Declared its focus would be military, not political. Was a member of the PLO, but left in 1974 for the same reasons as PFLP.
> 
> *al-Qaeda linked groups[edit]*
> 
> Army of Islam (Jaysh al-Islam)
> Also known as the Tawhid and Jihad Brigades and al-Qaeda in Palestine
> The group are an armed Gaza clan named Doghmush who are affiliated with al-Qaeda and Abu Qatada
> 
> Abdullah Azzam Brigades
> Jund Ansar Allah (2008–)
> al-Qaeda-affiliated group in the Gaza Strip, founded in November 2008 by Abdel Latif Moussa
> In August 2009, the group proclaimed the creation of an Islamic emirate in Gaza and led an armed rebellion against Hamas.
> The group's leader Abdel Latif Moussa was killed during that rebellion.
> 
> Fatah al-Islam (2006–)
> al-Qaeda-affiliated group involved in a conflict with the Lebanese army in 2007 over control of Palestinian refugee camps, which caused the death of nearly 500 people.
> The group was established in 2006 by Shaker al-Abssi who led the group until killed by Lebanese forces in 2007.
> Abu Mohamad Awad succeeded al-Abbsi as the group's leader.
> 
> Jund al-Sham (1999–2008)
> Radical Islamist group set up by Palestinians and Syrians which operated in different areas of the Middle East.
> The group's leader Abu Youssef Sharqieh was captured by Lebanese forces during the 2007 conflict in Palestinian refugee camps.
> The group was disbanded in 2008 as its members joined Lebanese al-Qaeda affiliated group Osbat al-Ansar.
> 
> Jaljalat (2006–)
> A Hamas-splinter organisation founded in 2006 by Mahmoud Taleb, a former al-Qassam Brigades commander, after he opposed Hamas joining the 2006 elections
> The group is affiliated with both Jund Ansar Allah and al-Qaeda
> 
> Jahafil Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad fi Filastin (2008–)
> al-Qaeda-affiliated group in the Gaza Strip, founded in November 2008 by Abu al-Walid al-Maqdisi
> 
> *Notable attacks[edit]*
> Main article: List of massacres in Israel
> 
> 1974 Japanese Embassy attack in Kuwait
> 1979 Nahariya attack
> 1980 Paris synagogue bombing
> 1981 Antwerp bombing
> 2000 Ramallah lynching
> 2004 Sinai bombings
> 2008 Dimona suicide bombing
> 2011 Itmar attack
> Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy
> Attack on the Saudi embassy in Khartoum
> Avivim school bus massacre
> Beit Lid massacre
> Coastal Road massacre
> Dizengoff Street bus bombing
> Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing
> EgyptAir Flight 648
> Har Nof synagogue massacre
> Hebrew University massacre
> Hijacking of Achille Lauro
> Jaffa Road bus bombings
> Jerusalem bus 19 suicide bombing
> Karkur junction suicide bombing
> Kiryat Menachem bus bombing
> Lod Airport massacre
> Ma'ale Akrabim massacre
> Ma'alot massacre
> Maxim restaurant suicide bombing
> Mercaz HaRav massacre
> Munich massacre
> Night of the Gliders
> Pan Am Flight 110 Rome - Italy
> Passover massacre
> Pi Glilot bombing
> Rome and Vienna airport attacks
> Sabena Flight 571
> Savoy Hotel Attack
> Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing
> Shawarma restaurant bombing
> Swissair Flight 330
> *See also*
> 
> 
> 
> The boogyman will getcha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not before the IDF get the islamonazi terrorists
Click to expand...

Ooooooo, terrorists.

So what country has the second longest list of terrorists against it?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHO ARE THE PALESTINIANS
> 
> *Palestinian groups involved in political violence[edit]*
> 
> Hamas
> Founded in 1987 by Ahmed Yassin and Mohammad Taha as an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas' goal is the establishment of a Palestinian state.[153]
> Armed wing is the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades; the sole target of its suicide bombings and missile attacks is Israel.[153]
> Took part in 2006 elections and won. After the 2007 Battle of Gaza the Hamas government was disbanded by Mahmoud Abbas but remained de facto rulers of the Gaza Strip.
> Currently led by Khaled Mashaal and Ismail Haniyeh
> 
> 
> Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) (founded 1970s)
> Formed by Fathi Shaqaqi as a branch of Egyptian Islamic Jihad
> Goal is the destruction of the state of Israel and replacement with an Islamist state[_citation needed_]
> Armed wing is the Al-Quds Brigades (Jerusalem brigades)
> Currently led by Ramadan Shallah, the Secretary General and Abd Al Aziz Awda
> 
> The Popular Resistance Committees
> Islamist
> Founded in 2000 by Jamal Abu Samhadana who led the group until he was killed in 2006.
> Hamas linked group, based in the Gaza Strip
> 
> Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) (founded June 1964)
> Formed as the political representation of the Palestinian people
> Currently led by Mahmoud Abbas
> 
> *Sub-groups of the PLO[edit]*
> 
> Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) (founded 1967)
> Left-wing
> Joined the PLO in 1968 and became the second-largest PLO faction, after Arafat's al-Fatah, but withdrew in 1974, accusing the group of moving away from the goal of abolishing the State of Israel. It was led by Abu Ali Mustapha until his assassination in 2001.[154][155][156]
> Armed wing is the Abu Ali Mustapha Brigades and Jihad Jibril Brigades[157]
> Currently led by Ahmad Sa'adat
> 
> Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) (founded 1969)
> Marxist-Leninist group that believes Palestinian national goals can be achieved only through revolution of the masses. Split into two factions in 1991; Nayif Hawatmah leads the majority and more hard-line faction, which continue to dominate the group. Joined with other rejectionist groups to form the Alliance of Palestinian Forces (APF) to oppose the Declaration of Principles signed in 1993. Broke from the APF – along with the PFLP – over ideological differences. Has made limited moves towards merging with the PFLP since the mid-1990s.
> 
> Abu Nidal organization (ANO), also known as Fatah - the Revolutionary Council (FRC), (founded 1974)
> Split from PLO; part of the so-called rejectionist front, the ANO is a secular, nationalist group. Was led by Abu Nidal, widely regarded as the most ruthless of the Palestinian leaders, until his death in August 2002. According to Kameel Nasr, _Arab and Israeli Terrorism_, The group was infiltrated and influenced by Israeli security.
> 
> Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)
> Minor Left wing faction
> Founded in 196 by Ahmed Jibril and Shafiq al-Hout, re established in 1977 by Abu Abbas
> 
> Arab Liberation Front (ALF)
> Minor faction tied to the Iraqi Ba'ath Party
> Founded in 1969, first leader was Zeid Heidar
> Currently led by Rakad Salem
> 
> As-Sa'iqa (VPLW)
> Palestinian branch of the Syrian Ba'ath Party
> Founded in 1966 as alternative to Fatah, organisation boycotts Palestinian National Authority and is opposed to Oslo Accords
> Organisation was not active during the Second Intifada
> Currently led by Farhan Abu Al-Hayja.
> 
> Palestinian Popular Struggle Front (PPSF)
> Minor Socialist faction formerly led by Samir Ghawshah
> 
> Palestinian Arab Front (PAF)
> Minor Arab Nationalist faction
> 
> Originally part of the ALF, split from the ALF in 1993
> Supports the Palestinian right of return and creation of Palestinian state within 1967 borders
> Currently led by Jameel Shihadeh.
> 
> Fatah (founded early 1960s)[158]
> Palestinian nationalist political party
> Reverse acronym for "Harekat at-Tahrir al-Wataniyyeh al-Falastiniyyeh" ("Palestinian National Liberation Movement" in Arabic)
> Also known as the Movement for the National Liberation of Palestine
> Founded by Yasser Arafat in 1959. Took control of the PLO in 1968, with Arafat as chairman.
> Currently led by Mahmoud Abbas
> 
> *Groups associated with Fatah[edit]*
> 
> Tanzim (founded 1995)
> Means "organization" in Arabic
> Loosely organized Fatah militia
> Led by Marwan Barghouti until his arrest in 2002.
> 
> Force 17 (early 1970s–2007)
> Elite unit of the PLO once under Yasser Arafat's direct guidance.
> Acts as a versatile unit for combat and intelligence-gathering.
> Dismantled in 2007 and incorporated into the Palestinian Presidential Guard.
> 
> Fatah Special Operations Group (Fatah-SOG)
> Founded in the early 1970s by Col. Abdullah Abd al-Hamid Labib
> Also known as the Martyrs of Tel Al Za'atar, Hawari, and Amn Araissi.
> Recently inactive (as of 2004)
> 
> Ahmed Abu Reish Brigade
> Extremist off-shoot of Fatah.
> Was involved in July 17, 2004 kidnappings in the Gaza Strip.
> Possibly linked to the Popular Resistance Committees
> Led by Ahmed Abu Reish
> 
> Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
> Responsible for many suicide bombings and shootings of Israeli civilians
> Responsible for executing suspected conspirators and leaders of opposition against Arafat
> Funded by Fatah and the Palestinian Authority[_citation needed_]
> Offshoot of this group, Fatah Hawks, has carried out guerrilla attacks against Israeli military personnel in the Gaza Strip.
> 
> Black September Organization (1970–1973)
> Began as a small cell of Fatah men determined to take revenge upon King Hussein and the Jordanian army for Black September in Jordan. Recruits from the PFLP, as-Sa'iqa, and other groups also joined.
> Carried out Munich Massacre.
> Carried out Attack on the Saudi embassy in Khartoum
> 
> *Splinter groups of the PLO[edit]*
> 
> Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLP-GC) (founded 1968)
> Splinter group from the PFLP, founded by Ahmed Jibril. Declared its focus would be military, not political. Was a member of the PLO, but left in 1974 for the same reasons as PFLP.
> 
> *al-Qaeda linked groups[edit]*
> 
> Army of Islam (Jaysh al-Islam)
> Also known as the Tawhid and Jihad Brigades and al-Qaeda in Palestine
> The group are an armed Gaza clan named Doghmush who are affiliated with al-Qaeda and Abu Qatada
> 
> Abdullah Azzam Brigades
> Jund Ansar Allah (2008–)
> al-Qaeda-affiliated group in the Gaza Strip, founded in November 2008 by Abdel Latif Moussa
> In August 2009, the group proclaimed the creation of an Islamic emirate in Gaza and led an armed rebellion against Hamas.
> The group's leader Abdel Latif Moussa was killed during that rebellion.
> 
> Fatah al-Islam (2006–)
> al-Qaeda-affiliated group involved in a conflict with the Lebanese army in 2007 over control of Palestinian refugee camps, which caused the death of nearly 500 people.
> The group was established in 2006 by Shaker al-Abssi who led the group until killed by Lebanese forces in 2007.
> Abu Mohamad Awad succeeded al-Abbsi as the group's leader.
> 
> Jund al-Sham (1999–2008)
> Radical Islamist group set up by Palestinians and Syrians which operated in different areas of the Middle East.
> The group's leader Abu Youssef Sharqieh was captured by Lebanese forces during the 2007 conflict in Palestinian refugee camps.
> The group was disbanded in 2008 as its members joined Lebanese al-Qaeda affiliated group Osbat al-Ansar.
> 
> Jaljalat (2006–)
> A Hamas-splinter organisation founded in 2006 by Mahmoud Taleb, a former al-Qassam Brigades commander, after he opposed Hamas joining the 2006 elections
> The group is affiliated with both Jund Ansar Allah and al-Qaeda
> 
> Jahafil Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad fi Filastin (2008–)
> al-Qaeda-affiliated group in the Gaza Strip, founded in November 2008 by Abu al-Walid al-Maqdisi
> 
> *Notable attacks[edit]*
> Main article: List of massacres in Israel
> 
> 1974 Japanese Embassy attack in Kuwait
> 1979 Nahariya attack
> 1980 Paris synagogue bombing
> 1981 Antwerp bombing
> 2000 Ramallah lynching
> 2004 Sinai bombings
> 2008 Dimona suicide bombing
> 2011 Itmar attack
> Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy
> Attack on the Saudi embassy in Khartoum
> Avivim school bus massacre
> Beit Lid massacre
> Coastal Road massacre
> Dizengoff Street bus bombing
> Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing
> EgyptAir Flight 648
> Har Nof synagogue massacre
> Hebrew University massacre
> Hijacking of Achille Lauro
> Jaffa Road bus bombings
> Jerusalem bus 19 suicide bombing
> Karkur junction suicide bombing
> Kiryat Menachem bus bombing
> Lod Airport massacre
> Ma'ale Akrabim massacre
> Ma'alot massacre
> Maxim restaurant suicide bombing
> Mercaz HaRav massacre
> Munich massacre
> Night of the Gliders
> Pan Am Flight 110 Rome - Italy
> Passover massacre
> Pi Glilot bombing
> Rome and Vienna airport attacks
> Sabena Flight 571
> Savoy Hotel Attack
> Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing
> Shawarma restaurant bombing
> Swissair Flight 330
> *See also*
> 
> 
> 
> The boogyman will getcha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not before the IDF get the islamonazi terrorists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ooooooo, terrorists.
> 
> So what country has the second longest list of terrorists against it?
Click to expand...




 Would that be the Spanish then


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHO ARE THE PALESTINIANS
> 
> *Palestinian groups involved in political violence[edit]*
> 
> Hamas
> Founded in 1987 by Ahmed Yassin and Mohammad Taha as an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas' goal is the establishment of a Palestinian state.[153]
> Armed wing is the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades; the sole target of its suicide bombings and missile attacks is Israel.[153]
> Took part in 2006 elections and won. After the 2007 Battle of Gaza the Hamas government was disbanded by Mahmoud Abbas but remained de facto rulers of the Gaza Strip.
> Currently led by Khaled Mashaal and Ismail Haniyeh
> 
> 
> Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) (founded 1970s)
> Formed by Fathi Shaqaqi as a branch of Egyptian Islamic Jihad
> Goal is the destruction of the state of Israel and replacement with an Islamist state[_citation needed_]
> Armed wing is the Al-Quds Brigades (Jerusalem brigades)
> Currently led by Ramadan Shallah, the Secretary General and Abd Al Aziz Awda
> 
> The Popular Resistance Committees
> Islamist
> Founded in 2000 by Jamal Abu Samhadana who led the group until he was killed in 2006.
> Hamas linked group, based in the Gaza Strip
> 
> Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) (founded June 1964)
> Formed as the political representation of the Palestinian people
> Currently led by Mahmoud Abbas
> 
> *Sub-groups of the PLO[edit]*
> 
> Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) (founded 1967)
> Left-wing
> Joined the PLO in 1968 and became the second-largest PLO faction, after Arafat's al-Fatah, but withdrew in 1974, accusing the group of moving away from the goal of abolishing the State of Israel. It was led by Abu Ali Mustapha until his assassination in 2001.[154][155][156]
> Armed wing is the Abu Ali Mustapha Brigades and Jihad Jibril Brigades[157]
> Currently led by Ahmad Sa'adat
> 
> Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) (founded 1969)
> Marxist-Leninist group that believes Palestinian national goals can be achieved only through revolution of the masses. Split into two factions in 1991; Nayif Hawatmah leads the majority and more hard-line faction, which continue to dominate the group. Joined with other rejectionist groups to form the Alliance of Palestinian Forces (APF) to oppose the Declaration of Principles signed in 1993. Broke from the APF – along with the PFLP – over ideological differences. Has made limited moves towards merging with the PFLP since the mid-1990s.
> 
> Abu Nidal organization (ANO), also known as Fatah - the Revolutionary Council (FRC), (founded 1974)
> Split from PLO; part of the so-called rejectionist front, the ANO is a secular, nationalist group. Was led by Abu Nidal, widely regarded as the most ruthless of the Palestinian leaders, until his death in August 2002. According to Kameel Nasr, _Arab and Israeli Terrorism_, The group was infiltrated and influenced by Israeli security.
> 
> Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)
> Minor Left wing faction
> Founded in 196 by Ahmed Jibril and Shafiq al-Hout, re established in 1977 by Abu Abbas
> 
> Arab Liberation Front (ALF)
> Minor faction tied to the Iraqi Ba'ath Party
> Founded in 1969, first leader was Zeid Heidar
> Currently led by Rakad Salem
> 
> As-Sa'iqa (VPLW)
> Palestinian branch of the Syrian Ba'ath Party
> Founded in 1966 as alternative to Fatah, organisation boycotts Palestinian National Authority and is opposed to Oslo Accords
> Organisation was not active during the Second Intifada
> Currently led by Farhan Abu Al-Hayja.
> 
> Palestinian Popular Struggle Front (PPSF)
> Minor Socialist faction formerly led by Samir Ghawshah
> 
> Palestinian Arab Front (PAF)
> Minor Arab Nationalist faction
> 
> Originally part of the ALF, split from the ALF in 1993
> Supports the Palestinian right of return and creation of Palestinian state within 1967 borders
> Currently led by Jameel Shihadeh.
> 
> Fatah (founded early 1960s)[158]
> Palestinian nationalist political party
> Reverse acronym for "Harekat at-Tahrir al-Wataniyyeh al-Falastiniyyeh" ("Palestinian National Liberation Movement" in Arabic)
> Also known as the Movement for the National Liberation of Palestine
> Founded by Yasser Arafat in 1959. Took control of the PLO in 1968, with Arafat as chairman.
> Currently led by Mahmoud Abbas
> 
> *Groups associated with Fatah[edit]*
> 
> Tanzim (founded 1995)
> Means "organization" in Arabic
> Loosely organized Fatah militia
> Led by Marwan Barghouti until his arrest in 2002.
> 
> Force 17 (early 1970s–2007)
> Elite unit of the PLO once under Yasser Arafat's direct guidance.
> Acts as a versatile unit for combat and intelligence-gathering.
> Dismantled in 2007 and incorporated into the Palestinian Presidential Guard.
> 
> Fatah Special Operations Group (Fatah-SOG)
> Founded in the early 1970s by Col. Abdullah Abd al-Hamid Labib
> Also known as the Martyrs of Tel Al Za'atar, Hawari, and Amn Araissi.
> Recently inactive (as of 2004)
> 
> Ahmed Abu Reish Brigade
> Extremist off-shoot of Fatah.
> Was involved in July 17, 2004 kidnappings in the Gaza Strip.
> Possibly linked to the Popular Resistance Committees
> Led by Ahmed Abu Reish
> 
> Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
> Responsible for many suicide bombings and shootings of Israeli civilians
> Responsible for executing suspected conspirators and leaders of opposition against Arafat
> Funded by Fatah and the Palestinian Authority[_citation needed_]
> Offshoot of this group, Fatah Hawks, has carried out guerrilla attacks against Israeli military personnel in the Gaza Strip.
> 
> Black September Organization (1970–1973)
> Began as a small cell of Fatah men determined to take revenge upon King Hussein and the Jordanian army for Black September in Jordan. Recruits from the PFLP, as-Sa'iqa, and other groups also joined.
> Carried out Munich Massacre.
> Carried out Attack on the Saudi embassy in Khartoum
> 
> *Splinter groups of the PLO[edit]*
> 
> Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLP-GC) (founded 1968)
> Splinter group from the PFLP, founded by Ahmed Jibril. Declared its focus would be military, not political. Was a member of the PLO, but left in 1974 for the same reasons as PFLP.
> 
> *al-Qaeda linked groups[edit]*
> 
> Army of Islam (Jaysh al-Islam)
> Also known as the Tawhid and Jihad Brigades and al-Qaeda in Palestine
> The group are an armed Gaza clan named Doghmush who are affiliated with al-Qaeda and Abu Qatada
> 
> Abdullah Azzam Brigades
> Jund Ansar Allah (2008–)
> al-Qaeda-affiliated group in the Gaza Strip, founded in November 2008 by Abdel Latif Moussa
> In August 2009, the group proclaimed the creation of an Islamic emirate in Gaza and led an armed rebellion against Hamas.
> The group's leader Abdel Latif Moussa was killed during that rebellion.
> 
> Fatah al-Islam (2006–)
> al-Qaeda-affiliated group involved in a conflict with the Lebanese army in 2007 over control of Palestinian refugee camps, which caused the death of nearly 500 people.
> The group was established in 2006 by Shaker al-Abssi who led the group until killed by Lebanese forces in 2007.
> Abu Mohamad Awad succeeded al-Abbsi as the group's leader.
> 
> Jund al-Sham (1999–2008)
> Radical Islamist group set up by Palestinians and Syrians which operated in different areas of the Middle East.
> The group's leader Abu Youssef Sharqieh was captured by Lebanese forces during the 2007 conflict in Palestinian refugee camps.
> The group was disbanded in 2008 as its members joined Lebanese al-Qaeda affiliated group Osbat al-Ansar.
> 
> Jaljalat (2006–)
> A Hamas-splinter organisation founded in 2006 by Mahmoud Taleb, a former al-Qassam Brigades commander, after he opposed Hamas joining the 2006 elections
> The group is affiliated with both Jund Ansar Allah and al-Qaeda
> 
> Jahafil Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad fi Filastin (2008–)
> al-Qaeda-affiliated group in the Gaza Strip, founded in November 2008 by Abu al-Walid al-Maqdisi
> 
> *Notable attacks[edit]*
> Main article: List of massacres in Israel
> 
> 1974 Japanese Embassy attack in Kuwait
> 1979 Nahariya attack
> 1980 Paris synagogue bombing
> 1981 Antwerp bombing
> 2000 Ramallah lynching
> 2004 Sinai bombings
> 2008 Dimona suicide bombing
> 2011 Itmar attack
> Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy
> Attack on the Saudi embassy in Khartoum
> Avivim school bus massacre
> Beit Lid massacre
> Coastal Road massacre
> Dizengoff Street bus bombing
> Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing
> EgyptAir Flight 648
> Har Nof synagogue massacre
> Hebrew University massacre
> Hijacking of Achille Lauro
> Jaffa Road bus bombings
> Jerusalem bus 19 suicide bombing
> Karkur junction suicide bombing
> Kiryat Menachem bus bombing
> Lod Airport massacre
> Ma'ale Akrabim massacre
> Ma'alot massacre
> Maxim restaurant suicide bombing
> Mercaz HaRav massacre
> Munich massacre
> Night of the Gliders
> Pan Am Flight 110 Rome - Italy
> Passover massacre
> Pi Glilot bombing
> Rome and Vienna airport attacks
> Sabena Flight 571
> Savoy Hotel Attack
> Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing
> Shawarma restaurant bombing
> Swissair Flight 330
> *See also*
> 
> 
> 
> The boogyman will getcha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not before the IDF get the islamonazi terrorists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ooooooo, terrorists.
> 
> So what country has the second longest list of terrorists against it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would that be the Spanish then
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but why would Spain be bestowed with such an honor?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHO ARE THE PALESTINIANS
> 
> *Palestinian groups involved in political violence[edit]*
> 
> Hamas
> Founded in 1987 by Ahmed Yassin and Mohammad Taha as an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas' goal is the establishment of a Palestinian state.[153]
> Armed wing is the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades; the sole target of its suicide bombings and missile attacks is Israel.[153]
> Took part in 2006 elections and won. After the 2007 Battle of Gaza the Hamas government was disbanded by Mahmoud Abbas but remained de facto rulers of the Gaza Strip.
> Currently led by Khaled Mashaal and Ismail Haniyeh
> 
> 
> Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) (founded 1970s)
> Formed by Fathi Shaqaqi as a branch of Egyptian Islamic Jihad
> Goal is the destruction of the state of Israel and replacement with an Islamist state[_citation needed_]
> Armed wing is the Al-Quds Brigades (Jerusalem brigades)
> Currently led by Ramadan Shallah, the Secretary General and Abd Al Aziz Awda
> 
> The Popular Resistance Committees
> Islamist
> Founded in 2000 by Jamal Abu Samhadana who led the group until he was killed in 2006.
> Hamas linked group, based in the Gaza Strip
> 
> Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) (founded June 1964)
> Formed as the political representation of the Palestinian people
> Currently led by Mahmoud Abbas
> 
> *Sub-groups of the PLO[edit]*
> 
> Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) (founded 1967)
> Left-wing
> Joined the PLO in 1968 and became the second-largest PLO faction, after Arafat's al-Fatah, but withdrew in 1974, accusing the group of moving away from the goal of abolishing the State of Israel. It was led by Abu Ali Mustapha until his assassination in 2001.[154][155][156]
> Armed wing is the Abu Ali Mustapha Brigades and Jihad Jibril Brigades[157]
> Currently led by Ahmad Sa'adat
> 
> Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) (founded 1969)
> Marxist-Leninist group that believes Palestinian national goals can be achieved only through revolution of the masses. Split into two factions in 1991; Nayif Hawatmah leads the majority and more hard-line faction, which continue to dominate the group. Joined with other rejectionist groups to form the Alliance of Palestinian Forces (APF) to oppose the Declaration of Principles signed in 1993. Broke from the APF – along with the PFLP – over ideological differences. Has made limited moves towards merging with the PFLP since the mid-1990s.
> 
> Abu Nidal organization (ANO), also known as Fatah - the Revolutionary Council (FRC), (founded 1974)
> Split from PLO; part of the so-called rejectionist front, the ANO is a secular, nationalist group. Was led by Abu Nidal, widely regarded as the most ruthless of the Palestinian leaders, until his death in August 2002. According to Kameel Nasr, _Arab and Israeli Terrorism_, The group was infiltrated and influenced by Israeli security.
> 
> Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)
> Minor Left wing faction
> Founded in 196 by Ahmed Jibril and Shafiq al-Hout, re established in 1977 by Abu Abbas
> 
> Arab Liberation Front (ALF)
> Minor faction tied to the Iraqi Ba'ath Party
> Founded in 1969, first leader was Zeid Heidar
> Currently led by Rakad Salem
> 
> As-Sa'iqa (VPLW)
> Palestinian branch of the Syrian Ba'ath Party
> Founded in 1966 as alternative to Fatah, organisation boycotts Palestinian National Authority and is opposed to Oslo Accords
> Organisation was not active during the Second Intifada
> Currently led by Farhan Abu Al-Hayja.
> 
> Palestinian Popular Struggle Front (PPSF)
> Minor Socialist faction formerly led by Samir Ghawshah
> 
> Palestinian Arab Front (PAF)
> Minor Arab Nationalist faction
> 
> Originally part of the ALF, split from the ALF in 1993
> Supports the Palestinian right of return and creation of Palestinian state within 1967 borders
> Currently led by Jameel Shihadeh.
> 
> Fatah (founded early 1960s)[158]
> Palestinian nationalist political party
> Reverse acronym for "Harekat at-Tahrir al-Wataniyyeh al-Falastiniyyeh" ("Palestinian National Liberation Movement" in Arabic)
> Also known as the Movement for the National Liberation of Palestine
> Founded by Yasser Arafat in 1959. Took control of the PLO in 1968, with Arafat as chairman.
> Currently led by Mahmoud Abbas
> 
> *Groups associated with Fatah[edit]*
> 
> Tanzim (founded 1995)
> Means "organization" in Arabic
> Loosely organized Fatah militia
> Led by Marwan Barghouti until his arrest in 2002.
> 
> Force 17 (early 1970s–2007)
> Elite unit of the PLO once under Yasser Arafat's direct guidance.
> Acts as a versatile unit for combat and intelligence-gathering.
> Dismantled in 2007 and incorporated into the Palestinian Presidential Guard.
> 
> Fatah Special Operations Group (Fatah-SOG)
> Founded in the early 1970s by Col. Abdullah Abd al-Hamid Labib
> Also known as the Martyrs of Tel Al Za'atar, Hawari, and Amn Araissi.
> Recently inactive (as of 2004)
> 
> Ahmed Abu Reish Brigade
> Extremist off-shoot of Fatah.
> Was involved in July 17, 2004 kidnappings in the Gaza Strip.
> Possibly linked to the Popular Resistance Committees
> Led by Ahmed Abu Reish
> 
> Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
> Responsible for many suicide bombings and shootings of Israeli civilians
> Responsible for executing suspected conspirators and leaders of opposition against Arafat
> Funded by Fatah and the Palestinian Authority[_citation needed_]
> Offshoot of this group, Fatah Hawks, has carried out guerrilla attacks against Israeli military personnel in the Gaza Strip.
> 
> Black September Organization (1970–1973)
> Began as a small cell of Fatah men determined to take revenge upon King Hussein and the Jordanian army for Black September in Jordan. Recruits from the PFLP, as-Sa'iqa, and other groups also joined.
> Carried out Munich Massacre.
> Carried out Attack on the Saudi embassy in Khartoum
> 
> *Splinter groups of the PLO[edit]*
> 
> Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLP-GC) (founded 1968)
> Splinter group from the PFLP, founded by Ahmed Jibril. Declared its focus would be military, not political. Was a member of the PLO, but left in 1974 for the same reasons as PFLP.
> 
> *al-Qaeda linked groups[edit]*
> 
> Army of Islam (Jaysh al-Islam)
> Also known as the Tawhid and Jihad Brigades and al-Qaeda in Palestine
> The group are an armed Gaza clan named Doghmush who are affiliated with al-Qaeda and Abu Qatada
> 
> Abdullah Azzam Brigades
> Jund Ansar Allah (2008–)
> al-Qaeda-affiliated group in the Gaza Strip, founded in November 2008 by Abdel Latif Moussa
> In August 2009, the group proclaimed the creation of an Islamic emirate in Gaza and led an armed rebellion against Hamas.
> The group's leader Abdel Latif Moussa was killed during that rebellion.
> 
> Fatah al-Islam (2006–)
> al-Qaeda-affiliated group involved in a conflict with the Lebanese army in 2007 over control of Palestinian refugee camps, which caused the death of nearly 500 people.
> The group was established in 2006 by Shaker al-Abssi who led the group until killed by Lebanese forces in 2007.
> Abu Mohamad Awad succeeded al-Abbsi as the group's leader.
> 
> Jund al-Sham (1999–2008)
> Radical Islamist group set up by Palestinians and Syrians which operated in different areas of the Middle East.
> The group's leader Abu Youssef Sharqieh was captured by Lebanese forces during the 2007 conflict in Palestinian refugee camps.
> The group was disbanded in 2008 as its members joined Lebanese al-Qaeda affiliated group Osbat al-Ansar.
> 
> Jaljalat (2006–)
> A Hamas-splinter organisation founded in 2006 by Mahmoud Taleb, a former al-Qassam Brigades commander, after he opposed Hamas joining the 2006 elections
> The group is affiliated with both Jund Ansar Allah and al-Qaeda
> 
> Jahafil Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad fi Filastin (2008–)
> al-Qaeda-affiliated group in the Gaza Strip, founded in November 2008 by Abu al-Walid al-Maqdisi
> 
> *Notable attacks[edit]*
> Main article: List of massacres in Israel
> 
> 1974 Japanese Embassy attack in Kuwait
> 1979 Nahariya attack
> 1980 Paris synagogue bombing
> 1981 Antwerp bombing
> 2000 Ramallah lynching
> 2004 Sinai bombings
> 2008 Dimona suicide bombing
> 2011 Itmar attack
> Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy
> Attack on the Saudi embassy in Khartoum
> Avivim school bus massacre
> Beit Lid massacre
> Coastal Road massacre
> Dizengoff Street bus bombing
> Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing
> EgyptAir Flight 648
> Har Nof synagogue massacre
> Hebrew University massacre
> Hijacking of Achille Lauro
> Jaffa Road bus bombings
> Jerusalem bus 19 suicide bombing
> Karkur junction suicide bombing
> Kiryat Menachem bus bombing
> Lod Airport massacre
> Ma'ale Akrabim massacre
> Ma'alot massacre
> Maxim restaurant suicide bombing
> Mercaz HaRav massacre
> Munich massacre
> Night of the Gliders
> Pan Am Flight 110 Rome - Italy
> Passover massacre
> Pi Glilot bombing
> Rome and Vienna airport attacks
> Sabena Flight 571
> Savoy Hotel Attack
> Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing
> Shawarma restaurant bombing
> Swissair Flight 330
> *See also*
> 
> 
> 
> The boogyman will getcha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not before the IDF get the islamonazi terrorists
Click to expand...

And how does Israel plan to do that?

Maybe they could bomb the crap out of a bunch of civilians in Gaza. That might work.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHO ARE THE PALESTINIANS
> 
> *Palestinian groups involved in political violence[edit]*
> 
> Hamas
> Founded in 1987 by Ahmed Yassin and Mohammad Taha as an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas' goal is the establishment of a Palestinian state.[153]
> Armed wing is the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades; the sole target of its suicide bombings and missile attacks is Israel.[153]
> Took part in 2006 elections and won. After the 2007 Battle of Gaza the Hamas government was disbanded by Mahmoud Abbas but remained de facto rulers of the Gaza Strip.
> Currently led by Khaled Mashaal and Ismail Haniyeh
> 
> 
> Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) (founded 1970s)
> Formed by Fathi Shaqaqi as a branch of Egyptian Islamic Jihad
> Goal is the destruction of the state of Israel and replacement with an Islamist state[_citation needed_]
> Armed wing is the Al-Quds Brigades (Jerusalem brigades)
> Currently led by Ramadan Shallah, the Secretary General and Abd Al Aziz Awda
> 
> The Popular Resistance Committees
> Islamist
> Founded in 2000 by Jamal Abu Samhadana who led the group until he was killed in 2006.
> Hamas linked group, based in the Gaza Strip
> 
> Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) (founded June 1964)
> Formed as the political representation of the Palestinian people
> Currently led by Mahmoud Abbas
> 
> *Sub-groups of the PLO[edit]*
> 
> Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) (founded 1967)
> Left-wing
> Joined the PLO in 1968 and became the second-largest PLO faction, after Arafat's al-Fatah, but withdrew in 1974, accusing the group of moving away from the goal of abolishing the State of Israel. It was led by Abu Ali Mustapha until his assassination in 2001.[154][155][156]
> Armed wing is the Abu Ali Mustapha Brigades and Jihad Jibril Brigades[157]
> Currently led by Ahmad Sa'adat
> 
> Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) (founded 1969)
> Marxist-Leninist group that believes Palestinian national goals can be achieved only through revolution of the masses. Split into two factions in 1991; Nayif Hawatmah leads the majority and more hard-line faction, which continue to dominate the group. Joined with other rejectionist groups to form the Alliance of Palestinian Forces (APF) to oppose the Declaration of Principles signed in 1993. Broke from the APF – along with the PFLP – over ideological differences. Has made limited moves towards merging with the PFLP since the mid-1990s.
> 
> Abu Nidal organization (ANO), also known as Fatah - the Revolutionary Council (FRC), (founded 1974)
> Split from PLO; part of the so-called rejectionist front, the ANO is a secular, nationalist group. Was led by Abu Nidal, widely regarded as the most ruthless of the Palestinian leaders, until his death in August 2002. According to Kameel Nasr, _Arab and Israeli Terrorism_, The group was infiltrated and influenced by Israeli security.
> 
> Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)
> Minor Left wing faction
> Founded in 196 by Ahmed Jibril and Shafiq al-Hout, re established in 1977 by Abu Abbas
> 
> Arab Liberation Front (ALF)
> Minor faction tied to the Iraqi Ba'ath Party
> Founded in 1969, first leader was Zeid Heidar
> Currently led by Rakad Salem
> 
> As-Sa'iqa (VPLW)
> Palestinian branch of the Syrian Ba'ath Party
> Founded in 1966 as alternative to Fatah, organisation boycotts Palestinian National Authority and is opposed to Oslo Accords
> Organisation was not active during the Second Intifada
> Currently led by Farhan Abu Al-Hayja.
> 
> Palestinian Popular Struggle Front (PPSF)
> Minor Socialist faction formerly led by Samir Ghawshah
> 
> Palestinian Arab Front (PAF)
> Minor Arab Nationalist faction
> 
> Originally part of the ALF, split from the ALF in 1993
> Supports the Palestinian right of return and creation of Palestinian state within 1967 borders
> Currently led by Jameel Shihadeh.
> 
> Fatah (founded early 1960s)[158]
> Palestinian nationalist political party
> Reverse acronym for "Harekat at-Tahrir al-Wataniyyeh al-Falastiniyyeh" ("Palestinian National Liberation Movement" in Arabic)
> Also known as the Movement for the National Liberation of Palestine
> Founded by Yasser Arafat in 1959. Took control of the PLO in 1968, with Arafat as chairman.
> Currently led by Mahmoud Abbas
> 
> *Groups associated with Fatah[edit]*
> 
> Tanzim (founded 1995)
> Means "organization" in Arabic
> Loosely organized Fatah militia
> Led by Marwan Barghouti until his arrest in 2002.
> 
> Force 17 (early 1970s–2007)
> Elite unit of the PLO once under Yasser Arafat's direct guidance.
> Acts as a versatile unit for combat and intelligence-gathering.
> Dismantled in 2007 and incorporated into the Palestinian Presidential Guard.
> 
> Fatah Special Operations Group (Fatah-SOG)
> Founded in the early 1970s by Col. Abdullah Abd al-Hamid Labib
> Also known as the Martyrs of Tel Al Za'atar, Hawari, and Amn Araissi.
> Recently inactive (as of 2004)
> 
> Ahmed Abu Reish Brigade
> Extremist off-shoot of Fatah.
> Was involved in July 17, 2004 kidnappings in the Gaza Strip.
> Possibly linked to the Popular Resistance Committees
> Led by Ahmed Abu Reish
> 
> Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
> Responsible for many suicide bombings and shootings of Israeli civilians
> Responsible for executing suspected conspirators and leaders of opposition against Arafat
> Funded by Fatah and the Palestinian Authority[_citation needed_]
> Offshoot of this group, Fatah Hawks, has carried out guerrilla attacks against Israeli military personnel in the Gaza Strip.
> 
> Black September Organization (1970–1973)
> Began as a small cell of Fatah men determined to take revenge upon King Hussein and the Jordanian army for Black September in Jordan. Recruits from the PFLP, as-Sa'iqa, and other groups also joined.
> Carried out Munich Massacre.
> Carried out Attack on the Saudi embassy in Khartoum
> 
> *Splinter groups of the PLO[edit]*
> 
> Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLP-GC) (founded 1968)
> Splinter group from the PFLP, founded by Ahmed Jibril. Declared its focus would be military, not political. Was a member of the PLO, but left in 1974 for the same reasons as PFLP.
> 
> *al-Qaeda linked groups[edit]*
> 
> Army of Islam (Jaysh al-Islam)
> Also known as the Tawhid and Jihad Brigades and al-Qaeda in Palestine
> The group are an armed Gaza clan named Doghmush who are affiliated with al-Qaeda and Abu Qatada
> 
> Abdullah Azzam Brigades
> Jund Ansar Allah (2008–)
> al-Qaeda-affiliated group in the Gaza Strip, founded in November 2008 by Abdel Latif Moussa
> In August 2009, the group proclaimed the creation of an Islamic emirate in Gaza and led an armed rebellion against Hamas.
> The group's leader Abdel Latif Moussa was killed during that rebellion.
> 
> Fatah al-Islam (2006–)
> al-Qaeda-affiliated group involved in a conflict with the Lebanese army in 2007 over control of Palestinian refugee camps, which caused the death of nearly 500 people.
> The group was established in 2006 by Shaker al-Abssi who led the group until killed by Lebanese forces in 2007.
> Abu Mohamad Awad succeeded al-Abbsi as the group's leader.
> 
> Jund al-Sham (1999–2008)
> Radical Islamist group set up by Palestinians and Syrians which operated in different areas of the Middle East.
> The group's leader Abu Youssef Sharqieh was captured by Lebanese forces during the 2007 conflict in Palestinian refugee camps.
> The group was disbanded in 2008 as its members joined Lebanese al-Qaeda affiliated group Osbat al-Ansar.
> 
> Jaljalat (2006–)
> A Hamas-splinter organisation founded in 2006 by Mahmoud Taleb, a former al-Qassam Brigades commander, after he opposed Hamas joining the 2006 elections
> The group is affiliated with both Jund Ansar Allah and al-Qaeda
> 
> Jahafil Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad fi Filastin (2008–)
> al-Qaeda-affiliated group in the Gaza Strip, founded in November 2008 by Abu al-Walid al-Maqdisi
> 
> *Notable attacks[edit]*
> Main article: List of massacres in Israel
> 
> 1974 Japanese Embassy attack in Kuwait
> 1979 Nahariya attack
> 1980 Paris synagogue bombing
> 1981 Antwerp bombing
> 2000 Ramallah lynching
> 2004 Sinai bombings
> 2008 Dimona suicide bombing
> 2011 Itmar attack
> Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy
> Attack on the Saudi embassy in Khartoum
> Avivim school bus massacre
> Beit Lid massacre
> Coastal Road massacre
> Dizengoff Street bus bombing
> Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing
> EgyptAir Flight 648
> Har Nof synagogue massacre
> Hebrew University massacre
> Hijacking of Achille Lauro
> Jaffa Road bus bombings
> Jerusalem bus 19 suicide bombing
> Karkur junction suicide bombing
> Kiryat Menachem bus bombing
> Lod Airport massacre
> Ma'ale Akrabim massacre
> Ma'alot massacre
> Maxim restaurant suicide bombing
> Mercaz HaRav massacre
> Munich massacre
> Night of the Gliders
> Pan Am Flight 110 Rome - Italy
> Passover massacre
> Pi Glilot bombing
> Rome and Vienna airport attacks
> Sabena Flight 571
> Savoy Hotel Attack
> Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing
> Shawarma restaurant bombing
> Swissair Flight 330
> *See also*
> 
> 
> 
> The boogyman will getcha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not before the IDF get the islamonazi terrorists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ooooooo, terrorists.
> 
> So what country has the second longest list of terrorists against it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would that be the Spanish then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps, but why would Spain be bestowed with such an honor?
Click to expand...





 Basque seperatists. Then there are the Tamils, the Irish,  Welsh,  S.A. to name but a few that well above the Israelis as you are trying to imply.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHO ARE THE PALESTINIANS
> 
> *Palestinian groups involved in political violence[edit]*
> 
> Hamas
> Founded in 1987 by Ahmed Yassin and Mohammad Taha as an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas' goal is the establishment of a Palestinian state.[153]
> Armed wing is the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades; the sole target of its suicide bombings and missile attacks is Israel.[153]
> Took part in 2006 elections and won. After the 2007 Battle of Gaza the Hamas government was disbanded by Mahmoud Abbas but remained de facto rulers of the Gaza Strip.
> Currently led by Khaled Mashaal and Ismail Haniyeh
> 
> 
> Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) (founded 1970s)
> Formed by Fathi Shaqaqi as a branch of Egyptian Islamic Jihad
> Goal is the destruction of the state of Israel and replacement with an Islamist state[_citation needed_]
> Armed wing is the Al-Quds Brigades (Jerusalem brigades)
> Currently led by Ramadan Shallah, the Secretary General and Abd Al Aziz Awda
> 
> The Popular Resistance Committees
> Islamist
> Founded in 2000 by Jamal Abu Samhadana who led the group until he was killed in 2006.
> Hamas linked group, based in the Gaza Strip
> 
> Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) (founded June 1964)
> Formed as the political representation of the Palestinian people
> Currently led by Mahmoud Abbas
> 
> *Sub-groups of the PLO[edit]*
> 
> Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) (founded 1967)
> Left-wing
> Joined the PLO in 1968 and became the second-largest PLO faction, after Arafat's al-Fatah, but withdrew in 1974, accusing the group of moving away from the goal of abolishing the State of Israel. It was led by Abu Ali Mustapha until his assassination in 2001.[154][155][156]
> Armed wing is the Abu Ali Mustapha Brigades and Jihad Jibril Brigades[157]
> Currently led by Ahmad Sa'adat
> 
> Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) (founded 1969)
> Marxist-Leninist group that believes Palestinian national goals can be achieved only through revolution of the masses. Split into two factions in 1991; Nayif Hawatmah leads the majority and more hard-line faction, which continue to dominate the group. Joined with other rejectionist groups to form the Alliance of Palestinian Forces (APF) to oppose the Declaration of Principles signed in 1993. Broke from the APF – along with the PFLP – over ideological differences. Has made limited moves towards merging with the PFLP since the mid-1990s.
> 
> Abu Nidal organization (ANO), also known as Fatah - the Revolutionary Council (FRC), (founded 1974)
> Split from PLO; part of the so-called rejectionist front, the ANO is a secular, nationalist group. Was led by Abu Nidal, widely regarded as the most ruthless of the Palestinian leaders, until his death in August 2002. According to Kameel Nasr, _Arab and Israeli Terrorism_, The group was infiltrated and influenced by Israeli security.
> 
> Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)
> Minor Left wing faction
> Founded in 196 by Ahmed Jibril and Shafiq al-Hout, re established in 1977 by Abu Abbas
> 
> Arab Liberation Front (ALF)
> Minor faction tied to the Iraqi Ba'ath Party
> Founded in 1969, first leader was Zeid Heidar
> Currently led by Rakad Salem
> 
> As-Sa'iqa (VPLW)
> Palestinian branch of the Syrian Ba'ath Party
> Founded in 1966 as alternative to Fatah, organisation boycotts Palestinian National Authority and is opposed to Oslo Accords
> Organisation was not active during the Second Intifada
> Currently led by Farhan Abu Al-Hayja.
> 
> Palestinian Popular Struggle Front (PPSF)
> Minor Socialist faction formerly led by Samir Ghawshah
> 
> Palestinian Arab Front (PAF)
> Minor Arab Nationalist faction
> 
> Originally part of the ALF, split from the ALF in 1993
> Supports the Palestinian right of return and creation of Palestinian state within 1967 borders
> Currently led by Jameel Shihadeh.
> 
> Fatah (founded early 1960s)[158]
> Palestinian nationalist political party
> Reverse acronym for "Harekat at-Tahrir al-Wataniyyeh al-Falastiniyyeh" ("Palestinian National Liberation Movement" in Arabic)
> Also known as the Movement for the National Liberation of Palestine
> Founded by Yasser Arafat in 1959. Took control of the PLO in 1968, with Arafat as chairman.
> Currently led by Mahmoud Abbas
> 
> *Groups associated with Fatah[edit]*
> 
> Tanzim (founded 1995)
> Means "organization" in Arabic
> Loosely organized Fatah militia
> Led by Marwan Barghouti until his arrest in 2002.
> 
> Force 17 (early 1970s–2007)
> Elite unit of the PLO once under Yasser Arafat's direct guidance.
> Acts as a versatile unit for combat and intelligence-gathering.
> Dismantled in 2007 and incorporated into the Palestinian Presidential Guard.
> 
> Fatah Special Operations Group (Fatah-SOG)
> Founded in the early 1970s by Col. Abdullah Abd al-Hamid Labib
> Also known as the Martyrs of Tel Al Za'atar, Hawari, and Amn Araissi.
> Recently inactive (as of 2004)
> 
> Ahmed Abu Reish Brigade
> Extremist off-shoot of Fatah.
> Was involved in July 17, 2004 kidnappings in the Gaza Strip.
> Possibly linked to the Popular Resistance Committees
> Led by Ahmed Abu Reish
> 
> Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
> Responsible for many suicide bombings and shootings of Israeli civilians
> Responsible for executing suspected conspirators and leaders of opposition against Arafat
> Funded by Fatah and the Palestinian Authority[_citation needed_]
> Offshoot of this group, Fatah Hawks, has carried out guerrilla attacks against Israeli military personnel in the Gaza Strip.
> 
> Black September Organization (1970–1973)
> Began as a small cell of Fatah men determined to take revenge upon King Hussein and the Jordanian army for Black September in Jordan. Recruits from the PFLP, as-Sa'iqa, and other groups also joined.
> Carried out Munich Massacre.
> Carried out Attack on the Saudi embassy in Khartoum
> 
> *Splinter groups of the PLO[edit]*
> 
> Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLP-GC) (founded 1968)
> Splinter group from the PFLP, founded by Ahmed Jibril. Declared its focus would be military, not political. Was a member of the PLO, but left in 1974 for the same reasons as PFLP.
> 
> *al-Qaeda linked groups[edit]*
> 
> Army of Islam (Jaysh al-Islam)
> Also known as the Tawhid and Jihad Brigades and al-Qaeda in Palestine
> The group are an armed Gaza clan named Doghmush who are affiliated with al-Qaeda and Abu Qatada
> 
> Abdullah Azzam Brigades
> Jund Ansar Allah (2008–)
> al-Qaeda-affiliated group in the Gaza Strip, founded in November 2008 by Abdel Latif Moussa
> In August 2009, the group proclaimed the creation of an Islamic emirate in Gaza and led an armed rebellion against Hamas.
> The group's leader Abdel Latif Moussa was killed during that rebellion.
> 
> Fatah al-Islam (2006–)
> al-Qaeda-affiliated group involved in a conflict with the Lebanese army in 2007 over control of Palestinian refugee camps, which caused the death of nearly 500 people.
> The group was established in 2006 by Shaker al-Abssi who led the group until killed by Lebanese forces in 2007.
> Abu Mohamad Awad succeeded al-Abbsi as the group's leader.
> 
> Jund al-Sham (1999–2008)
> Radical Islamist group set up by Palestinians and Syrians which operated in different areas of the Middle East.
> The group's leader Abu Youssef Sharqieh was captured by Lebanese forces during the 2007 conflict in Palestinian refugee camps.
> The group was disbanded in 2008 as its members joined Lebanese al-Qaeda affiliated group Osbat al-Ansar.
> 
> Jaljalat (2006–)
> A Hamas-splinter organisation founded in 2006 by Mahmoud Taleb, a former al-Qassam Brigades commander, after he opposed Hamas joining the 2006 elections
> The group is affiliated with both Jund Ansar Allah and al-Qaeda
> 
> Jahafil Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad fi Filastin (2008–)
> al-Qaeda-affiliated group in the Gaza Strip, founded in November 2008 by Abu al-Walid al-Maqdisi
> 
> *Notable attacks[edit]*
> Main article: List of massacres in Israel
> 
> 1974 Japanese Embassy attack in Kuwait
> 1979 Nahariya attack
> 1980 Paris synagogue bombing
> 1981 Antwerp bombing
> 2000 Ramallah lynching
> 2004 Sinai bombings
> 2008 Dimona suicide bombing
> 2011 Itmar attack
> Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy
> Attack on the Saudi embassy in Khartoum
> Avivim school bus massacre
> Beit Lid massacre
> Coastal Road massacre
> Dizengoff Street bus bombing
> Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing
> EgyptAir Flight 648
> Har Nof synagogue massacre
> Hebrew University massacre
> Hijacking of Achille Lauro
> Jaffa Road bus bombings
> Jerusalem bus 19 suicide bombing
> Karkur junction suicide bombing
> Kiryat Menachem bus bombing
> Lod Airport massacre
> Ma'ale Akrabim massacre
> Ma'alot massacre
> Maxim restaurant suicide bombing
> Mercaz HaRav massacre
> Munich massacre
> Night of the Gliders
> Pan Am Flight 110 Rome - Italy
> Passover massacre
> Pi Glilot bombing
> Rome and Vienna airport attacks
> Sabena Flight 571
> Savoy Hotel Attack
> Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing
> Shawarma restaurant bombing
> Swissair Flight 330
> *See also*
> 
> 
> 
> The boogyman will getcha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not before the IDF get the islamonazi terrorists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how does Israel plan to do that?
> 
> Maybe they could bomb the crap out of a bunch of civilians in Gaza. That might work.
Click to expand...




 And just how will you prove they are civilians and not terrorists and militia ?   Age, sex and location are no proof these days


----------



## Linkiloo

Israeli clearly doesn't target civilians, unlike regimes like Syria and terrorists like ISIS. Any claims to the contrary are anti-semitic.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The boogyman will getcha.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not before the IDF get the islamonazi terrorists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ooooooo, terrorists.
> 
> So what country has the second longest list of terrorists against it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would that be the Spanish then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps, but why would Spain be bestowed with such an honor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basque seperatists. Then there are the Tamils, the Irish,  Welsh,  S.A. to name but a few that well above the Israelis as you are trying to imply.
Click to expand...

Basque seperatists? What category would you place the others?

What about the Kurds or Tibet?

*What category are the Palestinians?*


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not before the IDF get the islamonazi terrorists
> 
> 
> 
> Ooooooo, terrorists.
> 
> So what country has the second longest list of terrorists against it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would that be the Spanish then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps, but why would Spain be bestowed with such an honor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basque seperatists. Then there are the Tamils, the Irish,  Welsh,  S.A. to name but a few that well above the Israelis as you are trying to imply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Basque seperatists? What category would you place the others?
> 
> What about the Kurds or Tibet?
> 
> *What category are the Palestinians?*
Click to expand...




 If they target unarmed civlians mainly children they are terrorists, if they target only military then they are freedom fighters. The Palestinians target Israeli children almost exclusively making them the worst of terrorists that should be executed on sight. When they stop firing illegal weapons trained on schools in Israel then they will be ready to join the human race. Until then they are barbaric blood thirsty psychopathic scum


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ooooooo, terrorists.
> 
> So what country has the second longest list of terrorists against it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would that be the Spanish then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps, but why would Spain be bestowed with such an honor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basque seperatists. Then there are the Tamils, the Irish,  Welsh,  S.A. to name but a few that well above the Israelis as you are trying to imply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Basque seperatists? What category would you place the others?
> 
> What about the Kurds or Tibet?
> 
> *What category are the Palestinians?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they target unarmed civlians mainly children they are terrorists, if they target only military then they are freedom fighters. The Palestinians target Israeli children almost exclusively making them the worst of terrorists that should be executed on sight. When they stop firing illegal weapons trained on schools in Israel then they will be ready to join the human race. Until then they are barbaric blood thirsty psychopathic scum
Click to expand...

*The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.*

In 2003 we went to Cairo. The Egyptians asked whether Hamas is ready to stop the martyrdom operations or not. We gave the Egyptians a better offer. We were ready to have an agreement to stop targeting civilians [on] both sides. The army is supposed to fight, but civilians should be out of it. The Egyptians agreed and passed it on to the Israelis.

Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi.* When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. *The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.

Halevi went back to Israel, but Sharon rejected the proposal.

A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org​


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would that be the Spanish then
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps, but why would Spain be bestowed with such an honor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basque seperatists. Then there are the Tamils, the Irish,  Welsh,  S.A. to name but a few that well above the Israelis as you are trying to imply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Basque seperatists? What category would you place the others?
> 
> What about the Kurds or Tibet?
> 
> *What category are the Palestinians?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they target unarmed civlians mainly children they are terrorists, if they target only military then they are freedom fighters. The Palestinians target Israeli children almost exclusively making them the worst of terrorists that should be executed on sight. When they stop firing illegal weapons trained on schools in Israel then they will be ready to join the human race. Until then they are barbaric blood thirsty psychopathic scum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.*
> 
> In 2003 we went to Cairo. The Egyptians asked whether Hamas is ready to stop the martyrdom operations or not. We gave the Egyptians a better offer. We were ready to have an agreement to stop targeting civilians [on] both sides. The army is supposed to fight, but civilians should be out of it. The Egyptians agreed and passed it on to the Israelis.
> 
> Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi.* When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. *The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.
> 
> Halevi went back to Israel, but Sharon rejected the proposal.
> 
> A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org​
Click to expand...





 And the source is an islamonazi terrorist who are known to lie through their teeth all the time.  The people living in Israel are civilians according to the Geneva conventions irrespective of what hamas and fatah decide.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not before the IDF get the islamonazi terrorists
> 
> 
> 
> Ooooooo, terrorists.
> 
> So what country has the second longest list of terrorists against it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would that be the Spanish then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps, but why would Spain be bestowed with such an honor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basque seperatists. Then there are the Tamils, the Irish,  Welsh,  S.A. to name but a few that well above the Israelis as you are trying to imply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Basque seperatists? What category would you place the others?
> 
> What about the Kurds or Tibet?
> 
> *What category are the Palestinians?*
Click to expand...


Good question.  Palestinians are in the category of INCREDIBLY STUPID.  Have you noticed how every time they kill Israel's, Israel retaliates killing far more Palestinians & then the Palestinians & their supporters bitch about how many more dead Palestinians there are than Israeli's.  It's called Palestinian Mentality.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ooooooo, terrorists.
> 
> So what country has the second longest list of terrorists against it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would that be the Spanish then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps, but why would Spain be bestowed with such an honor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basque seperatists. Then there are the Tamils, the Irish,  Welsh,  S.A. to name but a few that well above the Israelis as you are trying to imply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Basque seperatists? What category would you place the others?
> 
> What about the Kurds or Tibet?
> 
> *What category are the Palestinians?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question.  Palestinians are in the category of INCREDIBLY STUPID.  Have you noticed how every time they kill Israel's, Israel retaliates killing far more Palestinians & then the Palestinians & their supporters bitch about how many more dead Palestinians there are than Israeli's.  It's called Palestinian Mentality.
Click to expand...

Name calling is a sign of defeat.


----------



## montelatici

Linkiloo said:


> Israeli clearly doesn't target civilians, unlike regimes like Syria and terrorists like ISIS. Any claims to the contrary are anti-semitic.



"(Gaza) – Israeli forces in the southern Gaza town of Khuza’a fired on and killed civilians in apparent violation of the laws of war in several incidents between July 23 and 25, 2014. Deliberate attacks on civilians who are not participating in the fighting are war crimes...."

Gaza Israeli Soldiers Shoot and Kill Fleeing Civilians Human Rights Watch


MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ooooooo, terrorists.
> 
> So what country has the second longest list of terrorists against it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would that be the Spanish then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps, but why would Spain be bestowed with such an honor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basque seperatists. Then there are the Tamils, the Irish,  Welsh,  S.A. to name but a few that well above the Israelis as you are trying to imply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Basque seperatists? What category would you place the others?
> 
> What about the Kurds or Tibet?
> 
> *What category are the Palestinians?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question.  Palestinians are in the category of INCREDIBLY STUPID.  Have you noticed how every time they kill Israel's, Israel retaliates killing far more Palestinians & then the Palestinians & their supporters bitch about how many more dead Palestinians there are than Israeli's.  It's called Palestinian Mentality.
Click to expand...


The French killed many more Algerians in retaliation.  Made no difference, the Europeans were forced to leave eventually although they had lived in Algeria for generations. Colonizers are always better armed and better equipped than the colonized.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps, but why would Spain be bestowed with such an honor?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basque seperatists. Then there are the Tamils, the Irish,  Welsh,  S.A. to name but a few that well above the Israelis as you are trying to imply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Basque seperatists? What category would you place the others?
> 
> What about the Kurds or Tibet?
> 
> *What category are the Palestinians?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they target unarmed civlians mainly children they are terrorists, if they target only military then they are freedom fighters. The Palestinians target Israeli children almost exclusively making them the worst of terrorists that should be executed on sight. When they stop firing illegal weapons trained on schools in Israel then they will be ready to join the human race. Until then they are barbaric blood thirsty psychopathic scum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.*
> 
> In 2003 we went to Cairo. The Egyptians asked whether Hamas is ready to stop the martyrdom operations or not. We gave the Egyptians a better offer. We were ready to have an agreement to stop targeting civilians [on] both sides. The army is supposed to fight, but civilians should be out of it. The Egyptians agreed and passed it on to the Israelis.
> 
> Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi.* When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. *The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.
> 
> Halevi went back to Israel, but Sharon rejected the proposal.
> 
> A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the source is an islamonazi terrorist who are known to lie through their teeth all the time.  The people living in Israel are civilians according to the Geneva conventions irrespective of what hamas and fatah decide.
Click to expand...

Not true. Look it up.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Rafeef Ziadah*

**


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Linkiloo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli clearly doesn't target civilians, unlike regimes like Syria and terrorists like ISIS. Any claims to the contrary are anti-semitic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "(Gaza) – Israeli forces in the southern Gaza town of Khuza’a fired on and killed civilians in apparent violation of the laws of war in several incidents between July 23 and 25, 2014. Deliberate attacks on civilians who are not participating in the fighting are war crimes...."
> 
> Gaza Israeli Soldiers Shoot and Kill Fleeing Civilians Human Rights Watch
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would that be the Spanish then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps, but why would Spain be bestowed with such an honor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basque seperatists. Then there are the Tamils, the Irish,  Welsh,  S.A. to name but a few that well above the Israelis as you are trying to imply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Basque seperatists? What category would you place the others?
> 
> What about the Kurds or Tibet?
> 
> *What category are the Palestinians?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question.  Palestinians are in the category of INCREDIBLY STUPID.  Have you noticed how every time they kill Israel's, Israel retaliates killing far more Palestinians & then the Palestinians & their supporters bitch about how many more dead Palestinians there are than Israeli's.  It's called Palestinian Mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The French killed many more Algerians in retaliation.  Made no difference, the Europeans were forced to leave eventually although they had lived in Algeria for generations. Colonizers are always better armed and better equipped than the colonized.
Click to expand...





 Maybe we could come to a compromise and swap our islamonazis for the Jews in the M.E. Now hamas put a fair figure of 2,000 islamonazi's to 1 Jew so we will have that as a starting point.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basque seperatists. Then there are the Tamils, the Irish,  Welsh,  S.A. to name but a few that well above the Israelis as you are trying to imply.
> 
> 
> 
> Basque seperatists? What category would you place the others?
> 
> What about the Kurds or Tibet?
> 
> *What category are the Palestinians?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they target unarmed civlians mainly children they are terrorists, if they target only military then they are freedom fighters. The Palestinians target Israeli children almost exclusively making them the worst of terrorists that should be executed on sight. When they stop firing illegal weapons trained on schools in Israel then they will be ready to join the human race. Until then they are barbaric blood thirsty psychopathic scum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.*
> 
> In 2003 we went to Cairo. The Egyptians asked whether Hamas is ready to stop the martyrdom operations or not. We gave the Egyptians a better offer. We were ready to have an agreement to stop targeting civilians [on] both sides. The army is supposed to fight, but civilians should be out of it. The Egyptians agreed and passed it on to the Israelis.
> 
> Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi.* When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. *The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.
> 
> Halevi went back to Israel, but Sharon rejected the proposal.
> 
> A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the source is an islamonazi terrorist who are known to lie through their teeth all the time.  The people living in Israel are civilians according to the Geneva conventions irrespective of what hamas and fatah decide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true. Look it up.
Click to expand...






 Why don't you link to the Geneva conventions that says the citizens of Israel are not civilians. Then tell the world that the arab muslims are not civilians under the same rules.


----------



## Linkiloo

montelatici said:


> Linkiloo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli clearly doesn't target civilians, unlike regimes like Syria and terrorists like ISIS. Any claims to the contrary are anti-semitic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "(Gaza) – Israeli forces in the southern Gaza town of Khuza’a fired on and killed civilians in apparent violation of the laws of war in several incidents between July 23 and 25, 2014. Deliberate attacks on civilians who are not participating in the fighting are war crimes...."
> 
> Gaza Israeli Soldiers Shoot and Kill Fleeing Civilians Human Rights Watch
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would that be the Spanish then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps, but why would Spain be bestowed with such an honor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basque seperatists. Then there are the Tamils, the Irish,  Welsh,  S.A. to name but a few that well above the Israelis as you are trying to imply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Basque seperatists? What category would you place the others?
> 
> What about the Kurds or Tibet?
> 
> *What category are the Palestinians?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question.  Palestinians are in the category of INCREDIBLY STUPID.  Have you noticed how every time they kill Israel's, Israel retaliates killing far more Palestinians & then the Palestinians & their supporters bitch about how many more dead Palestinians there are than Israeli's.  It's called Palestinian Mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The French killed many more Algerians in retaliation.  Made no difference, the Europeans were forced to leave eventually although they had lived in Algeria for generations. Colonizers are always better armed and better equipped than the colonized.
Click to expand...

Having read that article, I must conclude that it is not Israelis practise to shoot at civilians. In each case reported in your article, we have no substantiation and we have specific information that Israel attempted to avoid civilians deaths by warning civilians in advance and asking them to leave. Terrorists do the opposite i.e. they aim to kill innocents and do not do so by accident. It can only be anti-semitic to allege that Israel aims to kill the innocent.


----------



## RoccoR

Phoenall,  P F Tinmore,  et al,

Our friend P F Tinmore gets this wrong all the time.  He cannot distinguish between a "protected person" and a "civilian."  And he does not know his way around either the Hague Convention or the Geneva Conventions (plural).



Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the source is an islamonazi terrorist who are known to lie through their teeth all the time.  The people living in Israel are civilians according to the Geneva conventions irrespective of what hamas and fatah decide.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. Look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you link to the Geneva conventions that says the citizens of Israel are not civilians. Then tell the world that the arab muslims are not civilians under the same rules.
Click to expand...

*(REFERENCES)*

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
Definition of civilians and civilian population


Article 50 [ Link ] -- Definition of civilians and civilian population

1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) [ Link ] of the Third Convention and in Article 43 [ Link ] of this Protocol. *In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.*

2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June 1977.
Protection of the civilian population

Part IV : Civilian population


Article 13 [ Link ] -- Protection of the civilian population

1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against the dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules shall be observed in all circumstances.

2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Part, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Penal legislation. V. Penalties. Death penalty


ARTICLE 68 [ Link ] 

Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 [ Link ] of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 [ Link ] and 65 [ Link ] may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.
In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.
Rule 5. Civilians are persons who are not members of the armed forces. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.
*Summary*
State practice establishes this rule as a norm of customary international law applicable in international armed conflicts. It also applies to non-international armed conflicts although practice is ambiguous as to whether members of armed opposition groups are considered members of armed forces or civilians.
*International armed conflicts.
*
The definition of civilians as persons who are not members of the armed forces is set forth in Article 50 of Additional Protocol I, to which no reservations have been made.  It is also contained in numerous military manuals.  It is reflected in reported practice.  This practice includes that of States not, or not at the time, party to Additional Protocol I.   In its judgment in the _Blaškić case _in 2000, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia defined civilians as “persons who are not, or no longer, members of the armed forces”.  No official contrary practice was found. Some practice adds the condition that civilians are persons who do not participate in hostilities. This additional requirement merely reinforces the rule that a civilian who participates directly in hostilities loses protection against attack (see Rule 6). However, such a civilian does not thereby become a combatant entitled to prisoner-of-war status and, upon capture, may be tried under national law for the mere participation in the conflict, subject to fair trial guarantees (see Rule 100).​
*(COMMENT)*

The fact that some Palestinians attempt to spread disinformation on the scope, nature and definition of civilians establishes their credibility.  While Article 4 of the GCIV defines the term of "protected person," it does not define what a "civilian" is either under International Customary Law (ICL) or the Geneva Convention Protocols.   This disinformation spread by the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) is merely an attempt to justify the attacks by the HoAP terrorists, Jihadist and Fedayeen on Israeli civilians. 

No matter what the HoAP may lay before you in terms of using "all available means, particularly armed struggle" --- these are non-binding resolutions that do not supersede either ICL or the great conventions (Hague and Geneva).   

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Susan Abulhawa*
> 
> ****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant and off topic
Click to expand...

What do you mean? The title of the thread is "Who are the Palestinians?"

Of course there are millions of answers and this is just one.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then move back to where they came from
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they are Israeli, that is where they come from be they jews, christians or muslim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, but the Muslims, Christians, and even some of the Jews were Palestinians before they were incorporated into Israel against their will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you an prove they were incorporated into Israel against their will can you, when according to you lot many were forced not to be incorporated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nazareth, Jaffa, etc. were incorporated into Israel without the people's consent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where is the non partisan proof of this, as your word is not accepted by anyone.
Click to expand...


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basque seperatists? What category would you place the others?
> 
> What about the Kurds or Tibet?
> 
> *What category are the Palestinians?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they target unarmed civlians mainly children they are terrorists, if they target only military then they are freedom fighters. The Palestinians target Israeli children almost exclusively making them the worst of terrorists that should be executed on sight. When they stop firing illegal weapons trained on schools in Israel then they will be ready to join the human race. Until then they are barbaric blood thirsty psychopathic scum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.*
> 
> In 2003 we went to Cairo. The Egyptians asked whether Hamas is ready to stop the martyrdom operations or not. We gave the Egyptians a better offer. We were ready to have an agreement to stop targeting civilians [on] both sides. The army is supposed to fight, but civilians should be out of it. The Egyptians agreed and passed it on to the Israelis.
> 
> Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi.* When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. *The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.
> 
> Halevi went back to Israel, but Sharon rejected the proposal.
> 
> A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the source is an islamonazi terrorist who are known to lie through their teeth all the time.  The people living in Israel are civilians according to the Geneva conventions irrespective of what hamas and fatah decide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true. Look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you link to the Geneva conventions that says the citizens of Israel are not civilians. Then tell the world that the arab muslims are not civilians under the same rules.
Click to expand...

B. -- ' In occupied territories; ' protection is accorded to all persons who are not of the nationality of the occupying State.

https://www.icrc.org/ihl/COM/380-600007?OpenDocument
-----------------------
Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi. When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. *We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.*

A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHO ARE THE PALESTINIANS
> 
> *Palestinian groups involved in political violence[edit]*
> 
> Hamas
> Founded in 1987 by Ahmed Yassin and Mohammad Taha as an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas' goal is the establishment of a Palestinian state.[153]
> Armed wing is the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades; the sole target of its suicide bombings and missile attacks is Israel.[153]
> Took part in 2006 elections and won. After the 2007 Battle of Gaza the Hamas government was disbanded by Mahmoud Abbas but remained de facto rulers of the Gaza Strip.
> Currently led by Khaled Mashaal and Ismail Haniyeh
> 
> 
> Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) (founded 1970s)
> Formed by Fathi Shaqaqi as a branch of Egyptian Islamic Jihad
> Goal is the destruction of the state of Israel and replacement with an Islamist state[_citation needed_]
> Armed wing is the Al-Quds Brigades (Jerusalem brigades)
> Currently led by Ramadan Shallah, the Secretary General and Abd Al Aziz Awda
> 
> The Popular Resistance Committees
> Islamist
> Founded in 2000 by Jamal Abu Samhadana who led the group until he was killed in 2006.
> Hamas linked group, based in the Gaza Strip
> 
> Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) (founded June 1964)
> Formed as the political representation of the Palestinian people
> Currently led by Mahmoud Abbas
> 
> *Sub-groups of the PLO[edit]*
> 
> Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) (founded 1967)
> Left-wing
> Joined the PLO in 1968 and became the second-largest PLO faction, after Arafat's al-Fatah, but withdrew in 1974, accusing the group of moving away from the goal of abolishing the State of Israel. It was led by Abu Ali Mustapha until his assassination in 2001.[154][155][156]
> Armed wing is the Abu Ali Mustapha Brigades and Jihad Jibril Brigades[157]
> Currently led by Ahmad Sa'adat
> 
> Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) (founded 1969)
> Marxist-Leninist group that believes Palestinian national goals can be achieved only through revolution of the masses. Split into two factions in 1991; Nayif Hawatmah leads the majority and more hard-line faction, which continue to dominate the group. Joined with other rejectionist groups to form the Alliance of Palestinian Forces (APF) to oppose the Declaration of Principles signed in 1993. Broke from the APF – along with the PFLP – over ideological differences. Has made limited moves towards merging with the PFLP since the mid-1990s.
> 
> Abu Nidal organization (ANO), also known as Fatah - the Revolutionary Council (FRC), (founded 1974)
> Split from PLO; part of the so-called rejectionist front, the ANO is a secular, nationalist group. Was led by Abu Nidal, widely regarded as the most ruthless of the Palestinian leaders, until his death in August 2002. According to Kameel Nasr, _Arab and Israeli Terrorism_, The group was infiltrated and influenced by Israeli security.
> 
> Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)
> Minor Left wing faction
> Founded in 196 by Ahmed Jibril and Shafiq al-Hout, re established in 1977 by Abu Abbas
> 
> Arab Liberation Front (ALF)
> Minor faction tied to the Iraqi Ba'ath Party
> Founded in 1969, first leader was Zeid Heidar
> Currently led by Rakad Salem
> 
> As-Sa'iqa (VPLW)
> Palestinian branch of the Syrian Ba'ath Party
> Founded in 1966 as alternative to Fatah, organisation boycotts Palestinian National Authority and is opposed to Oslo Accords
> Organisation was not active during the Second Intifada
> Currently led by Farhan Abu Al-Hayja.
> 
> Palestinian Popular Struggle Front (PPSF)
> Minor Socialist faction formerly led by Samir Ghawshah
> 
> Palestinian Arab Front (PAF)
> Minor Arab Nationalist faction
> 
> Originally part of the ALF, split from the ALF in 1993
> Supports the Palestinian right of return and creation of Palestinian state within 1967 borders
> Currently led by Jameel Shihadeh.
> 
> Fatah (founded early 1960s)[158]
> Palestinian nationalist political party
> Reverse acronym for "Harekat at-Tahrir al-Wataniyyeh al-Falastiniyyeh" ("Palestinian National Liberation Movement" in Arabic)
> Also known as the Movement for the National Liberation of Palestine
> Founded by Yasser Arafat in 1959. Took control of the PLO in 1968, with Arafat as chairman.
> Currently led by Mahmoud Abbas
> 
> *Groups associated with Fatah[edit]*
> 
> Tanzim (founded 1995)
> Means "organization" in Arabic
> Loosely organized Fatah militia
> Led by Marwan Barghouti until his arrest in 2002.
> 
> Force 17 (early 1970s–2007)
> Elite unit of the PLO once under Yasser Arafat's direct guidance.
> Acts as a versatile unit for combat and intelligence-gathering.
> Dismantled in 2007 and incorporated into the Palestinian Presidential Guard.
> 
> Fatah Special Operations Group (Fatah-SOG)
> Founded in the early 1970s by Col. Abdullah Abd al-Hamid Labib
> Also known as the Martyrs of Tel Al Za'atar, Hawari, and Amn Araissi.
> Recently inactive (as of 2004)
> 
> Ahmed Abu Reish Brigade
> Extremist off-shoot of Fatah.
> Was involved in July 17, 2004 kidnappings in the Gaza Strip.
> Possibly linked to the Popular Resistance Committees
> Led by Ahmed Abu Reish
> 
> Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
> Responsible for many suicide bombings and shootings of Israeli civilians
> Responsible for executing suspected conspirators and leaders of opposition against Arafat
> Funded by Fatah and the Palestinian Authority[_citation needed_]
> Offshoot of this group, Fatah Hawks, has carried out guerrilla attacks against Israeli military personnel in the Gaza Strip.
> 
> Black September Organization (1970–1973)
> Began as a small cell of Fatah men determined to take revenge upon King Hussein and the Jordanian army for Black September in Jordan. Recruits from the PFLP, as-Sa'iqa, and other groups also joined.
> Carried out Munich Massacre.
> Carried out Attack on the Saudi embassy in Khartoum
> 
> *Splinter groups of the PLO[edit]*
> 
> Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLP-GC) (founded 1968)
> Splinter group from the PFLP, founded by Ahmed Jibril. Declared its focus would be military, not political. Was a member of the PLO, but left in 1974 for the same reasons as PFLP.
> 
> *al-Qaeda linked groups[edit]*
> 
> Army of Islam (Jaysh al-Islam)
> Also known as the Tawhid and Jihad Brigades and al-Qaeda in Palestine
> The group are an armed Gaza clan named Doghmush who are affiliated with al-Qaeda and Abu Qatada
> 
> Abdullah Azzam Brigades
> Jund Ansar Allah (2008–)
> al-Qaeda-affiliated group in the Gaza Strip, founded in November 2008 by Abdel Latif Moussa
> In August 2009, the group proclaimed the creation of an Islamic emirate in Gaza and led an armed rebellion against Hamas.
> The group's leader Abdel Latif Moussa was killed during that rebellion.
> 
> Fatah al-Islam (2006–)
> al-Qaeda-affiliated group involved in a conflict with the Lebanese army in 2007 over control of Palestinian refugee camps, which caused the death of nearly 500 people.
> The group was established in 2006 by Shaker al-Abssi who led the group until killed by Lebanese forces in 2007.
> Abu Mohamad Awad succeeded al-Abbsi as the group's leader.
> 
> Jund al-Sham (1999–2008)
> Radical Islamist group set up by Palestinians and Syrians which operated in different areas of the Middle East.
> The group's leader Abu Youssef Sharqieh was captured by Lebanese forces during the 2007 conflict in Palestinian refugee camps.
> The group was disbanded in 2008 as its members joined Lebanese al-Qaeda affiliated group Osbat al-Ansar.
> 
> Jaljalat (2006–)
> A Hamas-splinter organisation founded in 2006 by Mahmoud Taleb, a former al-Qassam Brigades commander, after he opposed Hamas joining the 2006 elections
> The group is affiliated with both Jund Ansar Allah and al-Qaeda
> 
> Jahafil Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad fi Filastin (2008–)
> al-Qaeda-affiliated group in the Gaza Strip, founded in November 2008 by Abu al-Walid al-Maqdisi
> 
> *Notable attacks[edit]*
> Main article: List of massacres in Israel
> 
> 1974 Japanese Embassy attack in Kuwait
> 1979 Nahariya attack
> 1980 Paris synagogue bombing
> 1981 Antwerp bombing
> 2000 Ramallah lynching
> 2004 Sinai bombings
> 2008 Dimona suicide bombing
> 2011 Itmar attack
> Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy
> Attack on the Saudi embassy in Khartoum
> Avivim school bus massacre
> Beit Lid massacre
> Coastal Road massacre
> Dizengoff Street bus bombing
> Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing
> EgyptAir Flight 648
> Har Nof synagogue massacre
> Hebrew University massacre
> Hijacking of Achille Lauro
> Jaffa Road bus bombings
> Jerusalem bus 19 suicide bombing
> Karkur junction suicide bombing
> Kiryat Menachem bus bombing
> Lod Airport massacre
> Ma'ale Akrabim massacre
> Ma'alot massacre
> Maxim restaurant suicide bombing
> Mercaz HaRav massacre
> Munich massacre
> Night of the Gliders
> Pan Am Flight 110 Rome - Italy
> Passover massacre
> Pi Glilot bombing
> Rome and Vienna airport attacks
> Sabena Flight 571
> Savoy Hotel Attack
> Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing
> Shawarma restaurant bombing
> Swissair Flight 330
> *See also*
> 
> 
> 
> The boogyman will getcha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not before the IDF get the islamonazi terrorists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how does Israel plan to do that?
> 
> Maybe they could bomb the crap out of a bunch of civilians in Gaza. That might work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And just how will you prove they are civilians and not terrorists and militia ?   Age, sex and location are no proof these days
Click to expand...

According to your hero, RoccoR:

1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) [ Link ] of the Third Convention and in Article 43 [ Link ] of this Protocol. *In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.*​
Who Are The Palestinians Page 357 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> they are Israeli, that is where they come from be they jews, christians or muslim
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, but the Muslims, Christians, and even some of the Jews were Palestinians before they were incorporated into Israel against their will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you an prove they were incorporated into Israel against their will can you, when according to you lot many were forced not to be incorporated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nazareth, Jaffa, etc. were incorporated into Israel without the people's consent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where is the non partisan proof of this, as your word is not accepted by anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...





To what dumbo, that you are called a liar on this board


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they target unarmed civlians mainly children they are terrorists, if they target only military then they are freedom fighters. The Palestinians target Israeli children almost exclusively making them the worst of terrorists that should be executed on sight. When they stop firing illegal weapons trained on schools in Israel then they will be ready to join the human race. Until then they are barbaric blood thirsty psychopathic scum
> 
> 
> 
> *The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.*
> 
> In 2003 we went to Cairo. The Egyptians asked whether Hamas is ready to stop the martyrdom operations or not. We gave the Egyptians a better offer. We were ready to have an agreement to stop targeting civilians [on] both sides. The army is supposed to fight, but civilians should be out of it. The Egyptians agreed and passed it on to the Israelis.
> 
> Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi.* When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. *The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.
> 
> Halevi went back to Israel, but Sharon rejected the proposal.
> 
> A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the source is an islamonazi terrorist who are known to lie through their teeth all the time.  The people living in Israel are civilians according to the Geneva conventions irrespective of what hamas and fatah decide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true. Look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you link to the Geneva conventions that says the citizens of Israel are not civilians. Then tell the world that the arab muslims are not civilians under the same rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> B. -- ' In occupied territories; ' protection is accorded to all persons who are not of the nationality of the occupying State.
> 
> https://www.icrc.org/ihl/COM/380-600007?OpenDocument
> -----------------------
> Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi. When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. *We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.*
> 
> A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org
Click to expand...





 Now define what the Jews meant by settlers, and where they were settling ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.*
> 
> In 2003 we went to Cairo. The Egyptians asked whether Hamas is ready to stop the martyrdom operations or not. We gave the Egyptians a better offer. We were ready to have an agreement to stop targeting civilians [on] both sides. The army is supposed to fight, but civilians should be out of it. The Egyptians agreed and passed it on to the Israelis.
> 
> Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi.* When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. *The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.
> 
> Halevi went back to Israel, but Sharon rejected the proposal.
> 
> A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the source is an islamonazi terrorist who are known to lie through their teeth all the time.  The people living in Israel are civilians according to the Geneva conventions irrespective of what hamas and fatah decide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true. Look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you link to the Geneva conventions that says the citizens of Israel are not civilians. Then tell the world that the arab muslims are not civilians under the same rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> B. -- ' In occupied territories; ' protection is accorded to all persons who are not of the nationality of the occupying State.
> 
> https://www.icrc.org/ihl/COM/380-600007?OpenDocument
> -----------------------
> Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi. When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. *We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.*
> 
> A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now define what the Jews meant by settlers, and where they were settling ?
Click to expand...

Sderot was founded in 1951 on lands that belonged to the Palestinian Arab village of Najd[6]and is located a few miles south of the village's ruins. On 13 May 1948, *Najd was occupied by the Negev Brigade* as part of Operation Barak, and the villagers were driven out[7] to Gaza. It began as a transit camp called Gabim Dorot for Kurdish and Persian Jewish immigrants, numbering 80 families,[8] *as part of a chain of settlements designed to block infiltration from Gaza.*

Sderot - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

OK let's be honest.  That is not all I said.  You're cherry picking.

You will notice that I cited Article 68, which penalizes "protected persons" who attempt to do harm to the Occupying Power.  You will notice that I cited four (4) major citations relative to "civilians" and "protected persons."  All four must be adhered to "simultaneously."  You just can't pick and choose.



P F Tinmore said:


> According to your hero, RoccoR:
> 
> 1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) [ Link ] of the Third Convention and in Article 43 [ Link ] of this Protocol. *In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.*​
> Who Are The Palestinians Page 357 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


*(COMMENT)*

It is clear that the UN Security Council Resolution 237 stipulates in a binding fashion that the requirements of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 be applied to the territories that came under occupation in 1967.  It does not give any special exemption for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to conduct hostile operations against the Occupation Power without facing criminal prosecution.

The HoAP which target Israeli Civilians --- does so at their own peril.  The HoAP lose their "protected persons" status and become subject to Article 68 Sanctions.

PS:  Terrorist, Insurgents, Jihadist and Fedayeen, conducting operations, _(any Islamic Resistance Movement)_ are considered 4th Generation Warfare, Asymmetric combatants and not protected persons.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK let's be honest.  That is not all I said.  You're cherry picking.
> 
> You will notice that I cited Article 68, which penalizes "protected persons" who attempt to do harm to the Occupying Power.  You will notice that I cited four (4) major citations relative to "civilians" and "protected persons."  All four must be adhered to "simultaneously."  You just can't pick and choose.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to your hero, RoccoR:
> 
> 1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) [ Link ] of the Third Convention and in Article 43 [ Link ] of this Protocol. *In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.*​
> Who Are The Palestinians Page 357 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is clear that the UN Security Council Resolution 237 stipulates in a binding fashion that the requirements of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 be applied to the territories that came under occupation in 1967.  It does not give any special exemption for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to conduct hostile operations against the Occupation Power without facing criminal prosecution.
> 
> The HoAP which target Israeli Civilians --- does so at their own peril.  The HoAP lose their "protected persons" status and become subject to Article 68 Sanctions.
> 
> PS:  Terrorist, Insurgents, Jihadist and Fedayeen, conducting operations, _(any Islamic Resistance Movement)_ are considered 4th Generation Warfare, Asymmetric combatants and not protected persons.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link.

_The Security Council,​_

_ Considering_ the urgent need to spare the civil populations and the prisoners of the war in the area of conflict in the Middle East additional sufferings,

*Considering that essential and inalienable human rights should be respected even during the vicissitudes of war,*

_Considering _that all the obligations of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949 1/ should be complied with by the parties involved in the conflict,

*1. Calls upon the Government of Israel to ensure the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants of the areas where military operations have taken place and to facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas since the outbreak of hostilities;*

2. _Recommends_ to the Governments concerned the scrupulous respect of the humanitarian principles governing the treatment of prisoners of war and the protection of civilian persons in time of war contained in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949;2/

3. _Requests_ the Secretary-General to follow the effective implementation of this resolution and to report to the Security Council.​


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the source is an islamonazi terrorist who are known to lie through their teeth all the time.  The people living in Israel are civilians according to the Geneva conventions irrespective of what hamas and fatah decide.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. Look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you link to the Geneva conventions that says the citizens of Israel are not civilians. Then tell the world that the arab muslims are not civilians under the same rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> B. -- ' In occupied territories; ' protection is accorded to all persons who are not of the nationality of the occupying State.
> 
> https://www.icrc.org/ihl/COM/380-600007?OpenDocument
> -----------------------
> Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi. When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. *We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.*
> 
> A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now define what the Jews meant by settlers, and where they were settling ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sderot was founded in 1951 on lands that belonged to the Palestinian Arab village of Najd[6]and is located a few miles south of the village's ruins. On 13 May 1948, Najd was occupied by the Negev Brigade as part of Operation Barak, and the villagers were driven out[7] to Gaza. It began as a transit camp called Gabim Dorot for Kurdish and Persian Jewish immigrants, numbering 80 families,[8] *as part of a chain of settlements designed to block infiltration from Gaza.*
> 
> Sderot - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...






 And until the arab muslims decide to comply with the UN charter and their own promises then it will stay Israeli. And don't forget that Egypt signed a treaty with Israel setting the borders in place, and Sderot is on the Israeli side of that border.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK let's be honest.  That is not all I said.  You're cherry picking.
> 
> You will notice that I cited Article 68, which penalizes "protected persons" who attempt to do harm to the Occupying Power.  You will notice that I cited four (4) major citations relative to "civilians" and "protected persons."  All four must be adhered to "simultaneously."  You just can't pick and choose.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to your hero, RoccoR:
> 
> 1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) [ Link ] of the Third Convention and in Article 43 [ Link ] of this Protocol. *In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.*​
> Who Are The Palestinians Page 357 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is clear that the UN Security Council Resolution 237 stipulates in a binding fashion that the requirements of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 be applied to the territories that came under occupation in 1967.  It does not give any special exemption for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to conduct hostile operations against the Occupation Power without facing criminal prosecution.
> 
> The HoAP which target Israeli Civilians --- does so at their own peril.  The HoAP lose their "protected persons" status and become subject to Article 68 Sanctions.
> 
> PS:  Terrorist, Insurgents, Jihadist and Fedayeen, conducting operations, _(any Islamic Resistance Movement)_ are considered 4th Generation Warfare, Asymmetric combatants and not protected persons.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

"OK let's be honest." Indeed.

The Palestinians are not hostile. They are defending their country.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. Look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you link to the Geneva conventions that says the citizens of Israel are not civilians. Then tell the world that the arab muslims are not civilians under the same rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> B. -- ' In occupied territories; ' protection is accorded to all persons who are not of the nationality of the occupying State.
> 
> https://www.icrc.org/ihl/COM/380-600007?OpenDocument
> -----------------------
> Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi. When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. *We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.*
> 
> A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now define what the Jews meant by settlers, and where they were settling ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sderot was founded in 1951 on lands that belonged to the Palestinian Arab village of Najd[6]and is located a few miles south of the village's ruins. On 13 May 1948, Najd was occupied by the Negev Brigade as part of Operation Barak, and the villagers were driven out[7] to Gaza. It began as a transit camp called Gabim Dorot for Kurdish and Persian Jewish immigrants, numbering 80 families,[8] *as part of a chain of settlements designed to block infiltration from Gaza.*
> 
> Sderot - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And until the arab muslims decide to comply with the UN charter and their own promises then it will stay Israeli. And don't forget that Egypt signed a treaty with Israel setting the borders in place, and Sderot is on the Israeli side of that border.
Click to expand...

No it didn't.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK let's be honest.  That is not all I said.  You're cherry picking.
> 
> You will notice that I cited Article 68, which penalizes "protected persons" who attempt to do harm to the Occupying Power.  You will notice that I cited four (4) major citations relative to "civilians" and "protected persons."  All four must be adhered to "simultaneously."  You just can't pick and choose.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to your hero, RoccoR:
> 
> 1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) [ Link ] of the Third Convention and in Article 43 [ Link ] of this Protocol. *In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.*​
> Who Are The Palestinians Page 357 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is clear that the UN Security Council Resolution 237 stipulates in a binding fashion that the requirements of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 be applied to the territories that came under occupation in 1967.  It does not give any special exemption for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to conduct hostile operations against the Occupation Power without facing criminal prosecution.
> 
> The HoAP which target Israeli Civilians --- does so at their own peril.  The HoAP lose their "protected persons" status and become subject to Article 68 Sanctions.
> 
> PS:  Terrorist, Insurgents, Jihadist and Fedayeen, conducting operations, _(any Islamic Resistance Movement)_ are considered 4th Generation Warfare, Asymmetric combatants and not protected persons.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for the link.
> 
> _The Security Council,_
> 
> _ Considering_ the urgent need to spare the civil populations and the prisoners of the war in the area of conflict in the Middle East additional sufferings,
> 
> *Considering that essential and inalienable human rights should be respected even during the vicissitudes of war,*
> 
> _Considering _that all the obligations of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949 1/ should be complied with by the parties involved in the conflict,
> 
> *1. Calls upon the Government of Israel to ensure the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants of the areas where military operations have taken place and to facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas since the outbreak of hostilities;*
> 
> 2. _Recommends_ to the Governments concerned the scrupulous respect of the humanitarian principles governing the treatment of prisoners of war and the protection of civilian persons in time of war contained in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949;2/
> 
> 3. _Requests_ the Secretary-General to follow the effective implementation of this resolution and to report to the Security Council.​
Click to expand...






 Which they have, but hamas refuses to comply with any UN resolution.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK let's be honest.  That is not all I said.  You're cherry picking.
> 
> You will notice that I cited Article 68, which penalizes "protected persons" who attempt to do harm to the Occupying Power.  You will notice that I cited four (4) major citations relative to "civilians" and "protected persons."  All four must be adhered to "simultaneously."  You just can't pick and choose.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to your hero, RoccoR:
> 
> 1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) [ Link ] of the Third Convention and in Article 43 [ Link ] of this Protocol. *In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.*​
> Who Are The Palestinians Page 357 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is clear that the UN Security Council Resolution 237 stipulates in a binding fashion that the requirements of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 be applied to the territories that came under occupation in 1967.  It does not give any special exemption for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to conduct hostile operations against the Occupation Power without facing criminal prosecution.
> 
> The HoAP which target Israeli Civilians --- does so at their own peril.  The HoAP lose their "protected persons" status and become subject to Article 68 Sanctions.
> 
> PS:  Terrorist, Insurgents, Jihadist and Fedayeen, conducting operations, _(any Islamic Resistance Movement)_ are considered 4th Generation Warfare, Asymmetric combatants and not protected persons.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "OK let's be honest." Indeed.
> 
> The Palestinians are not hostile. They are defending their country.
Click to expand...






 Firing illegal rockets at Israeli civilians is not defence. Mining Israeli schools is not defence. They are hostile terrorist actions that will be met with retuned fire until the terrorism stops.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you link to the Geneva conventions that says the citizens of Israel are not civilians. Then tell the world that the arab muslims are not civilians under the same rules.
> 
> 
> 
> B. -- ' In occupied territories; ' protection is accorded to all persons who are not of the nationality of the occupying State.
> 
> https://www.icrc.org/ihl/COM/380-600007?OpenDocument
> -----------------------
> Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi. When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. *We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.*
> 
> A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now define what the Jews meant by settlers, and where they were settling ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sderot was founded in 1951 on lands that belonged to the Palestinian Arab village of Najd[6]and is located a few miles south of the village's ruins. On 13 May 1948, Najd was occupied by the Negev Brigade as part of Operation Barak, and the villagers were driven out[7] to Gaza. It began as a transit camp called Gabim Dorot for Kurdish and Persian Jewish immigrants, numbering 80 families,[8] *as part of a chain of settlements designed to block infiltration from Gaza.*
> 
> Sderot - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And until the arab muslims decide to comply with the UN charter and their own promises then it will stay Israeli. And don't forget that Egypt signed a treaty with Israel setting the borders in place, and Sderot is on the Israeli side of that border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it didn't.
Click to expand...





Egypt Israel Peace Treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 Then what is this


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This is not at all accurate.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK let's be honest.  That is not all I said.  You're cherry picking.
> 
> You will notice that I cited Article 68, which penalizes "protected persons" who attempt to do harm to the Occupying Power.  You will notice that I cited four (4) major citations relative to "civilians" and "protected persons."  All four must be adhered to "simultaneously."  You just can't pick and choose.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to your hero, RoccoR:
> 
> 1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) [ Link ] of the Third Convention and in Article 43 [ Link ] of this Protocol. *In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.*​
> Who Are The Palestinians Page 357 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is clear that the UN Security Council Resolution 237 stipulates in a binding fashion that the requirements of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 be applied to the territories that came under occupation in 1967.  It does not give any special exemption for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to conduct hostile operations against the Occupation Power without facing criminal prosecution.
> 
> The HoAP which target Israeli Civilians --- does so at their own peril.  The HoAP lose their "protected persons" status and become subject to Article 68 Sanctions.
> 
> PS:  Terrorist, Insurgents, Jihadist and Fedayeen, conducting operations, _(any Islamic Resistance Movement)_ are considered 4th Generation Warfare, Asymmetric combatants and not protected persons.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "OK let's be honest." Indeed.
> 
> The Palestinians are not hostile. They are defending their country.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

None of the territory under question, was surrendered by the Ottoman Empire to the Palestinians --- or any of the other Arab contingents.  The Ottoman/Turks relinquished it all to the Principle Allied Powers.  

The territory was divided up by the Allied Powers into Mandates.  Each Mandate would assume governmental responsibilities of the respective territories.

In 1948, Israel fought its War of Independence (WoI), for it right to self-determination --- as guided by the hand of the United Nations, under A/RES/181(II).   What the consequences of that WoI was, included four separate and distinctive Armistice Arrangements with the parties to the conflict; along the forward edge of the battle area.

Included in the outcomes, the West Bank was taken by the Jordanians and the Gaza Strip was taken by the Egyptians. 

In 1967, Israel seized the two territories and set-up an occupation.

The State of Palestine was created in 1988; while the territory was under occupation.   Israel never invaded the State of Palestine. 

The Hostilities emanating from the Palestinians dates back to early 1948.  See A/AC.21.10 16 February 1948.   The scope and nature of the belligerence of the HoAP has nothing to do with the defense of their country, since their was no Palestinian Sovereignty in February 1948.  The hostility is open defiance to the UN decision to support a Jewish State.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK let's be honest.  That is not all I said.  You're cherry picking.
> 
> You will notice that I cited Article 68, which penalizes "protected persons" who attempt to do harm to the Occupying Power.  You will notice that I cited four (4) major citations relative to "civilians" and "protected persons."  All four must be adhered to "simultaneously."  You just can't pick and choose.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to your hero, RoccoR:
> 
> 1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) [ Link ] of the Third Convention and in Article 43 [ Link ] of this Protocol. *In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.*​
> Who Are The Palestinians Page 357 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is clear that the UN Security Council Resolution 237 stipulates in a binding fashion that the requirements of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 be applied to the territories that came under occupation in 1967.  It does not give any special exemption for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to conduct hostile operations against the Occupation Power without facing criminal prosecution.
> 
> The HoAP which target Israeli Civilians --- does so at their own peril.  The HoAP lose their "protected persons" status and become subject to Article 68 Sanctions.
> 
> PS:  Terrorist, Insurgents, Jihadist and Fedayeen, conducting operations, _(any Islamic Resistance Movement)_ are considered 4th Generation Warfare, Asymmetric combatants and not protected persons.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


1960 General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), December 14, 1960 applies to the Palestinians and it states:

1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.

2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Above and beyond the basic right of all human beings to resist their being killed and harmed, and a society to take armed actions to protect itself, the resolution legitimizes national liberation struggles, including the Palestinian people’s struggle for its own freedom. It is this right which legitimizes Palestinian attempts/actions to rid themselves of European Jew Invader and Colonizer (EJIC) oppression.

With respect to the classification of EJICs as civilians or combatants, it is problematic.  European Jews settled Palestine in a colonial project.  Whether sanctioned by the LoN/UN or not, it is, by definition, a colonial project.  _Though the settlement of the New World by Portugal and Spain was sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church (Pope) through the Treaty of Tordesillas, it cannot be said that the settlement of the New World was not a colonial project.
_
The classification of individual EJICs as civilians or combatants is particularly problematic when the inhabitants of the settlements in the Occupied Territories are considered. For example, the _Ravshatz_ (Hebrew acronym for: Civilian Security Officers in Coordination with the IDF — "CSO".  CSOs are armed, they lead armed groups of settlers and can even give orders (as if military officer) to IDF soldiers.  Are these EJICs civilians?  Frantz Fanon in "The Wretched of the Earth" concluded that since the colonizer considered all of the colonized (male and female) a present threat if adult and future threat if a child and subject to killing, the colonized had to consider the colonizer's population in the same way.  (Frantz Fanon was of mixed race and was most known his support for the Algerians in their fight against the French).

Finally, one could use Alan Dershowitz's "continuum of civilianality" theory.  Dershowitz believes that civilians openly resisting or contravening Israeli policy e.g. demonstrating breaking the blockade etc., are not quite civilians.  Conversely, EJIC civilians actively settling in the West Bank and East Jerusalem might be considered as contributing to conquest, hence not quite civilians.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK let's be honest.  That is not all I said.  You're cherry picking.
> 
> You will notice that I cited Article 68, which penalizes "protected persons" who attempt to do harm to the Occupying Power.  You will notice that I cited four (4) major citations relative to "civilians" and "protected persons."  All four must be adhered to "simultaneously."  You just can't pick and choose.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to your hero, RoccoR:
> 
> 1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) [ Link ] of the Third Convention and in Article 43 [ Link ] of this Protocol. *In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.*​
> Who Are The Palestinians Page 357 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is clear that the UN Security Council Resolution 237 stipulates in a binding fashion that the requirements of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 be applied to the territories that came under occupation in 1967.  It does not give any special exemption for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to conduct hostile operations against the Occupation Power without facing criminal prosecution.
> 
> The HoAP which target Israeli Civilians --- does so at their own peril.  The HoAP lose their "protected persons" status and become subject to Article 68 Sanctions.
> 
> PS:  Terrorist, Insurgents, Jihadist and Fedayeen, conducting operations, _(any Islamic Resistance Movement)_ are considered 4th Generation Warfare, Asymmetric combatants and not protected persons.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for the link.
> 
> _The Security Council,_
> 
> _ Considering_ the urgent need to spare the civil populations and the prisoners of the war in the area of conflict in the Middle East additional sufferings,
> 
> *Considering that essential and inalienable human rights should be respected even during the vicissitudes of war,*
> 
> _Considering _that all the obligations of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949 1/ should be complied with by the parties involved in the conflict,
> 
> *1. Calls upon the Government of Israel to ensure the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants of the areas where military operations have taken place and to facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas since the outbreak of hostilities;*
> 
> 2. _Recommends_ to the Governments concerned the scrupulous respect of the humanitarian principles governing the treatment of prisoners of war and the protection of civilian persons in time of war contained in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949;2/
> 
> 3. _Requests_ the Secretary-General to follow the effective implementation of this resolution and to report to the Security Council.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which they have, but hamas refuses to comply with any UN resolution.
Click to expand...

Like which ones?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> B. -- ' In occupied territories; ' protection is accorded to all persons who are not of the nationality of the occupying State.
> 
> https://www.icrc.org/ihl/COM/380-600007?OpenDocument
> -----------------------
> Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi. When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. *We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.*
> 
> A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now define what the Jews meant by settlers, and where they were settling ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sderot was founded in 1951 on lands that belonged to the Palestinian Arab village of Najd[6]and is located a few miles south of the village's ruins. On 13 May 1948, Najd was occupied by the Negev Brigade as part of Operation Barak, and the villagers were driven out[7] to Gaza. It began as a transit camp called Gabim Dorot for Kurdish and Persian Jewish immigrants, numbering 80 families,[8] *as part of a chain of settlements designed to block infiltration from Gaza.*
> 
> Sderot - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And until the arab muslims decide to comply with the UN charter and their own promises then it will stay Israeli. And don't forget that Egypt signed a treaty with Israel setting the borders in place, and Sderot is on the Israeli side of that border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt Israel Peace Treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Then what is this
Click to expand...

Good question. Where did Israel and Egypt get the authority to negotiate Palestine's border?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is not at all accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK let's be honest.  That is not all I said.  You're cherry picking.
> 
> You will notice that I cited Article 68, which penalizes "protected persons" who attempt to do harm to the Occupying Power.  You will notice that I cited four (4) major citations relative to "civilians" and "protected persons."  All four must be adhered to "simultaneously."  You just can't pick and choose.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to your hero, RoccoR:
> 
> 1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) [ Link ] of the Third Convention and in Article 43 [ Link ] of this Protocol. *In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.*​
> Who Are The Palestinians Page 357 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is clear that the UN Security Council Resolution 237 stipulates in a binding fashion that the requirements of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 be applied to the territories that came under occupation in 1967.  It does not give any special exemption for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to conduct hostile operations against the Occupation Power without facing criminal prosecution.
> 
> The HoAP which target Israeli Civilians --- does so at their own peril.  The HoAP lose their "protected persons" status and become subject to Article 68 Sanctions.
> 
> PS:  Terrorist, Insurgents, Jihadist and Fedayeen, conducting operations, _(any Islamic Resistance Movement)_ are considered 4th Generation Warfare, Asymmetric combatants and not protected persons.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "OK let's be honest." Indeed.
> 
> The Palestinians are not hostile. They are defending their country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> None of the territory under question, was surrendered by the Ottoman Empire to the Palestinians --- or any of the other Arab contingents.  The Ottoman/Turks relinquished it all to the Principle Allied Powers.
> 
> The territory was divided up by the Allied Powers into Mandates.  Each Mandate would assume governmental responsibilities of the respective territories.
> 
> In 1948, Israel fought its War of Independence (WoI), for it right to self-determination --- as guided by the hand of the United Nations, under A/RES/181(II).   What the consequences of that WoI was, included four separate and distinctive Armistice Arrangements with the parties to the conflict; along the forward edge of the battle area.
> 
> Included in the outcomes, the West Bank was taken by the Jordanians and the Gaza Strip was taken by the Egyptians.
> 
> In 1967, Israel seized the two territories and set-up an occupation.
> 
> The State of Palestine was created in 1988; while the territory was under occupation.   Israel never invaded the State of Palestine.
> 
> The Hostilities emanating from the Palestinians dates back to early 1948.  See A/AC.21.10 16 February 1948.   The scope and nature of the belligerence of the HoAP has nothing to do with the defense of their country, since their was no Palestinian Sovereignty in February 1948.  The hostility is open defiance to the UN decision to support a Jewish State.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

None of the territory under question, was surrendered by the Ottoman Empire to the Palestinians --- or any of the other Arab contingents. The Ottoman/Turks relinquished it all to the Principle Allied Powers.​
That is true but they did not claim that land for themselves. They held it in trust *until the people could stand alone.*

Britain violated that principle which caused the conflict that we see today.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK let's be honest.  That is not all I said.  You're cherry picking.
> 
> You will notice that I cited Article 68, which penalizes "protected persons" who attempt to do harm to the Occupying Power.  You will notice that I cited four (4) major citations relative to "civilians" and "protected persons."  All four must be adhered to "simultaneously."  You just can't pick and choose.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to your hero, RoccoR:
> 
> 1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) [ Link ] of the Third Convention and in Article 43 [ Link ] of this Protocol. *In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.*​
> Who Are The Palestinians Page 357 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is clear that the UN Security Council Resolution 237 stipulates in a binding fashion that the requirements of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 be applied to the territories that came under occupation in 1967.  It does not give any special exemption for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to conduct hostile operations against the Occupation Power without facing criminal prosecution.
> 
> The HoAP which target Israeli Civilians --- does so at their own peril.  The HoAP lose their "protected persons" status and become subject to Article 68 Sanctions.
> 
> PS:  Terrorist, Insurgents, Jihadist and Fedayeen, conducting operations, _(any Islamic Resistance Movement)_ are considered 4th Generation Warfare, Asymmetric combatants and not protected persons.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1960 General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), December 14, 1960 applies to the Palestinians and it states:
> 
> 1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
> 
> 2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> Above and beyond the basic right of all human beings to resist their being killed and harmed, and a society to take armed actions to protect itself, the resolution legitimizes national liberation struggles, including the Palestinian people’s struggle for its own freedom. It is this right which legitimizes Palestinian attempts/actions to rid themselves of European Jew Invader and Colonizer (EJIC) oppression.
> 
> With respect to the classification of EJICs as civilians or combatants, it is problematic.  European Jews settled Palestine in a colonial project.  Whether sanctioned by the LoN/UN or not, it is, by definition, a colonial project.  _Though the settlement of the New World by Portugal and Spain was sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church (Pope) through the Treaty of Tordesillas, it cannot be said that the settlement of the New World was not a colonial project.
> _
> The classification of individual EJICs as civilians or combatants is particularly problematic when the inhabitants of the settlements in the Occupied Territories are considered. For example, the _Ravshatz_ (Hebrew acronym for: Civilian Security Officers in Coordination with the IDF — "CSO".  CSOs are armed, they lead armed groups of settlers and can even give orders (as if military officer) to IDF soldiers.  Are these EJICs civilians?  Frantz Fanon in "The Wretched of the Earth" concluded that since the colonizer considered all of the colonized (male and female) a present threat if adult and future threat if a child and subject to killing, the colonized had to consider the colonizer's population in the same way.  (Frantz Fanon was of mixed race and was most known his support for the Algerians in their fight against the French).
> 
> Finally, one could use Alan Dershowitz's "continuum of civilianality" theory.  Dershowitz believes that civilians openly resisting or contravening Israeli policy e.g. demonstrating breaking the blockade etc., are not quite civilians.  Conversely, EJIC civilians actively settling in the West Bank and East Jerusalem might be considered as contributing to conquest, hence not quite civilians.
Click to expand...





 They did not exist in 1960 as they were Jordanian and had demonstrated their self determination in 1949, they then gave this up when they attacked Jordan with the intention of taking the country by force.

 At the same time the same criteria enforces Israel's rights to defend themselves against HoAP attacks with as much force as they deem necessary after they were given the land by its legal owners/rulers in 1923. This negates your claim of colonisation as the arab muslims have been proven to be illegal immigrants, alien insurgents and terrorists. 

 If the Jews are on their land legally acquired under INTERNATIONAL LAW then they are civilians, and it is the arab muslims that are the illegal colonisers and should be forced to move back where they came from.


 You are using heavily manipulated cut and pastes again without providing a link to your source, making you guilty of a breach of zone 2 rules.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK let's be honest.  That is not all I said.  You're cherry picking.
> 
> You will notice that I cited Article 68, which penalizes "protected persons" who attempt to do harm to the Occupying Power.  You will notice that I cited four (4) major citations relative to "civilians" and "protected persons."  All four must be adhered to "simultaneously."  You just can't pick and choose.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to your hero, RoccoR:
> 
> 1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) [ Link ] of the Third Convention and in Article 43 [ Link ] of this Protocol. *In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.*​
> Who Are The Palestinians Page 357 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is clear that the UN Security Council Resolution 237 stipulates in a binding fashion that the requirements of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 be applied to the territories that came under occupation in 1967.  It does not give any special exemption for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to conduct hostile operations against the Occupation Power without facing criminal prosecution.
> 
> The HoAP which target Israeli Civilians --- does so at their own peril.  The HoAP lose their "protected persons" status and become subject to Article 68 Sanctions.
> 
> PS:  Terrorist, Insurgents, Jihadist and Fedayeen, conducting operations, _(any Islamic Resistance Movement)_ are considered 4th Generation Warfare, Asymmetric combatants and not protected persons.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for the link.
> 
> _The Security Council,_
> 
> _ Considering_ the urgent need to spare the civil populations and the prisoners of the war in the area of conflict in the Middle East additional sufferings,
> 
> *Considering that essential and inalienable human rights should be respected even during the vicissitudes of war,*
> 
> _Considering _that all the obligations of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949 1/ should be complied with by the parties involved in the conflict,
> 
> *1. Calls upon the Government of Israel to ensure the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants of the areas where military operations have taken place and to facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas since the outbreak of hostilities;*
> 
> 2. _Recommends_ to the Governments concerned the scrupulous respect of the humanitarian principles governing the treatment of prisoners of war and the protection of civilian persons in time of war contained in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949;2/
> 
> 3. _Requests_ the Secretary-General to follow the effective implementation of this resolution and to report to the Security Council.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which they have, but hamas refuses to comply with any UN resolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like which ones?
Click to expand...





 Every single one of them that the P.A. signed up to last year.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now define what the Jews meant by settlers, and where they were settling ?
> 
> 
> 
> Sderot was founded in 1951 on lands that belonged to the Palestinian Arab village of Najd[6]and is located a few miles south of the village's ruins. On 13 May 1948, Najd was occupied by the Negev Brigade as part of Operation Barak, and the villagers were driven out[7] to Gaza. It began as a transit camp called Gabim Dorot for Kurdish and Persian Jewish immigrants, numbering 80 families,[8] *as part of a chain of settlements designed to block infiltration from Gaza.*
> 
> Sderot - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And until the arab muslims decide to comply with the UN charter and their own promises then it will stay Israeli. And don't forget that Egypt signed a treaty with Israel setting the borders in place, and Sderot is on the Israeli side of that border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt Israel Peace Treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Then what is this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good question. Where did Israel and Egypt get the authority to negotiate Palestine's border?
Click to expand...





 When did the state of Palestine come into existence according to International law ?   Figure that out and you will get your answer


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is not at all accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK let's be honest.  That is not all I said.  You're cherry picking.
> 
> You will notice that I cited Article 68, which penalizes "protected persons" who attempt to do harm to the Occupying Power.  You will notice that I cited four (4) major citations relative to "civilians" and "protected persons."  All four must be adhered to "simultaneously."  You just can't pick and choose.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to your hero, RoccoR:
> 
> 1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) [ Link ] of the Third Convention and in Article 43 [ Link ] of this Protocol. *In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.*​
> Who Are The Palestinians Page 357 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is clear that the UN Security Council Resolution 237 stipulates in a binding fashion that the requirements of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 be applied to the territories that came under occupation in 1967.  It does not give any special exemption for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to conduct hostile operations against the Occupation Power without facing criminal prosecution.
> 
> The HoAP which target Israeli Civilians --- does so at their own peril.  The HoAP lose their "protected persons" status and become subject to Article 68 Sanctions.
> 
> PS:  Terrorist, Insurgents, Jihadist and Fedayeen, conducting operations, _(any Islamic Resistance Movement)_ are considered 4th Generation Warfare, Asymmetric combatants and not protected persons.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "OK let's be honest." Indeed.
> 
> The Palestinians are not hostile. They are defending their country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> None of the territory under question, was surrendered by the Ottoman Empire to the Palestinians --- or any of the other Arab contingents.  The Ottoman/Turks relinquished it all to the Principle Allied Powers.
> 
> The territory was divided up by the Allied Powers into Mandates.  Each Mandate would assume governmental responsibilities of the respective territories.
> 
> In 1948, Israel fought its War of Independence (WoI), for it right to self-determination --- as guided by the hand of the United Nations, under A/RES/181(II).   What the consequences of that WoI was, included four separate and distinctive Armistice Arrangements with the parties to the conflict; along the forward edge of the battle area.
> 
> Included in the outcomes, the West Bank was taken by the Jordanians and the Gaza Strip was taken by the Egyptians.
> 
> In 1967, Israel seized the two territories and set-up an occupation.
> 
> The State of Palestine was created in 1988; while the territory was under occupation.   Israel never invaded the State of Palestine.
> 
> The Hostilities emanating from the Palestinians dates back to early 1948.  See A/AC.21.10 16 February 1948.   The scope and nature of the belligerence of the HoAP has nothing to do with the defense of their country, since their was no Palestinian Sovereignty in February 1948.  The hostility is open defiance to the UN decision to support a Jewish State.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of the territory under question, was surrendered by the Ottoman Empire to the Palestinians --- or any of the other Arab contingents. The Ottoman/Turks relinquished it all to the Principle Allied Powers.​
> That is true but they did not claim that land for themselves. They held it in trust *until the people could stand alone.*
> 
> Britain violated that principle which caused the conflict that we see today.
Click to expand...






 Read the mandate for Palestine properly, and not just the British Palestinian mandate


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK let's be honest.  That is not all I said.  You're cherry picking.
> 
> You will notice that I cited Article 68, which penalizes "protected persons" who attempt to do harm to the Occupying Power.  You will notice that I cited four (4) major citations relative to "civilians" and "protected persons."  All four must be adhered to "simultaneously."  You just can't pick and choose.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to your hero, RoccoR:
> 
> 1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) [ Link ] of the Third Convention and in Article 43 [ Link ] of this Protocol. *In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.*​
> Who Are The Palestinians Page 357 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is clear that the UN Security Council Resolution 237 stipulates in a binding fashion that the requirements of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 be applied to the territories that came under occupation in 1967.  It does not give any special exemption for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to conduct hostile operations against the Occupation Power without facing criminal prosecution.
> 
> The HoAP which target Israeli Civilians --- does so at their own peril.  The HoAP lose their "protected persons" status and become subject to Article 68 Sanctions.
> 
> PS:  Terrorist, Insurgents, Jihadist and Fedayeen, conducting operations, _(any Islamic Resistance Movement)_ are considered 4th Generation Warfare, Asymmetric combatants and not protected persons.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1960 General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), December 14, 1960 applies to the Palestinians and it states:
> 
> 1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
> 
> 2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> Above and beyond the basic right of all human beings to resist their being killed and harmed, and a society to take armed actions to protect itself, the resolution legitimizes national liberation struggles, including the Palestinian people’s struggle for its own freedom. It is this right which legitimizes Palestinian attempts/actions to rid themselves of European Jew Invader and Colonizer (EJIC) oppression.
> 
> With respect to the classification of EJICs as civilians or combatants, it is problematic.  European Jews settled Palestine in a colonial project.  Whether sanctioned by the LoN/UN or not, it is, by definition, a colonial project.  _Though the settlement of the New World by Portugal and Spain was sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church (Pope) through the Treaty of Tordesillas, it cannot be said that the settlement of the New World was not a colonial project.
> _
> The classification of individual EJICs as civilians or combatants is particularly problematic when the inhabitants of the settlements in the Occupied Territories are considered. For example, the _Ravshatz_ (Hebrew acronym for: Civilian Security Officers in Coordination with the IDF — "CSO".  CSOs are armed, they lead armed groups of settlers and can even give orders (as if military officer) to IDF soldiers.  Are these EJICs civilians?  Frantz Fanon in "The Wretched of the Earth" concluded that since the colonizer considered all of the colonized (male and female) a present threat if adult and future threat if a child and subject to killing, the colonized had to consider the colonizer's population in the same way.  (Frantz Fanon was of mixed race and was most known his support for the Algerians in their fight against the French).
> 
> Finally, one could use Alan Dershowitz's "continuum of civilianality" theory.  Dershowitz believes that civilians openly resisting or contravening Israeli policy e.g. demonstrating breaking the blockade etc., are not quite civilians.  Conversely, EJIC civilians actively settling in the West Bank and East Jerusalem might be considered as contributing to conquest, hence not quite civilians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did not exist in 1960 as they were Jordanian and had demonstrated their self determination in 1949, they then gave this up when they attacked Jordan with the intention of taking the country by force.
> 
> At the same time the same criteria enforces Israel's rights to defend themselves against HoAP attacks with as much force as they deem necessary after they were given the land by its legal owners/rulers in 1923. This negates your claim of colonisation as the arab muslims have been proven to be illegal immigrants, alien insurgents and terrorists.
> 
> If the Jews are on their land legally acquired under INTERNATIONAL LAW then they are civilians, and it is the arab muslims that are the illegal colonisers and should be forced to move back where they came from.
> 
> 
> You are using heavily manipulated cut and pastes again without providing a link to your source, making you guilty of a breach of zone 2 rules.
Click to expand...


The Palestinians have existed since the Romans named the province Palestina.  As a negotiating party with Britain for their independence  they have existed since at least 1921:


*PALESTINE.*​*CORRESPONDENCE 
WITH THE
PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
AND THE 
ZIONIST ORGANISATION.​*​*Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
JUNE, 1922.
LONDON:


​"If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration."

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


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK let's be honest.  That is not all I said.  You're cherry picking.
> 
> You will notice that I cited Article 68, which penalizes "protected persons" who attempt to do harm to the Occupying Power.  You will notice that I cited four (4) major citations relative to "civilians" and "protected persons."  All four must be adhered to "simultaneously."  You just can't pick and choose.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to your hero, RoccoR:
> 
> 1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) [ Link ] of the Third Convention and in Article 43 [ Link ] of this Protocol. *In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.*​
> Who Are The Palestinians Page 357 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is clear that the UN Security Council Resolution 237 stipulates in a binding fashion that the requirements of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 be applied to the territories that came under occupation in 1967.  It does not give any special exemption for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to conduct hostile operations against the Occupation Power without facing criminal prosecution.
> 
> The HoAP which target Israeli Civilians --- does so at their own peril.  The HoAP lose their "protected persons" status and become subject to Article 68 Sanctions.
> 
> PS:  Terrorist, Insurgents, Jihadist and Fedayeen, conducting operations, _(any Islamic Resistance Movement)_ are considered 4th Generation Warfare, Asymmetric combatants and not protected persons.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for the link.
> 
> _The Security Council,_
> 
> _ Considering_ the urgent need to spare the civil populations and the prisoners of the war in the area of conflict in the Middle East additional sufferings,
> 
> *Considering that essential and inalienable human rights should be respected even during the vicissitudes of war,*
> 
> _Considering _that all the obligations of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949 1/ should be complied with by the parties involved in the conflict,
> 
> *1. Calls upon the Government of Israel to ensure the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants of the areas where military operations have taken place and to facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas since the outbreak of hostilities;*
> 
> 2. _Recommends_ to the Governments concerned the scrupulous respect of the humanitarian principles governing the treatment of prisoners of war and the protection of civilian persons in time of war contained in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949;2/
> 
> 3. _Requests_ the Secretary-General to follow the effective implementation of this resolution and to report to the Security Council.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which they have, but hamas refuses to comply with any UN resolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like which ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every single one of them that the P.A. signed up to last year.
Click to expand...

IOW, you don't have jack shit.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sderot was founded in 1951 on lands that belonged to the Palestinian Arab village of Najd[6]and is located a few miles south of the village's ruins. On 13 May 1948, Najd was occupied by the Negev Brigade as part of Operation Barak, and the villagers were driven out[7] to Gaza. It began as a transit camp called Gabim Dorot for Kurdish and Persian Jewish immigrants, numbering 80 families,[8] *as part of a chain of settlements designed to block infiltration from Gaza.*
> 
> Sderot - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And until the arab muslims decide to comply with the UN charter and their own promises then it will stay Israeli. And don't forget that Egypt signed a treaty with Israel setting the borders in place, and Sderot is on the Israeli side of that border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt Israel Peace Treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Then what is this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good question. Where did Israel and Egypt get the authority to negotiate Palestine's border?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did the state of Palestine come into existence according to International law ?   Figure that out and you will get your answer
Click to expand...

Did that. Now you need to do it.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK let's be honest.  That is not all I said.  You're cherry picking.
> 
> You will notice that I cited Article 68, which penalizes "protected persons" who attempt to do harm to the Occupying Power.  You will notice that I cited four (4) major citations relative to "civilians" and "protected persons."  All four must be adhered to "simultaneously."  You just can't pick and choose.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to your hero, RoccoR:
> 
> 1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) [ Link ] of the Third Convention and in Article 43 [ Link ] of this Protocol. *In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.*​
> Who Are The Palestinians Page 357 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is clear that the UN Security Council Resolution 237 stipulates in a binding fashion that the requirements of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 be applied to the territories that came under occupation in 1967.  It does not give any special exemption for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to conduct hostile operations against the Occupation Power without facing criminal prosecution.
> 
> The HoAP which target Israeli Civilians --- does so at their own peril.  The HoAP lose their "protected persons" status and become subject to Article 68 Sanctions.
> 
> PS:  Terrorist, Insurgents, Jihadist and Fedayeen, conducting operations, _(any Islamic Resistance Movement)_ are considered 4th Generation Warfare, Asymmetric combatants and not protected persons.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1960 General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), December 14, 1960 applies to the Palestinians and it states:
> 
> 1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
> 
> 2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> Above and beyond the basic right of all human beings to resist their being killed and harmed, and a society to take armed actions to protect itself, the resolution legitimizes national liberation struggles, including the Palestinian people’s struggle for its own freedom. It is this right which legitimizes Palestinian attempts/actions to rid themselves of European Jew Invader and Colonizer (EJIC) oppression.
> 
> With respect to the classification of EJICs as civilians or combatants, it is problematic.  European Jews settled Palestine in a colonial project.  Whether sanctioned by the LoN/UN or not, it is, by definition, a colonial project.  _Though the settlement of the New World by Portugal and Spain was sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church (Pope) through the Treaty of Tordesillas, it cannot be said that the settlement of the New World was not a colonial project.
> _
> The classification of individual EJICs as civilians or combatants is particularly problematic when the inhabitants of the settlements in the Occupied Territories are considered. For example, the _Ravshatz_ (Hebrew acronym for: Civilian Security Officers in Coordination with the IDF — "CSO".  CSOs are armed, they lead armed groups of settlers and can even give orders (as if military officer) to IDF soldiers.  Are these EJICs civilians?  Frantz Fanon in "The Wretched of the Earth" concluded that since the colonizer considered all of the colonized (male and female) a present threat if adult and future threat if a child and subject to killing, the colonized had to consider the colonizer's population in the same way.  (Frantz Fanon was of mixed race and was most known his support for the Algerians in their fight against the French).
> 
> Finally, one could use Alan Dershowitz's "continuum of civilianality" theory.  Dershowitz believes that civilians openly resisting or contravening Israeli policy e.g. demonstrating breaking the blockade etc., are not quite civilians.  Conversely, EJIC civilians actively settling in the West Bank and East Jerusalem might be considered as contributing to conquest, hence not quite civilians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did not exist in 1960 as they were Jordanian and had demonstrated their self determination in 1949, they then gave this up when they attacked Jordan with the intention of taking the country by force.
> 
> At the same time the same criteria enforces Israel's rights to defend themselves against HoAP attacks with as much force as they deem necessary after they were given the land by its legal owners/rulers in 1923. This negates your claim of colonisation as the arab muslims have been proven to be illegal immigrants, alien insurgents and terrorists.
> 
> If the Jews are on their land legally acquired under INTERNATIONAL LAW then they are civilians, and it is the arab muslims that are the illegal colonisers and should be forced to move back where they came from.
> 
> 
> You are using heavily manipulated cut and pastes again without providing a link to your source, making you guilty of a breach of zone 2 rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have existed since the Romans named the province Palestina.  As a negotiating party with Britain for their independence  they have existed since at least 1921:
> 
> 
> *PALESTINE.*
> 
> *CORRESPONDENCE
> WITH THE
> PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
> AND THE
> ZIONIST ORGANISATION.*
> 
> *Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
> JUNE, 1922.
> LONDON:
> 
> 
> *​*"If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration."
> 
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922 *
Click to expand...





 Wrong again Abdul, if you look at the history you will find that Palestine was so named by the Romans as an insult to the Jews. This then went further and the term Palestinian came to be reserved for the Jews living in Judea and Samaria. The rise of islam took on the use of the term and they used it much as you use the term Zionist or Israeli today, as a RACIST PROFANITY.

 By the way they were called Palestinian arab delegation by the LoN, they themselves preferred to be called Syrians


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK let's be honest.  That is not all I said.  You're cherry picking.
> 
> You will notice that I cited Article 68, which penalizes "protected persons" who attempt to do harm to the Occupying Power.  You will notice that I cited four (4) major citations relative to "civilians" and "protected persons."  All four must be adhered to "simultaneously."  You just can't pick and choose.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is clear that the UN Security Council Resolution 237 stipulates in a binding fashion that the requirements of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 be applied to the territories that came under occupation in 1967.  It does not give any special exemption for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to conduct hostile operations against the Occupation Power without facing criminal prosecution.
> 
> The HoAP which target Israeli Civilians --- does so at their own peril.  The HoAP lose their "protected persons" status and become subject to Article 68 Sanctions.
> 
> PS:  Terrorist, Insurgents, Jihadist and Fedayeen, conducting operations, _(any Islamic Resistance Movement)_ are considered 4th Generation Warfare, Asymmetric combatants and not protected persons.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the link.
> 
> _The Security Council,_
> 
> _ Considering_ the urgent need to spare the civil populations and the prisoners of the war in the area of conflict in the Middle East additional sufferings,
> 
> *Considering that essential and inalienable human rights should be respected even during the vicissitudes of war,*
> 
> _Considering _that all the obligations of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949 1/ should be complied with by the parties involved in the conflict,
> 
> *1. Calls upon the Government of Israel to ensure the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants of the areas where military operations have taken place and to facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas since the outbreak of hostilities;*
> 
> 2. _Recommends_ to the Governments concerned the scrupulous respect of the humanitarian principles governing the treatment of prisoners of war and the protection of civilian persons in time of war contained in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949;2/
> 
> 3. _Requests_ the Secretary-General to follow the effective implementation of this resolution and to report to the Security Council.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which they have, but hamas refuses to comply with any UN resolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like which ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every single one of them that the P.A. signed up to last year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IOW, you don't have jack shit.
Click to expand...





 Then why haven't they accepted peace talks and negotiated mutual borders with Jordan, Egypt and Israel ?  That was the main one they singled out for special mention.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And until the arab muslims decide to comply with the UN charter and their own promises then it will stay Israeli. And don't forget that Egypt signed a treaty with Israel setting the borders in place, and Sderot is on the Israeli side of that border.
> 
> 
> 
> No it didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt Israel Peace Treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Then what is this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good question. Where did Israel and Egypt get the authority to negotiate Palestine's border?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did the state of Palestine come into existence according to International law ?   Figure that out and you will get your answer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did that. Now you need to do it.
Click to expand...






 When did the state of Palestine come into existence according to International law ?    Or are you unable to answer this question truthfully ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the link.
> 
> _The Security Council,_
> 
> _ Considering_ the urgent need to spare the civil populations and the prisoners of the war in the area of conflict in the Middle East additional sufferings,
> 
> *Considering that essential and inalienable human rights should be respected even during the vicissitudes of war,*
> 
> _Considering _that all the obligations of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949 1/ should be complied with by the parties involved in the conflict,
> 
> *1. Calls upon the Government of Israel to ensure the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants of the areas where military operations have taken place and to facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas since the outbreak of hostilities;*
> 
> 2. _Recommends_ to the Governments concerned the scrupulous respect of the humanitarian principles governing the treatment of prisoners of war and the protection of civilian persons in time of war contained in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949;2/
> 
> 3. _Requests_ the Secretary-General to follow the effective implementation of this resolution and to report to the Security Council.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which they have, but hamas refuses to comply with any UN resolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like which ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every single one of them that the P.A. signed up to last year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IOW, you don't have jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why haven't they accepted peace talks and negotiated mutual borders with Jordan, Egypt and Israel ?  That was the main one they singled out for special mention.
Click to expand...

They already have borders with Jordan and Egypt.

Where is the border dispute with Israel?


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

You need to do some research --- maybe attend some seminars.



montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK let's be honest.  That is not all I said.  You're cherry picking.
> 
> You will notice that I cited Article 68, which penalizes "protected persons" who attempt to do harm to the Occupying Power.  You will notice that I cited four (4) major citations relative to "civilians" and "protected persons."  All four must be adhered to "simultaneously."  You just can't pick and choose.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to your hero, RoccoR:
> 
> 1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) [ Link ] of the Third Convention and in Article 43 [ Link ] of this Protocol. *In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.*​
> Who Are The Palestinians Page 357 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is clear that the UN Security Council Resolution 237 stipulates in a binding fashion that the requirements of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 be applied to the territories that came under occupation in 1967.  It does not give any special exemption for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to conduct hostile operations against the Occupation Power without facing criminal prosecution.
> 
> The HoAP which target Israeli Civilians --- does so at their own peril.  The HoAP lose their "protected persons" status and become subject to Article 68 Sanctions.
> 
> PS:  Terrorist, Insurgents, Jihadist and Fedayeen, conducting operations, _(any Islamic Resistance Movement)_ are considered 4th Generation Warfare, Asymmetric combatants and not protected persons.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1960 General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), December 14, 1960 applies to the Palestinians and it states:
> 
> 1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
> 
> 2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.​
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

​*(COMMENT)*

The same international community of nations that wrote the "non-binding" 1960 General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), also wrote the authority for the creation of the Jewish National Home, and the immigration of all Jewish People willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home.

Just as the General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) stipulates that "All peoples have the right to self-determination," so it is that it equally applies to the Jewish People specially recognized by the Applied Powers to immigrate into the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applies.



montelatici said:


> Above and beyond the basic right of all human beings to resist their being killed and harmed, and a society to take armed actions to protect itself, the resolution legitimizes national liberation struggles, including the Palestinian people’s struggle for its own freedom. It is this right which legitimizes Palestinian attempts/actions to rid themselves of European Jew Invader and Colonizer (EJIC) oppression.


*(COMMENT)*

This is merely a verbal soup of words to justify a special advantage resulting from Palestinian aggression against a decree by the International Community; justifying the use of force to impose their own international boundaries --- as a means of solving international boundary disputes.

This is to confuse the issue that the Mandatory had full powers of legislation (ability to make laws) and of administration (control the executive branch of government under a High Commissioner) for the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers.

It is NOT a right --- it DOES NOT legitimizes ---- Palestinian attempts/actions to rid themselves of Internationally authorized and Internationally facilitated Jewish immigration for close settlement by the Jewish People on the land.



montelatici said:


> With respect to the classification of EJICs as civilians or combatants, it is problematic.  European Jews settled Palestine in a colonial project.  Whether sanctioned by the LoN/UN or not, it is, by definition, a colonial project.  _Though the settlement of the New World by Portugal and Spain was sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church (Pope) through the Treaty of Tordesillas, it cannot be said that the settlement of the New World was not a colonial project. _


*(COMMENT)*

It does not matter whether the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) considers the International Authorization for Jewish Immigration as a "colonial project" or not.  The HoAP had no sovereign authority to oppose the immigration effort on territory that renounced formally all rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction to the Allied Powers by both the Ottoman Empire _(Armistice of Mudros - 1918 surrendered their remaining garrisons in Hejaz, Yemen, Syria, Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica) _and the Turkish Republic  _(Treaty of Sèvres at 10 August 1920)_.



montelatici said:


> The classification of individual EJICs as civilians or combatants is particularly problematic when the inhabitants of the settlements in the Occupied Territories are considered. For example, the _Ravshatz_ (Hebrew acronym for: Civilian Security Officers in Coordination with the IDF — "CSO".  CSOs are armed, they lead armed groups of settlers and can even give orders (as if military officer) to IDF soldiers.  Are these EJICs civilians?  Frantz Fanon in "The Wretched of the Earth" concluded that since the colonizer considered all of the colonized (male and female) a present threat if adult and future threat if a child and subject to killing, the colonized had to consider the colonizer's population in the same way.  (Frantz Fanon was of mixed race and was most known his support for the Algerians in their fight against the French).
> ​


​*(COMMENT)*

Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907.
Annex to the Convention: Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land - Section III : Military authority over the territory of the hostile state - Regulations: Article 43.
Article 43:  The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, *the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety,* while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.​It does not matter if Law Enforcement and Security personnel are _(as they usually are)_ labeled as "civilians" or not.  They are protected against HoAP from offenses which are solely intended to harm the Occupying Power:

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Penal legislation. V. Penalties. Death penalty​
ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]​

Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed.  ...

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

No matter how you shift the definition, the use of armed force against the the forces for peace, is generally prohibited; both by International Customary Law and International Humanitarian Law.



montelatici said:


> Finally, one could use Alan Dershowitz's "continuum of civilianality" theory.  Dershowitz believes that civilians openly resisting or contravening Israeli policy e.g. demonstrating breaking the blockade etc., are not quite civilians.  Conversely, EJIC civilians actively settling in the West Bank and East Jerusalem might be considered as contributing to conquest, hence not quite civilians.


*(COMMENT)*

This is nonsense!

You don't need theory:  Just look at Posting #3564, of this Thread and you will see how the International Community defines civilians _(not to be confused with "protected persons")_.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt Israel Peace Treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Then what is this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good question. Where did Israel and Egypt get the authority to negotiate Palestine's border?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did the state of Palestine come into existence according to International law ?   Figure that out and you will get your answer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did that. Now you need to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did the state of Palestine come into existence according to International law ?    Or are you unable to answer this question truthfully ?
Click to expand...

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124

Henceforth, Palestinian nationality was first founded, according to international law, on 6 August 1924. And “treaty nationality in Palestine runs from that date.”139 The Treaty of Lausanne had transformed the _de facto_ status of Palestinian nationality into _de jure _existence from the angle of international law.140 Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist.141 Likewise, on 6 August 1924, for the first time ever, international law certified the birth of the ‘Palestinian people’ as distinct from all other peoples.

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

What in the hell are you talking about.



P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt Israel Peace Treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Then what is this
> 
> 
> 
> Good question. Where did Israel and Egypt get the authority to negotiate Palestine's border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did the state of Palestine come into existence according to International law ?   Figure that out and you will get your answer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did that. Now you need to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did the state of Palestine come into existence according to International law ?    Or are you unable to answer this question truthfully ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124
> 
> Henceforth, Palestinian nationality was first founded, according to international law, on 6 August 1924. And “treaty nationality in Palestine runs from that date.”139 The Treaty of Lausanne had transformed the _de facto_ status of Palestinian nationality into _de jure _existence from the angle of international law.140 Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist.141 Likewise, on 6 August 1924, for the first time ever, international law certified the birth of the ‘Palestinian people’ as distinct from all other peoples.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

While the Treaty of Lausanne (1924) had some minor impact on the Citizenship Order relative to the territory to which the Mandate Applied, (covered in the Citizenship Order of 1925), ---- it had absolutely nothing to do with the State of Palestine or any Palestinian Sovereignty prior to 1988.

You overuse this "Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel" much to often.  It is poorly written and simply not applicable in some cases.  For instance, the Genesis of Citizenship in Israel is simply the Declaration of Independence of Israel and the establishment of its sovereignty.  The Treaty of Lausanne, written by the same community of authors as the Allied Powers, had nothing to do with it.  It did not change much that was already in effect and did not put anything new in effect relative to Middle East Sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now define what the Jews meant by settlers, and where they were settling ?
> 
> 
> 
> Sderot was founded in 1951 on lands that belonged to the Palestinian Arab village of Najd[6]and is located a few miles south of the village's ruins. On 13 May 1948, Najd was occupied by the Negev Brigade as part of Operation Barak, and the villagers were driven out[7] to Gaza. It began as a transit camp called Gabim Dorot for Kurdish and Persian Jewish immigrants, numbering 80 families,[8] *as part of a chain of settlements designed to block infiltration from Gaza.*
> 
> Sderot - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And until the arab muslims decide to comply with the UN charter and their own promises then it will stay Israeli. And don't forget that Egypt signed a treaty with Israel setting the borders in place, and Sderot is on the Israeli side of that border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt Israel Peace Treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Then what is this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good question. Where did Israel and Egypt get the authority to negotiate Palestine's border?
Click to expand...


What does Israel's border with Egypt have to do with Palestine ?? You're living on a different planet still


"The Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty, signed on March 26, 1979* created an officially recognized international border* along the 1906 line, with Egypt renouncing all claims to the Gaza Strip"

Borders of Israel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt Israel Peace Treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Then what is this
> 
> 
> 
> Good question. Where did Israel and Egypt get the authority to negotiate Palestine's border?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did the state of Palestine come into existence according to International law ?   Figure that out and you will get your answer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did that. Now you need to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did the state of Palestine come into existence according to International law ?    Or are you unable to answer this question truthfully ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124
> 
> Henceforth, Palestinian nationality was first founded, according to international law, on 6 August 1924. And “treaty nationality in Palestine runs from that date.”139 The Treaty of Lausanne had transformed the _de facto_ status of Palestinian nationality into _de jure _existence from the angle of international law.140 Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist.141 Likewise, on 6 August 1924, for the first time ever, international law certified the birth of the ‘Palestinian people’ as distinct from all other peoples.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
Click to expand...

Again with the treaty of Lausanne lie ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sderot was founded in 1951 on lands that belonged to the Palestinian Arab village of Najd[6]and is located a few miles south of the village's ruins. On 13 May 1948, Najd was occupied by the Negev Brigade as part of Operation Barak, and the villagers were driven out[7] to Gaza. It began as a transit camp called Gabim Dorot for Kurdish and Persian Jewish immigrants, numbering 80 families,[8] *as part of a chain of settlements designed to block infiltration from Gaza.*
> 
> Sderot - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And until the arab muslims decide to comply with the UN charter and their own promises then it will stay Israeli. And don't forget that Egypt signed a treaty with Israel setting the borders in place, and Sderot is on the Israeli side of that border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt Israel Peace Treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Then what is this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good question. Where did Israel and Egypt get the authority to negotiate Palestine's border?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does Israel's border with Egypt have to do with Palestine ?? You're living on a different planet still
> 
> 
> "The Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty, signed on March 26, 1979* created an officially recognized international border* along the 1906 line, with Egypt renouncing all claims to the Gaza Strip"
> 
> Borders of Israel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Interesting map. Where is the national capital of that so called Israel?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And until the arab muslims decide to comply with the UN charter and their own promises then it will stay Israeli. And don't forget that Egypt signed a treaty with Israel setting the borders in place, and Sderot is on the Israeli side of that border.
> 
> 
> 
> No it didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt Israel Peace Treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Then what is this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good question. Where did Israel and Egypt get the authority to negotiate Palestine's border?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does Israel's border with Egypt have to do with Palestine ?? You're living on a different planet still
> 
> 
> "The Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty, signed on March 26, 1979* created an officially recognized international border* along the 1906 line, with Egypt renouncing all claims to the Gaza Strip"
> 
> Borders of Israel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting map. Where is the national capital of that so called Israel?
Click to expand...


Nice Duck.

Israel's capital is Jerusalem, which is disputed. What's your point ?

Do you know how many times we've had this debate?? Israel has internationally recognized borders, whether you like it or not .


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> What in the hell are you talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good question. Where did Israel and Egypt get the authority to negotiate Palestine's border?
> 
> 
> 
> When did the state of Palestine come into existence according to International law ?   Figure that out and you will get your answer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did that. Now you need to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did the state of Palestine come into existence according to International law ?    Or are you unable to answer this question truthfully ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124
> 
> Henceforth, Palestinian nationality was first founded, according to international law, on 6 August 1924. And “treaty nationality in Palestine runs from that date.”139 The Treaty of Lausanne had transformed the _de facto_ status of Palestinian nationality into _de jure _existence from the angle of international law.140 Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist.141 Likewise, on 6 August 1924, for the first time ever, international law certified the birth of the ‘Palestinian people’ as distinct from all other peoples.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While the Treaty of Lausanne (1924) had some minor impact on the Citizenship Order relative to the territory to which the Mandate Applied, (covered in the Citizenship Order of 1925), ---- it had absolutely nothing to do with the State of Palestine or any Palestinian Sovereignty prior to 1988.
> 
> You overuse this "Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel" much to often.  It is poorly written and simply not applicable in some cases.  For instance, the Genesis of Citizenship in Israel is simply the Declaration of Independence of Israel and the establishment of its sovereignty.  The Treaty of Lausanne, written by the same community of authors as the Allied Powers, had nothing to do with it.  It did not change much that was already in effect and did not put anything new in effect relative to Middle East Sovereignty.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

So the Palestinians became citizens of what? A temporarily assigned administration?

You don't make any sense.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> What in the hell are you talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did the state of Palestine come into existence according to International law ?   Figure that out and you will get your answer
> 
> 
> 
> Did that. Now you need to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did the state of Palestine come into existence according to International law ?    Or are you unable to answer this question truthfully ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124
> 
> Henceforth, Palestinian nationality was first founded, according to international law, on 6 August 1924. And “treaty nationality in Palestine runs from that date.”139 The Treaty of Lausanne had transformed the _de facto_ status of Palestinian nationality into _de jure _existence from the angle of international law.140 Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist.141 Likewise, on 6 August 1924, for the first time ever, international law certified the birth of the ‘Palestinian people’ as distinct from all other peoples.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While the Treaty of Lausanne (1924) had some minor impact on the Citizenship Order relative to the territory to which the Mandate Applied, (covered in the Citizenship Order of 1925), ---- it had absolutely nothing to do with the State of Palestine or any Palestinian Sovereignty prior to 1988.
> 
> You overuse this "Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel" much to often.  It is poorly written and simply not applicable in some cases.  For instance, the Genesis of Citizenship in Israel is simply the Declaration of Independence of Israel and the establishment of its sovereignty.  The Treaty of Lausanne, written by the same community of authors as the Allied Powers, had nothing to do with it.  It did not change much that was already in effect and did not put anything new in effect relative to Middle East Sovereignty.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the Palestinians became citizens of what? A temporarily assigned administration?
> 
> You don't make any sense.
Click to expand...


YOU don't make any sense


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt Israel Peace Treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Then what is this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good question. Where did Israel and Egypt get the authority to negotiate Palestine's border?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does Israel's border with Egypt have to do with Palestine ?? You're living on a different planet still
> 
> 
> "The Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty, signed on March 26, 1979* created an officially recognized international border* along the 1906 line, with Egypt renouncing all claims to the Gaza Strip"
> 
> Borders of Israel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting map. Where is the national capital of that so called Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice Duck.
> 
> Israel's capital is Jerusalem, which is disputed. What's your point ?
> 
> Do you know how many times we've had this debate?? Israel has internationally recognized borders, whether you like it or not .
Click to expand...

Then your map is inaccurate.

Dismissed.


----------



## toastman

0


P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt Israel Peace Treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Then what is this
> 
> 
> 
> Good question. Where did Israel and Egypt get the authority to negotiate Palestine's border?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does Israel's border with Egypt have to do with Palestine ?? You're living on a different planet still
> 
> 
> "The Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty, signed on March 26, 1979* created an officially recognized international border* along the 1906 line, with Egypt renouncing all claims to the Gaza Strip"
> 
> Borders of Israel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting map. Where is the national capital of that so called Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice Duck.
> 
> Israel's capital is Jerusalem, which is disputed. What's your point ?
> 
> Do you know how many times we've had this debate?? Israel has internationally recognized borders, whether you like it or not .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then your map is inaccurate.
> 
> Dismissed.
Click to expand...


It's not MY map. It is the official map of Israel. 

Nice rebuttal thought !


----------



## toastman

From the same link:

"In 1988, Palestine declared its independence without specifying its borders"

Borders of Israel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

There goes your 'Palestine has international borders' lie


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> From the same link:
> 
> "In 1988, Palestine declared its independence without specifying its borders"
> 
> Borders of Israel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> There goes your 'Palestine has international borders' lie


From your link:

The declaration then proclaims a "State of Palestine *on our Palestinian territory *with its capital Jerusalem"​
Has anyone disputed that?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the same link:
> 
> "In 1988, Palestine declared its independence without specifying its borders"
> 
> Borders of Israel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> There goes your 'Palestine has international borders' lie
> 
> 
> 
> From your link:
> 
> The declaration then proclaims a "State of Palestine *on our Palestinian territory *with its capital Jerusalem"​
> Has anyone disputed that?
Click to expand...


Not that I know of, Palestinian territory of course being Gaza and the West Bank, as recognized by international law.


----------



## toastman

Their PROCLAIMED capital however is East Jerusalem.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the same link:
> 
> "In 1988, Palestine declared its independence without specifying its borders"
> 
> Borders of Israel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> There goes your 'Palestine has international borders' lie
> 
> 
> 
> From your link:
> 
> The declaration then proclaims a "State of Palestine *on our Palestinian territory *with its capital Jerusalem"​
> Has anyone disputed that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not that I know of, Palestinian territory of course being Gaza and the West Bank, as recognized by international law.
Click to expand...

It is?

What law is that?


----------



## montelatici

In my opinion the borders became fixed when the General Assembly adopted the partition resolution (181), which ratified the British proposals. (It also provided for an independent international mixed status for the city of Jerusalem.) The Resolution constitutes the only legally authorized demarkation of the Israeli-Palestine borders. It was legally authoritative not because it took the form of a UN Resolution, but solely because the UN Resolution itself served as a ratification of the British proposal to divide the Palestine and leave its governance to the people, all the people.  The legal power resided in Great Britain as the trustee and not in the United Nations. As trustee, Britain had the power to partition the territory if (and only if) it was the best way to provide the future self-government by the people of Palestine, all the people of Palestine. Contrary to popular belief, the General Assembly did not derive its legal powers directly from the Charter of the UN, but rather as surrogate for the League of Nations. It was the League as a supervisory authority over the British Mandate that devolved its powers of mandate supervision to the UN and, through the UN, to the General Assembly.  Legal title to the land was not conferred by Resolution 181 alone but rather by Great Britain's acceptance of the terms of Resolution 181. The State of Israel owes its entire legal existence to the exercise by Great Britain of its League of Nations' Mandatory Power over the territory of Palestine. The morality of Britains may be questioned, but Britain had that power, according to the Mandate. It owes nothing to the United Nations as a separate entity and, cannot claim any additional rights from the United Nations. As soon as 181 was passed (Great Britain abstained by the way), the legal borders between Israel and Palestine were forever fixed. Since acquisition of territory through conquest is forbidden in the Charter of the UN and International Law in general, the 181 borders could only be changed by one of two processes: first, explicit agreement between Israel and the authorized representatives of Palestine, and second, by international arbitration only in cases of disputed areas where the verbal description contained in 181 was not clear in terms of existing maps or surveys.  The Security Council has never had, and has no power to change international borders.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the same link:
> 
> "In 1988, Palestine declared its independence without specifying its borders"
> 
> Borders of Israel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> There goes your 'Palestine has international borders' lie
> 
> 
> 
> From your link:
> 
> The declaration then proclaims a "State of Palestine *on our Palestinian territory *with its capital Jerusalem"​
> Has anyone disputed that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not that I know of, Palestinian territory of course being Gaza and the West Bank, as recognized by international law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is?
> 
> What law is that?
Click to expand...


"It is?"

Let me get this straight. You don't know what territory constitutes the State of Palestine ??????????


----------



## toastman

The green is Palestine. The rest is Israel. What's so hard to understand about that???


----------



## montelatici

As immoral as the partition was, these are the borders unless taking territory by conquest can be considered legal.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> The green is Palestine. The rest is Israel. What's so hard to understand about that???


The only way those armistice lines can become borders is a signed agreement between Israel and Palestine.

I don't believe that has ever happened.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

It is you that is attempting to skew the reality.



P F Tinmore said:


> So the Palestinians became citizens of what? A temporarily assigned administration?
> 
> You don't make any sense.


*(COMMENT)*

Palestine  was (at that time) defined as the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies.  And the Government of Palestine was that established by the Mandatory.  The intent was to maintain that citizenship until the territory had met the Article 22 requirement of being able to stand alone.  In 1948, the State of Israel was able to stand alone.  The Arab State rejected the offer to participate in the Steps Preparatory to Independence.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

It really does not make a wit of difference whether the Arab State rejected any offer, which is patently untrue, by the way.  The Mandate required that the people of Palestine, all the people of Palestine (Christians and Muslims included) were to be made self-governing.  They were, even in 1948 two thirds of the population, after all.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The green is Palestine. The rest is Israel. What's so hard to understand about that???
> 
> 
> 
> The only way those armistice lines can become borders is a signed agreement between Israel and Palestine.
> 
> I don't believe that has ever happened.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about armistice line. I'm talking about the territory that constitutes the State of Palestine. The territory that the Palestinians declared independent in 1988


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> As immoral as the partition was, these are the borders unless taking territory by conquest can be considered legal.


That map is outdated. Look at mine.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> It is you that is attempting to skew the reality.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the Palestinians became citizens of what? A temporarily assigned administration?
> 
> You don't make any sense.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Palestine  was (at that time) defined as the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies.  And the Government of Palestine was that established by the Mandatory.  The intent was to maintain that citizenship until the territory had met the Article 22 requirement of being able to stand alone.  In 1948, the State of Israel was able to stand alone.  The Arab State rejected the offer to participate in the Steps Preparatory to Independence.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Load of crap, Rocco.

The British prevented, at the point of a gun, the Palestinians from taking any steps.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> It is you that is attempting to skew the reality.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the Palestinians became citizens of what? A temporarily assigned administration?
> 
> You don't make any sense.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Palestine  was (at that time) defined as the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies.  And the Government of Palestine was that established by the Mandatory.  The intent was to maintain that citizenship until the territory had met the Article 22 requirement of being able to stand alone.  In 1948, the State of Israel was able to stand alone.  The Arab State rejected the offer to participate in the Steps Preparatory to Independence.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Load of crap, Rocco.
> 
> The British prevented, at the point of a gun, the Palestinians from taking any steps.
Click to expand...


Load of crap Tinmore. The Palestinians said no to the partition plan which = saying no to independence.


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As immoral as the partition was, these are the borders unless taking territory by conquest can be considered legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That map is outdated. Look at mine.
Click to expand...


If you read my earlier post, you would have been able to see that my position is that the borders of 181 have never changed, legally.  That's why I posted the 181 map.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As immoral as the partition was, these are the borders unless taking territory by conquest can be considered legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That map is outdated. Look at mine.
Click to expand...

That one is outdated too. Resolution 181 was a non binding recommendation. It was not implemented by the Mandate or the Security council. It never happened.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As immoral as the partition was, these are the borders unless taking territory by conquest can be considered legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That map is outdated. Look at mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you read my earlier post, you would have been able to see that my position is that the borders of 181 have never changed, legally.  That's why I posted the 181 map.
Click to expand...

I read that post. But those borders never really existed. Also, borders and internationally recognized boundaries are two different thing. 
Israel has two of the latter with Egypt and Jordan (1979 &1994) . 
The borders in your map were proposed borders.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As immoral as the partition was, these are the borders unless taking territory by conquest can be considered legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That map is outdated. Look at mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That one is outdated too. Resolution 181 was a non binding recommendation. It was not implemented by the Mandate or the Security council. It never happened.
Click to expand...

181 DID happen. Both countries used it as a basis to declare independence. In other words, the Palestinians DID accept the resolution


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

I don't think you understand the intent of the "conquest limitation" _(inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war)_.  The true intent is spelled-out in the context that "no territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful."  The intent of the limitation includes the principle that "no consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression;"  ie: you cannot justify the aggression exhibited by the Arab intrusion for any reason.



montelatici said:


> As immoral as the partition was, these are the borders unless taking territory by conquest can be considered legal.


*(COMMENT)*

The 1949 Armistice Lines are not based on acts of aggression on the part of Israel.  On the contrary, the act of aggression was on the part of the principle Arab combatants (_Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt)_ that crossed over their boundaries and unlawfully entered the territory outside their jurisdiction for the express purpose of conducting hostile operations, and engaging Israeli Forces.  The limitation is addressing the Arab Aggressors and the Israelis.  Since that time, the Treaties of Peace between Israel and the Arab States of Egypt and Jordan have established some international boundaries that essentially make your map obsolete.

Your insinuation that the legal borders must be based on the original Partition Plan has been altered _(over taken by events)_ by the treaties.

*Article 3 - **International Boundary* The Government of the State of Israel and the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.
2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.​
*Article II *The Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt and the Government of the State of Israel

The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> It is you that is attempting to skew the reality.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the Palestinians became citizens of what? A temporarily assigned administration?
> 
> You don't make any sense.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Palestine  was (at that time) defined as the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies.  And the Government of Palestine was that established by the Mandatory.  The intent was to maintain that citizenship until the territory had met the Article 22 requirement of being able to stand alone.  In 1948, the State of Israel was able to stand alone.  The Arab State rejected the offer to participate in the Steps Preparatory to Independence.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Load of crap, Rocco.
> 
> The British prevented, at the point of a gun, the Palestinians from taking any steps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Load of crap Tinmore. The Palestinians said no to the partition plan which = saying no to independence.
Click to expand...

The partition was never necessary for independence.  With or without partition they still have the right for independence.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> It is you that is attempting to skew the reality.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the Palestinians became citizens of what? A temporarily assigned administration?
> 
> You don't make any sense.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Palestine  was (at that time) defined as the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies.  And the Government of Palestine was that established by the Mandatory.  The intent was to maintain that citizenship until the territory had met the Article 22 requirement of being able to stand alone.  In 1948, the State of Israel was able to stand alone.  The Arab State rejected the offer to participate in the Steps Preparatory to Independence.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Load of crap, Rocco.
> 
> The British prevented, at the point of a gun, the Palestinians from taking any steps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Load of crap Tinmore. The Palestinians said no to the partition plan which = saying no to independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The partition was never necessary for independence.  With or without partition they still have the right for independence.
Click to expand...


I know that. I never said otherwise.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes, yes... The Arab Palestinians always portrays themselves as the victim. (Gun Point)



P F Tinmore said:


> Load of crap, Rocco.
> 
> The British prevented, at the point of a gun, the Palestinians from taking any steps.


*(OBSEVATION)*

No Gun Point:

The text of this resolution was communicated by the Secretary-General on 9 January to the Government of the United Kingdom, as the Mandatory Power, to the Arab Higher Committee, and to the Jewish Agency for Palestine. The invitation extended by the resolution was promptly accepted by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, both of which designated representatives to assist the commission. The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:



“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”

No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.

*SOURCE:* The United Nations Palestine Commission renders to the Security Council its First Monthly Progress Report

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

The League of Nations, lead by the Allied Powers, had predetermined that the criteria:  "their existence as independent nations *can be* provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory *until such time as they are able to stand alone*. 



P F Tinmore said:


> The partition was never necessary for independence.  With or without partition they still have the right for independence.


*(COMMENT)*

It says "can be" ---- NOT ---- 'will be' - or - "are."  Provisional recognition was not automatic.

In that time period, where did the Arab Palestinians get their "right for independence?"

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, yes... The Arab Palestinians always portrays themselves as the victim. (Gun Point)
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Load of crap, Rocco.
> 
> The British prevented, at the point of a gun, the Palestinians from taking any steps.
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSEVATION)*
> 
> No Gun Point:
> 
> The text of this resolution was communicated by the Secretary-General on 9 January to the Government of the United Kingdom, as the Mandatory Power, to the Arab Higher Committee, and to the Jewish Agency for Palestine. The invitation extended by the resolution was promptly accepted by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, both of which designated representatives to assist the commission. The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:
> 
> 
> 
> “ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”
> 
> No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.
> 
> *SOURCE:* The United Nations Palestine Commission renders to the Security Council its First Monthly Progress Report
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The Palestinians refused to take part in the colonial scheme.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The League of Nations, lead by the Allied Powers, had predetermined that the criteria:  "their existence as independent nations *can be* provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory *until such time as they are able to stand alone*.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The partition was never necessary for independence.  With or without partition they still have the right for independence.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It says "can be" ---- NOT ---- 'will be' - or - "are."  Provisional recognition was not automatic.
> 
> In that time period, where did the Arab Palestinians get their "right for independence?"
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

That is an inherent right for a people inside a defined territory. Inherent rights cannot be granted or taken away.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> I don't think you understand the intent of the "conquest limitation" _(inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war)_.  The true intent is spelled-out in the context that "no territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful."  The intent of the limitation includes the principle that "no consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression;"  ie: you cannot justify the aggression exhibited by the Arab intrusion for any reason.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As immoral as the partition was, these are the borders unless taking territory by conquest can be considered legal.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The 1949 Armistice Lines are not based on acts of aggression on the part of Israel.  On the contrary, the act of aggression was on the part of the principle Arab combatants (_Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt)_ that crossed over their boundaries and unlawfully entered the territory outside their jurisdiction for the express purpose of conducting hostile operations, and engaging Israeli Forces.  The limitation is addressing the Arab Aggressors and the Israelis.  Since that time, the Treaties of Peace between Israel and the Arab States of Egypt and Jordan have established some international boundaries that essentially make your map obsolete.
> 
> Your insinuation that the legal borders must be based on the original Partition Plan has been altered _(over taken by events)_ by the treaties.
> 
> *Article 3 - **International Boundary* The Government of the State of Israel and the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
> 
> 1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.
> 2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.​
> *Article II *The Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt and the Government of the State of Israel
> 
> The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

ie: you cannot justify the aggression exhibited by the Arab intrusion for any reason.​
The intrusion of Palestinians into Palestine?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> I don't think you understand the intent of the "conquest limitation" _(inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war)_.  The true intent is spelled-out in the context that "no territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful."  The intent of the limitation includes the principle that "no consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression;"  ie: you cannot justify the aggression exhibited by the Arab intrusion for any reason.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As immoral as the partition was, these are the borders unless taking territory by conquest can be considered legal.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The 1949 Armistice Lines are not based on acts of aggression on the part of Israel.  On the contrary, the act of aggression was on the part of the principle Arab combatants (_Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt)_ that crossed over their boundaries and unlawfully entered the territory outside their jurisdiction for the express purpose of conducting hostile operations, and engaging Israeli Forces.  The limitation is addressing the Arab Aggressors and the Israelis.  Since that time, the Treaties of Peace between Israel and the Arab States of Egypt and Jordan have established some international boundaries that essentially make your map obsolete.
> 
> Your insinuation that the legal borders must be based on the original Partition Plan has been altered _(over taken by events)_ by the treaties.
> 
> *Article 3 - **International Boundary* The Government of the State of Israel and the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
> 
> 1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.
> 2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.​
> *Article II *The Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt and the Government of the State of Israel
> 
> The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

...unlawfully entered the territory outside their jurisdiction...​
What was Israel's territory of jurisdiction?

Do you have a 1948 map of Israel?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Who said it was a right and when?



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The League of Nations, lead by the Allied Powers, had predetermined that the criteria:  "their existence as independent nations *can be* provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory *until such time as they are able to stand alone*.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The partition was never necessary for independence.  With or without partition they still have the right for independence.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It says "can be" ---- NOT ---- 'will be' - or - "are."  Provisional recognition was not automatic.
> 
> In that time period, where did the Arab Palestinians get their "right for independence?"
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is an inherent right for a people inside a defined territory. Inherent rights cannot be granted or taken away.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

I think you have your timelines confused.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> I don't think you understand the intent of the "conquest limitation" _(inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war)_.  The true intent is spelled-out in the context that "no territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful."  The intent of the limitation includes the principle that "no consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression;"  ie: you cannot justify the aggression exhibited by the Arab intrusion for any reason.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As immoral as the partition was, these are the borders unless taking territory by conquest can be considered legal.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The 1949 Armistice Lines are not based on acts of aggression on the part of Israel.  On the contrary, the act of aggression was on the part of the principle Arab combatants (_Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt)_ that crossed over their boundaries and unlawfully entered the territory outside their jurisdiction for the express purpose of conducting hostile operations, and engaging Israeli Forces.  The limitation is addressing the Arab Aggressors and the Israelis.  Since that time, the Treaties of Peace between Israel and the Arab States of Egypt and Jordan have established some international boundaries that essentially make your map obsolete.
> 
> Your insinuation that the legal borders must be based on the original Partition Plan has been altered _(over taken by events)_ by the treaties.
> 
> *Article 3 - **International Boundary* The Government of the State of Israel and the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
> 
> 1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.
> 2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.​
> *Article II *The Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt and the Government of the State of Israel
> 
> The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...unlawfully entered the territory outside their jurisdiction...​
> What was Israel's territory of jurisdiction?
> 
> Do you have a 1948 map of Israel?
Click to expand...


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You're attempting to suggest that the invading Arab Powers had jurisdiction outside their sovereign territory.  THAT IS NOT THE CASE.




P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> I don't think you understand the intent of the "conquest limitation" _(inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war)_.  The true intent is spelled-out in the context that "no territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful."  The intent of the limitation includes the principle that "no consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression;"  ie: you cannot justify the aggression exhibited by the Arab intrusion for any reason.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As immoral as the partition was, these are the borders unless taking territory by conquest can be considered legal.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The 1949 Armistice Lines are not based on acts of aggression on the part of Israel.  On the contrary, the act of aggression was on the part of the principle Arab combatants (_Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt)_ that crossed over their boundaries and unlawfully entered the territory outside their jurisdiction for the express purpose of conducting hostile operations, and engaging Israeli Forces.  The limitation is addressing the Arab Aggressors and the Israelis.  Since that time, the Treaties of Peace between Israel and the Arab States of Egypt and Jordan have established some international boundaries that essentially make your map obsolete.
> 
> Your insinuation that the legal borders must be based on the original Partition Plan has been altered _(over taken by events)_ by the treaties.
> 
> *Article 3 - **International Boundary* The Government of the State of Israel and the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
> 
> 1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.
> 2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.​
> *Article II *The Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt and the Government of the State of Israel
> 
> The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...unlawfully entered the territory outside their jurisdiction...​
> What was Israel's territory of jurisdiction?
> 
> Do you have a 1948 map of Israel?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Not only are you suggesting that the Arab State claimed jurisdiction outside thier sovereign territory, but they had the authority to enter territory under the administration of the UNPC>

WRONG.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Who said it was a right and when?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The League of Nations, lead by the Allied Powers, had predetermined that the criteria:  "their existence as independent nations *can be* provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory *until such time as they are able to stand alone*.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The partition was never necessary for independence.  With or without partition they still have the right for independence.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It says "can be" ---- NOT ---- 'will be' - or - "are."  Provisional recognition was not automatic.
> 
> In that time period, where did the Arab Palestinians get their "right for independence?"
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is an inherent right for a people inside a defined territory. Inherent rights cannot be granted or taken away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I think you have your timelines confused.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The right to independence and sovereignty are in UN resolutions as already existing rights.

At what time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians obtain these rights?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You're attempting to suggest that the invading Arab Powers had jurisdiction outside their sovereign territory.  THAT IS NOT THE CASE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> I don't think you understand the intent of the "conquest limitation" _(inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war)_.  The true intent is spelled-out in the context that "no territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful."  The intent of the limitation includes the principle that "no consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression;"  ie: you cannot justify the aggression exhibited by the Arab intrusion for any reason.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As immoral as the partition was, these are the borders unless taking territory by conquest can be considered legal.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The 1949 Armistice Lines are not based on acts of aggression on the part of Israel.  On the contrary, the act of aggression was on the part of the principle Arab combatants (_Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt)_ that crossed over their boundaries and unlawfully entered the territory outside their jurisdiction for the express purpose of conducting hostile operations, and engaging Israeli Forces.  The limitation is addressing the Arab Aggressors and the Israelis.  Since that time, the Treaties of Peace between Israel and the Arab States of Egypt and Jordan have established some international boundaries that essentially make your map obsolete.
> 
> Your insinuation that the legal borders must be based on the original Partition Plan has been altered _(over taken by events)_ by the treaties.
> 
> *Article 3 - **International Boundary* The Government of the State of Israel and the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
> 
> 1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.
> 2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.​
> *Article II *The Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt and the Government of the State of Israel
> 
> The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...unlawfully entered the territory outside their jurisdiction...​
> What was Israel's territory of jurisdiction?
> 
> Do you have a 1948 map of Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Not only are you suggesting that the Arab State claimed jurisdiction outside thier sovereign territory, but they had the authority to enter territory under the administration of the UNPC>
> 
> WRONG.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Where was the UNPC when it was to protect the people and land under its trust?

And besides, that was not my question.


----------



## Linkiloo

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK let's be honest.  That is not all I said.  You're cherry picking.
> 
> You will notice that I cited Article 68, which penalizes "protected persons" who attempt to do harm to the Occupying Power.  You will notice that I cited four (4) major citations relative to "civilians" and "protected persons."  All four must be adhered to "simultaneously."  You just can't pick and choose.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to your hero, RoccoR:
> 
> 1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) [ Link ] of the Third Convention and in Article 43 [ Link ] of this Protocol. *In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.*​
> Who Are The Palestinians Page 357 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is clear that the UN Security Council Resolution 237 stipulates in a binding fashion that the requirements of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 be applied to the territories that came under occupation in 1967.  It does not give any special exemption for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to conduct hostile operations against the Occupation Power without facing criminal prosecution.
> 
> The HoAP which target Israeli Civilians --- does so at their own peril.  The HoAP lose their "protected persons" status and become subject to Article 68 Sanctions.
> 
> PS:  Terrorist, Insurgents, Jihadist and Fedayeen, conducting operations, _(any Islamic Resistance Movement)_ are considered 4th Generation Warfare, Asymmetric combatants and not protected persons.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "OK let's be honest." Indeed.
> 
> The Palestinians are not hostile. They are defending their country.
Click to expand...

 Well that can be said of either side so it isn't helpful.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which they have, but hamas refuses to comply with any UN resolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Like which ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every single one of them that the P.A. signed up to last year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IOW, you don't have jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why haven't they accepted peace talks and negotiated mutual borders with Jordan, Egypt and Israel ?  That was the main one they singled out for special mention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They already have borders with Jordan and Egypt.
> 
> Where is the border dispute with Israel?
Click to expand...





 Have they really, then you will be able to produce the treaties signed by the Palestinians putting those borders in place. Don't think that the Mandate for Palestine's border were ever the nation of palestine's borders because they weren't. And when you realise that Palestine the nation did not exist until 1988 then the treaties should be very easy to find.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt Israel Peace Treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Then what is this
> 
> 
> 
> Good question. Where did Israel and Egypt get the authority to negotiate Palestine's border?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did the state of Palestine come into existence according to International law ?   Figure that out and you will get your answer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did that. Now you need to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did the state of Palestine come into existence according to International law ?    Or are you unable to answer this question truthfully ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124
> 
> Henceforth, Palestinian nationality was first founded, according to international law, on 6 August 1924. And “treaty nationality in Palestine runs from that date.”139 The Treaty of Lausanne had transformed the _de facto_ status of Palestinian nationality into _de jure _existence from the angle of international law.140 Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist.141 Likewise, on 6 August 1924, for the first time ever, international law certified the birth of the ‘Palestinian people’ as distinct from all other peoples.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
Click to expand...





 But did not confer a nation on Palestine so does not make Palestine a nation until 1988 when the arab muslims finally realised they would lose everything the way they were going. Your cut and paste talks of Palestinian nationality and not a Palestinian nation.    Also this is by the islamonazi propagandist that alters the wording of treaties until the match his personal view of events.

 So keep trying and answer the question   When did the state of Palestine come into existence according to International law ?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

You saying this over and over again, does not make it any more sound or valid.  Just more disinformation by the Palestinians to justify their hostile activity.



P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As immoral as the partition was, these are the borders unless taking territory by conquest can be considered legal.
> 
> 
> 
> That map is outdated. Look at mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That one is outdated too. Resolution 181 was a non binding recommendation. It was not implemented by the Mandate or the Security council. It never happened.
Click to expand...

*(OBSERVATION)*

UNITED NATIONS Department of Public Information, Press and Publications Bureau, Lake Success, New York
*Press Release* PAL/169  *Source:* United Nations Palestine Commission (UNPC)
17 May 1948

EXCERPT:  "During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. *In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented.*"​
UN Document A/43/827  S/2027  18 November 1988
Annex III --- Declaration of Independence

EXCERPT:
Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and *on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947*, and

Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:

The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.​
UN Document A/53/879  S/1999/334  25 March 1999
Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General

EXCERPT:
For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, *resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable*. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a _corpus separatum_, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. *The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.*​
UN Document A/RES/67/19  4 December 2012
67/19.  Status of Palestine in the United Nations wherein the General Assembly decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations

EXCERPT:  "_Recalling_ its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,"​
*(COMMENT)*

I've cited four (4) key historical documents that extend over a range of six (6) decades that reference General Assembly Resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947.   Things that  "never happened" are not normally cited as:

Having been "implemented" in an official public announcement.
Recognized by the sole representative of the Palestinian People as having "international legitimacy."
Acknowledged by the sole representative of the Palestinian People as "becoming acceptable."
Used as a reference document in the landmark decision to make the "role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people."
It should be noticed that the Resolution, of 29 November 1947, has been used as a reference document for over the las 60 years --- and as recently as last month in UN Document A/HRC/28/L.32 25 March 2015 pertaining to the Right of the Palestinian People to Self-Determination: 

_Recalling _General Assembly resolutions 181 A and B (II) of 29 November 1947 and 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, as well as all other relevant United Nations resolutions, including those adopted by the General Assembly, the Commission on Human Rights and the Human Rights Council, that confirm and define the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, particularly their right to self-determination,​ 
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> What in the hell are you talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did the state of Palestine come into existence according to International law ?   Figure that out and you will get your answer
> 
> 
> 
> Did that. Now you need to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did the state of Palestine come into existence according to International law ?    Or are you unable to answer this question truthfully ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124
> 
> Henceforth, Palestinian nationality was first founded, according to international law, on 6 August 1924. And “treaty nationality in Palestine runs from that date.”139 The Treaty of Lausanne had transformed the _de facto_ status of Palestinian nationality into _de jure _existence from the angle of international law.140 Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist.141 Likewise, on 6 August 1924, for the first time ever, international law certified the birth of the ‘Palestinian people’ as distinct from all other peoples.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While the Treaty of Lausanne (1924) had some minor impact on the Citizenship Order relative to the territory to which the Mandate Applied, (covered in the Citizenship Order of 1925), ---- it had absolutely nothing to do with the State of Palestine or any Palestinian Sovereignty prior to 1988.
> 
> You overuse this "Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel" much to often.  It is poorly written and simply not applicable in some cases.  For instance, the Genesis of Citizenship in Israel is simply the Declaration of Independence of Israel and the establishment of its sovereignty.  The Treaty of Lausanne, written by the same community of authors as the Allied Powers, had nothing to do with it.  It did not change much that was already in effect and did not put anything new in effect relative to Middle East Sovereignty.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the Palestinians became citizens of what? A temporarily assigned administration?
> 
> You don't make any sense.
Click to expand...





 That is right they became citizens of the British mandate for Palestine as declared in the Mandate for Palestine until such time as they showed self determination and where able to stand for themselves


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like which ones?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every single one of them that the P.A. signed up to last year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IOW, you don't have jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why haven't they accepted peace talks and negotiated mutual borders with Jordan, Egypt and Israel ?  That was the main one they singled out for special mention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They already have borders with Jordan and Egypt.
> 
> Where is the border dispute with Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have they really, then you will be able to produce the treaties signed by the Palestinians putting those borders in place. Don't think that the Mandate for Palestine's border were ever the nation of palestine's borders because they weren't. And when you realise that Palestine the nation did not exist until 1988 then the treaties should be very easy to find.
Click to expand...

The Mandate was not a place. It was a temporarily assigned administration for Palestine.

It had no land or borders.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt Israel Peace Treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Then what is this
> 
> 
> 
> Good question. Where did Israel and Egypt get the authority to negotiate Palestine's border?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does Israel's border with Egypt have to do with Palestine ?? You're living on a different planet still
> 
> 
> "The Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty, signed on March 26, 1979* created an officially recognized international border* along the 1906 line, with Egypt renouncing all claims to the Gaza Strip"
> 
> Borders of Israel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting map. Where is the national capital of that so called Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice Duck.
> 
> Israel's capital is Jerusalem, which is disputed. What's your point ?
> 
> Do you know how many times we've had this debate?? Israel has internationally recognized borders, whether you like it or not .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then your map is inaccurate.
> 
> Dismissed.
Click to expand...





Look at the map and you see that it shows Tel Aviv as the capital at the time, just as it shows the Palestinians capital to be ramallah


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the same link:
> 
> "In 1988, Palestine declared its independence without specifying its borders"
> 
> Borders of Israel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> There goes your 'Palestine has international borders' lie
> 
> 
> 
> From your link:
> 
> The declaration then proclaims a "State of Palestine *on our Palestinian territory *with its capital Jerusalem"​
> Has anyone disputed that?
Click to expand...




 What is there to dispute, they an say what they like it does not make it fact. And until they negotiate mutual borders they have no land


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every single one of them that the P.A. signed up to last year.
> 
> 
> 
> IOW, you don't have jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why haven't they accepted peace talks and negotiated mutual borders with Jordan, Egypt and Israel ?  That was the main one they singled out for special mention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They already have borders with Jordan and Egypt.
> 
> Where is the border dispute with Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have they really, then you will be able to produce the treaties signed by the Palestinians putting those borders in place. Don't think that the Mandate for Palestine's border were ever the nation of palestine's borders because they weren't. And when you realise that Palestine the nation did not exist until 1988 then the treaties should be very easy to find.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Mandate was not a place. It was a temporarily assigned administration for Palestine.
> 
> It had no land or borders.
Click to expand...





 The LoN by treaty delineated the borders of the Mandate for Palestine and that was that. This had to be done so that everyone knew where the separate Mandates and other nations borders where. The Mandate for Palestine was a legal treaty bestowing certain obligations of the British under their mandate and also on trans Jordan. The British mandate was the temporary issigmed administration of Palestine. You confuse the two mandates


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> In my opinion the borders became fixed when the General Assembly adopted the partition resolution (181), which ratified the British proposals. (It also provided for an independent international mixed status for the city of Jerusalem.) The Resolution constitutes the only legally authorized demarkation of the Israeli-Palestine borders. It was legally authoritative not because it took the form of a UN Resolution, but solely because the UN Resolution itself served as a ratification of the British proposal to divide the Palestine and leave its governance to the people, all the people.  The legal power resided in Great Britain as the trustee and not in the United Nations. As trustee, Britain had the power to partition the territory if (and only if) it was the best way to provide the future self-government by the people of Palestine, all the people of Palestine. Contrary to popular belief, the General Assembly did not derive its legal powers directly from the Charter of the UN, but rather as surrogate for the League of Nations. It was the League as a supervisory authority over the British Mandate that devolved its powers of mandate supervision to the UN and, through the UN, to the General Assembly.  Legal title to the land was not conferred by Resolution 181 alone but rather by Great Britain's acceptance of the terms of Resolution 181. The State of Israel owes its entire legal existence to the exercise by Great Britain of its League of Nations' Mandatory Power over the territory of Palestine. The morality of Britains may be questioned, but Britain had that power, according to the Mandate. It owes nothing to the United Nations as a separate entity and, cannot claim any additional rights from the United Nations. As soon as 181 was passed (Great Britain abstained by the way), the legal borders between Israel and Palestine were forever fixed. Since acquisition of territory through conquest is forbidden in the Charter of the UN and International Law in general, the 181 borders could only be changed by one of two processes: first, explicit agreement between Israel and the authorized representatives of Palestine, and second, by international arbitration only in cases of disputed areas where the verbal description contained in 181 was not clear in terms of existing maps or surveys.  The Security Council has never had, and has no power to change international borders.







 BULLSHIT as all UN resolutions are just recommendations and have no power in law.   And no nation has the right to decide what borders another nation will have.

 Now unless you can produce a non partisan link to your drivel, hogwash and RACIST LIES you will retract and admit you are bullshitting. Or do you want this sort of post to be known as *doing a montelatici*


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> As immoral as the partition was, these are the borders unless taking territory by conquest can be considered legal.






 Who signed the treaty setting these borders for Israel, Palestine,  Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. A link would be useful so we can all see who signed for each nation


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The green is Palestine. The rest is Israel. What's so hard to understand about that???
> 
> 
> 
> The only way those armistice lines can become borders is a signed agreement between Israel and Palestine.
> 
> I don't believe that has ever happened.
Click to expand...





 And yet Palestine is under an obligation to negotiate mutual borders with all of its neighbours after declairing their intentions to do so last year.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> It really does not make a wit of difference whether the Arab State rejected any offer, which is patently untrue, by the way.  The Mandate required that the people of Palestine, all the people of Palestine (Christians and Muslims included) were to be made self-governing.  They were, even in 1948 two thirds of the population, after all.






Nope the Mandate had already made provisions for them, and they had 3 options.

 1)  Stay and become full citizens of the Jewish national home

 2)  Leave and go elsewhere with a small sweetner

 3) stay and fight with the possibility of losing it all


 Guess your fellow muslims made the wrong decision all because of their pig-headedness.
 Numbers were not an issue when the Mandate was formulated and it entered into international law that the land was to be the national home of the Jews. At no time were the rights of the arab muslims or Christians breached


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The green is Palestine. The rest is Israel. What's so hard to understand about that???
> 
> 
> 
> The only way those armistice lines can become borders is a signed agreement between Israel and Palestine.
> 
> I don't believe that has ever happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Palestine is under an obligation to negotiate mutual borders with all of its neighbours after declairing their intentions to do so last year.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link for that?

Palestine has no border dispute with any of its neighbors.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As immoral as the partition was, these are the borders unless taking territory by conquest can be considered legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who signed the treaty setting these borders for Israel, Palestine,  Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. A link would be useful so we can all see who signed for each nation
Click to expand...

The borders for all of them except Israel were defined by post war treaties.

Israel was declared without borders.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like which ones?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every single one of them that the P.A. signed up to last year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IOW, you don't have jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why haven't they accepted peace talks and negotiated mutual borders with Jordan, Egypt and Israel ?  That was the main one they singled out for special mention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They already have borders with Jordan and Egypt.
> 
> Where is the border dispute with Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have they really, then you will be able to produce the treaties signed by the Palestinians putting those borders in place. Don't think that the Mandate for Palestine's border were ever the nation of palestine's borders because they weren't. And when you realise that Palestine the nation did not exist until 1988 then the treaties should be very easy to find.
Click to expand...

The Mandate had no land or borders. It operated inside Palestine's borders.

That is why they called it the Mandate *for* Palestine.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good question. Where did Israel and Egypt get the authority to negotiate Palestine's border?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did the state of Palestine come into existence according to International law ?   Figure that out and you will get your answer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did that. Now you need to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did the state of Palestine come into existence according to International law ?    Or are you unable to answer this question truthfully ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124
> 
> Henceforth, Palestinian nationality was first founded, according to international law, on 6 August 1924. And “treaty nationality in Palestine runs from that date.”139 The Treaty of Lausanne had transformed the _de facto_ status of Palestinian nationality into _de jure _existence from the angle of international law.140 Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist.141 Likewise, on 6 August 1924, for the first time ever, international law certified the birth of the ‘Palestinian people’ as distinct from all other peoples.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But did not confer a nation on Palestine so does not make Palestine a nation until 1988 when the arab muslims finally realised they would lose everything the way they were going. Your cut and paste talks of Palestinian nationality and not a Palestinian nation.    Also this is by the islamonazi propagandist that alters the wording of treaties until the match his personal view of events.
> 
> So keep trying and answer the question   When did the state of Palestine come into existence according to International law ?
Click to expand...

Your cut and paste talks of Palestinian nationality and not a Palestinian nation.​
Oh jeese!


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You saying this over and over again, does not make it any more sound or valid.  Just more disinformation by the Palestinians to justify their hostile activity.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As immoral as the partition was, these are the borders unless taking territory by conquest can be considered legal.
> 
> 
> 
> That map is outdated. Look at mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That one is outdated too. Resolution 181 was a non binding recommendation. It was not implemented by the Mandate or the Security council. It never happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> UNITED NATIONS Department of Public Information, Press and Publications Bureau, Lake Success, New York
> *Press Release* PAL/169  *Source:* United Nations Palestine Commission (UNPC)
> 17 May 1948
> 
> EXCERPT:  "During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. *In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented.*"​
> UN Document A/43/827  S/2027  18 November 1988
> Annex III --- Declaration of Independence
> 
> EXCERPT:
> Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and *on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947*, and
> 
> Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
> 
> The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.​
> UN Document A/53/879  S/1999/334  25 March 1999
> Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General
> 
> EXCERPT:
> For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, *resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable*. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a _corpus separatum_, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. *The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.*​
> UN Document A/RES/67/19  4 December 2012
> 67/19.  Status of Palestine in the United Nations wherein the General Assembly decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations
> 
> EXCERPT:  "_Recalling_ its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,"​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I've cited four (4) key historical documents that extend over a range of six (6) decades that reference General Assembly Resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947.   Things that  "never happened" are not normally cited as:
> 
> Having been "implemented" in an official public announcement.
> Recognized by the sole representative of the Palestinian People as having "international legitimacy."
> Acknowledged by the sole representative of the Palestinian People as "becoming acceptable."
> Used as a reference document in the landmark decision to make the "role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people."
> It should be noticed that the Resolution, of 29 November 1947, has been used as a reference document for over the las 60 years --- and as recently as last month in UN Document A/HRC/28/L.32 25 March 2015 pertaining to the Right of the Palestinian People to Self-Determination:
> 
> _Recalling _General Assembly resolutions 181 A and B (II) of 29 November 1947 and 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, as well as all other relevant United Nations resolutions, including those adopted by the General Assembly, the Commission on Human Rights and the Human Rights Council, that confirm and define the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, particularly their right to self-determination,​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

You keep pimping resolution 181 but always duck the questions:

Where are those proposed borders?
Where is that international city of Jerusalem?
Where are the rights of the non Jewish population?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You saying this over and over again, does not make it any more sound or valid.  Just more disinformation by the Palestinians to justify their hostile activity.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As immoral as the partition was, these are the borders unless taking territory by conquest can be considered legal.
> 
> 
> 
> That map is outdated. Look at mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That one is outdated too. Resolution 181 was a non binding recommendation. It was not implemented by the Mandate or the Security council. It never happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> UNITED NATIONS Department of Public Information, Press and Publications Bureau, Lake Success, New York
> *Press Release* PAL/169  *Source:* United Nations Palestine Commission (UNPC)
> 17 May 1948
> 
> EXCERPT:  "During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. *In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented.*"​
> UN Document A/43/827  S/2027  18 November 1988
> Annex III --- Declaration of Independence
> 
> EXCERPT:
> Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and *on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947*, and
> 
> Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
> 
> The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.​
> UN Document A/53/879  S/1999/334  25 March 1999
> Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General
> 
> EXCERPT:
> For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, *resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable*. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a _corpus separatum_, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. *The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.*​
> UN Document A/RES/67/19  4 December 2012
> 67/19.  Status of Palestine in the United Nations wherein the General Assembly decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations
> 
> EXCERPT:  "_Recalling_ its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,"​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I've cited four (4) key historical documents that extend over a range of six (6) decades that reference General Assembly Resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947.   Things that  "never happened" are not normally cited as:
> 
> Having been "implemented" in an official public announcement.
> Recognized by the sole representative of the Palestinian People as having "international legitimacy."
> Acknowledged by the sole representative of the Palestinian People as "becoming acceptable."
> Used as a reference document in the landmark decision to make the "role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people."
> It should be noticed that the Resolution, of 29 November 1947, has been used as a reference document for over the las 60 years --- and as recently as last month in UN Document A/HRC/28/L.32 25 March 2015 pertaining to the Right of the Palestinian People to Self-Determination:
> 
> _Recalling _General Assembly resolutions 181 A and B (II) of 29 November 1947 and 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, as well as all other relevant United Nations resolutions, including those adopted by the General Assembly, the Commission on Human Rights and the Human Rights Council, that confirm and define the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, particularly their right to self-determination,​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

People mention resolution 181 for political posturing but what does that mean?

Does the UN recognize Palestine on the proposed borders that were never borders like it recognizes Israel on armistice lines that were never borders?

It looks more like a political cluster fuck than a determination of legalities.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The green is Palestine. The rest is Israel. What's so hard to understand about that???
> 
> 
> 
> The only way those armistice lines can become borders is a signed agreement between Israel and Palestine.
> 
> I don't believe that has ever happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Palestine is under an obligation to negotiate mutual borders with all of its neighbours after declairing their intentions to do so last year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have a link for that?
> 
> Palestine has no border dispute with any of its neighbors.
Click to expand...




 Yes it is in the Palestinian declaration of independence

 Could that be because they have no borders yet, having never negotiated any under un res 242. ( again part of their declaration )


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You saying this over and over again, does not make it any more sound or valid.  Just more disinformation by the Palestinians to justify their hostile activity.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As immoral as the partition was, these are the borders unless taking territory by conquest can be considered legal.
> 
> 
> 
> That map is outdated. Look at mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That one is outdated too. Resolution 181 was a non binding recommendation. It was not implemented by the Mandate or the Security council. It never happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> UNITED NATIONS Department of Public Information, Press and Publications Bureau, Lake Success, New York
> *Press Release* PAL/169  *Source:* United Nations Palestine Commission (UNPC)
> 17 May 1948
> 
> EXCERPT:  "During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. *In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented.*"​
> UN Document A/43/827  S/2027  18 November 1988
> Annex III --- Declaration of Independence
> 
> EXCERPT:
> Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and *on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947*, and
> 
> Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
> 
> The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.​
> UN Document A/53/879  S/1999/334  25 March 1999
> Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General
> 
> EXCERPT:
> For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, *resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable*. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a _corpus separatum_, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. *The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.*​
> UN Document A/RES/67/19  4 December 2012
> 67/19.  Status of Palestine in the United Nations wherein the General Assembly decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations
> 
> EXCERPT:  "_Recalling_ its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,"​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I've cited four (4) key historical documents that extend over a range of six (6) decades that reference General Assembly Resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947.   Things that  "never happened" are not normally cited as:
> 
> Having been "implemented" in an official public announcement.
> Recognized by the sole representative of the Palestinian People as having "international legitimacy."
> Acknowledged by the sole representative of the Palestinian People as "becoming acceptable."
> Used as a reference document in the landmark decision to make the "role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people."
> It should be noticed that the Resolution, of 29 November 1947, has been used as a reference document for over the las 60 years --- and as recently as last month in UN Document A/HRC/28/L.32 25 March 2015 pertaining to the Right of the Palestinian People to Self-Determination:
> 
> _Recalling _General Assembly resolutions 181 A and B (II) of 29 November 1947 and 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, as well as all other relevant United Nations resolutions, including those adopted by the General Assembly, the Commission on Human Rights and the Human Rights Council, that confirm and define the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, particularly their right to self-determination,​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep pimping resolution 181 but always duck the questions:
> 
> Where are those proposed borders?
> Where is that international city of Jerusalem?
> Where are the rights of the non Jewish population?
Click to expand...


I find it hard to believe that any Pali supporter would actually want Israel to declare borders.  But hey lets hope Israel pleases them by declaring borders from Syria to Egypt to the Jordan River.  Bye bye Palestine.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every single one of them that the P.A. signed up to last year.
> 
> 
> 
> IOW, you don't have jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why haven't they accepted peace talks and negotiated mutual borders with Jordan, Egypt and Israel ?  That was the main one they singled out for special mention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They already have borders with Jordan and Egypt.
> 
> Where is the border dispute with Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have they really, then you will be able to produce the treaties signed by the Palestinians putting those borders in place. Don't think that the Mandate for Palestine's border were ever the nation of palestine's borders because they weren't. And when you realise that Palestine the nation did not exist until 1988 then the treaties should be very easy to find.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Mandate had no land or borders. It operated inside Palestine's borders.
> 
> That is why they called it the Mandate *for* Palestine.
Click to expand...




It set in stone the borders of the Mandate for Palestine, and set up the British mandate. Don't confuse the two. The Mandate for Palestine held the ownership/rule of the land of Palestine under the LoN .

 Now were is this link to the treaty showing the nations signing for mutual borders, and who signed for the Palestinian muslims, Palestinian Christians and Palestinian Jews


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As immoral as the partition was, these are the borders unless taking territory by conquest can be considered legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who signed the treaty setting these borders for Israel, Palestine,  Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. A link would be useful so we can all see who signed for each nation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The borders for all of them except Israel were defined by post war treaties.
> 
> Israel was declared without borders.
Click to expand...





 How about links detailing this and showing which Palestinian leader/representative signed for these borders.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did the state of Palestine come into existence according to International law ?   Figure that out and you will get your answer
> 
> 
> 
> Did that. Now you need to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did the state of Palestine come into existence according to International law ?    Or are you unable to answer this question truthfully ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124
> 
> Henceforth, Palestinian nationality was first founded, according to international law, on 6 August 1924. And “treaty nationality in Palestine runs from that date.”139 The Treaty of Lausanne had transformed the _de facto_ status of Palestinian nationality into _de jure _existence from the angle of international law.140 Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist.141 Likewise, on 6 August 1924, for the first time ever, international law certified the birth of the ‘Palestinian people’ as distinct from all other peoples.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But did not confer a nation on Palestine so does not make Palestine a nation until 1988 when the arab muslims finally realised they would lose everything the way they were going. Your cut and paste talks of Palestinian nationality and not a Palestinian nation.    Also this is by the islamonazi propagandist that alters the wording of treaties until the match his personal view of events.
> 
> So keep trying and answer the question   When did the state of Palestine come into existence according to International law ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your cut and paste talks of Palestinian nationality and not a Palestinian nation.​
> Oh jeese!
Click to expand...




 If you ant understand this then it explains why you cant grasp the fact that the Mandate for Palestine set borders for the Mandate and did not declare a nation of Palestine. It is very explicit in this fact that you ignore because it destroys your POV.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You saying this over and over again, does not make it any more sound or valid.  Just more disinformation by the Palestinians to justify their hostile activity.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As immoral as the partition was, these are the borders unless taking territory by conquest can be considered legal.
> 
> 
> 
> That map is outdated. Look at mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That one is outdated too. Resolution 181 was a non binding recommendation. It was not implemented by the Mandate or the Security council. It never happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> UNITED NATIONS Department of Public Information, Press and Publications Bureau, Lake Success, New York
> *Press Release* PAL/169  *Source:* United Nations Palestine Commission (UNPC)
> 17 May 1948
> 
> EXCERPT:  "During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. *In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented.*"​
> UN Document A/43/827  S/2027  18 November 1988
> Annex III --- Declaration of Independence
> 
> EXCERPT:
> Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and *on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947*, and
> 
> Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
> 
> The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.​
> UN Document A/53/879  S/1999/334  25 March 1999
> Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General
> 
> EXCERPT:
> For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, *resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable*. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a _corpus separatum_, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. *The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.*​
> UN Document A/RES/67/19  4 December 2012
> 67/19.  Status of Palestine in the United Nations wherein the General Assembly decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations
> 
> EXCERPT:  "_Recalling_ its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,"​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I've cited four (4) key historical documents that extend over a range of six (6) decades that reference General Assembly Resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947.   Things that  "never happened" are not normally cited as:
> 
> Having been "implemented" in an official public announcement.
> Recognized by the sole representative of the Palestinian People as having "international legitimacy."
> Acknowledged by the sole representative of the Palestinian People as "becoming acceptable."
> Used as a reference document in the landmark decision to make the "role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people."
> It should be noticed that the Resolution, of 29 November 1947, has been used as a reference document for over the las 60 years --- and as recently as last month in UN Document A/HRC/28/L.32 25 March 2015 pertaining to the Right of the Palestinian People to Self-Determination:
> 
> _Recalling _General Assembly resolutions 181 A and B (II) of 29 November 1947 and 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, as well as all other relevant United Nations resolutions, including those adopted by the General Assembly, the Commission on Human Rights and the Human Rights Council, that confirm and define the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, particularly their right to self-determination,​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep pimping resolution 181 but always duck the questions:
> 
> Where are those proposed borders?
> Where is that international city of Jerusalem?
> Where are the rights of the non Jewish population?
Click to expand...





 They are proposed so are not set until mutually agreed.

 In the national home of the Jews

 Very few at the time in question


 Now who set the borders of Palestine if they did not own land ?

 Why was Jordan allowed to steal Jerusalem ?

 What rights were extended to the Jews in arab muslim occupied lands ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You saying this over and over again, does not make it any more sound or valid.  Just more disinformation by the Palestinians to justify their hostile activity.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As immoral as the partition was, these are the borders unless taking territory by conquest can be considered legal.
> 
> 
> 
> That map is outdated. Look at mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That one is outdated too. Resolution 181 was a non binding recommendation. It was not implemented by the Mandate or the Security council. It never happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> UNITED NATIONS Department of Public Information, Press and Publications Bureau, Lake Success, New York
> *Press Release* PAL/169  *Source:* United Nations Palestine Commission (UNPC)
> 17 May 1948
> 
> EXCERPT:  "During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. *In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented.*"​
> UN Document A/43/827  S/2027  18 November 1988
> Annex III --- Declaration of Independence
> 
> EXCERPT:
> Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and *on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947*, and
> 
> Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
> 
> The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.​
> UN Document A/53/879  S/1999/334  25 March 1999
> Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General
> 
> EXCERPT:
> For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, *resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable*. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a _corpus separatum_, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. *The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.*​
> UN Document A/RES/67/19  4 December 2012
> 67/19.  Status of Palestine in the United Nations wherein the General Assembly decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations
> 
> EXCERPT:  "_Recalling_ its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,"​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I've cited four (4) key historical documents that extend over a range of six (6) decades that reference General Assembly Resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947.   Things that  "never happened" are not normally cited as:
> 
> Having been "implemented" in an official public announcement.
> Recognized by the sole representative of the Palestinian People as having "international legitimacy."
> Acknowledged by the sole representative of the Palestinian People as "becoming acceptable."
> Used as a reference document in the landmark decision to make the "role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people."
> It should be noticed that the Resolution, of 29 November 1947, has been used as a reference document for over the las 60 years --- and as recently as last month in UN Document A/HRC/28/L.32 25 March 2015 pertaining to the Right of the Palestinian People to Self-Determination:
> 
> _Recalling _General Assembly resolutions 181 A and B (II) of 29 November 1947 and 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, as well as all other relevant United Nations resolutions, including those adopted by the General Assembly, the Commission on Human Rights and the Human Rights Council, that confirm and define the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, particularly their right to self-determination,​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People mention resolution 181 for political posturing but what does that mean?
> 
> Does the UN recognize Palestine on the proposed borders that were never borders like it recognizes Israel on armistice lines that were never borders?
> 
> It looks more like a political cluster fuck than a determination of legalities.
Click to expand...




The start of the declaration of two nations with borders to be mutually agreed

 NO as it never declared any borders. Nor does it recognise Israel on borders that have not been agreed. So the only borders are those between Israel and Egypt/Jordan that are recognised by any international laws.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The green is Palestine. The rest is Israel. What's so hard to understand about that???
> 
> 
> 
> The only way those armistice lines can become borders is a signed agreement between Israel and Palestine.
> 
> I don't believe that has ever happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Palestine is under an obligation to negotiate mutual borders with all of its neighbours after declairing their intentions to do so last year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have a link for that?
> 
> Palestine has no border dispute with any of its neighbors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is in the Palestinian declaration of independence
> 
> Could that be because they have no borders yet, having never negotiated any under un res 242. ( again part of their declaration )
Click to expand...

Could you quote the passages?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You saying this over and over again, does not make it any more sound or valid.  Just more disinformation by the Palestinians to justify their hostile activity.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As immoral as the partition was, these are the borders unless taking territory by conquest can be considered legal.
> 
> 
> 
> That map is outdated. Look at mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That one is outdated too. Resolution 181 was a non binding recommendation. It was not implemented by the Mandate or the Security council. It never happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> UNITED NATIONS Department of Public Information, Press and Publications Bureau, Lake Success, New York
> *Press Release* PAL/169  *Source:* United Nations Palestine Commission (UNPC)
> 17 May 1948
> 
> EXCERPT:  "During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. *In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented.*"​
> UN Document A/43/827  S/2027  18 November 1988
> Annex III --- Declaration of Independence
> 
> EXCERPT:
> Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and *on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947*, and
> 
> Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
> 
> The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.​
> UN Document A/53/879  S/1999/334  25 March 1999
> Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General
> 
> EXCERPT:
> For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, *resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable*. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a _corpus separatum_, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. *The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.*​
> UN Document A/RES/67/19  4 December 2012
> 67/19.  Status of Palestine in the United Nations wherein the General Assembly decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations
> 
> EXCERPT:  "_Recalling_ its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,"​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I've cited four (4) key historical documents that extend over a range of six (6) decades that reference General Assembly Resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947.   Things that  "never happened" are not normally cited as:
> 
> Having been "implemented" in an official public announcement.
> Recognized by the sole representative of the Palestinian People as having "international legitimacy."
> Acknowledged by the sole representative of the Palestinian People as "becoming acceptable."
> Used as a reference document in the landmark decision to make the "role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people."
> It should be noticed that the Resolution, of 29 November 1947, has been used as a reference document for over the las 60 years --- and as recently as last month in UN Document A/HRC/28/L.32 25 March 2015 pertaining to the Right of the Palestinian People to Self-Determination:
> 
> _Recalling _General Assembly resolutions 181 A and B (II) of 29 November 1947 and 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, as well as all other relevant United Nations resolutions, including those adopted by the General Assembly, the Commission on Human Rights and the Human Rights Council, that confirm and define the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, particularly their right to self-determination,​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People mention resolution 181 for political posturing but what does that mean?
> 
> Does the UN recognize Palestine on the proposed borders that were never borders like it recognizes Israel on armistice lines that were never borders?
> 
> It looks more like a political cluster fuck than a determination of legalities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The start of the declaration of two nations with borders to be mutually agreed
> 
> NO as it never declared any borders. Nor does it recognise Israel on borders that have not been agreed. So the only borders are those between Israel and Egypt/Jordan that are recognised by any international laws.
Click to expand...

So the only borders are those between Israel and Egypt/Jordan that are recognised by any international laws.​


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Again, just because you keep saying this, does not mean it is any more sound or valid.

Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between latitude 30° N. and 33° N., Longitude 34° 30 E. and 35° 30' E.

On the south-west it is bounded by Egyptian territory, on the south-east by the Gulf of Aqaba, on the east by Trans-Jordan, on the north by the French Mandated territories of Syria and the Lebanon, and on the west by the Mediterranean.

The boundaries are as follows:-- 



_South-west._--From a point on the Mediterranean coast north-west of Rafa, passing in a south-easterly direction to the south-west of Rafa, to a point west-north-west of Ain Maghara; thence to the junction of the Gaza-Aqaba and Nekl-Aqaba roads, from whence it continues to the end of the boundary line at the point of Ras Taba on the western shore of the Gulf of Aqaba.

_South-east._--From Ras Taba, the Gulf of Aqaba to a point two miles west of Aqaba, thence up the centre of the Wadi Araba, the Dead Sea, and the Jordan, to the centre of the River Yarmuk to the Syrian frontier.

_North._--The northern boundary was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Stated briefly, the boundary runs from Ras el Naqura on the Mediterranean east-wards to Metulla and across the upper Jordan valley to Banias, thence to Jisr Banat Yaqub, thence along the Jordan to the Lake of Tiberias and on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line.

_West._--The Mediterranean Sea.




P F Tinmore said:


> The Mandate was not a place. It was a temporarily assigned administration for Palestine.
> 
> It had no land or borders.


*(OBSERVATION)*

PART I.




PRELIMINARY.
Title.

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

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

*(COMMENT)*

The territory to which Palestine Mandate applied was NOT decided in 1922 --- thus the border you describe was not fix yet. These borders were not decided by the Arab Palestinian, or any indigenous representative. They were not national boundaries. The boundaries were not final until 1924 with the last transfer from Syria.

The *Paulet–Newcombe Agreement* or *Paulet-Newcombe Line*, also known as the *Franco-British Boundary Agreements*, were a sequence of agreements signed between 1920-23 between the British and French governments regarding the position and nature of the boundary between the Mandates of Palestine and Mesopotamia, attributed to Great Britain, and the Mandate of Syria and the Lebanon, attributed to France. The agreements fixed the line of the Syrian-Palestinian border_ (now the Syrian-Israeli border) _between the Mediterranean Sea and the town of Al-Hamma. The agreement takes its name from French Lieutenant Colonel N. Paulet and British Lieutenant Colonel S. F. Newcombe, who were appointed to lead the Boundary Commission.

The boundary between the forthcoming British and French mandates was defined in broad terms in the 1920 "Franco-British Convention on Certain Points Connected with the Mandates for Syria and the Lebanon, Palestine and Mesopotamia", signed in Paris, on 23 December 1920. That agreement placed the bulk of the Golan Heights in the French sphere. The treaty also established a joint commission to settle the precise details of the border and mark it on the ground.

The commission submitted its final report on 3 February 1922, which included a number of amendments. It was approved with some caveats by the French and British governments on 7 March 1923, several months before Britain and France assumed their Mandatory responsibilities on 29 September 1923.

"The boundary between the forthcoming British and French mandates was defined in broad terms. That agreement placed the bulk of the Golan Heights in the French sphere. The treaty also established a joint commission to settle the border and mark it on the ground. The commission submitted its final report on 3 February 1922, and it was approved with some caveats by the British and French governments on 7 March 1923, several months before Britain and France assumed their Mandatory responsibilities on 29 September 1923. In accordance with the same process, a nearby parcel of land that included the ancient site of Dan was transferred from Syria to Palestine early in 1924. In this way the Golan Heights became part of the French Mandate of Syria. When the French Mandate of Syria ended in 1944, the Golan Heights remained part of the newly independent state of Syria."

The Survey, a Survey of Palestine prepared by *Government of Palestine (then under British military occupation/Mandate)* for the United Nation Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) in 1946, was still defined by the Palestine Order in Council: "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine." Between October, 1917, and September, 1918, the whole of Palestine was occupied by the Allied Forces under General Allenby and placed temporarily under a British military administration known as the Allied Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA). If you go to the Survey of Palestine prepared by *Government of Palestine *you will find it is all about the Mandate. 


*Border with Egypt*

The international border between the Ottoman Empire and the British Empire was drawn in 1906. According to the personal documents of the British colonel Wilfed A. Jennings Bramley, who influenced the negotiations, the border mainly served British military interests—it furthered the Ottomans as much as possible from the Suez Canal, and gave Britain complete control over both Red Sea gulfs—Suez and Aqaba, including the Straits of Tiran. At the time, the Aqaba branch of the Hejaz railway had not been built, and the Ottomans therefore had no simple access to the Red Sea. The British were also interested in making the border as short and patrollable as possible, and did not take into account the needs of the local residents in the negotiations.

The 1949 Armistice Agreement between Israel and Egypt was ratified on February 24, 1949. The armistice line between these countries followed the international border except along the Gaza Strip, which remained under Egyptian occupation.

The Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty, signed on March 26, 1979 created an officially recognized international border along the 1906 line. A dispute arose over the marking of the border line at its southernmost point, in Taba. Taba was on the Egyptian side of the armistice line of 1949, but Israel claimed that Taba had been on the Ottoman side of a border agreed between the Ottomans and British Egypt in 1906, and that there had previously been an error in marking the line. The issue was submitted to an international commission composed of one Israeli, one Egyptian, and three outsiders. In 1988, the commission ruled in Egypt's favor, and Israel returned Taba to Egypt later that year.

Egypt withdrew any claim to the Gaza Strip. The border between Israel and the Gaza Strip is subject to further negotiations.

*Border with Jordan*

The Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace was signed on October 26, 1994. The treaty resolved territorial and border issues that were ongoing since the 1948 war. The treaty specified and fully recognized the international border between Israel and Jordan. Upon its signing, the Jordan andYarmouk Rivers, the Dead Sea, the Emek Ha'arva/Wadi Araba and theGulf of Aqaba were officially designated as the borders between Israel and Jordan, and the border between Jordan and the territory occupied by Israel in 1967. For the latter, the agreement requires that the demarcation use a different presentation, and that it carry the following disclaimer:

"This line is the administrative boundary between Jordan and the territory which came under Israeli military government control in 1967. Any treatment of this line shall be without prejudice to the status of the territory."

(See: _Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty, Annex I, Israel-Jordan International Boundary Delimitation and Demarcation_.[18])

In 1988, Jordan withdrew any claim to the West Bank. The border between Israel and the West Bank will be negotiated between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

*Border with Palestine*

There has been no productive negotiations with the authorities in the State of Palestine concerning the establishment of borders. The PLO-Negotiations Affairs Department sees the 1967 border (not further identified) is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.


Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The green is Palestine. The rest is Israel. What's so hard to understand about that???
> 
> 
> 
> The only way those armistice lines can become borders is a signed agreement between Israel and Palestine.
> 
> I don't believe that has ever happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Palestine is under an obligation to negotiate mutual borders with all of its neighbours after declairing their intentions to do so last year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have a link for that?
> 
> Palestine has no border dispute with any of its neighbors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is in the Palestinian declaration of independence
> 
> Could that be because they have no borders yet, having never negotiated any under un res 242. ( again part of their declaration )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could you quote the passages?
Click to expand...




Palestinian Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


 The declaration was accompanied by a PNC call for multilateral negotiations on the basis of UN Security Council Resolution 242. This call was later termed "the Historic Compromise",[11] as it implied acceptance of the "two-state solution", namely that it no longer questioned the legitimacy of the State of Israel.[10]


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You saying this over and over again, does not make it any more sound or valid.  Just more disinformation by the Palestinians to justify their hostile activity.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That map is outdated. Look at mine.
> 
> 
> 
> That one is outdated too. Resolution 181 was a non binding recommendation. It was not implemented by the Mandate or the Security council. It never happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> UNITED NATIONS Department of Public Information, Press and Publications Bureau, Lake Success, New York
> *Press Release* PAL/169  *Source:* United Nations Palestine Commission (UNPC)
> 17 May 1948
> 
> EXCERPT:  "During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. *In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented.*"​
> UN Document A/43/827  S/2027  18 November 1988
> Annex III --- Declaration of Independence
> 
> EXCERPT:
> Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and *on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947*, and
> 
> Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
> 
> The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.​
> UN Document A/53/879  S/1999/334  25 March 1999
> Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General
> 
> EXCERPT:
> For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, *resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable*. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a _corpus separatum_, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. *The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.*​
> UN Document A/RES/67/19  4 December 2012
> 67/19.  Status of Palestine in the United Nations wherein the General Assembly decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations
> 
> EXCERPT:  "_Recalling_ its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,"​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I've cited four (4) key historical documents that extend over a range of six (6) decades that reference General Assembly Resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947.   Things that  "never happened" are not normally cited as:
> 
> Having been "implemented" in an official public announcement.
> Recognized by the sole representative of the Palestinian People as having "international legitimacy."
> Acknowledged by the sole representative of the Palestinian People as "becoming acceptable."
> Used as a reference document in the landmark decision to make the "role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people."
> It should be noticed that the Resolution, of 29 November 1947, has been used as a reference document for over the las 60 years --- and as recently as last month in UN Document A/HRC/28/L.32 25 March 2015 pertaining to the Right of the Palestinian People to Self-Determination:
> 
> _Recalling _General Assembly resolutions 181 A and B (II) of 29 November 1947 and 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, as well as all other relevant United Nations resolutions, including those adopted by the General Assembly, the Commission on Human Rights and the Human Rights Council, that confirm and define the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, particularly their right to self-determination,​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People mention resolution 181 for political posturing but what does that mean?
> 
> Does the UN recognize Palestine on the proposed borders that were never borders like it recognizes Israel on armistice lines that were never borders?
> 
> It looks more like a political cluster fuck than a determination of legalities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The start of the declaration of two nations with borders to be mutually agreed
> 
> NO as it never declared any borders. Nor does it recognise Israel on borders that have not been agreed. So the only borders are those between Israel and Egypt/Jordan that are recognised by any international laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the only borders are those between Israel and Egypt/Jordan that are recognised by any international laws.​
Click to expand...






Egypt Israel Peace Treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Israel Jordan peace treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 The only treaties in existence that delineate any borders in Palestine the MANDATE


----------



## MJB12741

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You saying this over and over again, does not make it any more sound or valid.  Just more disinformation by the Palestinians to justify their hostile activity.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That one is outdated too. Resolution 181 was a non binding recommendation. It was not implemented by the Mandate or the Security council. It never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> UNITED NATIONS Department of Public Information, Press and Publications Bureau, Lake Success, New York
> *Press Release* PAL/169  *Source:* United Nations Palestine Commission (UNPC)
> 17 May 1948
> 
> EXCERPT:  "During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. *In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented.*"​
> UN Document A/43/827  S/2027  18 November 1988
> Annex III --- Declaration of Independence
> 
> EXCERPT:
> Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and *on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947*, and
> 
> Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
> 
> The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.​
> UN Document A/53/879  S/1999/334  25 March 1999
> Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General
> 
> EXCERPT:
> For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, *resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable*. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a _corpus separatum_, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. *The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.*​
> UN Document A/RES/67/19  4 December 2012
> 67/19.  Status of Palestine in the United Nations wherein the General Assembly decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations
> 
> EXCERPT:  "_Recalling_ its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,"​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I've cited four (4) key historical documents that extend over a range of six (6) decades that reference General Assembly Resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947.   Things that  "never happened" are not normally cited as:
> 
> Having been "implemented" in an official public announcement.
> Recognized by the sole representative of the Palestinian People as having "international legitimacy."
> Acknowledged by the sole representative of the Palestinian People as "becoming acceptable."
> Used as a reference document in the landmark decision to make the "role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people."
> It should be noticed that the Resolution, of 29 November 1947, has been used as a reference document for over the las 60 years --- and as recently as last month in UN Document A/HRC/28/L.32 25 March 2015 pertaining to the Right of the Palestinian People to Self-Determination:
> 
> _Recalling _General Assembly resolutions 181 A and B (II) of 29 November 1947 and 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, as well as all other relevant United Nations resolutions, including those adopted by the General Assembly, the Commission on Human Rights and the Human Rights Council, that confirm and define the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, particularly their right to self-determination,​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People mention resolution 181 for political posturing but what does that mean?
> 
> Does the UN recognize Palestine on the proposed borders that were never borders like it recognizes Israel on armistice lines that were never borders?
> 
> It looks more like a political cluster fuck than a determination of legalities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The start of the declaration of two nations with borders to be mutually agreed
> 
> NO as it never declared any borders. Nor does it recognise Israel on borders that have not been agreed. So the only borders are those between Israel and Egypt/Jordan that are recognised by any international laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the only borders are those between Israel and Egypt/Jordan that are recognised by any international laws.​
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt Israel Peace Treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Israel Jordan peace treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> The only treaties in existence that delineate any borders in Palestine the MANDATE
Click to expand...


Isn't it interesting how Israel has made a lasting peace with both Egypt & Jordan & neither country will allow their Palestinians any right of return.  Golly gee, is it actually possible Egypt & Jordon are releived to now have Israel to deal with their Palestinians?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did that. Now you need to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did the state of Palestine come into existence according to International law ?    Or are you unable to answer this question truthfully ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124
> 
> Henceforth, Palestinian nationality was first founded, according to international law, on 6 August 1924. And “treaty nationality in Palestine runs from that date.”139 The Treaty of Lausanne had transformed the _de facto_ status of Palestinian nationality into _de jure _existence from the angle of international law.140 Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist.141 Likewise, on 6 August 1924, for the first time ever, international law certified the birth of the ‘Palestinian people’ as distinct from all other peoples.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But did not confer a nation on Palestine so does not make Palestine a nation until 1988 when the arab muslims finally realised they would lose everything the way they were going. Your cut and paste talks of Palestinian nationality and not a Palestinian nation.    Also this is by the islamonazi propagandist that alters the wording of treaties until the match his personal view of events.
> 
> So keep trying and answer the question   When did the state of Palestine come into existence according to International law ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your cut and paste talks of Palestinian nationality and not a Palestinian nation.​
> Oh jeese!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you ant understand this then it explains why you cant grasp the fact that the Mandate for Palestine set borders for the Mandate and did not declare a nation of Palestine. It is very explicit in this fact that you ignore because it destroys your POV.
Click to expand...

The Mandate was the trustee for Palestine. It had the authority to act on the behalf of Palestine.

A trustee has no ownership it just has control limited by the rules of the trusteeship.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did the state of Palestine come into existence according to International law ?    Or are you unable to answer this question truthfully ?
> 
> 
> 
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124
> 
> Henceforth, Palestinian nationality was first founded, according to international law, on 6 August 1924. And “treaty nationality in Palestine runs from that date.”139 The Treaty of Lausanne had transformed the _de facto_ status of Palestinian nationality into _de jure _existence from the angle of international law.140 Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist.141 Likewise, on 6 August 1924, for the first time ever, international law certified the birth of the ‘Palestinian people’ as distinct from all other peoples.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But did not confer a nation on Palestine so does not make Palestine a nation until 1988 when the arab muslims finally realised they would lose everything the way they were going. Your cut and paste talks of Palestinian nationality and not a Palestinian nation.    Also this is by the islamonazi propagandist that alters the wording of treaties until the match his personal view of events.
> 
> So keep trying and answer the question   When did the state of Palestine come into existence according to International law ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your cut and paste talks of Palestinian nationality and not a Palestinian nation.​
> Oh jeese!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you ant understand this then it explains why you cant grasp the fact that the Mandate for Palestine set borders for the Mandate and did not declare a nation of Palestine. It is very explicit in this fact that you ignore because it destroys your POV.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Mandate was the trustee for Palestine. It had the authority to act on the behalf of Palestine.
> 
> A trustee has no ownership it just has control limited by the rules of the trusteeship.
Click to expand...





 You are mixing up MANDATES again

 Mandate for Palestine a legal piece of legislature by the LoN that set out the conditions of the mandated power.
 British mandate a set of rules issued by the LoN on how Britain was to administer the mandate.

 The first is International law
 The second is the implementation of that law.

 If you cant understand this then might I suggest you do a remedial course in English comprehension and recent History


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You saying this over and over again, does not make it any more sound or valid.  Just more disinformation by the Palestinians to justify their hostile activity.
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> UNITED NATIONS Department of Public Information, Press and Publications Bureau, Lake Success, New York
> *Press Release* PAL/169  *Source:* United Nations Palestine Commission (UNPC)
> 17 May 1948
> 
> EXCERPT:  "During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. *In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented.*"​
> UN Document A/43/827  S/2027  18 November 1988
> Annex III --- Declaration of Independence
> 
> EXCERPT:
> Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and *on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947*, and
> 
> Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
> 
> The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.​
> UN Document A/53/879  S/1999/334  25 March 1999
> Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General
> 
> EXCERPT:
> For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, *resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable*. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a _corpus separatum_, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. *The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.*​
> UN Document A/RES/67/19  4 December 2012
> 67/19.  Status of Palestine in the United Nations wherein the General Assembly decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations
> 
> EXCERPT:  "_Recalling_ its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,"​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I've cited four (4) key historical documents that extend over a range of six (6) decades that reference General Assembly Resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947.   Things that  "never happened" are not normally cited as:
> 
> Having been "implemented" in an official public announcement.
> Recognized by the sole representative of the Palestinian People as having "international legitimacy."
> Acknowledged by the sole representative of the Palestinian People as "becoming acceptable."
> Used as a reference document in the landmark decision to make the "role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people."
> It should be noticed that the Resolution, of 29 November 1947, has been used as a reference document for over the las 60 years --- and as recently as last month in UN Document A/HRC/28/L.32 25 March 2015 pertaining to the Right of the Palestinian People to Self-Determination:
> 
> _Recalling _General Assembly resolutions 181 A and B (II) of 29 November 1947 and 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, as well as all other relevant United Nations resolutions, including those adopted by the General Assembly, the Commission on Human Rights and the Human Rights Council, that confirm and define the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, particularly their right to self-determination,​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> People mention resolution 181 for political posturing but what does that mean?
> 
> Does the UN recognize Palestine on the proposed borders that were never borders like it recognizes Israel on armistice lines that were never borders?
> 
> It looks more like a political cluster fuck than a determination of legalities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The start of the declaration of two nations with borders to be mutually agreed
> 
> NO as it never declared any borders. Nor does it recognise Israel on borders that have not been agreed. So the only borders are those between Israel and Egypt/Jordan that are recognised by any international laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the only borders are those between Israel and Egypt/Jordan that are recognised by any international laws.​
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt Israel Peace Treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Israel Jordan peace treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> The only treaties in existence that delineate any borders in Palestine the MANDATE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it interesting how Israel has made a lasting peace with both Egypt & Jordan & neither country will allow their Palestinians any right of return.  Golly gee, is it actually possible Egypt & Jordon are releived to now have Israel to deal with their Palestinians?
Click to expand...


The Palestinians are from Palestine.  They are the indigenous people of Palestine.  The Palestinians are not from either Egypt or Jordan, strangely enough, the Palestinian people are from Palestine.  

The Jews are European colonizers that are now living on the land that the Christians and Muslim Palestinians had lived on for generations..  Why do continue spewing propaganda?   

*UNITED*
*NATIONS
A*






*General Assembly*













 A/364
3 September 1947
*OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF *
*THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY*


*SUPPLEMENT No. 11*



*UNITED NATIONS*
*SPECIAL COMMITTEE*
*ON PALESTINE*



*REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY*

*VOLUME 1*





*Lake Success*
*New York*
*1947*




"*The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. From 1920 to 1946,* the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year.

*The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths."*
*
A 364 of 3 September 1947

*


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> People mention resolution 181 for political posturing but what does that mean?
> 
> Does the UN recognize Palestine on the proposed borders that were never borders like it recognizes Israel on armistice lines that were never borders?
> 
> It looks more like a political cluster fuck than a determination of legalities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The start of the declaration of two nations with borders to be mutually agreed
> 
> NO as it never declared any borders. Nor does it recognise Israel on borders that have not been agreed. So the only borders are those between Israel and Egypt/Jordan that are recognised by any international laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the only borders are those between Israel and Egypt/Jordan that are recognised by any international laws.​
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt Israel Peace Treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Israel Jordan peace treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> The only treaties in existence that delineate any borders in Palestine the MANDATE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it interesting how Israel has made a lasting peace with both Egypt & Jordan & neither country will allow their Palestinians any right of return.  Golly gee, is it actually possible Egypt & Jordon are releived to now have Israel to deal with their Palestinians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are from Palestine.  They are the indigenous people of Palestine.  The Palestinians are not from either Egypt or Jordan, strangely enough, the Palestinian people are from Palestine.
> 
> The Jews are European colonizers that are now living on the land that the Christians and Muslim Palestinians had lived on for generations..  Why do continue spewing propaganda?
> 
> *UNITED
> NATIONS
> A*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *General Assembly*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A/364
> 3 September 1947
> *OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF
> THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY*
> 
> 
> *SUPPLEMENT No. 11*
> 
> 
> 
> *UNITED NATIONS
> SPECIAL COMMITTEE
> ON PALESTINE*
> 
> 
> 
> *REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY*
> 
> *VOLUME 1*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Lake Success
> New York
> 1947*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "*The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. From 1920 to 1946,* the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year.
> 
> *The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths."
> 
> A 364 of 3 September 1947
> *
Click to expand...





 So does this mean the UN rule introduced in 1948 to facilitate arab mslim illegal migration should be scrapped. You know the one stating that if an arab muslim says he has been resident in Palestine for two years he is automatically granted Palestinian citizenship ?

 Now I wonder how many "Palestinians" have been created by that rule ? ? ? ?


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> People mention resolution 181 for political posturing but what does that mean?
> 
> Does the UN recognize Palestine on the proposed borders that were never borders like it recognizes Israel on armistice lines that were never borders?
> 
> It looks more like a political cluster fuck than a determination of legalities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The start of the declaration of two nations with borders to be mutually agreed
> 
> NO as it never declared any borders. Nor does it recognise Israel on borders that have not been agreed. So the only borders are those between Israel and Egypt/Jordan that are recognised by any international laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the only borders are those between Israel and Egypt/Jordan that are recognised by any international laws.​
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt Israel Peace Treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Israel Jordan peace treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> The only treaties in existence that delineate any borders in Palestine the MANDATE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it interesting how Israel has made a lasting peace with both Egypt & Jordan & neither country will allow their Palestinians any right of return.  Golly gee, is it actually possible Egypt & Jordon are releived to now have Israel to deal with their Palestinians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are from Palestine.  They are the indigenous people of Palestine.  The Palestinians are not from either Egypt or Jordan, strangely enough, the Palestinian people are from Palestine.
> 
> The Jews are European colonizers that are now living on the land that the Christians and Muslim Palestinians had lived on for generations..  Why do continue spewing propaganda?
> 
> *UNITED
> NATIONS
> A*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *General Assembly*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A/364
> 3 September 1947
> *OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF
> THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY*
> 
> 
> *SUPPLEMENT No. 11*
> 
> 
> 
> *UNITED NATIONS
> SPECIAL COMMITTEE
> ON PALESTINE*
> 
> 
> 
> *REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY*
> 
> *VOLUME 1*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Lake Success
> New York
> 1947*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "*The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. From 1920 to 1946,* the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year.
> 
> *The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths."
> 
> A 364 of 3 September 1947
> *
Click to expand...



Oh now I get it.  It was the Muslim & Christian Palestinians that built Solomon's Temple.  Seriously, whether you like Monte of not, ya gotta love him for his great sense of humor.  Heh Heh!


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> People mention resolution 181 for political posturing but what does that mean?
> 
> Does the UN recognize Palestine on the proposed borders that were never borders like it recognizes Israel on armistice lines that were never borders?
> 
> It looks more like a political cluster fuck than a determination of legalities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The start of the declaration of two nations with borders to be mutually agreed
> 
> NO as it never declared any borders. Nor does it recognise Israel on borders that have not been agreed. So the only borders are those between Israel and Egypt/Jordan that are recognised by any international laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the only borders are those between Israel and Egypt/Jordan that are recognised by any international laws.​
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt Israel Peace Treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Israel Jordan peace treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> The only treaties in existence that delineate any borders in Palestine the MANDATE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it interesting how Israel has made a lasting peace with both Egypt & Jordan & neither country will allow their Palestinians any right of return.  Golly gee, is it actually possible Egypt & Jordon are releived to now have Israel to deal with their Palestinians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are from Palestine.  They are the indigenous people of Palestine.  The Palestinians are not from either Egypt or Jordan, strangely enough, the Palestinian people are from Palestine.
> 
> The Jews are European colonizers that are now living on the land that the Christians and Muslim Palestinians had lived on for generations..  Why do continue spewing propaganda?
> 
> *UNITED
> NATIONS
> A*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *General Assembly*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A/364
> 3 September 1947
> *OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF
> THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY*
> 
> 
> *SUPPLEMENT No. 11*
> 
> 
> 
> *UNITED NATIONS
> SPECIAL COMMITTEE
> ON PALESTINE*
> 
> 
> 
> *REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY*
> 
> *VOLUME 1*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Lake Success
> New York
> 1947*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "*The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. From 1920 to 1946,* the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year.
> 
> *The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths."
> 
> A 364 of 3 September 1947
> *
Click to expand...

More propaganda lies from Monti. 

First off, over 40% of Israeli Jews are from the ME/North Africa...NOT Europe. 

Second. not every Arab living within the region that is called 'from Palestinian' is actually from the region.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124
> 
> Henceforth, Palestinian nationality was first founded, according to international law, on 6 August 1924. And “treaty nationality in Palestine runs from that date.”139 The Treaty of Lausanne had transformed the _de facto_ status of Palestinian nationality into _de jure _existence from the angle of international law.140 Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist.141 Likewise, on 6 August 1924, for the first time ever, international law certified the birth of the ‘Palestinian people’ as distinct from all other peoples.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But did not confer a nation on Palestine so does not make Palestine a nation until 1988 when the arab muslims finally realised they would lose everything the way they were going. Your cut and paste talks of Palestinian nationality and not a Palestinian nation.    Also this is by the islamonazi propagandist that alters the wording of treaties until the match his personal view of events.
> 
> So keep trying and answer the question   When did the state of Palestine come into existence according to International law ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your cut and paste talks of Palestinian nationality and not a Palestinian nation.​
> Oh jeese!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you ant understand this then it explains why you cant grasp the fact that the Mandate for Palestine set borders for the Mandate and did not declare a nation of Palestine. It is very explicit in this fact that you ignore because it destroys your POV.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Mandate was the trustee for Palestine. It had the authority to act on the behalf of Palestine.
> 
> A trustee has no ownership it just has control limited by the rules of the trusteeship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are mixing up MANDATES again
> 
> Mandate for Palestine a legal piece of legislature by the LoN that set out the conditions of the mandated power.
> British mandate a set of rules issued by the LoN on how Britain was to administer the mandate.
> 
> The first is International law
> The second is the implementation of that law.
> 
> If you cant understand this then might I suggest you do a remedial course in English comprehension and recent History
Click to expand...

You say there are two mandates.

Links?


----------



## toastman

BTW, just to refute the "Palestinians never accepted 181" lie.

"This Palestinian Declaration of Independence explicitly accepted the UN General Assembly’s Partition Resolution 181(II) of 1947"

Palestine Independence Day 24 Years Ago November 15 1988 Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The start of the declaration of two nations with borders to be mutually agreed
> 
> NO as it never declared any borders. Nor does it recognise Israel on borders that have not been agreed. So the only borders are those between Israel and Egypt/Jordan that are recognised by any international laws.
> 
> 
> 
> So the only borders are those between Israel and Egypt/Jordan that are recognised by any international laws.​
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt Israel Peace Treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Israel Jordan peace treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> The only treaties in existence that delineate any borders in Palestine the MANDATE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it interesting how Israel has made a lasting peace with both Egypt & Jordan & neither country will allow their Palestinians any right of return.  Golly gee, is it actually possible Egypt & Jordon are releived to now have Israel to deal with their Palestinians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are from Palestine.  They are the indigenous people of Palestine.  The Palestinians are not from either Egypt or Jordan, strangely enough, the Palestinian people are from Palestine.
> 
> The Jews are European colonizers that are now living on the land that the Christians and Muslim Palestinians had lived on for generations..  Why do continue spewing propaganda?
> 
> *UNITED
> NATIONS
> A*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *General Assembly*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A/364
> 3 September 1947
> *OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF
> THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY*
> 
> 
> *SUPPLEMENT No. 11*
> 
> 
> 
> *UNITED NATIONS
> SPECIAL COMMITTEE
> ON PALESTINE*
> 
> 
> 
> *REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY*
> 
> *VOLUME 1*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Lake Success
> New York
> 1947*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "*The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. From 1920 to 1946,* the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year.
> 
> *The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths."
> 
> A 364 of 3 September 1947
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh now I get it.  It was the Muslim & Christian Palestinians that built Solomon's Temple.  Seriously, whether you like Monte of not, ya gotta love him for his great sense of humor.  Heh Heh!
Click to expand...


It certainly wasn't European Jews that built Solomon's Temple.  You do provide entertainment though, keep it up.  My how you leave yourself open. LOL


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> But did not confer a nation on Palestine so does not make Palestine a nation until 1988 when the arab muslims finally realised they would lose everything the way they were going. Your cut and paste talks of Palestinian nationality and not a Palestinian nation.    Also this is by the islamonazi propagandist that alters the wording of treaties until the match his personal view of events.
> 
> So keep trying and answer the question   When did the state of Palestine come into existence according to International law ?
> 
> 
> 
> Your cut and paste talks of Palestinian nationality and not a Palestinian nation.​
> Oh jeese!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you ant understand this then it explains why you cant grasp the fact that the Mandate for Palestine set borders for the Mandate and did not declare a nation of Palestine. It is very explicit in this fact that you ignore because it destroys your POV.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Mandate was the trustee for Palestine. It had the authority to act on the behalf of Palestine.
> 
> A trustee has no ownership it just has control limited by the rules of the trusteeship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are mixing up MANDATES again
> 
> Mandate for Palestine a legal piece of legislature by the LoN that set out the conditions of the mandated power.
> British mandate a set of rules issued by the LoN on how Britain was to administer the mandate.
> 
> The first is International law
> The second is the implementation of that law.
> 
> If you cant understand this then might I suggest you do a remedial course in English comprehension and recent History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say there are two mandates.
> 
> Links?
Click to expand...





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)

The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the only borders are those between Israel and Egypt/Jordan that are recognised by any international laws.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt Israel Peace Treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Israel Jordan peace treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> The only treaties in existence that delineate any borders in Palestine the MANDATE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it interesting how Israel has made a lasting peace with both Egypt & Jordan & neither country will allow their Palestinians any right of return.  Golly gee, is it actually possible Egypt & Jordon are releived to now have Israel to deal with their Palestinians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are from Palestine.  They are the indigenous people of Palestine.  The Palestinians are not from either Egypt or Jordan, strangely enough, the Palestinian people are from Palestine.
> 
> The Jews are European colonizers that are now living on the land that the Christians and Muslim Palestinians had lived on for generations..  Why do continue spewing propaganda?
> 
> *UNITED
> NATIONS
> A*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *General Assembly*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A/364
> 3 September 1947
> *OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF
> THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY*
> 
> 
> *SUPPLEMENT No. 11*
> 
> 
> 
> *UNITED NATIONS
> SPECIAL COMMITTEE
> ON PALESTINE*
> 
> 
> 
> *REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY*
> 
> *VOLUME 1*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Lake Success
> New York
> 1947*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "*The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. From 1920 to 1946,* the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year.
> 
> *The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths."
> 
> A 364 of 3 September 1947
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh now I get it.  It was the Muslim & Christian Palestinians that built Solomon's Temple.  Seriously, whether you like Monte of not, ya gotta love him for his great sense of humor.  Heh Heh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It certainly wasn't European Jews that built Solomon's Temple.  You do provide entertainment though, keep it up.  My how you leave yourself open. LOL
Click to expand...





 Well it certainly could not have been arab Christians or arab muslims as neither had been invented at the time.

 BUT it could have been the descendants of the European Jews that built the Temple as they are genetically linked to the Temple builders.


----------



## Linkiloo

In my recent trip to Israel I met a wonderful man on a Kibbutz. He was born in Israel in 1946, his family was from Russia and he is officially born in "Palestine". Very inconveinet for the anti-semites I think. Another lovely man is an Iraqui Jew. More inconvenience. It must be really difficult seeking European colonizers to Israel and tying it all up with no loose ends.


----------



## MJB12741

Linkiloo said:


> In my recent trip to Israel I met a wonderful man on a Kibbutz. He was born in Israel in 1946, his family was from Russia and he is officially born in "Palestine". Very inconveinet for the anti-semites I think. Another lovely man is an Iraqui Jew. More inconvenience. It must be really difficult seeking European colonizers to Israel and tying it all up with no loose ends.




Jews were indigenous Palestinians.  Not a single Muslim was except for any Jewish converts.


----------



## montelatici

In fact, most if not all Palestinians were Greek Orthodox Christians before the Arab conquest.  They had to be by law.  Before that they could have been Samaritans, Zoroastrians, Jews etc. The Pagan Western Romans were more liberal than the Christian Eastern Romans.  But, the Palestinians are the same people, just different religions, and they did not come from Europe, for the most part.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your cut and paste talks of Palestinian nationality and not a Palestinian nation.​
> Oh jeese!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you ant understand this then it explains why you cant grasp the fact that the Mandate for Palestine set borders for the Mandate and did not declare a nation of Palestine. It is very explicit in this fact that you ignore because it destroys your POV.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Mandate was the trustee for Palestine. It had the authority to act on the behalf of Palestine.
> 
> A trustee has no ownership it just has control limited by the rules of the trusteeship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are mixing up MANDATES again
> 
> Mandate for Palestine a legal piece of legislature by the LoN that set out the conditions of the mandated power.
> British mandate a set of rules issued by the LoN on how Britain was to administer the mandate.
> 
> The first is International law
> The second is the implementation of that law.
> 
> If you cant understand this then might I suggest you do a remedial course in English comprehension and recent History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say there are two mandates.
> 
> Links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)
> 
> The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate
Click to expand...

Where does it say that these are two separate mandates?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> In fact, most if not all Palestinians were Greek Orthodox Christians before the Arab conquest.  They had to be by law.  Before that they could have been Samaritans, Zoroastrians, Jews etc. The Pagan Western Romans were more liberal than the Christian Eastern Romans.  But, the Palestinians are the same people, just different religions, and they did not come from Europe, for the most part.








 LIAR as the Romans had their own brand of Christianity known as Roman Catholicism.  That was what became the Roman state religion.   Why do you SPAM this board with your LIES do you want to be banned again. The Jews never left the M.E. and faked conversion to other religions, and the islamonazi leader who took over after Mohamed died talked about the ancient Synagogues in Jerusalem when he marched in triumphant after winning the battle. throughout history the Jews have been known as Palestinians and it was a term as a profanity up until 1960 by the arab muslims.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you ant understand this then it explains why you cant grasp the fact that the Mandate for Palestine set borders for the Mandate and did not declare a nation of Palestine. It is very explicit in this fact that you ignore because it destroys your POV.
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate was the trustee for Palestine. It had the authority to act on the behalf of Palestine.
> 
> A trustee has no ownership it just has control limited by the rules of the trusteeship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are mixing up MANDATES again
> 
> Mandate for Palestine a legal piece of legislature by the LoN that set out the conditions of the mandated power.
> British mandate a set of rules issued by the LoN on how Britain was to administer the mandate.
> 
> The first is International law
> The second is the implementation of that law.
> 
> If you cant understand this then might I suggest you do a remedial course in English comprehension and recent History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say there are two mandates.
> 
> Links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)
> 
> The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say that these are two separate mandates?
Click to expand...





 In the links of course, try reading them


 The *British Mandate for Palestine*, or simply the *Mandate for Palestine*, was a legal commission for the administration of the territory that had formerly constituted the Ottoman Empire sanjaks of Nablus, Acre, the Southern portion of the Beirut Vilayet, and the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, prior to the Armistice of Mudros.



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

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

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and

Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and

Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and

Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;

confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, most if not all Palestinians were Greek Orthodox Christians before the Arab conquest.  They had to be by law.  Before that they could have been Samaritans, Zoroastrians, Jews etc. The Pagan Western Romans were more liberal than the Christian Eastern Romans.  But, the Palestinians are the same people, just different religions, and they did not come from Europe, for the most part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR as the Romans had their own brand of Christianity known as Roman Catholicism.  That was what became the Roman state religion.   Why do you SPAM this board with your LIES do you want to be banned again. The Jews never left the M.E. and faked conversion to other religions, and the islamonazi leader who took over after Mohamed died talked about the ancient Synagogues in Jerusalem when he marched in triumphant after winning the battle. throughout history the Jews have been known as Palestinians and it was a term as a profanity up until 1960 by the arab muslims.
Click to expand...

_
"LIAR as the Romans had their own brand of Christianity known as Roman Catholicism."_

No, The Romans that made Christianity the state religion were of the Eastern Roman Empire.  Constantine the Great (Constantinople), was the emperor that converted to he is a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church, not the Roman Catholic Church. You should do some research and avoid making a fool of yourself.


_"The Jews never left the M.E. and faked conversion to other religions,"
_
I guess if you say so, it must be true that Jews faked conversion to other religions, but as far as Palestine, they were expelled as confirmed by the Jewish Virtual Library.  Is that also a lying IslamoNazi (as you call them) propaganda site?  

"In desperation, the Jewish revolutionaries killed themselves rather than surrender to the Romans. The Romans then destroyed Jerusalem, annexed Judaea as a Roman province, and systematically drove the Jews from Palestine. *After 73 AD, Hebrew history would only be the history of the Diaspora as the Jews and their world view spread over Africa, Asia, and Europe."

The Diaspora Jewish Virtual Library*


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate was the trustee for Palestine. It had the authority to act on the behalf of Palestine.
> 
> A trustee has no ownership it just has control limited by the rules of the trusteeship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are mixing up MANDATES again
> 
> Mandate for Palestine a legal piece of legislature by the LoN that set out the conditions of the mandated power.
> British mandate a set of rules issued by the LoN on how Britain was to administer the mandate.
> 
> The first is International law
> The second is the implementation of that law.
> 
> If you cant understand this then might I suggest you do a remedial course in English comprehension and recent History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say there are two mandates.
> 
> Links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)
> 
> The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say that these are two separate mandates?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the links of course, try reading them
> 
> 
> The *British Mandate for Palestine*, or simply the *Mandate for Palestine*, was a legal commission for the administration of the territory that had formerly constituted the Ottoman Empire sanjaks of Nablus, Acre, the Southern portion of the Beirut Vilayet, and the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, prior to the Armistice of Mudros.
> 
> 
> 
> *The Council of the League of Nations:*
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and
> 
> Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and
> 
> Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and
> 
> Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and
> 
> Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;
> 
> confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:
Click to expand...

I still don't see two mandates.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate was the trustee for Palestine. It had the authority to act on the behalf of Palestine.
> 
> A trustee has no ownership it just has control limited by the rules of the trusteeship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are mixing up MANDATES again
> 
> Mandate for Palestine a legal piece of legislature by the LoN that set out the conditions of the mandated power.
> British mandate a set of rules issued by the LoN on how Britain was to administer the mandate.
> 
> The first is International law
> The second is the implementation of that law.
> 
> If you cant understand this then might I suggest you do a remedial course in English comprehension and recent History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say there are two mandates.
> 
> Links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)
> 
> The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say that these are two separate mandates?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the links of course, try reading them
> 
> 
> The *British Mandate for Palestine*, or simply the *Mandate for Palestine*, was a legal commission for the administration of the territory that had formerly constituted the Ottoman Empire sanjaks of Nablus, Acre, the Southern portion of the Beirut Vilayet, and the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, prior to the Armistice of Mudros.
> 
> 
> 
> *The Council of the League of Nations:*
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and
> 
> Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and
> 
> Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and
> 
> Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and
> 
> Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;
> 
> confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:
Click to expand...


Where does it say that 22% of Palestine is to be given to the European Jews?  Where does it say that any land is to be given to the European Jews?  Establishing a 'National Home" could mean a cultural center, it certainly does not mean a sovereign state. Plus wiki reproductions are subject to Hasbara manipulation.  They are not reliable.  Find the source document from an academic or governmental archive and then we can discuss.


----------



## P F Tinmore

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are mixing up MANDATES again
> 
> Mandate for Palestine a legal piece of legislature by the LoN that set out the conditions of the mandated power.
> British mandate a set of rules issued by the LoN on how Britain was to administer the mandate.
> 
> The first is International law
> The second is the implementation of that law.
> 
> If you cant understand this then might I suggest you do a remedial course in English comprehension and recent History
> 
> 
> 
> You say there are two mandates.
> 
> Links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)
> 
> The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say that these are two separate mandates?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the links of course, try reading them
> 
> 
> The *British Mandate for Palestine*, or simply the *Mandate for Palestine*, was a legal commission for the administration of the territory that had formerly constituted the Ottoman Empire sanjaks of Nablus, Acre, the Southern portion of the Beirut Vilayet, and the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, prior to the Armistice of Mudros.
> 
> 
> 
> *The Council of the League of Nations:*
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and
> 
> Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and
> 
> Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and
> 
> Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and
> 
> Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;
> 
> confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does it say that 22% of Palestine is to be given to the European Jews?  Where does it say that any land is to be given to the European Jews?  Establishing a 'National Home" could mean a cultural center, it certainly does not mean a sovereign state. Plus wiki reproductions are subject to Hasbara manipulation.  They are not reliable.  Find the source document from an academic or governmental archive and then we can discuss.
Click to expand...

Indeed, the national home was interpreted by the Mandate to mean:

Jews could immigrate to Palestine.
Jews would get Palestinian citizenship.
Jews would be a part of Palestine and share a government.

A Jewish state was specifically not in the plan.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, most if not all Palestinians were Greek Orthodox Christians before the Arab conquest.  They had to be by law.  Before that they could have been Samaritans, Zoroastrians, Jews etc. The Pagan Western Romans were more liberal than the Christian Eastern Romans.  But, the Palestinians are the same people, just different religions, and they did not come from Europe, for the most part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR as the Romans had their own brand of Christianity known as Roman Catholicism.  That was what became the Roman state religion.   Why do you SPAM this board with your LIES do you want to be banned again. The Jews never left the M.E. and faked conversion to other religions, and the islamonazi leader who took over after Mohamed died talked about the ancient Synagogues in Jerusalem when he marched in triumphant after winning the battle. throughout history the Jews have been known as Palestinians and it was a term as a profanity up until 1960 by the arab muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> "LIAR as the Romans had their own brand of Christianity known as Roman Catholicism."_
> 
> No, The Romans that made Christianity the state religion were of the Eastern Roman Empire.  Constantine the Great (Constantinople), was the emperor that converted to he is a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church, not the Roman Catholic Church. You should do some research and avoid making a fool of yourself.
> 
> 
> _"The Jews never left the M.E. and faked conversion to other religions,"
> _
> I guess if you say so, it must be true that Jews faked conversion to other religions, but as far as Palestine, they were expelled as confirmed by the Jewish Virtual Library.  Is that also a lying IslamoNazi (as you call them) propaganda site?
> 
> "In desperation, the Jewish revolutionaries killed themselves rather than surrender to the Romans. The Romans then destroyed Jerusalem, annexed Judaea as a Roman province, and systematically drove the Jews from Palestine. *After 73 AD, Hebrew history would only be the history of the Diaspora as the Jews and their world view spread over Africa, Asia, and Europe."
> 
> The Diaspora Jewish Virtual Library*
Click to expand...





 Source monte not publisher determines if an article is anti semitic or not. When you work that one out you will have increased your IQ by one point to 2


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are mixing up MANDATES again
> 
> Mandate for Palestine a legal piece of legislature by the LoN that set out the conditions of the mandated power.
> British mandate a set of rules issued by the LoN on how Britain was to administer the mandate.
> 
> The first is International law
> The second is the implementation of that law.
> 
> If you cant understand this then might I suggest you do a remedial course in English comprehension and recent History
> 
> 
> 
> You say there are two mandates.
> 
> Links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)
> 
> The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say that these are two separate mandates?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the links of course, try reading them
> 
> 
> The *British Mandate for Palestine*, or simply the *Mandate for Palestine*, was a legal commission for the administration of the territory that had formerly constituted the Ottoman Empire sanjaks of Nablus, Acre, the Southern portion of the Beirut Vilayet, and the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, prior to the Armistice of Mudros.
> 
> 
> 
> *The Council of the League of Nations:*
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and
> 
> Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and
> 
> Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and
> 
> Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and
> 
> Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;
> 
> confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does it say that 22% of Palestine is to be given to the European Jews?  Where does it say that any land is to be given to the European Jews?  Establishing a 'National Home" could mean a cultural center, it certainly does not mean a sovereign state. Plus wiki reproductions are subject to Hasbara manipulation.  They are not reliable.  Find the source document from an academic or governmental archive and then we can discuss.
Click to expand...






 MANDATE FOR PALESTINE that also says that the parts between the Jordan river and borders of the Mandate for Palestine are not to be included In the Jewish national home.


 I have given you the Avalon project link many times and it says just the same thing.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say there are two mandates.
> 
> Links?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)
> 
> The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say that these are two separate mandates?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the links of course, try reading them
> 
> 
> The *British Mandate for Palestine*, or simply the *Mandate for Palestine*, was a legal commission for the administration of the territory that had formerly constituted the Ottoman Empire sanjaks of Nablus, Acre, the Southern portion of the Beirut Vilayet, and the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, prior to the Armistice of Mudros.
> 
> 
> 
> *The Council of the League of Nations:*
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and
> 
> Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and
> 
> Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and
> 
> Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and
> 
> Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;
> 
> confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does it say that 22% of Palestine is to be given to the European Jews?  Where does it say that any land is to be given to the European Jews?  Establishing a 'National Home" could mean a cultural center, it certainly does not mean a sovereign state. Plus wiki reproductions are subject to Hasbara manipulation.  They are not reliable.  Find the source document from an academic or governmental archive and then we can discuss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, the national home was interpreted by the Mandate to mean:
> 
> Jews could immigrate to Palestine.
> Jews would get Palestinian citizenship.
> Jews would be a part of Palestine and share a government.
> 
> A Jewish state was specifically not in the plan.
Click to expand...




 Nor was an arab muslim state anywhere in any of the mandates then as they said the same thing about those states. The term national home means home of the nation for the Jews.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are mixing up MANDATES again
> 
> Mandate for Palestine a legal piece of legislature by the LoN that set out the conditions of the mandated power.
> British mandate a set of rules issued by the LoN on how Britain was to administer the mandate.
> 
> The first is International law
> The second is the implementation of that law.
> 
> If you cant understand this then might I suggest you do a remedial course in English comprehension and recent History
> 
> 
> 
> You say there are two mandates.
> 
> Links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)
> 
> The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say that these are two separate mandates?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the links of course, try reading them
> 
> 
> The *British Mandate for Palestine*, or simply the *Mandate for Palestine*, was a legal commission for the administration of the territory that had formerly constituted the Ottoman Empire sanjaks of Nablus, Acre, the Southern portion of the Beirut Vilayet, and the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, prior to the Armistice of Mudros.
> 
> 
> 
> *The Council of the League of Nations:*
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and
> 
> Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and
> 
> Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and
> 
> Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and
> 
> Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;
> 
> confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I still don't see two mandates.
Click to expand...





 Mandate for Palestine was the LoN treaty that set up the British mandate  for palestine  One enables the other, but the enabled can not stand by itself, it needs the enabler to exist


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)
> 
> The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that these are two separate mandates?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the links of course, try reading them
> 
> 
> The *British Mandate for Palestine*, or simply the *Mandate for Palestine*, was a legal commission for the administration of the territory that had formerly constituted the Ottoman Empire sanjaks of Nablus, Acre, the Southern portion of the Beirut Vilayet, and the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, prior to the Armistice of Mudros.
> 
> 
> 
> *The Council of the League of Nations:*
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and
> 
> Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and
> 
> Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and
> 
> Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and
> 
> Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;
> 
> confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does it say that 22% of Palestine is to be given to the European Jews?  Where does it say that any land is to be given to the European Jews?  Establishing a 'National Home" could mean a cultural center, it certainly does not mean a sovereign state. Plus wiki reproductions are subject to Hasbara manipulation.  They are not reliable.  Find the source document from an academic or governmental archive and then we can discuss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, the national home was interpreted by the Mandate to mean:
> 
> Jews could immigrate to Palestine.
> Jews would get Palestinian citizenship.
> Jews would be a part of Palestine and share a government.
> 
> A Jewish state was specifically not in the plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor was an arab muslim state anywhere in any of the mandates then as they said the same thing about those states. The term national home means home of the nation for the Jews.
Click to expand...

By default it would be a state for those who normally lived there. Whether they were Arabs or Muslims or not was irrelevant.


----------



## M14 Shooter

The West Bank Palestinians used to be Jordanians, but Jordan renounced its claim to the West Bank and abandoned them.
Now, the land belongs to Israel; the future of the people there will be determined by their willingness to not act like savages.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that these are two separate mandates?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the links of course, try reading them
> 
> 
> The *British Mandate for Palestine*, or simply the *Mandate for Palestine*, was a legal commission for the administration of the territory that had formerly constituted the Ottoman Empire sanjaks of Nablus, Acre, the Southern portion of the Beirut Vilayet, and the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, prior to the Armistice of Mudros.
> 
> 
> 
> *The Council of the League of Nations:*
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and
> 
> Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and
> 
> Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and
> 
> Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and
> 
> Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;
> 
> confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does it say that 22% of Palestine is to be given to the European Jews?  Where does it say that any land is to be given to the European Jews?  Establishing a 'National Home" could mean a cultural center, it certainly does not mean a sovereign state. Plus wiki reproductions are subject to Hasbara manipulation.  They are not reliable.  Find the source document from an academic or governmental archive and then we can discuss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, the national home was interpreted by the Mandate to mean:
> 
> Jews could immigrate to Palestine.
> Jews would get Palestinian citizenship.
> Jews would be a part of Palestine and share a government.
> 
> A Jewish state was specifically not in the plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor was an arab muslim state anywhere in any of the mandates then as they said the same thing about those states. The term national home means home of the nation for the Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By default it would be a state for those who normally lived there. Whether they were Arabs or Muslims or not was irrelevant.
Click to expand...





 The historic abusive treatment of the Jews by arab muslims meant that a multi-ethnic multifaith approach would never work. So the LoN experts decided on an unequal split giving the land in question to both the muslim and the Jews via a partition. This led to 78% becoming arab muslim under the name of trans Jordan ( no national name at the time and still the same today ) and 22% becoming the National home of the Jews ( now called Israel ). That was the only plausible answer to the problems surrounding the area at the time, and the LoN should have enforced their decision with military force and shown the violent aggressive arab muslims that they stood to loose more than then expected when they kicked off. Simply by arresting the leaders of arab muslim nations engaging in attacks on the Jews and evicting them from office would have the effect of diminishing the leaders power struggles.


----------



## montelatici

There is no historic abusive treatment of Jews by arab Muslims.  You are conflating the historic abusive treatment of Jews by Christians with centuries of peaceful coexistence of Muslims and Jews.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the links of course, try reading them
> 
> 
> The *British Mandate for Palestine*, or simply the *Mandate for Palestine*, was a legal commission for the administration of the territory that had formerly constituted the Ottoman Empire sanjaks of Nablus, Acre, the Southern portion of the Beirut Vilayet, and the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, prior to the Armistice of Mudros.
> 
> 
> 
> *The Council of the League of Nations:*
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and
> 
> Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and
> 
> Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and
> 
> Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and
> 
> Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;
> 
> confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that 22% of Palestine is to be given to the European Jews?  Where does it say that any land is to be given to the European Jews?  Establishing a 'National Home" could mean a cultural center, it certainly does not mean a sovereign state. Plus wiki reproductions are subject to Hasbara manipulation.  They are not reliable.  Find the source document from an academic or governmental archive and then we can discuss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, the national home was interpreted by the Mandate to mean:
> 
> Jews could immigrate to Palestine.
> Jews would get Palestinian citizenship.
> Jews would be a part of Palestine and share a government.
> 
> A Jewish state was specifically not in the plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor was an arab muslim state anywhere in any of the mandates then as they said the same thing about those states. The term national home means home of the nation for the Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By default it would be a state for those who normally lived there. Whether they were Arabs or Muslims or not was irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The historic abusive treatment of the Jews by arab muslims meant that a multi-ethnic multifaith approach would never work. So the LoN experts decided on an unequal split giving the land in question to both the muslim and the Jews via a partition. This led to 78% becoming arab muslim under the name of trans Jordan ( no national name at the time and still the same today ) and 22% becoming the National home of the Jews ( now called Israel ). That was the only plausible answer to the problems surrounding the area at the time, and the LoN should have enforced their decision with military force and shown the violent aggressive arab muslims that they stood to loose more than then expected when they kicked off. Simply by arresting the leaders of arab muslim nations engaging in attacks on the Jews and evicting them from office would have the effect of diminishing the leaders power struggles.
Click to expand...


The UN had no right to cede land to the European colonists.  The UN subcommittee's legal analysis said as much. The final determination that the land should have legally been turned over to the People of Palestine is excerpted below.   The complete legal analysis is contained in the complete report (linked below) which is pretty much hidden from the general public (you have to know what you are looking for in the archives)  as it shows conclusively that the UN acted illegally and solely for political motives when they sold out the people of Palestine to European colonists.  The British knew this and abstained from the vote on partition, by the way.  

The last sentence in the excerpt below demonstrates conclusively that everything you believe and post about the issue is untrue, nonsensical and regurgitation of of Ziionist propaganda.

Here is the link to the complete report.  

http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf


----------



## M14 Shooter

montelatici said:


> The UN had no right to cede land to the European colonists.


Today, this is irrelevant.
The states of Israel, Jordan Lebanon and Syria all exist.   
That's not going to change, unless someone invades one or more of them, dismantles the state(s) in question, and annexes the territory.
.


----------



## montelatici

M14 Shooter said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN had no right to cede land to the European colonists.
> 
> 
> 
> Today, this is irrelevant.
> The states of Israel, Jordan Lebanon and Syria all exist.
> That's not going to change, unless someone invades one or more of them, dismantles the state(s) in question, and annexes the territory.
> .
Click to expand...


Of course the illegality and the lack of authority of the UN to establish a European colony against the wishes of the people of Palestine, as stated in the legal opinion is relevant.  It is the basis on which the Palestinians can go to an international of even national tribunal and, for example, demand reparations from the UN.  Or, demand a legal decision on the right of return which an international tribunal would probably agree with.  Not that Israel could be compelled to comply, but Israel's non-compliance could result in international sanctions which could in turn induce Israel to negotiate, for example.


----------



## M14 Shooter

montelatici said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN had no right to cede land to the European colonists.
> 
> 
> 
> Today, this is irrelevant.
> The states of Israel, Jordan Lebanon and Syria all exist.
> That's not going to change, unless someone invades one or more of them, dismantles the state(s) in question, and annexes the territory.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course the illegality and the lack of authority of the UN to establish a European colony against the wishes of the people of Palestine, as stated in the legal opinion is relevant.
Click to expand...

Nope.  Not relevant.  Nothing the UN or anyone else can or will do, short of invasion, will dissolve these states.
And so, you can lay blame all you want, but it wont change a thing.


----------



## MJB12741

M14 Shooter said:


> The West Bank Palestinians used to be Jordanians, but Jordan renounced its claim to the West Bank and abandoned them.
> Now, the land belongs to Israel; the future of the people there will be determined by their willingness to not act like savages.




Well said.  How relieved Jordan was to sacrifice the West Bank to dump their Palestinians on Israel to deal with.  Let the Palis & their supporters bitch all they want.  Fact still remains that as a country Israel IS & Palestine IS NOT.  And if the Palis continue to act like savages with governing bodies like the PA & Hamas there never will be any Palestinian State in the country of Israel.


----------



## aris2chat

M14 Shooter said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN had no right to cede land to the European colonists.
> 
> 
> 
> Today, this is irrelevant.
> The states of Israel, Jordan Lebanon and Syria all exist.
> That's not going to change, unless someone invades one or more of them, dismantles the state(s) in question, and annexes the territory.
> .
Click to expand...


That is what is happening in syria....what groups are trying to make happen.  Some want to change government, there was invasion from neighboring countries and other are trying to carve it up and form their own countries.
Jordan and Lebanon are try to keep that from happening in their own territory.  Lebanon went through decades of invaders dictating, stealing, abusing and trying to annex all or part of the the country.  They are still struggling against outside interference of government.


----------



## montelatici

Well, the UN can certainly pay reparations to the people of Palestine, what do you mean there is nothing the UN can do?  An international court can make life difficult for Israel, if the Palestinians were to prove their case to a tribunal.  In any case, the demographics are such that eventually the area will revert to the non-Jews.  It's just a matter of time.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Well, the UN can certainly pay reparations to the people of Palestine, what do you mean there is nothing the UN can do?  An international court can make life difficult for Israel, if the Palestinians were to prove their case to a tribunal.  In any case, the demographics are such that eventually the area will revert to the non-Jews.  It's just a matter of time.



You are so funny Monte.  For over 4000 years Israel's enemies have been preaching Israel is doomed.  And 4000 years from now Israel's enemies will be preaching Israel is doomed.


----------



## M14 Shooter

montelatici said:


> Well, the UN can certainly pay reparations to the people of Palestine, what do you mean there is nothing the UN can do?


Paying "reparations" to the Palestinians?   That's the limit to the UN's power here?  
The UN does not have the power to force Israel to change its borders and/or cede any land to a Palestinian state.


----------



## montelatici

Israel was "doomed", the Romans saw to that.  A colonial project, facilitated by Britain, may have been completed, but colonial projects of the late 19th and 20th century have not lasted  over 100 years.


----------



## montelatici

M14 Shooter said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the UN can certainly pay reparations to the people of Palestine, what do you mean there is nothing the UN can do?
> 
> 
> 
> Paying "reparations" to the Palestinians?   That's the limit to the UN's power here?
> The UN does not have the power to force Israel to change its borders and/or cede any land to a Palestinian state.
Click to expand...


I don't think that the UN can do much more than pay reparations at the moment.  If Israel loses the support of the U.S. for some reason, then the U.N. could do what it did against Apartheid South Africa, sanctions etc., which forced the European South Africans to the table.  But at the moment reparations are about it.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Israel was "doomed", the Romans saw to that.  A colonial project, facilitated by Britain, may have been completed, but colonial projects of the late 19th and 20th century have not lasted  over 100 years.




Oh Monte.  I think I love you for all the laughs you give us while those you support are killing us infidels all over the world.

FACT:  Empires rose, empires fell & --- ISRAEL STILL REMAINS.


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel was "doomed", the Romans saw to that.  A colonial project, facilitated by Britain, may have been completed, but colonial projects of the late 19th and 20th century have not lasted  over 100 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Monte.  I think I love you for all the laughs you give us while those you support are killing us infidels all over the world.
> 
> FACT:  Empires rose, empires fell & --- ISRAEL STILL REMAINS.
Click to expand...


Ain't life a bitch for Israel's enemies?


----------



## M14 Shooter

montelatici said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the UN can certainly pay reparations to the people of Palestine, what do you mean there is nothing the UN can do?
> 
> 
> 
> Paying "reparations" to the Palestinians?   That's the limit to the UN's power here?
> The UN does not have the power to force Israel to change its borders and/or cede any land to a Palestinian state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think that the UN can do much more than pay reparations at the moment.  If Israel loses the support of the U.S. for some reason, then the U.N. could do what it did against Apartheid South Africa, sanctions etc., which forced the European South Africans to the table.  But at the moment reparations are about it.
Click to expand...

And so, back to my original point:
Whatever the UN said about the region way back when really doesn't matter today.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> There is no historic abusive treatment of Jews by arab Muslims.  You are conflating the historic abusive treatment of Jews by Christians with centuries of peaceful coexistence of Muslims and Jews.






 Nope as the evidence shows the muslims abused both Jews and Christians over he last 1400 years. They even have a god get out clause in their holy book that commands them to do so. And as you know being a muslim yourself you can not deny the teachings and commands of the Koran That is the best evidence there is the Koran and hadiths that spell out just how much islam has abused those that it sees as weak.


----------



## montelatici

Is this hubris really justified?  


MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel was "doomed", the Romans saw to that.  A colonial project, facilitated by Britain, may have been completed, but colonial projects of the late 19th and 20th century have not lasted  over 100 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Monte.  I think I love you for all the laughs you give us while those you support are killing us infidels all over the world.
> 
> FACT:  Empires rose, empires fell & --- ISRAEL STILL REMAINS.
Click to expand...


I am supporting the right of the Palestinian Christians and Muslims to self-determination.  

What empire has actually actual fallen without its base element surviving?   Is Israel an "empire" today?  The British, exist, the Greeks exist, the French exist, the Italians exist,  the Spanish exist,  the Portuguese exist.


----------



## montelatici

M14 Shooter said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the UN can certainly pay reparations to the people of Palestine, what do you mean there is nothing the UN can do?
> 
> 
> 
> Paying "reparations" to the Palestinians?   That's the limit to the UN's power here?
> The UN does not have the power to force Israel to change its borders and/or cede any land to a Palestinian state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think that the UN can do much more than pay reparations at the moment.  If Israel loses the support of the U.S. for some reason, then the U.N. could do what it did against Apartheid South Africa, sanctions etc., which forced the European South Africans to the table.  But at the moment reparations are about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And so, back to my original point:
> Whatever the UN said about the region way back when really doesn't matter today.
Click to expand...


Again, of course it matters for the reasons I amply described.  Without the basic illegality, what would the Palestinians hang any demand for rights on?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that 22% of Palestine is to be given to the European Jews?  Where does it say that any land is to be given to the European Jews?  Establishing a 'National Home" could mean a cultural center, it certainly does not mean a sovereign state. Plus wiki reproductions are subject to Hasbara manipulation.  They are not reliable.  Find the source document from an academic or governmental archive and then we can discuss.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the national home was interpreted by the Mandate to mean:
> 
> Jews could immigrate to Palestine.
> Jews would get Palestinian citizenship.
> Jews would be a part of Palestine and share a government.
> 
> A Jewish state was specifically not in the plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor was an arab muslim state anywhere in any of the mandates then as they said the same thing about those states. The term national home means home of the nation for the Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By default it would be a state for those who normally lived there. Whether they were Arabs or Muslims or not was irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The historic abusive treatment of the Jews by arab muslims meant that a multi-ethnic multifaith approach would never work. So the LoN experts decided on an unequal split giving the land in question to both the muslim and the Jews via a partition. This led to 78% becoming arab muslim under the name of trans Jordan ( no national name at the time and still the same today ) and 22% becoming the National home of the Jews ( now called Israel ). That was the only plausible answer to the problems surrounding the area at the time, and the LoN should have enforced their decision with military force and shown the violent aggressive arab muslims that they stood to loose more than then expected when they kicked off. Simply by arresting the leaders of arab muslim nations engaging in attacks on the Jews and evicting them from office would have the effect of diminishing the leaders power struggles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The UN had no right to cede land to the European colonists.  The UN subcommittee's legal analysis said as much. The final determination that the land should have legally been turned over to the People of Palestine is excerpted below.   The complete legal analysis is contained in the complete report (linked below) which is pretty much hidden from the general public (you have to know what you are looking for in the archives)  as it shows conclusively that the UN acted illegally and solely for political motives when they sold out the people of Palestine to European colonists.  The British knew this and abstained from the vote on partition, by the way.
> 
> The last sentence in the excerpt below demonstrates conclusively that everything you believe and post about the issue is untrue, nonsensical and regurgitation of of Ziionist propaganda.
> 
> Here is the link to the complete report.
> 
> http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 39858
Click to expand...




 So he International law put into place in 1923 that set up Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon should be scrapped and all the inhabitants of those countries expelled. Because that is what you are saying by this post.
 Yes the UN did not have the authority to alter INTERNATIONAL LAW and should have spelt this out to the arab muslims, with the threat they would face military action up to and including low yield nukes to stop any violence over the allocation of land. The arab muslims already had their 78% of Palestine to play in and that is where they should have been herded in 1947. The British should have been penalised for their anti Semitism and cowardice by having their embassies closed down for a full year and only being allowed to export needed goods.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that 22% of Palestine is to be given to the European Jews?  Where does it say that any land is to be given to the European Jews?  Establishing a 'National Home" could mean a cultural center, it certainly does not mean a sovereign state. Plus wiki reproductions are subject to Hasbara manipulation.  They are not reliable.  Find the source document from an academic or governmental archive and then we can discuss.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the national home was interpreted by the Mandate to mean:
> 
> Jews could immigrate to Palestine.
> Jews would get Palestinian citizenship.
> Jews would be a part of Palestine and share a government.
> 
> A Jewish state was specifically not in the plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor was an arab muslim state anywhere in any of the mandates then as they said the same thing about those states. The term national home means home of the nation for the Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By default it would be a state for those who normally lived there. Whether they were Arabs or Muslims or not was irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The historic abusive treatment of the Jews by arab muslims meant that a multi-ethnic multifaith approach would never work. So the LoN experts decided on an unequal split giving the land in question to both the muslim and the Jews via a partition. This led to 78% becoming arab muslim under the name of trans Jordan ( no national name at the time and still the same today ) and 22% becoming the National home of the Jews ( now called Israel ). That was the only plausible answer to the problems surrounding the area at the time, and the LoN should have enforced their decision with military force and shown the violent aggressive arab muslims that they stood to loose more than then expected when they kicked off. Simply by arresting the leaders of arab muslim nations engaging in attacks on the Jews and evicting them from office would have the effect of diminishing the leaders power struggles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The UN had no right to cede land to the European colonists.  The UN subcommittee's legal analysis said as much. The final determination that the land should have legally been turned over to the People of Palestine is excerpted below.   The complete legal analysis is contained in the complete report (linked below) which is pretty much hidden from the general public (you have to know what you are looking for in the archives)  as it shows conclusively that the UN acted illegally and solely for political motives when they sold out the people of Palestine to European colonists.  The British knew this and abstained from the vote on partition, by the way.
> 
> The last sentence in the excerpt below demonstrates conclusively that everything you believe and post about the issue is untrue, nonsensical and regurgitation of of Ziionist propaganda.
> 
> Here is the link to the complete report.
> 
> http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 39858
Click to expand...




 So he International law put into place in 1923 that set up Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon should be scrapped and all the inhabitants of those countries expelled. Because that is what you are saying by this post.
 Yes the UN did not have the authority to alter INTERNATIONAL LAW and should have spelt this out to the arab muslims, with the threat they would face military action up to and including low yield nukes to stop any violence over the allocation of land. The arab muslims already had their 78% of Palestine to play in and that is where they should have been herded in 1947. The British should have been penalised for their anti Semitism and cowardice by having their embassies closed down for a full year and only being allowed to export needed goods.


----------



## M14 Shooter

montelatici said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the UN can certainly pay reparations to the people of Palestine, what do you mean there is nothing the UN can do?
> 
> 
> 
> Paying "reparations" to the Palestinians?   That's the limit to the UN's power here?
> The UN does not have the power to force Israel to change its borders and/or cede any land to a Palestinian state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think that the UN can do much more than pay reparations at the moment.  If Israel loses the support of the U.S. for some reason, then the U.N. could do what it did against Apartheid South Africa, sanctions etc., which forced the European South Africans to the table.  But at the moment reparations are about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And so, back to my original point:
> Whatever the UN said about the region way back when really doesn't matter today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, of course it matters for the reasons I amply described.  Without the basic illegality, what would the Palestinians hang any demand for rights on?
Click to expand...

You operate from the presumption is that they indeed have a valid claim; the fact that they lived in Jordan and held Jordanian citizenship on 4 JUN 1967 negates any pre-WW2 specification from the defunct League of Nations.


----------



## montelatici

M14 Shooter said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the UN can certainly pay reparations to the people of Palestine, what do you mean there is nothing the UN can do?
> 
> 
> 
> Paying "reparations" to the Palestinians?   That's the limit to the UN's power here?
> The UN does not have the power to force Israel to change its borders and/or cede any land to a Palestinian state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think that the UN can do much more than pay reparations at the moment.  If Israel loses the support of the U.S. for some reason, then the U.N. could do what it did against Apartheid South Africa, sanctions etc., which forced the European South Africans to the table.  But at the moment reparations are about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And so, back to my original point:
> Whatever the UN said about the region way back when really doesn't matter today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, of course it matters for the reasons I amply described.  Without the basic illegality, what would the Palestinians hang any demand for rights on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You operate from the presumption is that they indeed have a valid claim; the fact that they lived in Jordan and held Jordanian citizenship on 4 JUN 1967 negates any pre-WW2 specification from the defunct League of Nations.
Click to expand...



The legal opinion UN A/AC.14/32 was written by a UN subcommittee 11 November 1947. , not LoN nor pre-war.  The acquisition of Jordanian citizenship by the Christians and Muslims of Palestine while under Jordanian occupation, is immaterial, they live in Israeli occupied territory. Trying to negate the Christian and Muslim Palestinian's human right to self-determination is futile.  It is recognized by the UN and under International law.


----------



## M14 Shooter

montelatici said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paying "reparations" to the Palestinians?   That's the limit to the UN's power here?
> The UN does not have the power to force Israel to change its borders and/or cede any land to a Palestinian state.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that the UN can do much more than pay reparations at the moment.  If Israel loses the support of the U.S. for some reason, then the U.N. could do what it did against Apartheid South Africa, sanctions etc., which forced the European South Africans to the table.  But at the moment reparations are about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And so, back to my original point:
> Whatever the UN said about the region way back when really doesn't matter today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, of course it matters for the reasons I amply described.  Without the basic illegality, what would the Palestinians hang any demand for rights on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You operate from the presumption is that they indeed have a valid claim; the fact that they lived in Jordan and held Jordanian citizenship on 4 JUN 1967 negates any pre-WW2 specification from the defunct League of Nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The legal opinion UN A/AC.14/32 was written by a UN subcommittee 11 November 1947. , not LoN nor pre-war.  The acquisition of Jordanian citizenship by the Christians and Muslims of Palestine while under Jordanian occupation, is immaterial...
Click to expand...

Hardly.  This supports, if not demonstrates, that they were legitimate and actual Jordanian citizens living within the state of Jordan at the time of the six-day war.


> ...they live in Israeli occupied territory.


No.  they live in land that was within the state or Jordan, taken from Jordan by Israel in a war Israel did not start, and then given up by Jordan - in 1988 when it open conceded the land and ion 1991 when it signed a treaty establishing the Israeli/Jordanian border.
Thus, under international law, this means the land belongs to Israel.


> Trying to negate the Christian and Muslim Palestinian's human right to self-determination is futile


Trying to argue that any state other than Israel has an legitimate claim to the land is unsupportable by international law.


----------



## montelatici

1. The annexation of the West Bank by Jordan was illegal so any act performed by Jordan with/to the inhabitants of the occupied territory lack legality.

"*Jordan’s Illegal Annexation*
In 1950, Jordan annexed the territories it had captured in the 1948 war–-eastern Jerusalem and the West Bank. The April 24th resolution declared “its support for complete unity between the two sides of the Jordan and their union into one State, which is the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, at whose head reigns King Abdullah Ibn al Husain...”

While Great Britain and Pakistan were the only countries that recognized Jordan’s annexation – all other nations, including the Arab states, rejected it -- Great Britain recognized only the annexation of the West Bank. It never recognized either Jordan or Israel’s sovereignty over any sector of Jerusalem, viewing both Jordan’s 1950 annexation and Israel’s  annexation of west Jerusalem as illegal."

1948-1967 Jordanian Occupation of Eastern Jerusalem

2. If the West Bank belongs to israel as you say, then to be a democratic state, the inhabitants must be enfranchised. 

3.  Well then, give the vote to all the people of Israel if it all belongs to israel.


----------



## M14 Shooter

montelatici said:


> 1. The annexation of the West Bank by Jordan was illegal so any act performed by Jordan with/to the inhabitants of the occupied territory lack legality.


Jordan annexed the land and granted the people living there citizenship, suffrage and representation.  Said annexation was recognized by the US and UK and then later accepted, if begrudgingly, by the Arab League.
You can -call- it illegal if you want, but -fact- is that the land belonged to the state of Jordan and the people were Jordanian citizens.


> 2. If the West Bank belongs to israel as you say, then to be a democratic state, the inhabitants must be enfranchised.
> 3.  Well then, give the vote to all the people of Israel if it all belongs to israel


Must?  According to whom?  Isn't that for Israel to decide in the time, place, manner and criteria of its choosing?
Who decides who is a citizen of a state and what rights those citizens may or may not have other than the state in question?
Surely you do not believe that by simply living within the borders of a state you are entitled to the full rights of citizenship.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Is this hubris really justified?
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel was "doomed", the Romans saw to that.  A colonial project, facilitated by Britain, may have been completed, but colonial projects of the late 19th and 20th century have not lasted  over 100 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Monte.  I think I love you for all the laughs you give us while those you support are killing us infidels all over the world.
> 
> FACT:  Empires rose, empires fell & --- ISRAEL STILL REMAINS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am supporting the right of the Palestinian Christians and Muslims to self-determination.
> 
> What empire has actually actual fallen without its base element surviving?   Is Israel an "empire" today?  The British, exist, the Greeks exist, the French exist, the Italians exist,  the Spanish exist,  the Portuguese exist.
Click to expand...



Oh now I get it.  You see folks, these empires still exist today. Please excuse me while I go tell my neighbors.   Amazing what we can learn from Monte.  
*
Ancient History's Greatest Empires—Revealed!*

Throughout *Ancient Empires before Alexander*, you immerse yourself in the details of the dozen empires that flourished in the 2,000 years before the conquests of Alexander the Great paved the way for the triumphs of the Roman Empire. Grounded in a chronological approach, the lectures begin in ancient Mesopotamia and span the river valleys, deserts, and mountain ranges of the Near East. You encounter these empires and others:


*The Akkadian Empire,* the first empire in human history established in the late 3rd millennium B.C. by Sargon the Great. Sargon and his successors pioneered the techniques of imperial rule and set a pattern on which later Mesopotamian empires would emulate and elaborate.
*The Empire of Hatti,* which dominated Asia Minor. The emergence of this empire in the early 2nd millennium B.C. presaged the downfall of Mesopotamia's power in the ancient world. Unlike strongly centralized Mesopotamian empires, Hatti—home to the Hittites—was very loosely structured and almost feudal in nature.
*The Persian Empire,* which would grow into the largest empire the ancient world had yet seen, stretching from Libya to India. This wealthy empire supported local autonomy within its imperial unity and displayed a tolerance for its bewildering diversity of peoples. Alexander the Great, however, would spell doom for this impressive civilization.
*The Carthaginian Empire,* a sea empire (thalassocracy) that consisted of Phoenician settlements along the coast of the western Mediterranean and possessed far-flung trading networks. Carthage would eventually be destroyed by Rome during the Punic Wars of the 3rd century B.C.


----------



## montelatici

M14 Shooter said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The annexation of the West Bank by Jordan was illegal so any act performed by Jordan with/to the inhabitants of the occupied territory lack legality.
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan annexed the land and granted the people living there citizenship, suffrage and representation..
> You can -call- it illegal if you want, but -fact- is that the land belonged to the state of Jordan and the people were Jordanian citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. If the West Bank belongs to israel as you say, then to be a democratic state, the inhabitants must be enfranchised.
> 3.  Well then, give the vote to all the people of Israel if it all belongs to israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Must?  According to whom?  Isn't that for Israel to decide in the time, place, manner and criteria of its choosing?
> Who decides who is a citizen of a state and what rights those citizens may or may not have other than the state in question?
> Surely you do not believe that by simply living within the borders of a state you are entitled to the full rights of citizenship.
Click to expand...


1.  Illegal occupation is what it is.  The land did not belong to the state of Jordan.  I even used CAMERA (a Zionist/Israeli organization) to back up this fact. 

2.  Of course people living within the boundaries of a state are entitled to citizenship and equal rights with others living within the borders, if the country is a democracy.  Anything else is Apartheid, but you knew that.


----------



## M14 Shooter

montelatici said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The annexation of the West Bank by Jordan was illegal so any act performed by Jordan with/to the inhabitants of the occupied territory lack legality.
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan annexed the land and granted the people living there citizenship, suffrage and representation..
> You can -call- it illegal if you want, but -fact- is that the land belonged to the state of Jordan and the people were Jordanian citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. If the West Bank belongs to israel as you say, then to be a democratic state, the inhabitants must be enfranchised.
> 3.  Well then, give the vote to all the people of Israel if it all belongs to israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Must?  According to whom?  Isn't that for Israel to decide in the time, place, manner and criteria of its choosing?
> Who decides who is a citizen of a state and what rights those citizens may or may not have other than the state in question?
> Surely you do not believe that by simply living within the borders of a state you are entitled to the full rights of citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.  Illegal occupation is what it is.
Click to expand...

As I said:  recognized by the UK UK and Arab league.
The land belonged to Jordan, its people were its citizens. Your argument here holds no water.


> Of course people living within the boundaries of a state are entitled to citizenship and equal rights with others living within the borders,


You believe that all aliens living in the US, by virtue of living in the US and nothing more,  are entitled to full citizenship?  


> Anything else is Apartheid, but you knew that


The United States is Apartheid?  

You didn't answer my questions:
Who decides who is a citizen of a state and what rights those citizens may or may not have other than the state in question?
Who decides what conditions must be met before that citizenship is conferred?
How does being a true democracy necessitate that every citizen carry the same rights and every other?


----------



## montelatici

The annexation of the West Bank was only recognized by the United Kingdom and Palkistan:

"Great Britain and Pakistan were the only countries that recognized Jordan’s annexation – all other nations, including the Arab states, rejected it"
1948-1967 Jordanian Occupation of Eastern Jerusalem

_Who decides who is a citizen of a state and what rights those citizens may or may not have other than the state in question?_

 The state in question.

_Who decides what conditions must be met before that citizenship is conferred?_

The State in question.

_How does being a true democracy necessitate that every citizen carry the same rights and every other?_

Will, if you have to ask that question I wonder if there is any basis for debate, but the answer is of course all citizens must have equal rights in a true democracy.


"*Characteristics of a True Democracy"*

 "........rights include freedom of religion, freedom of speech, *equal protection under the law*, the right to a fair trial and a right to privacy without unwarranted intrusion by the government......"

4 Characteristics of a True Democracy The Classroom Synonym

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which Israel is a signatory also places other requirements on Israel with respect to people under its jurisdiction.

*Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS* as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, *both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.*

*Article 2.*

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
*Article 7.*

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
*Article 15.*

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

*Article 21.*

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paying "reparations" to the Palestinians?   That's the limit to the UN's power here?
> The UN does not have the power to force Israel to change its borders and/or cede any land to a Palestinian state.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that the UN can do much more than pay reparations at the moment.  If Israel loses the support of the U.S. for some reason, then the U.N. could do what it did against Apartheid South Africa, sanctions etc., which forced the European South Africans to the table.  But at the moment reparations are about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And so, back to my original point:
> Whatever the UN said about the region way back when really doesn't matter today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, of course it matters for the reasons I amply described.  Without the basic illegality, what would the Palestinians hang any demand for rights on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You operate from the presumption is that they indeed have a valid claim; the fact that they lived in Jordan and held Jordanian citizenship on 4 JUN 1967 negates any pre-WW2 specification from the defunct League of Nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The legal opinion UN A/AC.14/32 was written by a UN subcommittee 11 November 1947. , not LoN nor pre-war.  The acquisition of Jordanian citizenship by the Christians and Muslims of Palestine while under Jordanian occupation, is immaterial, they live in Israeli occupied territory. Trying to negate the Christian and Muslim Palestinian's human right to self-determination is futile.  It is recognized by the UN and under International law.
Click to expand...





 Which international law would that be then Abdul ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> 1. The annexation of the West Bank by Jordan was illegal so any act performed by Jordan with/to the inhabitants of the occupied territory lack legality.
> 
> "*Jordan’s Illegal Annexation*
> In 1950, Jordan annexed the territories it had captured in the 1948 war–-eastern Jerusalem and the West Bank. The April 24th resolution declared “its support for complete unity between the two sides of the Jordan and their union into one State, which is the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, at whose head reigns King Abdullah Ibn al Husain...”
> 
> While Great Britain and Pakistan were the only countries that recognized Jordan’s annexation – all other nations, including the Arab states, rejected it -- Great Britain recognized only the annexation of the West Bank. It never recognized either Jordan or Israel’s sovereignty over any sector of Jerusalem, viewing both Jordan’s 1950 annexation and Israel’s  annexation of west Jerusalem as illegal."
> 
> 1948-1967 Jordanian Occupation of Eastern Jerusalem
> 
> 2. If the West Bank belongs to israel as you say, then to be a democratic state, the inhabitants must be enfranchised.
> 
> 3.  Well then, give the vote to all the people of Israel if it all belongs to israel.






 The land is Israeli, the inhabitants aren't so they do not have rights to citizenship or votes. No international law confers automatic citizenship on a person living in another nation. So the arab muslims have to go and find another place to live, or beg Israel for one last chance.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The annexation of the West Bank by Jordan was illegal so any act performed by Jordan with/to the inhabitants of the occupied territory lack legality.
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan annexed the land and granted the people living there citizenship, suffrage and representation..
> You can -call- it illegal if you want, but -fact- is that the land belonged to the state of Jordan and the people were Jordanian citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. If the West Bank belongs to israel as you say, then to be a democratic state, the inhabitants must be enfranchised.
> 3.  Well then, give the vote to all the people of Israel if it all belongs to israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Must?  According to whom?  Isn't that for Israel to decide in the time, place, manner and criteria of its choosing?
> Who decides who is a citizen of a state and what rights those citizens may or may not have other than the state in question?
> Surely you do not believe that by simply living within the borders of a state you are entitled to the full rights of citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  Illegal occupation is what it is.  The land did not belong to the state of Jordan.  I even used CAMERA (a Zionist/Israeli organization) to back up this fact.
> 
> 2.  Of course people living within the boundaries of a state are entitled to citizenship and equal rights with others living within the borders, if the country is a democracy.  Anything else is Apartheid, but you knew that.
Click to expand...




 What law says it is an illegal occupation

 The arab muslims living in the west bank in 1948 accepted the rule of Jordan thus exercising their free determination.

So you could come to the uk illegally and take up residence as a full uk citizen and not be deported.   Get real you idiot you would be arrested and thrown in a cell for your cheek.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> The annexation of the West Bank was only recognized by the United Kingdom and Palkistan:
> 
> "Great Britain and Pakistan were the only countries that recognized Jordan’s annexation – all other nations, including the Arab states, rejected it"
> 1948-1967 Jordanian Occupation of Eastern Jerusalem
> 
> _Who decides who is a citizen of a state and what rights those citizens may or may not have other than the state in question?_
> 
> The state in question.
> 
> _Who decides what conditions must be met before that citizenship is conferred?_
> 
> The State in question.
> 
> _How does being a true democracy necessitate that every citizen carry the same rights and every other?_
> 
> Will, if you have to ask that question I wonder if there is any basis for debate, but the answer is of course all citizens must have equal rights in a true democracy.
> 
> 
> "*Characteristics of a True Democracy"*
> 
> "........rights include freedom of religion, freedom of speech, *equal protection under the law*, the right to a fair trial and a right to privacy without unwarranted intrusion by the government......"
> 
> 4 Characteristics of a True Democracy The Classroom Synonym
> 
> The Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which Israel is a signatory also places other requirements on Israel with respect to people under its jurisdiction.
> 
> *Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS* as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, *both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.*
> 
> *Article 2.*
> 
> Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
> *Article 7.*
> 
> All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
> *Article 15.*
> 
> (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
> (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
> 
> *Article 21.*
> 
> (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
> (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
> (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
> The Universal Declaration of Human Rights







 Which is still not law and every nation decides its own variation of human rights.


 Now look at 15 and ask yourself what are the rights for the Jews ?


----------



## MJB12741

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The annexation of the West Bank by Jordan was illegal so any act performed by Jordan with/to the inhabitants of the occupied territory lack legality.
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan annexed the land and granted the people living there citizenship, suffrage and representation..
> You can -call- it illegal if you want, but -fact- is that the land belonged to the state of Jordan and the people were Jordanian citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. If the West Bank belongs to israel as you say, then to be a democratic state, the inhabitants must be enfranchised.
> 3.  Well then, give the vote to all the people of Israel if it all belongs to israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Must?  According to whom?  Isn't that for Israel to decide in the time, place, manner and criteria of its choosing?
> Who decides who is a citizen of a state and what rights those citizens may or may not have other than the state in question?
> Surely you do not believe that by simply living within the borders of a state you are entitled to the full rights of citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  Illegal occupation is what it is.  The land did not belong to the state of Jordan.  I even used CAMERA (a Zionist/Israeli organization) to back up this fact.
> 
> 2.  Of course people living within the boundaries of a state are entitled to citizenship and equal rights with others living within the borders, if the country is a democracy.  Anything else is Apartheid, but you knew that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What law says it is an illegal occupation
> 
> The arab muslims living in the west bank in 1948 accepted the rule of Jordan thus exercising their free determination.
> 
> So you could come to the uk illegally and take up residence as a full uk citizen and not be deported.   Get real you idiot you would be arrested and thrown in a cell for your cheek.
Click to expand...



Please forgive Monte & go easy on him.  He just cannot handle documanted facts.  But we need him here for fun & laughs.


----------



## montelatici

You are so unfamiliar with what a documented fact is, you can't even spell the word.  But, you your ignorance and your propensity to demonstrate it in writing, is great for the laughs it provides the audience.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The annexation of the West Bank by Jordan was illegal so any act performed by Jordan with/to the inhabitants of the occupied territory lack legality.
> 
> "*Jordan’s Illegal Annexation*
> In 1950, Jordan annexed the territories it had captured in the 1948 war–-eastern Jerusalem and the West Bank. The April 24th resolution declared “its support for complete unity between the two sides of the Jordan and their union into one State, which is the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, at whose head reigns King Abdullah Ibn al Husain...”
> 
> While Great Britain and Pakistan were the only countries that recognized Jordan’s annexation – all other nations, including the Arab states, rejected it -- Great Britain recognized only the annexation of the West Bank. It never recognized either Jordan or Israel’s sovereignty over any sector of Jerusalem, viewing both Jordan’s 1950 annexation and Israel’s  annexation of west Jerusalem as illegal."
> 
> 1948-1967 Jordanian Occupation of Eastern Jerusalem
> 
> 2. If the West Bank belongs to israel as you say, then to be a democratic state, the inhabitants must be enfranchised.
> 
> 3.  Well then, give the vote to all the people of Israel if it all belongs to israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The land is Israeli, the inhabitants aren't so they do not have rights to citizenship or votes. No international law confers automatic citizenship on a person living in another nation. So the arab muslims have to go and find another place to live, or beg Israel for one last chance.
Click to expand...


That's not what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says and Israel is a signatory.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> You are so unfamiliar with what a documented fact is, you can't even spell the word.  But, you your ignorance and your propensity to demonstrate it in writing, is great for the laughs it provides the audience.



Hey Monte.  Did you hear the one about "Israel is stealing 'Palestinian' land"?


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The annexation of the West Bank was only recognized by the United Kingdom and Palkistan:
> 
> "Great Britain and Pakistan were the only countries that recognized Jordan’s annexation – all other nations, including the Arab states, rejected it"
> 1948-1967 Jordanian Occupation of Eastern Jerusalem
> 
> _Who decides who is a citizen of a state and what rights those citizens may or may not have other than the state in question?_
> 
> The state in question.
> 
> _Who decides what conditions must be met before that citizenship is conferred?_
> 
> The State in question.
> 
> _How does being a true democracy necessitate that every citizen carry the same rights and every other?_
> 
> Will, if you have to ask that question I wonder if there is any basis for debate, but the answer is of course all citizens must have equal rights in a true democracy.
> 
> 
> "*Characteristics of a True Democracy"*
> 
> "........rights include freedom of religion, freedom of speech, *equal protection under the law*, the right to a fair trial and a right to privacy without unwarranted intrusion by the government......"
> 
> 4 Characteristics of a True Democracy The Classroom Synonym
> 
> The Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which Israel is a signatory also places other requirements on Israel with respect to people under its jurisdiction.
> 
> *Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS* as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, *both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.*
> 
> *Article 2.*
> 
> Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
> *Article 7.*
> 
> All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
> *Article 15.*
> 
> (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
> (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
> 
> *Article 21.*
> 
> (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
> (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
> (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
> The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is still not law and every nation decides its own variation of human rights.
> 
> 
> Now look at 15 and ask yourself what are the rights for the Jews ?
Click to expand...


Yes, the Israelis are withholding nationality from the non-Jews under their jurisdiction.  Thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this hubris really justified?
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel was "doomed", the Romans saw to that.  A colonial project, facilitated by Britain, may have been completed, but colonial projects of the late 19th and 20th century have not lasted  over 100 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Monte.  I think I love you for all the laughs you give us while those you support are killing us infidels all over the world.
> 
> FACT:  Empires rose, empires fell & --- ISRAEL STILL REMAINS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am supporting the right of the Palestinian Christians and Muslims to self-determination.
> 
> What empire has actually actual fallen without its base element surviving?   Is Israel an "empire" today?  The British, exist, the Greeks exist, the French exist, the Italians exist,  the Spanish exist,  the Portuguese exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh now I get it.  You see folks, these empires still exist today. Please excuse me while I go tell my neighbors.   Amazing what we can learn from Monte.
> *
> Ancient History's Greatest Empires—Revealed!*
> 
> Throughout *Ancient Empires before Alexander*, you immerse yourself in the details of the dozen empires that flourished in the 2,000 years before the conquests of Alexander the Great paved the way for the triumphs of the Roman Empire. Grounded in a chronological approach, the lectures begin in ancient Mesopotamia and span the river valleys, deserts, and mountain ranges of the Near East. You encounter these empires and others:
> 
> 
> *The Akkadian Empire,* the first empire in human history established in the late 3rd millennium B.C. by Sargon the Great. Sargon and his successors pioneered the techniques of imperial rule and set a pattern on which later Mesopotamian empires would emulate and elaborate.
> *The Empire of Hatti,* which dominated Asia Minor. The emergence of this empire in the early 2nd millennium B.C. presaged the downfall of Mesopotamia's power in the ancient world. Unlike strongly centralized Mesopotamian empires, Hatti—home to the Hittites—was very loosely structured and almost feudal in nature.
> *The Persian Empire,* which would grow into the largest empire the ancient world had yet seen, stretching from Libya to India. This wealthy empire supported local autonomy within its imperial unity and displayed a tolerance for its bewildering diversity of peoples. Alexander the Great, however, would spell doom for this impressive civilization.
> *The Carthaginian Empire,* a sea empire (thalassocracy) that consisted of Phoenician settlements along the coast of the western Mediterranean and possessed far-flung trading networks. Carthage would eventually be destroyed by Rome during the Punic Wars of the 3rd century B.C.
Click to expand...


I claimed that empires rose & empires fell.  And Israel still remains.  You claimed empires did not rise & fall.  Any comments on the above documented facts?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The annexation of the West Bank by Jordan was illegal so any act performed by Jordan with/to the inhabitants of the occupied territory lack legality.
> 
> "*Jordan’s Illegal Annexation*
> In 1950, Jordan annexed the territories it had captured in the 1948 war–-eastern Jerusalem and the West Bank. The April 24th resolution declared “its support for complete unity between the two sides of the Jordan and their union into one State, which is the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, at whose head reigns King Abdullah Ibn al Husain...”
> 
> While Great Britain and Pakistan were the only countries that recognized Jordan’s annexation – all other nations, including the Arab states, rejected it -- Great Britain recognized only the annexation of the West Bank. It never recognized either Jordan or Israel’s sovereignty over any sector of Jerusalem, viewing both Jordan’s 1950 annexation and Israel’s  annexation of west Jerusalem as illegal."
> 
> 1948-1967 Jordanian Occupation of Eastern Jerusalem
> 
> 2. If the West Bank belongs to israel as you say, then to be a democratic state, the inhabitants must be enfranchised.
> 
> 3.  Well then, give the vote to all the people of Israel if it all belongs to israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The land is Israeli, the inhabitants aren't so they do not have rights to citizenship or votes. No international law confers automatic citizenship on a person living in another nation. So the arab muslims have to go and find another place to live, or beg Israel for one last chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says and Israel is a signatory.
Click to expand...





 Then show the international law that puts it into effect, and when you cant admit that you are posting islamomorn propaganda


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The annexation of the West Bank was only recognized by the United Kingdom and Palkistan:
> 
> "Great Britain and Pakistan were the only countries that recognized Jordan’s annexation – all other nations, including the Arab states, rejected it"
> 1948-1967 Jordanian Occupation of Eastern Jerusalem
> 
> _Who decides who is a citizen of a state and what rights those citizens may or may not have other than the state in question?_
> 
> The state in question.
> 
> _Who decides what conditions must be met before that citizenship is conferred?_
> 
> The State in question.
> 
> _How does being a true democracy necessitate that every citizen carry the same rights and every other?_
> 
> Will, if you have to ask that question I wonder if there is any basis for debate, but the answer is of course all citizens must have equal rights in a true democracy.
> 
> 
> "*Characteristics of a True Democracy"*
> 
> "........rights include freedom of religion, freedom of speech, *equal protection under the law*, the right to a fair trial and a right to privacy without unwarranted intrusion by the government......"
> 
> 4 Characteristics of a True Democracy The Classroom Synonym
> 
> The Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which Israel is a signatory also places other requirements on Israel with respect to people under its jurisdiction.
> 
> *Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS* as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, *both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.*
> 
> *Article 2.*
> 
> Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
> *Article 7.*
> 
> All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
> *Article 15.*
> 
> (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
> (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
> 
> *Article 21.*
> 
> (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
> (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
> (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
> The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is still not law and every nation decides its own variation of human rights.
> 
> 
> Now look at 15 and ask yourself what are the rights for the Jews ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the Israelis are withholding nationality from the non-Jews under their jurisdiction.  Thanks for pointing that out.
Click to expand...





 As is the USA, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and every other nation in the world. So why are you singling Israel out as the only nation doing this if you are not biased.

 Just more of your RACIST LIES AND SPAM


----------



## montelatici

The countries you mention doesn't have jurisdiction over millions of people held in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem as Israel has.  If those countries did they would give them citizenship, as we in the U.S. do for the Native Americans who live on reservations.

You continuously make a bit of a fool of yourself.  All you do is make false accusations in caps.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> The countries you mention doesn't have jurisdiction over millions of people held in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem as Israel has.  If those countries did they would give them citizenship, as we in the U.S. do for the Native Americans who live on reservations.
> 
> You continuously make a bit of a fool of yourself.  All you do is make false accusations in caps.


The reservations you talk about are IN AMERICA. The West Bank is not part of Israel.


----------



## montelatici

The West Bank is not part of Israel like the Bantustans weren't part of the South Africa.  In any case, the Palestinians are under Israeli jurisdiction for the purposes of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Israel is a signatory.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> The West Bank is not part of Israel like the Bantustans weren't part of the South Africa.  In any case, the Palestinians are under Israeli jurisdiction for the purposes of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Israel is a signatory.


You were using Native Indians living in reservations as a comparison to Palestinians living in the West Bank. I was just explaining to you why your logic was flawed.


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The West Bank is not part of Israel like the Bantustans weren't part of the South Africa.  In any case, the Palestinians are under Israeli jurisdiction for the purposes of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Israel is a signatory.
> 
> 
> 
> You were using Native Indians living in reservations as a comparison to Palestinians living in the West Bank. I was just explaining to you why your logic was flawed.
Click to expand...


My logic is never flawed, you should know that by now.

Indian Nations are sovereign.

The map below is a very different map of the US.  It’s a map of the US minus the sovereign Indian nations within the continental US.  Sort of looks like Swiss Cheese doesn’t it.  Some of these areas are much larger than one might expect.








Indian Reservations as Sovereign Nations Native Heritage Project


----------



## toastman

Are you saying that those reserves are not under American sovereignty ?


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> Are you saying that those reserves are not under American sovereignty ?



No more or no less than the Occupied Territories are under Israeli sovereignty.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that those reserves are not under American sovereignty ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No more or no less than the Occupied Territories are under Israeli sovereignty.
Click to expand...

Answer the question. Are those reserves under American Sovereignty?


----------



## montelatici

No.  

*"Tribal sovereignty in the United States* is the inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the borders of the United States of America. "

Tribal sovereignty in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> No.
> 
> *"Tribal sovereignty in the United States* is the inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the borders of the United States of America. "
> 
> Tribal sovereignty in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Exactly! They are within the U.S borders. Not so with the West Bank. The West Bank is Sovereign Palestinian territory which is not inside Israel's borders.


----------



## MJB12741

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> *"Tribal sovereignty in the United States* is the inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the borders of the United States of America. "
> 
> Tribal sovereignty in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! They are within the U.S borders. Not so with the West Bank. The West Bank is Sovereign Palestinian territory which is not inside Israel's borders.
Click to expand...


Jordan is the smartest player in all of the Middle East.  They put it to Israel but good when they refused Israel's offer to return the entire West Bank after the 67 war.  How releived Jordan was to sacrifice this piece of land to have Israel to deal with their Palestifnians.  In 1970 King Hussein massacred around 20,000 Palestinians during Black September for a lasting peace from them & --- it was successful.  And now King Abdullah married the most gorgeous Palestinian woman & refuses to allow any right of return to the rest of the Palestinians.  And who knows Palestinians better than Jordanians?  So much for Israel to learn from Jordan on how to deal with Palestinians.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> *"Tribal sovereignty in the United States* is the inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the borders of the United States of America. "
> 
> Tribal sovereignty in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! They are within the U.S borders. Not so with the West Bank. The West Bank is Sovereign Palestinian territory which is not inside Israel's borders.
Click to expand...


The West Bank is within Israel's border, completely,  and Israel completely controls the borders, air space and territorial sea of the West Bank and Gaza.  That excludes the possibility of the West Bank having sovereignty except in a de jure manner.  Which the Indian tribes have and the Bantustans had.  

But playing with semantics to try to condone the treatment of the non-Jews by the Israeli Jews is futile, the facts are glaringly obvious on the ground.  This is not history we are talking about, it is happening today, so your silly attempts to justify the unjustifiable is just a waste of time.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> *"Tribal sovereignty in the United States* is the inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the borders of the United States of America. "
> 
> Tribal sovereignty in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! They are within the U.S borders. Not so with the West Bank. The West Bank is Sovereign Palestinian territory which is not inside Israel's borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The West Bank is within Israel's border, completely,  and Israel completely controls the borders, air space and territorial sea of the West Bank and Gaza.  That excludes the possibility of the West Bank having sovereignty except in a de jure manner.  Which the Indian tribes have and the Bantustans had.
> 
> But playing with semantics to try to condone the treatment of the non-Jews by the Israeli Jews is futile, the facts are glaringly obvious on the ground.  This is not history we are talking about, it is happening today, so your silly attempts to justify the unjustifiable is just a waste of time.
Click to expand...

No, the West Bank is NOT within Israel's international borders. Do yourself a favour and stop making a fool of yourself like you do on a daily basis.


----------



## M14 Shooter

montelatici said:


> The annexation of the West Bank was only recognized by the United Kingdom and Palkistan:
> "Great Britain and Pakistan were the only countries that recognized Jordan’s annexation – all other nations, including the Arab states, rejected it"
> 1948-1967 Jordanian Occupation of Eastern Jerusalem


Incorrect.
-On June 12, 1950, the Arab League declared the annexation was a temporary, practical measure and that Jordan was holding the territory as a “trustee” pending a future settlement.
-Only the United Kingdom formally recognized the annexation of the West Bank, _de facto_ in the case of East Jerusalem.[23] The United States Department of State also recognized this extension of Jordanian sovereignty.[24][25] Pakistan is often claimed to have recognized Jordan's annexation too, but this is dubious.[26][27]
Jordanian occupation of the West Bank - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
-The part of former Mandatory Palestine occupied by Jordan during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, which Israelis call "Judea and Samaria", was renamed "the West Bank". It was annexed to Jordan in 1950 at the request of a Palestinian delegation.[12][_dead link_] It had been questioned, however, how representative that delegation was, and at the insistence of the Arab League Jordan was considered a trustee only.[13] Although only the United Kingdom and Pakistan recognized the annexation by Jordan, the British did not consider it sovereign to Jordan.[14] It was not condemned by the UNSC and it remained under Jordanian rule until 1967 when it was occupied by Israel. Jordan did not officially relinquish its claim to rule the West Bank until 1988.[15] Israel has not taken the step of annexing the territory (except for parts of it that was made part of the Jerusalem Municipality), rather, there were enacted a complex (and highly controversial) system of military government decrees in effect applying Israeli law in many spheres to Israeli settlements and to them alone.
Annexation - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And so, you can call it "illegal:" if you want, but it does not change the fact that Jordan annexed the WB, gave everyone there citizenship and created representation for them int heir government, and that on 4 JUN 1967, the WB was part of Jordan, and is therefore meaningless to the status of the land and the people at the time of the 6 day war.


> _Who decides who is a citizen of a state and what rights those citizens may or may not have other than the state in question?_
> *The state in question.*
> _Who decides what conditions must be met before that citizenship is conferred?_
> *The State in question.*


So you agree that no outside agency has the power to force these things, that the decision to do so and the criterian by which it is done id held in plenary by the state in question.  Good


> _How does being a true democracy necessitate that every citizen carry the same rights and every other?_
> *Will, if you have to ask that question I wonder if there is any basis for debate, but the answer is of course all citizens must have equal rights in a true democracy.*


That being the case, you must then accept the fact that there is no true democracy on the face of the earth as no state extends the same rights to all of its citizens and no state extends all of the rights of citizenship to all people living there.

In the end, none of this does anything to negate the argument I laid out.
By virtue of the fact that Jordan gave up its claim on the WB in 1988 and then reaffirmed that cession of that claim in 1994, Israel is the only state with any legitimate claim on the territory.   That said, international law  - that is, law governing the conduct and interactions between states - no longer applies, leaving the situation up to Israel to decide.


----------



## M14 Shooter

montelatici said:


> Yes, the Israelis are withholding nationality from the non-Jews under their jurisdiction.


You agree that Israel is fully withing her rights as a sovereign state to do so.


----------



## M14 Shooter

montelatici said:


> The West Bank is not part of Israel...


Indeed it is.    It was part of Jordan, but Jordan gave up her claim, thus leaving Israel as the only possible contender.


----------



## M14 Shooter

montelatici said:


> No.


Absolute horseshit.   
In every way imaginable are these territories part of the US, subject to state and federal laws and constitutions, iwth all of their peoples being citizens of the US and the relevant states.


----------



## M14 Shooter

toastman said:


> [
> No, the West Bank is NOT within Israel's international borders. Do yourself a favour and stop making a fool of yourself like you do on a daily basis.


Jordan - the state which the WB used to be part of -- says they do, in a treaty with Israel
How are Israel and Jordan wrong?


----------



## MJB12741

M14 Shooter said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> No, the West Bank is NOT within Israel's international borders. Do yourself a favour and stop making a fool of yourself like you do on a daily basis.
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan - the state which the WB used to be part of -- says they do, in a treaty with Israel
> How are Israel and Jordan wrong?
Click to expand...


No country knows Palestinians better than Jordan.  When will Israel ever learn from Jordan how to establish a lasting peace from Palestinians?


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> *"Tribal sovereignty in the United States* is the inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the borders of the United States of America. "
> 
> Tribal sovereignty in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! They are within the U.S borders. Not so with the West Bank. The West Bank is Sovereign Palestinian territory which is not inside Israel's borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The West Bank is within Israel's border, completely,  and Israel completely controls the borders, air space and territorial sea of the West Bank and Gaza.  That excludes the possibility of the West Bank having sovereignty except in a de jure manner.  Which the Indian tribes have and the Bantustans had.
> 
> But playing with semantics to try to condone the treatment of the non-Jews by the Israeli Jews is futile, the facts are glaringly obvious on the ground.  This is not history we are talking about, it is happening today, so your silly attempts to justify the unjustifiable is just a waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the West Bank is NOT within Israel's international borders. Do yourself a favour and stop making a fool of yourself like you do on a daily basis.
Click to expand...



Israel controls the borders, therefore it is within Israel's border, full stop.  Your childish games make you the fool.


----------



## toastman

M14 Shooter said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> No, the West Bank is NOT within Israel's international borders. Do yourself a favour and stop making a fool of yourself like you do on a daily basis.
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan - the state which the WB used to be part of -- says they do, in a treaty with Israel
> How are Israel and Jordan wrong?
Click to expand...

Israel and Jordan have a treaty that gave I


montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> *"Tribal sovereignty in the United States* is the inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the borders of the United States of America. "
> 
> Tribal sovereignty in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! They are within the U.S borders. Not so with the West Bank. The West Bank is Sovereign Palestinian territory which is not inside Israel's borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The West Bank is within Israel's border, completely,  and Israel completely controls the borders, air space and territorial sea of the West Bank and Gaza.  That excludes the possibility of the West Bank having sovereignty except in a de jure manner.  Which the Indian tribes have and the Bantustans had.
> 
> But playing with semantics to try to condone the treatment of the non-Jews by the Israeli Jews is futile, the facts are glaringly obvious on the ground.  This is not history we are talking about, it is happening today, so your silly attempts to justify the unjustifiable is just a waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the West Bank is NOT within Israel's international borders. Do yourself a favour and stop making a fool of yourself like you do on a daily basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Israel controls the borders, therefore it is within Israel's border, full stop.  Your childish games make you the fool.
Click to expand...


Wow Monti. Every time I refute your posts (which happens often), you start posting more jibberish to back up your previous jibberish. 
The West Bank is not inside Israel, therefore your comparison doesn't work. Give up and quit making a fool of yourself


----------



## montelatici

You never refute my claims.  You make ridiculous assertions that have no basis in fact.  The West Bank has less autonomy sovereignty than the Bantustans, it is an occupied territory.  I was being generous.  It is you that consistently make a fool of yourself.  The comical part of it is that you don't realize it.  

*"A Palestinian Bantustan won’t end the conflict"*

* Advertisement*


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> You never refute my claims.  You make ridiculous assertions that have no basis in fact.  The West Bank has less autonomy sovereignty than the Bantustans, it is an occupied territory.  I was being generous.  It is you that consistently make a fool of yourself.  The comical part of it is that you don't realize it.
> 
> *"A Palestinian Bantustan won’t end the conflict"*
> 
> * Advertisement*


Well I don't expect you to admit that I have refuted your bullshit so many times, but the proof is all over the I/P forum. You keep thinking you can get away with posting your propaganda but I have exposed you for the liar that you are.

Word of advice, when I refute your post, just let it go instead of continuing to back up your assertion because all you're doing is making a fool of yourself. 
 And for fucks sake, take a break with your Palestinian propaganda already! Enough is enough.


----------



## M14 Shooter

toastman said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan - the state which the WB used to be part of -- says they do, in a treaty with Israel
> How are Israel and Jordan wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Israel and Jordan have a treaty that gave I
Click to expand...

You need to complete that thought.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> The countries you mention doesn't have jurisdiction over millions of people held in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem as Israel has.  If those countries did they would give them citizenship, as we in the U.S. do for the Native Americans who live on reservations.
> 
> You continuously make a bit of a fool of yourself.  All you do is make false accusations in caps.






Not the question posed was it, I pointed out that 100% of the worlds nations withhold citizenship from those they have jurisdiction over. In the UK alone this amounts to about 3 million people who live and work here and are not UK citizens. I dare saw that in the US the numbers will be much higher, in the tens of millions. Many will be muslims out to disrupt and set up terror cells in advance of their world take over.


 No false accusations Abdul all provable facts, or should this be commando ?


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> *"Tribal sovereignty in the United States* is the inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the borders of the United States of America. "
> 
> Tribal sovereignty in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! They are within the U.S borders. Not so with the West Bank. The West Bank is Sovereign Palestinian territory which is not inside Israel's borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The West Bank is within Israel's border, completely,  and Israel completely controls the borders, air space and territorial sea of the West Bank and Gaza.  That excludes the possibility of the West Bank having sovereignty except in a de jure manner.  Which the Indian tribes have and the Bantustans had.
> 
> But playing with semantics to try to condone the treatment of the non-Jews by the Israeli Jews is futile, the facts are glaringly obvious on the ground.  This is not history we are talking about, it is happening today, so your silly attempts to justify the unjustifiable is just a waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the West Bank is NOT within Israel's international borders. Do yourself a favour and stop making a fool of yourself like you do on a daily basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Israel controls the borders, therefore it is within Israel's border, full stop.  Your childish games make you the fool.
Click to expand...


What "borders" are you talking about?  I don't recall Israel setting borders.


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never refute my claims.  You make ridiculous assertions that have no basis in fact.  The West Bank has less autonomy sovereignty than the Bantustans, it is an occupied territory.  I was being generous.  It is you that consistently make a fool of yourself.  The comical part of it is that you don't realize it.
> 
> *"A Palestinian Bantustan won’t end the conflict"*
> 
> * Advertisement*
> 
> 
> 
> Well I don't expect you to admit that I have refuted your bullshit so many times, but the proof is all over the I/P forum. You keep thinking you can get away with posting your propaganda but I have exposed you for the liar that you are.
> 
> Word of advice, when I refute your post, just let it go instead of continuing to back up your assertion because all you're doing is making a fool of yourself.
> And for fucks sake, take a break with your Palestinian propaganda already! Enough is enough.
Click to expand...


You may refute a post, but that is it.  You have no basis in fact to refute it. And, I demonstrate it consistently.  It is you who consistently makes a fool of himself, attempting to justify the unjustifiable and attempting to replace fact with propaganda is impossible.  So you are made to consistently look the fool. 

How can you possibly claim that Palestine is a sovereign state and is not within the jurisdiction of Israel even more than the Bantustans were within the jurisdiction of white-rule South Africa.  Do you realize what an imbecilic assertion that is?


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never refute my claims.  You make ridiculous assertions that have no basis in fact.  The West Bank has less autonomy sovereignty than the Bantustans, it is an occupied territory.  I was being generous.  It is you that consistently make a fool of yourself.  The comical part of it is that you don't realize it.
> 
> *"A Palestinian Bantustan won’t end the conflict"*
> 
> * Advertisement*
> 
> 
> 
> Well I don't expect you to admit that I have refuted your bullshit so many times, but the proof is all over the I/P forum. You keep thinking you can get away with posting your propaganda but I have exposed you for the liar that you are.
> 
> Word of advice, when I refute your post, just let it go instead of continuing to back up your assertion because all you're doing is making a fool of yourself.
> And for fucks sake, take a break with your Palestinian propaganda already! Enough is enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may refute a post, but that is it.  You have no basis in fact to refute it. And, I demonstrate it consistently.  It is you who consistently makes a fool of himself, attempting to justify the unjustifiable and attempting to replace fact with propaganda is impossible.  So you are made to consistently look the fool.
> 
> *How can you possibly claim that Palestine is a sovereign state* and is not within the jurisdiction of Israel even more than the Bantustans were within the jurisdiction of white-rule South Africa.  Do you realize what an imbecilic assertion that is?
Click to expand...


"The *State of Palestine*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Palestine#endnote_naming_ (Arabic: دولة فلسطين‎ Dawlat Filasṭīn) *is a de jure sovereign state* in the Middle East.[14][15]Its independence was declared on 15 November 1988 by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in Algiers as a government-in-exile"

State of Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia_


----------



## M14 Shooter

toastman said:


> "The *State of Palestine*_ (Arabic: دولة فلسطين‎ Dawlat Filasṭīn) *is a de jure sovereign state* in the Middle East.[14][15]Its independence was declared on 15 November 1988 by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in Algiers as a government-in-exile"
> State of Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia_


Doesn't mean squat until the Israelis agree to let the land go.


----------



## montelatici

LOL.  Well thanks for confirming what I said in an earlier post that Palestine is a de jure sovereign state, like the Bantustans, as opposed to a de facto sovereign state state. You should look into definitions before you post nonsense, may be this will help.

" de-jure sovereign is one who has a legal claim to sovereignty but does not possess it in fact while de-facto sovereign is one who has no legal claim to sovereignty but possesses it in fact and exercises necessary force to make and enforce its laws."


----------



## montelatici

M14 Shooter said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The *State of Palestine*_ (Arabic: دولة فلسطين‎ Dawlat Filasṭīn) *is a de jure sovereign state* in the Middle East.[14][15]Its independence was declared on 15 November 1988 by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in Algiers as a government-in-exile"
> State of Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia_
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't mean squat until the Israelis agree to let the land go.
Click to expand...


You are absolutely right M14. Thanks for the support. My Toast, you do look the fool even more. LOL


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> LOL.  Well thanks for confirming what I said in an earlier post that Palestine is a de jure sovereign state, like the Bantustans, as opposed to a de facto sovereign state state. You should look into definitions before you post nonsense, may be this will help.
> 
> " de-jure sovereign is one who has a legal claim to sovereignty but does not possess it in fact while de-facto sovereign is one who has no legal claim to sovereignty but possesses it in fact and exercises necessary force to make and enforce its laws."


Oh, I know what it mean, but you said Palestine was not a SOVEREIGN state, Read your post again liar. How many times am I going to catch you in a lie ?


----------



## toastman

You said: "How can you possibly claim that Palestine is a sovereign state"

Then when I posted the link, you said this: "what I said in an earlier post that Palestine is a de jure sovereign state"

No, you didn't say de jure liar. All you have are lies and propaganda, like we all know


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> You said: "How can you possibly claim that Palestine is a sovereign state"
> 
> Then when I posted the link, you said this: "what I said in an earlier post that Palestine is a de jure sovereign state"
> 
> No, you didn't say de jure liar. All you have are lies and propaganda, like we all know



You are correct, I thought I had stated that it was a de jure sovereign state like the Bantustans were, but I see I did not.  So I agree that Palestine, like the Bantustans, is a de jure sovereign state.  

When people discuss sovereignty, the concept is that of a de facto sovereign state, that is, a state that has control of its borders, air space, people etc.  I don't believe that you or anyone else uses the term sovereign, to mean a state, like a Bantustan of Palestine, that has no control of its borders, air space, territorial sea, taxation, people, military, etc.  Very few people add "de facto" to differentiate between a truly sovereign state and a de jure sovereign state.

But if you believe you have won the argument because Palestine, Tibet and the Bantustans) among others are/were de jure sovereign states , you have won.  

How does that change the fact that Israel has jurisdiction over the Occupied Territories and its people and with this jurisdiction should be adhering to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which it is a signatory?  (Which is the actual point of contention.)


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said: "How can you possibly claim that Palestine is a sovereign state"
> 
> Then when I posted the link, you said this: "what I said in an earlier post that Palestine is a de jure sovereign state"
> 
> No, you didn't say de jure liar. All you have are lies and propaganda, like we all know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct, I thought I had stated that it was a de jure sovereign state like the Bantustans were, but I see I did not.  So I agree that Palestine, like the Bantustans, is a de jure sovereign state.
> 
> When people discuss sovereignty, the concept is that of a de facto sovereign state, that is, a state that has control of its borders, air space, people etc.  I don't believe that you or anyone else uses the term sovereign, to mean a state, like a Bantustan of Palestine, that has no control of its borders, air space, territorial sea, taxation, people, military, etc.  Very few people add "de facto" to differentiate between a truly sovereign state and a de jure sovereign state.
> 
> But if you believe you have won the argument because Palestine, Tibet and the Bantustans) among others are/were de jure sovereign states , you have won.
> 
> How does that change the fact that Israel has jurisdiction over the Occupied Territories and its people and with this jurisdiction should be adhering to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which it is a signatory?  (Which is the actual point of contention.)
Click to expand...

 I never said that the Palestinians have jurisdiction. I was just talking about their declaration of independence in 1988.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> *"Tribal sovereignty in the United States* is the inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the borders of the United States of America. "
> 
> Tribal sovereignty in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! They are within the U.S borders. Not so with the West Bank. The West Bank is Sovereign Palestinian territory which is not inside Israel's borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The West Bank is within Israel's border, completely,  and Israel completely controls the borders, air space and territorial sea of the West Bank and Gaza.  That excludes the possibility of the West Bank having sovereignty except in a de jure manner.  Which the Indian tribes have and the Bantustans had.
> 
> But playing with semantics to try to condone the treatment of the non-Jews by the Israeli Jews is futile, the facts are glaringly obvious on the ground.  This is not history we are talking about, it is happening today, so your silly attempts to justify the unjustifiable is just a waste of time.
Click to expand...




 Then the arab muslims can be deported as illegal immigrants cant they.   Care to show the treaty that transferred the west bank to Israel and why the P.A. knows nothing about it ?


----------



## montelatici

What does that have to do with anything, Bantustans also declared independence, it didn't change the fact that were not de facto sovereign states.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> *"Tribal sovereignty in the United States* is the inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the borders of the United States of America. "
> 
> Tribal sovereignty in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! They are within the U.S borders. Not so with the West Bank. The West Bank is Sovereign Palestinian territory which is not inside Israel's borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The West Bank is within Israel's border, completely,  and Israel completely controls the borders, air space and territorial sea of the West Bank and Gaza.  That excludes the possibility of the West Bank having sovereignty except in a de jure manner.  Which the Indian tribes have and the Bantustans had.
> 
> But playing with semantics to try to condone the treatment of the non-Jews by the Israeli Jews is futile, the facts are glaringly obvious on the ground.  This is not history we are talking about, it is happening today, so your silly attempts to justify the unjustifiable is just a waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the arab muslims can be deported as illegal immigrants cant they.   Care to show the treaty that transferred the west bank to Israel and why the P.A. knows nothing about it ?
Click to expand...


I guess the Israelis could evict all the non-Jews, but they would be committing a war crime (ethnic cleansing) as it is still occupied territory under international law and it is illegal to transfer population out of occupied territory.


----------



## M14 Shooter

montelatici said:


> [
> I guess the Israelis could evict all the non-Jews, but they would be committing a war crime (ethnic cleansing)* as it is still occupied territory under international law* and it is illegal to transfer population out of occupied territory.


Still stuck on this though you have been shown wrong, eh?
Tell me:  What other state contests Israel for the West Bank?

Was it a war crime to remove all the ethnic Germans back to Germany?


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> What does that have to do with anything, Bantustans also declared independence, it didn't change the fact that were not de facto sovereign states.


I never claimed they were de facto. That was never the point of debate


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said: "How can you possibly claim that Palestine is a sovereign state"
> 
> Then when I posted the link, you said this: "what I said in an earlier post that Palestine is a de jure sovereign state"
> 
> No, you didn't say de jure liar. All you have are lies and propaganda, like we all know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct, I thought I had stated that it was a de jure sovereign state like the Bantustans were, but I see I did not.  So I agree that Palestine, like the Bantustans, is a de jure sovereign state.
> 
> When people discuss sovereignty, the concept is that of a de facto sovereign state, that is, a state that has control of its borders, air space, people etc.  I don't believe that you or anyone else uses the term sovereign, to mean a state, like a Bantustan of Palestine, that has no control of its borders, air space, territorial sea, taxation, people, military, etc.  Very few people add "de facto" to differentiate between a truly sovereign state and a de jure sovereign state.
> 
> But if you believe you have won the argument because Palestine, Tibet and the Bantustans) among others are/were de jure sovereign states , you have won.
> 
> How does that change the fact that Israel has jurisdiction over the Occupied Territories and its people and with this jurisdiction should be adhering to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which it is a signatory?  (Which is the actual point of contention.)
Click to expand...





Not so as the arab muslims refuse to be part of the Israeli nation this negating the Universal Declaration of Human rights that does not apply anyway as it is not a legally binding article.

 You lose again abdul


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> LOL.  Well thanks for confirming what I said in an earlier post that Palestine is a de jure sovereign state, like the Bantustans, as opposed to a de facto sovereign state state. You should look into definitions before you post nonsense, may be this will help.
> 
> " de-jure sovereign is one who has a legal claim to sovereignty but does not possess it in fact while de-facto sovereign is one who has no legal claim to sovereignty but possesses it in fact and exercises necessary force to make and enforce its laws."






 Off Topic trolling and spamming again abdul


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> What does that have to do with anything, Bantustans also declared independence, it didn't change the fact that were not de facto sovereign states.







 Off topic trolling and spamming again


----------



## toastman

BTW Monti, The sovereignty of the Bantustans was never recognized outside of SA


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> *"Tribal sovereignty in the United States* is the inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the borders of the United States of America. "
> 
> Tribal sovereignty in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! They are within the U.S borders. Not so with the West Bank. The West Bank is Sovereign Palestinian territory which is not inside Israel's borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The West Bank is within Israel's border, completely,  and Israel completely controls the borders, air space and territorial sea of the West Bank and Gaza.  That excludes the possibility of the West Bank having sovereignty except in a de jure manner.  Which the Indian tribes have and the Bantustans had.
> 
> But playing with semantics to try to condone the treatment of the non-Jews by the Israeli Jews is futile, the facts are glaringly obvious on the ground.  This is not history we are talking about, it is happening today, so your silly attempts to justify the unjustifiable is just a waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the arab muslims can be deported as illegal immigrants cant they.   Care to show the treaty that transferred the west bank to Israel and why the P.A. knows nothing about it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess the Israelis could evict all the non-Jews, but they would be committing a war crime (ethnic cleansing) as it is still occupied territory under international law and it is illegal to transfer population out of occupied territory.
Click to expand...





 How so as they would be illegal immigrants and it is not ethnic cleansing to deport illegal immigrants, spies, fifth columnists and foreign agitators. You said it was now Israeli land so it is no longer occupied but sovereign territory so the population of arab muslim terrorists, militia and agitators can legally be deported.


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> BTW Monti, The sovereignty of the Bantustans was never recognized outside of SA



Not that it makes any difference, but the "independent" de jure  Bantustans recognized each other.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> *"Tribal sovereignty in the United States* is the inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the borders of the United States of America. "
> 
> Tribal sovereignty in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! They are within the U.S borders. Not so with the West Bank. The West Bank is Sovereign Palestinian territory which is not inside Israel's borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The West Bank is within Israel's border, completely,  and Israel completely controls the borders, air space and territorial sea of the West Bank and Gaza.  That excludes the possibility of the West Bank having sovereignty except in a de jure manner.  Which the Indian tribes have and the Bantustans had.
> 
> But playing with semantics to try to condone the treatment of the non-Jews by the Israeli Jews is futile, the facts are glaringly obvious on the ground.  This is not history we are talking about, it is happening today, so your silly attempts to justify the unjustifiable is just a waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the arab muslims can be deported as illegal immigrants cant they.   Care to show the treaty that transferred the west bank to Israel and why the P.A. knows nothing about it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess the Israelis could evict all the non-Jews, but they would be committing a war crime (ethnic cleansing) as it is still occupied territory under international law and it is illegal to transfer population out of occupied territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so as they would be illegal immigrants and it is not ethnic cleansing to deport illegal immigrants, spies, fifth columnists and foreign agitators. You said it was now Israeli land so it is no longer occupied but sovereign territory so the population of arab muslim terrorists, militia and agitators can legally be deported.
Click to expand...


Well, if that's the case, then Israel can evict all non-Jews without fear of sanctions, international arrest warrants for the leaders etc.

I did not say the occupied territories were a de facto a sovereign state, I agreed with Toast that it is a de jure sovereign state.  From now on, because of Toast, we will have to make sure to add de facto or de jure in front of sovereign  to make sure there is no confusion as to what is meant by sovereign.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW Monti, The sovereignty of the Bantustans was never recognized outside of SA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not that it makes any difference, but the "independent" de jure  Bantustans recognized each other.
Click to expand...





 Off Topic spamming and trolling again


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! They are within the U.S borders. Not so with the West Bank. The West Bank is Sovereign Palestinian territory which is not inside Israel's borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The West Bank is within Israel's border, completely,  and Israel completely controls the borders, air space and territorial sea of the West Bank and Gaza.  That excludes the possibility of the West Bank having sovereignty except in a de jure manner.  Which the Indian tribes have and the Bantustans had.
> 
> But playing with semantics to try to condone the treatment of the non-Jews by the Israeli Jews is futile, the facts are glaringly obvious on the ground.  This is not history we are talking about, it is happening today, so your silly attempts to justify the unjustifiable is just a waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the arab muslims can be deported as illegal immigrants cant they.   Care to show the treaty that transferred the west bank to Israel and why the P.A. knows nothing about it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess the Israelis could evict all the non-Jews, but they would be committing a war crime (ethnic cleansing) as it is still occupied territory under international law and it is illegal to transfer population out of occupied territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so as they would be illegal immigrants and it is not ethnic cleansing to deport illegal immigrants, spies, fifth columnists and foreign agitators. You said it was now Israeli land so it is no longer occupied but sovereign territory so the population of arab muslim terrorists, militia and agitators can legally be deported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if that's the case, then Israel can evict all non-Jews without fear of sanctions, international arrest warrants for the leaders etc.
> 
> I did not say the occupied territories were a de facto a sovereign state, I agreed with Toast that it is a de jure sovereign state.  From now on, because of Toast, we will have to make sure to add de facto or de jure in front of sovereign  to make sure there is no confusion as to what is meant by sovereign.
Click to expand...





 That is correct and to prove it look at what the arab muslims did in 1949 to the Jews. No legal right of return, but there is a legal acquisition of stolen land by force clause. This means that Jews an take back by force land stolen from them by arab muslims and build on it. They can evict the arab muslims living there using deadly force if they wish and the world cant do a thing once the land title is proven.


----------



## MJB12741

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The West Bank is within Israel's border, completely,  and Israel completely controls the borders, air space and territorial sea of the West Bank and Gaza.  That excludes the possibility of the West Bank having sovereignty except in a de jure manner.  Which the Indian tribes have and the Bantustans had.
> 
> But playing with semantics to try to condone the treatment of the non-Jews by the Israeli Jews is futile, the facts are glaringly obvious on the ground.  This is not history we are talking about, it is happening today, so your silly attempts to justify the unjustifiable is just a waste of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the arab muslims can be deported as illegal immigrants cant they.   Care to show the treaty that transferred the west bank to Israel and why the P.A. knows nothing about it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess the Israelis could evict all the non-Jews, but they would be committing a war crime (ethnic cleansing) as it is still occupied territory under international law and it is illegal to transfer population out of occupied territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so as they would be illegal immigrants and it is not ethnic cleansing to deport illegal immigrants, spies, fifth columnists and foreign agitators. You said it was now Israeli land so it is no longer occupied but sovereign territory so the population of arab muslim terrorists, militia and agitators can legally be deported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if that's the case, then Israel can evict all non-Jews without fear of sanctions, international arrest warrants for the leaders etc.
> 
> I did not say the occupied territories were a de facto a sovereign state, I agreed with Toast that it is a de jure sovereign state.  From now on, because of Toast, we will have to make sure to add de facto or de jure in front of sovereign  to make sure there is no confusion as to what is meant by sovereign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct and to prove it look at what the arab muslims did in 1949 to the Jews. No legal right of return, but there is a legal acquisition of stolen land by force clause. This means that Jews an take back by force land stolen from them by arab muslims and build on it. They can evict the arab muslims living there using deadly force if they wish and the world cant do a thing once the land title is proven.
Click to expand...


The Christians sure took back their stolen Muslim land during the Crusades.


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the arab muslims can be deported as illegal immigrants cant they.   Care to show the treaty that transferred the west bank to Israel and why the P.A. knows nothing about it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the Israelis could evict all the non-Jews, but they would be committing a war crime (ethnic cleansing) as it is still occupied territory under international law and it is illegal to transfer population out of occupied territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so as they would be illegal immigrants and it is not ethnic cleansing to deport illegal immigrants, spies, fifth columnists and foreign agitators. You said it was now Israeli land so it is no longer occupied but sovereign territory so the population of arab muslim terrorists, militia and agitators can legally be deported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if that's the case, then Israel can evict all non-Jews without fear of sanctions, international arrest warrants for the leaders etc.
> 
> I did not say the occupied territories were a de facto a sovereign state, I agreed with Toast that it is a de jure sovereign state.  From now on, because of Toast, we will have to make sure to add de facto or de jure in front of sovereign  to make sure there is no confusion as to what is meant by sovereign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct and to prove it look at what the arab muslims did in 1949 to the Jews. No legal right of return, but there is a legal acquisition of stolen land by force clause. This means that Jews an take back by force land stolen from them by arab muslims and build on it. They can evict the arab muslims living there using deadly force if they wish and the world cant do a thing once the land title is proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Christians sure took back their stolen Muslim land during the Crusades.
Click to expand...


And if the radical Muslims continue killing Christian & Jewish infidels all over the world, you can bet on another Crusades coming.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?





 Thanks for that video as it destroys the claims about gaza being destroyed houses and unable to get cement for construction. I wish The UK inner cities were as clean and pleasant as the gaza depicted in that video.

 Massive fail for team Palestine, will keep and use to show they are propagandists


----------



## MJB12741

Where are the ovens in Israel's Gaza concentration camp?

http://p4.img.cctvpic.com/20110619/images/1308453199922_1308453199922_r.jpg


----------



## MJB12741

While on the subject of WHO ARE THE PALESTINIANS, let us put aside all bias & predjudice & just consider documented facts.

Category Terrorist attacks attributed to Palestinian militant groups - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Mindful




----------



## theliq

Mindful said:


>


Pathetic Joke.....it's Scum like you that give genuine Jews a bad name......BUT THEN YOU ARE NOT REALLY JEWISH BUT A RABID ZIOMANIAC


----------



## theliq

Mindful said:


>


Written by a ZIONIST(Michael Eitan) for ZIOMANIACS


----------



## Mindful

theliq said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Written by a ZIONIST(Michael Eitan) for ZIOMANIACS
Click to expand...



Upset it did you?  To elicit the knee jerk reaction?


----------



## Mindful

theliq said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pathetic Joke.....it's Scum like you that give genuine Jews a bad name......BUT THEN YOU ARE NOT REALLY JEWISH BUT A RABID ZIOMANIAC
Click to expand...


Something bothering you?


----------



## Phoenall

Mindful said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pathetic Joke.....it's Scum like you that give genuine Jews a bad name......BUT THEN YOU ARE NOT REALLY JEWISH BUT A RABID ZIOMANIAC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Something bothering you?
Click to expand...





 The ummah has coined a new word and it should not have been released until tomorrow afternoon, guess it will die a death now because it has been let out of the bag.


----------



## Mindful

Phoenall said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pathetic Joke.....it's Scum like you that give genuine Jews a bad name......BUT THEN YOU ARE NOT REALLY JEWISH BUT A RABID ZIOMANIAC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Something bothering you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ummah has coined a new word and it should not have been released until tomorrow afternoon, guess it will die a death now because it has been let out of the bag.
Click to expand...


Wonder what induces his paroxysms of rage.


----------



## montelatici

Mindful said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Written by a ZIONIST(Michael Eitan) for ZIOMANIACS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Upset it did you?  To elicit the knee jerk reaction?
Click to expand...


----------



## Mindful

montelatici said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Written by a ZIONIST(Michael Eitan) for ZIOMANIACS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Upset it did you?  To elicit the knee jerk reaction?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Still being a control freak?


----------



## MJB12741

Want peace?  Israel must first abandon its entire Zionist agenda of peace offerings, a security fence & land concessions that provoke the Palestinians into hatred & killing.  Then Israel must find some incentive to offer the surrounding Arab countries to grant their Palestinian a right of return back to their indigenous homelands.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!


----------



## Phoenall

Mindful said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pathetic Joke.....it's Scum like you that give genuine Jews a bad name......BUT THEN YOU ARE NOT REALLY JEWISH BUT A RABID ZIOMANIAC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Something bothering you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ummah has coined a new word and it should not have been released until tomorrow afternoon, guess it will die a death now because it has been let out of the bag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wonder what induces his paroxysms of rage.
Click to expand...






 Afternoon prayers, unable to drink the maidens water and not being able to enjoy a barbecued shrimp.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Written by a ZIONIST(Michael Eitan) for ZIOMANIACS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Upset it did you?  To elicit the knee jerk reaction?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...





 So where is the apartheid in Israel then Abdul, produce a link showing this alleged apartheid as we are still waiting after 12 months of asking.


----------



## Phoenall

Mindful said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Written by a ZIONIST(Michael Eitan) for ZIOMANIACS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Upset it did you?  To elicit the knee jerk reaction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still being a control freak?
Click to expand...





 Don't know about the control, but I do know about the RACIST LIES


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Written by a ZIONIST(Michael Eitan) for ZIOMANIACS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Upset it did you?  To elicit the knee jerk reaction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where is the apartheid in Israel then Abdul, produce a link showing this alleged apartheid as we are still waiting after 12 months of asking.
Click to expand...


"Findings on Apartheid:

“The Apartheid Convention criminalises ‘inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them’. The Rome Statute criminalises inhumane acts committed in the context of, and to maintain, ‘an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group.’ Both focus on the systematic, institutionalised, and oppressive character of the discrimination involved and the purpose of domination that is entailed. This distinguishes the practice of apartheid from other forms of prohibited discrimination and from other contexts in which the listed crimes arise.”

“It must be clear, however, that practices in South Africa are not the test or benchmark for a finding of apartheid elsewhere, as the principal instrument which provides this test lies in the terms of the Apartheid Convention itself.”

“…Palestinians are subject to legal systems and courts which apply standards of evidence and procedure that are different from those applied to Jewish settlers living the OPT and that result in harsher penalties for Palestinians.”

“Restrictions on the Palestinian right to freedom of movement are endemic in the West Bank, stemming from Israel's control of the OPT's checkpoints and crossings, impediments created by the Wall and its crossing points, a matrix of separate roads, and obstructive and all encompassing permit and ID systems that apply solely to Palestinians.”

“The right of Palestinians to choose their own place of residence within their territory is severely curtailed by systematic administrative restrictions on Palestinian residency and building in East Jerusalem, by discriminatory legislation that operates to prevent Palestinian spouses from living together on the basis of which part of the OPT they originate from, and by the strictures of the permit and ID systems.”

“Palestinians are denied their right to leave and return to their country… hundreds of thousands of Palestinians displaced to surrounding states from the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967 have been prevented from returning to the OPT…Palestinian residents of the OPT must obtain Israeli permission to leave the territory…Political activists and human rights defenders are often subject to arbitrary and undefined 'travel bans', while many Palestinians who travelled and lived abroad for business or personal reasons have had their residence Ids revoked and been prohibited from returning.”

“Israel denies Palestinians in the OPT their right to a nationality by denying Palestinian refugees from inside the Green Line their right of return, residence, and citizenship in the State (Israel) governing the land of their birth. Israel’s policies in the OPT also effectively deny Palestinians their right to a nationality by obstructing the exercise of the Palestinian right to self determination through the formation of a Palestinian State in the West Bank
(including East Jerusalem) and Gaza Strip.”

“Israeli military actions have included extensive school closures, direct attacks on schools, severe restrictions on movement, and arrests and detention of teachers and students…A segregated school system operates in the West Bank as Palestinians are not allowed to attend government funded schools in Jewish settlements.”

“Israel has divided the West Bank into reserves or cantons in which residence and entry is determined by each individual’s group identity. Entry by one group into the zone of the other group is prohibited without a permit. The Wall and its infrastructure of gates and permanent checkpoints suggest a policy permanently to divide the West Bank into racial cantons. Israeli government ministries, the World Zionist Organisation and other Jewish-national institutions operating as authorised agencies of the State plan, fund and implement construction of the West Bank settlements and their infrastructure for exclusively Jewish use.”

- See more at: Landmark study finds Israeli control in occupied territories a breach of the prohibition of apartheid Mondoweiss


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Written by a ZIONIST(Michael Eitan) for ZIOMANIACS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Upset it did you?  To elicit the knee jerk reaction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where is the apartheid in Israel then Abdul, produce a link showing this alleged apartheid as we are still waiting after 12 months of asking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Findings on Apartheid:
> 
> “The Apartheid Convention criminalises ‘inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them’. The Rome Statute criminalises inhumane acts committed in the context of, and to maintain, ‘an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group.’ Both focus on the systematic, institutionalised, and oppressive character of the discrimination involved and the purpose of domination that is entailed. This distinguishes the practice of apartheid from other forms of prohibited discrimination and from other contexts in which the listed crimes arise.”
> 
> “It must be clear, however, that practices in South Africa are not the test or benchmark for a finding of apartheid elsewhere, as the principal instrument which provides this test lies in the terms of the Apartheid Convention itself.”
> 
> “…Palestinians are subject to legal systems and courts which apply standards of evidence and procedure that are different from those applied to Jewish settlers living the OPT and that result in harsher penalties for Palestinians.”
> 
> “Restrictions on the Palestinian right to freedom of movement are endemic in the West Bank, stemming from Israel's control of the OPT's checkpoints and crossings, impediments created by the Wall and its crossing points, a matrix of separate roads, and obstructive and all encompassing permit and ID systems that apply solely to Palestinians.”
> 
> “The right of Palestinians to choose their own place of residence within their territory is severely curtailed by systematic administrative restrictions on Palestinian residency and building in East Jerusalem, by discriminatory legislation that operates to prevent Palestinian spouses from living together on the basis of which part of the OPT they originate from, and by the strictures of the permit and ID systems.”
> 
> “Palestinians are denied their right to leave and return to their country… hundreds of thousands of Palestinians displaced to surrounding states from the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967 have been prevented from returning to the OPT…Palestinian residents of the OPT must obtain Israeli permission to leave the territory…Political activists and human rights defenders are often subject to arbitrary and undefined 'travel bans', while many Palestinians who travelled and lived abroad for business or personal reasons have had their residence Ids revoked and been prohibited from returning.”
> 
> “Israel denies Palestinians in the OPT their right to a nationality by denying Palestinian refugees from inside the Green Line their right of return, residence, and citizenship in the State (Israel) governing the land of their birth. Israel’s policies in the OPT also effectively deny Palestinians their right to a nationality by obstructing the exercise of the Palestinian right to self determination through the formation of a Palestinian State in the West Bank
> (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza Strip.”
> 
> “Israeli military actions have included extensive school closures, direct attacks on schools, severe restrictions on movement, and arrests and detention of teachers and students…A segregated school system operates in the West Bank as Palestinians are not allowed to attend government funded schools in Jewish settlements.”
> 
> “Israel has divided the West Bank into reserves or cantons in which residence and entry is determined by each individual’s group identity. Entry by one group into the zone of the other group is prohibited without a permit. The Wall and its infrastructure of gates and permanent checkpoints suggest a policy permanently to divide the West Bank into racial cantons. Israeli government ministries, the World Zionist Organisation and other Jewish-national institutions operating as authorised agencies of the State plan, fund and implement construction of the West Bank settlements and their infrastructure for exclusively Jewish use.”
> 
> - See more at: Landmark study finds Israeli control in occupied territories a breach of the prohibition of apartheid Mondoweiss
Click to expand...





And when you look at the Geneva conventions in regards to the occupation you see that the occupying power MUST administer the law of the occupied lad as it is designated at the time of occupation. So the punishment served by the courts is that which would have been handed down by the courts of the land. In this case Jordanian law applies as the land was Jordan in 1967, and the Palestinians have not as yet set up a judiciary.
So the first point is dispelled as being false

  Martial law is in place and because of terrorist attacks the IDF enforce curfews and travel restrictions in line with the terms of the Geneva conventions.
Second point dispelled

East Jerusalem was never Palestinian land, in fact none of the land was ever Palestinian as under 1923 INTERNATIONAL LAW the land was Jewish. Then Further under the U.N. rules the land of Jerusalem was a separate entity to the rest of Palestine.
Third point dispelled

No legal right of return  so not apartheid, and under martial law the Israeli's don't need to allow free movement. Again the Geneva convention spells it out.
Fourth point dispelled

The rest can be covered by the Oslo accords and Geneva conventions thus showing that you and your link are just spouting islamomoron propaganda.



 And SOAS is a proven RACIST NAZI ANTI SEMITIC SOURCE 

DISSMISSED for being a moron.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?







 Was she calling herself a Palestinian in 1959 ? or was she a Syrian ?


----------



## montelatici

Take it up with the South Africans who wrote the report on their analysis of Israeli Apartheid.  I guess you believe you know more about Apartheid than the people who lived under it.  

By the way not one statement in your post is true. You have been lying so much, you can't even tell you are lying. Nothing you write is true, and the fact that you never provide any backup to the nonsense you write is telling.


----------



## Mindful

montelatici said:


> Take it up with the South Africans who wrote the report on their analysis of Israeli Apartheid.  I guess you believe you know more about Apartheid than the people who lived under it.
> 
> By the way not one statement in your post is true. You have been lying so much, you can't even tell you are lying. Nothing you write is true, and the fact that you never provide any backup to the nonsense you write is telling.



What's your excuse?


----------



## Mindful




----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was she calling herself a Palestinian in 1959 ? or was she a Syrian ?
Click to expand...


Why would she be a Syrian? The Syrian flag is:


----------



## montelatici

Mindful said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take it up with the South Africans who wrote the report on their analysis of Israeli Apartheid.  I guess you believe you know more about Apartheid than the people who lived under it.
> 
> By the way not one statement in your post is true. You have been lying so much, you can't even tell you are lying. Nothing you write is true, and the fact that you never provide any backup to the nonsense you write is telling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's your excuse?
Click to expand...


For exclusively posting fact?  Well, that's what I do.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was she calling herself a Palestinian in 1959 ? or was she a Syrian ?
Click to expand...

Does she look like she is over 56 years old?

Really stupid question.


----------



## P F Tinmore

montelatici said:


> Take it up with the South Africans who wrote the report on their analysis of Israeli Apartheid.  I guess you believe you know more about Apartheid than the people who lived under it.
> 
> By the way not one statement in your post is true. You have been lying so much, you can't even tell you are lying. Nothing you write is true, and the fact that you never provide any backup to the nonsense you write is telling.


----------



## Mindful

montelatici said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take it up with the South Africans who wrote the report on their analysis of Israeli Apartheid.  I guess you believe you know more about Apartheid than the people who lived under it.
> 
> By the way not one statement in your post is true. You have been lying so much, you can't even tell you are lying. Nothing you write is true, and the fact that you never provide any backup to the nonsense you write is telling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's your excuse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For exclusively posting fact?  Well, that's what I do.
Click to expand...



When will you realise you are wasting your time?


----------



## montelatici

Great, but the usual suspects will claim there is no Apartheid in Israel.  Cognitive dissonance has gone viral among the Zionists.


----------



## Mindful

montelatici said:


> Mindful said:
Click to expand...


----------



## montelatici

Mindful said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Can't take your own medicine I see.


----------



## Mindful

montelatici said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't take your own medicine I see.
Click to expand...


Not really.  Not from a big nothing like you, no.


----------



## montelatici

Mindful said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't take your own medicine I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really.  Not from a big nothing like you, no.
Click to expand...


I see it's getting to you.


----------



## Mindful

montelatici said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't take your own medicine I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really.  Not from a big nothing like you, no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see it's getting to you.
Click to expand...


What is?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Take it up with the South Africans who wrote the report on their analysis of Israeli Apartheid.  I guess you believe you know more about Apartheid than the people who lived under it.
> 
> By the way not one statement in your post is true. You have been lying so much, you can't even tell you are lying. Nothing you write is true, and the fact that you never provide any backup to the nonsense you write is telling.





 Every single one is true and they show that you are no concerned with the truth just your RACIST JEW BASHING


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was she calling herself a Palestinian in 1959 ? or was she a Syrian ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would she be a Syrian? The Syrian flag is:
Click to expand...





 And the Jordanian flag is what she is waving. But once again you miss the point prior to 1960 there were no arab muslim Palestinians, just Syrians and Egyptians


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was she calling herself a Palestinian in 1959 ? or was she a Syrian ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does she look like she is over 56 years old?
> 
> Really stupid question.
Click to expand...





 Not if you look at history, before 1960 the arab muslims called themselves Syrians or Egyptians not palestinians


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't take your own medicine I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really.  Not from a big nothing like you, no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see it's getting to you.
Click to expand...





 Nope we just see your OFF TOPIC SPAMMING


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take it up with the South Africans who wrote the report on their analysis of Israeli Apartheid.  I guess you believe you know more about Apartheid than the people who lived under it.
> 
> By the way not one statement in your post is true. You have been lying so much, you can't even tell you are lying. Nothing you write is true, and the fact that you never provide any backup to the nonsense you write is telling.
Click to expand...





 So since when has gaza and the west bank been Israeli. According to the UN they are Palestinian and have their own leaders, politicians and nation. So why cant the Israelis vote in Palestinian elections ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Great, but the usual suspects will claim there is no Apartheid in Israel.  Cognitive dissonance has gone viral among the Zionists.






 So when did the arab muslims agree to become Israelis, laid down their weapons and gave up terrorism ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take it up with the South Africans who wrote the report on their analysis of Israeli Apartheid.  I guess you believe you know more about Apartheid than the people who lived under it.
> 
> By the way not one statement in your post is true. You have been lying so much, you can't even tell you are lying. Nothing you write is true, and the fact that you never provide any backup to the nonsense you write is telling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So since when has gaza and the west bank been Israeli. According to the UN they are Palestinian and have their own leaders, politicians and nation. So why cant the Israelis vote in Palestinian elections ?
Click to expand...

Israel, the West Bank, and Gaze are all artificial constructs inside the Palestinian's homeland. Each one has its own level and form of apartheid.


----------



## Mindful

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take it up with the South Africans who wrote the report on their analysis of Israeli Apartheid.  I guess you believe you know more about Apartheid than the people who lived under it.
> 
> By the way not one statement in your post is true. You have been lying so much, you can't even tell you are lying. Nothing you write is true, and the fact that you never provide any backup to the nonsense you write is telling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So since when has gaza and the west bank been Israeli. According to the UN they are Palestinian and have their own leaders, politicians and nation. So why cant the Israelis vote in Palestinian elections ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel, the West Bank, and Gaze are all artificial constructs inside the Palestinian's homeland. Each one has its own level and form of apartheid.
Click to expand...


Do you think anyone, apart from the moron, takes any notice of what you say?


----------



## montelatici

Mindful said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take it up with the South Africans who wrote the report on their analysis of Israeli Apartheid.  I guess you believe you know more about Apartheid than the people who lived under it.
> 
> By the way not one statement in your post is true. You have been lying so much, you can't even tell you are lying. Nothing you write is true, and the fact that you never provide any backup to the nonsense you write is telling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So since when has gaza and the west bank been Israeli. According to the UN they are Palestinian and have their own leaders, politicians and nation. So why cant the Israelis vote in Palestinian elections ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel, the West Bank, and Gaze are all artificial constructs inside the Palestinian's homeland. Each one has its own level and form of apartheid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think anyone, apart from the moron, takes any notice of what you say?
Click to expand...


Apparently, you do.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take it up with the South Africans who wrote the report on their analysis of Israeli Apartheid.  I guess you believe you know more about Apartheid than the people who lived under it.
> 
> By the way not one statement in your post is true. You have been lying so much, you can't even tell you are lying. Nothing you write is true, and the fact that you never provide any backup to the nonsense you write is telling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So since when has gaza and the west bank been Israeli. According to the UN they are Palestinian and have their own leaders, politicians and nation. So why cant the Israelis vote in Palestinian elections ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel, the West Bank, and Gaze are all artificial constructs inside the Palestinian's homeland. Each one has its own level and form of apartheid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think anyone, apart from the moron, takes any notice of what you say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, you do.
Click to expand...


Hey Monte, did you hear the one about "Israel is stealing 'Palestinian' land."


----------



## Mindful

montelatici said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take it up with the South Africans who wrote the report on their analysis of Israeli Apartheid.  I guess you believe you know more about Apartheid than the people who lived under it.
> 
> By the way not one statement in your post is true. You have been lying so much, you can't even tell you are lying. Nothing you write is true, and the fact that you never provide any backup to the nonsense you write is telling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So since when has gaza and the west bank been Israeli. According to the UN they are Palestinian and have their own leaders, politicians and nation. So why cant the Israelis vote in Palestinian elections ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel, the West Bank, and Gaze are all artificial constructs inside the Palestinian's homeland. Each one has its own level and form of apartheid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think anyone, apart from the moron, takes any notice of what you say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, you do.
Click to expand...


Not enough to be convinced by your rubbish.

I'm only humouring you.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take it up with the South Africans who wrote the report on their analysis of Israeli Apartheid.  I guess you believe you know more about Apartheid than the people who lived under it.
> 
> By the way not one statement in your post is true. You have been lying so much, you can't even tell you are lying. Nothing you write is true, and the fact that you never provide any backup to the nonsense you write is telling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So since when has gaza and the west bank been Israeli. According to the UN they are Palestinian and have their own leaders, politicians and nation. So why cant the Israelis vote in Palestinian elections ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel, the West Bank, and Gaze are all artificial constructs inside the Palestinian's homeland. Each one has its own level and form of apartheid.
Click to expand...


Artificial constructs ?? Where do you come up with this crap? Israel is not inside anything else but Israel.


----------



## theliq

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So since when has gaza and the west bank been Israeli. According to the UN they are Palestinian and have their own leaders, politicians and nation. So why cant the Israelis vote in Palestinian elections ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel, the West Bank, and Gaze are all artificial constructs inside the Palestinian's homeland. Each one has its own level and form of apartheid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think anyone, apart from the moron, takes any notice of what you say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Monte, did you hear the one about "Israel is stealing 'Palestinian' land."
Click to expand...

Funny.NOT...But I did hear about the one "Where Israel has obtained Billions of US$ from the American Taxpayers" which I though was Bloody Funny.


----------



## theliq

Mindful said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So since when has gaza and the west bank been Israeli. According to the UN they are Palestinian and have their own leaders, politicians and nation. So why cant the Israelis vote in Palestinian elections ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel, the West Bank, and Gaze are all artificial constructs inside the Palestinian's homeland. Each one has its own level and form of apartheid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think anyone, apart from the moron, takes any notice of what you say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not enough to be convinced by your rubbish.
> 
> I'm only humouring you.
Click to expand...

Ooooo So Funny Mindless......or is that BORING,Yep I got it in one BORING


----------



## Mindful

theliq said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So since when has gaza and the west bank been Israeli. According to the UN they are Palestinian and have their own leaders, politicians and nation. So why cant the Israelis vote in Palestinian elections ?
> 
> 
> 
> Israel, the West Bank, and Gaze are all artificial constructs inside the Palestinian's homeland. Each one has its own level and form of apartheid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think anyone, apart from the moron, takes any notice of what you say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not enough to be convinced by your rubbish.
> 
> I'm only humouring you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ooooo So Funny Mindless......or is that BORING,Yep I got it in one BORING
Click to expand...


----------



## MJB12741

theliq said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So since when has gaza and the west bank been Israeli. According to the UN they are Palestinian and have their own leaders, politicians and nation. So why cant the Israelis vote in Palestinian elections ?
> 
> 
> 
> Israel, the West Bank, and Gaze are all artificial constructs inside the Palestinian's homeland. Each one has its own level and form of apartheid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think anyone, apart from the moron, takes any notice of what you say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Monte, did you hear the one about "Israel is stealing 'Palestinian' land."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny.NOT...But I did hear about the one "Where Israel has obtained Billions of US$ from the American Taxpayers" which I though was Bloody Funny.
Click to expand...



Are you not even aware the Arab countries receive over twice as much in US financial aid than Israel does?  Please join with me in praying the US cut off all financial aid to Israel ASAP.  And of course to all the Arab countries as well.  America First.

Egypt got more foreign aid than anyone besides Israel says New York Times columnist Ross Douthat PolitiFact


----------



## Mindful

MJB12741 said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel, the West Bank, and Gaze are all artificial constructs inside the Palestinian's homeland. Each one has its own level and form of apartheid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think anyone, apart from the moron, takes any notice of what you say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Monte, did you hear the one about "Israel is stealing 'Palestinian' land."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny.NOT...But I did hear about the one "Where Israel has obtained Billions of US$ from the American Taxpayers" which I though was Bloody Funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you not even aware the Arab countries receive over twice as much in US financial aid than Israel does?  Please join with me in praying the US cut off all financial aid to Israel ASAP.  And of course to all the Arab countries as well.  America First.
> 
> Egypt got more foreign aid than anyone besides Israel says New York Times columnist Ross Douthat PolitiFact
Click to expand...


Are you aware that trying to talk to that one  in normal parlance is a total waste  of time? He's here for another purpose altogether.


----------



## MJB12741

Mindful said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think anyone, apart from the moron, takes any notice of what you say?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Monte, did you hear the one about "Israel is stealing 'Palestinian' land."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny.NOT...But I did hear about the one "Where Israel has obtained Billions of US$ from the American Taxpayers" which I though was Bloody Funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you not even aware the Arab countries receive over twice as much in US financial aid than Israel does?  Please join with me in praying the US cut off all financial aid to Israel ASAP.  And of course to all the Arab countries as well.  America First.
> 
> Egypt got more foreign aid than anyone besides Israel says New York Times columnist Ross Douthat PolitiFact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you aware that trying to talk to that one  in normal parlance is a total waste  of time? He's here for another purpose altogether.
Click to expand...


Actually he's wonderful.  We keep him here for laughs.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Monte, did you hear the one about "Israel is stealing 'Palestinian' land."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny.NOT...But I did hear about the one "Where Israel has obtained Billions of US$ from the American Taxpayers" which I though was Bloody Funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you not even aware the Arab countries receive over twice as much in US financial aid than Israel does?  Please join with me in praying the US cut off all financial aid to Israel ASAP.  And of course to all the Arab countries as well.  America First.
> 
> Egypt got more foreign aid than anyone besides Israel says New York Times columnist Ross Douthat PolitiFact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you aware that trying to talk to that one  in normal parlance is a total waste  of time? He's here for another purpose altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually he's wonderful.  We keep him here for laughs.
Click to expand...


As for laughs and entertainment a recent poll has you, Ruddy and Phoney running neck in neck for the most laughs.  Please post more, you could win.


----------



## Mindful

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Monte, did you hear the one about "Israel is stealing 'Palestinian' land."
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.NOT...But I did hear about the one "Where Israel has obtained Billions of US$ from the American Taxpayers" which I though was Bloody Funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you not even aware the Arab countries receive over twice as much in US financial aid than Israel does?  Please join with me in praying the US cut off all financial aid to Israel ASAP.  And of course to all the Arab countries as well.  America First.
> 
> Egypt got more foreign aid than anyone besides Israel says New York Times columnist Ross Douthat PolitiFact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you aware that trying to talk to that one  in normal parlance is a total waste  of time? He's here for another purpose altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually he's wonderful.  We keep him here for laughs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As for laughs and entertainment a recent poll has you, Ruddy and Phoney running neck in neck for the most laughs.  Please post more, you could win.
Click to expand...


Sure.


----------



## Mindful

MJB12741 said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Monte, did you hear the one about "Israel is stealing 'Palestinian' land."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny.NOT...But I did hear about the one "Where Israel has obtained Billions of US$ from the American Taxpayers" which I though was Bloody Funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you not even aware the Arab countries receive over twice as much in US financial aid than Israel does?  Please join with me in praying the US cut off all financial aid to Israel ASAP.  And of course to all the Arab countries as well.  America First.
> 
> Egypt got more foreign aid than anyone besides Israel says New York Times columnist Ross Douthat PolitiFact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you aware that trying to talk to that one  in normal parlance is a total waste  of time? He's here for another purpose altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually he's wonderful.  We keep him here for laughs.
Click to expand...


Laughs?   He induces depression.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Monte, did you hear the one about "Israel is stealing 'Palestinian' land."
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.NOT...But I did hear about the one "Where Israel has obtained Billions of US$ from the American Taxpayers" which I though was Bloody Funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you not even aware the Arab countries receive over twice as much in US financial aid than Israel does?  Please join with me in praying the US cut off all financial aid to Israel ASAP.  And of course to all the Arab countries as well.  America First.
> 
> Egypt got more foreign aid than anyone besides Israel says New York Times columnist Ross Douthat PolitiFact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you aware that trying to talk to that one  in normal parlance is a total waste  of time? He's here for another purpose altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually he's wonderful.  We keep him here for laughs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As for laughs and entertainment a recent poll has you, Ruddy and Phoney running neck in neck for the most laughs.  Please post more, you could win.
Click to expand...


Aw bless you Monte for caring about me.  Okay I will post more often as you wish.


----------



## montelatici

Thanks for all the laughs!


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Thanks for all the laughs!



Hey Monte, did you hear the one about "Israel is stealing 'Palestinian' land"?


----------



## montelatici

You mean the 85%+ owned by the Christians and Muslims before partition?


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

I know that you think that "land ownership" has something to do with sovereignty.  But is doesn't.

Land ownership is a real estate matter in civil law.
Sovereignty is a matter of governance.



montelatici said:


> You mean the 85%+ owned by the Christians and Muslims before partition?


*(COMMENT)*

As an example in the difference is in the case of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan which does not rule over a Hashemite Population.  Jordan has a population that is ethnically Arab 98% _(Native to the Kingdom are mostly descended from village-dwellers and __Bedouins__ originating in the __Arabian Peninsula__.  Half of Jordan's population are of __Palestinian__ origin.)_; with minorities including Circassian 1%, Armenian 1%.

In contrast, the Hashemites _(Arab chieftain *Quraysh (Quraysh, *at one time the ruling tribe of Mecca, that also guarded its most sacred shrine, the Kaʿbah), in the same lineage as the Prophet Ismai)_ are descendants of the ancient Banu Hahsim _(Muhammad - PBUH - was born in 570 of the Hāshemite (Banū Hāshim) branch of the noble house of ʿAbd Manāf; he never lacked protection by his clan)_.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> You mean the 85%+ owned by the Christians and Muslims before partition?


What about it ?

Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan, the same way the so called Palestinians did so. 
If that's stealing, then why did the U.N recognize Israel and make them a full member one year later?


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> I know that you think that "land ownership" has something to do with sovereignty.  But is doesn't.
> 
> Land ownership is a real estate matter in civil law.
> Sovereignty is a matter of governance.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the 85%+ owned by the Christians and Muslims before partition?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As an example in the difference is in the case of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan which does not rule over a Hashemite Population.  Jordan has a population that is ethnically Arab 98% _(Native to the Kingdom are mostly descended from village-dwellers and __Bedouins__ originating in the __Arabian Peninsula__.  Half of Jordan's population are of __Palestinian__ origin.)_; with minorities including Circassian 1%, Armenian 1%.
> 
> In contrast, the Hashemites _(Arab chieftain *Quraysh (Quraysh, *at one time the ruling tribe of Mecca, that also guarded its most sacred shrine, the Kaʿbah), in the same lineage as the Prophet Ismai)_ are descendants of the ancient Banu Hahsim _(Muhammad - PBUH - was born in 570 of the Hāshemite (Banū Hāshim) branch of the noble house of ʿAbd Manāf; he never lacked protection by his clan)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Rocco et al.

No, I have no doubt that ownership of land has no relationship with sovereignty.  But if the owners of the land are dispossessed of the land, it is theft, regardless of sovereignty.  The Japanese may own most of the private land in Hawaii, but Hawaii is not under Japanese sovereignty.  However, if the U.S. makes up a law that takes the land from the Japanese owners, it is theft.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> I know that you think that "land ownership" has something to do with sovereignty.  But is doesn't.
> 
> Land ownership is a real estate matter in civil law.
> Sovereignty is a matter of governance.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the 85%+ owned by the Christians and Muslims before partition?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As an example in the difference is in the case of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan which does not rule over a Hashemite Population.  Jordan has a population that is ethnically Arab 98% _(Native to the Kingdom are mostly descended from village-dwellers and __Bedouins__ originating in the __Arabian Peninsula__.  Half of Jordan's population are of __Palestinian__ origin.)_; with minorities including Circassian 1%, Armenian 1%.
> 
> In contrast, the Hashemites _(Arab chieftain *Quraysh (Quraysh, *at one time the ruling tribe of Mecca, that also guarded its most sacred shrine, the Kaʿbah), in the same lineage as the Prophet Ismai)_ are descendants of the ancient Banu Hahsim _(Muhammad - PBUH - was born in 570 of the Hāshemite (Banū Hāshim) branch of the noble house of ʿAbd Manāf; he never lacked protection by his clan)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rocco et al.
> 
> No, I have no doubt that ownership of land has no relationship with sovereignty.  But if the owners of the land are dispossessed of the land, it is theft, regardless of sovereignty.  The Japanese may own most of the private land in Hawaii, but Hawaii is not under Japanese sovereignty.  However, if the U.S. makes up a law that takes the land from the Japanese owners, it is theft.
Click to expand...

They were dispossessed AFTER they joined 5 Arab armies in trying to destroy Israel and dispossess the Jews. Why do you always leave that part out ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> I know that you think that "land ownership" has something to do with sovereignty.  But is doesn't.
> 
> Land ownership is a real estate matter in civil law.
> Sovereignty is a matter of governance.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the 85%+ owned by the Christians and Muslims before partition?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As an example in the difference is in the case of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan which does not rule over a Hashemite Population.  Jordan has a population that is ethnically Arab 98% _(Native to the Kingdom are mostly descended from village-dwellers and __Bedouins__ originating in the __Arabian Peninsula__.  Half of Jordan's population are of __Palestinian__ origin.)_; with minorities including Circassian 1%, Armenian 1%.
> 
> In contrast, the Hashemites _(Arab chieftain *Quraysh (Quraysh, *at one time the ruling tribe of Mecca, that also guarded its most sacred shrine, the Kaʿbah), in the same lineage as the Prophet Ismai)_ are descendants of the ancient Banu Hahsim _(Muhammad - PBUH - was born in 570 of the Hāshemite (Banū Hāshim) branch of the noble house of ʿAbd Manāf; he never lacked protection by his clan)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rocco et al.
> 
> No, I have no doubt that ownership of land has no relationship with sovereignty.  But if the owners of the land are dispossessed of the land, it is theft, regardless of sovereignty.  The Japanese may own most of the private land in Hawaii, but Hawaii is not under Japanese sovereignty.  However, if the U.S. makes up a law that takes the land from the Japanese owners, it is theft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were dispossessed AFTER they joined 5 Arab armies in trying to destroy Israel and dispossess the Jews. Why do you always leave that part out ?
Click to expand...

Because it is not true. Half of the Palestinians were dispossessed before the beginning of the 1948 war. The 1948 war kept Israel from cleansing all of Palestine.

Overall, though, the 1948 war had no effect on Palestine's legal status.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> I know that you think that "land ownership" has something to do with sovereignty.  But is doesn't.
> 
> Land ownership is a real estate matter in civil law.
> Sovereignty is a matter of governance.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the 85%+ owned by the Christians and Muslims before partition?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As an example in the difference is in the case of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan which does not rule over a Hashemite Population.  Jordan has a population that is ethnically Arab 98% _(Native to the Kingdom are mostly descended from village-dwellers and __Bedouins__ originating in the __Arabian Peninsula__.  Half of Jordan's population are of __Palestinian__ origin.)_; with minorities including Circassian 1%, Armenian 1%.
> 
> In contrast, the Hashemites _(Arab chieftain *Quraysh (Quraysh, *at one time the ruling tribe of Mecca, that also guarded its most sacred shrine, the Kaʿbah), in the same lineage as the Prophet Ismai)_ are descendants of the ancient Banu Hahsim _(Muhammad - PBUH - was born in 570 of the Hāshemite (Banū Hāshim) branch of the noble house of ʿAbd Manāf; he never lacked protection by his clan)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rocco et al.
> 
> No, I have no doubt that ownership of land has no relationship with sovereignty.  But if the owners of the land are dispossessed of the land, it is theft, regardless of sovereignty.  The Japanese may own most of the private land in Hawaii, but Hawaii is not under Japanese sovereignty.  However, if the U.S. makes up a law that takes the land from the Japanese owners, it is theft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were dispossessed AFTER they joined 5 Arab armies in trying to destroy Israel and dispossess the Jews. Why do you always leave that part out ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is not true. Half of the Palestinians were dispossessed before the beginning of the 1948 war. The 1948 war kept Israel from cleansing all of Palestine.
> 
> Overall, though, the 1948 war had no effect on Palestine's legal status.
Click to expand...


Can you document that? 

Many Palestians fled upon hearing false news, which I recently documented. But some Palestinians were dispossessed during the 1947 war, which was also started by the Palestinians.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the 85%+ owned by the Christians and Muslims before partition?
> 
> 
> 
> What about it ?
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan, the same way the so called Palestinians did so.
> If that's stealing, then why did the U.N recognize Israel and make them a full member one year later?
Click to expand...

Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan,...​
No it didn't.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the 85%+ owned by the Christians and Muslims before partition?
> 
> 
> 
> What about it ?
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan, the same way the so called Palestinians did so.
> If that's stealing, then why did the U.N recognize Israel and make them a full member one year later?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan,...​
> No it didn't.
Click to expand...


Yes, she did. Stop with your lies. Palestine did as well.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> I know that you think that "land ownership" has something to do with sovereignty.  But is doesn't.
> 
> Land ownership is a real estate matter in civil law.
> Sovereignty is a matter of governance.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the 85%+ owned by the Christians and Muslims before partition?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As an example in the difference is in the case of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan which does not rule over a Hashemite Population.  Jordan has a population that is ethnically Arab 98% _(Native to the Kingdom are mostly descended from village-dwellers and __Bedouins__ originating in the __Arabian Peninsula__.  Half of Jordan's population are of __Palestinian__ origin.)_; with minorities including Circassian 1%, Armenian 1%.
> 
> In contrast, the Hashemites _(Arab chieftain *Quraysh (Quraysh, *at one time the ruling tribe of Mecca, that also guarded its most sacred shrine, the Kaʿbah), in the same lineage as the Prophet Ismai)_ are descendants of the ancient Banu Hahsim _(Muhammad - PBUH - was born in 570 of the Hāshemite (Banū Hāshim) branch of the noble house of ʿAbd Manāf; he never lacked protection by his clan)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rocco et al.
> 
> No, I have no doubt that ownership of land has no relationship with sovereignty.  But if the owners of the land are dispossessed of the land, it is theft, regardless of sovereignty.  The Japanese may own most of the private land in Hawaii, but Hawaii is not under Japanese sovereignty.  However, if the U.S. makes up a law that takes the land from the Japanese owners, it is theft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were dispossessed AFTER they joined 5 Arab armies in trying to destroy Israel and dispossess the Jews. Why do you always leave that part out ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is not true. Half of the Palestinians were dispossessed before the beginning of the 1948 war. The 1948 war kept Israel from cleansing all of Palestine.
> 
> Overall, though, *the 1948 war had no effect on Palestine's legal status*.
Click to expand...


The 1948 war, started by 5 Arab nations , was and still is the main reason the Palestinians are in a hole . Those 5 Arab nations did more harm then good for them


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> I know that you think that "land ownership" has something to do with sovereignty.  But is doesn't.
> 
> Land ownership is a real estate matter in civil law.
> Sovereignty is a matter of governance.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the 85%+ owned by the Christians and Muslims before partition?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As an example in the difference is in the case of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan which does not rule over a Hashemite Population.  Jordan has a population that is ethnically Arab 98% _(Native to the Kingdom are mostly descended from village-dwellers and __Bedouins__ originating in the __Arabian Peninsula__.  Half of Jordan's population are of __Palestinian__ origin.)_; with minorities including Circassian 1%, Armenian 1%.
> 
> In contrast, the Hashemites _(Arab chieftain *Quraysh (Quraysh, *at one time the ruling tribe of Mecca, that also guarded its most sacred shrine, the Kaʿbah), in the same lineage as the Prophet Ismai)_ are descendants of the ancient Banu Hahsim _(Muhammad - PBUH - was born in 570 of the Hāshemite (Banū Hāshim) branch of the noble house of ʿAbd Manāf; he never lacked protection by his clan)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rocco et al.
> 
> No, I have no doubt that ownership of land has no relationship with sovereignty.  But if the owners of the land are dispossessed of the land, it is theft, regardless of sovereignty.  The Japanese may own most of the private land in Hawaii, but Hawaii is not under Japanese sovereignty.  However, if the U.S. makes up a law that takes the land from the Japanese owners, it is theft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were dispossessed AFTER they joined 5 Arab armies in trying to destroy Israel and dispossess the Jews. Why do you always leave that part out ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is not true. Half of the Palestinians were dispossessed before the beginning of the 1948 war. The 1948 war kept Israel from cleansing all of Palestine.
> 
> Overall, though, the 1948 war had no effect on Palestine's legal status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you document that?
> 
> Many Palestians fled upon hearing false news, which I recently documented. But some Palestinians were dispossessed during the 1947 war, which was also started by the Palestinians.
Click to expand...

"Keesing's Contemporary Archives" in London place the total number of refugees *before* Israel's independence at 300,000.[50]

1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> I know that you think that "land ownership" has something to do with sovereignty.  But is doesn't.
> 
> Land ownership is a real estate matter in civil law.
> Sovereignty is a matter of governance.
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As an example in the difference is in the case of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan which does not rule over a Hashemite Population.  Jordan has a population that is ethnically Arab 98% _(Native to the Kingdom are mostly descended from village-dwellers and __Bedouins__ originating in the __Arabian Peninsula__.  Half of Jordan's population are of __Palestinian__ origin.)_; with minorities including Circassian 1%, Armenian 1%.
> 
> In contrast, the Hashemites _(Arab chieftain *Quraysh (Quraysh, *at one time the ruling tribe of Mecca, that also guarded its most sacred shrine, the Kaʿbah), in the same lineage as the Prophet Ismai)_ are descendants of the ancient Banu Hahsim _(Muhammad - PBUH - was born in 570 of the Hāshemite (Banū Hāshim) branch of the noble house of ʿAbd Manāf; he never lacked protection by his clan)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco et al.
> 
> No, I have no doubt that ownership of land has no relationship with sovereignty.  But if the owners of the land are dispossessed of the land, it is theft, regardless of sovereignty.  The Japanese may own most of the private land in Hawaii, but Hawaii is not under Japanese sovereignty.  However, if the U.S. makes up a law that takes the land from the Japanese owners, it is theft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were dispossessed AFTER they joined 5 Arab armies in trying to destroy Israel and dispossess the Jews. Why do you always leave that part out ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is not true. Half of the Palestinians were dispossessed before the beginning of the 1948 war. The 1948 war kept Israel from cleansing all of Palestine.
> 
> Overall, though, the 1948 war had no effect on Palestine's legal status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you document that?
> 
> Many Palestians fled upon hearing false news, which I recently documented. But some Palestinians were dispossessed during the 1947 war, which was also started by the Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Keesing's Contemporary Archives" in London place the total number of refugees *before* Israel's independence at 300,000.[50]
> 
> 1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​
Click to expand...

Ok, now how many of them were expelled ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the 85%+ owned by the Christians and Muslims before partition?
> 
> 
> 
> What about it ?
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan, the same way the so called Palestinians did so.
> If that's stealing, then why did the U.N recognize Israel and make them a full member one year later?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan,...​
> No it didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, she did. Stop with your lies. Palestine did as well.
Click to expand...

Show me where Israel defines its borders as the proposed partition plan borders.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco et al.
> 
> No, I have no doubt that ownership of land has no relationship with sovereignty.  But if the owners of the land are dispossessed of the land, it is theft, regardless of sovereignty.  The Japanese may own most of the private land in Hawaii, but Hawaii is not under Japanese sovereignty.  However, if the U.S. makes up a law that takes the land from the Japanese owners, it is theft.
> 
> 
> 
> They were dispossessed AFTER they joined 5 Arab armies in trying to destroy Israel and dispossess the Jews. Why do you always leave that part out ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is not true. Half of the Palestinians were dispossessed before the beginning of the 1948 war. The 1948 war kept Israel from cleansing all of Palestine.
> 
> Overall, though, the 1948 war had no effect on Palestine's legal status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you document that?
> 
> Many Palestians fled upon hearing false news, which I recently documented. But some Palestinians were dispossessed during the 1947 war, which was also started by the Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Keesing's Contemporary Archives" in London place the total number of refugees *before* Israel's independence at 300,000.[50]
> 
> 1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, now how many of them were expelled ?
Click to expand...

All of them. None of them would have gone anywhere without attacks by Zionist terrorists.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were dispossessed AFTER they joined 5 Arab armies in trying to destroy Israel and dispossess the Jews. Why do you always leave that part out ?
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is not true. Half of the Palestinians were dispossessed before the beginning of the 1948 war. The 1948 war kept Israel from cleansing all of Palestine.
> 
> Overall, though, the 1948 war had no effect on Palestine's legal status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you document that?
> 
> Many Palestians fled upon hearing false news, which I recently documented. But some Palestinians were dispossessed during the 1947 war, which was also started by the Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Keesing's Contemporary Archives" in London place the total number of refugees *before* Israel's independence at 300,000.[50]
> 
> 1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, now how many of them were expelled ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of them. None of them would have gone anywhere without attacks by Zionist terrorists.
Click to expand...


Link that they were all expelled?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the 85%+ owned by the Christians and Muslims before partition?
> 
> 
> 
> What about it ?
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan, the same way the so called Palestinians did so.
> If that's stealing, then why did the U.N recognize Israel and make them a full member one year later?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan,...​
> No it didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, she did. Stop with your lies. Palestine did as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where Israel defines its borders as the proposed partition plan borders.
Click to expand...

What does one have to do with the other ? You've been proven wrong over and over again about this. You're wrong about pretty much everything concerning this subject. Why don't you go debate about something you have knowledge about.


----------



## toastman

From your own link, before Israel Independence:

 Approximately 100,000 Palestinian Arabs had fled

Some had left the country altogether, to Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt.[6]:67 Other sources speak of 30,000 Palestinian Arabs

By 1 May 1948, two weeks before the Israeli Declaration of Independence, nearly 175,000 Palestinians (approximately 25%) had already fled


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the 85%+ owned by the Christians and Muslims before partition?
> 
> 
> 
> What about it ?
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan, the same way the so called Palestinians did so.
> If that's stealing, then why did the U.N recognize Israel and make them a full member one year later?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan,...​
> No it didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, she did. Stop with your lies. Palestine did as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where Israel defines its borders as the proposed partition plan borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does one have to do with the other ? You've been proven wrong over and over again about this. You're wrong about pretty much everything concerning this subject. Why don't you go debate about something you have knowledge about.
Click to expand...

You said "Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan,"

So prove your point.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about it ?
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan, the same way the so called Palestinians did so.
> If that's stealing, then why did the U.N recognize Israel and make them a full member one year later?
> 
> 
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan,...​
> No it didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, she did. Stop with your lies. Palestine did as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where Israel defines its borders as the proposed partition plan borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does one have to do with the other ? You've been proven wrong over and over again about this. You're wrong about pretty much everything concerning this subject. Why don't you go debate about something you have knowledge about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said "Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan,"
> 
> So prove your point.
Click to expand...


Why is it that you are asking me this question, when you have asked Rocco the same one countless times, followed by him proving it is correct?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan,...​
> No it didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, she did. Stop with your lies. Palestine did as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where Israel defines its borders as the proposed partition plan borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does one have to do with the other ? You've been proven wrong over and over again about this. You're wrong about pretty much everything concerning this subject. Why don't you go debate about something you have knowledge about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said "Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan,"
> 
> So prove your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that you are asking me this question, when you have asked Rocco the same one countless times, followed by him proving it is correct?
Click to expand...

He has?

Got a link?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, she did. Stop with your lies. Palestine did as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where Israel defines its borders as the proposed partition plan borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does one have to do with the other ? You've been proven wrong over and over again about this. You're wrong about pretty much everything concerning this subject. Why don't you go debate about something you have knowledge about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said "Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan,"
> 
> So prove your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that you are asking me this question, when you have asked Rocco the same one countless times, followed by him proving it is correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He has?
> 
> Got a link?
Click to expand...

Many times. But as usual, you refuse to accept the truth. But just because you refuse, doesn't make the claim false. 
Kind of how we proved you wrong about Palestine using 181 as a basis to declare independence.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, she did. Stop with your lies. Palestine did as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where Israel defines its borders as the proposed partition plan borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does one have to do with the other ? You've been proven wrong over and over again about this. You're wrong about pretty much everything concerning this subject. Why don't you go debate about something you have knowledge about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said "Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan,"
> 
> So prove your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that you are asking me this question, when you have asked Rocco the same one countless times, followed by him proving it is correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He has?
> 
> Got a link?
Click to expand...


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where Israel defines its borders as the proposed partition plan borders.
> 
> 
> 
> What does one have to do with the other ? You've been proven wrong over and over again about this. You're wrong about pretty much everything concerning this subject. Why don't you go debate about something you have knowledge about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said "Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan,"
> 
> So prove your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that you are asking me this question, when you have asked Rocco the same one countless times, followed by him proving it is correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He has?
> 
> Got a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many times. But as usual, you refuse to accept the truth. But just because you refuse, doesn't make the claim false.
> Kind of how we proved you wrong about Palestine using 181 as a basis to declare independence.
Click to expand...


The problem is, you only believe the propaganda.  There were lots of people living in Palestine that were Christian and Muslim.  The Europeans, who happened to be Jews, went there and expelled those people who had been living there for many generations.  You just can't accept that basic fact.  Why is that?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where Israel defines its borders as the proposed partition plan borders.
> 
> 
> 
> What does one have to do with the other ? You've been proven wrong over and over again about this. You're wrong about pretty much everything concerning this subject. Why don't you go debate about something you have knowledge about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said "Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan,"
> 
> So prove your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that you are asking me this question, when you have asked Rocco the same one countless times, followed by him proving it is correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He has?
> 
> Got a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many times. But as usual, you refuse to accept the truth. But just because you refuse, doesn't make the claim false.
> Kind of how we proved you wrong about Palestine using 181 as a basis to declare independence.
Click to expand...

Nice duck.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does one have to do with the other ? You've been proven wrong over and over again about this. You're wrong about pretty much everything concerning this subject. Why don't you go debate about something you have knowledge about.
> 
> 
> 
> You said "Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan,"
> 
> So prove your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that you are asking me this question, when you have asked Rocco the same one countless times, followed by him proving it is correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He has?
> 
> Got a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many times. But as usual, you refuse to accept the truth. But just because you refuse, doesn't make the claim false.
> Kind of how we proved you wrong about Palestine using 181 as a basis to declare independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, you only believe the propaganda.  There were lots of people living in Palestine that were Christian and Muslim.  The Europeans, who happened to be Jews, went there and expelled those people who had been living there for many generations.  You just can't accept that basic fact.  Why is that?
Click to expand...


We're talking about how Israel declared independence.

Oh, and you can't accept that Arabs attacking Israel, with the help of Palestinian militias, was the main cause for the Palestinian getting expelled, just as they had tried to expell the Israelis. The problem with you is that you refuse to accept the truth, as we have seen many times. 
You're allergic to the truth, you hate it . You call the truth 'propaganda'. 
But you need to remember that even though you refuse to believe the truth, it won't make it go away. Of course, a brainwashed person like you wouldn't understand that . .
Stop lying and stop posting propaganda already, and then maybe more people will take you seriously


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Nermin Demyati*







Demyati, 28, says her designs are in high demand internationally, but she cannot ship them because of the Israeli blockade

*GAZA CITY -* Inside her small factory, 28-year-old Nermin Demyati is busy on her modest sewing machine. Customer orders for new designs come in every day from clients all over Europe, Canada and the Middle East who know that Demyati has the talent for all types of hijabi women’s clothing. But, despite wanting to satisfy all her customers, Demyati knows that the probability of marketing abroad is hampered by Israel’s ongoing siege of Gaza. 

Gaza s first female fashion designer Middle East Eye


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said "Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan,"
> 
> So prove your point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that you are asking me this question, when you have asked Rocco the same one countless times, followed by him proving it is correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He has?
> 
> Got a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many times. But as usual, you refuse to accept the truth. But just because you refuse, doesn't make the claim false.
> Kind of how we proved you wrong about Palestine using 181 as a basis to declare independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, you only believe the propaganda.  There were lots of people living in Palestine that were Christian and Muslim.  The Europeans, who happened to be Jews, went there and expelled those people who had been living there for many generations.  You just can't accept that basic fact.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about how Israel declared independence.
> 
> Oh, and you can't accept that Arabs attacking Israel, with the help of Palestinian militias, was the main cause for the Palestinian getting expelled, just as they had tried to expell the Israelis. The problem with you is that you refuse to accept the truth, as we have seen many times.
> You're allergic to the truth, you hate it . You call the truth 'propaganda'.
> But you need to remember that even though you refuse to believe the truth, it won't make it go away. Of course, a brainwashed person like you wouldn't understand that . .
> Stop lying and stop posting propaganda already, and then maybe more people will take you seriously
Click to expand...


Who cares?  The Europeans went to Palestine and evicted the people (Christians and Muslims) who lived there.  That is a fact.  None of your bullshit can change that fact.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that you are asking me this question, when you have asked Rocco the same one countless times, followed by him proving it is correct?
> 
> 
> 
> He has?
> 
> Got a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many times. But as usual, you refuse to accept the truth. But just because you refuse, doesn't make the claim false.
> Kind of how we proved you wrong about Palestine using 181 as a basis to declare independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, you only believe the propaganda.  There were lots of people living in Palestine that were Christian and Muslim.  The Europeans, who happened to be Jews, went there and expelled those people who had been living there for many generations.  You just can't accept that basic fact.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about how Israel declared independence.
> 
> Oh, and you can't accept that Arabs attacking Israel, with the help of Palestinian militias, was the main cause for the Palestinian getting expelled, just as they had tried to expell the Israelis. The problem with you is that you refuse to accept the truth, as we have seen many times.
> You're allergic to the truth, you hate it . You call the truth 'propaganda'.
> But you need to remember that even though you refuse to believe the truth, it won't make it go away. Of course, a brainwashed person like you wouldn't understand that . .
> Stop lying and stop posting propaganda already, and then maybe more people will take you seriously
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares?  The Europeans went to Palestine and evicted the people (Christians and Muslims) who lived there.  That is a fact.  None of your bullshit can change that fact.
Click to expand...

They went to Palestine to create a state, as promised by the British, and were attacked by 5 Arab armies and Palestinian militias after doing so. Yet you keep ignoring this vital fact because the real truth is not part of your agenda. 
Keep up the propaganda Monti !!


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that you are asking me this question, when you have asked Rocco the same one countless times, followed by him proving it is correct?
> 
> 
> 
> He has?
> 
> Got a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many times. But as usual, you refuse to accept the truth. But just because you refuse, doesn't make the claim false.
> Kind of how we proved you wrong about Palestine using 181 as a basis to declare independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, you only believe the propaganda.  There were lots of people living in Palestine that were Christian and Muslim.  The Europeans, who happened to be Jews, went there and expelled those people who had been living there for many generations.  You just can't accept that basic fact.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about how Israel declared independence.
> 
> Oh, and you can't accept that Arabs attacking Israel, with the help of Palestinian militias, was the main cause for the Palestinian getting expelled, just as they had tried to expell the Israelis. The problem with you is that you refuse to accept the truth, as we have seen many times.
> You're allergic to the truth, you hate it . You call the truth 'propaganda'.
> But you need to remember that even though you refuse to believe the truth, it won't make it go away. Of course, a brainwashed person like you wouldn't understand that . .
> Stop lying and stop posting propaganda already, and then maybe more people will take you seriously
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares?  The Europeans went to Palestine and evicted the people (Christians and Muslims) who lived there.  That is a fact.  None of your bullshit can change that fact.
Click to expand...


"Who cares"

Ya I know you don't care about the truth, just like Tinmore. You guys make a good propaganda team.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> He has?
> 
> Got a link?
> 
> 
> 
> Many times. But as usual, you refuse to accept the truth. But just because you refuse, doesn't make the claim false.
> Kind of how we proved you wrong about Palestine using 181 as a basis to declare independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, you only believe the propaganda.  There were lots of people living in Palestine that were Christian and Muslim.  The Europeans, who happened to be Jews, went there and expelled those people who had been living there for many generations.  You just can't accept that basic fact.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about how Israel declared independence.
> 
> Oh, and you can't accept that Arabs attacking Israel, with the help of Palestinian militias, was the main cause for the Palestinian getting expelled, just as they had tried to expell the Israelis. The problem with you is that you refuse to accept the truth, as we have seen many times.
> You're allergic to the truth, you hate it . You call the truth 'propaganda'.
> But you need to remember that even though you refuse to believe the truth, it won't make it go away. Of course, a brainwashed person like you wouldn't understand that . .
> Stop lying and stop posting propaganda already, and then maybe more people will take you seriously
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares?  The Europeans went to Palestine and evicted the people (Christians and Muslims) who lived there.  That is a fact.  None of your bullshit can change that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They went to Palestine to create a state, as promised by the British, and were attacked by 5 Arab armies and Palestinian militias after doing so. Yet you keep ignoring this vital fact because the real truth is not part of your agenda.
> Keep up the propaganda Monti !!
Click to expand...

They went to Palestine to create a state, as promised by the British,...​
*Not!*


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many times. But as usual, you refuse to accept the truth. But just because you refuse, doesn't make the claim false.
> Kind of how we proved you wrong about Palestine using 181 as a basis to declare independence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, you only believe the propaganda.  There were lots of people living in Palestine that were Christian and Muslim.  The Europeans, who happened to be Jews, went there and expelled those people who had been living there for many generations.  You just can't accept that basic fact.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about how Israel declared independence.
> 
> Oh, and you can't accept that Arabs attacking Israel, with the help of Palestinian militias, was the main cause for the Palestinian getting expelled, just as they had tried to expell the Israelis. The problem with you is that you refuse to accept the truth, as we have seen many times.
> You're allergic to the truth, you hate it . You call the truth 'propaganda'.
> But you need to remember that even though you refuse to believe the truth, it won't make it go away. Of course, a brainwashed person like you wouldn't understand that . .
> Stop lying and stop posting propaganda already, and then maybe more people will take you seriously
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares?  The Europeans went to Palestine and evicted the people (Christians and Muslims) who lived there.  That is a fact.  None of your bullshit can change that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They went to Palestine to create a state, as promised by the British, and were attacked by 5 Arab armies and Palestinian militias after doing so. Yet you keep ignoring this vital fact because the real truth is not part of your agenda.
> Keep up the propaganda Monti !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They went to Palestine to create a state, as promised by the British,...​
> *Not!*
Click to expand...


Yup ! Call it a Jewish homeland if you want, but that was their intention.


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> He has?
> 
> Got a link?
> 
> 
> 
> Many times. But as usual, you refuse to accept the truth. But just because you refuse, doesn't make the claim false.
> Kind of how we proved you wrong about Palestine using 181 as a basis to declare independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, you only believe the propaganda.  There were lots of people living in Palestine that were Christian and Muslim.  The Europeans, who happened to be Jews, went there and expelled those people who had been living there for many generations.  You just can't accept that basic fact.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about how Israel declared independence.
> 
> Oh, and you can't accept that Arabs attacking Israel, with the help of Palestinian militias, was the main cause for the Palestinian getting expelled, just as they had tried to expell the Israelis. The problem with you is that you refuse to accept the truth, as we have seen many times.
> You're allergic to the truth, you hate it . You call the truth 'propaganda'.
> But you need to remember that even though you refuse to believe the truth, it won't make it go away. Of course, a brainwashed person like you wouldn't understand that . .
> Stop lying and stop posting propaganda already, and then maybe more people will take you seriously
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares?  The Europeans went to Palestine and evicted the people (Christians and Muslims) who lived there.  That is a fact.  None of your bullshit can change that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They went to Palestine to create a state, as promised by the British, and were attacked by 5 Arab armies and Palestinian militias after doing so. Yet you keep ignoring this vital fact because the real truth is not part of your agenda.
> Keep up the propaganda Monti !!
Click to expand...


How could the British, a colonial  power,  decide to remove the local people to make room for other Europeans?  How can you justify taking the land away from the people that were living there.  Can't you understand how absurd your position is?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, you only believe the propaganda.  There were lots of people living in Palestine that were Christian and Muslim.  The Europeans, who happened to be Jews, went there and expelled those people who had been living there for many generations.  You just can't accept that basic fact.  Why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about how Israel declared independence.
> 
> Oh, and you can't accept that Arabs attacking Israel, with the help of Palestinian militias, was the main cause for the Palestinian getting expelled, just as they had tried to expell the Israelis. The problem with you is that you refuse to accept the truth, as we have seen many times.
> You're allergic to the truth, you hate it . You call the truth 'propaganda'.
> But you need to remember that even though you refuse to believe the truth, it won't make it go away. Of course, a brainwashed person like you wouldn't understand that . .
> Stop lying and stop posting propaganda already, and then maybe more people will take you seriously
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares?  The Europeans went to Palestine and evicted the people (Christians and Muslims) who lived there.  That is a fact.  None of your bullshit can change that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They went to Palestine to create a state, as promised by the British, and were attacked by 5 Arab armies and Palestinian militias after doing so. Yet you keep ignoring this vital fact because the real truth is not part of your agenda.
> Keep up the propaganda Monti !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They went to Palestine to create a state, as promised by the British,...​
> *Not!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup ! Call it a Jewish homeland if you want, but that was their intention.
Click to expand...

Song and dance.

When did Britain promise a state?


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many times. But as usual, you refuse to accept the truth. But just because you refuse, doesn't make the claim false.
> Kind of how we proved you wrong about Palestine using 181 as a basis to declare independence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, you only believe the propaganda.  There were lots of people living in Palestine that were Christian and Muslim.  The Europeans, who happened to be Jews, went there and expelled those people who had been living there for many generations.  You just can't accept that basic fact.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about how Israel declared independence.
> 
> Oh, and you can't accept that Arabs attacking Israel, with the help of Palestinian militias, was the main cause for the Palestinian getting expelled, just as they had tried to expell the Israelis. The problem with you is that you refuse to accept the truth, as we have seen many times.
> You're allergic to the truth, you hate it . You call the truth 'propaganda'.
> But you need to remember that even though you refuse to believe the truth, it won't make it go away. Of course, a brainwashed person like you wouldn't understand that . .
> Stop lying and stop posting propaganda already, and then maybe more people will take you seriously
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares?  The Europeans went to Palestine and evicted the people (Christians and Muslims) who lived there.  That is a fact.  None of your bullshit can change that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They went to Palestine to create a state, as promised by the British, and were attacked by 5 Arab armies and Palestinian militias after doing so. Yet you keep ignoring this vital fact because the real truth is not part of your agenda.
> Keep up the propaganda Monti !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How could the British, a colonial  power,  decide to remove the local people to make room for other Europeans?  How can you justify taking the land away from the people that were living there.  Can't you understand how absurd your position is?
Click to expand...

Because the British controlled the land after WW1. Not the Arabs you moron. Use your head for once ! The Arabs had NO SOVEREIGNTY over the land. 
The British wanted t ogive the Jews a state which encompasses %.0002 of the land in the Middle East, while the rest of the land belonged to Muslim Arabs. Oh, the horror !!


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Nermin Demyati*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demyati, 28, says her designs are in high demand internationally, but she cannot ship them because of the Israeli blockade
> 
> *GAZA CITY -* Inside her small factory, 28-year-old Nermin Demyati is busy on her modest sewing machine. Customer orders for new designs come in every day from clients all over Europe, Canada and the Middle East who know that Demyati has the talent for all types of hijabi women’s clothing. But, despite wanting to satisfy all her customers, Demyati knows that the probability of marketing abroad is hampered by Israel’s ongoing siege of Gaza.
> 
> Gaza s first female fashion designer Middle East Eye


What siege would that be? What keeps her from exporting it abroad?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about how Israel declared independence.
> 
> Oh, and you can't accept that Arabs attacking Israel, with the help of Palestinian militias, was the main cause for the Palestinian getting expelled, just as they had tried to expell the Israelis. The problem with you is that you refuse to accept the truth, as we have seen many times.
> You're allergic to the truth, you hate it . You call the truth 'propaganda'.
> But you need to remember that even though you refuse to believe the truth, it won't make it go away. Of course, a brainwashed person like you wouldn't understand that . .
> Stop lying and stop posting propaganda already, and then maybe more people will take you seriously
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares?  The Europeans went to Palestine and evicted the people (Christians and Muslims) who lived there.  That is a fact.  None of your bullshit can change that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They went to Palestine to create a state, as promised by the British, and were attacked by 5 Arab armies and Palestinian militias after doing so. Yet you keep ignoring this vital fact because the real truth is not part of your agenda.
> Keep up the propaganda Monti !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They went to Palestine to create a state, as promised by the British,...​
> *Not!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup ! Call it a Jewish homeland if you want, but that was their intention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Song and dance.
> 
> When did Britain promise a state?
Click to expand...


Balfour Declaration. They called it a 'national home' . That sounds like a state to me. NATIONAL


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that you are asking me this question, when you have asked Rocco the same one countless times, followed by him proving it is correct?
> 
> 
> 
> He has?
> 
> Got a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many times. But as usual, you refuse to accept the truth. But just because you refuse, doesn't make the claim false.
> Kind of how we proved you wrong about Palestine using 181 as a basis to declare independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, you only believe the propaganda.  There were lots of people living in Palestine that were Christian and Muslim.  The Europeans, who happened to be Jews, went there and expelled those people who had been living there for many generations.  You just can't accept that basic fact.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about how Israel declared independence.
> 
> Oh, and you can't accept that Arabs attacking Israel, with the help of Palestinian militias, was the main cause for the Palestinian getting expelled, just as they had tried to expell the Israelis. The problem with you is that you refuse to accept the truth, as we have seen many times.
> You're allergic to the truth, you hate it . You call the truth 'propaganda'.
> But you need to remember that even though you refuse to believe the truth, it won't make it go away. Of course, a brainwashed person like you wouldn't understand that . .
> Stop lying and stop posting propaganda already, and then maybe more people will take you seriously
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares?  The Europeans went to Palestine and evicted the people (Christians and Muslims) who lived there.  That is a fact.  None of your bullshit can change that fact.
Click to expand...

Do you think your b.s. is going to change anything?

http://www.think-israel.org/mandelbaum.arabsnativesoraliens.html


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, you only believe the propaganda.  There were lots of people living in Palestine that were Christian and Muslim.  The Europeans, who happened to be Jews, went there and expelled those people who had been living there for many generations.  You just can't accept that basic fact.  Why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about how Israel declared independence.
> 
> Oh, and you can't accept that Arabs attacking Israel, with the help of Palestinian militias, was the main cause for the Palestinian getting expelled, just as they had tried to expell the Israelis. The problem with you is that you refuse to accept the truth, as we have seen many times.
> You're allergic to the truth, you hate it . You call the truth 'propaganda'.
> But you need to remember that even though you refuse to believe the truth, it won't make it go away. Of course, a brainwashed person like you wouldn't understand that . .
> Stop lying and stop posting propaganda already, and then maybe more people will take you seriously
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares?  The Europeans went to Palestine and evicted the people (Christians and Muslims) who lived there.  That is a fact.  None of your bullshit can change that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They went to Palestine to create a state, as promised by the British, and were attacked by 5 Arab armies and Palestinian militias after doing so. Yet you keep ignoring this vital fact because the real truth is not part of your agenda.
> Keep up the propaganda Monti !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How could the British, a colonial  power,  decide to remove the local people to make room for other Europeans?  How can you justify taking the land away from the people that were living there.  Can't you understand how absurd your position is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the British controlled the land after WW1. Not the Arabs you moron. Use your head for once ! The Arabs had NO SOVEREIGNTY over the land.
> The British wanted t ogive the Jews a state which encompasses %.0002 of the land in the Middle East, while the rest of the land belonged to Muslim Arabs. Oh, the horror !!
Click to expand...

All the legal assumptions relating to the international status of Palestine were based on the principle according to which* sovereignty over a mandated territory lies in its inhabitants.*[9] This legal notion has also been confirmed in a United Nations report on the origins of the Palestine problem where it is stated that the sovereignty of Palestine (having been classified as falling under a category “A” Mandate) “could not be alienated either by the Mandatory Power or by the League.”[10]

The Sub-Committee, in its report to the Ad Hoc Committee, further stated that “partition involves the* alienation of territory and the destruction of the integrity of the State of Palestine.* The United Nations cannot make a disposition or alienation of territory, nor can it deprive the majority of the people of Palestine of their territory and transfer it to the exclusive use of a minority in the country ...”[14]
Palestinian-Israeli Conflict


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares?  The Europeans went to Palestine and evicted the people (Christians and Muslims) who lived there.  That is a fact.  None of your bullshit can change that fact.
> 
> 
> 
> They went to Palestine to create a state, as promised by the British, and were attacked by 5 Arab armies and Palestinian militias after doing so. Yet you keep ignoring this vital fact because the real truth is not part of your agenda.
> Keep up the propaganda Monti !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They went to Palestine to create a state, as promised by the British,...​
> *Not!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup ! Call it a Jewish homeland if you want, but that was their intention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Song and dance.
> 
> When did Britain promise a state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Balfour Declaration. They called it a 'national home' . That sounds like a state to me. NATIONAL
Click to expand...

Pffft, you need to read up.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about how Israel declared independence.
> 
> Oh, and you can't accept that Arabs attacking Israel, with the help of Palestinian militias, was the main cause for the Palestinian getting expelled, just as they had tried to expell the Israelis. The problem with you is that you refuse to accept the truth, as we have seen many times.
> You're allergic to the truth, you hate it . You call the truth 'propaganda'.
> But you need to remember that even though you refuse to believe the truth, it won't make it go away. Of course, a brainwashed person like you wouldn't understand that . .
> Stop lying and stop posting propaganda already, and then maybe more people will take you seriously
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares?  The Europeans went to Palestine and evicted the people (Christians and Muslims) who lived there.  That is a fact.  None of your bullshit can change that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They went to Palestine to create a state, as promised by the British, and were attacked by 5 Arab armies and Palestinian militias after doing so. Yet you keep ignoring this vital fact because the real truth is not part of your agenda.
> Keep up the propaganda Monti !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How could the British, a colonial  power,  decide to remove the local people to make room for other Europeans?  How can you justify taking the land away from the people that were living there.  Can't you understand how absurd your position is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the British controlled the land after WW1. Not the Arabs you moron. Use your head for once ! The Arabs had NO SOVEREIGNTY over the land.
> The British wanted t ogive the Jews a state which encompasses %.0002 of the land in the Middle East, while the rest of the land belonged to Muslim Arabs. Oh, the horror !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the legal assumptions relating to the international status of Palestine were based on the principle according to which* sovereignty over a mandated territory lies in its inhabitants.*[9] This legal notion has also been confirmed in a United Nations report on the origins of the Palestine problem where it is stated that the sovereignty of Palestine (having been classified as falling under a category “A” Mandate) “could not be alienated either by the Mandatory Power or by the League.”[10]
> 
> The Sub-Committee, in its report to the Ad Hoc Committee, further stated that “partition involves the* alienation of territory and the destruction of the integrity of the State of Palestine.* The United Nations cannot make a disposition or alienation of territory, nor can it deprive the majority of the people of Palestine of their territory and transfer it to the exclusive use of a minority in the country ...”[14]
> Palestinian-Israeli Conflict
Click to expand...

What is the current legal status, Tinmore.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares?  The Europeans went to Palestine and evicted the people (Christians and Muslims) who lived there.  That is a fact.  None of your bullshit can change that fact.
> 
> 
> 
> They went to Palestine to create a state, as promised by the British, and were attacked by 5 Arab armies and Palestinian militias after doing so. Yet you keep ignoring this vital fact because the real truth is not part of your agenda.
> Keep up the propaganda Monti !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How could the British, a colonial  power,  decide to remove the local people to make room for other Europeans?  How can you justify taking the land away from the people that were living there.  Can't you understand how absurd your position is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the British controlled the land after WW1. Not the Arabs you moron. Use your head for once ! The Arabs had NO SOVEREIGNTY over the land.
> The British wanted t ogive the Jews a state which encompasses %.0002 of the land in the Middle East, while the rest of the land belonged to Muslim Arabs. Oh, the horror !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the legal assumptions relating to the international status of Palestine were based on the principle according to which* sovereignty over a mandated territory lies in its inhabitants.*[9] This legal notion has also been confirmed in a United Nations report on the origins of the Palestine problem where it is stated that the sovereignty of Palestine (having been classified as falling under a category “A” Mandate) “could not be alienated either by the Mandatory Power or by the League.”[10]
> 
> The Sub-Committee, in its report to the Ad Hoc Committee, further stated that “partition involves the* alienation of territory and the destruction of the integrity of the State of Palestine.* The United Nations cannot make a disposition or alienation of territory, nor can it deprive the majority of the people of Palestine of their territory and transfer it to the exclusive use of a minority in the country ...”[14]
> Palestinian-Israeli Conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the current legal status, Tinmore.
Click to expand...

Occupied.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> They went to Palestine to create a state, as promised by the British, and were attacked by 5 Arab armies and Palestinian militias after doing so. Yet you keep ignoring this vital fact because the real truth is not part of your agenda.
> Keep up the propaganda Monti !!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How could the British, a colonial  power,  decide to remove the local people to make room for other Europeans?  How can you justify taking the land away from the people that were living there.  Can't you understand how absurd your position is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the British controlled the land after WW1. Not the Arabs you moron. Use your head for once ! The Arabs had NO SOVEREIGNTY over the land.
> The British wanted t ogive the Jews a state which encompasses %.0002 of the land in the Middle East, while the rest of the land belonged to Muslim Arabs. Oh, the horror !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the legal assumptions relating to the international status of Palestine were based on the principle according to which* sovereignty over a mandated territory lies in its inhabitants.*[9] This legal notion has also been confirmed in a United Nations report on the origins of the Palestine problem where it is stated that the sovereignty of Palestine (having been classified as falling under a category “A” Mandate) “could not be alienated either by the Mandatory Power or by the League.”[10]
> 
> The Sub-Committee, in its report to the Ad Hoc Committee, further stated that “partition involves the* alienation of territory and the destruction of the integrity of the State of Palestine.* The United Nations cannot make a disposition or alienation of territory, nor can it deprive the majority of the people of Palestine of their territory and transfer it to the exclusive use of a minority in the country ...”[14]
> Palestinian-Israeli Conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the current legal status, Tinmore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Occupied.
Click to expand...

So the State of Palestine is occupied?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> They went to Palestine to create a state, as promised by the British, and were attacked by 5 Arab armies and Palestinian militias after doing so. Yet you keep ignoring this vital fact because the real truth is not part of your agenda.
> Keep up the propaganda Monti !!
> 
> 
> 
> They went to Palestine to create a state, as promised by the British,...​
> *Not!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup ! Call it a Jewish homeland if you want, but that was their intention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Song and dance.
> 
> When did Britain promise a state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Balfour Declaration. They called it a 'national home' . That sounds like a state to me. NATIONAL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pffft, you need to read up.
Click to expand...

I did read up. You need to accept the truth. Or not, makes no difference ...


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take it up with the South Africans who wrote the report on their analysis of Israeli Apartheid.  I guess you believe you know more about Apartheid than the people who lived under it.
> 
> By the way not one statement in your post is true. You have been lying so much, you can't even tell you are lying. Nothing you write is true, and the fact that you never provide any backup to the nonsense you write is telling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So since when has gaza and the west bank been Israeli. According to the UN they are Palestinian and have their own leaders, politicians and nation. So why cant the Israelis vote in Palestinian elections ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel, the West Bank, and Gaze are all artificial constructs inside the Palestinian's homeland. Each one has its own level and form of apartheid.
Click to expand...





 What Palestinian homeland, how about a link to the treaty that made Palestine a nation ?   And not the LoN Mandate that made Palestine a mandate


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So since when has gaza and the west bank been Israeli. According to the UN they are Palestinian and have their own leaders, politicians and nation. So why cant the Israelis vote in Palestinian elections ?
> 
> 
> 
> Israel, the West Bank, and Gaze are all artificial constructs inside the Palestinian's homeland. Each one has its own level and form of apartheid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think anyone, apart from the moron, takes any notice of what you say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Monte, did you hear the one about "Israel is stealing 'Palestinian' land."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny.NOT...But I did hear about the one "Where Israel has obtained Billions of US$ from the American Taxpayers" which I though was Bloody Funny.
Click to expand...




 Not as funny as the one about islam stealing $trillions from the US taxpayers in aid used to murder innocent US civilians


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Monte, did you hear the one about "Israel is stealing 'Palestinian' land."
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.NOT...But I did hear about the one "Where Israel has obtained Billions of US$ from the American Taxpayers" which I though was Bloody Funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you not even aware the Arab countries receive over twice as much in US financial aid than Israel does?  Please join with me in praying the US cut off all financial aid to Israel ASAP.  And of course to all the Arab countries as well.  America First.
> 
> Egypt got more foreign aid than anyone besides Israel says New York Times columnist Ross Douthat PolitiFact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you aware that trying to talk to that one  in normal parlance is a total waste  of time? He's here for another purpose altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually he's wonderful.  We keep him here for laughs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As for laughs and entertainment a recent poll has you, Ruddy and Phoney running neck in neck for the most laughs.  Please post more, you could win.
Click to expand...





 Would that be a poll of 1, and is it maniacal laughter because you are getting ridiculed all the time.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> You mean the 85%+ owned by the Christians and Muslims before partition?





 No the 100% owned by the LoN from 1917 when the Ottoman Empire gave it up as spoils of war, and was then given to the Jews for their National Home. So International law says that the arab muslims owned nothing


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> I know that you think that "land ownership" has something to do with sovereignty.  But is doesn't.
> 
> Land ownership is a real estate matter in civil law.
> Sovereignty is a matter of governance.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the 85%+ owned by the Christians and Muslims before partition?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As an example in the difference is in the case of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan which does not rule over a Hashemite Population.  Jordan has a population that is ethnically Arab 98% _(Native to the Kingdom are mostly descended from village-dwellers and __Bedouins__ originating in the __Arabian Peninsula__.  Half of Jordan's population are of __Palestinian__ origin.)_; with minorities including Circassian 1%, Armenian 1%.
> 
> In contrast, the Hashemites _(Arab chieftain *Quraysh (Quraysh, *at one time the ruling tribe of Mecca, that also guarded its most sacred shrine, the Kaʿbah), in the same lineage as the Prophet Ismai)_ are descendants of the ancient Banu Hahsim _(Muhammad - PBUH - was born in 570 of the Hāshemite (Banū Hāshim) branch of the noble house of ʿAbd Manāf; he never lacked protection by his clan)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rocco et al.
> 
> No, I have no doubt that ownership of land has no relationship with sovereignty.  But if the owners of the land are dispossessed of the land, it is theft, regardless of sovereignty.  The Japanese may own most of the private land in Hawaii, but Hawaii is not under Japanese sovereignty.  However, if the U.S. makes up a law that takes the land from the Japanese owners, it is theft.
Click to expand...




 Then all Islamic land was stolen by the arab muslims then. If a national Government executes a law that removes land ownership from the common man and pays them retribution it is not theft. This is what the LoN proposed to the arab muslims under the terms of the Mandate for Palestine. They refused and so they owned nothing as of midnight May 14 1948.    That is INTERNATIONAL LAW.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> I know that you think that "land ownership" has something to do with sovereignty.  But is doesn't.
> 
> Land ownership is a real estate matter in civil law.
> Sovereignty is a matter of governance.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the 85%+ owned by the Christians and Muslims before partition?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As an example in the difference is in the case of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan which does not rule over a Hashemite Population.  Jordan has a population that is ethnically Arab 98% _(Native to the Kingdom are mostly descended from village-dwellers and __Bedouins__ originating in the __Arabian Peninsula__.  Half of Jordan's population are of __Palestinian__ origin.)_; with minorities including Circassian 1%, Armenian 1%.
> 
> In contrast, the Hashemites _(Arab chieftain *Quraysh (Quraysh, *at one time the ruling tribe of Mecca, that also guarded its most sacred shrine, the Kaʿbah), in the same lineage as the Prophet Ismai)_ are descendants of the ancient Banu Hahsim _(Muhammad - PBUH - was born in 570 of the Hāshemite (Banū Hāshim) branch of the noble house of ʿAbd Manāf; he never lacked protection by his clan)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rocco et al.
> 
> No, I have no doubt that ownership of land has no relationship with sovereignty.  But if the owners of the land are dispossessed of the land, it is theft, regardless of sovereignty.  The Japanese may own most of the private land in Hawaii, but Hawaii is not under Japanese sovereignty.  However, if the U.S. makes up a law that takes the land from the Japanese owners, it is theft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were dispossessed AFTER they joined 5 Arab armies in trying to destroy Israel and dispossess the Jews. Why do you always leave that part out ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is not true. Half of the Palestinians were dispossessed before the beginning of the 1948 war. The 1948 war kept Israel from cleansing all of Palestine.
> 
> Overall, though, the 1948 war had no effect on Palestine's legal status.
Click to expand...




Because it had none due to a law created in 1923 that gave the land to the Jews for their national home.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the 85%+ owned by the Christians and Muslims before partition?
> 
> 
> 
> What about it ?
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan, the same way the so called Palestinians did so.
> If that's stealing, then why did the U.N recognize Israel and make them a full member one year later?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan,...​
> No it didn't.
Click to expand...





 It declared independence on land given to the Jews in 1923 for the Jewish National home. The arab muslims are land thieves and illegal immigrants


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> I know that you think that "land ownership" has something to do with sovereignty.  But is doesn't.
> 
> Land ownership is a real estate matter in civil law.
> Sovereignty is a matter of governance.
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As an example in the difference is in the case of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan which does not rule over a Hashemite Population.  Jordan has a population that is ethnically Arab 98% _(Native to the Kingdom are mostly descended from village-dwellers and __Bedouins__ originating in the __Arabian Peninsula__.  Half of Jordan's population are of __Palestinian__ origin.)_; with minorities including Circassian 1%, Armenian 1%.
> 
> In contrast, the Hashemites _(Arab chieftain *Quraysh (Quraysh, *at one time the ruling tribe of Mecca, that also guarded its most sacred shrine, the Kaʿbah), in the same lineage as the Prophet Ismai)_ are descendants of the ancient Banu Hahsim _(Muhammad - PBUH - was born in 570 of the Hāshemite (Banū Hāshim) branch of the noble house of ʿAbd Manāf; he never lacked protection by his clan)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco et al.
> 
> No, I have no doubt that ownership of land has no relationship with sovereignty.  But if the owners of the land are dispossessed of the land, it is theft, regardless of sovereignty.  The Japanese may own most of the private land in Hawaii, but Hawaii is not under Japanese sovereignty.  However, if the U.S. makes up a law that takes the land from the Japanese owners, it is theft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were dispossessed AFTER they joined 5 Arab armies in trying to destroy Israel and dispossess the Jews. Why do you always leave that part out ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is not true. Half of the Palestinians were dispossessed before the beginning of the 1948 war. The 1948 war kept Israel from cleansing all of Palestine.
> 
> Overall, though, the 1948 war had no effect on Palestine's legal status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you document that?
> 
> Many Palestians fled upon hearing false news, which I recently documented. But some Palestinians were dispossessed during the 1947 war, which was also started by the Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Keesing's Contemporary Archives" in London place the total number of refugees *before* Israel's independence at 300,000.[50]
> 
> 1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​
Click to expand...




 They were in the main terrorist fifth columnists who could be evicted under International law of the time. Maybe it would have been better to execute them as the other option and then there would not be this mess.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the 85%+ owned by the Christians and Muslims before partition?
> 
> 
> 
> What about it ?
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan, the same way the so called Palestinians did so.
> If that's stealing, then why did the U.N recognize Israel and make them a full member one year later?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan,...​
> No it didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, she did. Stop with your lies. Palestine did as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where Israel defines its borders as the proposed partition plan borders.
Click to expand...





 Then you show where the arab muslims define their borders as those proposed by the illegal partition plan.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about it ?
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan, the same way the so called Palestinians did so.
> If that's stealing, then why did the U.N recognize Israel and make them a full member one year later?
> 
> 
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan,...​
> No it didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, she did. Stop with your lies. Palestine did as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where Israel defines its borders as the proposed partition plan borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does one have to do with the other ? You've been proven wrong over and over again about this. You're wrong about pretty much everything concerning this subject. Why don't you go debate about something you have knowledge about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said "Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan,"
> 
> So prove your point.
Click to expand...




Declaration of Israel s Independence 1948 . Truman . WGBH American Experience PBS


On November 29, 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a Resolution for the establishment of an independent Jewish State in Palestine, and called upon the inhabitants of the country to take such steps as may be necessary on their part to put the plan into effect.

This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their Independent State may not be revoked. It is, moreover, the self-evident right of the Jewish people to be a nation, as all other nations, in its own Sovereign State.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, she did. Stop with your lies. Palestine did as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where Israel defines its borders as the proposed partition plan borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does one have to do with the other ? You've been proven wrong over and over again about this. You're wrong about pretty much everything concerning this subject. Why don't you go debate about something you have knowledge about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said "Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan,"
> 
> So prove your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that you are asking me this question, when you have asked Rocco the same one countless times, followed by him proving it is correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He has?
> 
> Got a link?
Click to expand...





 Read his posts again...............


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does one have to do with the other ? You've been proven wrong over and over again about this. You're wrong about pretty much everything concerning this subject. Why don't you go debate about something you have knowledge about.
> 
> 
> 
> You said "Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan,"
> 
> So prove your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that you are asking me this question, when you have asked Rocco the same one countless times, followed by him proving it is correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He has?
> 
> Got a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many times. But as usual, you refuse to accept the truth. But just because you refuse, doesn't make the claim false.
> Kind of how we proved you wrong about Palestine using 181 as a basis to declare independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, you only believe the propaganda.  There were lots of people living in Palestine that were Christian and Muslim.  The Europeans, who happened to be Jews, went there and expelled those people who had been living there for many generations.  You just can't accept that basic fact.  Why is that?
Click to expand...





 Beause it is just one of your many racist LIES.

 The ottoman census shows there were more Jews than arab muslims living in Palestine prior to the migration in the 1870's


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does one have to do with the other ? You've been proven wrong over and over again about this. You're wrong about pretty much everything concerning this subject. Why don't you go debate about something you have knowledge about.
> 
> 
> 
> You said "Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan,"
> 
> So prove your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that you are asking me this question, when you have asked Rocco the same one countless times, followed by him proving it is correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He has?
> 
> Got a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many times. But as usual, you refuse to accept the truth. But just because you refuse, doesn't make the claim false.
> Kind of how we proved you wrong about Palestine using 181 as a basis to declare independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice duck.
Click to expand...





 No duck, just the facts that you can never accept


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Nermin Demyati*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demyati, 28, says her designs are in high demand internationally, but she cannot ship them because of the Israeli blockade
> 
> *GAZA CITY -* Inside her small factory, 28-year-old Nermin Demyati is busy on her modest sewing machine. Customer orders for new designs come in every day from clients all over Europe, Canada and the Middle East who know that Demyati has the talent for all types of hijabi women’s clothing. But, despite wanting to satisfy all her customers, Demyati knows that the probability of marketing abroad is hampered by Israel’s ongoing siege of Gaza.
> 
> Gaza s first female fashion designer Middle East Eye






 So why doesn't she ship them through Egypt that also borders gaza, or could it be that they are also blockading gaza because of their terrorism ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that you are asking me this question, when you have asked Rocco the same one countless times, followed by him proving it is correct?
> 
> 
> 
> He has?
> 
> Got a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many times. But as usual, you refuse to accept the truth. But just because you refuse, doesn't make the claim false.
> Kind of how we proved you wrong about Palestine using 181 as a basis to declare independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, you only believe the propaganda.  There were lots of people living in Palestine that were Christian and Muslim.  The Europeans, who happened to be Jews, went there and expelled those people who had been living there for many generations.  You just can't accept that basic fact.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about how Israel declared independence.
> 
> Oh, and you can't accept that Arabs attacking Israel, with the help of Palestinian militias, was the main cause for the Palestinian getting expelled, just as they had tried to expell the Israelis. The problem with you is that you refuse to accept the truth, as we have seen many times.
> You're allergic to the truth, you hate it . You call the truth 'propaganda'.
> But you need to remember that even though you refuse to believe the truth, it won't make it go away. Of course, a brainwashed person like you wouldn't understand that . .
> Stop lying and stop posting propaganda already, and then maybe more people will take you seriously
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares?  The Europeans went to Palestine and evicted the people (Christians and Muslims) who lived there.  That is a fact.  None of your bullshit can change that fact.
Click to expand...




 They were never there in the first place as shown by the ottoman census results. They were illegal immigrants as proven by your own link


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many times. But as usual, you refuse to accept the truth. But just because you refuse, doesn't make the claim false.
> Kind of how we proved you wrong about Palestine using 181 as a basis to declare independence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, you only believe the propaganda.  There were lots of people living in Palestine that were Christian and Muslim.  The Europeans, who happened to be Jews, went there and expelled those people who had been living there for many generations.  You just can't accept that basic fact.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about how Israel declared independence.
> 
> Oh, and you can't accept that Arabs attacking Israel, with the help of Palestinian militias, was the main cause for the Palestinian getting expelled, just as they had tried to expell the Israelis. The problem with you is that you refuse to accept the truth, as we have seen many times.
> You're allergic to the truth, you hate it . You call the truth 'propaganda'.
> But you need to remember that even though you refuse to believe the truth, it won't make it go away. Of course, a brainwashed person like you wouldn't understand that . .
> Stop lying and stop posting propaganda already, and then maybe more people will take you seriously
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares?  The Europeans went to Palestine and evicted the people (Christians and Muslims) who lived there.  That is a fact.  None of your bullshit can change that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They went to Palestine to create a state, as promised by the British, and were attacked by 5 Arab armies and Palestinian militias after doing so. Yet you keep ignoring this vital fact because the real truth is not part of your agenda.
> Keep up the propaganda Monti !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They went to Palestine to create a state, as promised by the British,...​
> *Not!*
Click to expand...





 LINK ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many times. But as usual, you refuse to accept the truth. But just because you refuse, doesn't make the claim false.
> Kind of how we proved you wrong about Palestine using 181 as a basis to declare independence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, you only believe the propaganda.  There were lots of people living in Palestine that were Christian and Muslim.  The Europeans, who happened to be Jews, went there and expelled those people who had been living there for many generations.  You just can't accept that basic fact.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about how Israel declared independence.
> 
> Oh, and you can't accept that Arabs attacking Israel, with the help of Palestinian militias, was the main cause for the Palestinian getting expelled, just as they had tried to expell the Israelis. The problem with you is that you refuse to accept the truth, as we have seen many times.
> You're allergic to the truth, you hate it . You call the truth 'propaganda'.
> But you need to remember that even though you refuse to believe the truth, it won't make it go away. Of course, a brainwashed person like you wouldn't understand that . .
> Stop lying and stop posting propaganda already, and then maybe more people will take you seriously
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares?  The Europeans went to Palestine and evicted the people (Christians and Muslims) who lived there.  That is a fact.  None of your bullshit can change that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They went to Palestine to create a state, as promised by the British, and were attacked by 5 Arab armies and Palestinian militias after doing so. Yet you keep ignoring this vital fact because the real truth is not part of your agenda.
> Keep up the propaganda Monti !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How could the British, a colonial  power,  decide to remove the local people to make room for other Europeans?  How can you justify taking the land away from the people that were living there.  Can't you understand how absurd your position is?
Click to expand...





 Because they were not living there, they were squatting. And back in 1923 the laws were different to those of today, and the same is 1948 when the land was handed over to the National home of the Jews


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about how Israel declared independence.
> 
> Oh, and you can't accept that Arabs attacking Israel, with the help of Palestinian militias, was the main cause for the Palestinian getting expelled, just as they had tried to expell the Israelis. The problem with you is that you refuse to accept the truth, as we have seen many times.
> You're allergic to the truth, you hate it . You call the truth 'propaganda'.
> But you need to remember that even though you refuse to believe the truth, it won't make it go away. Of course, a brainwashed person like you wouldn't understand that . .
> Stop lying and stop posting propaganda already, and then maybe more people will take you seriously
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares?  The Europeans went to Palestine and evicted the people (Christians and Muslims) who lived there.  That is a fact.  None of your bullshit can change that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They went to Palestine to create a state, as promised by the British, and were attacked by 5 Arab armies and Palestinian militias after doing so. Yet you keep ignoring this vital fact because the real truth is not part of your agenda.
> Keep up the propaganda Monti !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They went to Palestine to create a state, as promised by the British,...​
> *Not!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup ! Call it a Jewish homeland if you want, but that was their intention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Song and dance.
> 
> When did Britain promise a state?
Click to expand...




 Balfour declaration 1917


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about how Israel declared independence.
> 
> Oh, and you can't accept that Arabs attacking Israel, with the help of Palestinian militias, was the main cause for the Palestinian getting expelled, just as they had tried to expell the Israelis. The problem with you is that you refuse to accept the truth, as we have seen many times.
> You're allergic to the truth, you hate it . You call the truth 'propaganda'.
> But you need to remember that even though you refuse to believe the truth, it won't make it go away. Of course, a brainwashed person like you wouldn't understand that . .
> Stop lying and stop posting propaganda already, and then maybe more people will take you seriously
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares?  The Europeans went to Palestine and evicted the people (Christians and Muslims) who lived there.  That is a fact.  None of your bullshit can change that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They went to Palestine to create a state, as promised by the British, and were attacked by 5 Arab armies and Palestinian militias after doing so. Yet you keep ignoring this vital fact because the real truth is not part of your agenda.
> Keep up the propaganda Monti !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How could the British, a colonial  power,  decide to remove the local people to make room for other Europeans?  How can you justify taking the land away from the people that were living there.  Can't you understand how absurd your position is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the British controlled the land after WW1. Not the Arabs you moron. Use your head for once ! The Arabs had NO SOVEREIGNTY over the land.
> The British wanted t ogive the Jews a state which encompasses %.0002 of the land in the Middle East, while the rest of the land belonged to Muslim Arabs. Oh, the horror !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the legal assumptions relating to the international status of Palestine were based on the principle according to which* sovereignty over a mandated territory lies in its inhabitants.*[9] This legal notion has also been confirmed in a United Nations report on the origins of the Palestine problem where it is stated that the sovereignty of Palestine (having been classified as falling under a category “A” Mandate) “could not be alienated either by the Mandatory Power or by the League.”[10]
> 
> The Sub-Committee, in its report to the Ad Hoc Committee, further stated that “partition involves the* alienation of territory and the destruction of the integrity of the State of Palestine.* The United Nations cannot make a disposition or alienation of territory, nor can it deprive the majority of the people of Palestine of their territory and transfer it to the exclusive use of a minority in the country ...”[14]
> Palestinian-Israeli Conflict
Click to expand...





 Correct because the LoN had already given the land to the Jews for their National home.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> They went to Palestine to create a state, as promised by the British, and were attacked by 5 Arab armies and Palestinian militias after doing so. Yet you keep ignoring this vital fact because the real truth is not part of your agenda.
> Keep up the propaganda Monti !!
> 
> 
> 
> They went to Palestine to create a state, as promised by the British,...​
> *Not!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup ! Call it a Jewish homeland if you want, but that was their intention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Song and dance.
> 
> When did Britain promise a state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Balfour Declaration. They called it a 'national home' . That sounds like a state to me. NATIONAL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pffft, you need to read up.
Click to expand...





 Actually you need to

Balfour Declaration - UK Non-UN document 2 November 1917 


Foreign Office, November 2nd, 1917.
Dear Lord Rothschild,
 I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet. "His Majesty's Government view with favour *the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of the object*, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious' rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country". I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely, (Signed) Arthur James Balfour


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, you only believe the propaganda.  There were lots of people living in Palestine that were Christian and Muslim.  The Europeans, who happened to be Jews, went there and expelled those people who had been living there for many generations.  You just can't accept that basic fact.  Why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about how Israel declared independence.
> 
> Oh, and you can't accept that Arabs attacking Israel, with the help of Palestinian militias, was the main cause for the Palestinian getting expelled, just as they had tried to expell the Israelis. The problem with you is that you refuse to accept the truth, as we have seen many times.
> You're allergic to the truth, you hate it . You call the truth 'propaganda'.
> But you need to remember that even though you refuse to believe the truth, it won't make it go away. Of course, a brainwashed person like you wouldn't understand that . .
> Stop lying and stop posting propaganda already, and then maybe more people will take you seriously
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares?  The Europeans went to Palestine and evicted the people (Christians and Muslims) who lived there.  That is a fact.  None of your bullshit can change that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They went to Palestine to create a state, as promised by the British, and were attacked by 5 Arab armies and Palestinian militias after doing so. Yet you keep ignoring this vital fact because the real truth is not part of your agenda.
> Keep up the propaganda Monti !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They went to Palestine to create a state, as promised by the British,...​
> *Not!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LINK ?
Click to expand...

Read the Mandate again. The plan was for a single Palestinian state shared by everyone. Specifically not to be a Jewish state.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about how Israel declared independence.
> 
> Oh, and you can't accept that Arabs attacking Israel, with the help of Palestinian militias, was the main cause for the Palestinian getting expelled, just as they had tried to expell the Israelis. The problem with you is that you refuse to accept the truth, as we have seen many times.
> You're allergic to the truth, you hate it . You call the truth 'propaganda'.
> But you need to remember that even though you refuse to believe the truth, it won't make it go away. Of course, a brainwashed person like you wouldn't understand that . .
> Stop lying and stop posting propaganda already, and then maybe more people will take you seriously
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares?  The Europeans went to Palestine and evicted the people (Christians and Muslims) who lived there.  That is a fact.  None of your bullshit can change that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They went to Palestine to create a state, as promised by the British, and were attacked by 5 Arab armies and Palestinian militias after doing so. Yet you keep ignoring this vital fact because the real truth is not part of your agenda.
> Keep up the propaganda Monti !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They went to Palestine to create a state, as promised by the British,...​
> *Not!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LINK ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the Mandate again. The plan was for a single Palestinian state shared by everyone. Specifically not to be a Jewish state.
Click to expand...




Correct and the arab muslim refused to accept that and wanted it to be an Islamic state, with only muslims in charge. But the Mandate requirements have been met with the state of Israel having all religions there and having all religions participating in the Government. Or don't you see the arab muslims and Christians living as full citizens of Israel and having their own representatives in government.

YOU LOSE AGAIN TO THE TRUTH AND REALITY


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, you only believe the propaganda.  There were lots of people living in Palestine that were Christian and Muslim.  The Europeans, who happened to be Jews, went there and expelled those people who had been living there for many generations.  You just can't accept that basic fact.  Why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about how Israel declared independence.
> 
> Oh, and you can't accept that Arabs attacking Israel, with the help of Palestinian militias, was the main cause for the Palestinian getting expelled, just as they had tried to expell the Israelis. The problem with you is that you refuse to accept the truth, as we have seen many times.
> You're allergic to the truth, you hate it . You call the truth 'propaganda'.
> But you need to remember that even though you refuse to believe the truth, it won't make it go away. Of course, a brainwashed person like you wouldn't understand that . .
> Stop lying and stop posting propaganda already, and then maybe more people will take you seriously
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares?  The Europeans went to Palestine and evicted the people (Christians and Muslims) who lived there.  That is a fact.  None of your bullshit can change that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They went to Palestine to create a state, as promised by the British, and were attacked by 5 Arab armies and Palestinian militias after doing so. Yet you keep ignoring this vital fact because the real truth is not part of your agenda.
> Keep up the propaganda Monti !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How could the British, a colonial  power,  decide to remove the local people to make room for other Europeans?  How can you justify taking the land away from the people that were living there.  Can't you understand how absurd your position is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they were not living there, they were squatting. And back in 1923 the laws were different to those of today, and the same is 1948 when the land was handed over to the National home of the Jews
Click to expand...


What do you mean they were not living there? The Europeans were the squatting settlers .


*AN INTERIM REPORT*
*ON THE*
*CIVIL ADMINISTRATION*
*OF*

*PALESTINE,*

*during the period*
*1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921.*

*AN INTERIM REPORT*
*ON THE*
*CIVIL ADMINISTRATION*
*OF*
*PALESTINE.*


"There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly *700,000 people,* a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. *Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. *A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some *77,000 of the population are Christians,* in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.....The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. *Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.

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


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Certainly this cannot be a valid and sound defense.



P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco et al.
> 
> No, I have no doubt that ownership of land has no relationship with sovereignty.  But if the owners of the land are dispossessed of the land, it is theft, regardless of sovereignty.  The Japanese may own most of the private land in Hawaii, but Hawaii is not under Japanese sovereignty.  However, if the U.S. makes up a law that takes the land from the Japanese owners, it is theft.
> 
> 
> 
> They were dispossessed AFTER they joined 5 Arab armies in trying to destroy Israel and dispossess the Jews. Why do you always leave that part out ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is not true. Half of the Palestinians were dispossessed before the beginning of the 1948 war. The 1948 war kept Israel from cleansing all of Palestine.
> Overall, though, the 1948 war had no effect on Palestine's legal status.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

One, the opposing view that the "the Palestinians were dispossessed before the beginning of the 1948 war" can only be valid if the period being discussed was a civil war.  Because the State of Israel had not been formed until mid-1948.  And the outcome of the civil war is not a violation of any international law.

Relative to the timeframe (post-1948 War of Independence), the statement that the War of Independence "had no effect on Palestine's legal status, is also questionable.  Prior to the War, both the Jew component  and the Arab component were both of the same citizenship (Palestinian) applied to the population of the territory to which the former Mandate applied." 

Some of the Palestinians became Israeli Citizens. 
Some Palestinians became Palestinians under Jordanian Occupation.
Some Palestinians became Palestinians under the official Administration of the All-Palestine Government _(until abolished in 1959 by Egypt)_.
The "legal status of the Palestinians" (the same citizenship (Palestinian) applied to the population of the territory to which the former Mandate applied) was manipulated vigorously during the years after Israel was granted membership to the UN (11 May 1949) as an independent sovereign state _(with the last Armistice signed July 49)_.

In April 1950, a Jordanian Parliament _(composed of half Jordanians and half West Bank Palestinians)_ exercised their right to declare the West Bank part of Jordan and the West Bank population Jordanian citizens.
During the 1948-49 War of Independence, the All-Palestine Government _(established by the Arab League on 22 September 1948)_ attempted to establish a new Government for Palestinians that encompassed the entire territory to which the former Mandate applied.
This actually had an impact on something that is near and dear to a number of peoples hearts.  If the All-Palestine Government had any legitimacy at all after September 1948 then the Palestinians not considered Israeli citizens, were not refugees, but internally displaced persons during a period of civil war and independence.  That is generally why now the Palestinians don't claim the APG as legitimate.  That would nullify the Refugee Status; and why UNRWA-CERI _(Consolidated Enrollment Registration Instructions)_ dates for refugees Palestinian covers the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948.  They want the Civil War displacement covered even though it was a period of displacement under the Mandate.

I don't see it as a period of "no change to legal status."  The contemporary Palestinians of today are not the same as the citizenship (Palestinian) applied to the population of the territory to which the former Mandate applied.  They are more apply describe as that segment of the population that held citizenship and where Administered under the former All-Palestine Government.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

European settlers versus the local indigenous people is not a civil war.  It is an invasion by Europeans.  It would be like calling the Boer Zulu war of the early 1800s a civil war.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true or even relatively accurate.




P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the 85%+ owned by the Christians and Muslims before partition?
> 
> 
> 
> What about it ?
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan, the same way the so called Palestinians did so.
> If that's stealing, then why did the U.N recognize Israel and make them a full member one year later?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan,...​
> No it didn't.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The reference to the Partition Plan is totally evident.  What change the distribution was the loss of territory after the Armistice.  All things being equal, if the Arab Armies had not intervened on 15 May 1948, the Map of Israel would have looked very similar to that of Annex "A" - *Plan of Partition with Economic Union**.  *What made the difference after the Armistice with the Arab Aggressors, was the movement of the Forward Edge of the Battle Area that came to outline the general shape of the Armistice lines and areas of control.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about how Israel declared independence.
> 
> Oh, and you can't accept that Arabs attacking Israel, with the help of Palestinian militias, was the main cause for the Palestinian getting expelled, just as they had tried to expell the Israelis. The problem with you is that you refuse to accept the truth, as we have seen many times.
> You're allergic to the truth, you hate it . You call the truth 'propaganda'.
> But you need to remember that even though you refuse to believe the truth, it won't make it go away. Of course, a brainwashed person like you wouldn't understand that . .
> Stop lying and stop posting propaganda already, and then maybe more people will take you seriously
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares?  The Europeans went to Palestine and evicted the people (Christians and Muslims) who lived there.  That is a fact.  None of your bullshit can change that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They went to Palestine to create a state, as promised by the British, and were attacked by 5 Arab armies and Palestinian militias after doing so. Yet you keep ignoring this vital fact because the real truth is not part of your agenda.
> Keep up the propaganda Monti !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How could the British, a colonial  power,  decide to remove the local people to make room for other Europeans?  How can you justify taking the land away from the people that were living there.  Can't you understand how absurd your position is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they were not living there, they were squatting. And back in 1923 the laws were different to those of today, and the same is 1948 when the land was handed over to the National home of the Jews
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean they were not living there? The Europeans were the squatting settlers .
> 
> 
> *AN INTERIM REPORT
> ON THE
> CIVIL ADMINISTRATION
> OF*
> 
> *PALESTINE,*
> 
> *during the period
> 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921.*
> 
> *AN INTERIM REPORT
> ON THE
> CIVIL ADMINISTRATION
> OF
> PALESTINE.*
> 
> 
> "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly *700,000 people,* a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. *Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. *A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some *77,000 of the population are Christians,* in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.....The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. *Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.
> 
> *
> Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921
Click to expand...





 Try this and see who was in the majority


)
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Jerusalem After 1291 

"...Present condition of the City: (1907 edition)

Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. The total population is estimated at 66,000. *The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures:
Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000;* Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the Nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly Half the present population...""

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Growth of Jerusalem 1838-Present

....... Jews Muslims Christians Total
1838 6,000 5,000 3,000 14,000
*1844 7,120 5,760 3,390 16,270 ..... ..The First Official Ottoman Census *
1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030 .... .....Second """"""""""
1905 40,000 8,000 10,900 58,900 ....... Third/last, detailed in CathEncyc above
1948 99,320 36,680 31,300 167,300
1990 353,200 124,200 14,000 491,400
1992 385,000 150,000 15,000 550,000

http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm


 More accurate than your link to nothing

 The arab muslims were illegal immigrants as shown by your own link


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> European settlers versus the local indigenous people is not a civil war.  It is an invasion by Europeans.  It would be like calling the Boer Zulu war of the early 1800s a civil war.






The only invasion was by the arab muslim illegal immigrants.

 The Jews came from all over the world at the request of the Ottoman rulers and then the LoN rulers.

 By the way the Europeans are now calling the influx of muslims an ARMED INVASION and are gearing up for civil war against the muslims.


----------



## montelatici

What does the settling of Jerusalem by European colonists  have to do with the population of the whole of Palestine?

From your link:

"chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony."
http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> European settlers versus the local indigenous people is not a civil war.  It is an invasion by Europeans.  It would be like calling the Boer Zulu war of the early 1800s a civil war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only invasion was by the arab muslim illegal immigrants.
> 
> The Jews came from all over the world at the request of the Ottoman rulers and then the LoN rulers.
> 
> By the way the Europeans are now calling the influx of muslims an ARMED INVASION and are gearing up for civil war against the muslims.
Click to expand...



Between 1920 and 1946 the only immigration legal or otherwise, of any consequence was the European immigration to Palestine, as reported by the UN.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> What does the settling of Jerusalem by European colonists  have to do with the population of the whole of Palestine?
> 
> From your link:
> 
> "chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony."
> http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm





 So where does it say European colonists then RACIST LIAR, and the European Jews did not start arriving until 1923 according to you. So where did the Jews come from in 1838 that were in the majority


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> European settlers versus the local indigenous people is not a civil war.  It is an invasion by Europeans.  It would be like calling the Boer Zulu war of the early 1800s a civil war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only invasion was by the arab muslim illegal immigrants.
> 
> The Jews came from all over the world at the request of the Ottoman rulers and then the LoN rulers.
> 
> By the way the Europeans are now calling the influx of muslims an ARMED INVASION and are gearing up for civil war against the muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Between 1920 and 1946 the only immigration legal or otherwise, of any consequence was the European immigration to Palestine, as reported by the UN.
Click to expand...





 Which was shown to be wrong in your own link that you used to prove it. It showed that of 1500 illegal immigrants less than 500 where Jewish. So two thirds were arab muslim in that case and you lost the argument

 You do know what means don't you RACIST LIAR  that for every legal Jewish immigrant 2 illegal arab muslim immigrants entered Palestine that the British knew about.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> European settlers versus the local indigenous people is not a civil war.  It is an invasion by Europeans.  It would be like calling the Boer Zulu war of the early 1800s a civil war.



Man you're stupid:

Google

It was mainly between the local Jews and local Arabs. You cannot change history.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> What does the settling of Jerusalem by European colonists  have to do with the population of the whole of Palestine?
> 
> From your link:
> 
> "chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony."
> http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm


The European Colonists lie is Palestinian propaganda which only pathetic brainwashed inferior people like you believe.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true or even relatively accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the 85%+ owned by the Christians and Muslims before partition?
> 
> 
> 
> What about it ?
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan, the same way the so called Palestinians did so.
> If that's stealing, then why did the U.N recognize Israel and make them a full member one year later?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan,...​
> No it didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The reference to the Partition Plan is totally evident.  What change the distribution was the loss of territory after the Armistice.  All things being equal, if the Arab Armies had not intervened on 15 May 1948, the Map of Israel would have looked very similar to that of Annex "A" - *Plan of Partition with Economic Union**.  *What made the difference after the Armistice with the Arab Aggressors, was the movement of the Forward Edge of the Battle Area that came to outline the general shape of the Armistice lines and areas of control.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The reference to the Partition Plan is totally evident.​
That's bogus. When the foreigners declared Israel's independence inside Palestine they had already pushed deep into Arab allotted territory and was expelling Palestinians from the "international city" of Jerusalem.

Israel never had any intention of complying with anything 181. They only mentioned resolution 181 to pretend to have legitimacy.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true or even relatively accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the 85%+ owned by the Christians and Muslims before partition?
> 
> 
> 
> What about it ?
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan, the same way the so called Palestinians did so.
> If that's stealing, then why did the U.N recognize Israel and make them a full member one year later?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan,...​
> No it didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The reference to the Partition Plan is totally evident.  What change the distribution was the loss of territory after the Armistice.  All things being equal, if the Arab Armies had not intervened on 15 May 1948, the Map of Israel would have looked very similar to that of Annex "A" - *Plan of Partition with Economic Union**.  *What made the difference after the Armistice with the Arab Aggressors, was the movement of the Forward Edge of the Battle Area that came to outline the general shape of the Armistice lines and areas of control.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reference to the Partition Plan is totally evident.​
> That's bogus. When the foreigners declared Israel's independence inside Palestine they had already pushed deep into Arab allotted territory and was expelling Palestinians from the "international city" of Jerusalem.
> 
> Israel never had any intention of complying with anything 181. They only mentioned resolution 181 to pretend to have legitimacy.
Click to expand...




 And who ended up stealing Jerusalem and annexing it. Then evicting the Jews by force against the Mandate rules and the UN charter.   By the way it was the arab muslims that started the violence in 1946, the Jews just responded in kind and beat them into the ground.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true or even relatively accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the 85%+ owned by the Christians and Muslims before partition?
> 
> 
> 
> What about it ?
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan, the same way the so called Palestinians did so.
> If that's stealing, then why did the U.N recognize Israel and make them a full member one year later?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan,...​
> No it didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The reference to the Partition Plan is totally evident.  What change the distribution was the loss of territory after the Armistice.  All things being equal, if the Arab Armies had not intervened on 15 May 1948, the Map of Israel would have looked very similar to that of Annex "A" - *Plan of Partition with Economic Union**.  *What made the difference after the Armistice with the Arab Aggressors, was the movement of the Forward Edge of the Battle Area that came to outline the general shape of the Armistice lines and areas of control.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reference to the Partition Plan is totally evident.​
> That's bogus. When the foreigners declared Israel's independence inside Palestine they had already pushed deep into Arab allotted territory and was expelling Palestinians from the "international city" of Jerusalem.
> 
> Israel never had any intention of complying with anything 181. They only mentioned resolution 181 to pretend to have legitimacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And who ended up stealing Jerusalem and annexing it. Then evicting the Jews by force against the Mandate rules and the UN charter.   By the way it was the arab muslims that started the violence in 1946, the Jews just responded in kind and beat them into the ground.
Click to expand...

The Zionists gave the West Bank to Jordan. So where is the beef?


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> European settlers versus the local indigenous people is not a civil war.  It is an invasion by Europeans.  It would be like calling the Boer Zulu war of the early 1800s a civil war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only invasion was by the arab muslim illegal immigrants.
> 
> The Jews came from all over the world at the request of the Ottoman rulers and then the LoN rulers.
> 
> By the way the Europeans are now calling the influx of muslims an ARMED INVASION and are gearing up for civil war against the muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Between 1920 and 1946 the only immigration legal or otherwise, of any consequence was the European immigration to Palestine, as reported by the UN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which was shown to be wrong in your own link that you used to prove it. It showed that of 1500 illegal immigrants less than 500 where Jewish. So two thirds were arab muslim in that case and you lost the argument
> 
> You do know what means don't you RACIST LIAR  that for every legal Jewish immigrant 2 illegal arab muslim immigrants entered Palestine that the British knew about.
Click to expand...


You  just make things up.  Here are the facts per:

A/364
3 September 1947
*OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF *
*THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY*


*SUPPLEMENT No. 11*



*UNITED NATIONS*
*SPECIAL COMMITTEE*
*ON PALESTINE*



*REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY*

*VOLUME 1*

b)IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE

15. These changes in the population have been brought about by two forces: natural increase and immigration. *The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. *From 1920 to 1946, the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year. The flow has not been regular, however, being fairly high in 1924 to 1926, falling in the next few years (there was a net emigration in 1927) and rising to even higher levels between 1933 and 1936 as a result of the Nazi persecution in Europe. Between the census year of 1931 and the year 1936, the proportion of Jews to the total population rose from 18 per cent to nearly 30 per cent.

*16. The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths.

A 364 of 3 September 1947*


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true or even relatively accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the 85%+ owned by the Christians and Muslims before partition?
> 
> 
> 
> What about it ?
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan, the same way the so called Palestinians did so.
> If that's stealing, then why did the U.N recognize Israel and make them a full member one year later?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan,...​
> No it didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The reference to the Partition Plan is totally evident.  What change the distribution was the loss of territory after the Armistice.  All things being equal, if the Arab Armies had not intervened on 15 May 1948, the Map of Israel would have looked very similar to that of Annex "A" - *Plan of Partition with Economic Union**.  *What made the difference after the Armistice with the Arab Aggressors, was the movement of the Forward Edge of the Battle Area that came to outline the general shape of the Armistice lines and areas of control.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reference to the Partition Plan is totally evident.​
> That's bogus. When the foreigners declared Israel's independence inside Palestine they had already pushed deep into Arab allotted territory and was expelling Palestinians from the "international city" of Jerusalem.
> 
> Israel never had any intention of complying with anything 181. They only mentioned resolution 181 to pretend to have legitimacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And who ended up stealing Jerusalem and annexing it. Then evicting the Jews by force against the Mandate rules and the UN charter.   By the way it was the arab muslims that started the violence in 1946, the Jews just responded in kind and beat them into the ground.
Click to expand...


The Muslims and Christians were doing what any people being invaded by hostile colonizers.  They defended themselves.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true or even relatively accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about it ?
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan, the same way the so called Palestinians did so.
> If that's stealing, then why did the U.N recognize Israel and make them a full member one year later?
> 
> 
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan,...​
> No it didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The reference to the Partition Plan is totally evident.  What change the distribution was the loss of territory after the Armistice.  All things being equal, if the Arab Armies had not intervened on 15 May 1948, the Map of Israel would have looked very similar to that of Annex "A" - *Plan of Partition with Economic Union**.  *What made the difference after the Armistice with the Arab Aggressors, was the movement of the Forward Edge of the Battle Area that came to outline the general shape of the Armistice lines and areas of control.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reference to the Partition Plan is totally evident.​
> That's bogus. When the foreigners declared Israel's independence inside Palestine they had already pushed deep into Arab allotted territory and was expelling Palestinians from the "international city" of Jerusalem.
> 
> Israel never had any intention of complying with anything 181. They only mentioned resolution 181 to pretend to have legitimacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And who ended up stealing Jerusalem and annexing it. Then evicting the Jews by force against the Mandate rules and the UN charter.   By the way it was the arab muslims that started the violence in 1946, the Jews just responded in kind and beat them into the ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Zionists gave the West Bank to Jordan. So where is the beef?
Click to expand...





 LINK to the treaty as verbal contracts are not worth the toilet paper they are written on.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> European settlers versus the local indigenous people is not a civil war.  It is an invasion by Europeans.  It would be like calling the Boer Zulu war of the early 1800s a civil war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only invasion was by the arab muslim illegal immigrants.
> 
> The Jews came from all over the world at the request of the Ottoman rulers and then the LoN rulers.
> 
> By the way the Europeans are now calling the influx of muslims an ARMED INVASION and are gearing up for civil war against the muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Between 1920 and 1946 the only immigration legal or otherwise, of any consequence was the European immigration to Palestine, as reported by the UN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which was shown to be wrong in your own link that you used to prove it. It showed that of 1500 illegal immigrants less than 500 where Jewish. So two thirds were arab muslim in that case and you lost the argument
> 
> You do know what means don't you RACIST LIAR  that for every legal Jewish immigrant 2 illegal arab muslim immigrants entered Palestine that the British knew about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You  just make things up.  Here are the facts per:
> 
> A/364
> 3 September 1947
> *OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF
> THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY*
> 
> 
> *SUPPLEMENT No. 11*
> 
> 
> 
> *UNITED NATIONS
> SPECIAL COMMITTEE
> ON PALESTINE*
> 
> 
> 
> *REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY*
> 
> *VOLUME 1*
> 
> b)IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE
> 
> 15. These changes in the population have been brought about by two forces: natural increase and immigration. *The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. *From 1920 to 1946, the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year. The flow has not been regular, however, being fairly high in 1924 to 1926, falling in the next few years (there was a net emigration in 1927) and rising to even higher levels between 1933 and 1936 as a result of the Nazi persecution in Europe. Between the census year of 1931 and the year 1936, the proportion of Jews to the total population rose from 18 per cent to nearly 30 per cent.
> 
> *16. The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths.
> 
> A 364 of 3 September 1947*
Click to expand...





So what about the part that deals with illegal immigration and gives numbers ?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true or even relatively accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the 85%+ owned by the Christians and Muslims before partition?
> 
> 
> 
> What about it ?
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan, the same way the so called Palestinians did so.
> If that's stealing, then why did the U.N recognize Israel and make them a full member one year later?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan,...​
> No it didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The reference to the Partition Plan is totally evident.  What change the distribution was the loss of territory after the Armistice.  All things being equal, if the Arab Armies had not intervened on 15 May 1948, the Map of Israel would have looked very similar to that of Annex "A" - *Plan of Partition with Economic Union**.  *What made the difference after the Armistice with the Arab Aggressors, was the movement of the Forward Edge of the Battle Area that came to outline the general shape of the Armistice lines and areas of control.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reference to the Partition Plan is totally evident.​
> That's bogus. When the foreigners declared Israel's independence inside Palestine they had already pushed deep into Arab allotted territory and was expelling Palestinians from the "international city" of Jerusalem.
> 
> Israel never had any intention of complying with anything 181. They only mentioned resolution 181 to pretend to have legitimacy.
Click to expand...

Bunch of lies. Where is your link for all this ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true or even relatively accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about it ?
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan, the same way the so called Palestinians did so.
> If that's stealing, then why did the U.N recognize Israel and make them a full member one year later?
> 
> 
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan,...​
> No it didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The reference to the Partition Plan is totally evident.  What change the distribution was the loss of territory after the Armistice.  All things being equal, if the Arab Armies had not intervened on 15 May 1948, the Map of Israel would have looked very similar to that of Annex "A" - *Plan of Partition with Economic Union**.  *What made the difference after the Armistice with the Arab Aggressors, was the movement of the Forward Edge of the Battle Area that came to outline the general shape of the Armistice lines and areas of control.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reference to the Partition Plan is totally evident.​
> That's bogus. When the foreigners declared Israel's independence inside Palestine they had already pushed deep into Arab allotted territory and was expelling Palestinians from the "international city" of Jerusalem.
> 
> Israel never had any intention of complying with anything 181. They only mentioned resolution 181 to pretend to have legitimacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And who ended up stealing Jerusalem and annexing it. Then evicting the Jews by force against the Mandate rules and the UN charter.   By the way it was the arab muslims that started the violence in 1946, the Jews just responded in kind and beat them into the ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Muslims and Christians were doing what any people being invaded by hostile colonizers.  They defended themselves.
Click to expand...





 The hostile colonisers were the arab muslims who are still ethnically cleansing Christians from gaza and the west bank to this day. 90% of the Christian population has vanished from Palestine in just 10 years, and the jews are not to blame.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true or even relatively accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about it ?
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan, the same way the so called Palestinians did so.
> If that's stealing, then why did the U.N recognize Israel and make them a full member one year later?
> 
> 
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan,...​
> No it didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The reference to the Partition Plan is totally evident.  What change the distribution was the loss of territory after the Armistice.  All things being equal, if the Arab Armies had not intervened on 15 May 1948, the Map of Israel would have looked very similar to that of Annex "A" - *Plan of Partition with Economic Union**.  *What made the difference after the Armistice with the Arab Aggressors, was the movement of the Forward Edge of the Battle Area that came to outline the general shape of the Armistice lines and areas of control.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reference to the Partition Plan is totally evident.​
> That's bogus. When the foreigners declared Israel's independence inside Palestine they had already pushed deep into Arab allotted territory and was expelling Palestinians from the "international city" of Jerusalem.
> 
> Israel never had any intention of complying with anything 181. They only mentioned resolution 181 to pretend to have legitimacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And who ended up stealing Jerusalem and annexing it. Then evicting the Jews by force against the Mandate rules and the UN charter.   By the way it was the arab muslims that started the violence in 1946, the Jews just responded in kind and beat them into the ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Muslims and Christians were doing what any people being invaded by hostile colonizers.  They defended themselves.
Click to expand...

There was no invasion you liar. An invasion is a military offensive. Stop with your compulsive lying.


----------



## RoccoR

"P F Tinmore,  et al,

There was not such intent.  You are confusing the induced political outcome between 1946 and 1948 (Civil War) and the internal defense and development of the 1948-'49 War of Independence that resulted from the aggressive behaviors and subsequent attack by the Arab Powers.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true or even relatively accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the 85%+ owned by the Christians and Muslims before partition?
> 
> 
> 
> What about it ?
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan, the same way the so called Palestinians did so.
> If that's stealing, then why did the U.N recognize Israel and make them a full member one year later?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan,...​
> No it didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The reference to the Partition Plan is totally evident.  What change the distribution was the loss of territory after the Armistice.  All things being equal, if the Arab Armies had not intervened on 15 May 1948, the Map of Israel would have looked very similar to that of Annex "A" - *Plan of Partition with Economic Union**.  *What made the difference after the Armistice with the Arab Aggressors, was the movement of the Forward Edge of the Battle Area that came to outline the general shape of the Armistice lines and areas of control.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reference to the Partition Plan is totally evident.​
> That's bogus. When the foreigners declared Israel's independence inside Palestine they had already pushed deep into Arab allotted territory and was expelling Palestinians from the "international city" of Jerusalem.
> 
> Israel never had any intention of complying with anything 181. They only mentioned resolution 181 to pretend to have legitimacy.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Well your allegation can never really be proved, but their is evidence that the Arab Powers want to absorb the territory.  One just needs to look at the territory occupied by Jordan and Israel at the time of the Armistice.

You are mixing the individual tactics and outcomes of the Civil War _(Jewish versus Arab)_ in the Territory under the applied Mandate with internal defense _(Rear Area Protection)_ and the contact and engagement against the aggressor forces _(Jewish defensing Israel 'v' Arab Forces as external interference in the self-determination)_ at the forward edge of the battle.

They are two different things; both of which were ultimate failure by the Hostile Arab Forces.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true or even relatively accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about it ?
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan, the same way the so called Palestinians did so.
> If that's stealing, then why did the U.N recognize Israel and make them a full member one year later?
> 
> 
> 
> Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the partition plan,...​
> No it didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The reference to the Partition Plan is totally evident.  What change the distribution was the loss of territory after the Armistice.  All things being equal, if the Arab Armies had not intervened on 15 May 1948, the Map of Israel would have looked very similar to that of Annex "A" - *Plan of Partition with Economic Union**.  *What made the difference after the Armistice with the Arab Aggressors, was the movement of the Forward Edge of the Battle Area that came to outline the general shape of the Armistice lines and areas of control.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reference to the Partition Plan is totally evident.​
> That's bogus. When the foreigners declared Israel's independence inside Palestine they had already pushed deep into Arab allotted territory and was expelling Palestinians from the "international city" of Jerusalem.
> 
> Israel never had any intention of complying with anything 181. They only mentioned resolution 181 to pretend to have legitimacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And who ended up stealing Jerusalem and annexing it. Then evicting the Jews by force against the Mandate rules and the UN charter.   By the way it was the arab muslims that started the violence in 1946, the Jews just responded in kind and beat them into the ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Zionists gave the West Bank to Jordan. So where is the beef?
Click to expand...



Now THAT'S funny.  Tell us more about "the Zionists gave the West Bank to Jordan."


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> European settlers versus the local indigenous people is not a civil war.  It is an invasion by Europeans.  It would be like calling the Boer Zulu war of the early 1800s a civil war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only invasion was by the arab muslim illegal immigrants.
> 
> The Jews came from all over the world at the request of the Ottoman rulers and then the LoN rulers.
> 
> By the way the Europeans are now calling the influx of muslims an ARMED INVASION and are gearing up for civil war against the muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Between 1920 and 1946 the only immigration legal or otherwise, of any consequence was the European immigration to Palestine, as reported by the UN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which was shown to be wrong in your own link that you used to prove it. It showed that of 1500 illegal immigrants less than 500 where Jewish. So two thirds were arab muslim in that case and you lost the argument
> 
> You do know what means don't you RACIST LIAR  that for every legal Jewish immigrant 2 illegal arab muslim immigrants entered Palestine that the British knew about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You  just make things up.  Here are the facts per:
> 
> A/364
> 3 September 1947
> *OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF
> THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY*
> 
> 
> *SUPPLEMENT No. 11*
> 
> 
> 
> *UNITED NATIONS
> SPECIAL COMMITTEE
> ON PALESTINE*
> 
> 
> 
> *REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY*
> 
> *VOLUME 1*
> 
> b)IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE
> 
> 15. These changes in the population have been brought about by two forces: natural increase and immigration. *The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. *From 1920 to 1946, the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year. The flow has not been regular, however, being fairly high in 1924 to 1926, falling in the next few years (there was a net emigration in 1927) and rising to even higher levels between 1933 and 1936 as a result of the Nazi persecution in Europe. Between the census year of 1931 and the year 1936, the proportion of Jews to the total population rose from 18 per cent to nearly 30 per cent.
> 
> *16. The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths.
> 
> A 364 of 3 September 1947*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what about the part that deals with illegal immigration and gives numbers ?
Click to expand...


That is all immigration, legal and illegal.

"*16. The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths."

A 364 of 3 September 1947

*


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> ...The Zionists gave the West Bank to Jordan. So where is the beef?


No beef.

The dumbass Jordanians chose to attack the Jews again in 1967, after Israel pleaded with them not to.

Then they go their asses kicked by the Jews, and lost it again.

When ya start fights, then lose, you pay a price.

Jordan paid with the West Bank for its stupidity in 1967.

Vae victus.


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The Zionists gave the West Bank to Jordan. So where is the beef?
> 
> 
> 
> No beef.
> 
> The dumbass Jordanians chose to attack the Jews again in 1967, after Israel pleaded with them not to.
> 
> Then they go their asses kicked by the Jews, and lost it again.
> 
> When ya start fights, then lose, you pay a price.
> 
> Jordan paid with the West Bank for its stupidity in 1967.
> 
> Vae victus.
Click to expand...


But it was Israel that attacked in the 1967 War.  Israel started the fight.  Why do you post nonsense?

"Helms was awakened at 3:00 in the morning on 5 June by a call from the CIA Operations Center. The Foreign Broadcast Information Service had picked up reports that Israel had launched its attack. (OCI soon concluded that the Israelis— contrary to their claims—had fired first.) "

CIA Analysis of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War Central Intelligence Agency


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The Zionists gave the West Bank to Jordan. So where is the beef?
> 
> 
> 
> No beef.
> 
> The dumbass Jordanians chose to attack the Jews again in 1967, after Israel pleaded with them not to.
> 
> Then they go their asses kicked by the Jews, and lost it again.
> 
> When ya start fights, then lose, you pay a price.
> 
> Jordan paid with the West Bank for its stupidity in 1967.
> 
> Vae victus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it was Israel that attacked in the 1967 War.  Israel started the fight.  Why do you post nonsense?
> 
> "Helms was awakened at 3:00 in the morning on 5 June by a call from the CIA Operations Center. The Foreign Broadcast Information Service had picked up reports that Israel had launched its attack. (OCI soon concluded that the Israelis— contrary to their claims—had fired first.) "
> 
> CIA Analysis of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War Central Intelligence Agency
Click to expand...



Yes you see, Israel paid 5 surrounding Arab countries to pretend a united Arab attack at five different positions.  I'll bet those Zionists never knew that, right Monte?


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The Zionists gave the West Bank to Jordan. So where is the beef?
> 
> 
> 
> No beef.
> 
> The dumbass Jordanians chose to attack the Jews again in 1967, after Israel pleaded with them not to.
> 
> Then they go their asses kicked by the Jews, and lost it again.
> 
> When ya start fights, then lose, you pay a price.
> 
> Jordan paid with the West Bank for its stupidity in 1967.
> 
> Vae victus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it was Israel that attacked in the 1967 War.  Israel started the fight.  Why do you post nonsense?
> 
> "Helms was awakened at 3:00 in the morning on 5 June by a call from the CIA Operations Center. The Foreign Broadcast Information Service had picked up reports that Israel had launched its attack. (OCI soon concluded that the Israelis— contrary to their claims—had fired first.) "
> 
> CIA Analysis of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War Central Intelligence Agency
Click to expand...

When neighboring Arab nations mobilize their militaries and forward-deploy alongside their borders with Israel and then close shipping canals to Israeli traffic and publicly declare that their mobilizations are designed to destroy the State of Israel...

Then Israel gets rocks thrown at it, for preemptive strikes, designed to take-out as many of those forward-deployed units and airfields as possible, before they can do the damage that their political leadership can act upon their public declarations of hostilities?

Uhhhhhh... yeah... sure...

Don't want to get the crap kicked out of ya?

Don't mobilize.

Don't forward-deploy.

Don't cut-off commercial navigation right-of-ways.

Don't publicly declare that you're going to destroy your adversary.

Not too bright, these Muslim-Arab leaders, are they?


----------



## montelatici

Israel mobilized first and threatened first.  And, attacked.  I don't see your point.  Israel today cuts off commercial navigation and right of way to Palestinian traffic.  They also board attack ships bringing aid to Gaza.  You are truly a tool.  A condor is just a big vulture.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The Zionists gave the West Bank to Jordan. So where is the beef?
> 
> 
> 
> No beef.
> 
> The dumbass Jordanians chose to attack the Jews again in 1967, after Israel pleaded with them not to.
> 
> Then they go their asses kicked by the Jews, and lost it again.
> 
> When ya start fights, then lose, you pay a price.
> 
> Jordan paid with the West Bank for its stupidity in 1967.
> 
> Vae victus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it was Israel that attacked in the 1967 War.  Israel started the fight.  Why do you post nonsense?
> 
> "Helms was awakened at 3:00 in the morning on 5 June by a call from the CIA Operations Center. The Foreign Broadcast Information Service had picked up reports that Israel had launched its attack. (OCI soon concluded that the Israelis— contrary to their claims—had fired first.) "
> 
> CIA Analysis of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War Central Intelligence Agency
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you see, Israel paid 5 surrounding Arab countries to pretend a united Arab attack at five different positions.  I'll bet those Zionists never knew that, right Monte?
Click to expand...


There was no attack by the Arab countries.  Israel attacked.  Are you able to read?


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici, P F Timore, et al,

Don't you think that this is a bit of over simplification.



montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The Zionists gave the West Bank to Jordan. So where is the beef?
> 
> 
> 
> No beef.
> 
> The dumbass Jordanians chose to attack the Jews again in 1967, after Israel pleaded with them not to.
> 
> Then they go their asses kicked by the Jews, and lost it again.
> 
> When ya start fights, then lose, you pay a price.
> 
> Jordan paid with the West Bank for its stupidity in 1967.
> 
> Vae victus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it was Israel that attacked in the 1967 War.  Israel started the fight.  Why do you post nonsense?
> 
> "Helms was awakened at 3:00 in the morning on 5 June by a call from the CIA Operations Center. The Foreign Broadcast Information Service had picked up reports that Israel had launched its attack. (OCI soon concluded that the Israelis— contrary to their claims—had fired first.) "
> 
> CIA Analysis of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War Central Intelligence Agency
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

There were probably three central cause that provoked Israel into the preemptive strike.

Egypt ordered the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) to completely withdraw --- quickly from their buffer positions in the Sinai.

5. _2000 hours GMT (2200 hours, Gaza local time)_. A message from General Fawzy, Chief of Staff of the United Arab Republic Armed Forces, was received by the Commander of UNEF, Major-General Rikhye, requesting withdrawal of "all UN troops which install observation posts along our borders". Brigadier Mokhtar, who handed General Fawzy's letter to the Commander of UNEF, told General Rikhye at the time that he must order the immediate withdrawal of United Nations troops from El Sabha and Sharm el Sheikh on the night of 16 May since United Arab Republic armed forces must gain control of these two places that very night.​
The decision of the Government of the United Arab Republic to restrict Israeli shipping in the Strait of Tiran, and the nationalization of the Straits.    The United Arab Republic (UAR --- AKA Egypt) considered the Straits to be Egyptian territorial waters.

The size of the UAR Force moving into close proximity of Israeli Forces in late May, or early June.




 ​


First, the CIA OPCEN Call to Director Helms was "raw intel" at that moment.  The CIA had no real boots on the ground to tell which side fired first; although it probably was the IDF on the Egyptian build-up.  It would appear that early on 5 June, the Israeli Air Forces preemptively engaged and destroyed Egypt’s air force on the ground; and later that day, struck Jordanian and Syrian air assets as well. 

9.  During my (UN Secretary-General) stay in Cairo I had discussions with President Gamal Abdel Nasser and Mr. Mahmoud Riad, the Minister of Foreign Affairs. They explained to me the position of the Government of the United Arab Republic, which is substantially as set forth in the speech given by President Nasser to the United Arab Republic Air Force Advance Command on 22 May 1967 which has been reported fully in the Press. President Nasser and Foreign Minister Riad assured me that the United Arab Republic would not initiate offensive action against Israel. Their general aim, as stated to me, was for a return to the conditions prevailing prior to 1956 and to full observance by both parties of the provisions of the General Armistice Agreement between Egypt and Israel.

10. The decision of the Government of the United Arab Republic to restrict shipping in the Strait of Tiran, of which I learned while en route to Cairo, has created a new situation. Free passage through the Strait is one of the questions which the Government of Israel considers most vital to her interests. The position of the Government of the United Arab Republic is that the Strait is territorial waters in which it has a right to control shipping. The Government of Israel contests this position and asserts the right of innocent passage through the Strait. The Government of Israel has further declared that Israel will regard the closing of the Strait of Tiran to Israel flag ships and any restriction on cargoes of ships of other flags proceeding to Israel as a casus belli. While in Cairo, I called to the attention of the Government of the United Arab Republic the dangerous consequences which could ensue from restricting innocent passage of ships in the Strait of Tiran. I expressed my deep concern in this regard and my hope that no precipitate action would be taken.

29. On the afternoon of 22 May, the Secretary-General departed from New York, arriving in Cairo on the afternoon of 23 May. He left Cairo on the afternoon of 25 May, arriving back in New York on 26 May. While en route to Cairo during a stop in Paris, the Secretary-General learned that on this day President Nasser had announced his intention to reinstitute the blockade against Israel in the Strait of Tiran.

36. It has been said that the decision to withdraw UNEF precipitated other consequences such as the reinstitution of the blockade against Israel in the Strait of Tiran. As can be seen from the chronology, the UNEF positions at Sharm el Sheikh on the Strait of Tiran (manned by thirty-two men in all) were in fact rendered ineffective by United Arab Republic troops before the request for withdrawal was received. It is also pertinent to note that in response to a query from the Secretary-General as to why the United Arab Republic had announced its reinstitution of the blockade in the Strait of Tiran while the Secretary-General was actually en route to Cairo on 22 May, President Nasser explained that his Government's decision to resume the blockade had been taken some time before U Thant's departure and it was considered preferable to make the announcement before rather than after the Secretary-General's visit to Cairo.  *Report of the Secretary-General on the withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Force*​The question becomes, much like the situation in Crimea, when the Russians rapidly moved and deployed forces in support of the annexation.  So it is that had the guarantors (US/UK) of Ukrainian Integrity reacted more preemptively, they might have persuaded the Russian to back away.  When is it better to preemptively intervene then allow a huge threatening force in the border to stage for an assault?  That is what Israel had to decide.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The Zionists gave the West Bank to Jordan. So where is the beef?
> 
> 
> 
> No beef.
> 
> The dumbass Jordanians chose to attack the Jews again in 1967, after Israel pleaded with them not to.
> 
> Then they go their asses kicked by the Jews, and lost it again.
> 
> When ya start fights, then lose, you pay a price.
> 
> Jordan paid with the West Bank for its stupidity in 1967.
> 
> Vae victus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it was Israel that attacked in the 1967 War.  Israel started the fight.  Why do you post nonsense?
> 
> "Helms was awakened at 3:00 in the morning on 5 June by a call from the CIA Operations Center. The Foreign Broadcast Information Service had picked up reports that Israel had launched its attack. (OCI soon concluded that the Israelis— contrary to their claims—had fired first.) "
> 
> CIA Analysis of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War Central Intelligence Agency
Click to expand...


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The Zionists gave the West Bank to Jordan. So where is the beef?
> 
> 
> 
> No beef.
> 
> The dumbass Jordanians chose to attack the Jews again in 1967, after Israel pleaded with them not to.
> 
> Then they go their asses kicked by the Jews, and lost it again.
> 
> When ya start fights, then lose, you pay a price.
> 
> Jordan paid with the West Bank for its stupidity in 1967.
> 
> Vae victus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it was Israel that attacked in the 1967 War.  Israel started the fight.  Why do you post nonsense?
> 
> "Helms was awakened at 3:00 in the morning on 5 June by a call from the CIA Operations Center. The Foreign Broadcast Information Service had picked up reports that Israel had launched its attack. (OCI soon concluded that the Israelis— contrary to their claims—had fired first.) "
> 
> CIA Analysis of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War Central Intelligence Agency
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you see, Israel paid 5 surrounding Arab countries to pretend a united Arab attack at five different positions.  I'll bet those Zionists never knew that, right Monte?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no attack by the Arab countries.  Israel attacked.  Are you able to read?
Click to expand...




montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The Zionists gave the West Bank to Jordan. So where is the beef?
> 
> 
> 
> No beef.
> 
> The dumbass Jordanians chose to attack the Jews again in 1967, after Israel pleaded with them not to.
> 
> Then they go their asses kicked by the Jews, and lost it again.
> 
> When ya start fights, then lose, you pay a price.
> 
> Jordan paid with the West Bank for its stupidity in 1967.
> 
> Vae victus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it was Israel that attacked in the 1967 War.  Israel started the fight.  Why do you post nonsense?
> 
> "Helms was awakened at 3:00 in the morning on 5 June by a call from the CIA Operations Center. The Foreign Broadcast Information Service had picked up reports that Israel had launched its attack. (OCI soon concluded that the Israelis— contrary to their claims—had fired first.) "
> 
> CIA Analysis of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War Central Intelligence Agency
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you see, Israel paid 5 surrounding Arab countries to pretend a united Arab attack at five different positions.  I'll bet those Zionists never knew that, right Monte?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no attack by the Arab countries.  Israel attacked.  Are you able to read?
Click to expand...


Oh now I get it.  You see, Israel flew into 5 Arab countries to attack innocent, peace loving civilians well within their borders.  Amazing what we can learn from Monte.  Please excuse me while I go tell my neighbors.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> Israel mobilized first and threatened first...



Incorrect.

From the Encylopedia Britannica...

----------

...*on May 14, 1967, Nasser mobilized Egyptian forces* in the Sinai; *on May 18 he formally requested the removal of the UNEF* stationed there; and *on May 22 he closed the Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping*, thus instituting an effective blockade of the port city of Elat in southern Israel. *On May 30, King Ḥussein of Jordan* arrived in Cairo to *sign a mutual defense pact with Egypt, placing Jordanian forces under Egyptian command*; shortly thereafter, Iraq too joined the alliance.

In response to the apparent mobilization of its Arab neighbours, early on the morning of June 5, Israel staged a sudden preemptive air assault and destroyed Egypt’s air force on the ground; later that day, it incapacitated a great deal of the Jordanian and Syrian air power as well...

Six-Day War Middle East 1967 Encyclopedia Britannica

-----------

Next contestant, please.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The Zionists gave the West Bank to Jordan. So where is the beef?
> 
> 
> 
> No beef.
> 
> The dumbass Jordanians chose to attack the Jews again in 1967, after Israel pleaded with them not to.
> 
> Then they go their asses kicked by the Jews, and lost it again.
> 
> When ya start fights, then lose, you pay a price.
> 
> Jordan paid with the West Bank for its stupidity in 1967.
> 
> Vae victus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it was Israel that attacked in the 1967 War.  Israel started the fight.  Why do you post nonsense?
> 
> "Helms was awakened at 3:00 in the morning on 5 June by a call from the CIA Operations Center. The Foreign Broadcast Information Service had picked up reports that Israel had launched its attack. (OCI soon concluded that the Israelis— contrary to their claims—had fired first.) "
> 
> CIA Analysis of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War Central Intelligence Agency
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you see, Israel paid 5 surrounding Arab countries to pretend a united Arab attack at five different positions.  I'll bet those Zionists never knew that, right Monte?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no attack by the Arab countries.  Israel attacked.  Are you able to read?
Click to expand...

The neighboring Arab countries mobilized first and closed local shipping lanes to Israeli traffic and publicly allied and declared themselves ready to launch an existential strike against Israel.

And then the pissant Arabs complain when the Israelis smack the shit out of them in a provoked preemptive strike to take out their air assets.

Tough shit.

Phukk 'em.

They got what they asked for.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The Zionists gave the West Bank to Jordan. So where is the beef?
> 
> 
> 
> No beef.
> 
> The dumbass Jordanians chose to attack the Jews again in 1967, after Israel pleaded with them not to.
> 
> Then they go their asses kicked by the Jews, and lost it again.
> 
> When ya start fights, then lose, you pay a price.
> 
> Jordan paid with the West Bank for its stupidity in 1967.
> 
> Vae victus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it was Israel that attacked in the 1967 War.  Israel started the fight.  Why do you post nonsense?
> 
> "Helms was awakened at 3:00 in the morning on 5 June by a call from the CIA Operations Center. The Foreign Broadcast Information Service had picked up reports that Israel had launched its attack. (OCI soon concluded that the Israelis— contrary to their claims—had fired first.) "
> 
> CIA Analysis of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War Central Intelligence Agency
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you see, Israel paid 5 surrounding Arab countries to pretend a united Arab attack at five different positions.  I'll bet those Zionists never knew that, right Monte?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no attack by the Arab countries.  Israel attacked.  Are you able to read?
Click to expand...


Go do some research on the term 'pre emptive strike' liar. Israel had every reason to believe that Egypt was planning an attack on them.

Egypt mobilized forces by the Israeli border. They expelled peacekeeping forces that were placed there following the Suez Crisis. Egypt also closed the Strait of Tiran , which Israel said beforehand would be considered an act of war.
Why should Israel have waited until Egypt was going to attack them ??


----------



## Agit8r

The aristocracy of Judah was taken into exile. The remainder, as well as the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Israel have a genetic heritage that continue today among various peoples of the region, including among the Palestinians:

Genetic studies of Jewish origins - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## P F Tinmore

Agit8r said:


> The aristocracy of Judah was taken into exile. The remainder, as well as the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Israel have a genetic heritage that continue today among various peoples of the region, including among the Palestinians:
> 
> Genetic studies of Jewish origins - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Where in the Bible were the Israelites called Jews.

Just curious.


----------



## Agit8r

P F Tinmore said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> The aristocracy of Judah was taken into exile. The remainder, as well as the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Israel have a genetic heritage that continue today among various peoples of the region, including among the Palestinians:
> 
> Genetic studies of Jewish origins - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the Bible were the Israelites called Jews.
> 
> Just curious.
Click to expand...


In the New Testament.  I'm not talking about the Bible though.  I'm talking about the common ancestry of the Israeli people and their neighbors.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Agit8r said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> The aristocracy of Judah was taken into exile. The remainder, as well as the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Israel have a genetic heritage that continue today among various peoples of the region, including among the Palestinians:
> 
> Genetic studies of Jewish origins - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the Bible were the Israelites called Jews.
> 
> Just curious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the New Testament.  I'm not talking about the Bible though.  I'm talking about the common ancestry of the Israeli people and their neighbors.
Click to expand...

IOW, the Israelites were not called Jews in the Bible.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> The aristocracy of Judah was taken into exile. The remainder, as well as the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Israel have a genetic heritage that continue today among various peoples of the region, including among the Palestinians:
> 
> Genetic studies of Jewish origins - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the Bible were the Israelites called Jews.
> 
> Just curious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the New Testament.  I'm not talking about the Bible though.  I'm talking about the common ancestry of the Israeli people and their neighbors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IOW, the Israelites were not called Jews in the Bible.
Click to expand...


Call them whatever you prefer.  Doesn't change the undiniable fact the Bible was first written in HEBREW.  Golly gee Tinmore, who's language is Hebrew?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> The aristocracy of Judah was taken into exile. The remainder, as well as the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Israel have a genetic heritage that continue today among various peoples of the region, including among the Palestinians:
> 
> Genetic studies of Jewish origins - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the Bible were the Israelites called Jews.
> 
> Just curious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the New Testament.  I'm not talking about the Bible though.  I'm talking about the common ancestry of the Israeli people and their neighbors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IOW, the Israelites were not called Jews in the Bible.
Click to expand...


Israelites - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It may or may not say so in the bible, but Israelites are Jews.


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The Zionists gave the West Bank to Jordan. So where is the beef?
> 
> 
> 
> No beef.
> 
> The dumbass Jordanians chose to attack the Jews again in 1967, after Israel pleaded with them not to.
> 
> Then they go their asses kicked by the Jews, and lost it again.
> 
> When ya start fights, then lose, you pay a price.
> 
> Jordan paid with the West Bank for its stupidity in 1967.
> 
> Vae victus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it was Israel that attacked in the 1967 War.  Israel started the fight.  Why do you post nonsense?
> 
> "Helms was awakened at 3:00 in the morning on 5 June by a call from the CIA Operations Center. The Foreign Broadcast Information Service had picked up reports that Israel had launched its attack. (OCI soon concluded that the Israelis— contrary to their claims—had fired first.) "
> 
> CIA Analysis of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War Central Intelligence Agency
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you see, Israel paid 5 surrounding Arab countries to pretend a united Arab attack at five different positions.  I'll bet those Zionists never knew that, right Monte?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no attack by the Arab countries.  Israel attacked.  Are you able to read?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go do some research on the term 'pre emptive strike' liar. Israel had every reason to believe that Egypt was planning an attack on them.
> 
> Egypt mobilized forces by the Israeli border. They expelled peacekeeping forces that were placed there following the Suez Crisis. Egypt also closed the Strait of Tiran , which Israel said beforehand would be considered an act of war.
> Why should Israel have waited until Egypt was going to attack them ??
Click to expand...




"It is often claimed that Israel’s attack on Egypt that began the June 1967 “Six Day War” was a “preemptive” one. Implicit in that description is the notion that Israel was under imminent threat of an attack from Egypt. Yet this historical interpretation of the war is not sustained by the documentary record.

The President of Egypt, then known as the United Arab Republic (UAR), Gamal Abdel Nasser, later conveyed to U.S. President Lyndon Johnson that *his troop buildup in the Sinai Peninsula prior to the war had been to defend against a feared Israeli attack.............*t*he CIA assessed that Nasser’s military presence in the Sinai was defensive,..............*Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin acknowledged in a speech in 1982 that its war on Egypt in 1956 was a war of “choice” and that, “In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

*Despite its total lack of sustainability from the documentary record, and despite such admissions from top Israeli officials, it is virtually obligatory for commentators in contemporary mainstream accounts of the ’67 war to describe Israel’s attack on Egypt as “preemptive”.
*
Israel s attack on Egypt in June 67 was not preemptive Foreign Policy Journal
*
*


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No beef.
> 
> The dumbass Jordanians chose to attack the Jews again in 1967, after Israel pleaded with them not to.
> 
> Then they go their asses kicked by the Jews, and lost it again.
> 
> When ya start fights, then lose, you pay a price.
> 
> Jordan paid with the West Bank for its stupidity in 1967.
> 
> Vae victus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it was Israel that attacked in the 1967 War.  Israel started the fight.  Why do you post nonsense?
> 
> "Helms was awakened at 3:00 in the morning on 5 June by a call from the CIA Operations Center. The Foreign Broadcast Information Service had picked up reports that Israel had launched its attack. (OCI soon concluded that the Israelis— contrary to their claims—had fired first.) "
> 
> CIA Analysis of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War Central Intelligence Agency
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you see, Israel paid 5 surrounding Arab countries to pretend a united Arab attack at five different positions.  I'll bet those Zionists never knew that, right Monte?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no attack by the Arab countries.  Israel attacked.  Are you able to read?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go do some research on the term 'pre emptive strike' liar. Israel had every reason to believe that Egypt was planning an attack on them.
> 
> Egypt mobilized forces by the Israeli border. They expelled peacekeeping forces that were placed there following the Suez Crisis. Egypt also closed the Strait of Tiran , which Israel said beforehand would be considered an act of war.
> Why should Israel have waited until Egypt was going to attack them ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "It is often claimed that Israel’s attack on Egypt that began the June 1967 “Six Day War” was a “preemptive” one. Implicit in that description is the notion that Israel was under imminent threat of an attack from Egypt. Yet this historical interpretation of the war is not sustained by the documentary record.
> 
> The President of Egypt, then known as the United Arab Republic (UAR), Gamal Abdel Nasser, later conveyed to U.S. President Lyndon Johnson that *his troop buildup in the Sinai Peninsula prior to the war had been to defend against a feared Israeli attack.............*t*he CIA assessed that Nasser’s military presence in the Sinai was defensive,..............*Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin acknowledged in a speech in 1982 that its war on Egypt in 1956 was a war of “choice” and that, “In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”
> 
> *Despite its total lack of sustainability from the documentary record, and despite such admissions from top Israeli officials, it is virtually obligatory for commentators in contemporary mainstream accounts of the ’67 war to describe Israel’s attack on Egypt as “preemptive”.
> *
> Israel s attack on Egypt in June 67 was not preemptive Foreign Policy Journal
Click to expand...


Too late now for Revisionist History...

About 48 years too late...


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No beef.
> 
> The dumbass Jordanians chose to attack the Jews again in 1967, after Israel pleaded with them not to.
> 
> Then they go their asses kicked by the Jews, and lost it again.
> 
> When ya start fights, then lose, you pay a price.
> 
> Jordan paid with the West Bank for its stupidity in 1967.
> 
> Vae victus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it was Israel that attacked in the 1967 War.  Israel started the fight.  Why do you post nonsense?
> 
> "Helms was awakened at 3:00 in the morning on 5 June by a call from the CIA Operations Center. The Foreign Broadcast Information Service had picked up reports that Israel had launched its attack. (OCI soon concluded that the Israelis— contrary to their claims—had fired first.) "
> 
> CIA Analysis of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War Central Intelligence Agency
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you see, Israel paid 5 surrounding Arab countries to pretend a united Arab attack at five different positions.  I'll bet those Zionists never knew that, right Monte?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no attack by the Arab countries.  Israel attacked.  Are you able to read?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go do some research on the term 'pre emptive strike' liar. Israel had every reason to believe that Egypt was planning an attack on them.
> 
> Egypt mobilized forces by the Israeli border. They expelled peacekeeping forces that were placed there following the Suez Crisis. Egypt also closed the Strait of Tiran , which Israel said beforehand would be considered an act of war.
> Why should Israel have waited until Egypt was going to attack them ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "It is often claimed that Israel’s attack on Egypt that began the June 1967 “Six Day War” was a “preemptive” one. Implicit in that description is the notion that Israel was under imminent threat of an attack from Egypt. Yet this historical interpretation of the war is not sustained by the documentary record.
> 
> The President of Egypt, then known as the United Arab Republic (UAR), Gamal Abdel Nasser, later conveyed to U.S. President Lyndon Johnson that *his troop buildup in the Sinai Peninsula prior to the war had been to defend against a feared Israeli attack.............*t*he CIA assessed that Nasser’s military presence in the Sinai was defensive,..............*Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin acknowledged in a speech in 1982 that its war on Egypt in 1956 was a war of “choice” and that, “In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”
> 
> *Despite its total lack of sustainability from the documentary record, and despite such admissions from top Israeli officials, it is virtually obligatory for commentators in contemporary mainstream accounts of the ’67 war to describe Israel’s attack on Egypt as “preemptive”.
> *
> Israel s attack on Egypt in June 67 was not preemptive Foreign Policy Journal
Click to expand...

All this jibberish and nothing changes the reality of all the reasons I posted for Israel striking first.


----------



## montelatici

Israel attacked.  You can rationalize and justify it in your mind all you want.  Nazi Germany made similar claims when the attacked Poland and France.  Both had mobilized.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> Israel attacked.  You can rationalize and justify it in your mind all you want.  Nazi Germany made similar claims when the attacked Poland and France.  Both had mobilized.


LOL another dumb comparison by Monti   

Did Poland mobilize their troops by Germany's border making threats of annihalation?
Did Poland close a Strait which made it impossible for Israel to partake in shipping?
Did Poland expel peacekeeping treaties that were placed by the German border after the previous War between the two countries?

No matter how hard you try, you cannot refute the fact that Israel was well within her right to attack Egypt, and that Egypt commenced hostilities. As usual, you are unable to accept the truth, something we have grown to see with you. 
To think that tiny Israel, who was only 19 years old at the time would want to start a war with a country 20 times it's size is absurd. It makes no sense.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> Israel attacked.  You can rationalize and justify it in your mind all you want.  Nazi Germany made similar claims when the attacked Poland and France.  Both had mobilized.


Your analogy is horseshit.

Poland was not amassing troops on the German border nor did Poland close the North Sea to Germany maritime traffic nor did the Polish President publicly declare that he was going to wipe Germany off the map.

You Arab Lovers really have to work on your Faux Analogies... that one was downright childish and embarrassing.


----------



## Agit8r

P F Tinmore said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> The aristocracy of Judah was taken into exile. The remainder, as well as the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Israel have a genetic heritage that continue today among various peoples of the region, including among the Palestinians:
> 
> Genetic studies of Jewish origins - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the Bible were the Israelites called Jews.
> 
> Just curious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the New Testament.  I'm not talking about the Bible though.  I'm talking about the common ancestry of the Israeli people and their neighbors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IOW, the Israelites were not called Jews in the Bible.
Click to expand...


Nonetheless, the word is used in the NT:

John 10 31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him


----------



## aris2chat

Agit8r said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> The aristocracy of Judah was taken into exile. The remainder, as well as the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Israel have a genetic heritage that continue today among various peoples of the region, including among the Palestinians:
> 
> Genetic studies of Jewish origins - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the Bible were the Israelites called Jews.
> 
> Just curious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the New Testament.  I'm not talking about the Bible though.  I'm talking about the common ancestry of the Israeli people and their neighbors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IOW, the Israelites were not called Jews in the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonetheless, the word is used in the NT:
> 
> John 10 31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him
Click to expand...


and he went back


----------



## P F Tinmore

Agit8r said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> The aristocracy of Judah was taken into exile. The remainder, as well as the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Israel have a genetic heritage that continue today among various peoples of the region, including among the Palestinians:
> 
> Genetic studies of Jewish origins - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the Bible were the Israelites called Jews.
> 
> Just curious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the New Testament.  I'm not talking about the Bible though.  I'm talking about the common ancestry of the Israeli people and their neighbors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IOW, the Israelites were not called Jews in the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonetheless, the word is used in the NT:
> 
> John 10 31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him
Click to expand...

Wasn't that in Judea not in Israel?


----------



## aris2chat

anyone else think it is time to close this heading and start a new one?


----------



## Kondor3

aris2chat said:


> anyone else think it is time to close this heading and start a new one?


Might as well... this stopped being relevant to the OP hundreds of pages ago...


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

* Lamis Deek*

**


----------



## Agit8r

P F Tinmore said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> The aristocracy of Judah was taken into exile. The remainder, as well as the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Israel have a genetic heritage that continue today among various peoples of the region, including among the Palestinians:
> 
> Genetic studies of Jewish origins - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the Bible were the Israelites called Jews.
> 
> Just curious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the New Testament.  I'm not talking about the Bible though.  I'm talking about the common ancestry of the Israeli people and their neighbors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IOW, the Israelites were not called Jews in the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonetheless, the word is used in the NT:
> 
> John 10 31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't that in Judea not in Israel?
Click to expand...


It can be confusing because most people in today's "Israel" are Jews.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No beef.
> 
> The dumbass Jordanians chose to attack the Jews again in 1967, after Israel pleaded with them not to.
> 
> Then they go their asses kicked by the Jews, and lost it again.
> 
> When ya start fights, then lose, you pay a price.
> 
> Jordan paid with the West Bank for its stupidity in 1967.
> 
> Vae victus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it was Israel that attacked in the 1967 War.  Israel started the fight.  Why do you post nonsense?
> 
> "Helms was awakened at 3:00 in the morning on 5 June by a call from the CIA Operations Center. The Foreign Broadcast Information Service had picked up reports that Israel had launched its attack. (OCI soon concluded that the Israelis— contrary to their claims—had fired first.) "
> 
> CIA Analysis of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War Central Intelligence Agency
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you see, Israel paid 5 surrounding Arab countries to pretend a united Arab attack at five different positions.  I'll bet those Zionists never knew that, right Monte?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no attack by the Arab countries.  Israel attacked.  Are you able to read?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go do some research on the term 'pre emptive strike' liar. Israel had every reason to believe that Egypt was planning an attack on them.
> 
> Egypt mobilized forces by the Israeli border. They expelled peacekeeping forces that were placed there following the Suez Crisis. Egypt also closed the Strait of Tiran , which Israel said beforehand would be considered an act of war.
> Why should Israel have waited until Egypt was going to attack them ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "It is often claimed that Israel’s attack on Egypt that began the June 1967 “Six Day War” was a “preemptive” one. Implicit in that description is the notion that Israel was under imminent threat of an attack from Egypt. Yet this historical interpretation of the war is not sustained by the documentary record.
> 
> The President of Egypt, then known as the United Arab Republic (UAR), Gamal Abdel Nasser, later conveyed to U.S. President Lyndon Johnson that *his troop buildup in the Sinai Peninsula prior to the war had been to defend against a feared Israeli attack.............*t*he CIA assessed that Nasser’s military presence in the Sinai was defensive,..............*Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin acknowledged in a speech in 1982 that its war on Egypt in 1956 was a war of “choice” and that, “In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”
> 
> *Despite its total lack of sustainability from the documentary record, and despite such admissions from top Israeli officials, it is virtually obligatory for commentators in contemporary mainstream accounts of the ’67 war to describe Israel’s attack on Egypt as “preemptive”.
> *
> Israel s attack on Egypt in June 67 was not preemptive Foreign Policy Journal
Click to expand...





 Try looking up operation dawn as it destroys your whole premise on the 6 days war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dawn_(1967)


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> * Lamis Deek*
> 
> **







 No right of return under International law.    video dismissed as being propaganda


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> * Lamis Deek*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No right of return under International law.    video dismissed as being propaganda
Click to expand...

She is a rights lawyer.

And you are not.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> * Lamis Deek*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No right of return under International law.    video dismissed as being propaganda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is a rights lawyer.
> 
> And you are not.
Click to expand...





 And there is no legal right of return, and that does not need a lawyer to explain why.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> * Lamis Deek*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No right of return under International law.    video dismissed as being propaganda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is a rights lawyer.
> 
> And you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no legal right of return, and that does not need a lawyer to explain why.
Click to expand...

Who says?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> * Lamis Deek*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No right of return under International law.    video dismissed as being propaganda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is a rights lawyer.
> 
> And you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no legal right of return, and that does not need a lawyer to explain why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who says?
Click to expand...





 The UN, ICC, ICJ and international law. And the links have been posted before to show this


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> * Lamis Deek*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No right of return under International law.    video dismissed as being propaganda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is a rights lawyer.
> 
> And you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no legal right of return, and that does not need a lawyer to explain why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UN, ICC, ICJ and international law. And the links have been posted before to show this
Click to expand...

Sure they have.

Nice duck.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it was Israel that attacked in the 1967 War.  Israel started the fight.  Why do you post nonsense?
> 
> "Helms was awakened at 3:00 in the morning on 5 June by a call from the CIA Operations Center. The Foreign Broadcast Information Service had picked up reports that Israel had launched its attack. (OCI soon concluded that the Israelis— contrary to their claims—had fired first.) "
> 
> CIA Analysis of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War Central Intelligence Agency
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you see, Israel paid 5 surrounding Arab countries to pretend a united Arab attack at five different positions.  I'll bet those Zionists never knew that, right Monte?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no attack by the Arab countries.  Israel attacked.  Are you able to read?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go do some research on the term 'pre emptive strike' liar. Israel had every reason to believe that Egypt was planning an attack on them.
> 
> Egypt mobilized forces by the Israeli border. They expelled peacekeeping forces that were placed there following the Suez Crisis. Egypt also closed the Strait of Tiran , which Israel said beforehand would be considered an act of war.
> Why should Israel have waited until Egypt was going to attack them ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "It is often claimed that Israel’s attack on Egypt that began the June 1967 “Six Day War” was a “preemptive” one. Implicit in that description is the notion that Israel was under imminent threat of an attack from Egypt. Yet this historical interpretation of the war is not sustained by the documentary record.
> 
> The President of Egypt, then known as the United Arab Republic (UAR), Gamal Abdel Nasser, later conveyed to U.S. President Lyndon Johnson that *his troop buildup in the Sinai Peninsula prior to the war had been to defend against a feared Israeli attack.............*t*he CIA assessed that Nasser’s military presence in the Sinai was defensive,..............*Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin acknowledged in a speech in 1982 that its war on Egypt in 1956 was a war of “choice” and that, “In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”
> 
> *Despite its total lack of sustainability from the documentary record, and despite such admissions from top Israeli officials, it is virtually obligatory for commentators in contemporary mainstream accounts of the ’67 war to describe Israel’s attack on Egypt as “preemptive”.
> *
> Israel s attack on Egypt in June 67 was not preemptive Foreign Policy Journal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try looking up operation dawn as it destroys your whole premise on the 6 days war
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dawn_(1967)
Click to expand...



Wiki destroys nothing.  It is an editing war between partisans.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No right of return under International law.    video dismissed as being propaganda
> 
> 
> 
> She is a rights lawyer.
> 
> And you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no legal right of return, and that does not need a lawyer to explain why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UN, ICC, ICJ and international law. And the links have been posted before to show this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure they have.
> 
> Nice duck.
Click to expand...






 Links to the reports have been given, not my fault you refused to read them.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> * Lamis Deek*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No right of return under International law.    video dismissed as being propaganda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is a rights lawyer.
> 
> And you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no legal right of return, and that does not need a lawyer to explain why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UN, ICC, ICJ and international law. And the links have been posted before to show this
Click to expand...


Making things up again Phoney.  No such links were ever posted.  You saying so doesn't make it true, in fact, 99% of the time the exact opposite of what you post is the truth.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you see, Israel paid 5 surrounding Arab countries to pretend a united Arab attack at five different positions.  I'll bet those Zionists never knew that, right Monte?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no attack by the Arab countries.  Israel attacked.  Are you able to read?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go do some research on the term 'pre emptive strike' liar. Israel had every reason to believe that Egypt was planning an attack on them.
> 
> Egypt mobilized forces by the Israeli border. They expelled peacekeeping forces that were placed there following the Suez Crisis. Egypt also closed the Strait of Tiran , which Israel said beforehand would be considered an act of war.
> Why should Israel have waited until Egypt was going to attack them ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "It is often claimed that Israel’s attack on Egypt that began the June 1967 “Six Day War” was a “preemptive” one. Implicit in that description is the notion that Israel was under imminent threat of an attack from Egypt. Yet this historical interpretation of the war is not sustained by the documentary record.
> 
> The President of Egypt, then known as the United Arab Republic (UAR), Gamal Abdel Nasser, later conveyed to U.S. President Lyndon Johnson that *his troop buildup in the Sinai Peninsula prior to the war had been to defend against a feared Israeli attack.............*t*he CIA assessed that Nasser’s military presence in the Sinai was defensive,..............*Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin acknowledged in a speech in 1982 that its war on Egypt in 1956 was a war of “choice” and that, “In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”
> 
> *Despite its total lack of sustainability from the documentary record, and despite such admissions from top Israeli officials, it is virtually obligatory for commentators in contemporary mainstream accounts of the ’67 war to describe Israel’s attack on Egypt as “preemptive”.
> *
> Israel s attack on Egypt in June 67 was not preemptive Foreign Policy Journal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try looking up operation dawn as it destroys your whole premise on the 6 days war
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dawn_(1967)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wiki destroys nothing.  It is an editing war between partisans.
Click to expand...






 Only because it destroys your argument and shows that Egypt was about to attack Israel until the Russians told them not to


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no attack by the Arab countries.  Israel attacked.  Are you able to read?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go do some research on the term 'pre emptive strike' liar. Israel had every reason to believe that Egypt was planning an attack on them.
> 
> Egypt mobilized forces by the Israeli border. They expelled peacekeeping forces that were placed there following the Suez Crisis. Egypt also closed the Strait of Tiran , which Israel said beforehand would be considered an act of war.
> Why should Israel have waited until Egypt was going to attack them ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "It is often claimed that Israel’s attack on Egypt that began the June 1967 “Six Day War” was a “preemptive” one. Implicit in that description is the notion that Israel was under imminent threat of an attack from Egypt. Yet this historical interpretation of the war is not sustained by the documentary record.
> 
> The President of Egypt, then known as the United Arab Republic (UAR), Gamal Abdel Nasser, later conveyed to U.S. President Lyndon Johnson that *his troop buildup in the Sinai Peninsula prior to the war had been to defend against a feared Israeli attack.............*t*he CIA assessed that Nasser’s military presence in the Sinai was defensive,..............*Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin acknowledged in a speech in 1982 that its war on Egypt in 1956 was a war of “choice” and that, “In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”
> 
> *Despite its total lack of sustainability from the documentary record, and despite such admissions from top Israeli officials, it is virtually obligatory for commentators in contemporary mainstream accounts of the ’67 war to describe Israel’s attack on Egypt as “preemptive”.
> *
> Israel s attack on Egypt in June 67 was not preemptive Foreign Policy Journal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try looking up operation dawn as it destroys your whole premise on the 6 days war
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dawn_(1967)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wiki destroys nothing.  It is an editing war between partisans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only because it destroys your argument and shows that Egypt was about to attack Israel until the Russians told them not to
Click to expand...


It just shows what the most recent Hasbara editor wrote.  The record (per the link posted earlier) shows that the CIA knew that Egypt was preparing to defend itself from a planned Israeli invasion.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No right of return under International law.    video dismissed as being propaganda
> 
> 
> 
> She is a rights lawyer.
> 
> And you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no legal right of return, and that does not need a lawyer to explain why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UN, ICC, ICJ and international law. And the links have been posted before to show this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Making things up again Phoney.  No such links were ever posted.  You saying so doesn't make it true, in fact, 99% of the time the exact opposite of what you post is the truth.
Click to expand...





 WHY DO YOU LIE the links where given and you tried to counter with a UN resolution that has no legal standing


The Politics Of The Palestinian Right Of Return - Forbes

 The ‘right of return’ is sometimes explained away as being symbolic rather than practical, an element of the Palestinian ‘narrative’ regarding the blameless circumstances of their diaspora. Israelis are demanded to accept both the narrative, in which they are the villains, and the possibility of the mass return of Palestinians that would, by design, end Israel as a Jewish state.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go do some research on the term 'pre emptive strike' liar. Israel had every reason to believe that Egypt was planning an attack on them.
> 
> Egypt mobilized forces by the Israeli border. They expelled peacekeeping forces that were placed there following the Suez Crisis. Egypt also closed the Strait of Tiran , which Israel said beforehand would be considered an act of war.
> Why should Israel have waited until Egypt was going to attack them ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "It is often claimed that Israel’s attack on Egypt that began the June 1967 “Six Day War” was a “preemptive” one. Implicit in that description is the notion that Israel was under imminent threat of an attack from Egypt. Yet this historical interpretation of the war is not sustained by the documentary record.
> 
> The President of Egypt, then known as the United Arab Republic (UAR), Gamal Abdel Nasser, later conveyed to U.S. President Lyndon Johnson that *his troop buildup in the Sinai Peninsula prior to the war had been to defend against a feared Israeli attack.............*t*he CIA assessed that Nasser’s military presence in the Sinai was defensive,..............*Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin acknowledged in a speech in 1982 that its war on Egypt in 1956 was a war of “choice” and that, “In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”
> 
> *Despite its total lack of sustainability from the documentary record, and despite such admissions from top Israeli officials, it is virtually obligatory for commentators in contemporary mainstream accounts of the ’67 war to describe Israel’s attack on Egypt as “preemptive”.
> *
> Israel s attack on Egypt in June 67 was not preemptive Foreign Policy Journal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try looking up operation dawn as it destroys your whole premise on the 6 days war
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dawn_(1967)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wiki destroys nothing.  It is an editing war between partisans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only because it destroys your argument and shows that Egypt was about to attack Israel until the Russians told them not to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just shows what the most recent Hasbara editor wrote.  The record (per the link posted earlier) shows that the CIA knew that Egypt was preparing to defend itself from a planned Israeli invasion.
Click to expand...





 BULLSHIT ISLAMOMORON LIES    The Russians told Egypt to stand down as they could not support their planned attack on Israel


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> She is a rights lawyer.
> 
> And you are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no legal right of return, and that does not need a lawyer to explain why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UN, ICC, ICJ and international law. And the links have been posted before to show this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Making things up again Phoney.  No such links were ever posted.  You saying so doesn't make it true, in fact, 99% of the time the exact opposite of what you post is the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHY DO YOU LIE the links where given and you tried to counter with a UN resolution that has no legal standing
> 
> 
> The Politics Of The Palestinian Right Of Return - Forbes
> 
> The ‘right of return’ is sometimes explained away as being symbolic rather than practical, an element of the Palestinian ‘narrative’ regarding the blameless circumstances of their diaspora. Israelis are demanded to accept both the narrative, in which they are the villains, and the possibility of the mass return of Palestinians that would, by design, end Israel as a Jewish state.
Click to expand...


Now, why would I (or any neutral) believe an opinion piece written by two self-serving Zionists?


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "It is often claimed that Israel’s attack on Egypt that began the June 1967 “Six Day War” was a “preemptive” one. Implicit in that description is the notion that Israel was under imminent threat of an attack from Egypt. Yet this historical interpretation of the war is not sustained by the documentary record.
> 
> The President of Egypt, then known as the United Arab Republic (UAR), Gamal Abdel Nasser, later conveyed to U.S. President Lyndon Johnson that *his troop buildup in the Sinai Peninsula prior to the war had been to defend against a feared Israeli attack.............*t*he CIA assessed that Nasser’s military presence in the Sinai was defensive,..............*Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin acknowledged in a speech in 1982 that its war on Egypt in 1956 was a war of “choice” and that, “In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”
> 
> *Despite its total lack of sustainability from the documentary record, and despite such admissions from top Israeli officials, it is virtually obligatory for commentators in contemporary mainstream accounts of the ’67 war to describe Israel’s attack on Egypt as “preemptive”.
> *
> Israel s attack on Egypt in June 67 was not preemptive Foreign Policy Journal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try looking up operation dawn as it destroys your whole premise on the 6 days war
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dawn_(1967)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wiki destroys nothing.  It is an editing war between partisans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only because it destroys your argument and shows that Egypt was about to attack Israel until the Russians told them not to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just shows what the most recent Hasbara editor wrote.  The record (per the link posted earlier) shows that the CIA knew that Egypt was preparing to defend itself from a planned Israeli invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT ISLAMOMORON LIES    The Russians told Egypt to stand down as they could not support their planned attack on Israel
Click to expand...


That's not what the CIA's record, as linked from their site, states.  You can make up all you want or repeat Israeli propaganda, it doesn't make it true.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try looking up operation dawn as it destroys your whole premise on the 6 days war
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dawn_(1967)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiki destroys nothing.  It is an editing war between partisans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only because it destroys your argument and shows that Egypt was about to attack Israel until the Russians told them not to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just shows what the most recent Hasbara editor wrote.  The record (per the link posted earlier) shows that the CIA knew that Egypt was preparing to defend itself from a planned Israeli invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT ISLAMOMORON LIES    The Russians told Egypt to stand down as they could not support their planned attack on Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what the CIA's record, as linked from their site, states.  You can make up all you want or repeat Israeli propaganda, it doesn't make it true.
Click to expand...



Five Arab nations unite at several positions on Israel's border & close the Gulf of Aqaba.  Israel responds & gains additional land in the process to prevent that from happening again.  Accept it Pali supporters.  It is what it is.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> She is a rights lawyer.
> 
> And you are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no legal right of return, and that does not need a lawyer to explain why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UN, ICC, ICJ and international law. And the links have been posted before to show this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Making things up again Phoney.  No such links were ever posted.  You saying so doesn't make it true, in fact, 99% of the time the exact opposite of what you post is the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHY DO YOU LIE the links where given and you tried to counter with a UN resolution that has no legal standing
> 
> 
> The Politics Of The Palestinian Right Of Return - Forbes
> 
> The ‘right of return’ is sometimes explained away as being symbolic rather than practical, an element of the Palestinian ‘narrative’ regarding the blameless circumstances of their diaspora. Israelis are demanded to accept both the narrative, in which they are the villains, and the possibility of the mass return of Palestinians that would, by design, end Israel as a Jewish state.
Click to expand...

Both authors of this hit piece are associated with the Middle East Forum.

The MEF is a conservative think tank founded in 1990 by *Danial Pipes.*


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wiki destroys nothing.  It is an editing war between partisans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only because it destroys your argument and shows that Egypt was about to attack Israel until the Russians told them not to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just shows what the most recent Hasbara editor wrote.  The record (per the link posted earlier) shows that the CIA knew that Egypt was preparing to defend itself from a planned Israeli invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT ISLAMOMORON LIES    The Russians told Egypt to stand down as they could not support their planned attack on Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what the CIA's record, as linked from their site, states.  You can make up all you want or repeat Israeli propaganda, it doesn't make it true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Five Arab nations unite at several positions on Israel's border & close the Gulf of Aqaba.  Israel responds & gains additional land in the process to prevent that from happening again.  Accept it Pali supporters.  It is what it is.
Click to expand...


So, you believe that a blockade to prevent a country from receiving weapons/strategic materials is sufficient cause for a country to attack another country?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no legal right of return, and that does not need a lawyer to explain why.
> 
> 
> 
> Who says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UN, ICC, ICJ and international law. And the links have been posted before to show this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Making things up again Phoney.  No such links were ever posted.  You saying so doesn't make it true, in fact, 99% of the time the exact opposite of what you post is the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHY DO YOU LIE the links where given and you tried to counter with a UN resolution that has no legal standing
> 
> 
> The Politics Of The Palestinian Right Of Return - Forbes
> 
> The ‘right of return’ is sometimes explained away as being symbolic rather than practical, an element of the Palestinian ‘narrative’ regarding the blameless circumstances of their diaspora. Israelis are demanded to accept both the narrative, in which they are the villains, and the possibility of the mass return of Palestinians that would, by design, end Israel as a Jewish state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, why would I (or any neutral) believe an opinion piece written by two self-serving Zionists?
Click to expand...





 STOP LYING all your posts are biased against Israel and the Jews, and some are RACIST LIES as well. Would you believe the UN who say that it is not a legal right.

UN Resolution 194 and the Right of Return 



Of the 15 paragraphs, the first six sections addressed ways to achieve a truce; the next four paragraphs addressed the ways that Jerusalem and surrounding villages and towns should be demilitarized, and how an international zone or jurisdiction would be created in and around Jerusalem. The resolution also called on all parties to protect and allow free access to holy places, including religious buildings.

One paragraph has drawn the most attention: Paragraph 11, which alone addressed the issue of refugees and compensation for those whose property was lost or damaged.* Contrary to Arab claims, it did not guarantee a Right of Return and certainly did not guarantee anunconditionalRight of Return – that is the right of Palestinian Arab refugees to return to Israel.* Nor did it specifically mention_Arab_refugees, thereby indicating that the resolution was aimed at all refugees, both Jewish and Arab. Instead, Resolution 194 recommended that refugees be allowed to return to their homeland_if_they met two important conditions:

1. That they be willing to live in peace with their neighbors.

2. That the return takes place “at the earliest practicable date.”


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try looking up operation dawn as it destroys your whole premise on the 6 days war
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dawn_(1967)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiki destroys nothing.  It is an editing war between partisans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only because it destroys your argument and shows that Egypt was about to attack Israel until the Russians told them not to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just shows what the most recent Hasbara editor wrote.  The record (per the link posted earlier) shows that the CIA knew that Egypt was preparing to defend itself from a planned Israeli invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT ISLAMOMORON LIES    The Russians told Egypt to stand down as they could not support their planned attack on Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what the CIA's record, as linked from their site, states.  You can make up all you want or repeat Israeli propaganda, it doesn't make it true.
Click to expand...




 Its what the Egyptians said happened, and why they were caught with their pants down. And it is also what the Russians said when the US told them about the impending attack that would escalate into a bloodbath with the US coming to the aid of Israel.
 You did not post the CIA report you posted one persons abridged version of events, showing that you will use any LIES to bolster your Jew Hatred.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only because it destroys your argument and shows that Egypt was about to attack Israel until the Russians told them not to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It just shows what the most recent Hasbara editor wrote.  The record (per the link posted earlier) shows that the CIA knew that Egypt was preparing to defend itself from a planned Israeli invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT ISLAMOMORON LIES    The Russians told Egypt to stand down as they could not support their planned attack on Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what the CIA's record, as linked from their site, states.  You can make up all you want or repeat Israeli propaganda, it doesn't make it true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Five Arab nations unite at several positions on Israel's border & close the Gulf of Aqaba.  Israel responds & gains additional land in the process to prevent that from happening again.  Accept it Pali supporters.  It is what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you believe that a blockade to prevent a country from receiving weapons/strategic materials is sufficient cause for a country to attack another country?
Click to expand...





 Do you, or more precisely to attack another countries children far from the wart zone. For every Israeli child harmed by the Palestinians I would take into administrative custody 100 Palestinian children as hostages for stopping the terrorist attacks. I would place them in the areas that hamas target and let them take whatever measures they want.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who says?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UN, ICC, ICJ and international law. And the links have been posted before to show this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Making things up again Phoney.  No such links were ever posted.  You saying so doesn't make it true, in fact, 99% of the time the exact opposite of what you post is the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHY DO YOU LIE the links where given and you tried to counter with a UN resolution that has no legal standing
> 
> 
> The Politics Of The Palestinian Right Of Return - Forbes
> 
> The ‘right of return’ is sometimes explained away as being symbolic rather than practical, an element of the Palestinian ‘narrative’ regarding the blameless circumstances of their diaspora. Israelis are demanded to accept both the narrative, in which they are the villains, and the possibility of the mass return of Palestinians that would, by design, end Israel as a Jewish state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, why would I (or any neutral) believe an opinion piece written by two self-serving Zionists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STOP LYING all your posts are biased against Israel and the Jews, and some are RACIST LIES as well. Would you believe the UN who say that it is not a legal right.
> 
> UN Resolution 194 and the Right of Return
> 
> 
> 
> Of the 15 paragraphs, the first six sections addressed ways to achieve a truce; the next four paragraphs addressed the ways that Jerusalem and surrounding villages and towns should be demilitarized, and how an international zone or jurisdiction would be created in and around Jerusalem. The resolution also called on all parties to protect and allow free access to holy places, including religious buildings.
> 
> One paragraph has drawn the most attention: Paragraph 11, which alone addressed the issue of refugees and compensation for those whose property was lost or damaged.* Contrary to Arab claims, it did not guarantee a Right of Return and certainly did not guarantee anunconditionalRight of Return – that is the right of Palestinian Arab refugees to return to Israel.* Nor did it specifically mention_Arab_refugees, thereby indicating that the resolution was aimed at all refugees, both Jewish and Arab. Instead, Resolution 194 recommended that refugees be allowed to return to their homeland_if_they met two important conditions:
> 
> 1. That they be willing to live in peace with their neighbors.
> 
> 2. That the return takes place “at the earliest practicable date.”
Click to expand...


Do you believe that posting an opinion, a Zionist opinion, makes your case?


----------



## MJB12741

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> It just shows what the most recent Hasbara editor wrote.  The record (per the link posted earlier) shows that the CIA knew that Egypt was preparing to defend itself from a planned Israeli invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT ISLAMOMORON LIES    The Russians told Egypt to stand down as they could not support their planned attack on Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what the CIA's record, as linked from their site, states.  You can make up all you want or repeat Israeli propaganda, it doesn't make it true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Five Arab nations unite at several positions on Israel's border & close the Gulf of Aqaba.  Israel responds & gains additional land in the process to prevent that from happening again.  Accept it Pali supporters.  It is what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you believe that a blockade to prevent a country from receiving weapons/strategic materials is sufficient cause for a country to attack another country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you, or more precisely to attack another countries children far from the wart zone. For every Israeli child harmed by the Palestinians I would take into administrative custody 100 Palestinian children as hostages for stopping the terrorist attacks. I would place them in the areas that hamas target and let them take whatever measures they want.
Click to expand...


If I were prime minister of Israel I would go much further.  I would schedule a peace meeting with all known Hamas leaders, all expences paid by Israel at the finest resort in Tel Aviv including the finest of rooms, elegant dining & entertainment.  The morning of the meeting I would first thank & welcome each & every one of them for attending.  And then I would make an announcement that from now on, each time Hamas kills an Israeli, Israel will retaliate by killing 10,000 Palestinians.  What other suggestions do you have to establish peace?


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT ISLAMOMORON LIES    The Russians told Egypt to stand down as they could not support their planned attack on Israel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what the CIA's record, as linked from their site, states.  You can make up all you want or repeat Israeli propaganda, it doesn't make it true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Five Arab nations unite at several positions on Israel's border & close the Gulf of Aqaba.  Israel responds & gains additional land in the process to prevent that from happening again.  Accept it Pali supporters.  It is what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you believe that a blockade to prevent a country from receiving weapons/strategic materials is sufficient cause for a country to attack another country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you, or more precisely to attack another countries children far from the wart zone. For every Israeli child harmed by the Palestinians I would take into administrative custody 100 Palestinian children as hostages for stopping the terrorist attacks. I would place them in the areas that hamas target and let them take whatever measures they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I were prime minister of Israel I would go much further.  I would schedule a peace meeting with all known Hamas leaders, all expences paid by Israel at the finest resort in Tel Aviv including the finest of rooms, elegant dining & entertainment.  The morning of the meeting I would first thank & welcome each & every one of them for attending.  And then I would make an announcement that from now on, each time Hamas kills an Israeli, Israel will retaliate by killing 10,000 Palestinians.  What other suggestions do you have to establish peace?
Click to expand...


Sounds like Nazi policy in occupied territory with a turbocharger.  Well done you are now an official ZioNazi.

*"MARCH 24, 1944
SS MEN MASSACRE ITALIANS NEAR ROME*
Units of the SS (the elite guard of the Nazi state) shoot more than 300 Italians in the Ardeatine Caves, south of Rome, in reaction to a partisan attack on German soldiers. *Ten hostages are shot for every German soldier killed. *The SS blow up the caves after the massacre."

German Rule in Occupied Europe


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what the CIA's record, as linked from their site, states.  You can make up all you want or repeat Israeli propaganda, it doesn't make it true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Five Arab nations unite at several positions on Israel's border & close the Gulf of Aqaba.  Israel responds & gains additional land in the process to prevent that from happening again.  Accept it Pali supporters.  It is what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you believe that a blockade to prevent a country from receiving weapons/strategic materials is sufficient cause for a country to attack another country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you, or more precisely to attack another countries children far from the wart zone. For every Israeli child harmed by the Palestinians I would take into administrative custody 100 Palestinian children as hostages for stopping the terrorist attacks. I would place them in the areas that hamas target and let them take whatever measures they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I were prime minister of Israel I would go much further.  I would schedule a peace meeting with all known Hamas leaders, all expences paid by Israel at the finest resort in Tel Aviv including the finest of rooms, elegant dining & entertainment.  The morning of the meeting I would first thank & welcome each & every one of them for attending.  And then I would make an announcement that from now on, each time Hamas kills an Israeli, Israel will retaliate by killing 10,000 Palestinians.  What other suggestions do you have to establish peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like Nazi policy in occupied territory with a turbocharger.  Well done you are now an official ZioNazi.
> 
> *"MARCH 24, 1944
> SS MEN MASSACRE ITALIANS NEAR ROME*
> Units of the SS (the elite guard of the Nazi state) shoot more than 300 Italians in the Ardeatine Caves, south of Rome, in reaction to a partisan attack on German soldiers. *Ten hostages are shot for every German soldier killed. *The SS blow up the caves after the massacre."
> 
> German Rule in Occupied Europe
Click to expand...



How dare you call me of all people a ZioNazi.  I despise both Zionists & Nazi's for their brutal treatment of others.  What kind of people make peace offerings to Palestinians, build a security fence & concede them their own land to keep them in Israel when all the Palestinians want is to be free from Israel?  Not even once have those Zionists tried to help free the Palestinians back to their indigenous homelands.  Shame on them!


----------



## aris2chat

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Five Arab nations unite at several positions on Israel's border & close the Gulf of Aqaba.  Israel responds & gains additional land in the process to prevent that from happening again.  Accept it Pali supporters.  It is what it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you believe that a blockade to prevent a country from receiving weapons/strategic materials is sufficient cause for a country to attack another country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you, or more precisely to attack another countries children far from the wart zone. For every Israeli child harmed by the Palestinians I would take into administrative custody 100 Palestinian children as hostages for stopping the terrorist attacks. I would place them in the areas that hamas target and let them take whatever measures they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I were prime minister of Israel I would go much further.  I would schedule a peace meeting with all known Hamas leaders, all expences paid by Israel at the finest resort in Tel Aviv including the finest of rooms, elegant dining & entertainment.  The morning of the meeting I would first thank & welcome each & every one of them for attending.  And then I would make an announcement that from now on, each time Hamas kills an Israeli, Israel will retaliate by killing 10,000 Palestinians.  What other suggestions do you have to establish peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like Nazi policy in occupied territory with a turbocharger.  Well done you are now an official ZioNazi.
> 
> *"MARCH 24, 1944
> SS MEN MASSACRE ITALIANS NEAR ROME*
> Units of the SS (the elite guard of the Nazi state) shoot more than 300 Italians in the Ardeatine Caves, south of Rome, in reaction to a partisan attack on German soldiers. *Ten hostages are shot for every German soldier killed. *The SS blow up the caves after the massacre."
> 
> German Rule in Occupied Europe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How dare you call me of all people a ZioNazi.  I despise both Zionists & Nazi's for their brutal treatment of others.  What kind of people make peace offerings to Palestinians, build a security fence & concede them their own land to keep them in Israel when all the Palestinians want is to be free from Israel?  Not even once have those Zionists tried to help free the Palestinians back to their indigenous homelands.  Shame on them!
Click to expand...


the weak resort to vile name calling instead of making a good argument or presentation of facts


----------



## MJB12741

aris2chat said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you believe that a blockade to prevent a country from receiving weapons/strategic materials is sufficient cause for a country to attack another country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you, or more precisely to attack another countries children far from the wart zone. For every Israeli child harmed by the Palestinians I would take into administrative custody 100 Palestinian children as hostages for stopping the terrorist attacks. I would place them in the areas that hamas target and let them take whatever measures they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I were prime minister of Israel I would go much further.  I would schedule a peace meeting with all known Hamas leaders, all expences paid by Israel at the finest resort in Tel Aviv including the finest of rooms, elegant dining & entertainment.  The morning of the meeting I would first thank & welcome each & every one of them for attending.  And then I would make an announcement that from now on, each time Hamas kills an Israeli, Israel will retaliate by killing 10,000 Palestinians.  What other suggestions do you have to establish peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like Nazi policy in occupied territory with a turbocharger.  Well done you are now an official ZioNazi.
> 
> *"MARCH 24, 1944
> SS MEN MASSACRE ITALIANS NEAR ROME*
> Units of the SS (the elite guard of the Nazi state) shoot more than 300 Italians in the Ardeatine Caves, south of Rome, in reaction to a partisan attack on German soldiers. *Ten hostages are shot for every German soldier killed. *The SS blow up the caves after the massacre."
> 
> German Rule in Occupied Europe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How dare you call me of all people a ZioNazi.  I despise both Zionists & Nazi's for their brutal treatment of others.  What kind of people make peace offerings to Palestinians, build a security fence & concede them their own land to keep them in Israel when all the Palestinians want is to be free from Israel?  Not even once have those Zionists tried to help free the Palestinians back to their indigenous homelands.  Shame on them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the weak resort to vile name calling instead of making a good argument or presentation of facts
Click to expand...


When one has to resort to name calling to an adversary, the debate is over & he or she lost.


----------



## montelatici

aris2chat said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you believe that a blockade to prevent a country from receiving weapons/strategic materials is sufficient cause for a country to attack another country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you, or more precisely to attack another countries children far from the wart zone. For every Israeli child harmed by the Palestinians I would take into administrative custody 100 Palestinian children as hostages for stopping the terrorist attacks. I would place them in the areas that hamas target and let them take whatever measures they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I were prime minister of Israel I would go much further.  I would schedule a peace meeting with all known Hamas leaders, all expences paid by Israel at the finest resort in Tel Aviv including the finest of rooms, elegant dining & entertainment.  The morning of the meeting I would first thank & welcome each & every one of them for attending.  And then I would make an announcement that from now on, each time Hamas kills an Israeli, Israel will retaliate by killing 10,000 Palestinians.  What other suggestions do you have to establish peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like Nazi policy in occupied territory with a turbocharger.  Well done you are now an official ZioNazi.
> 
> *"MARCH 24, 1944
> SS MEN MASSACRE ITALIANS NEAR ROME*
> Units of the SS (the elite guard of the Nazi state) shoot more than 300 Italians in the Ardeatine Caves, south of Rome, in reaction to a partisan attack on German soldiers. *Ten hostages are shot for every German soldier killed. *The SS blow up the caves after the massacre."
> 
> German Rule in Occupied Europe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How dare you call me of all people a ZioNazi.  I despise both Zionists & Nazi's for their brutal treatment of others.  What kind of people make peace offerings to Palestinians, build a security fence & concede them their own land to keep them in Israel when all the Palestinians want is to be free from Israel?  Not even once have those Zionists tried to help free the Palestinians back to their indigenous homelands.  Shame on them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the weak resort to vile name calling instead of making a good argument or presentation of facts
Click to expand...


Well, I see you agree with MJ's proposition that 10,000 Palestinians be killed for every occupier killed.  Who would of thought.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you, or more precisely to attack another countries children far from the wart zone. For every Israeli child harmed by the Palestinians I would take into administrative custody 100 Palestinian children as hostages for stopping the terrorist attacks. I would place them in the areas that hamas target and let them take whatever measures they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I were prime minister of Israel I would go much further.  I would schedule a peace meeting with all known Hamas leaders, all expences paid by Israel at the finest resort in Tel Aviv including the finest of rooms, elegant dining & entertainment.  The morning of the meeting I would first thank & welcome each & every one of them for attending.  And then I would make an announcement that from now on, each time Hamas kills an Israeli, Israel will retaliate by killing 10,000 Palestinians.  What other suggestions do you have to establish peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like Nazi policy in occupied territory with a turbocharger.  Well done you are now an official ZioNazi.
> 
> *"MARCH 24, 1944
> SS MEN MASSACRE ITALIANS NEAR ROME*
> Units of the SS (the elite guard of the Nazi state) shoot more than 300 Italians in the Ardeatine Caves, south of Rome, in reaction to a partisan attack on German soldiers. *Ten hostages are shot for every German soldier killed. *The SS blow up the caves after the massacre."
> 
> German Rule in Occupied Europe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How dare you call me of all people a ZioNazi.  I despise both Zionists & Nazi's for their brutal treatment of others.  What kind of people make peace offerings to Palestinians, build a security fence & concede them their own land to keep them in Israel when all the Palestinians want is to be free from Israel?  Not even once have those Zionists tried to help free the Palestinians back to their indigenous homelands.  Shame on them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the weak resort to vile name calling instead of making a good argument or presentation of facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I see you agree with MJ's proposition that 10,000 Palestinians be killed for every occupier killed.  Who would of thought.
Click to expand...



HUH??? Who are these "occupiers" you refer to?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN, ICC, ICJ and international law. And the links have been posted before to show this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Making things up again Phoney.  No such links were ever posted.  You saying so doesn't make it true, in fact, 99% of the time the exact opposite of what you post is the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHY DO YOU LIE the links where given and you tried to counter with a UN resolution that has no legal standing
> 
> 
> The Politics Of The Palestinian Right Of Return - Forbes
> 
> The ‘right of return’ is sometimes explained away as being symbolic rather than practical, an element of the Palestinian ‘narrative’ regarding the blameless circumstances of their diaspora. Israelis are demanded to accept both the narrative, in which they are the villains, and the possibility of the mass return of Palestinians that would, by design, end Israel as a Jewish state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, why would I (or any neutral) believe an opinion piece written by two self-serving Zionists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STOP LYING all your posts are biased against Israel and the Jews, and some are RACIST LIES as well. Would you believe the UN who say that it is not a legal right.
> 
> UN Resolution 194 and the Right of Return
> 
> 
> 
> Of the 15 paragraphs, the first six sections addressed ways to achieve a truce; the next four paragraphs addressed the ways that Jerusalem and surrounding villages and towns should be demilitarized, and how an international zone or jurisdiction would be created in and around Jerusalem. The resolution also called on all parties to protect and allow free access to holy places, including religious buildings.
> 
> One paragraph has drawn the most attention: Paragraph 11, which alone addressed the issue of refugees and compensation for those whose property was lost or damaged.* Contrary to Arab claims, it did not guarantee a Right of Return and certainly did not guarantee anunconditionalRight of Return – that is the right of Palestinian Arab refugees to return to Israel.* Nor did it specifically mention_Arab_refugees, thereby indicating that the resolution was aimed at all refugees, both Jewish and Arab. Instead, Resolution 194 recommended that refugees be allowed to return to their homeland_if_they met two important conditions:
> 
> 1. That they be willing to live in peace with their neighbors.
> 
> 2. That the return takes place “at the earliest practicable date.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe that posting an opinion, a Zionist opinion, makes your case?
Click to expand...





So the UN resolution is an opinion piece, you do realise that you have just branded all your links the same don't you.

 Did you read the conditions placed on any returning arab muslims that they refuse to accept, so making right of return not an option as well as not being a legal concept.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what the CIA's record, as linked from their site, states.  You can make up all you want or repeat Israeli propaganda, it doesn't make it true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Five Arab nations unite at several positions on Israel's border & close the Gulf of Aqaba.  Israel responds & gains additional land in the process to prevent that from happening again.  Accept it Pali supporters.  It is what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you believe that a blockade to prevent a country from receiving weapons/strategic materials is sufficient cause for a country to attack another country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you, or more precisely to attack another countries children far from the wart zone. For every Israeli child harmed by the Palestinians I would take into administrative custody 100 Palestinian children as hostages for stopping the terrorist attacks. I would place them in the areas that hamas target and let them take whatever measures they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I were prime minister of Israel I would go much further.  I would schedule a peace meeting with all known Hamas leaders, all expences paid by Israel at the finest resort in Tel Aviv including the finest of rooms, elegant dining & entertainment.  The morning of the meeting I would first thank & welcome each & every one of them for attending.  And then I would make an announcement that from now on, each time Hamas kills an Israeli, Israel will retaliate by killing 10,000 Palestinians.  What other suggestions do you have to establish peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like Nazi policy in occupied territory with a turbocharger.  Well done you are now an official ZioNazi.
> 
> *"MARCH 24, 1944
> SS MEN MASSACRE ITALIANS NEAR ROME*
> Units of the SS (the elite guard of the Nazi state) shoot more than 300 Italians in the Ardeatine Caves, south of Rome, in reaction to a partisan attack on German soldiers. *Ten hostages are shot for every German soldier killed. *The SS blow up the caves after the massacre."
> 
> German Rule in Occupied Europe
Click to expand...





 Learnt that from the arab muslims who practised this from 627 C.E. when mo'mad started the practise.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you, or more precisely to attack another countries children far from the wart zone. For every Israeli child harmed by the Palestinians I would take into administrative custody 100 Palestinian children as hostages for stopping the terrorist attacks. I would place them in the areas that hamas target and let them take whatever measures they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I were prime minister of Israel I would go much further.  I would schedule a peace meeting with all known Hamas leaders, all expences paid by Israel at the finest resort in Tel Aviv including the finest of rooms, elegant dining & entertainment.  The morning of the meeting I would first thank & welcome each & every one of them for attending.  And then I would make an announcement that from now on, each time Hamas kills an Israeli, Israel will retaliate by killing 10,000 Palestinians.  What other suggestions do you have to establish peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like Nazi policy in occupied territory with a turbocharger.  Well done you are now an official ZioNazi.
> 
> *"MARCH 24, 1944
> SS MEN MASSACRE ITALIANS NEAR ROME*
> Units of the SS (the elite guard of the Nazi state) shoot more than 300 Italians in the Ardeatine Caves, south of Rome, in reaction to a partisan attack on German soldiers. *Ten hostages are shot for every German soldier killed. *The SS blow up the caves after the massacre."
> 
> German Rule in Occupied Europe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How dare you call me of all people a ZioNazi.  I despise both Zionists & Nazi's for their brutal treatment of others.  What kind of people make peace offerings to Palestinians, build a security fence & concede them their own land to keep them in Israel when all the Palestinians want is to be free from Israel?  Not even once have those Zionists tried to help free the Palestinians back to their indigenous homelands.  Shame on them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the weak resort to vile name calling instead of making a good argument or presentation of facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I see you agree with MJ's proposition that 10,000 Palestinians be killed for every occupier killed.  Who would of thought.
Click to expand...






 MORE RACIST LIES   cos that was never said


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Dr. Belal Dabou*


----------



## MJB12741

Who Are The Palestinians?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/n...ror-case-against-palestinian-groups.html?_r=0


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> Who Are The Palestinians?
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/n...ror-case-against-palestinian-groups.html?_r=0


----------



## MJB12741

Just curious.  Who was it that stooped so low as to kill an entire Summer Olympics team in Berlin?


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I were prime minister of Israel I would go much further.  I would schedule a peace meeting with all known Hamas leaders, all expences paid by Israel at the finest resort in Tel Aviv including the finest of rooms, elegant dining & entertainment.  The morning of the meeting I would first thank & welcome each & every one of them for attending.  And then I would make an announcement that from now on, each time Hamas kills an Israeli, Israel will retaliate by killing 10,000 Palestinians.  What other suggestions do you have to establish peace?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like Nazi policy in occupied territory with a turbocharger.  Well done you are now an official ZioNazi.
> 
> *"MARCH 24, 1944
> SS MEN MASSACRE ITALIANS NEAR ROME*
> Units of the SS (the elite guard of the Nazi state) shoot more than 300 Italians in the Ardeatine Caves, south of Rome, in reaction to a partisan attack on German soldiers. *Ten hostages are shot for every German soldier killed. *The SS blow up the caves after the massacre."
> 
> German Rule in Occupied Europe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How dare you call me of all people a ZioNazi.  I despise both Zionists & Nazi's for their brutal treatment of others.  What kind of people make peace offerings to Palestinians, build a security fence & concede them their own land to keep them in Israel when all the Palestinians want is to be free from Israel?  Not even once have those Zionists tried to help free the Palestinians back to their indigenous homelands.  Shame on them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the weak resort to vile name calling instead of making a good argument or presentation of facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I see you agree with MJ's proposition that 10,000 Palestinians be killed for every occupier killed.  Who would of thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MORE RACIST LIES   cos that was never said
Click to expand...


This is what MJB wrote.


"If I were prime minister of Israel I would go much further. I would schedule a peace meeting with all known Hamas leaders, all expences paid by Israel at the finest resort in Tel Aviv including the finest of rooms, elegant dining & entertainment. The morning of the meeting I would first thank & welcome each & every one of them for attending. And then I would make an announcement that from now on, each time Hamas kills an Israeli, Israel will retaliate by killing 10,000 Palestinians. What other suggestions do you have to establish peace?"

Who Are The Palestinians Page 400 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like Nazi policy in occupied territory with a turbocharger.  Well done you are now an official ZioNazi.
> 
> *"MARCH 24, 1944
> SS MEN MASSACRE ITALIANS NEAR ROME*
> Units of the SS (the elite guard of the Nazi state) shoot more than 300 Italians in the Ardeatine Caves, south of Rome, in reaction to a partisan attack on German soldiers. *Ten hostages are shot for every German soldier killed. *The SS blow up the caves after the massacre."
> 
> German Rule in Occupied Europe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How dare you call me of all people a ZioNazi.  I despise both Zionists & Nazi's for their brutal treatment of others.  What kind of people make peace offerings to Palestinians, build a security fence & concede them their own land to keep them in Israel when all the Palestinians want is to be free from Israel?  Not even once have those Zionists tried to help free the Palestinians back to their indigenous homelands.  Shame on them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the weak resort to vile name calling instead of making a good argument or presentation of facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I see you agree with MJ's proposition that 10,000 Palestinians be killed for every occupier killed.  Who would of thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MORE RACIST LIES   cos that was never said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what MJB wrote.
> 
> 
> "If I were prime minister of Israel I would go much further. I would schedule a peace meeting with all known Hamas leaders, all expences paid by Israel at the finest resort in Tel Aviv including the finest of rooms, elegant dining & entertainment. The morning of the meeting I would first thank & welcome each & every one of them for attending. And then I would make an announcement that from now on, each time Hamas kills an Israeli, Israel will retaliate by killing 10,000 Palestinians. What other suggestions do you have to establish peace?"
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians Page 400 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...





 I would go further still and invite the leaders families over for an all expenses paid holiday in Israel, then arrest them for war crimes and throw then into the dirtiest most disgusting prison cells there were and tell the leaders that they will get them back one piece at a time for every attack on an Israeli....................


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How dare you call me of all people a ZioNazi.  I despise both Zionists & Nazi's for their brutal treatment of others.  What kind of people make peace offerings to Palestinians, build a security fence & concede them their own land to keep them in Israel when all the Palestinians want is to be free from Israel?  Not even once have those Zionists tried to help free the Palestinians back to their indigenous homelands.  Shame on them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the weak resort to vile name calling instead of making a good argument or presentation of facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I see you agree with MJ's proposition that 10,000 Palestinians be killed for every occupier killed.  Who would of thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MORE RACIST LIES   cos that was never said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what MJB wrote.
> 
> 
> "If I were prime minister of Israel I would go much further. I would schedule a peace meeting with all known Hamas leaders, all expences paid by Israel at the finest resort in Tel Aviv including the finest of rooms, elegant dining & entertainment. The morning of the meeting I would first thank & welcome each & every one of them for attending. And then I would make an announcement that from now on, each time Hamas kills an Israeli, Israel will retaliate by killing 10,000 Palestinians. What other suggestions do you have to establish peace?"
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians Page 400 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would go further still and invite the leaders families over for an all expenses paid holiday in Israel, then arrest them for war crimes and throw then into the dirtiest most disgusting prison cells there were and tell the leaders that they will get them back one piece at a time for every attack on an Israeli....................
Click to expand...


Of course you would, but wouldn't you have included the leaders among the 10,000 per occupier you and MJ want to kill?


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> Just curious.  Who was it that stooped so low as to kill an entire Summer Olympics team in Berlin?


Well it wasn't the same people who bombed entire families in Gaza.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like Nazi policy in occupied territory with a turbocharger.  Well done you are now an official ZioNazi.
> 
> *"MARCH 24, 1944
> SS MEN MASSACRE ITALIANS NEAR ROME*
> Units of the SS (the elite guard of the Nazi state) shoot more than 300 Italians in the Ardeatine Caves, south of Rome, in reaction to a partisan attack on German soldiers. *Ten hostages are shot for every German soldier killed. *The SS blow up the caves after the massacre."
> 
> German Rule in Occupied Europe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How dare you call me of all people a ZioNazi.  I despise both Zionists & Nazi's for their brutal treatment of others.  What kind of people make peace offerings to Palestinians, build a security fence & concede them their own land to keep them in Israel when all the Palestinians want is to be free from Israel?  Not even once have those Zionists tried to help free the Palestinians back to their indigenous homelands.  Shame on them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the weak resort to vile name calling instead of making a good argument or presentation of facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I see you agree with MJ's proposition that 10,000 Palestinians be killed for every occupier killed.  Who would of thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MORE RACIST LIES   cos that was never said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what MJB wrote.
> 
> 
> "If I were prime minister of Israel I would go much further. I would schedule a peace meeting with all known Hamas leaders, all expences paid by Israel at the finest resort in Tel Aviv including the finest of rooms, elegant dining & entertainment. The morning of the meeting I would first thank & welcome each & every one of them for attending. And then I would make an announcement that from now on, each time Hamas kills an Israeli, Israel will retaliate by killing 10,000 Palestinians. What other suggestions do you have to establish peace?"
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians Page 400 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...


Aw bless you Monte for reposting that for all to see.  Are you saying you don't agree?  Would that not produce a lasting peace between Israel & the Palestinians?  Maybe you are right.  After all it took Jordan around 20,000 dead Palestinians according to the PLO which resuted in establishing a lasting peace from Palestinians.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How dare you call me of all people a ZioNazi.  I despise both Zionists & Nazi's for their brutal treatment of others.  What kind of people make peace offerings to Palestinians, build a security fence & concede them their own land to keep them in Israel when all the Palestinians want is to be free from Israel?  Not even once have those Zionists tried to help free the Palestinians back to their indigenous homelands.  Shame on them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the weak resort to vile name calling instead of making a good argument or presentation of facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I see you agree with MJ's proposition that 10,000 Palestinians be killed for every occupier killed.  Who would of thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MORE RACIST LIES   cos that was never said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what MJB wrote.
> 
> 
> "If I were prime minister of Israel I would go much further. I would schedule a peace meeting with all known Hamas leaders, all expences paid by Israel at the finest resort in Tel Aviv including the finest of rooms, elegant dining & entertainment. The morning of the meeting I would first thank & welcome each & every one of them for attending. And then I would make an announcement that from now on, each time Hamas kills an Israeli, Israel will retaliate by killing 10,000 Palestinians. What other suggestions do you have to establish peace?"
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians Page 400 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aw bless you Monte for reposting that for all to see.  Are you saying you don't agree?  Would that not produce a lasting peace between Israel & the Palestinians?  Maybe you are right.  After all it took Jordan around 20,000 dead Palestinians according to the PLO which resuted in establishing a lasting peace from Palestinians.
Click to expand...


How many dead Christians and Muslims would satisfy your bloodlust, MJB?  Maybe you feel that there are only a few thousand Christians that have to be killed by the Jews, it's alright.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> the weak resort to vile name calling instead of making a good argument or presentation of facts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I see you agree with MJ's proposition that 10,000 Palestinians be killed for every occupier killed.  Who would of thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MORE RACIST LIES   cos that was never said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what MJB wrote.
> 
> 
> "If I were prime minister of Israel I would go much further. I would schedule a peace meeting with all known Hamas leaders, all expences paid by Israel at the finest resort in Tel Aviv including the finest of rooms, elegant dining & entertainment. The morning of the meeting I would first thank & welcome each & every one of them for attending. And then I would make an announcement that from now on, each time Hamas kills an Israeli, Israel will retaliate by killing 10,000 Palestinians. What other suggestions do you have to establish peace?"
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians Page 400 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would go further still and invite the leaders families over for an all expenses paid holiday in Israel, then arrest them for war crimes and throw then into the dirtiest most disgusting prison cells there were and tell the leaders that they will get them back one piece at a time for every attack on an Israeli....................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you would, but wouldn't you have included the leaders among the 10,000 per occupier you and MJ want to kill?
Click to expand...




 I would not have the 10,000 killed just the leaders families piece by piece, giving the arab muslims a taste of their own medicine. You can almost see the hamas and fatah leaders rushing to disarm and destroy all the rockets so they could get their families back cant you. I expect the ends of the little fingers on the right hand from each hostage would be enough to show the terrorists that Israel means business. And not one innocent will be killed in the process.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious.  Who was it that stooped so low as to kill an entire Summer Olympics team in Berlin?
> 
> 
> 
> Well it wasn't the same people who bombed entire families in Gaza.
Click to expand...





 Actually it was as that is what hamas has done many times with their illegal rockets


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> the weak resort to vile name calling instead of making a good argument or presentation of facts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I see you agree with MJ's proposition that 10,000 Palestinians be killed for every occupier killed.  Who would of thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MORE RACIST LIES   cos that was never said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what MJB wrote.
> 
> 
> "If I were prime minister of Israel I would go much further. I would schedule a peace meeting with all known Hamas leaders, all expences paid by Israel at the finest resort in Tel Aviv including the finest of rooms, elegant dining & entertainment. The morning of the meeting I would first thank & welcome each & every one of them for attending. And then I would make an announcement that from now on, each time Hamas kills an Israeli, Israel will retaliate by killing 10,000 Palestinians. What other suggestions do you have to establish peace?"
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians Page 400 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aw bless you Monte for reposting that for all to see.  Are you saying you don't agree?  Would that not produce a lasting peace between Israel & the Palestinians?  Maybe you are right.  After all it took Jordan around 20,000 dead Palestinians according to the PLO which resuted in establishing a lasting peace from Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many dead Christians and Muslims would satisfy your bloodlust, MJB?  Maybe you feel that there are only a few thousand Christians that have to be killed by the Jews, it's alright.
Click to expand...





 How many mass murdered Jews would it take to satisfy yours, we know your fellow muslims have already massacred tens of thousands of Christians since 2010 so that gaza is Christian free.


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How dare you call me of all people a ZioNazi.  I despise both Zionists & Nazi's for their brutal treatment of others.  What kind of people make peace offerings to Palestinians, build a security fence & concede them their own land to keep them in Israel when all the Palestinians want is to be free from Israel?  Not even once have those Zionists tried to help free the Palestinians back to their indigenous homelands.  Shame on them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the weak resort to vile name calling instead of making a good argument or presentation of facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I see you agree with MJ's proposition that 10,000 Palestinians be killed for every occupier killed.  Who would of thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MORE RACIST LIES   cos that was never said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what MJB wrote.
> 
> 
> "If I were prime minister of Israel I would go much further. I would schedule a peace meeting with all known Hamas leaders, all expences paid by Israel at the finest resort in Tel Aviv including the finest of rooms, elegant dining & entertainment. The morning of the meeting I would first thank & welcome each & every one of them for attending. And then I would make an announcement that from now on, each time Hamas kills an Israeli, Israel will retaliate by killing 10,000 Palestinians. What other suggestions do you have to establish peace?"
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians Page 400 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would go further still and invite the leaders families over for an all expenses paid holiday in Israel, then arrest them for war crimes and throw then into the dirtiest most disgusting prison cells there were and tell the leaders that they will get them back one piece at a time for every attack on an Israeli....................
Click to expand...

Well Young Phoney......it is only Israeli leaders that have ARREST WARRANTS IN BELGIUM AND SPAIN,for CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY......and will be arrested if they enter these two countries........I will pay for them to fly there......then they can be sent to Den Hague....to explain there crimes..........If only but they won't go because they are Cowards....They have done the CRIME,now it's time to do the TIME..........H.I.M.theliq


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I see you agree with MJ's proposition that 10,000 Palestinians be killed for every occupier killed.  Who would of thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MORE RACIST LIES   cos that was never said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what MJB wrote.
> 
> 
> "If I were prime minister of Israel I would go much further. I would schedule a peace meeting with all known Hamas leaders, all expences paid by Israel at the finest resort in Tel Aviv including the finest of rooms, elegant dining & entertainment. The morning of the meeting I would first thank & welcome each & every one of them for attending. And then I would make an announcement that from now on, each time Hamas kills an Israeli, Israel will retaliate by killing 10,000 Palestinians. What other suggestions do you have to establish peace?"
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians Page 400 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aw bless you Monte for reposting that for all to see.  Are you saying you don't agree?  Would that not produce a lasting peace between Israel & the Palestinians?  Maybe you are right.  After all it took Jordan around 20,000 dead Palestinians according to the PLO which resuted in establishing a lasting peace from Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many dead Christians and Muslims would satisfy your bloodlust, MJB?  Maybe you feel that there are only a few thousand Christians that have to be killed by the Jews, it's alright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many mass murdered Jews would it take to satisfy yours, we know your fellow muslims have already massacred tens of thousands of Christians since 2010 so that gaza is Christian free.
Click to expand...

TOTAL GARBAGE.....but ISRAEL has murdered over 100,000+ Palestinians in the past 60 odd years.......you are a total IGNORAMUS


----------



## Mindful

Some people are born without a brain.

WTF Nancy Pelosi Claimed That Hamas is a Humanitarian Organization JewTube.tv


----------



## Challenger

Carrying on with all this “book learnin’ stuff” that Phoney and his ilk can’t get their heads around, I found an interesting snippet from a book co-written by none other than David Ben-Gurion, and it pertinent to the OP:

“The fellahin are not descendants of the Arab conquerors, who captured Eretz Israel and Syria in the seventh century. The Arab victors did not destroy the agricultural population they found in the country. They expelled only the alien Byzantine rulers, and did not touch the local population. Nor did the Arabs go in for settlement. Even in their former habitations, the Arabians did not engage in farming. They did not seek new lands on which to settle their peasantry, which hardly existed. Their whole interest in new countries was political, religious and material: to rule, to propagate Islam and to collect taxes.” –“Eretz Israel in the Past and in the Present” by D. Ben- Gurion & Y Ben-Zvi


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> the weak resort to vile name calling instead of making a good argument or presentation of facts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I see you agree with MJ's proposition that 10,000 Palestinians be killed for every occupier killed.  Who would of thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MORE RACIST LIES   cos that was never said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what MJB wrote.
> 
> 
> "If I were prime minister of Israel I would go much further. I would schedule a peace meeting with all known Hamas leaders, all expences paid by Israel at the finest resort in Tel Aviv including the finest of rooms, elegant dining & entertainment. The morning of the meeting I would first thank & welcome each & every one of them for attending. And then I would make an announcement that from now on, each time Hamas kills an Israeli, Israel will retaliate by killing 10,000 Palestinians. What other suggestions do you have to establish peace?"
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians Page 400 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would go further still and invite the leaders families over for an all expenses paid holiday in Israel, then arrest them for war crimes and throw then into the dirtiest most disgusting prison cells there were and tell the leaders that they will get them back one piece at a time for every attack on an Israeli....................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well Young Phoney......it is only Israeli leaders that have ARREST WARRANTS IN BELGIUM AND SPAIN,for CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY......and will be arrested if they enter these two countries........I will pay for them to fly there......then they can be sent to Den Hague....to explain there crimes..........If only but they won't go because they are Cowards....They have done the CRIME,now it's time to do the TIME..........H.I.M.theliq
Click to expand...





 Not that I don't believe you but how about a non partisan and up to date link to prove your claim. I know a Palestinian trouble causer instigated a private summons on a Jewish politician that the British government refused to action. Now the law in the UK has ben changed.  No mention of the Hague in this type of summons, just local courts.

 Is this another of your islamomoron propaganda posts ?


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> MORE RACIST LIES   cos that was never said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what MJB wrote.
> 
> 
> "If I were prime minister of Israel I would go much further. I would schedule a peace meeting with all known Hamas leaders, all expences paid by Israel at the finest resort in Tel Aviv including the finest of rooms, elegant dining & entertainment. The morning of the meeting I would first thank & welcome each & every one of them for attending. And then I would make an announcement that from now on, each time Hamas kills an Israeli, Israel will retaliate by killing 10,000 Palestinians. What other suggestions do you have to establish peace?"
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians Page 400 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aw bless you Monte for reposting that for all to see.  Are you saying you don't agree?  Would that not produce a lasting peace between Israel & the Palestinians?  Maybe you are right.  After all it took Jordan around 20,000 dead Palestinians according to the PLO which resuted in establishing a lasting peace from Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many dead Christians and Muslims would satisfy your bloodlust, MJB?  Maybe you feel that there are only a few thousand Christians that have to be killed by the Jews, it's alright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many mass murdered Jews would it take to satisfy yours, we know your fellow muslims have already massacred tens of thousands of Christians since 2010 so that gaza is Christian free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> TOTAL GARBAGE.....but ISRAEL has murdered over 100,000+ Palestinians in the past 60 odd years.......you are a total IGNORAMUS
Click to expand...





 LINKS ? and they must be non partisan and explicitly state murder ...........................


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Carrying on with all this “book learnin’ stuff” that Phoney and his ilk can’t get their heads around, I found an interesting snippet from a book co-written by none other than David Ben-Gurion, and it pertinent to the OP:
> 
> “The fellahin are not descendants of the Arab conquerors, who captured Eretz Israel and Syria in the seventh century. The Arab victors did not destroy the agricultural population they found in the country. They expelled only the alien Byzantine rulers, and did not touch the local population. Nor did the Arabs go in for settlement. Even in their former habitations, the Arabians did not engage in farming. They did not seek new lands on which to settle their peasantry, which hardly existed. Their whole interest in new countries was political, religious and material: to rule, to propagate Islam and to collect taxes.” –“Eretz Israel in the Past and in the Present” by D. Ben- Gurion & Y Ben-Zvi







Which is what we have said all along, and you have denied.  Now why are you changing your tune ?


----------



## MJB12741

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I see you agree with MJ's proposition that 10,000 Palestinians be killed for every occupier killed.  Who would of thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MORE RACIST LIES   cos that was never said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what MJB wrote.
> 
> 
> "If I were prime minister of Israel I would go much further. I would schedule a peace meeting with all known Hamas leaders, all expences paid by Israel at the finest resort in Tel Aviv including the finest of rooms, elegant dining & entertainment. The morning of the meeting I would first thank & welcome each & every one of them for attending. And then I would make an announcement that from now on, each time Hamas kills an Israeli, Israel will retaliate by killing 10,000 Palestinians. What other suggestions do you have to establish peace?"
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians Page 400 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would go further still and invite the leaders families over for an all expenses paid holiday in Israel, then arrest them for war crimes and throw then into the dirtiest most disgusting prison cells there were and tell the leaders that they will get them back one piece at a time for every attack on an Israeli....................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you would, but wouldn't you have included the leaders among the 10,000 per occupier you and MJ want to kill?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would not have the 10,000 killed just the leaders families piece by piece, giving the arab muslims a taste of their own medicine. You can almost see the hamas and fatah leaders rushing to disarm and destroy all the rockets so they could get their families back cant you. I expect the ends of the little fingers on the right hand from each hostage would be enough to show the terrorists that Israel means business. And not one innocent will be killed in the process.
Click to expand...



For every terrorist leader you kill there are many eager to take their place.  Only Jordan's Black September approach ever resulted in a lasting peace from Palestinians.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!


----------



## aris2chat

Challenger said:


> Carrying on with all this “book learnin’ stuff” that Phoney and his ilk can’t get their heads around, I found an interesting snippet from a book co-written by none other than David Ben-Gurion, and it pertinent to the OP:
> 
> “The fellahin are not descendants of the Arab conquerors, who captured Eretz Israel and Syria in the seventh century. The Arab victors did not destroy the agricultural population they found in the country. They expelled only the alien Byzantine rulers, and did not touch the local population. Nor did the Arabs go in for settlement. Even in their former habitations, the Arabians did not engage in farming. They did not seek new lands on which to settle their peasantry, which hardly existed. Their whole interest in new countries was political, religious and material: to rule, to propagate Islam and to collect taxes.” –“Eretz Israel in the Past and in the Present” by D. Ben- Gurion & Y Ben-Zvi



_Eretz Israel in the Past and in the Present, *Jerusalem*_

Considering the book is in hebrew, are you sure the translation is a correct quote?  It is referring to the 7th C.  A lot changed between then and the end of the ottoman empire or even through the mandate.

Context is important.  Dropping a quote into the middle of a discussion out of context, it change the argument and the facts 1200 yrs later.


----------



## montelatici

aris2chat said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carrying on with all this “book learnin’ stuff” that Phoney and his ilk can’t get their heads around, I found an interesting snippet from a book co-written by none other than David Ben-Gurion, and it pertinent to the OP:
> 
> “The fellahin are not descendants of the Arab conquerors, who captured Eretz Israel and Syria in the seventh century. The Arab victors did not destroy the agricultural population they found in the country. They expelled only the alien Byzantine rulers, and did not touch the local population. Nor did the Arabs go in for settlement. Even in their former habitations, the Arabians did not engage in farming. They did not seek new lands on which to settle their peasantry, which hardly existed. Their whole interest in new countries was political, religious and material: to rule, to propagate Islam and to collect taxes.” –“Eretz Israel in the Past and in the Present” by D. Ben- Gurion & Y Ben-Zvi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Eretz Israel in the Past and in the Present, *Jerusalem*_
> 
> Considering the book is in hebrew, are you sure the translation is a correct quote?  It is referring to the 7th C.  A lot changed between then and the end of the ottoman empire or even through the mandate.
> 
> Context is important.  Dropping a quote into the middle of a discussion out of context, it change the argument and the facts 1200 yrs later.
Click to expand...


If you understood English you would have understood that the "The fellahin are not descendants of the Arab conquerors, who captured Eretz Israel and Syria in the seventh century."  therefore, since he is stating that the "fellahin" are not descendants of the Arab conquerors of the 7th century he cannot be discussing the 7th century. 

Ben Gurion is stating what every historian knows, the people of Palestine that the Europeans colonized, are the same people that have always lived their.. Converting from Christianity to Islam after the Arabs arrived does not change the people.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carrying on with all this “book learnin’ stuff” that Phoney and his ilk can’t get their heads around, I found an interesting snippet from a book co-written by none other than David Ben-Gurion, and it pertinent to the OP:
> 
> “The fellahin are not descendants of the Arab conquerors, who captured Eretz Israel and Syria in the seventh century. The Arab victors did not destroy the agricultural population they found in the country. They expelled only the alien Byzantine rulers, and did not touch the local population. Nor did the Arabs go in for settlement. Even in their former habitations, the Arabians did not engage in farming. They did not seek new lands on which to settle their peasantry, which hardly existed. Their whole interest in new countries was political, religious and material: to rule, to propagate Islam and to collect taxes.” –“Eretz Israel in the Past and in the Present” by D. Ben- Gurion & Y Ben-Zvi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Eretz Israel in the Past and in the Present, *Jerusalem*_
> 
> Considering the book is in hebrew, are you sure the translation is a correct quote?  It is referring to the 7th C.  A lot changed between then and the end of the ottoman empire or even through the mandate.
> 
> Context is important.  Dropping a quote into the middle of a discussion out of context, it change the argument and the facts 1200 yrs later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you understood English you would have understood that the "The fellahin are not descendants of the Arab conquerors, who captured Eretz Israel and Syria in the seventh century."  therefore, since he is stating that the "fellahin" are not descendants of the Arab conquerors of the 7th century he cannot be discussing the 7th century.
> 
> Ben Gurion is stating what every historian knows, the people of Palestine that the Europeans colonized, are the same people that have always lived their.. Converting from Christianity to Islam after the Arabs arrived does not change the people.
Click to expand...





 And yet you refuse to provide a non partisan link saying just this, why is this Abdul.


----------



## montelatici

Daniyel said:


> Don't be mistaken its known to all, some just deliberately deny it because they fear the truth, can't admit they were wrong or just a racists trying to justify their primitive emotional perspectives.
> Palestinians are just Arabs, particularly hostile and stupid.



It is the Israelis that fear the truth.  The whole Israeli propaganda machine is designed to counter the propagation of the facts.  Calling Palestinians "just Arabs. particularly hostile and stupid", doesn't change the fact that you people are a colonial project which is well past its sale date.  Any people would be hostile after being treated as you Jews have treated the Palestinians.  Evicting them from their land, holding millions in outdoor prisons  and murdering thousands of their women and children every 2 years or so.

As far as "stupid" well, you are a racist p.o.s. what else can said about you.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Daniyel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be mistaken its known to all, some just deliberately deny it because they fear the truth, can't admit they were wrong or just a racists trying to justify their primitive emotional perspectives.
> Palestinians are just Arabs, particularly hostile and stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Israelis that fear the truth.  The whole Israeli propaganda machine is designed to counter the propagation of the facts.  Calling Palestinians "just Arabs. particularly hostile and stupid", doesn't change the fact that you people are a colonial project which is well past its sale date.  Any people would be hostile after being treated as you Jews have treated the Palestinians.  Evicting them from their land, holding millions in outdoor prisons  and murdering thousands of their women and children every 2 years or so.
> 
> As far as "stupid" well, you are a racist p.o.s. what else can said about you.
Click to expand...


OMG


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Daniyel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be mistaken its known to all, some just deliberately deny it because they fear the truth, can't admit they were wrong or just a racists trying to justify their primitive emotional perspectives.
> Palestinians are just Arabs, particularly hostile and stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Israelis that fear the truth.  The whole Israeli propaganda machine is designed to counter the propagation of the facts.  Calling Palestinians "just Arabs. particularly hostile and stupid", doesn't change the fact that you people are a colonial project which is well past its sale date.  Any people would be hostile after being treated as you Jews have treated the Palestinians.  Evicting them from their land, holding millions in outdoor prisons  and murdering thousands of their women and children every 2 years or so.
> 
> As far as "stupid" well, you are a racist p.o.s. what else can said about you.
Click to expand...







The truth is Israel is here to stay and the arab musilims are too stupid to realise this. Yes the arab muslims are stupid and extremely hostile to the point of getting themselves killed in their thousands.  Still waiting for your link to the evidence that Israel was a colonial project, because it took a hell of a lot of years to get it going and of the ground. You have just described exactly what the arab muslims have done to the Jews and Christians over the last 1400 years. Why as recently as 1949 the arab muslim Palestinians evicted by force Jews from Jerusalem and the west bank stealing their homes, property and valuables. So where is the proof of these murders then Abdul, show the evidence that would stand up in court that the Israelis murder 1000's of women and children every 2 years. That means the deaths were all pre meditated and the individuals picked out beforehand by the Israelis. Killing terrorists and militia is not murder by the way it is one of the less savoury facts of war.

 NOW STOP SPREADING YOUR RACIST LIES


----------



## Phoenall

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniyel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be mistaken its known to all, some just deliberately deny it because they fear the truth, can't admit they were wrong or just a racists trying to justify their primitive emotional perspectives.
> Palestinians are just Arabs, particularly hostile and stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Israelis that fear the truth.  The whole Israeli propaganda machine is designed to counter the propagation of the facts.  Calling Palestinians "just Arabs. particularly hostile and stupid", doesn't change the fact that you people are a colonial project which is well past its sale date.  Any people would be hostile after being treated as you Jews have treated the Palestinians.  Evicting them from their land, holding millions in outdoor prisons  and murdering thousands of their women and children every 2 years or so.
> 
> As far as "stupid" well, you are a racist p.o.s. what else can said about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG
Click to expand...




 He's an imbecile and it shows in his every post


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> Daniyel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be mistaken its known to all, some just deliberately deny it because they fear the truth, can't admit they were wrong or just a racists trying to justify their primitive emotional perspectives.
> Palestinians are just Arabs, particularly hostile and stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Israelis that fear the truth.  The whole Israeli propaganda machine is designed to counter the propagation of the facts.  Calling Palestinians "just Arabs. particularly hostile and stupid", doesn't change the fact that you people are a colonial project which is well past its sale date.  Any people would be hostile after being treated as you Jews have treated the Palestinians.  Evicting them from their land, holding millions in outdoor prisons  and murdering thousands of their women and children every 2 years or so.
> 
> As far as "stupid" well, you are a racist p.o.s. what else can said about you.
Click to expand...

Actually he was spot on. Prop Palestinians hate the truth and are terrified by it. That is evident in their posts here. 

So many times when the truth is presented to them, they will try and make it seem untrue, or they will change the subject. The reason for this being that the truth is not part of the pro Palestinian agenda. 

"doesn't change the fact that you people are a colonial project which is well past its sale date"

The term 'colonial project' is part of your propaganda campaign Monti.


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carrying on with all this “book learnin’ stuff” that Phoney and his ilk can’t get their heads around, I found an interesting snippet from a book co-written by none other than David Ben-Gurion, and it pertinent to the OP:
> 
> “The fellahin are not descendants of the Arab conquerors, who captured Eretz Israel and Syria in the seventh century. The Arab victors did not destroy the agricultural population they found in the country. They expelled only the alien Byzantine rulers, and did not touch the local population. Nor did the Arabs go in for settlement. Even in their former habitations, the Arabians did not engage in farming. They did not seek new lands on which to settle their peasantry, which hardly existed. Their whole interest in new countries was political, religious and material: to rule, to propagate Islam and to collect taxes.” –“Eretz Israel in the Past and in the Present” by D. Ben- Gurion & Y Ben-Zvi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Eretz Israel in the Past and in the Present, *Jerusalem*_
> 
> Considering the book is in hebrew, are you sure the translation is a correct quote?  It is referring to the 7th C.  A lot changed between then and the end of the ottoman empire or even through the mandate.
> 
> Context is important.  Dropping a quote into the middle of a discussion out of context, it change the argument and the facts 1200 yrs later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you understood English you would have understood that the "The fellahin are not descendants of the Arab conquerors, who captured Eretz Israel and Syria in the seventh century."  therefore, since he is stating that the "fellahin" are not descendants of the Arab conquerors of the 7th century he cannot be discussing the 7th century.
> 
> Ben Gurion is stating what every historian knows, the people of Palestine that the Europeans colonized, are the same people that have always lived their.. Converting from Christianity to Islam after the Arabs arrived does not change the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you refuse to provide a non partisan link saying just this, why is this Abdul.
Click to expand...

Monti,he is always asking for links I have already given.......he knows the truth but by somehow asking for links will change the truth and facts......The lazy SOD can find the links but he's too ashamed or too thick.......you seen that post of his where he STATES,NAZIS WERE COMMUNISTS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!fcuk how can you deal with (I'm not going to call him a lair because I really believe he believes this nonsense) the man..........it just undermines the rest of this commentary.......Monti keep up your Excellent incisive posts..Respect Steve


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I see you agree with MJ's proposition that 10,000 Palestinians be killed for every occupier killed.  Who would of thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MORE RACIST LIES   cos that was never said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what MJB wrote.
> 
> 
> "If I were prime minister of Israel I would go much further. I would schedule a peace meeting with all known Hamas leaders, all expences paid by Israel at the finest resort in Tel Aviv including the finest of rooms, elegant dining & entertainment. The morning of the meeting I would first thank & welcome each & every one of them for attending. And then I would make an announcement that from now on, each time Hamas kills an Israeli, Israel will retaliate by killing 10,000 Palestinians. What other suggestions do you have to establish peace?"
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians Page 400 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would go further still and invite the leaders families over for an all expenses paid holiday in Israel, then arrest them for war crimes and throw then into the dirtiest most disgusting prison cells there were and tell the leaders that they will get them back one piece at a time for every attack on an Israeli....................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well Young Phoney......it is only Israeli leaders that have ARREST WARRANTS IN BELGIUM AND SPAIN,for CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY......and will be arrested if they enter these two countries........I will pay for them to fly there......then they can be sent to Den Hague....to explain there crimes..........If only but they won't go because they are Cowards....They have done the CRIME,now it's time to do the TIME..........H.I.M.theliq
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I don't believe you but how about a non partisan and up to date link to prove your claim. I know a Palestinian trouble causer instigated a private summons on a Jewish politician that the British government refused to action. Now the law in the UK has ben changed.  No mention of the Hague in this type of summons, just local courts.
> 
> Is this another of your islamomoron propaganda posts ?
Click to expand...

Supporting a Palestine and an Israel.......in no way makes me any sort of Moron,neither ISLAM or anything else.....you Cretin


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carrying on with all this “book learnin’ stuff” that Phoney and his ilk can’t get their heads around, I found an interesting snippet from a book co-written by none other than David Ben-Gurion, and it pertinent to the OP:
> 
> “The fellahin are not descendants of the Arab conquerors, who captured Eretz Israel and Syria in the seventh century. The Arab victors did not destroy the agricultural population they found in the country. They expelled only the alien Byzantine rulers, and did not touch the local population. Nor did the Arabs go in for settlement. Even in their former habitations, the Arabians did not engage in farming. They did not seek new lands on which to settle their peasantry, which hardly existed. Their whole interest in new countries was political, religious and material: to rule, to propagate Islam and to collect taxes.” –“Eretz Israel in the Past and in the Present” by D. Ben- Gurion & Y Ben-Zvi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is what we have said all along, and you have denied.  Now why are you changing your tune ?
Click to expand...


I'm not changing anything, I've always asserted that the rural native population has always been there, they just changed their religion, depending who was in charge. The irony is that European converts to Judaism drove out the original Jewish population who had converted to Islam, in order to create a "state" that probably never existed, except in the minds of a few monotheist fanatics.


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniyel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be mistaken its known to all, some just deliberately deny it because they fear the truth, can't admit they were wrong or just a racists trying to justify their primitive emotional perspectives.
> Palestinians are just Arabs, particularly hostile and stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Israelis that fear the truth.  The whole Israeli propaganda machine is designed to counter the propagation of the facts.  Calling Palestinians "just Arabs. particularly hostile and stupid", doesn't change the fact that you people are a colonial project which is well past its sale date.  Any people would be hostile after being treated as you Jews have treated the Palestinians.  Evicting them from their land, holding millions in outdoor prisons  and murdering thousands of their women and children every 2 years or so.
> 
> As far as "stupid" well, you are a racist p.o.s. what else can said about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's an imbecile and it shows in his every post
Click to expand...


No, Phoney, that's YOU! Are you getting confused again?


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carrying on with all this “book learnin’ stuff” that Phoney and his ilk can’t get their heads around, I found an interesting snippet from a book co-written by none other than David Ben-Gurion, and it pertinent to the OP:
> 
> “The fellahin are not descendants of the Arab conquerors, who captured Eretz Israel and Syria in the seventh century. The Arab victors did not destroy the agricultural population they found in the country. They expelled only the alien Byzantine rulers, and did not touch the local population. Nor did the Arabs go in for settlement. Even in their former habitations, the Arabians did not engage in farming. They did not seek new lands on which to settle their peasantry, which hardly existed. Their whole interest in new countries was political, religious and material: to rule, to propagate Islam and to collect taxes.” –“Eretz Israel in the Past and in the Present” by D. Ben- Gurion & Y Ben-Zvi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is what we have said all along, and you have denied.  Now why are you changing your tune ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not changing anything, I've always asserted that the rural native population has always been there, they just changed their religion, depending who was in charge. The irony is that European converts to Judaism drove out the original Jewish population who had converted to Islam, in order to create a "state" that probably never existed, except in the minds of a few monotheist fanatics.
Click to expand...





 The original rural native population were very few in number, some changed their religion the majority didn't. The Jews were represented in the native population and were oppressed and abused by the arab muslims. Then the Ottomans tried to seed the land with arab muslims to increase the population but the arab muslims just kept going back home. Then the Ottomans invited European Jews to migrate and work the land and this led to the introduction of European farming practise that increased the crop yields. The arab muslims who had originally been sent to Palestine then returned and worked the land in the European way, and had it all planned to take the land of the Jews once they had made enough of it fertile. WW1 came and spoilt all their plans so they tried another tack and flooded the area with illegal immigrants to force the issues by claiming they were indigenous and had been there all the time.

 Now were is your substantive evidence that the European Jews were all converts, bearing in mind that they have been DNA tested and shown the same genetics as the indigenous Jews.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniyel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be mistaken its known to all, some just deliberately deny it because they fear the truth, can't admit they were wrong or just a racists trying to justify their primitive emotional perspectives.
> Palestinians are just Arabs, particularly hostile and stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Israelis that fear the truth.  The whole Israeli propaganda machine is designed to counter the propagation of the facts.  Calling Palestinians "just Arabs. particularly hostile and stupid", doesn't change the fact that you people are a colonial project which is well past its sale date.  Any people would be hostile after being treated as you Jews have treated the Palestinians.  Evicting them from their land, holding millions in outdoor prisons  and murdering thousands of their women and children every 2 years or so.
> 
> As far as "stupid" well, you are a racist p.o.s. what else can said about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's an imbecile and it shows in his every post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Phoney, that's YOU! Are you getting confused again?
Click to expand...





 Never confused, but it seems that you are. When can we expect you to flounce of and go and hide under your bed.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

theliq said:


> Supporting a Palestine and an Israel.......in no way makes me any sort of Moron,neither ISLAM or anything else.....you Cretin



What makes you a moron is the fact that your I.Q. lies somewhere between 51 and 70. Moron psychology - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Interestingly enough, that is the precise range of intelligence targeted by Arab and Islamic propagandists who craft their sophistry to create useful idiots in the west who hate Jews just as much as they.


----------



## Mindful

The international community seems to have forgotten that Palestinians live not only in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but also in a number of Arab countries, especially Syria, Jordan and Lebanon.

Western journalists covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict regularly focus on the "plight" of Palestinians who are affected by Israeli security policies, while ignoring what is happening to Palestinians in neighboring Arab countries.

These journalists, for example, often turn a blind eye to the daily killings of Palestinians in Syria and the fact that Palestinians living in Lebanon and other Arab countries are subjected to Apartheid and discriminatory laws.

A Palestinian who is shot dead after stabbing an Israeli soldier in Hebron receives more coverage in the international media than a Palestinian woman who dies of starvation in Syria.

.The Palestinians No One Talks About


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carrying on with all this “book learnin’ stuff” that Phoney and his ilk can’t get their heads around, I found an interesting snippet from a book co-written by none other than David Ben-Gurion, and it pertinent to the OP:
> 
> “The fellahin are not descendants of the Arab conquerors, who captured Eretz Israel and Syria in the seventh century. The Arab victors did not destroy the agricultural population they found in the country. They expelled only the alien Byzantine rulers, and did not touch the local population. Nor did the Arabs go in for settlement. Even in their former habitations, the Arabians did not engage in farming. They did not seek new lands on which to settle their peasantry, which hardly existed. Their whole interest in new countries was political, religious and material: to rule, to propagate Islam and to collect taxes.” –“Eretz Israel in the Past and in the Present” by D. Ben- Gurion & Y Ben-Zvi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is what we have said all along, and you have denied.  Now why are you changing your tune ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not changing anything, I've always asserted that the rural native population has always been there, they just changed their religion, depending who was in charge. The irony is that European converts to Judaism drove out the original Jewish population who had converted to Islam, in order to create a "state" that probably never existed, except in the minds of a few monotheist fanatics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The original rural native population were very few in number, some changed their religion the majority didn't. The Jews were represented in the native population and were oppressed and abused by the arab muslims. Then the Ottomans tried to seed the land with arab muslims to increase the population but the arab muslims just kept going back home. Then the Ottomans invited European Jews to migrate and work the land and this led to the introduction of European farming practise that increased the crop yields. The arab muslims who had originally been sent to Palestine then returned and worked the land in the European way, and had it all planned to take the land of the Jews once they had made enough of it fertile. WW1 came and spoilt all their plans so they tried another tack and flooded the area with illegal immigrants to force the issues by claiming they were indigenous and had been there all the time.
> 
> Now were is your substantive evidence that the European Jews were all converts, bearing in mind that they have been DNA tested and shown the same genetics as the indigenous Jews.
Click to expand...


Where do you get this drivel from?


----------



## MJB12741

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniyel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be mistaken its known to all, some just deliberately deny it because they fear the truth, can't admit they were wrong or just a racists trying to justify their primitive emotional perspectives.
> Palestinians are just Arabs, particularly hostile and stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Israelis that fear the truth.  The whole Israeli propaganda machine is designed to counter the propagation of the facts.  Calling Palestinians "just Arabs. particularly hostile and stupid", doesn't change the fact that you people are a colonial project which is well past its sale date.  Any people would be hostile after being treated as you Jews have treated the Palestinians.  Evicting them from their land, holding millions in outdoor prisons  and murdering thousands of their women and children every 2 years or so.
> 
> As far as "stupid" well, you are a racist p.o.s. what else can said about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is Israel is here to stay and the arab musilims are too stupid to realise this. Yes the arab muslims are stupid and extremely hostile to the point of getting themselves killed in their thousands.  Still waiting for your link to the evidence that Israel was a colonial project, because it took a hell of a lot of years to get it going and of the ground. You have just described exactly what the arab muslims have done to the Jews and Christians over the last 1400 years. Why as recently as 1949 the arab muslim Palestinians evicted by force Jews from Jerusalem and the west bank stealing their homes, property and valuables. So where is the proof of these murders then Abdul, show the evidence that would stand up in court that the Israelis murder 1000's of women and children every 2 years. That means the deaths were all pre meditated and the individuals picked out beforehand by the Israelis. Killing terrorists and militia is not murder by the way it is one of the less savoury facts of war.
> 
> NOW STOP SPREADING YOUR RACIST LIES
Click to expand...


Funny how the Palestinians kill some Israeli's & then after Israel retaliates the Pali's & their supporters bitch about how many more dead Palestinians there are than Israeli's.  It's called Palestinian mentality.


----------



## Challenger

MJB12741 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniyel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be mistaken its known to all, some just deliberately deny it because they fear the truth, can't admit they were wrong or just a racists trying to justify their primitive emotional perspectives.
> Palestinians are just Arabs, particularly hostile and stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Israelis that fear the truth.  The whole Israeli propaganda machine is designed to counter the propagation of the facts.  Calling Palestinians "just Arabs. particularly hostile and stupid", doesn't change the fact that you people are a colonial project which is well past its sale date.  Any people would be hostile after being treated as you Jews have treated the Palestinians.  Evicting them from their land, holding millions in outdoor prisons  and murdering thousands of their women and children every 2 years or so.
> 
> As far as "stupid" well, you are a racist p.o.s. what else can said about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is Israel is here to stay and the arab musilims are too stupid to realise this. Yes the arab muslims are stupid and extremely hostile to the point of getting themselves killed in their thousands.  Still waiting for your link to the evidence that Israel was a colonial project, because it took a hell of a lot of years to get it going and of the ground. You have just described exactly what the arab muslims have done to the Jews and Christians over the last 1400 years. Why as recently as 1949 the arab muslim Palestinians evicted by force Jews from Jerusalem and the west bank stealing their homes, property and valuables. So where is the proof of these murders then Abdul, show the evidence that would stand up in court that the Israelis murder 1000's of women and children every 2 years. That means the deaths were all pre meditated and the individuals picked out beforehand by the Israelis. Killing terrorists and militia is not murder by the way it is one of the less savoury facts of war.
> 
> NOW STOP SPREADING YOUR RACIST LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how the Palestinians kill some Israeli's & then after Israel retaliates the Pali's & their supporters bitch about how many more dead Palestinians there are than Israeli's.  It's called Palestinian mentality.
Click to expand...


No, it's called keeping a sense of proportion, of reason, of justice. Someone tries to kill you, fine. Kill them, but not their familly, their neighours, their friends and any innocent bystanders within range. Killing those who try to kill you is retaliation, killing anyone else is bestiality, otherwise called Zionist mentality.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Mindful said:


> The international community seems to have forgotten that Palestinians live not only in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but also in a number of Arab countries, especially Syria, Jordan and Lebanon.
> 
> Western journalists covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict regularly focus on the "plight" of Palestinians who are affected by Israeli security policies, while ignoring what is happening to Palestinians in neighboring Arab countries.
> 
> These journalists, for example, often turn a blind eye to the daily killings of Palestinians in Syria and the fact that Palestinians living in Lebanon and other Arab countries are subjected to Apartheid and discriminatory laws.
> 
> A Palestinian who is shot dead after stabbing an Israeli soldier in Hebron receives more coverage in the international media than a Palestinian woman who dies of starvation in Syria.
> 
> .The Palestinians No One Talks About


Palestinians who are affected by Israeli security policies, while ignoring what is happening to Palestinians in neighboring Arab countries.​
They too suffer Israeli policies.
It is Israel that will not allow them to go back home.


----------



## toastman

Challenger said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniyel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be mistaken its known to all, some just deliberately deny it because they fear the truth, can't admit they were wrong or just a racists trying to justify their primitive emotional perspectives.
> Palestinians are just Arabs, particularly hostile and stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Israelis that fear the truth.  The whole Israeli propaganda machine is designed to counter the propagation of the facts.  Calling Palestinians "just Arabs. particularly hostile and stupid", doesn't change the fact that you people are a colonial project which is well past its sale date.  Any people would be hostile after being treated as you Jews have treated the Palestinians.  Evicting them from their land, holding millions in outdoor prisons  and murdering thousands of their women and children every 2 years or so.
> 
> As far as "stupid" well, you are a racist p.o.s. what else can said about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is Israel is here to stay and the arab musilims are too stupid to realise this. Yes the arab muslims are stupid and extremely hostile to the point of getting themselves killed in their thousands.  Still waiting for your link to the evidence that Israel was a colonial project, because it took a hell of a lot of years to get it going and of the ground. You have just described exactly what the arab muslims have done to the Jews and Christians over the last 1400 years. Why as recently as 1949 the arab muslim Palestinians evicted by force Jews from Jerusalem and the west bank stealing their homes, property and valuables. So where is the proof of these murders then Abdul, show the evidence that would stand up in court that the Israelis murder 1000's of women and children every 2 years. That means the deaths were all pre meditated and the individuals picked out beforehand by the Israelis. Killing terrorists and militia is not murder by the way it is one of the less savoury facts of war.
> 
> NOW STOP SPREADING YOUR RACIST LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how the Palestinians kill some Israeli's & then after Israel retaliates the Pali's & their supporters bitch about how many more dead Palestinians there are than Israeli's.  It's called Palestinian mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's called keeping a sense of proportion, of reason, of justice. Someone tries to kill you, fine. Kill them, but not their familly, their neighours, their friends and any innocent bystanders within range. Killing those who try to kill you is retaliation, killing anyone else is bestiality, otherwise called Zionist mentality.
Click to expand...


Israel has no reason to intentionally kill innocent civilians. To think that Soldiers and pilots are sent on missions to kill non combatants is absurd. Gaza is a tiny place which is very dense. High casualties are expected. 

I see the same repetitive scenario. Hamas launches rockets, Israel does no thing. Hamas launches rockets, Israel bombs one Hamas facility. Hamas increases it's rocket launching, Israel bombs another few Hamas facilities. Repeat the latter several more time. Hamas continues its rockets launching even after being warned by Israel that the will commit to a full scale assault of they don't stop. 
Hamas CONTINUES launching rockets, Israel partakes in a full blown assault on Hamas and other militants, Palestinians and their supporters start whining to the world about Israeli 'aggression' claiming they started the war and all people can talk about is how many more Palestinian were killed than Israelis.
Now, I don't have a solution to the conflict, but I do have a solution that would save many many Palestinian lives; STOP LAUNCHING ROCKETS AT ISRAEL 

FFS it's really simple !


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The international community seems to have forgotten that Palestinians live not only in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but also in a number of Arab countries, especially Syria, Jordan and Lebanon.
> 
> Western journalists covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict regularly focus on the "plight" of Palestinians who are affected by Israeli security policies, while ignoring what is happening to Palestinians in neighboring Arab countries.
> 
> These journalists, for example, often turn a blind eye to the daily killings of Palestinians in Syria and the fact that Palestinians living in Lebanon and other Arab countries are subjected to Apartheid and discriminatory laws.
> 
> A Palestinian who is shot dead after stabbing an Israeli soldier in Hebron receives more coverage in the international media than a Palestinian woman who dies of starvation in Syria.
> 
> .The Palestinians No One Talks About
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians who are affected by Israeli security policies, while ignoring what is happening to Palestinians in neighboring Arab countries.​
> They too suffer Israeli policies.
> It is Israel that will not allow them to go back home.
Click to expand...


Why won't Israel allow the Palestinians to go back home?  Why must the Palestinians suffer under Israel's brutal treatment of peace offerings, a security fence & land concessions instead of allowing the Palis to return to their indigenous homelands where they will again be treated with the Arab country love, justice & respect they were so well accustomed to & so well deserve?  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!


----------



## montelatici

The Palestinian's home was Palestine.  The Europeans are now living there.  Send the Europeans back to Europe.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carrying on with all this “book learnin’ stuff” that Phoney and his ilk can’t get their heads around, I found an interesting snippet from a book co-written by none other than David Ben-Gurion, and it pertinent to the OP:
> 
> “The fellahin are not descendants of the Arab conquerors, who captured Eretz Israel and Syria in the seventh century. The Arab victors did not destroy the agricultural population they found in the country. They expelled only the alien Byzantine rulers, and did not touch the local population. Nor did the Arabs go in for settlement. Even in their former habitations, the Arabians did not engage in farming. They did not seek new lands on which to settle their peasantry, which hardly existed. Their whole interest in new countries was political, religious and material: to rule, to propagate Islam and to collect taxes.” –“Eretz Israel in the Past and in the Present” by D. Ben- Gurion & Y Ben-Zvi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is what we have said all along, and you have denied.  Now why are you changing your tune ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not changing anything, I've always asserted that the rural native population has always been there, they just changed their religion, depending who was in charge. The irony is that European converts to Judaism drove out the original Jewish population who had converted to Islam, in order to create a "state" that probably never existed, except in the minds of a few monotheist fanatics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The original rural native population were very few in number, some changed their religion the majority didn't. The Jews were represented in the native population and were oppressed and abused by the arab muslims. Then the Ottomans tried to seed the land with arab muslims to increase the population but the arab muslims just kept going back home. Then the Ottomans invited European Jews to migrate and work the land and this led to the introduction of European farming practise that increased the crop yields. The arab muslims who had originally been sent to Palestine then returned and worked the land in the European way, and had it all planned to take the land of the Jews once they had made enough of it fertile. WW1 came and spoilt all their plans so they tried another tack and flooded the area with illegal immigrants to force the issues by claiming they were indigenous and had been there all the time.
> 
> Now were is your substantive evidence that the European Jews were all converts, bearing in mind that they have been DNA tested and shown the same genetics as the indigenous Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you get this drivel from?
Click to expand...





 Ottoman records and travellers tales that show the truth of Palestine. But you ignore many links because they don't support the islamonazi propaganda version of events. The Ottomans tried to seed Palestine with arab muslim farmers and each time the arab muslims moved back to their old homes. It is all there if you bother to dig deep enough in the old archives.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniyel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be mistaken its known to all, some just deliberately deny it because they fear the truth, can't admit they were wrong or just a racists trying to justify their primitive emotional perspectives.
> Palestinians are just Arabs, particularly hostile and stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Israelis that fear the truth.  The whole Israeli propaganda machine is designed to counter the propagation of the facts.  Calling Palestinians "just Arabs. particularly hostile and stupid", doesn't change the fact that you people are a colonial project which is well past its sale date.  Any people would be hostile after being treated as you Jews have treated the Palestinians.  Evicting them from their land, holding millions in outdoor prisons  and murdering thousands of their women and children every 2 years or so.
> 
> As far as "stupid" well, you are a racist p.o.s. what else can said about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is Israel is here to stay and the arab musilims are too stupid to realise this. Yes the arab muslims are stupid and extremely hostile to the point of getting themselves killed in their thousands.  Still waiting for your link to the evidence that Israel was a colonial project, because it took a hell of a lot of years to get it going and of the ground. You have just described exactly what the arab muslims have done to the Jews and Christians over the last 1400 years. Why as recently as 1949 the arab muslim Palestinians evicted by force Jews from Jerusalem and the west bank stealing their homes, property and valuables. So where is the proof of these murders then Abdul, show the evidence that would stand up in court that the Israelis murder 1000's of women and children every 2 years. That means the deaths were all pre meditated and the individuals picked out beforehand by the Israelis. Killing terrorists and militia is not murder by the way it is one of the less savoury facts of war.
> 
> NOW STOP SPREADING YOUR RACIST LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how the Palestinians kill some Israeli's & then after Israel retaliates the Pali's & their supporters bitch about how many more dead Palestinians there are than Israeli's.  It's called Palestinian mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's called keeping a sense of proportion, of reason, of justice. Someone tries to kill you, fine. Kill them, but not their familly, their neighours, their friends and any innocent bystanders within range. Killing those who try to kill you is retaliation, killing anyone else is bestiality, otherwise called Zionist mentality.
Click to expand...





Even if their family, friends and neighbours are also trying to kill you and your friends, family and neighbours. When you understand and realise this then you will realise that the arab muslims are out to kill everyone. You need to immerse yourself in Islamic culture to understand how they think, just as the allies immersed themselves in Japanese culture in the 1940's to understand what to us were barbaric practises. You never see one muslim protesting you always see a group because there is safety in numbers, and the leaders can always run away.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The international community seems to have forgotten that Palestinians live not only in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but also in a number of Arab countries, especially Syria, Jordan and Lebanon.
> 
> Western journalists covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict regularly focus on the "plight" of Palestinians who are affected by Israeli security policies, while ignoring what is happening to Palestinians in neighboring Arab countries.
> 
> These journalists, for example, often turn a blind eye to the daily killings of Palestinians in Syria and the fact that Palestinians living in Lebanon and other Arab countries are subjected to Apartheid and discriminatory laws.
> 
> A Palestinian who is shot dead after stabbing an Israeli soldier in Hebron receives more coverage in the international media than a Palestinian woman who dies of starvation in Syria.
> 
> .The Palestinians No One Talks About
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians who are affected by Israeli security policies, while ignoring what is happening to Palestinians in neighboring Arab countries.​
> They too suffer Israeli policies.
> It is Israel that will not allow them to go back home.
Click to expand...





 So hamas has nothing to do with it then ?   Many leave to escape the two brutal regimes active in Palestine hamas and fatah and vow never to return until they are wiped out


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> The Palestinian's home was Palestine.  The Europeans are now living there.  Send the Europeans back to Europe.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!





 Then send the Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians and Iranians back home as well. This would mean Israel would have about 6 million inhabitants and Palestine about 500,000 inhabitants. Are you serious about this Abdul, will you force the inhabitants to take DNA tests to determine their original homeland. What will you do when the Jews DNA shows they are related very closely to Jews from the surrounding areas. What islamomoron propaganda will you pull in that case, claim the Jews have transplanted DNA into their bodies. What about when the Palestinians are tested and found to be from other nations and recent arrivals, claim that because they are arab then they should stay.


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian's home was Palestine.  The Europeans are now living there.  Send the Europeans back to Europe.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then send the Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians and Iranians back home as well. This would mean Israel would have about 6 million inhabitants and Palestine about 500,000 inhabitants. Are you serious about this Abdul, will you force the inhabitants to take DNA tests to determine their original homeland. What will you do when the Jews DNA shows they are related very closely to Jews from the surrounding areas. What islamomoron propaganda will you pull in that case, claim the Jews have transplanted DNA into their bodies. What about when the Palestinians are tested and found to be from other nations and recent arrivals, claim that because they are arab then they should stay.
Click to expand...

How INSANE for you to mutter that Jews are related closely to Jews from surrounding areas...................which they are not for obvious reasons.....Your Posts Are Getting More BIZZARE by the day............................You crazy baldhead.www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uCkSGYOv8


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian's home was Palestine.  The Europeans are now living there.  Send the Europeans back to Europe.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then send the Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians and Iranians back home as well. This would mean Israel would have about 6 million inhabitants and Palestine about 500,000 inhabitants. Are you serious about this Abdul, will you force the inhabitants to take DNA tests to determine their original homeland. What will you do when the Jews DNA shows they are related very closely to Jews from the surrounding areas. What islamomoron propaganda will you pull in that case, claim the Jews have transplanted DNA into their bodies. What about when the Palestinians are tested and found to be from other nations and recent arrivals, claim that because they are arab then they should stay.
Click to expand...


The Jews came from Europe and colonized Palestine.  It wouldn't matter what their DNA revealed.  But, as neutral studies have determined, the Jews from Europe are European in terms of DNA.

"Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European"

Surprise Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian's home was Palestine.  The Europeans are now living there.  Send the Europeans back to Europe.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then send the Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians and Iranians back home as well. This would mean Israel would have about 6 million inhabitants and Palestine about 500,000 inhabitants. Are you serious about this Abdul, will you force the inhabitants to take DNA tests to determine their original homeland. What will you do when the Jews DNA shows they are related very closely to Jews from the surrounding areas. What islamomoron propaganda will you pull in that case, claim the Jews have transplanted DNA into their bodies. What about when the Palestinians are tested and found to be from other nations and recent arrivals, claim that because they are arab then they should stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How INSANE for you to mutter that Jews are related closely to Jews from surrounding areas...................which they are not for obvious reasons.....Your Posts Are Getting More BIZZARE by the day............................You crazy baldhead.www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uCkSGYOv8
Click to expand...





 I have posted the links showing just this from a non partisan source...............so how about you disprove it in the same way


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian's home was Palestine.  The Europeans are now living there.  Send the Europeans back to Europe.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then send the Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians and Iranians back home as well. This would mean Israel would have about 6 million inhabitants and Palestine about 500,000 inhabitants. Are you serious about this Abdul, will you force the inhabitants to take DNA tests to determine their original homeland. What will you do when the Jews DNA shows they are related very closely to Jews from the surrounding areas. What islamomoron propaganda will you pull in that case, claim the Jews have transplanted DNA into their bodies. What about when the Palestinians are tested and found to be from other nations and recent arrivals, claim that because they are arab then they should stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Jews came from Europe and colonized Palestine.  It wouldn't matter what their DNA revealed.  But, as neutral studies have determined, the Jews from Europe are European in terms of DNA.
> 
> "Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European"
> 
> Surprise Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European
Click to expand...





 So you get this from a book, a work of fiction based on history accounts.  It even says that depending on what part of the genome you study it shows the Ashkenazi Jews came from the area of Israel


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniyel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be mistaken its known to all, some just deliberately deny it because they fear the truth, can't admit they were wrong or just a racists trying to justify their primitive emotional perspectives.
> Palestinians are just Arabs, particularly hostile and stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Israelis that fear the truth.  The whole Israeli propaganda machine is designed to counter the propagation of the facts.  Calling Palestinians "just Arabs. particularly hostile and stupid", doesn't change the fact that you people are a colonial project which is well past its sale date.  Any people would be hostile after being treated as you Jews have treated the Palestinians.  Evicting them from their land, holding millions in outdoor prisons  and murdering thousands of their women and children every 2 years or so.
> 
> As far as "stupid" well, you are a racist p.o.s. what else can said about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is Israel is here to stay and the arab musilims are too stupid to realise this. Yes the arab muslims are stupid and extremely hostile to the point of getting themselves killed in their thousands.  Still waiting for your link to the evidence that Israel was a colonial project, because it took a hell of a lot of years to get it going and of the ground. You have just described exactly what the arab muslims have done to the Jews and Christians over the last 1400 years. Why as recently as 1949 the arab muslim Palestinians evicted by force Jews from Jerusalem and the west bank stealing their homes, property and valuables. So where is the proof of these murders then Abdul, show the evidence that would stand up in court that the Israelis murder 1000's of women and children every 2 years. That means the deaths were all pre meditated and the individuals picked out beforehand by the Israelis. Killing terrorists and militia is not murder by the way it is one of the less savoury facts of war.
> 
> NOW STOP SPREADING YOUR RACIST LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how the Palestinians kill some Israeli's & then after Israel retaliates the Pali's & their supporters bitch about how many more dead Palestinians there are than Israeli's.  It's called Palestinian mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's called keeping a sense of proportion, of reason, of justice. Someone tries to kill you, fine. Kill them, but not their familly, their neighours, their friends and any innocent bystanders within range. Killing those who try to kill you is retaliation, killing anyone else is bestiality, otherwise called Zionist mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if their family, friends and neighbours are also trying to kill you and your friends, family and neighbours. When you understand and realise this then you will realise that the arab muslims are out to kill everyone. You need to immerse yourself in Islamic culture to understand how they think, just as the allies immersed themselves in Japanese culture in the 1940's to understand what to us were barbaric practises. You never see one muslim protesting you always see a group because there is safety in numbers, and the leaders can always run away.
Click to expand...


"You need to immerse yourself in Islamic culture to understand how they think" Really?
How many Islamic countries have you been to? 
How many Muslim Mosques/social clubs do you visit on a regular basis socially?
How many Muslim families are you friends with?


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian's home was Palestine.  The Europeans are now living there.  Send the Europeans back to Europe.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then send the Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians and Iranians back home as well. This would mean Israel would have about 6 million inhabitants and Palestine about 500,000 inhabitants. Are you serious about this Abdul, will you force the inhabitants to take DNA tests to determine their original homeland. What will you do when the Jews DNA shows they are related very closely to Jews from the surrounding areas. What islamomoron propaganda will you pull in that case, claim the Jews have transplanted DNA into their bodies. What about when the Palestinians are tested and found to be from other nations and recent arrivals, claim that because they are arab then they should stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Jews came from Europe and colonized Palestine.  It wouldn't matter what their DNA revealed.  But, as neutral studies have determined, the Jews from Europe are European in terms of DNA.
> 
> "Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European"
> 
> Surprise Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you get this from a book, a work of fiction based on history accounts.  It even says that depending on what part of the genome you study it shows the Ashkenazi Jews came from the area of Israel
Click to expand...


No, he gets it from a scientific study. Since you apparently can't function without "links", here's one to the actual study itself. A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages Nature Communications Nature Publishing Group


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian's home was Palestine.  The Europeans are now living there.  Send the Europeans back to Europe.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then send the Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians and Iranians back home as well. This would mean Israel would have about 6 million inhabitants and Palestine about 500,000 inhabitants. Are you serious about this Abdul, will you force the inhabitants to take DNA tests to determine their original homeland. What will you do when the Jews DNA shows they are related very closely to Jews from the surrounding areas. What islamomoron propaganda will you pull in that case, claim the Jews have transplanted DNA into their bodies. What about when the Palestinians are tested and found to be from other nations and recent arrivals, claim that because they are arab then they should stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How INSANE for you to mutter that Jews are related closely to Jews from surrounding areas...................which they are not for obvious reasons.....Your Posts Are Getting More BIZZARE by the day............................You crazy baldhead.www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uCkSGYOv8
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted the links showing just this from a non partisan source...............
Click to expand...

Where?


----------



## Challenger

toastman said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniyel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be mistaken its known to all, some just deliberately deny it because they fear the truth, can't admit they were wrong or just a racists trying to justify their primitive emotional perspectives.
> Palestinians are just Arabs, particularly hostile and stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Israelis that fear the truth.  The whole Israeli propaganda machine is designed to counter the propagation of the facts.  Calling Palestinians "just Arabs. particularly hostile and stupid", doesn't change the fact that you people are a colonial project which is well past its sale date.  Any people would be hostile after being treated as you Jews have treated the Palestinians.  Evicting them from their land, holding millions in outdoor prisons  and murdering thousands of their women and children every 2 years or so.
> 
> As far as "stupid" well, you are a racist p.o.s. what else can said about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is Israel is here to stay and the arab musilims are too stupid to realise this. Yes the arab muslims are stupid and extremely hostile to the point of getting themselves killed in their thousands.  Still waiting for your link to the evidence that Israel was a colonial project, because it took a hell of a lot of years to get it going and of the ground. You have just described exactly what the arab muslims have done to the Jews and Christians over the last 1400 years. Why as recently as 1949 the arab muslim Palestinians evicted by force Jews from Jerusalem and the west bank stealing their homes, property and valuables. So where is the proof of these murders then Abdul, show the evidence that would stand up in court that the Israelis murder 1000's of women and children every 2 years. That means the deaths were all pre meditated and the individuals picked out beforehand by the Israelis. Killing terrorists and militia is not murder by the way it is one of the less savoury facts of war.
> 
> NOW STOP SPREADING YOUR RACIST LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how the Palestinians kill some Israeli's & then after Israel retaliates the Pali's & their supporters bitch about how many more dead Palestinians there are than Israeli's.  It's called Palestinian mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's called keeping a sense of proportion, of reason, of justice. Someone tries to kill you, fine. Kill them, but not their familly, their neighours, their friends and any innocent bystanders within range. Killing those who try to kill you is retaliation, killing anyone else is bestiality, otherwise called Zionist mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel has no reason to intentionally kill innocent civilians. To think that Soldiers and pilots are sent on missions to kill non combatants is absurd. Gaza is a tiny place which is very dense. High casualties are expected.
> 
> I see the same repetitive scenario. Hamas launches rockets, Israel does no thing. Hamas launches rockets, Israel bombs one Hamas facility. Hamas increases it's rocket launching, Israel bombs another few Hamas facilities. Repeat the latter several more time. Hamas continues its rockets launching even after being warned by Israel that the will commit to a full scale assault of they don't stop.
> Hamas CONTINUES launching rockets, Israel partakes in a full blown assault on Hamas and other militants, Palestinians and their supporters start whining to the world about Israeli 'aggression' claiming they started the war and all people can talk about is how many more Palestinian were killed than Israelis.
> Now, I don't have a solution to the conflict, but I do have a solution that would save many many Palestinian lives; STOP LAUNCHING ROCKETS AT ISRAEL
> 
> FFS it's really simple !
Click to expand...


Raise the sige of Gaza and the rockets will stop. Stop provoking rocket attacks by assassinating Hamas officials and the rockets will stop. Negotiate a settlement in good faith and the rockets will stop. It works both ways. 

Zionist Israel has the means to launch guided precision weaponry against launch sites in Gaza, that's indisputable. Carpet bombing neighbourhoods and launching artillery barrages into suburbs demonstates an intent to kill civillians, or at the very least, a reckless disregard for the safety of civillians, both of which are war crimes. 

Zionist Israel has the much vaunted Iron Dome system, so why should it need to murder 1,000's of Palestinians in order to "defend itself"?


----------



## toastman

Challenger said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Israelis that fear the truth.  The whole Israeli propaganda machine is designed to counter the propagation of the facts.  Calling Palestinians "just Arabs. particularly hostile and stupid", doesn't change the fact that you people are a colonial project which is well past its sale date.  Any people would be hostile after being treated as you Jews have treated the Palestinians.  Evicting them from their land, holding millions in outdoor prisons  and murdering thousands of their women and children every 2 years or so.
> 
> As far as "stupid" well, you are a racist p.o.s. what else can said about you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is Israel is here to stay and the arab musilims are too stupid to realise this. Yes the arab muslims are stupid and extremely hostile to the point of getting themselves killed in their thousands.  Still waiting for your link to the evidence that Israel was a colonial project, because it took a hell of a lot of years to get it going and of the ground. You have just described exactly what the arab muslims have done to the Jews and Christians over the last 1400 years. Why as recently as 1949 the arab muslim Palestinians evicted by force Jews from Jerusalem and the west bank stealing their homes, property and valuables. So where is the proof of these murders then Abdul, show the evidence that would stand up in court that the Israelis murder 1000's of women and children every 2 years. That means the deaths were all pre meditated and the individuals picked out beforehand by the Israelis. Killing terrorists and militia is not murder by the way it is one of the less savoury facts of war.
> 
> NOW STOP SPREADING YOUR RACIST LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how the Palestinians kill some Israeli's & then after Israel retaliates the Pali's & their supporters bitch about how many more dead Palestinians there are than Israeli's.  It's called Palestinian mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's called keeping a sense of proportion, of reason, of justice. Someone tries to kill you, fine. Kill them, but not their familly, their neighours, their friends and any innocent bystanders within range. Killing those who try to kill you is retaliation, killing anyone else is bestiality, otherwise called Zionist mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel has no reason to intentionally kill innocent civilians. To think that Soldiers and pilots are sent on missions to kill non combatants is absurd. Gaza is a tiny place which is very dense. High casualties are expected.
> 
> I see the same repetitive scenario. Hamas launches rockets, Israel does no thing. Hamas launches rockets, Israel bombs one Hamas facility. Hamas increases it's rocket launching, Israel bombs another few Hamas facilities. Repeat the latter several more time. Hamas continues its rockets launching even after being warned by Israel that the will commit to a full scale assault of they don't stop.
> Hamas CONTINUES launching rockets, Israel partakes in a full blown assault on Hamas and other militants, Palestinians and their supporters start whining to the world about Israeli 'aggression' claiming they started the war and all people can talk about is how many more Palestinian were killed than Israelis.
> Now, I don't have a solution to the conflict, but I do have a solution that would save many many Palestinian lives; STOP LAUNCHING ROCKETS AT ISRAEL
> 
> FFS it's really simple !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Raise the sige of Gaza and the rockets will stop. Stop provoking rocket attacks by assassinating Hamas officials and the rockets will stop. Negotiate a settlement in good faith and the rockets will stop. It works both ways.
> 
> Zionist Israel has the means to launch guided precision weaponry against launch sites in Gaza, that's indisputable. Carpet bombing neighbourhoods and launching artillery barrages into suburbs demonstates an intent to kill civillians, or at the very least, a reckless disregard for the safety of civillians, both of which are war crimes.
> 
> Zionist Israel has the much vaunted Iron Dome system, so why should it need to murder 1,000's of Palestinians in order to "defend itself"?
Click to expand...


Ya ya ya, same excuses. Don't launch rockets, and don't provoke Israel. That simple.


----------



## MJB12741

Challenger said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Israelis that fear the truth.  The whole Israeli propaganda machine is designed to counter the propagation of the facts.  Calling Palestinians "just Arabs. particularly hostile and stupid", doesn't change the fact that you people are a colonial project which is well past its sale date.  Any people would be hostile after being treated as you Jews have treated the Palestinians.  Evicting them from their land, holding millions in outdoor prisons  and murdering thousands of their women and children every 2 years or so.
> 
> As far as "stupid" well, you are a racist p.o.s. what else can said about you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is Israel is here to stay and the arab musilims are too stupid to realise this. Yes the arab muslims are stupid and extremely hostile to the point of getting themselves killed in their thousands.  Still waiting for your link to the evidence that Israel was a colonial project, because it took a hell of a lot of years to get it going and of the ground. You have just described exactly what the arab muslims have done to the Jews and Christians over the last 1400 years. Why as recently as 1949 the arab muslim Palestinians evicted by force Jews from Jerusalem and the west bank stealing their homes, property and valuables. So where is the proof of these murders then Abdul, show the evidence that would stand up in court that the Israelis murder 1000's of women and children every 2 years. That means the deaths were all pre meditated and the individuals picked out beforehand by the Israelis. Killing terrorists and militia is not murder by the way it is one of the less savoury facts of war.
> 
> NOW STOP SPREADING YOUR RACIST LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how the Palestinians kill some Israeli's & then after Israel retaliates the Pali's & their supporters bitch about how many more dead Palestinians there are than Israeli's.  It's called Palestinian mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's called keeping a sense of proportion, of reason, of justice. Someone tries to kill you, fine. Kill them, but not their familly, their neighours, their friends and any innocent bystanders within range. Killing those who try to kill you is retaliation, killing anyone else is bestiality, otherwise called Zionist mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel has no reason to intentionally kill innocent civilians. To think that Soldiers and pilots are sent on missions to kill non combatants is absurd. Gaza is a tiny place which is very dense. High casualties are expected.
> 
> I see the same repetitive scenario. Hamas launches rockets, Israel does no thing. Hamas launches rockets, Israel bombs one Hamas facility. Hamas increases it's rocket launching, Israel bombs another few Hamas facilities. Repeat the latter several more time. Hamas continues its rockets launching even after being warned by Israel that the will commit to a full scale assault of they don't stop.
> Hamas CONTINUES launching rockets, Israel partakes in a full blown assault on Hamas and other militants, Palestinians and their supporters start whining to the world about Israeli 'aggression' claiming they started the war and all people can talk about is how many more Palestinian were killed than Israelis.
> Now, I don't have a solution to the conflict, but I do have a solution that would save many many Palestinian lives; STOP LAUNCHING ROCKETS AT ISRAEL
> 
> FFS it's really simple !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Raise the sige of Gaza and the rockets will stop. Stop provoking rocket attacks by assassinating Hamas officials and the rockets will stop. Negotiate a settlement in good faith and the rockets will stop. It works both ways.
> 
> Zionist Israel has the means to launch guided precision weaponry against launch sites in Gaza, that's indisputable. Carpet bombing neighbourhoods and launching artillery barrages into suburbs demonstates an intent to kill civillians, or at the very least, a reckless disregard for the safety of civillians, both of which are war crimes.
> 
> Zionist Israel has the much vaunted Iron Dome system, so why should it need to murder 1,000's of Palestinians in order to "defend itself"?
Click to expand...



Regretfully it took Jordan near 20,000 dead or evicted Palestinians during Black September to communicate a lasting peace from them.  This according to their PLO leader Yassar Arafat himself.  Let us all join togetrher & hope the Palestinians learned their lesson well so Israel won't have to do the same to establish a lasting peace from them.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!.

Jordan Expels the PLO in 1970


----------



## montelatici

There goes MJB, cheering on mass murder. What a guy.


----------



## aris2chat

Challenger said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Israelis that fear the truth.  The whole Israeli propaganda machine is designed to counter the propagation of the facts.  Calling Palestinians "just Arabs. particularly hostile and stupid", doesn't change the fact that you people are a colonial project which is well past its sale date.  Any people would be hostile after being treated as you Jews have treated the Palestinians.  Evicting them from their land, holding millions in outdoor prisons  and murdering thousands of their women and children every 2 years or so.
> 
> As far as "stupid" well, you are a racist p.o.s. what else can said about you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is Israel is here to stay and the arab musilims are too stupid to realise this. Yes the arab muslims are stupid and extremely hostile to the point of getting themselves killed in their thousands.  Still waiting for your link to the evidence that Israel was a colonial project, because it took a hell of a lot of years to get it going and of the ground. You have just described exactly what the arab muslims have done to the Jews and Christians over the last 1400 years. Why as recently as 1949 the arab muslim Palestinians evicted by force Jews from Jerusalem and the west bank stealing their homes, property and valuables. So where is the proof of these murders then Abdul, show the evidence that would stand up in court that the Israelis murder 1000's of women and children every 2 years. That means the deaths were all pre meditated and the individuals picked out beforehand by the Israelis. Killing terrorists and militia is not murder by the way it is one of the less savoury facts of war.
> 
> NOW STOP SPREADING YOUR RACIST LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how the Palestinians kill some Israeli's & then after Israel retaliates the Pali's & their supporters bitch about how many more dead Palestinians there are than Israeli's.  It's called Palestinian mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's called keeping a sense of proportion, of reason, of justice. Someone tries to kill you, fine. Kill them, but not their familly, their neighours, their friends and any innocent bystanders within range. Killing those who try to kill you is retaliation, killing anyone else is bestiality, otherwise called Zionist mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel has no reason to intentionally kill innocent civilians. To think that Soldiers and pilots are sent on missions to kill non combatants is absurd. Gaza is a tiny place which is very dense. High casualties are expected.
> 
> I see the same repetitive scenario. Hamas launches rockets, Israel does no thing. Hamas launches rockets, Israel bombs one Hamas facility. Hamas increases it's rocket launching, Israel bombs another few Hamas facilities. Repeat the latter several more time. Hamas continues its rockets launching even after being warned by Israel that the will commit to a full scale assault of they don't stop.
> Hamas CONTINUES launching rockets, Israel partakes in a full blown assault on Hamas and other militants, Palestinians and their supporters start whining to the world about Israeli 'aggression' claiming they started the war and all people can talk about is how many more Palestinian were killed than Israelis.
> Now, I don't have a solution to the conflict, but I do have a solution that would save many many Palestinian lives; STOP LAUNCHING ROCKETS AT ISRAEL
> 
> FFS it's really simple !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Raise the sige of Gaza and the rockets will stop. Stop provoking rocket attacks by assassinating Hamas officials and the rockets will stop. Negotiate a settlement in good faith and the rockets will stop. It works both ways.
> 
> Zionist Israel has the means to launch guided precision weaponry against launch sites in Gaza, that's indisputable. Carpet bombing neighbourhoods and launching artillery barrages into suburbs demonstates an intent to kill civillians, or at the very least, a reckless disregard for the safety of civillians, both of which are war crimes.
> 
> Zionist Israel has the much vaunted Iron Dome system, so why should it need to murder 1,000's of Palestinians in order to "defend itself"?
Click to expand...


A few days ago there were 1400 tons of building supplies delivered to gaza.  Yesterday there were around 700 trucks of goods delivered.  So what siege?
Israel moved back the fishing limit.  One crossing for trucks and one for people are open.
PA is not paying hamas fighters.  Most arab states have stopped money promised to gaza.  Most palestinians in gaza want to leave.  Protest by anti-hamas and unions were shut down by hamas this last week.  PA have arrested hamas members for terrorist activity.  Israel 
Egypt is still closed mot days and when it is open it for people to reenter gaza not to enter egypt.
Why should Israel of Egypt be anymore accessible when soldiers in the sinai are being killed, tunnels are still being build and gaza fired in Israel the other day?
Why should Israel or egypt allow hamas the ability to get more funds and weapons from Iran to carry on their attacks?
By what logic do you give a homicidal maniac an automatic and let him kill civilians?



Even the ICC BOI found violation by gaza in the last conflict.


----------



## montelatici

You sure are a wonderful mouthpiece for Zionist propaganda.

"The UN is supervising the flow of material. Just one tightly controlled crossing from Israel into Gaza allows commercial goods. Only a tenth of the 5m tonnes of materials required has so far been let in, says the UN. At this rate, it would take 20 years to rebuild the territory, says Mr Sarhan. To buy on the black market you need a lot of cash. Most Gazans are poor. Half have no job."

http://www.economist.com/news/middl...test-war-recovery-distant-prospect-bleak-ever


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> You sure are a wonderful mouthpiece for Zionist propaganda.
> 
> "The UN is supervising the flow of material. Just one tightly controlled crossing from Israel into Gaza allows commercial goods. Only a tenth of the 5m tonnes of materials required has so far been let in, says the UN. At this rate, it would take 20 years to rebuild the territory, says Mr Sarhan. To buy on the black market you need a lot of cash. Most Gazans are poor. Half have no job."
> 
> http://www.economist.com/news/middl...test-war-recovery-distant-prospect-bleak-ever



How is it that someone like you, who spews non stop Palestinian propaganda, has the right to accuse someone else of posting propaganda ? Do you not see the hypocrisy?


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sure are a wonderful mouthpiece for Zionist propaganda.
> 
> "The UN is supervising the flow of material. Just one tightly controlled crossing from Israel into Gaza allows commercial goods. Only a tenth of the 5m tonnes of materials required has so far been let in, says the UN. At this rate, it would take 20 years to rebuild the territory, says Mr Sarhan. To buy on the black market you need a lot of cash. Most Gazans are poor. Half have no job."
> 
> http://www.economist.com/news/middl...test-war-recovery-distant-prospect-bleak-ever
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it that someone like you, who spews non stop Palestinian propaganda, has the right to accuse someone else of posting propaganda ? Do you not see the hypocrisy?
Click to expand...


I have never posted propaganda, just fact.  Everything I post is fact backed by neutral sources.  You have been so brainwashed by Zionist/Israeli propaganda you are unable to discern fact from fiction.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sure are a wonderful mouthpiece for Zionist propaganda.
> 
> "The UN is supervising the flow of material. Just one tightly controlled crossing from Israel into Gaza allows commercial goods. Only a tenth of the 5m tonnes of materials required has so far been let in, says the UN. At this rate, it would take 20 years to rebuild the territory, says Mr Sarhan. To buy on the black market you need a lot of cash. Most Gazans are poor. Half have no job."
> 
> http://www.economist.com/news/middl...test-war-recovery-distant-prospect-bleak-ever
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it that someone like you, who spews non stop Palestinian propaganda, has the right to accuse someone else of posting propaganda ? Do you not see the hypocrisy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never posted propaganda, just fact.  Everything I post is fact backed by neutral sources.  You have been so brainwashed by Zionist/Israeli propaganda you are unable to discern fact from fiction.
Click to expand...

Oh please Monti. Who do you think you are kidding ? You're so brainwashed that you don't even realize that the crap you spew on a daily basis is Palestinian propaganda. You think that because you post a bit of factual information that it makes up for the other lies and propaganda?


----------



## montelatici

None of what I post is propaganda, it is fact.  I may have been brainwashed through high school by Zionist/Israeli propaganda, as most Americans are, but university and the study of reality changed my position.

I have never posted a lie, unlike you and your friends.   Even your attempt at claiming that the local people attacked the Europeans first was disproven.  Even if the locals had every right to attack Europeans planning to evict them and take their lands.


----------



## toastman

w


montelatici said:


> None of what I post is propaganda, it is fact.  I may have been brainwashed through high school by Zionist/Israeli propaganda, as most Americans are, but university and the study of reality changed my position.
> 
> I have never posted a lie, unlike you and your friends.  * Even your attempt at claiming that the local people attacked the Europeans first was disproven*.  Even if the locals had every right to attack Europeans planning to evict them and take their lands.



NO, it wasn't. Nice try. Arabs were the first ones to kill Jews. The first documented massacre was against Jews.

"Even if the locals had every right to attack Europeans planning to evict them and take their lands"
That's just another bullshit excuse. You ALWAYS excuse Arabs killing Jews/Israelis, but when it's the other war around, you condemn it.
No one was taking over nothing when Jews were massacred. That's more of your Palestinian propaganda. 
Geez, you truly are one brainwashed sheep.


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> w
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of what I post is propaganda, it is fact.  I may have been brainwashed through high school by Zionist/Israeli propaganda, as most Americans are, but university and the study of reality changed my position.
> 
> I have never posted a lie, unlike you and your friends.  * Even your attempt at claiming that the local people attacked the Europeans first was disproven*.  Even if the locals had every right to attack Europeans planning to evict them and take their lands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, it wasn't. Nice try. Arabs were the first ones to kill Jews. The first documented massacre was against Jews.
> 
> "Even if the locals had every right to attack Europeans planning to evict them and take their lands"
> That's just another bullshit excuse. You ALWAYS excuse Arabs killing Jews/Israelis, but when it's the other war around, you condemn it.
> No one was taking over nothing when Jews were massacred. That's more of your Palestinian propaganda.
> Geez, you truly are one brainwashed sheep.
Click to expand...


The first recorded (by a governmental agency) attacks were Europeans attacking and killing locals.  I posted the article several times.  The alleged attacks on the Europeans were claims by the Europeans. Hardly a neutral source.  But, it doesn't really matter as the locals had every right to try to prevent their dispossession.

The Europeans were planning to take over from the beginning.  Early Zionists made that clear. There is plenty of source material.

"There is a difficulty from which the Zionist dares not avert his eyes, though he rarely likes to face it. Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik [province] of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having 52 souls to every square mile, and not 25 percent of them Jews; so we must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the tribes in possession as our forefathers did, or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan."

Israel Zangwill recalling his 1904 speech in his book, "The Voice of Jerusalem".

The voice of Jerusalem Zangwill Israel 1864-1926 Free Download Streaming Internet Archive

You see Toast, in academia, bullshit doesn't normally fly.  Books like these were part of reading lists in college.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> w
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of what I post is propaganda, it is fact.  I may have been brainwashed through high school by Zionist/Israeli propaganda, as most Americans are, but university and the study of reality changed my position.
> 
> I have never posted a lie, unlike you and your friends.  * Even your attempt at claiming that the local people attacked the Europeans first was disproven*.  Even if the locals had every right to attack Europeans planning to evict them and take their lands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, it wasn't. Nice try. Arabs were the first ones to kill Jews. The first documented massacre was against Jews.
> 
> "Even if the locals had every right to attack Europeans planning to evict them and take their lands"
> That's just another bullshit excuse. You ALWAYS excuse Arabs killing Jews/Israelis, but when it's the other war around, you condemn it.
> No one was taking over nothing when Jews were massacred. That's more of your Palestinian propaganda.
> Geez, you truly are one brainwashed sheep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first recorded (by a governmental agency) attacks were Europeans attacking and killing locals.  I posted the article several times.  The alleged attacks on the Europeans were claims by the Europeans. Hardly a neutral source.  But, it doesn't really matter as the locals had every right to try to prevent their dispossession.
> 
> The Europeans were planning to take over from the beginning.  Early Zionists made that clear. There is plenty of source material.
> 
> "There is a difficulty from which the Zionist dares not avert his eyes, though he rarely likes to face it. Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik [province] of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having 52 souls to every square mile, and not 25 percent of them Jews; so we must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the tribes in possession as our forefathers did, or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan."
> 
> Israel Zangwill recalling his 1904 speech in his book, "The Voice of Jerusalem".
> 
> The voice of Jerusalem Zangwill Israel 1864-1926 Free Download Streaming Internet Archive
> 
> You see Toast, in academia, bullshit doesn't normally fly.  Books like these were part of reading lists in college.
Click to expand...


Where in your post does it say anything about a documented massacre?? Geez, you're really desperate I see. 

Just proved how much trouble you are having to accept the truth. Arabs started killing Jews first, and there's nothing you can do to change that.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> w
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of what I post is propaganda, it is fact.  I may have been brainwashed through high school by Zionist/Israeli propaganda, as most Americans are, but university and the study of reality changed my position.
> 
> I have never posted a lie, unlike you and your friends.  * Even your attempt at claiming that the local people attacked the Europeans first was disproven*.  Even if the locals had every right to attack Europeans planning to evict them and take their lands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, it wasn't. Nice try. Arabs were the first ones to kill Jews. The first documented massacre was against Jews.
> 
> "Even if the locals had every right to attack Europeans planning to evict them and take their lands"
> That's just another bullshit excuse. You ALWAYS excuse Arabs killing Jews/Israelis, but when it's the other war around, you condemn it.
> No one was taking over nothing when Jews were massacred. That's more of your Palestinian propaganda.
> Geez, you truly are one brainwashed sheep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first recorded (by a governmental agency) attacks were Europeans attacking and killing locals.  I posted the article several times.  The alleged attacks on the Europeans were claims by the Europeans. Hardly a neutral source.  But, it doesn't really matter as the locals had every right to try to prevent their dispossession.
> 
> The Europeans were planning to take over from the beginning.  Early Zionists made that clear. There is plenty of source material.
> 
> "There is a difficulty from which the Zionist dares not avert his eyes, though he rarely likes to face it. Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik [province] of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having 52 souls to every square mile, and not 25 percent of them Jews; so we must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the tribes in possession as our forefathers did, or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan."
> 
> Israel Zangwill recalling his 1904 speech in his book, "The Voice of Jerusalem".
> 
> The voice of Jerusalem Zangwill Israel 1864-1926 Free Download Streaming Internet Archive
> 
> You see Toast, in academia, bullshit doesn't normally fly.  Books like these were part of reading lists in college.
Click to expand...



"locals had every right to try to prevent their dispossession"

No they didn't. Show me where in the massacres that I posted does it day anything about them killing Jews because Jews were taking over, and so they had the right.
The Hebron massacre for example took place because of FALSE reports passing through Arab villages.

But I always knew you were a disgusting bigot who condones murder. You're just as bad as Palestinian extremist scum and you should be ashamed of yourself.


----------



## montelatici

It is you that can't accept the truth.

"As in so many incidents that enfolded in the early years of Zionism, often researchers have only had access to the version of events written by the Jewish side......one could find another narrative – *the official account of events as recorded by the local Ottoman administration*...."We, the residents of villages neighboring with the Jewish colonies of Daran [Rehovot] and Lun Kara (Rishon Leztion)," and complain that the Jews "wanted to strip the camel owner of their clothes, money and camels, but these men refused to give their camels and escaped from Lun Kara with their camels, protecting each other [to seek refuge with] men of the law… The above mentioned Jews attacked our villages, robbed and looted our property, killed and even damaged the family honor, all this in a manner we find hard to put in words."


New documents reveal early Palestinian attitudes toward Zionist settlements - Israel News Haaretz


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> w
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of what I post is propaganda, it is fact.  I may have been brainwashed through high school by Zionist/Israeli propaganda, as most Americans are, but university and the study of reality changed my position.
> 
> I have never posted a lie, unlike you and your friends.  * Even your attempt at claiming that the local people attacked the Europeans first was disproven*.  Even if the locals had every right to attack Europeans planning to evict them and take their lands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, it wasn't. Nice try. Arabs were the first ones to kill Jews. The first documented massacre was against Jews.
> 
> "Even if the locals had every right to attack Europeans planning to evict them and take their lands"
> That's just another bullshit excuse. You ALWAYS excuse Arabs killing Jews/Israelis, but when it's the other war around, you condemn it.
> No one was taking over nothing when Jews were massacred. That's more of your Palestinian propaganda.
> Geez, you truly are one brainwashed sheep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first recorded (by a governmental agency) attacks were Europeans attacking and killing locals.  I posted the article several times.  The alleged attacks on the Europeans were claims by the Europeans. Hardly a neutral source.  But, it doesn't really matter as the locals had every right to try to prevent their dispossession.
> 
> The Europeans were planning to take over from the beginning.  Early Zionists made that clear. There is plenty of source material.
> 
> "There is a difficulty from which the Zionist dares not avert his eyes, though he rarely likes to face it. Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik [province] of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having 52 souls to every square mile, and not 25 percent of them Jews; so we must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the tribes in possession as our forefathers did, or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan."
> 
> Israel Zangwill recalling his 1904 speech in his book, "The Voice of Jerusalem".
> 
> The voice of Jerusalem Zangwill Israel 1864-1926 Free Download Streaming Internet Archive
> 
> You see Toast, in academia, bullshit doesn't normally fly.  Books like these were part of reading lists in college.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where in your post does it say anything about a documented massacre?? Geez, you're really desperate I see.
> 
> Just proved how much trouble you are having to accept the truth. Arabs started killing Jews first, and there's nothing you can do to change that.
Click to expand...


The point was that the Europeans had every intention of evicting the locals.  I provided source material to prove it.  Your brainwashing makes it impossible for you to accept the truth.  Above you will see that the Europeans started the massacres, as was the case in all European colonial projects.


----------



## montelatici

You lose Toast.  You always lose.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> It is you that can't accept the truth.
> 
> "As in so many incidents that enfolded in the early years of Zionism, often researchers have only had access to the version of events written by the Jewish side......one could find another narrative – *the official account of events as recorded by the local Ottoman administration*...."We, the residents of villages neighboring with the Jewish colonies of Daran [Rehovot] and Lun Kara (Rishon Leztion)," and complain that the Jews "wanted to strip the camel owner of their clothes, money and camels, but these men refused to give their camels and escaped from Lun Kara with their camels, protecting each other [to seek refuge with] men of the law… The above mentioned Jews attacked our villages, robbed and looted our property, killed and even damaged the family honor, all this in a manner we find hard to put in words."
> 
> 
> New documents reveal early Palestinian attitudes toward Zionist settlements - Israel News Haaretz



:Your link is just say so from some Arabs. What day did these 'killings' take place? What is the name of the events? 

Imagine I was in your situation, trying to prove the same thing you are, and my evidence was say so by a local Jew. I know, and YOU know, EXACTLY what your response would be.

Either way, you failed again. Arabs started with the killings and the aggression. It;s not my fault you cannot accept the truth.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> w
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of what I post is propaganda, it is fact.  I may have been brainwashed through high school by Zionist/Israeli propaganda, as most Americans are, but university and the study of reality changed my position.
> 
> I have never posted a lie, unlike you and your friends.  * Even your attempt at claiming that the local people attacked the Europeans first was disproven*.  Even if the locals had every right to attack Europeans planning to evict them and take their lands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, it wasn't. Nice try. Arabs were the first ones to kill Jews. The first documented massacre was against Jews.
> 
> "Even if the locals had every right to attack Europeans planning to evict them and take their lands"
> That's just another bullshit excuse. You ALWAYS excuse Arabs killing Jews/Israelis, but when it's the other war around, you condemn it.
> No one was taking over nothing when Jews were massacred. That's more of your Palestinian propaganda.
> Geez, you truly are one brainwashed sheep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first recorded (by a governmental agency) attacks were Europeans attacking and killing locals.  I posted the article several times.  The alleged attacks on the Europeans were claims by the Europeans. Hardly a neutral source.  But, it doesn't really matter as the locals had every right to try to prevent their dispossession.
> 
> The Europeans were planning to take over from the beginning.  Early Zionists made that clear. There is plenty of source material.
> 
> "There is a difficulty from which the Zionist dares not avert his eyes, though he rarely likes to face it. Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik [province] of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having 52 souls to every square mile, and not 25 percent of them Jews; so we must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the tribes in possession as our forefathers did, or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan."
> 
> Israel Zangwill recalling his 1904 speech in his book, "The Voice of Jerusalem".
> 
> The voice of Jerusalem Zangwill Israel 1864-1926 Free Download Streaming Internet Archive
> 
> You see Toast, in academia, bullshit doesn't normally fly.  Books like these were part of reading lists in college.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where in your post does it say anything about a documented massacre?? Geez, you're really desperate I see.
> 
> Just proved how much trouble you are having to accept the truth. Arabs started killing Jews first, and there's nothing you can do to change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point was that the Europeans had every intention of evicting the locals.  I provided source material to prove it.  Your brainwashing makes it impossible for you to accept the truth.  Above you will see that the Europeans started the massacres, as was the case in all European colonial projects.
Click to expand...


You proved nothing, You failed again Monti. The massacres were started by the Arabs. You STILL have not proven otherwise.

You realize that you have lost basically every single debate with me ?  Loser !


----------



## toastman

Monti, you need some Claritin for your allergies.


----------



## montelatici

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.  LOL  Just making up things like Phoney doesn't make it true Toast.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> Methinks the lady doth protest too much.  LOL  Just making up things like Phoney doesn't make it true Toast.



What did I make up ?


----------



## montelatici

That the locals were the first to attack the European colonists.  Using only European sources and not the official governmental sources of the time.  In other words using propaganda to support your contention.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> That the locals were the first to attack the European colonists.  Using only European sources and not the official governmental sources of the time.  In other words using propaganda to support your contention.



What propaganda sources did I just use ?? All you are doing is deflecting from the fact that I, once again, won the debate. 

Arabs were the first ones to kill Jews, and Arabs were the ones who started the aggression. Your pathetic attempts at proving otherwise have failed and will fail. 

I need to find someone to debate with who will actually provide me with a challenge. It's getting boring beating you in every debate.


----------



## montelatici

You used Zionist hearsay.  I presented governmental records.  There is nothing pathetic about presenting documented fact.
You know you are full of shit and the old declaring victory gambit looks so desperate when written in a post.  LOL


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> You used Zionist hearsay.  I presented governmental records.  There is nothing pathetic about presenting documented fact.
> You know you are full of shit and the old declaring victory gambit looks so desperate when written in a post.  LOL



Of really? The Hebron massacre is Zionist hearsay ? What about the Safed massacre, or the Safed riots??
the first documented massacres consisted of Arabs killing Jews. Your response to that is "Zionist hearsay'.

Is this how you always act when you lose a debate ? By lying ans p crap about the other poster? Very immature


----------



## montelatici

Since the record shows that the Europeans started the violence the tit for tat reprisals do not concern me.  Besides, the locals had every right to resist the European intention of evicting them and taking their land.  If you cannot understand that, your brainwashing has been so successful that perhaps it isn't fruitful to continue debating.

The Europeans were in Europe and went to Palestine to evict the local people in order to establish a European colony and a separate state for themselves.  That is just a fact.  If you can't understand that the local people had every right to resist their eviction and dispossession, then there is really no need to continue.  Ciao.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> Since the record shows that the Europeans started the violence the tit for tat reprisals do not concern me.  Besides, the locals had every right to resist the European intention of evicting them and taking their land.  If you cannot understand that, your brainwashing has been so successful that perhaps it isn't fruitful to continue debating.
> 
> The Europeans were in Europe and went to Palestine to evict the local people in order to establish a European colony and a separate state for themselves.  That is just a fact.  If you can't understand that the local people had every right to resist their eviction and dispossession, then there is really no need to continue.  Ciao.



What record are you talking about ?!?!! YOu did not provide ANY record to prove that. Stop lying !

"Besides, the locals had every right to resist the European intention of evicting them and taking their land." Show me where it says that Arabs massacred Jews in Hebron in 1929 because Jews were taking over land. 
You're making things up and making excuses for Arab hostilities because you cannot handle the fact  that the truth conflicts with your agenda.
But thanks for once again showing that you have no problem with Arabs killing innocent Jews.

"then there is really no need to continue"

Ya, I figured you had enough of being made a fool of. One can only take so much of being proven wrong...over and over and over ..


----------



## montelatici

I have no problem with people being colonized to resist colonization.  I presented a report of an American university study that was published by an Israeli newspaper that stated:

"As in so many incidents that enfolded in the early years of Zionism, often researchers have only had access to the version of events written by the Jewish side. At times, one could find another narrative –* the official account of events as recorded by the local Ottoman administration. *
*
New documents reveal early Palestinian attitudes toward Zionist settlements - Israel News Haaretz
*
You have only made a fool of yourself.  You are starting to do a Phoney on us.  LOL


----------



## toastman

You're the one claiming you made a certain point when you really didn't, not me. I am able to prove my points. You? Not so much.

If I were you , I would stop reading Palestinian propaganda for several months. Then maybe you won't be so brainwashed. Just a suggestion.


----------



## Challenger

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sure are a wonderful mouthpiece for Zionist propaganda.
> 
> "The UN is supervising the flow of material. Just one tightly controlled crossing from Israel into Gaza allows commercial goods. Only a tenth of the 5m tonnes of materials required has so far been let in, says the UN. At this rate, it would take 20 years to rebuild the territory, says Mr Sarhan. To buy on the black market you need a lot of cash. Most Gazans are poor. Half have no job."
> 
> http://www.economist.com/news/middl...test-war-recovery-distant-prospect-bleak-ever
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it that someone like you, who spews non stop Palestinian propaganda, has the right to accuse someone else of posting propaganda ? Do you not see the hypocrisy?
Click to expand...


So you are saying Aris2chat IS spouting propaganda, thanks for "outing" him.


----------



## Challenger

toastman said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is Israel is here to stay and the arab musilims are too stupid to realise this. Yes the arab muslims are stupid and extremely hostile to the point of getting themselves killed in their thousands.  Still waiting for your link to the evidence that Israel was a colonial project, because it took a hell of a lot of years to get it going and of the ground. You have just described exactly what the arab muslims have done to the Jews and Christians over the last 1400 years. Why as recently as 1949 the arab muslim Palestinians evicted by force Jews from Jerusalem and the west bank stealing their homes, property and valuables. So where is the proof of these murders then Abdul, show the evidence that would stand up in court that the Israelis murder 1000's of women and children every 2 years. That means the deaths were all pre meditated and the individuals picked out beforehand by the Israelis. Killing terrorists and militia is not murder by the way it is one of the less savoury facts of war.
> 
> NOW STOP SPREADING YOUR RACIST LIES
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the Palestinians kill some Israeli's & then after Israel retaliates the Pali's & their supporters bitch about how many more dead Palestinians there are than Israeli's.  It's called Palestinian mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's called keeping a sense of proportion, of reason, of justice. Someone tries to kill you, fine. Kill them, but not their familly, their neighours, their friends and any innocent bystanders within range. Killing those who try to kill you is retaliation, killing anyone else is bestiality, otherwise called Zionist mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel has no reason to intentionally kill innocent civilians. To think that Soldiers and pilots are sent on missions to kill non combatants is absurd. Gaza is a tiny place which is very dense. High casualties are expected.
> 
> I see the same repetitive scenario. Hamas launches rockets, Israel does no thing. Hamas launches rockets, Israel bombs one Hamas facility. Hamas increases it's rocket launching, Israel bombs another few Hamas facilities. Repeat the latter several more time. Hamas continues its rockets launching even after being warned by Israel that the will commit to a full scale assault of they don't stop.
> Hamas CONTINUES launching rockets, Israel partakes in a full blown assault on Hamas and other militants, Palestinians and their supporters start whining to the world about Israeli 'aggression' claiming they started the war and all people can talk about is how many more Palestinian were killed than Israelis.
> Now, I don't have a solution to the conflict, but I do have a solution that would save many many Palestinian lives; STOP LAUNCHING ROCKETS AT ISRAEL
> 
> FFS it's really simple !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Raise the sige of Gaza and the rockets will stop. Stop provoking rocket attacks by assassinating Hamas officials and the rockets will stop. Negotiate a settlement in good faith and the rockets will stop. It works both ways.
> 
> Zionist Israel has the means to launch guided precision weaponry against launch sites in Gaza, that's indisputable. Carpet bombing neighbourhoods and launching artillery barrages into suburbs demonstates an intent to kill civillians, or at the very least, a reckless disregard for the safety of civillians, both of which are war crimes.
> 
> Zionist Israel has the much vaunted Iron Dome system, so why should it need to murder 1,000's of Palestinians in order to "defend itself"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya ya ya, same excuses. Don't launch rockets, and don't provoke Israel. That simple.
Click to expand...


Zionist Israel doesn't need provoking, it has a policy called "Mowing the grass", a routine people cull, "justified" by manufactured "provocations" and false lag operations.


----------



## toastman

Challenger said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the Palestinians kill some Israeli's & then after Israel retaliates the Pali's & their supporters bitch about how many more dead Palestinians there are than Israeli's.  It's called Palestinian mentality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's called keeping a sense of proportion, of reason, of justice. Someone tries to kill you, fine. Kill them, but not their familly, their neighours, their friends and any innocent bystanders within range. Killing those who try to kill you is retaliation, killing anyone else is bestiality, otherwise called Zionist mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel has no reason to intentionally kill innocent civilians. To think that Soldiers and pilots are sent on missions to kill non combatants is absurd. Gaza is a tiny place which is very dense. High casualties are expected.
> 
> I see the same repetitive scenario. Hamas launches rockets, Israel does no thing. Hamas launches rockets, Israel bombs one Hamas facility. Hamas increases it's rocket launching, Israel bombs another few Hamas facilities. Repeat the latter several more time. Hamas continues its rockets launching even after being warned by Israel that the will commit to a full scale assault of they don't stop.
> Hamas CONTINUES launching rockets, Israel partakes in a full blown assault on Hamas and other militants, Palestinians and their supporters start whining to the world about Israeli 'aggression' claiming they started the war and all people can talk about is how many more Palestinian were killed than Israelis.
> Now, I don't have a solution to the conflict, but I do have a solution that would save many many Palestinian lives; STOP LAUNCHING ROCKETS AT ISRAEL
> 
> FFS it's really simple !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Raise the sige of Gaza and the rockets will stop. Stop provoking rocket attacks by assassinating Hamas officials and the rockets will stop. Negotiate a settlement in good faith and the rockets will stop. It works both ways.
> 
> Zionist Israel has the means to launch guided precision weaponry against launch sites in Gaza, that's indisputable. Carpet bombing neighbourhoods and launching artillery barrages into suburbs demonstates an intent to kill civillians, or at the very least, a reckless disregard for the safety of civillians, both of which are war crimes.
> 
> Zionist Israel has the much vaunted Iron Dome system, so why should it need to murder 1,000's of Palestinians in order to "defend itself"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya ya ya, same excuses. Don't launch rockets, and don't provoke Israel. That simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Zionist Israel doesn't need provoking, it has a policy called "Mowing the grass", a routine people cull, "justified" by manufactured "provocations" and false lag operations.
Click to expand...


How many false flag operations can you prove Israel took part in ? Because I always hear these accusations, but I never see any proof.

But you're wrong about not needing provoking. Remember the last conflict between Hamas and Israel? 
Hamas launches rockets, Israel does nothing. Repeat several more times. 
Hamas launches rockets, Israel bombs one or two Hamas facilities. Repeat several more times.
Hamas continues to launch rockets , even after warnings by Israel that they will commit to a full scale operation. 
Only after all this does Israel start its campaign.


So you see Challenger, the excuses that you and your deluded Pali buddies give for Hamas aggression is really just a bunch of Palestinian propaganda. Fail.


----------



## toastman

Challenger said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sure are a wonderful mouthpiece for Zionist propaganda.
> 
> "The UN is supervising the flow of material. Just one tightly controlled crossing from Israel into Gaza allows commercial goods. Only a tenth of the 5m tonnes of materials required has so far been let in, says the UN. At this rate, it would take 20 years to rebuild the territory, says Mr Sarhan. To buy on the black market you need a lot of cash. Most Gazans are poor. Half have no job."
> 
> http://www.economist.com/news/middl...test-war-recovery-distant-prospect-bleak-ever
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it that someone like you, who spews non stop Palestinian propaganda, has the right to accuse someone else of posting propaganda ? Do you not see the hypocrisy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying Aris2chat IS spouting propaganda, thanks for "outing" him.
Click to expand...


No, I didn't say that, you did. Looks like you have issues with reading comprehension...


----------



## aris2chat

toastman said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sure are a wonderful mouthpiece for Zionist propaganda.
> 
> "The UN is supervising the flow of material. Just one tightly controlled crossing from Israel into Gaza allows commercial goods. Only a tenth of the 5m tonnes of materials required has so far been let in, says the UN. At this rate, it would take 20 years to rebuild the territory, says Mr Sarhan. To buy on the black market you need a lot of cash. Most Gazans are poor. Half have no job."
> 
> http://www.economist.com/news/middl...test-war-recovery-distant-prospect-bleak-ever
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it that someone like you, who spews non stop Palestinian propaganda, has the right to accuse someone else of posting propaganda ? Do you not see the hypocrisy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying Aris2chat IS spouting propaganda, thanks for "outing" him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I didn't say that, you did. Looks like you have issues with reading comprehension...
Click to expand...


You expect squirrely to change?  That would be a challenge


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Israelis that fear the truth.  The whole Israeli propaganda machine is designed to counter the propagation of the facts.  Calling Palestinians "just Arabs. particularly hostile and stupid", doesn't change the fact that you people are a colonial project which is well past its sale date.  Any people would be hostile after being treated as you Jews have treated the Palestinians.  Evicting them from their land, holding millions in outdoor prisons  and murdering thousands of their women and children every 2 years or so.
> 
> As far as "stupid" well, you are a racist p.o.s. what else can said about you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is Israel is here to stay and the arab musilims are too stupid to realise this. Yes the arab muslims are stupid and extremely hostile to the point of getting themselves killed in their thousands.  Still waiting for your link to the evidence that Israel was a colonial project, because it took a hell of a lot of years to get it going and of the ground. You have just described exactly what the arab muslims have done to the Jews and Christians over the last 1400 years. Why as recently as 1949 the arab muslim Palestinians evicted by force Jews from Jerusalem and the west bank stealing their homes, property and valuables. So where is the proof of these murders then Abdul, show the evidence that would stand up in court that the Israelis murder 1000's of women and children every 2 years. That means the deaths were all pre meditated and the individuals picked out beforehand by the Israelis. Killing terrorists and militia is not murder by the way it is one of the less savoury facts of war.
> 
> NOW STOP SPREADING YOUR RACIST LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how the Palestinians kill some Israeli's & then after Israel retaliates the Pali's & their supporters bitch about how many more dead Palestinians there are than Israeli's.  It's called Palestinian mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's called keeping a sense of proportion, of reason, of justice. Someone tries to kill you, fine. Kill them, but not their familly, their neighours, their friends and any innocent bystanders within range. Killing those who try to kill you is retaliation, killing anyone else is bestiality, otherwise called Zionist mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if their family, friends and neighbours are also trying to kill you and your friends, family and neighbours. When you understand and realise this then you will realise that the arab muslims are out to kill everyone. You need to immerse yourself in Islamic culture to understand how they think, just as the allies immersed themselves in Japanese culture in the 1940's to understand what to us were barbaric practises. You never see one muslim protesting you always see a group because there is safety in numbers, and the leaders can always run away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "You need to immerse yourself in Islamic culture to understand how they think" Really?
> How many Islamic countries have you been to?
> How many Muslim Mosques/social clubs do you visit on a regular basis socially?
> How many Muslim families are you friends with?
Click to expand...






 NONE but then this would show nothing that was not freely available on the net

 A few until they became secretive and aggressive

 A fair number until they became controlled by extremist clerics.

 A true story for you to ponder.

 We had a very westernised muslim who worked in our department, and he would join in with our monthly bacon/egg/sausage breakfast butties. Often asking which bacon and sausages he should bring in when it was his turn. He contracted a disease that the doctors could not cure and he died after a short illness of just 3 months, so we all wanted to show our respects for a much respected and liked workmate. One of the other lads was a very close friend of the family so he went round and asked about funeral arrangements and if there were any special practises the lads at work should follow. The muslims family were adamant that no filthy kuffars would be present at any time and banned all of his friends from work from the mosque and surrounding areas.  All this because one of his cousin from Pakistan who was to travel back with his body was an extremist and had laid down the law on the family.

That is just one aspect of Islamic culture that is becoming more and more common in the UK.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian's home was Palestine.  The Europeans are now living there.  Send the Europeans back to Europe.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then send the Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians and Iranians back home as well. This would mean Israel would have about 6 million inhabitants and Palestine about 500,000 inhabitants. Are you serious about this Abdul, will you force the inhabitants to take DNA tests to determine their original homeland. What will you do when the Jews DNA shows they are related very closely to Jews from the surrounding areas. What islamomoron propaganda will you pull in that case, claim the Jews have transplanted DNA into their bodies. What about when the Palestinians are tested and found to be from other nations and recent arrivals, claim that because they are arab then they should stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Jews came from Europe and colonized Palestine.  It wouldn't matter what their DNA revealed.  But, as neutral studies have determined, the Jews from Europe are European in terms of DNA.
> 
> "Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European"
> 
> Surprise Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you get this from a book, a work of fiction based on history accounts.  It even says that depending on what part of the genome you study it shows the Ashkenazi Jews came from the area of Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he gets it from a scientific study. Since you apparently can't function without "links", here's one to the actual study itself. A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages Nature Communications Nature Publishing Group
Click to expand...




As I said a book co written by two authors. Not a real scientific paper is it.


 As for your link did you read what it said, and did you understand it fully

  Here we show that all four major founders, ~40% of Ashkenazi mtDNA variation, have ancestry in prehistoric Europe, rather than the Near East or Caucasus.


Pre history means before recorded history meaning that the 4 major founders could have migrated during the last Ice Age to the M.E and founded the lineage. They could have been captured slaves, or escaped slaves used as sex slaves by other people and freed by the Jews . You are clutching at straws in using books to substantiate your claims when you ant find any scientific works to do so.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian's home was Palestine.  The Europeans are now living there.  Send the Europeans back to Europe.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then send the Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians and Iranians back home as well. This would mean Israel would have about 6 million inhabitants and Palestine about 500,000 inhabitants. Are you serious about this Abdul, will you force the inhabitants to take DNA tests to determine their original homeland. What will you do when the Jews DNA shows they are related very closely to Jews from the surrounding areas. What islamomoron propaganda will you pull in that case, claim the Jews have transplanted DNA into their bodies. What about when the Palestinians are tested and found to be from other nations and recent arrivals, claim that because they are arab then they should stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How INSANE for you to mutter that Jews are related closely to Jews from surrounding areas...................which they are not for obvious reasons.....Your Posts Are Getting More BIZZARE by the day............................You crazy baldhead.www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uCkSGYOv8
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted the links showing just this from a non partisan source...............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where?
Click to expand...





 On here many times, and just like your link to your definition of Zionist you will have to search for them yourself.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Israelis that fear the truth.  The whole Israeli propaganda machine is designed to counter the propagation of the facts.  Calling Palestinians "just Arabs. particularly hostile and stupid", doesn't change the fact that you people are a colonial project which is well past its sale date.  Any people would be hostile after being treated as you Jews have treated the Palestinians.  Evicting them from their land, holding millions in outdoor prisons  and murdering thousands of their women and children every 2 years or so.
> 
> As far as "stupid" well, you are a racist p.o.s. what else can said about you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is Israel is here to stay and the arab musilims are too stupid to realise this. Yes the arab muslims are stupid and extremely hostile to the point of getting themselves killed in their thousands.  Still waiting for your link to the evidence that Israel was a colonial project, because it took a hell of a lot of years to get it going and of the ground. You have just described exactly what the arab muslims have done to the Jews and Christians over the last 1400 years. Why as recently as 1949 the arab muslim Palestinians evicted by force Jews from Jerusalem and the west bank stealing their homes, property and valuables. So where is the proof of these murders then Abdul, show the evidence that would stand up in court that the Israelis murder 1000's of women and children every 2 years. That means the deaths were all pre meditated and the individuals picked out beforehand by the Israelis. Killing terrorists and militia is not murder by the way it is one of the less savoury facts of war.
> 
> NOW STOP SPREADING YOUR RACIST LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how the Palestinians kill some Israeli's & then after Israel retaliates the Pali's & their supporters bitch about how many more dead Palestinians there are than Israeli's.  It's called Palestinian mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's called keeping a sense of proportion, of reason, of justice. Someone tries to kill you, fine. Kill them, but not their familly, their neighours, their friends and any innocent bystanders within range. Killing those who try to kill you is retaliation, killing anyone else is bestiality, otherwise called Zionist mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel has no reason to intentionally kill innocent civilians. To think that Soldiers and pilots are sent on missions to kill non combatants is absurd. Gaza is a tiny place which is very dense. High casualties are expected.
> 
> I see the same repetitive scenario. Hamas launches rockets, Israel does no thing. Hamas launches rockets, Israel bombs one Hamas facility. Hamas increases it's rocket launching, Israel bombs another few Hamas facilities. Repeat the latter several more time. Hamas continues its rockets launching even after being warned by Israel that the will commit to a full scale assault of they don't stop.
> Hamas CONTINUES launching rockets, Israel partakes in a full blown assault on Hamas and other militants, Palestinians and their supporters start whining to the world about Israeli 'aggression' claiming they started the war and all people can talk about is how many more Palestinian were killed than Israelis.
> Now, I don't have a solution to the conflict, but I do have a solution that would save many many Palestinian lives; STOP LAUNCHING ROCKETS AT ISRAEL
> 
> FFS it's really simple !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Raise the sige of Gaza and the rockets will stop. Stop provoking rocket attacks by assassinating Hamas officials and the rockets will stop. Negotiate a settlement in good faith and the rockets will stop. It works both ways.
> 
> Zionist Israel has the means to launch guided precision weaponry against launch sites in Gaza, that's indisputable. Carpet bombing neighbourhoods and launching artillery barrages into suburbs demonstates an intent to kill civillians, or at the very least, a reckless disregard for the safety of civillians, both of which are war crimes.
> 
> Zionist Israel has the much vaunted Iron Dome system, so why should it need to murder 1,000's of Palestinians in order to "defend itself"?
Click to expand...





 No siege in 2005 when the Israelis evacuated gaza  and the rockets became worse in numbers and frequency. So that destroys your argument.
 Stop firing rockets and the killing of valid military targets will stop.
 First you have to get hamas/fatah to show some good faith and agree to talks on a settlement without illegal pro conditions.

Even guided precision weaponry can go off target, but in many cases the Israel weapons hit their intended targets and set of the stored weapons there. That is what cause most of the destruction. As for launching artillery barrages into suburbs if hamas did not seed the suburbs with rocket launchers then there would be no need to blanket bomb them.  The only war crimes according to the ICC are those practised by hamas.

 LINK to substantiate your RACIST claim that Israel murdered 1,000's of Palestinians, or retract and admit that you are LYING


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> There goes MJB, cheering on mass murder. What a guy.






 Did it work and stop the mass murder of millions then Abdul ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> You sure are a wonderful mouthpiece for Zionist propaganda.
> 
> "The UN is supervising the flow of material. Just one tightly controlled crossing from Israel into Gaza allows commercial goods. Only a tenth of the 5m tonnes of materials required has so far been let in, says the UN. At this rate, it would take 20 years to rebuild the territory, says Mr Sarhan. To buy on the black market you need a lot of cash. Most Gazans are poor. Half have no job."
> 
> http://www.economist.com/news/middl...test-war-recovery-distant-prospect-bleak-ever






And the reason so little is getting through is that the goods are not there to be shipped, isn't that true Abdul. The Islamic nations who promised so much in 2014 have done their usual trick and denied they promised that much. Then you have hamas stopping the flow of goods into gaza by firing on the trucks. Those that get through are picked clean by hamas to sell on the black market. All common knowledge and widely reported in the media and yet you insist on only ever posting RACIST LIES that demonise Israel and sanctify the Palestinians.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sure are a wonderful mouthpiece for Zionist propaganda.
> 
> "The UN is supervising the flow of material. Just one tightly controlled crossing from Israel into Gaza allows commercial goods. Only a tenth of the 5m tonnes of materials required has so far been let in, says the UN. At this rate, it would take 20 years to rebuild the territory, says Mr Sarhan. To buy on the black market you need a lot of cash. Most Gazans are poor. Half have no job."
> 
> http://www.economist.com/news/middl...test-war-recovery-distant-prospect-bleak-ever
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it that someone like you, who spews non stop Palestinian propaganda, has the right to accuse someone else of posting propaganda ? Do you not see the hypocrisy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never posted propaganda, just fact.  Everything I post is fact backed by neutral sources.  You have been so brainwashed by Zionist/Israeli propaganda you are unable to discern fact from fiction.
Click to expand...





Your so called "facts" have been destroyed time after time by using your own links, and still you post the RACIST LIES as if only your input is valid.
Like your claims of 90%+ of Palestine has been owned by arab muslims for over 2000 years, when the real truth is that the arab muslims owned the land for 22 years ending in 1099. A thief an possess your land but they will never own it, and this is the same in Palestine. The arab muslim thieves can possess Israel's land but they can never own it.

All you post is what your imam tells you to post, and it is either RACIST LIES or islamomoron propaganda


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> None of what I post is propaganda, it is fact.  I may have been brainwashed through high school by Zionist/Israeli propaganda, as most Americans are, but university and the study of reality changed my position.
> 
> I have never posted a lie, unlike you and your friends.   Even your attempt at claiming that the local people attacked the Europeans first was disproven.  Even if the locals had every right to attack Europeans planning to evict them and take their lands.






 See even here you start on a LIE and end on a LIE and put another LIE in the middle. Want to change your post before you get reported for constant spamming.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> w
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of what I post is propaganda, it is fact.  I may have been brainwashed through high school by Zionist/Israeli propaganda, as most Americans are, but university and the study of reality changed my position.
> 
> I have never posted a lie, unlike you and your friends.  * Even your attempt at claiming that the local people attacked the Europeans first was disproven*.  Even if the locals had every right to attack Europeans planning to evict them and take their lands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, it wasn't. Nice try. Arabs were the first ones to kill Jews. The first documented massacre was against Jews.
> 
> "Even if the locals had every right to attack Europeans planning to evict them and take their lands"
> That's just another bullshit excuse. You ALWAYS excuse Arabs killing Jews/Israelis, but when it's the other war around, you condemn it.
> No one was taking over nothing when Jews were massacred. That's more of your Palestinian propaganda.
> Geez, you truly are one brainwashed sheep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first recorded (by a governmental agency) attacks were Europeans attacking and killing locals.  I posted the article several times.  The alleged attacks on the Europeans were claims by the Europeans. Hardly a neutral source.  But, it doesn't really matter as the locals had every right to try to prevent their dispossession.
> 
> The Europeans were planning to take over from the beginning.  Early Zionists made that clear. There is plenty of source material.
> 
> "There is a difficulty from which the Zionist dares not avert his eyes, though he rarely likes to face it. Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik [province] of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having 52 souls to every square mile, and not 25 percent of them Jews; so we must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the tribes in possession as our forefathers did, or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan."
> 
> Israel Zangwill recalling his 1904 speech in his book, "The Voice of Jerusalem".
> 
> The voice of Jerusalem Zangwill Israel 1864-1926 Free Download Streaming Internet Archive
> 
> You see Toast, in academia, bullshit doesn't normally fly.  Books like these were part of reading lists in college.
Click to expand...





 So the massacre of Jews at medina was not recorded by the Islamic government of the time. Or the many massacres of Jews through out Ottoman history right up until the mid 19c.

More LIES Abdul as your one source does not prove anything until it is substantiated from a non partisan source. The words of one man are nothing unless the rest of society act on them. So you post propaganda that supports your POV and try and pass it of  as reality.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> It is you that can't accept the truth.
> 
> "As in so many incidents that enfolded in the early years of Zionism, often researchers have only had access to the version of events written by the Jewish side......one could find another narrative – *the official account of events as recorded by the local Ottoman administration*...."We, the residents of villages neighboring with the Jewish colonies of Daran [Rehovot] and Lun Kara (Rishon Leztion)," and complain that the Jews "wanted to strip the camel owner of their clothes, money and camels, but these men refused to give their camels and escaped from Lun Kara with their camels, protecting each other [to seek refuge with] men of the law… The above mentioned Jews attacked our villages, robbed and looted our property, killed and even damaged the family honor, all this in a manner we find hard to put in words."
> 
> 
> New documents reveal early Palestinian attitudes toward Zionist settlements - Israel News Haaretz






 Do you see what the source is Abdul, it is not the ottoman authorities is it. IT IS THE ARAB MUSLIM VILLAGERS, the same villagers that had already attacked and killed the Jews according to your own link. So it is just islamomoron propaganda repeated by an islamomoron because it supports his racist pov


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> w
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of what I post is propaganda, it is fact.  I may have been brainwashed through high school by Zionist/Israeli propaganda, as most Americans are, but university and the study of reality changed my position.
> 
> I have never posted a lie, unlike you and your friends.  * Even your attempt at claiming that the local people attacked the Europeans first was disproven*.  Even if the locals had every right to attack Europeans planning to evict them and take their lands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, it wasn't. Nice try. Arabs were the first ones to kill Jews. The first documented massacre was against Jews.
> 
> "Even if the locals had every right to attack Europeans planning to evict them and take their lands"
> That's just another bullshit excuse. You ALWAYS excuse Arabs killing Jews/Israelis, but when it's the other war around, you condemn it.
> No one was taking over nothing when Jews were massacred. That's more of your Palestinian propaganda.
> Geez, you truly are one brainwashed sheep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first recorded (by a governmental agency) attacks were Europeans attacking and killing locals.  I posted the article several times.  The alleged attacks on the Europeans were claims by the Europeans. Hardly a neutral source.  But, it doesn't really matter as the locals had every right to try to prevent their dispossession.
> 
> The Europeans were planning to take over from the beginning.  Early Zionists made that clear. There is plenty of source material.
> 
> "There is a difficulty from which the Zionist dares not avert his eyes, though he rarely likes to face it. Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik [province] of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having 52 souls to every square mile, and not 25 percent of them Jews; so we must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the tribes in possession as our forefathers did, or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan."
> 
> Israel Zangwill recalling his 1904 speech in his book, "The Voice of Jerusalem".
> 
> The voice of Jerusalem Zangwill Israel 1864-1926 Free Download Streaming Internet Archive
> 
> You see Toast, in academia, bullshit doesn't normally fly.  Books like these were part of reading lists in college.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where in your post does it say anything about a documented massacre?? Geez, you're really desperate I see.
> 
> Just proved how much trouble you are having to accept the truth. Arabs started killing Jews first, and there's nothing you can do to change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point was that the Europeans had every intention of evicting the locals.  I provided source material to prove it.  Your brainwashing makes it impossible for you to accept the truth.  Above you will see that the Europeans started the massacres, as was the case in all European colonial projects.
Click to expand...





 LIES and that is all you ever post.  Not once have you produced a definitive link to prove that the Europeans started the massacres. All you an come up with is some islamomoron propaganda from an ottoman archive that actually says the opposite to your claim


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> You lose Toast.  You always lose.






 We can always tell when you have lost Abdul as you claim everyone else has lost.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> You sure are a wonderful mouthpiece for Zionist propaganda.
> 
> "The UN is supervising the flow of material. Just one tightly controlled crossing from Israel into Gaza allows commercial goods. Only a tenth of the 5m tonnes of materials required has so far been let in, says the UN. At this rate, it would take 20 years to rebuild the territory, says Mr Sarhan. To buy on the black market you need a lot of cash. Most Gazans are poor. Half have no job."
> 
> http://www.economist.com/news/middl...test-war-recovery-distant-prospect-bleak-ever



I tell ya Monte those Zionists will never admit their responsibility in fueling this endless conflict.  What kind of people make peace offerings to Palestinians, build a security fence & concede land to them keeping them in Israel when all the Pali's want is self dertermination free from Israel's rule?  Want peace?  First this entire Zionist agenda has to go.  And then Israel must learn to treat the Palestinians with the same Arab country love, justice & respect the Palestinians are so well accustomed to & so well deserve.  History has proven king Hussein was right.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Dr Mustafa Barghouthi*

**


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Dr Mustafa Barghouthi*
> 
> **






 Then they should approach Israel with a blank slate and say this is the starting point, what will you give in return for what you want. As a sign of good faith all rockets to be laid on the ground in full view of the IDF


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Dr Mustafa Barghouthi*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then they should approach Israel with a blank slate and say this is the starting point, what will you give in return for what you want. As a sign of good faith all rockets to be laid on the ground in full view of the IDF
Click to expand...

Both sides should disarm.


----------



## MJB12741

Israel has the capability to annihilate the Palestiians but lack the desire.  The Palestinians have the desire to annihilate the Israeli's but lack the capabilty.  Best we just keep it that way.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Dr Mustafa Barghouthi*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then they should approach Israel with a blank slate and say this is the starting point, what will you give in return for what you want. As a sign of good faith all rockets to be laid on the ground in full view of the IDF
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both sides should disarm.
Click to expand...





 WHY ? when it is arab muslims doing all the attacking. But I did not call for them to disarm just lay the rockets on the ground. No rockets means no distractions


----------



## aris2chat

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Dr Mustafa Barghouthi*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then they should approach Israel with a blank slate and say this is the starting point, what will you give in return for what you want. As a sign of good faith all rockets to be laid on the ground in full view of the IDF
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both sides should disarm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHY ? when it is arab muslims doing all the attacking. But I did not call for them to disarm just lay the rockets on the ground. No rockets means no distractions
Click to expand...


lay them down pointed at themselves.............just in case of 'accidents'


----------



## MJB12741

aris2chat said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Dr Mustafa Barghouthi*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then they should approach Israel with a blank slate and say this is the starting point, what will you give in return for what you want. As a sign of good faith all rockets to be laid on the ground in full view of the IDF
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both sides should disarm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHY ? when it is arab muslims doing all the attacking. But I did not call for them to disarm just lay the rockets on the ground. No rockets means no distractions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lay them down pointed at themselves.............just in case of 'accidents'
Click to expand...


When the Palestinians attack & kill Israeli's, Israel WILL retaliate.  And then the Pali supporters bitch about how many more Paletinians Israel has killed than vice versa.  It's called Palestinian mentality.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Dr Mustafa Barghouthi*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then they should approach Israel with a blank slate and say this is the starting point, what will you give in return for what you want. As a sign of good faith all rockets to be laid on the ground in full view of the IDF
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both sides should disarm.
Click to expand...

Wow Tinmore. Really ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Girls Football.*


----------



## Mindful

Your new home in concentration camp Gaza.

Looking for a New Summer Home by Alexandra Markus Israellycool


" What is truly sad is that Gaza could have been the "in" resort for the world. When ALL Israelis were forced to leave, they left behind beautiful greenhouses as their houses were destroyed, they left wonderful beaches to be developed. They left the potential and hope that a new Monaco or Singapore could become a real and good neighbor. But instead, they got rockets, terror tunnels and years of bad press, as the UN and world poured more money into the area."


----------



## Phoenall

aris2chat said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Dr Mustafa Barghouthi*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then they should approach Israel with a blank slate and say this is the starting point, what will you give in return for what you want. As a sign of good faith all rockets to be laid on the ground in full view of the IDF
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both sides should disarm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHY ? when it is arab muslims doing all the attacking. But I did not call for them to disarm just lay the rockets on the ground. No rockets means no distractions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lay them down pointed at themselves.............just in case of 'accidents'
Click to expand...





 Wont matter as Israel will just send them back strapped to the top of a 200lb bomb and lay waste to downtown gaza. Demolisg=h the country clubs, casino's and eateries first so that hamas leadership suffers


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Girls Football.*







 Would be a very slow game as the Burkhas will slow them down a lot


----------



## P F Tinmore

Mindful said:


> Your new home in concentration camp Gaza.
> 
> Looking for a New Summer Home by Alexandra Markus Israellycool
> 
> 
> " What is truly sad is that Gaza could have been the "in" resort for the world. When ALL Israelis were forced to leave, they left behind beautiful greenhouses as their houses were destroyed, they left wonderful beaches to be developed. They left the potential and hope that a new Monaco or Singapore could become a real and good neighbor. But instead, they got rockets, terror tunnels and years of bad press, as the UN and world poured more money into the area."


" What is truly sad is that Gaza could have been the "in" resort for the world.​
Sure people could fly into Gaza International Airport.


...they left behind beautiful greenhouses...​
Are you still pimping that lie?

Israel shuts off water dries Gaza greenhouses


----------



## Mindful

P F Tinmore said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your new home in concentration camp Gaza.
> 
> Looking for a New Summer Home by Alexandra Markus Israellycool
> 
> 
> " What is truly sad is that Gaza could have been the "in" resort for the world. When ALL Israelis were forced to leave, they left behind beautiful greenhouses as their houses were destroyed, they left wonderful beaches to be developed. They left the potential and hope that a new Monaco or Singapore could become a real and good neighbor. But instead, they got rockets, terror tunnels and years of bad press, as the UN and world poured more money into the area."
> 
> 
> 
> " What is truly sad is that Gaza could have been the "in" resort for the world.​
> Sure people could fly into Gaza International Airport.
> 
> 
> ...they left behind beautiful greenhouses...​
> Are you still pimping that lie?
> 
> Israel shuts off water dries Gaza greenhouses
Click to expand...



Quite lavish isn't it? I wonder how much it cost.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Mindful said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your new home in concentration camp Gaza.
> 
> Looking for a New Summer Home by Alexandra Markus Israellycool
> 
> 
> " What is truly sad is that Gaza could have been the "in" resort for the world. When ALL Israelis were forced to leave, they left behind beautiful greenhouses as their houses were destroyed, they left wonderful beaches to be developed. They left the potential and hope that a new Monaco or Singapore could become a real and good neighbor. But instead, they got rockets, terror tunnels and years of bad press, as the UN and world poured more money into the area."
> 
> 
> 
> " What is truly sad is that Gaza could have been the "in" resort for the world.​
> Sure people could fly into Gaza International Airport.
> 
> 
> ...they left behind beautiful greenhouses...​
> Are you still pimping that lie?
> 
> Israel shuts off water dries Gaza greenhouses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Quite lavish isn't it? I wonder how much it cost.
Click to expand...

Indeed, it was nice.

Then some assholes came in and destroyed it like they destroy everything and anything Palestinian.


----------



## Mindful

P F Tinmore said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your new home in concentration camp Gaza.
> 
> Looking for a New Summer Home by Alexandra Markus Israellycool
> 
> 
> " What is truly sad is that Gaza could have been the "in" resort for the world. When ALL Israelis were forced to leave, they left behind beautiful greenhouses as their houses were destroyed, they left wonderful beaches to be developed. They left the potential and hope that a new Monaco or Singapore could become a real and good neighbor. But instead, they got rockets, terror tunnels and years of bad press, as the UN and world poured more money into the area."
> 
> 
> 
> " What is truly sad is that Gaza could have been the "in" resort for the world.​
> Sure people could fly into Gaza International Airport.
> 
> 
> ...they left behind beautiful greenhouses...​
> Are you still pimping that lie?
> 
> Israel shuts off water dries Gaza greenhouses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Quite lavish isn't it? I wonder how much it cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, it was nice.
> 
> Then some assholes came in and destroyed it like they destroy everything and anything Palestinian.
Click to expand...



Are you trying to convince me of something? Because you're not doing a good job of it.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your new home in concentration camp Gaza.
> 
> Looking for a New Summer Home by Alexandra Markus Israellycool
> 
> 
> " What is truly sad is that Gaza could have been the "in" resort for the world. When ALL Israelis were forced to leave, they left behind beautiful greenhouses as their houses were destroyed, they left wonderful beaches to be developed. They left the potential and hope that a new Monaco or Singapore could become a real and good neighbor. But instead, they got rockets, terror tunnels and years of bad press, as the UN and world poured more money into the area."
> 
> 
> 
> " What is truly sad is that Gaza could have been the "in" resort for the world.​
> Sure people could fly into Gaza International Airport.
> 
> 
> ...they left behind beautiful greenhouses...​
> Are you still pimping that lie?
> 
> Israel shuts off water dries Gaza greenhouses
Click to expand...







 They could but for the islamonazi terrorists who forgot that the airport became a valid military target the day they started bombing Israel.

 Valid military tactic, and also a valid means of getting the payments for the water supplied. Don't like the response to terrorism then stop the terrorism.     IT IS THAT SIMPLE


----------



## Phoenall

Mindful said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your new home in concentration camp Gaza.
> 
> Looking for a New Summer Home by Alexandra Markus Israellycool
> 
> 
> " What is truly sad is that Gaza could have been the "in" resort for the world. When ALL Israelis were forced to leave, they left behind beautiful greenhouses as their houses were destroyed, they left wonderful beaches to be developed. They left the potential and hope that a new Monaco or Singapore could become a real and good neighbor. But instead, they got rockets, terror tunnels and years of bad press, as the UN and world poured more money into the area."
> 
> 
> 
> " What is truly sad is that Gaza could have been the "in" resort for the world.​
> Sure people could fly into Gaza International Airport.
> 
> 
> ...they left behind beautiful greenhouses...​
> Are you still pimping that lie?
> 
> Israel shuts off water dries Gaza greenhouses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Quite lavish isn't it? I wonder how much it cost.
Click to expand...






 The cost was mooched from anyone they could con into putting into the pot. All for nothing as the islamonazi terrorists started to fly in weapons. So boom there goes gaza international.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your new home in concentration camp Gaza.
> 
> Looking for a New Summer Home by Alexandra Markus Israellycool
> 
> 
> " What is truly sad is that Gaza could have been the "in" resort for the world. When ALL Israelis were forced to leave, they left behind beautiful greenhouses as their houses were destroyed, they left wonderful beaches to be developed. They left the potential and hope that a new Monaco or Singapore could become a real and good neighbor. But instead, they got rockets, terror tunnels and years of bad press, as the UN and world poured more money into the area."
> 
> 
> 
> " What is truly sad is that Gaza could have been the "in" resort for the world.​
> Sure people could fly into Gaza International Airport.
> 
> 
> ...they left behind beautiful greenhouses...​
> Are you still pimping that lie?
> 
> Israel shuts off water dries Gaza greenhouses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Quite lavish isn't it? I wonder how much it cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, it was nice.
> 
> Then some assholes came in and destroyed it like they destroy everything and anything Palestinian.
Click to expand...





 YEP those islamonazi terrorists have done a lot of damage to gaza, and still you defend their actions.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Mindful said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your new home in concentration camp Gaza.
> 
> Looking for a New Summer Home by Alexandra Markus Israellycool
> 
> 
> " What is truly sad is that Gaza could have been the "in" resort for the world. When ALL Israelis were forced to leave, they left behind beautiful greenhouses as their houses were destroyed, they left wonderful beaches to be developed. They left the potential and hope that a new Monaco or Singapore could become a real and good neighbor. But instead, they got rockets, terror tunnels and years of bad press, as the UN and world poured more money into the area."
> 
> 
> 
> " What is truly sad is that Gaza could have been the "in" resort for the world.​
> Sure people could fly into Gaza International Airport.
> 
> 
> ...they left behind beautiful greenhouses...​
> Are you still pimping that lie?
> 
> Israel shuts off water dries Gaza greenhouses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Quite lavish isn't it? I wonder how much it cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, it was nice.
> 
> Then some assholes came in and destroyed it like they destroy everything and anything Palestinian.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to convince me of something? Because you're not doing a good job of it.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't try to convince you of anything.

You are beyond hope.


----------



## Mindful

P F Tinmore said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your new home in concentration camp Gaza.
> 
> Looking for a New Summer Home by Alexandra Markus Israellycool
> 
> 
> " What is truly sad is that Gaza could have been the "in" resort for the world. When ALL Israelis were forced to leave, they left behind beautiful greenhouses as their houses were destroyed, they left wonderful beaches to be developed. They left the potential and hope that a new Monaco or Singapore could become a real and good neighbor. But instead, they got rockets, terror tunnels and years of bad press, as the UN and world poured more money into the area."
> 
> 
> 
> " What is truly sad is that Gaza could have been the "in" resort for the world.​
> Sure people could fly into Gaza International Airport.
> 
> 
> ...they left behind beautiful greenhouses...​
> Are you still pimping that lie?
> 
> Israel shuts off water dries Gaza greenhouses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Quite lavish isn't it? I wonder how much it cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, it was nice.
> 
> Then some assholes came in and destroyed it like they destroy everything and anything Palestinian.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to convince me of something? Because you're not doing a good job of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wouldn't try to convince you of anything.
> 
> You are beyond hope.
Click to expand...




P F Tinmore said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your new home in concentration camp Gaza.
> 
> Looking for a New Summer Home by Alexandra Markus Israellycool
> 
> 
> " What is truly sad is that Gaza could have been the "in" resort for the world. When ALL Israelis were forced to leave, they left behind beautiful greenhouses as their houses were destroyed, they left wonderful beaches to be developed. They left the potential and hope that a new Monaco or Singapore could become a real and good neighbor. But instead, they got rockets, terror tunnels and years of bad press, as the UN and world poured more money into the area."
> 
> 
> 
> " What is truly sad is that Gaza could have been the "in" resort for the world.​
> Sure people could fly into Gaza International Airport.
> 
> 
> ...they left behind beautiful greenhouses...​
> Are you still pimping that lie?
> 
> Israel shuts off water dries Gaza greenhouses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Quite lavish isn't it? I wonder how much it cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, it was nice.
> 
> Then some assholes came in and destroyed it like they destroy everything and anything Palestinian.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to convince me of something? Because you're not doing a good job of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wouldn't try to convince you of anything.
> 
> You are beyond hope.
Click to expand...




Then why do you keep persisting?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Mindful said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> " What is truly sad is that Gaza could have been the "in" resort for the world.​
> Sure people could fly into Gaza International Airport.
> 
> 
> ...they left behind beautiful greenhouses...​
> Are you still pimping that lie?
> 
> Israel shuts off water dries Gaza greenhouses
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite lavish isn't it? I wonder how much it cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, it was nice.
> 
> Then some assholes came in and destroyed it like they destroy everything and anything Palestinian.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to convince me of something? Because you're not doing a good job of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wouldn't try to convince you of anything.
> 
> You are beyond hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> " What is truly sad is that Gaza could have been the "in" resort for the world.​
> Sure people could fly into Gaza International Airport.
> 
> 
> ...they left behind beautiful greenhouses...​
> Are you still pimping that lie?
> 
> Israel shuts off water dries Gaza greenhouses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Quite lavish isn't it? I wonder how much it cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, it was nice.
> 
> Then some assholes came in and destroyed it like they destroy everything and anything Palestinian.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to convince me of something? Because you're not doing a good job of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wouldn't try to convince you of anything.
> 
> You are beyond hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep persisting?
Click to expand...

I post for people who want to learn something.

If that is not you...well...it is not you.


----------



## Mindful

P F Tinmore said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite lavish isn't it? I wonder how much it cost.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, it was nice.
> 
> Then some assholes came in and destroyed it like they destroy everything and anything Palestinian.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to convince me of something? Because you're not doing a good job of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wouldn't try to convince you of anything.
> 
> You are beyond hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite lavish isn't it? I wonder how much it cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, it was nice.
> 
> Then some assholes came in and destroyed it like they destroy everything and anything Palestinian.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to convince me of something? Because you're not doing a good job of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wouldn't try to convince you of anything.
> 
> You are beyond hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep persisting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I post for people who want to learn something.
> 
> If that is not you...well...it is not you.
Click to expand...




P F Tinmore said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite lavish isn't it? I wonder how much it cost.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, it was nice.
> 
> Then some assholes came in and destroyed it like they destroy everything and anything Palestinian.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to convince me of something? Because you're not doing a good job of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wouldn't try to convince you of anything.
> 
> You are beyond hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite lavish isn't it? I wonder how much it cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, it was nice.
> 
> Then some assholes came in and destroyed it like they destroy everything and anything Palestinian.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to convince me of something? Because you're not doing a good job of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wouldn't try to convince you of anything.
> 
> You are beyond hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep persisting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I post for people who want to learn something.
> 
> If that is not you...well...it is not you.
Click to expand...



Didn't you just say I was beyond hope?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite lavish isn't it? I wonder how much it cost.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, it was nice.
> 
> Then some assholes came in and destroyed it like they destroy everything and anything Palestinian.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to convince me of something? Because you're not doing a good job of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wouldn't try to convince you of anything.
> 
> You are beyond hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite lavish isn't it? I wonder how much it cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, it was nice.
> 
> Then some assholes came in and destroyed it like they destroy everything and anything Palestinian.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to convince me of something? Because you're not doing a good job of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wouldn't try to convince you of anything.
> 
> You are beyond hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep persisting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I post for people who want to learn something.
> 
> If that is not you...well...it is not you.
Click to expand...






 Don't you think that we already know something and don't need you to tell us anything. We can see with our own eyes just what is happening, and all you do is try and deny the reality.


----------



## MJB12741

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your new home in concentration camp Gaza.
> 
> Looking for a New Summer Home by Alexandra Markus Israellycool
> 
> 
> " What is truly sad is that Gaza could have been the "in" resort for the world. When ALL Israelis were forced to leave, they left behind beautiful greenhouses as their houses were destroyed, they left wonderful beaches to be developed. They left the potential and hope that a new Monaco or Singapore could become a real and good neighbor. But instead, they got rockets, terror tunnels and years of bad press, as the UN and world poured more money into the area."
> 
> 
> 
> " What is truly sad is that Gaza could have been the "in" resort for the world.​
> Sure people could fly into Gaza International Airport.
> 
> 
> ...they left behind beautiful greenhouses...​
> Are you still pimping that lie?
> 
> Israel shuts off water dries Gaza greenhouses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Quite lavish isn't it? I wonder how much it cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, it was nice.
> 
> Then some assholes came in and destroyed it like they destroy everything and anything Palestinian.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YEP those islamonazi terrorists have done a lot of damage to gaza, and still you defend their actions.
Click to expand...


What Hamas has done & is still doing to the Palestinians is hard to forgive.  But then it was after all the Palestinian people themselves who elected Hamas to govern them.  So just how sorry can we feel for the Palestinians?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, it was nice.
> 
> Then some assholes came in and destroyed it like they destroy everything and anything Palestinian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to convince me of something? Because you're not doing a good job of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wouldn't try to convince you of anything.
> 
> You are beyond hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, it was nice.
> 
> Then some assholes came in and destroyed it like they destroy everything and anything Palestinian.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to convince me of something? Because you're not doing a good job of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wouldn't try to convince you of anything.
> 
> You are beyond hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep persisting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I post for people who want to learn something.
> 
> If that is not you...well...it is not you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think that we already know something and don't need you to tell us anything. We can see with our own eyes just what is happening, and all you do is try and deny the reality.
Click to expand...

You know a lot of things that are not true.

I could prove an I Israeli lie to you and you would only dance around the facts.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to convince me of something? Because you're not doing a good job of it.
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't try to convince you of anything.
> 
> You are beyond hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to convince me of something? Because you're not doing a good job of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wouldn't try to convince you of anything.
> 
> You are beyond hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep persisting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I post for people who want to learn something.
> 
> If that is not you...well...it is not you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think that we already know something and don't need you to tell us anything. We can see with our own eyes just what is happening, and all you do is try and deny the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know a lot of things that are not true.
> 
> I could prove an I Israeli lie to you and you would only dance around the facts.
Click to expand...





 Could you, or would it just be an islamonazi LIE without any basis in truth.

 Try one and see how you get on ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't try to convince you of anything.
> 
> You are beyond hope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't try to convince you of anything.
> 
> You are beyond hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep persisting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I post for people who want to learn something.
> 
> If that is not you...well...it is not you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think that we already know something and don't need you to tell us anything. We can see with our own eyes just what is happening, and all you do is try and deny the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know a lot of things that are not true.
> 
> I could prove an I Israeli lie to you and you would only dance around the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you, or would it just be an islamonazi LIE without any basis in truth.
> 
> Try one and see how you get on ?
Click to expand...

Would UN documents suffice?


----------



## Mindful

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep persisting?
> 
> 
> 
> I post for people who want to learn something.
> 
> If that is not you...well...it is not you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think that we already know something and don't need you to tell us anything. We can see with our own eyes just what is happening, and all you do is try and deny the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know a lot of things that are not true.
> 
> I could prove an I Israeli lie to you and you would only dance around the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you, or would it just be an islamonazi LIE without any basis in truth.
> 
> Try one and see how you get on ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would UN documents suffice?
Click to expand...


Definitely not.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Mindful said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I post for people who want to learn something.
> 
> If that is not you...well...it is not you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think that we already know something and don't need you to tell us anything. We can see with our own eyes just what is happening, and all you do is try and deny the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know a lot of things that are not true.
> 
> I could prove an I Israeli lie to you and you would only dance around the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you, or would it just be an islamonazi LIE without any basis in truth.
> 
> Try one and see how you get on ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would UN documents suffice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Definitely not.
Click to expand...

How about something from www,israelibullshit.il?


----------



## Mindful

P F Tinmore said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think that we already know something and don't need you to tell us anything. We can see with our own eyes just what is happening, and all you do is try and deny the reality.
> 
> 
> 
> You know a lot of things that are not true.
> 
> I could prove an I Israeli lie to you and you would only dance around the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you, or would it just be an islamonazi LIE without any basis in truth.
> 
> Try one and see how you get on ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would UN documents suffice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Definitely not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about something from www,israelibullshit.il?
Click to expand...


As if.


----------



## MJB12741

WHO ARE THE PALESTINIANS?

On This Day Palestinian Terrorists Kill Israeli Athletes in Munich Massacre


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep persisting?
> 
> 
> 
> I post for people who want to learn something.
> 
> If that is not you...well...it is not you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think that we already know something and don't need you to tell us anything. We can see with our own eyes just what is happening, and all you do is try and deny the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know a lot of things that are not true.
> 
> I could prove an I Israeli lie to you and you would only dance around the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you, or would it just be an islamonazi LIE without any basis in truth.
> 
> Try one and see how you get on ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would UN documents suffice?
Click to expand...


You do have a tendency to provide UN documents, but it's never a document that is being asked of you.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think that we already know something and don't need you to tell us anything. We can see with our own eyes just what is happening, and all you do is try and deny the reality.
> 
> 
> 
> You know a lot of things that are not true.
> 
> I could prove an I Israeli lie to you and you would only dance around the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you, or would it just be an islamonazi LIE without any basis in truth.
> 
> Try one and see how you get on ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would UN documents suffice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Definitely not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about something from www,israelibullshit.il?
Click to expand...


This Israeli bullshit you speak of is a myth. The reality is you hate facts.


----------



## theliq

MJB12741 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your new home in concentration camp Gaza.
> 
> Looking for a New Summer Home by Alexandra Markus Israellycool
> 
> 
> " What is truly sad is that Gaza could have been the "in" resort for the world. When ALL Israelis were forced to leave, they left behind beautiful greenhouses as their houses were destroyed, they left wonderful beaches to be developed. They left the potential and hope that a new Monaco or Singapore could become a real and good neighbor. But instead, they got rockets, terror tunnels and years of bad press, as the UN and world poured more money into the area."
> 
> 
> 
> " What is truly sad is that Gaza could have been the "in" resort for the world.​
> Sure people could fly into Gaza International Airport.
> 
> 
> ...they left behind beautiful greenhouses...​
> Are you still pimping that lie?
> 
> Israel shuts off water dries Gaza greenhouses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Quite lavish isn't it? I wonder how much it cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, it was nice.
> 
> Then some assholes came in and destroyed it like they destroy everything and anything Palestinian.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YEP those islamonazi terrorists have done a lot of damage to gaza, and still you defend their actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Hamas has done & is still doing to the Palestinians is hard to forgive.  But then it was after all the Palestinian people themselves who elected Hamas to govern them.  So just how sorry can we feel for the Palestinians?
Click to expand...

You Israel and the US demanded the Palestinians have fair and democratic elections which they did,and Gaza voted for Hamas...MOREOVER it was Israel and the US that funded and ARMED HAMAS in the first place......do you really think any half brained person would see through your concern about the Palestinians plight with Hamas...OF COURSE WE DON'T.......YOU GOT WHAT YOU DESIRED



TIME NOW FOR YOU TERRORISTS TO SHUT YOUR MOUTHS,but you like this STATUS-QUO but pretend to be concerned...SUCH IS YOUR MORAL CODE OF DECEPTION....YOU ARE FILTH


Now for a NEW SENARIO.............I am King of the Canaanites and head of the 3 million desporia of Canaanites worldwide.

We have requested a our original homeland back,from the present day Israel(well we were in this place before they arrived of course) we will very kindly allow a small part of Canaan for the Jews,most of whom are Illegal Settlers any way.........we will tell our future generations that this land was uninhabited when we received it back,via the UN in 2016.

In the meantime we will eliminate the Jews that live here through any means....I fancy systematic TERRORISM , murder and displacement (this tactic was used by the Jews against the Palestinians,so they won't mind at all).......so far so good,and must be a scenario the Jews/Israelis would be most familiar with.

Over the months and years after Canaan is established...we will slaughter another 100,000 or so.....LIKE THE ISRAELIS DID.......No big shakes as we have relentlessly and will continue to,defile ,discriminate,abuse,threaten,yeah and demonized these Israelis.....well we can manipulate the West inparticular the Americans who are our biggest benefactors,well their tax-payers are that is..........through Illegal means we will build reactors for the N-Bomb but never let any inspection of our Nuclear facilities...NO WAY.

Over the years we will "Obtain" the rest of the Israeli/Jews land.(the OCCUPIED TERRITORIES).....we will say it is to defend our borders against the Israeli forces who are a bunch of TERRORISTS anyway.So bow to your superior, you Israelis, I AM THE KING OF THE CANAANITES......we are a Modern Sophisticated Society and Country.

steve........interesting init


----------



## RoccoR

theliq,  et al,

Yes I've hear this before.



theliq said:


> .MOREOVER it was Israel and the US that funded and *ARMED HAMAS *in the first place......do you really think any half brained person would see through your concern about the Palestinians plight with Hamas...OF COURSE WE DON'T.......YOU GOT WHAT YOU DESIRED


*(COMMENT)*

Just how do you substantiate an allegation such as this???

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## theliq

RoccoR said:


> theliq,  et al,
> 
> Yes I've hear this before.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> .MOREOVER it was Israel and the US that funded and *ARMED HAMAS *in the first place......do you really think any half brained person would see through your concern about the Palestinians plight with Hamas...OF COURSE WE DON'T.......YOU GOT WHAT YOU DESIRED
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Just how do you substantiate an allegation such as this???
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

You MEAN FACT R..........


----------



## P F Tinmore

theliq said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> " What is truly sad is that Gaza could have been the "in" resort for the world.​
> Sure people could fly into Gaza International Airport.
> 
> 
> ...they left behind beautiful greenhouses...​
> Are you still pimping that lie?
> 
> Israel shuts off water dries Gaza greenhouses
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite lavish isn't it? I wonder how much it cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, it was nice.
> 
> Then some assholes came in and destroyed it like they destroy everything and anything Palestinian.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YEP those islamonazi terrorists have done a lot of damage to gaza, and still you defend their actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Hamas has done & is still doing to the Palestinians is hard to forgive.  But then it was after all the Palestinian people themselves who elected Hamas to govern them.  So just how sorry can we feel for the Palestinians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You Israel and the US demanded the Palestinians have fair and democratic elections which they did,and Gaza voted for Hamas...MOREOVER it was Israel and the US that funded and ARMED HAMAS in the first place......do you really think any half brained person would see through your concern about the Palestinians plight with Hamas...OF COURSE WE DON'T.......YOU GOT WHAT YOU DESIRED
> 
> 
> 
> TIME NOW FOR YOU TERRORISTS TO SHUT YOUR MOUTHS,but you like this STATUS-QUO but pretend to be concerned...SUCH IS YOUR MORAL CODE OF DECEPTION....YOU ARE FILTH
> 
> 
> Now for a NEW SENARIO.............I am King of the Canaanites and head of the 3 million desporia of Canaanites worldwide.
> 
> We have requested a our original homeland back,from the present day Israel(well we were in this place before they arrived of course) we will very kindly allow a small part of Canaan for the Jews,most of whom are Illegal Settlers any way.........we will tell our future generations that this land was uninhabited when we received it back,via the UN in 2016.
> 
> In the meantime we will eliminate the Jews that live here through any means....I fancy systematic TERRORISM , murder and displacement (this tactic was used by the Jews against the Palestinians,so they won't mind at all).......so far so good,and must be a scenario the Jews/Israelis would be most familiar with.
> 
> Over the months and years after Canaan is established...we will slaughter another 100,000 or so.....LIKE THE ISRAELIS DID.......No big shakes as we have relentlessly and will continue to,defile ,discriminate,abuse,threaten,yeah and demonized these Israelis.....well we can manipulate the West inparticular the Americans who are our biggest benefactors,well their tax-payers are that is..........through Illegal means we will build reactors for the N-Bomb but never let any inspection of our Nuclear facilities...NO WAY.
> 
> Over the years we will "Obtain" the rest of the Israeli/Jews land.(the OCCUPIED TERRITORIES).....we will say it is to defend our borders against the Israeli forces who are a bunch of TERRORISTS anyway.So bow to your superior, you Israelis, I AM THE KING OF THE CANAANITES......we are a Modern Sophisticated Society and Country.
> 
> steve........interesting init
Click to expand...

Common misperception.

Hamas won the majority of the seats in the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank as well as Gaza. It was a single, nationwide government.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

SPEAKERS: Laila El-Haddad, Dr. Rafeef Ziadeh, Mohamed Zeyara,
MODERATOR: Dr. Manal Fakhoury


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep persisting?
> 
> 
> 
> I post for people who want to learn something.
> 
> If that is not you...well...it is not you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think that we already know something and don't need you to tell us anything. We can see with our own eyes just what is happening, and all you do is try and deny the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know a lot of things that are not true.
> 
> I could prove an I Israeli lie to you and you would only dance around the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you, or would it just be an islamonazi LIE without any basis in truth.
> 
> Try one and see how you get on ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would UN documents suffice?
Click to expand...





 Yes as long as they are non partisan................


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think that we already know something and don't need you to tell us anything. We can see with our own eyes just what is happening, and all you do is try and deny the reality.
> 
> 
> 
> You know a lot of things that are not true.
> 
> I could prove an I Israeli lie to you and you would only dance around the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you, or would it just be an islamonazi LIE without any basis in truth.
> 
> Try one and see how you get on ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would UN documents suffice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Definitely not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about something from www,israelibullshit.il?
Click to expand...





 Nope that is an islamonazi front for neo Marxist white supremacists


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite lavish isn't it? I wonder how much it cost.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, it was nice.
> 
> Then some assholes came in and destroyed it like they destroy everything and anything Palestinian.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YEP those islamonazi terrorists have done a lot of damage to gaza, and still you defend their actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Hamas has done & is still doing to the Palestinians is hard to forgive.  But then it was after all the Palestinian people themselves who elected Hamas to govern them.  So just how sorry can we feel for the Palestinians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You Israel and the US demanded the Palestinians have fair and democratic elections which they did,and Gaza voted for Hamas...MOREOVER it was Israel and the US that funded and ARMED HAMAS in the first place......do you really think any half brained person would see through your concern about the Palestinians plight with Hamas...OF COURSE WE DON'T.......YOU GOT WHAT YOU DESIRED
> 
> 
> 
> TIME NOW FOR YOU TERRORISTS TO SHUT YOUR MOUTHS,but you like this STATUS-QUO but pretend to be concerned...SUCH IS YOUR MORAL CODE OF DECEPTION....YOU ARE FILTH
> 
> 
> Now for a NEW SENARIO.............I am King of the Canaanites and head of the 3 million desporia of Canaanites worldwide.
> 
> We have requested a our original homeland back,from the present day Israel(well we were in this place before they arrived of course) we will very kindly allow a small part of Canaan for the Jews,most of whom are Illegal Settlers any way.........we will tell our future generations that this land was uninhabited when we received it back,via the UN in 2016.
> 
> In the meantime we will eliminate the Jews that live here through any means....I fancy systematic TERRORISM , murder and displacement (this tactic was used by the Jews against the Palestinians,so they won't mind at all).......so far so good,and must be a scenario the Jews/Israelis would be most familiar with.
> 
> Over the months and years after Canaan is established...we will slaughter another 100,000 or so.....LIKE THE ISRAELIS DID.......No big shakes as we have relentlessly and will continue to,defile ,discriminate,abuse,threaten,yeah and demonized these Israelis.....well we can manipulate the West inparticular the Americans who are our biggest benefactors,well their tax-payers are that is..........through Illegal means we will build reactors for the N-Bomb but never let any inspection of our Nuclear facilities...NO WAY.
> 
> Over the years we will "Obtain" the rest of the Israeli/Jews land.(the OCCUPIED TERRITORIES).....we will say it is to defend our borders against the Israeli forces who are a bunch of TERRORISTS anyway.So bow to your superior, you Israelis, I AM THE KING OF THE CANAANITES......we are a Modern Sophisticated Society and Country.
> 
> steve........interesting init
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Common misperception.
> 
> Hamas won the majority of the seats in the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank as well as Gaza. It was a single, nationwide government.
Click to expand...





 And have declared themselves dictators ever since, that is why there are no elections and why Palestinians are murdered when they demand them.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> SPEAKERS: Laila El-Haddad, Dr. Rafeef Ziadeh, Mohamed Zeyara,
> MODERATOR: Dr. Manal Fakhoury






 OFF TOPIC TROLLING


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq,  et al,
> 
> Yes I've hear this before.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> .MOREOVER it was Israel and the US that funded and *ARMED HAMAS *in the first place......do you really think any half brained person would see through your concern about the Palestinians plight with Hamas...OF COURSE WE DON'T.......YOU GOT WHAT YOU DESIRED
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Just how do you substantiate an allegation such as this???
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You MEAN FACT R..........
Click to expand...




 Nope allegation that has never been properly substantiated


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite lavish isn't it? I wonder how much it cost.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, it was nice.
> 
> Then some assholes came in and destroyed it like they destroy everything and anything Palestinian.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YEP those islamonazi terrorists have done a lot of damage to gaza, and still you defend their actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Hamas has done & is still doing to the Palestinians is hard to forgive.  But then it was after all the Palestinian people themselves who elected Hamas to govern them.  So just how sorry can we feel for the Palestinians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You Israel and the US demanded the Palestinians have fair and democratic elections which they did,and Gaza voted for Hamas...MOREOVER it was Israel and the US that funded and ARMED HAMAS in the first place......do you really think any half brained person would see through your concern about the Palestinians plight with Hamas...OF COURSE WE DON'T.......YOU GOT WHAT YOU DESIRED
> 
> 
> 
> TIME NOW FOR YOU TERRORISTS TO SHUT YOUR MOUTHS,but you like this STATUS-QUO but pretend to be concerned...SUCH IS YOUR MORAL CODE OF DECEPTION....YOU ARE FILTH
> 
> 
> Now for a NEW SENARIO.............I am King of the Canaanites and head of the 3 million desporia of Canaanites worldwide.
> 
> We have requested a our original homeland back,from the present day Israel(well we were in this place before they arrived of course) we will very kindly allow a small part of Canaan for the Jews,most of whom are Illegal Settlers any way.........we will tell our future generations that this land was uninhabited when we received it back,via the UN in 2016.
> 
> In the meantime we will eliminate the Jews that live here through any means....I fancy systematic TERRORISM , murder and displacement (this tactic was used by the Jews against the Palestinians,so they won't mind at all).......so far so good,and must be a scenario the Jews/Israelis would be most familiar with.
> 
> Over the months and years after Canaan is established...we will slaughter another 100,000 or so.....LIKE THE ISRAELIS DID.......No big shakes as we have relentlessly and will continue to,defile ,discriminate,abuse,threaten,yeah and demonized these Israelis.....well we can manipulate the West inparticular the Americans who are our biggest benefactors,well their tax-payers are that is..........through Illegal means we will build reactors for the N-Bomb but never let any inspection of our Nuclear facilities...NO WAY.
> 
> Over the years we will "Obtain" the rest of the Israeli/Jews land.(the OCCUPIED TERRITORIES).....we will say it is to defend our borders against the Israeli forces who are a bunch of TERRORISTS anyway.So bow to your superior, you Israelis, I AM THE KING OF THE CANAANITES......we are a Modern Sophisticated Society and Country.
> 
> steve........interesting init
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Common misperception.
> 
> Hamas won the majority of the seats in the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank as well as Gaza. It was a single, nationwide government.
Click to expand...



Right on.  Down with Abbas & the PA.  Hamas knows how to get Palestinians killed.  Long live Hamas!


----------



## MJB12741

Hard to believe the majority of the Palestinian people & their supporters actually support Hamas.  It's called Palestinian mentality!

Hamas Killed 160 Palestinian Children to Build Gaza Tunnels Tablet Magazine


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> Hard to believe the majority of the Palestinian people & their supporters actually support Hamas.  It's called Palestinian mentality!
> 
> Hamas Killed 160 Palestinian Children to Build Gaza Tunnels Tablet Magazine



Well, that's certainly a source that doesn't publish propaganda.  So it must be true.  How can you possibly post such garbage?  

Tablet A New Read on Jewish Life

It is an interesting example of how Jewish propaganda works.  The article has a link to a report, which states:

"At least 160 individuals have been killed in the tunnels, according to Hamas officials."

 

This piece of Hasbara garbage changes it to:

 "Hamas Killed 160 Palestinians to Build Gaza Tunnels"


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to believe the majority of the Palestinian people & their supporters actually support Hamas.  It's called Palestinian mentality!
> 
> Hamas Killed 160 Palestinian Children to Build Gaza Tunnels Tablet Magazine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's certainly a source that doesn't publish propaganda.  So it must be true.  How can you possibly post such garbage?
> 
> Tablet A New Read on Jewish Life
> 
> It is an interesting example of how Jewish propaganda works.  The article has a link to a report, which states:
> 
> "At least 160 individuals have been killed in the tunnels, according to Hamas officials."
> 
> 
> 
> This piece of Hasbara garbage changes it to:
> 
> "Hamas Killed 160 Palestinians to Build Gaza Tunnels"
Click to expand...


As an expert Palestinian propagandist, you have no right to call anyone a propagandist or accuse their source of posting propaganda


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to believe the majority of the Palestinian people & their supporters actually support Hamas.  It's called Palestinian mentality!
> 
> Hamas Killed 160 Palestinian Children to Build Gaza Tunnels Tablet Magazine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's certainly a source that doesn't publish propaganda.  So it must be true.  How can you possibly post such garbage?
> 
> Tablet A New Read on Jewish Life
> 
> It is an interesting example of how Jewish propaganda works.  The article has a link to a report, which states:
> 
> "At least 160 individuals have been killed in the tunnels, according to Hamas officials."
> 
> 
> 
> This piece of Hasbara garbage changes it to:
> 
> "Hamas Killed 160 Palestinians to Build Gaza Tunnels"
Click to expand...





 So what about your links that start out with you claiming that Israel murdered 2,000 women and children only to see that it is some hamas official saying this about the human shields employed to protect the cowardly hamas terrorists


----------



## MJB12741

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to believe the majority of the Palestinian people & their supporters actually support Hamas.  It's called Palestinian mentality!
> 
> Hamas Killed 160 Palestinian Children to Build Gaza Tunnels Tablet Magazine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's certainly a source that doesn't publish propaganda.  So it must be true.  How can you possibly post such garbage?
> 
> Tablet A New Read on Jewish Life
> 
> It is an interesting example of how Jewish propaganda works.  The article has a link to a report, which states:
> 
> "At least 160 individuals have been killed in the tunnels, according to Hamas officials."
> 
> 
> 
> This piece of Hasbara garbage changes it to:
> 
> "Hamas Killed 160 Palestinians to Build Gaza Tunnels"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what about your links that start out with you claiming that Israel murdered 2,000 women and children only to see that it is some hamas official saying this about the human shields employed to protect the cowardly hamas terrorists
Click to expand...


Please don't upset Monte.  We need him here for something to laugh at while those he supports are killing us infidels all over the world.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to believe the majority of the Palestinian people & their supporters actually support Hamas.  It's called Palestinian mentality!
> 
> Hamas Killed 160 Palestinian Children to Build Gaza Tunnels Tablet Magazine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's certainly a source that doesn't publish propaganda.  So it must be true.  How can you possibly post such garbage?
> 
> Tablet A New Read on Jewish Life
> 
> It is an interesting example of how Jewish propaganda works.  The article has a link to a report, which states:
> 
> "At least 160 individuals have been killed in the tunnels, according to Hamas officials."
> 
> 
> 
> This piece of Hasbara garbage changes it to:
> 
> "Hamas Killed 160 Palestinians to Build Gaza Tunnels"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what about your links that start out with you claiming that Israel murdered 2,000 women and children only to see that it is some hamas official saying this about the human shields employed to protect the cowardly hamas terrorists
Click to expand...


Only Israeli propaganda sites claim that Hamas used human shields.  Western news organizations have have even denied it exposing it as Zionist blood libel:

*"Israel-Gaza conflict: The myth of Hamas’s human shields"*

"none have said they had been forced by the organisation to stay in places of danger and become unwilling human-shields."

"There was denial of coercion by Hamas. “I am not going to go because I can do something Hamas cannot do”, maintained Nabil al-Masri. “I know from times before that if Israeli soldiers get into an empty house they will ruin it on purpose. Hamas cannot stop them going into my house if we leave, but, by staying here we can try to make sure that doesn’t happen.”

Israel-Gaza conflict The myth of Hamas s human shields - Middle East - World - The Independent


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to believe the majority of the Palestinian people & their supporters actually support Hamas.  It's called Palestinian mentality!
> 
> Hamas Killed 160 Palestinian Children to Build Gaza Tunnels Tablet Magazine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's certainly a source that doesn't publish propaganda.  So it must be true.  How can you possibly post such garbage?
> 
> Tablet A New Read on Jewish Life
> 
> It is an interesting example of how Jewish propaganda works.  The article has a link to a report, which states:
> 
> "At least 160 individuals have been killed in the tunnels, according to Hamas officials."
> 
> 
> 
> This piece of Hasbara garbage changes it to:
> 
> "Hamas Killed 160 Palestinians to Build Gaza Tunnels"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what about your links that start out with you claiming that Israel murdered 2,000 women and children only to see that it is some hamas official saying this about the human shields employed to protect the cowardly hamas terrorists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only Israeli propaganda sites claim that Hamas used human shields.  Western news organizations have have even denied it exposing it as Zionist blood libel:
> 
> *"Israel-Gaza conflict: The myth of Hamas’s human shields"*
> 
> "none have said they had been forced by the organisation to stay in places of danger and become unwilling human-shields."
> 
> "There was denial of coercion by Hamas. “I am not going to go because I can do something Hamas cannot do”, maintained Nabil al-Masri. “I know from times before that if Israeli soldiers get into an empty house they will ruin it on purpose. Hamas cannot stop them going into my house if we leave, but, by staying here we can try to make sure that doesn’t happen.”
> 
> Israel-Gaza conflict The myth of Hamas s human shields - Middle East - World - The Independent
Click to expand...






 Then explain these that are not make believe by some Palestinian source ( a partisan source is hardly unbiased now is it, and in this case the source is not the newspaper but the Palestinian telling their lies)


Hamas DID use schools and hospitals in Gaza Strip as human shields Daily Mail Online

Armed palestinian terrorists using Children as human Shield - YouTube


Palestinians Starting To Have Mixed Feelings About Being Used As Human Shields - The Onion - America s Finest News Source


 Guess your link has been destroyed yet again abdul


----------



## MJB12741

Not only do the Palestinian terrorists use their own children as human shields, they also strap bombs on them to blow themselves up while killing Israeli's with them to honor God.


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> Not only do the Palestinian terrorists use their own children as human shields, they also strap bombs on them to blow themselves up while killing Israeli's with them to honor God.



How does anyone or any nation even begin to negotiate peace with an enemy who prefers death over life?


----------



## RoccoR

MJB12741, et al,

Ah yes, it is not unreasonable for the outside observer to be confused by the Death Wish Negotiator.



MJB12741 said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only do the Palestinian terrorists use their own children as human shields, they also strap bombs on them to blow themselves up while killing Israeli's with them to honor God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does anyone or any nation even begin to negotiate peace with an enemy who prefers death over life?
Click to expand...

(*COMMENT)*

But it is not (entirely) a case of the valuation of life and death over political aspirations and diplomatic success; especially in the case of Arab Palestinians that are being significantly influenced by squabbling factions like Fatah and HAMAS.  Over the last seven years, the Arab Palestinians (Fatah and HAMAS) have demonstrated that they cannot get along with themselves, let alone with other nations on matters of importance.  If they do not have the skill set and knowledge base to reconcile the "Palestinian on Palestinian" differences, it is not likely that left to their own devices, they could resolve the their armed international conflict with the Israelis.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

*"a *turbulent and troublesome people to deal with" 

Emperor Hadrian

*http://tinyurl.com/nsg8crs
*
Seems that Europeans have always had the same view of the Palestinians, even after they change religions.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> *"a *turbulent and troublesome people to deal with"
> 
> Emperor Hadrian
> 
> *http://tinyurl.com/nsg8crs
> *
> Seems that Europeans have always had the same view of the Palestinians, even after they change religions.





montelatici said:


> *"a *turbulent and troublesome people to deal with"
> 
> Emperor Hadrian
> 
> *http://tinyurl.com/nsg8crs
> *
> Seems that Europeans have always had the same view of the Palestinians, even after they change religions.



OUTSTANDING POINT.  Way to go Monte.  Help us educate everyone that the indigenous Palestinians WERE JEWS.  And Hadrian found them difficult in that they fought to keep their religion.  Not exactly like Israel's situation with the Palestinian squatters.  Don't you agree?


----------



## theliq

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"a *turbulent and troublesome people to deal with"
> 
> Emperor Hadrian
> 
> *http://tinyurl.com/nsg8crs
> *
> Seems that Europeans have always had the same view of the Palestinians, even after they change religions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"a *turbulent and troublesome people to deal with"
> 
> Emperor Hadrian
> 
> *http://tinyurl.com/nsg8crs
> *
> Seems that Europeans have always had the same view of the Palestinians, even after they change religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OUTSTANDING POINT.  Way to go Monte.  Help us educate everyone that the indigenous Palestinians WERE JEWS.  And Hadrian found them difficult in that they fought to keep their religion.  Not exactly like Israel's situation with the Palestinian squatters.  Don't you agree?
Click to expand...

Gee you talk some SHIT...fullstop


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"a *turbulent and troublesome people to deal with"
> 
> Emperor Hadrian
> 
> *http://tinyurl.com/nsg8crs
> *
> Seems that Europeans have always had the same view of the Palestinians, even after they change religions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"a *turbulent and troublesome people to deal with"
> 
> Emperor Hadrian
> 
> *http://tinyurl.com/nsg8crs
> *
> Seems that Europeans have always had the same view of the Palestinians, even after they change religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OUTSTANDING POINT.  Way to go Monte.  Help us educate everyone that the indigenous Palestinians WERE JEWS.  And Hadrian found them difficult in that they fought to keep their religion.  Not exactly like Israel's situation with the Palestinian squatters.  Don't you agree?
Click to expand...


The Palestinians were of the Jewish religion  before they converted to Christianity and Christians before many converted to Islam.  They are the same people.  The Europeans that invaded Palestine were Europeans.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"a *turbulent and troublesome people to deal with"
> 
> Emperor Hadrian
> 
> *http://tinyurl.com/nsg8crs
> *
> Seems that Europeans have always had the same view of the Palestinians, even after they change religions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"a *turbulent and troublesome people to deal with"
> 
> Emperor Hadrian
> 
> *http://tinyurl.com/nsg8crs
> *
> Seems that Europeans have always had the same view of the Palestinians, even after they change religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OUTSTANDING POINT.  Way to go Monte.  Help us educate everyone that the indigenous Palestinians WERE JEWS.  And Hadrian found them difficult in that they fought to keep their religion.  Not exactly like Israel's situation with the Palestinian squatters.  Don't you agree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians were of the Jewish religion  before they converted to Christianity and Christians before many converted to Islam.  They are the same people.  The Europeans that invaded Palestine were Europeans.
Click to expand...



Oh now I get it.  Today's Muslim Palestinian terrorist squatters are Zionist Jews.  Amazing what we can learn from Monte.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"a *turbulent and troublesome people to deal with"
> 
> Emperor Hadrian
> 
> *http://tinyurl.com/nsg8crs
> *
> Seems that Europeans have always had the same view of the Palestinians, even after they change religions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"a *turbulent and troublesome people to deal with"
> 
> Emperor Hadrian
> 
> *http://tinyurl.com/nsg8crs
> *
> Seems that Europeans have always had the same view of the Palestinians, even after they change religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OUTSTANDING POINT.  Way to go Monte.  Help us educate everyone that the indigenous Palestinians WERE JEWS.  And Hadrian found them difficult in that they fought to keep their religion.  Not exactly like Israel's situation with the Palestinian squatters.  Don't you agree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians were of the Jewish religion  before they converted to Christianity and Christians before many converted to Islam.  They are the same people.  The Europeans that invaded Palestine were Europeans.
Click to expand...


An invasion is a military offensive. 

It says a lot about your agenda when you repeat the same lies over and over even after they have been refuted dozens of times. But it's ok, I'm used to seeing pro Palestinians lying to get their point across, as well as spewing propaganda. After all, lies and propaganda is part of the pro Palestinians agenda.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> *"a *turbulent and troublesome people to deal with"
> 
> Emperor Hadrian
> 
> *http://tinyurl.com/nsg8crs
> *
> Seems that Europeans have always had the same view of the Palestinians, even after they change religions.






 Aren't the Palestinians arab muslim invaders and colonisers according to you, that have lived on and owned the land for over 2,000 years.  


 By the way your link shows this


*The webpage cannot be found*


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"a *turbulent and troublesome people to deal with"
> 
> Emperor Hadrian
> 
> *http://tinyurl.com/nsg8crs
> *
> Seems that Europeans have always had the same view of the Palestinians, even after they change religions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"a *turbulent and troublesome people to deal with"
> 
> Emperor Hadrian
> 
> *http://tinyurl.com/nsg8crs
> *
> Seems that Europeans have always had the same view of the Palestinians, even after they change religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OUTSTANDING POINT.  Way to go Monte.  Help us educate everyone that the indigenous Palestinians WERE JEWS.  And Hadrian found them difficult in that they fought to keep their religion.  Not exactly like Israel's situation with the Palestinian squatters.  Don't you agree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee you talk some SHIT...fullstop
Click to expand...





 Not as much as you do............................


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"a *turbulent and troublesome people to deal with"
> 
> Emperor Hadrian
> 
> *http://tinyurl.com/nsg8crs
> *
> Seems that Europeans have always had the same view of the Palestinians, even after they change religions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"a *turbulent and troublesome people to deal with"
> 
> Emperor Hadrian
> 
> *http://tinyurl.com/nsg8crs
> *
> Seems that Europeans have always had the same view of the Palestinians, even after they change religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OUTSTANDING POINT.  Way to go Monte.  Help us educate everyone that the indigenous Palestinians WERE JEWS.  And Hadrian found them difficult in that they fought to keep their religion.  Not exactly like Israel's situation with the Palestinian squatters.  Don't you agree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians were of the Jewish religion  before they converted to Christianity and Christians before many converted to Islam.  They are the same people.  The Europeans that invaded Palestine were Europeans.
Click to expand...






 The only invaders in the last 500 years to Palestine have been the arab muslims from Syria and Egypt. The Jews never converted willingly, they fought against conversion. They few who did convert did so to hide their true religion, and married within their true religion.   The Jews did not invade Palestine, that is impossible as they were invited to migrate as far back as 1850 by the Ottomans. Then from 1917 they were invited to settle by the LoN, the arab muslims had no say in this as they were just wandering farm labourers from Syria. Homeless bums that travelled the land looking for part time work.


----------



## Phoenall

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"a *turbulent and troublesome people to deal with"
> 
> Emperor Hadrian
> 
> *http://tinyurl.com/nsg8crs
> *
> Seems that Europeans have always had the same view of the Palestinians, even after they change religions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"a *turbulent and troublesome people to deal with"
> 
> Emperor Hadrian
> 
> *http://tinyurl.com/nsg8crs
> *
> Seems that Europeans have always had the same view of the Palestinians, even after they change religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OUTSTANDING POINT.  Way to go Monte.  Help us educate everyone that the indigenous Palestinians WERE JEWS.  And Hadrian found them difficult in that they fought to keep their religion.  Not exactly like Israel's situation with the Palestinian squatters.  Don't you agree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians were of the Jewish religion  before they converted to Christianity and Christians before many converted to Islam.  They are the same people.  The Europeans that invaded Palestine were Europeans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An invasion is a military offensive.
> 
> It says a lot about your agenda when you repeat the same lies over and over even after they have been refuted dozens of times. But it's ok, I'm used to seeing pro Palestinians lying to get their point across, as well as spewing propaganda. After all, lies and propaganda is part of the pro Palestinians agenda.
Click to expand...






 That is all team Palestine know what to do, spread racist lies and blood libels


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"a *turbulent and troublesome people to deal with"
> 
> Emperor Hadrian
> 
> *http://tinyurl.com/nsg8crs
> *
> Seems that Europeans have always had the same view of the Palestinians, even after they change religions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"a *turbulent and troublesome people to deal with"
> 
> Emperor Hadrian
> 
> *http://tinyurl.com/nsg8crs
> *
> Seems that Europeans have always had the same view of the Palestinians, even after they change religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OUTSTANDING POINT.  Way to go Monte.  Help us educate everyone that the indigenous Palestinians WERE JEWS.  And Hadrian found them difficult in that they fought to keep their religion.  Not exactly like Israel's situation with the Palestinian squatters.  Don't you agree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians were of the Jewish religion  before they converted to Christianity and Christians before many converted to Islam.  They are the same people.  The Europeans that invaded Palestine were Europeans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An invasion is a military offensive.
> 
> It says a lot about your agenda when you repeat the same lies over and over even after they have been refuted dozens of times. But it's ok, I'm used to seeing pro Palestinians lying to get their point across, as well as spewing propaganda. After all, lies and propaganda is part of the pro Palestinians agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is all team Palestine know what to do, spread racist lies and blood libels
Click to expand...

Not at all......we are just cleverer and don't talk SHIT like you


----------



## MJB12741

WHO ARE THE PALESTINIANS?  Their own elected government Hamas kills Palestinians who actually want peace with Israel.

Hamas Executes 30 Innocent Palestinians In Gaza Western Media Scared To Report Massacre


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"a *turbulent and troublesome people to deal with"
> 
> Emperor Hadrian
> 
> *http://tinyurl.com/nsg8crs
> *
> Seems that Europeans have always had the same view of the Palestinians, even after they change religions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"a *turbulent and troublesome people to deal with"
> 
> Emperor Hadrian
> 
> *http://tinyurl.com/nsg8crs
> *
> Seems that Europeans have always had the same view of the Palestinians, even after they change religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OUTSTANDING POINT.  Way to go Monte.  Help us educate everyone that the indigenous Palestinians WERE JEWS.  And Hadrian found them difficult in that they fought to keep their religion.  Not exactly like Israel's situation with the Palestinian squatters.  Don't you agree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians were of the Jewish religion  before they converted to Christianity and Christians before many converted to Islam.  They are the same people.  The Europeans that invaded Palestine were Europeans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An invasion is a military offensive.
> 
> It says a lot about your agenda when you repeat the same lies over and over even after they have been refuted dozens of times. But it's ok, I'm used to seeing pro Palestinians lying to get their point across, as well as spewing propaganda. After all, lies and propaganda is part of the pro Palestinians agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is all team Palestine know what to do, spread racist lies and blood libels
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all......we are just cleverer and don't talk SHIT like you
Click to expand...






 Is that why so many are at best semi literate, and have to get other people to fill out forms for them.


----------



## fanger

_*Aliyah Bet*_ (Hebrew: 'עלייה ב‎, "Aliyah 'B'" – bet being the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet) was the code name given to illegal immigration by Jews to the British Mandate for Palestine in violation of British White Paper of 1939 restrictions, in the years 1934-1948.
Aliyah Bet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## fanger

His Majesty's Government do not [..] find anything in the Mandate or in subsequent Statements of Policy to support the view that the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine cannot be effected unless immigration is allowed to continue indefinitely. If immigration has an adverse effect on the economic position in the country, it should clearly be restricted; and equally, if it has a seriously damaging effect on the political position in the country, that is a factor that should not be ignored. Although it is not difficult to contend that the large number of Jewish immigrants who have been admitted so far have been absorbed economically, the fear of the Arabs that this influx will continue indefinitely until the Jewish population is in a position to dominate them has produced consequences which are extremely grave for Jews and Arabs alike and for the peace and prosperity of Palestine. The lamentable disturbances of the past three years are only the latest and most sustained manifestation of this intense Arab apprehension [...] it cannot be denied that fear of indefinite Jewish immigration is widespread amongst the Arab population and that this fear has made possible disturbances which have given a serious setback to economic progress, depleted the Palestine exchequer, rendered life and property insecure, and produced a bitterness between the Arab and Jewish populations which is deplorable between citizens of the same country. If in these circumstances immigration is continued up to the economic absorptive capacity of the country, regardless of all other considerations, a fatal enmity between the two peoples will be perpetuated, and the situation in Palestine may become a permanent source of friction amongst all peoples in the Near and Middle East.'

"Jewish immigration during the next five years will be at a rate which, if economic absorptive capacity permits, will bring the Jewish population up to approximately one third of the total population of the country. Taking into account the expected natural increase of the Arab and Jewish populations, and the number of illegal Jewish immigrants now in the country, this would allow of the admission, as from the beginning of April this year, of some 75,000 immigrants over the next four years. These immigrants would, subject to the criterion of economic absorptive capacity, be admitted as follows: For each of the next five years a quota of 10,000 Jewish immigrants will be allowed on the understanding that a shortage one year may be added to the quotas for subsequent years, within the five-year period, if economic absorptive capacity permits. In addition, as a contribution towards the solution of the Jewish refugee problem, 25,000 refugees will be admitted as soon as the High Commissioner is satisfied that adequate provision for their maintenance is ensured, special consideration being given to refugee children and dependents. The existing machinery for ascertaining economic absorptive capacity will be retained, and the High Commissioner will have the ultimate responsibility for deciding the limits of economic capacity. Before each periodic decision is taken, Jewish and Arab representatives will be consulted. After the period of five years, no further Jewish immigration will be permitted unless the Arabs of Palestine are prepared to acquiesce in it."
White Paper of 1939 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

JewLie is not a month


----------



## Phoenall

fanger said:


> _*Aliyah Bet*_ (Hebrew: 'עלייה ב‎, "Aliyah 'B'" – bet being the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet) was the code name given to illegal immigration by Jews to the British Mandate for Palestine in violation of British White Paper of 1939 restrictions, in the years 1934-1948.
> Aliyah Bet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia







 Firstly the Jews were invited so they cant be illegalkm immigrants

 Secondly a white paper has no legal standing and can not be entered into law

 Thirdly you are a complete and utter ignorant troll that will be banned from this board.


----------



## Phoenall

fanger said:


> His Majesty's Government do not [..] find anything in the Mandate or in subsequent Statements of Policy to support the view that the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine cannot be effected unless immigration is allowed to continue indefinitely. If immigration has an adverse effect on the economic position in the country, it should clearly be restricted; and equally, if it has a seriously damaging effect on the political position in the country, that is a factor that should not be ignored. Although it is not difficult to contend that the large number of Jewish immigrants who have been admitted so far have been absorbed economically, the fear of the Arabs that this influx will continue indefinitely until the Jewish population is in a position to dominate them has produced consequences which are extremely grave for Jews and Arabs alike and for the peace and prosperity of Palestine. The lamentable disturbances of the past three years are only the latest and most sustained manifestation of this intense Arab apprehension [...] it cannot be denied that fear of indefinite Jewish immigration is widespread amongst the Arab population and that this fear has made possible disturbances which have given a serious setback to economic progress, depleted the Palestine exchequer, rendered life and property insecure, and produced a bitterness between the Arab and Jewish populations which is deplorable between citizens of the same country. If in these circumstances immigration is continued up to the economic absorptive capacity of the country, regardless of all other considerations, a fatal enmity between the two peoples will be perpetuated, and the situation in Palestine may become a permanent source of friction amongst all peoples in the Near and Middle East.'
> 
> "Jewish immigration during the next five years will be at a rate which, if economic absorptive capacity permits, will bring the Jewish population up to approximately one third of the total population of the country. Taking into account the expected natural increase of the Arab and Jewish populations, and the number of illegal Jewish immigrants now in the country, this would allow of the admission, as from the beginning of April this year, of some 75,000 immigrants over the next four years. These immigrants would, subject to the criterion of economic absorptive capacity, be admitted as follows: For each of the next five years a quota of 10,000 Jewish immigrants will be allowed on the understanding that a shortage one year may be added to the quotas for subsequent years, within the five-year period, if economic absorptive capacity permits. In addition, as a contribution towards the solution of the Jewish refugee problem, 25,000 refugees will be admitted as soon as the High Commissioner is satisfied that adequate provision for their maintenance is ensured, special consideration being given to refugee children and dependents. The existing machinery for ascertaining economic absorptive capacity will be retained, and the High Commissioner will have the ultimate responsibility for deciding the limits of economic capacity. Before each periodic decision is taken, Jewish and Arab representatives will be consulted. After the period of five years, no further Jewish immigration will be permitted unless the Arabs of Palestine are prepared to acquiesce in it."
> White Paper of 1939 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> JewLie is not a month[/Q
> 
> 
> 
> 
> White paper - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> A *white paper* is an authoritative report or guide informing in a concise manner about a complex issue and presenting the issuing body's philosophy on the matter. It is meant to help readers understand an issue, solve a problem, or make a decision. The initial British term concerning a type of government-issued document, has lately proliferated taking a somewhat new meaning in business, which is closer to a form of marketing presentation, a tool for persuading customers and partners and promoting a product or viewpoint.[1][2][3] White papers may be considered as grey literature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So no official standing at all no matter how much you try and say otherwise.           I get at least one every year that asks me to give my views on a range of subjects.
> 
> 
> ANOTHER FAILURE BY THE TROLL


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Aliyah Bet*_ (Hebrew: 'עלייה ב‎, "Aliyah 'B'" – bet being the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet) was the code name given to illegal immigration by Jews to the British Mandate for Palestine in violation of British White Paper of 1939 restrictions, in the years 1934-1948.
> Aliyah Bet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the Jews were invited so they cant be illegalkm immigrants
> 
> Secondly a white paper has no legal standing and can not be entered into law
> 
> Thirdly you are a complete and utter ignorant troll that will be banned from this board.
Click to expand...


So, you are now banning posters that present the facts.  I didn't know you had such power over USMB.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Aliyah Bet*_ (Hebrew: 'עלייה ב‎, "Aliyah 'B'" – bet being the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet) was the code name given to illegal immigration by Jews to the British Mandate for Palestine in violation of British White Paper of 1939 restrictions, in the years 1934-1948.
> Aliyah Bet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the Jews were invited so they cant be illegalkm immigrants
> 
> Secondly a white paper has no legal standing and can not be entered into law
> 
> Thirdly you are a complete and utter ignorant troll that will be banned from this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you are now banning posters that present the facts.  I didn't know you had such power over USMB.
Click to expand...


Here is a fact.  When stolen Palestinian land doesn't have title deed, it is not protected from Israeli settlement expansion.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Aliyah Bet*_ (Hebrew: 'עלייה ב‎, "Aliyah 'B'" – bet being the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet) was the code name given to illegal immigration by Jews to the British Mandate for Palestine in violation of British White Paper of 1939 restrictions, in the years 1934-1948.
> Aliyah Bet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the Jews were invited so they cant be illegalkm immigrants
> 
> Secondly a white paper has no legal standing and can not be entered into law
> 
> Thirdly you are a complete and utter ignorant troll that will be banned from this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you are now banning posters that present the facts.  I didn't know you had such power over USMB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is a fact.  When stolen Palestinian land doesn't have title deed, it is not protected from Israeli settlement expansion.
Click to expand...


90% of the the land was stolen from the Christians and Muslims of Palestine by the European invaders.  Israeli deeds are like monopoly money.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Aliyah Bet*_ (Hebrew: 'עלייה ב‎, "Aliyah 'B'" – bet being the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet) was the code name given to illegal immigration by Jews to the British Mandate for Palestine in violation of British White Paper of 1939 restrictions, in the years 1934-1948.
> Aliyah Bet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the Jews were invited so they cant be illegalkm immigrants
> 
> Secondly a white paper has no legal standing and can not be entered into law
> 
> Thirdly you are a complete and utter ignorant troll that will be banned from this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you are now banning posters that present the facts.  I didn't know you had such power over USMB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is a fact.  When stolen Palestinian land doesn't have title deed, it is not protected from Israeli settlement expansion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 90% of the the land was stolen from the Christians and Muslims of Palestine by the European invaders.  Israeli deeds are like monopoly money.
Click to expand...


Mae ou


montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Aliyah Bet*_ (Hebrew: 'עלייה ב‎, "Aliyah 'B'" – bet being the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet) was the code name given to illegal immigration by Jews to the British Mandate for Palestine in violation of British White Paper of 1939 restrictions, in the years 1934-1948.
> Aliyah Bet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the Jews were invited so they cant be illegalkm immigrants
> 
> Secondly a white paper has no legal standing and can not be entered into law
> 
> Thirdly you are a complete and utter ignorant troll that will be banned from this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you are now banning posters that present the facts.  I didn't know you had such power over USMB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is a fact.  When stolen Palestinian land doesn't have title deed, it is not protected from Israeli settlement expansion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 90% of the the land was stolen from the Christians and Muslims of Palestine by the European invaders.  Israeli deeds are like monopoly money.
Click to expand...


How about this for a just solution?  All Israeli's & all Palestiniaans without titles or deeds to the land they live on must leave.  Fair enough?


----------



## montelatici

As long as they are Ottoman or British Mandatory titles I am fine with it.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Aliyah Bet*_ (Hebrew: 'עלייה ב‎, "Aliyah 'B'" – bet being the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet) was the code name given to illegal immigration by Jews to the British Mandate for Palestine in violation of British White Paper of 1939 restrictions, in the years 1934-1948.
> Aliyah Bet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the Jews were invited so they cant be illegalkm immigrants
> 
> Secondly a white paper has no legal standing and can not be entered into law
> 
> Thirdly you are a complete and utter ignorant troll that will be banned from this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you are now banning posters that present the facts.  I didn't know you had such power over USMB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is a fact.  When stolen Palestinian land doesn't have title deed, it is not protected from Israeli settlement expansion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 90% of the the land was stolen from the Christians and Muslims of Palestine by the European invaders.  Israeli deeds are like monopoly money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mae ou
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Aliyah Bet*_ (Hebrew: 'עלייה ב‎, "Aliyah 'B'" – bet being the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet) was the code name given to illegal immigration by Jews to the British Mandate for Palestine in violation of British White Paper of 1939 restrictions, in the years 1934-1948.
> Aliyah Bet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the Jews were invited so they cant be illegalkm immigrants
> 
> Secondly a white paper has no legal standing and can not be entered into law
> 
> Thirdly you are a complete and utter ignorant troll that will be banned from this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you are now banning posters that present the facts.  I didn't know you had such power over USMB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is a fact.  When stolen Palestinian land doesn't have title deed, it is not protected from Israeli settlement expansion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 90% of the the land was stolen from the Christians and Muslims of Palestine by the European invaders.  Israeli deeds are like monopoly money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about this for a just solution?  All Israeli's & all Palestiniaans without titles or deeds to the land they live on must leave.  Fair enough?
Click to expand...

Cool, 93% of Israel is leased. The Israelis don't own anything.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Nathalie Handal*

**


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Aliyah Bet*_ (Hebrew: 'עלייה ב‎, "Aliyah 'B'" – bet being the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet) was the code name given to illegal immigration by Jews to the British Mandate for Palestine in violation of British White Paper of 1939 restrictions, in the years 1934-1948.
> Aliyah Bet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the Jews were invited so they cant be illegalkm immigrants
> 
> Secondly a white paper has no legal standing and can not be entered into law
> 
> Thirdly you are a complete and utter ignorant troll that will be banned from this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you are now banning posters that present the facts.  I didn't know you had such power over USMB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is a fact.  When stolen Palestinian land doesn't have title deed, it is not protected from Israeli settlement expansion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 90% of the the land was stolen from the Christians and Muslims of Palestine by the European invaders.  Israeli deeds are like monopoly money.
Click to expand...


Monti the liar shows us again that he needs lies to promote his agenda. An invasion is a MILITARY OFFENSIVE .


----------



## RoccoR

fanger, et al,

Yes, I believe our friend "Phoenall" is seemingly correct.

First --- the 1939 White Paper was not accepted by the League of Nations (LoN) "Permanent Mandates Commission (PMC) at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939.  The commission reported that: the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”  The RESTRICTIONS were invalid --- and outside the intentions of the LoN and the PMC.

Whereas by the aforementioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations; Preamble Para 7, Mandate for Palestine.​
The interpretation to which you suggest has placed restrictions and limitations on immigration --- was never approved or explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations.  What implementation that was carried out --- was done so without authority. 



Phoenall said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Aliyah Bet*_ (Hebrew: 'עלייה ב‎, "Aliyah 'B'" – bet being the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet) was the code name given to illegal immigration by Jews to the British Mandate for Palestine in violation of British White Paper of 1939 restrictions, in the years 1934-1948.
> Aliyah Bet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the Jews were invited so they cant be illegalkm immigrants
> 
> Secondly a white paper has no legal standing and can not be entered into law
> 
> Thirdly you are a complete and utter ignorant troll that will be banned from this board.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The 1939 White Papers, while written and approved by the Mandatory, --- was not approved or adopted by PMC of the LoN.  There were several reasons for this:


The immigration effort to facilitate the establishment of the Jewish National Home was not interpreted in 1939 to violate the customary laws pertaining to the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion. (Articles 2, 4, and 6)
Contrary to popular belief, the 1915  British High Commissioner in Egypt _(Sir Henry McMahon)_, DID NOT offered the Arab Palestinians _(soon to be under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration)_ any independent Arab state; but rather offered Sherif Hussein of Mecca an independent Arab state (Trans-Jordan, Syria /Iraq) if the Hashemite Bedouins would help the British fight against the Ottoman Turks.
The Nazification of Germany, beginning in 1933 was in full swing by 1939.  The European Leaders and Allied Powers were already aware open antisemitism became the order of the day, and on 9 November 1939 "_Kristallnacht" _was the effect of Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels persecution against the Jews.  This demonstrated just how correct the Principle Allied Powers had been in trying to establish a Jewish National Home to protect and preserve the Jewish culture.   During "_Kristallnacht"_, nearly 1,000 synagogues were set on fire.
During World War II Hajj Amin al-Husseini _(a former WWI enemy officer in the Ottoman Army and Grand Mufti of Jerusalem)_ collaborated with both Italy and Germany by making propagandistic radio broadcasts and by helping the German's to recruit Bosnian Muslims for the Waffen-SS.  The Palestinian Grand Mufti of Jerusalem opposed the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish National Home, and favored the Axis Powers.   On the conclusion of WWII, Hajj Amin al-Husseini  came under French protection, and then sought refuge in Cairo to avoid prosecution by the tribunal.    Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who was later to become the first President of the All Palestine Government, was a principle in developing anti-Jewish activities in the Middle East (until about 1959).
The true nature and character of the Arab Palestinians, especially key members of the All Palestine Government, became clear in the latter part of 1938 and into 1939.  By the 1941 meeting with Hitler, the reputation of the Arab Palestinian had been firmly established by this early Enemy Officer of the Ottoman Empire, Islamic Resistance leader and ally of the Palestinian Black Hand, cohort and Islamic Face for the Nazi Party in Eastern Europe, and the primary leader of the All Palestine Government .

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## theliq

RoccoR said:


> fanger, et al,
> 
> Yes, I believe our friend "Phoenall" is seemingly correct.
> 
> First --- the 1939 White Paper was not accepted by the League of Nations (LoN) "Permanent Mandates Commission (PMC) at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939.  The commission reported that: the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”  The RESTRICTIONS were invalid --- and outside the intentions of the LoN and the PMC.
> 
> Whereas by the aforementioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations; Preamble Para 7, Mandate for Palestine.​
> The interpretation to which you suggest has placed restrictions and limitations on immigration --- was never approved or explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations.  What implementation that was carried out --- was done so without authority.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Aliyah Bet*_ (Hebrew: 'עלייה ב‎, "Aliyah 'B'" – bet being the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet) was the code name given to illegal immigration by Jews to the British Mandate for Palestine in violation of British White Paper of 1939 restrictions, in the years 1934-1948.
> Aliyah Bet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the Jews were invited so they cant be illegalkm immigrants
> 
> Secondly a white paper has no legal standing and can not be entered into law
> 
> Thirdly you are a complete and utter ignorant troll that will be banned from this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The 1939 White Papers, while written and approved by the Mandatory, --- was not approved or adopted by PMC of the LoN.  There were several reasons for this:
> 
> 
> The immigration effort to facilitate the establishment of the Jewish National Home was not interpreted in 1939 to violate the customary laws pertaining to the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion. (Articles 2, 4, and 6)
> Contrary to popular belief, the 1915  British High Commissioner in Egypt _(Sir Henry McMahon)_, DID NOT offered the Arab Palestinians _(soon to be under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration)_ any independent Arab state; but rather offered Sherif Hussein of Mecca an independent Arab state (Trans-Jordan, Syria /Iraq) if the Hashemite Bedouins would help the British fight against the Ottoman Turks.
> The Nazification of Germany, beginning in 1933 was in full swing by 1939.  The European Leaders and Allied Powers were already aware open antisemitism became the order of the day, and on 9 November 1939 "_Kristallnacht" _was the effect of Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels persecution against the Jews.  This demonstrated just how correct the Principle Allied Powers had been in trying to establish a Jewish National Home to protect and preserve the Jewish culture.   During "_Kristallnacht"_, nearly 1,000 synagogues were set on fire.
> During World War II Hajj Amin al-Husseini _(a former WWI enemy officer in the Ottoman Army and Grand Mufti of Jerusalem)_ collaborated with both Italy and Germany by making propagandistic radio broadcasts and by helping the German's to recruit Bosnian Muslims for the Waffen-SS.  The Palestinian Grand Mufti of Jerusalem opposed the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish National Home, and favored the Axis Powers.   On the conclusion of WWII, Hajj Amin al-Husseini  came under French protection, and then sought refuge in Cairo to avoid prosecution by the tribunal.    Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who was later to become the first President of the All Palestine Government, was a principle in developing anti-Jewish activities in the Middle East (until about 1959).
> The true nature and character of the Arab Palestinians, especially key members of the All Palestine Government, became clear in the latter part of 1938 and into 1939.  By the 1941 meeting with Hitler, the reputation of the Arab Palestinian had been firmly established by this early Enemy Officer of the Ottoman Empire, Islamic Resistance leader and ally of the Palestinian Black Hand, cohort and Islamic Face for the Nazi Party in Eastern Europe, and the primary leader of the All Palestine Government .
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Nothing Ratified by the UN Security Council ....Nothing in Law.......makes your post irrelevant


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> fanger, et al,
> 
> Yes, I believe our friend "Phoenall" is seemingly correct.
> 
> First --- the 1939 White Paper was not accepted by the League of Nations (LoN) "Permanent Mandates Commission (PMC) at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939.  The commission reported that: the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”  The RESTRICTIONS were invalid --- and outside the intentions of the LoN and the PMC.
> 
> Whereas by the aforementioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations; Preamble Para 7, Mandate for Palestine.​
> The interpretation to which you suggest has placed restrictions and limitations on immigration --- was never approved or explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations.  What implementation that was carried out --- was done so without authority.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Aliyah Bet*_ (Hebrew: 'עלייה ב‎, "Aliyah 'B'" – bet being the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet) was the code name given to illegal immigration by Jews to the British Mandate for Palestine in violation of British White Paper of 1939 restrictions, in the years 1934-1948.
> Aliyah Bet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the Jews were invited so they cant be illegalkm immigrants
> 
> Secondly a white paper has no legal standing and can not be entered into law
> 
> Thirdly you are a complete and utter ignorant troll that will be banned from this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The 1939 White Papers, while written and approved by the Mandatory, --- was not approved or adopted by PMC of the LoN.  There were several reasons for this:
> 
> 
> The immigration effort to facilitate the establishment of the Jewish National Home was not interpreted in 1939 to violate the customary laws pertaining to the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion. (Articles 2, 4, and 6)
> Contrary to popular belief, the 1915  British High Commissioner in Egypt _(Sir Henry McMahon)_, DID NOT offered the Arab Palestinians _(soon to be under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration)_ any independent Arab state; but rather offered Sherif Hussein of Mecca an independent Arab state (Trans-Jordan, Syria /Iraq) if the Hashemite Bedouins would help the British fight against the Ottoman Turks.
> The Nazification of Germany, beginning in 1933 was in full swing by 1939.  The European Leaders and Allied Powers were already aware open antisemitism became the order of the day, and on 9 November 1939 "_Kristallnacht" _was the effect of Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels persecution against the Jews.  This demonstrated just how correct the Principle Allied Powers had been in trying to establish a Jewish National Home to protect and preserve the Jewish culture.   During "_Kristallnacht"_, nearly 1,000 synagogues were set on fire.
> During World War II Hajj Amin al-Husseini _(a former WWI enemy officer in the Ottoman Army and Grand Mufti of Jerusalem)_ collaborated with both Italy and Germany by making propagandistic radio broadcasts and by helping the German's to recruit Bosnian Muslims for the Waffen-SS.  The Palestinian Grand Mufti of Jerusalem opposed the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish National Home, and favored the Axis Powers.   On the conclusion of WWII, Hajj Amin al-Husseini  came under French protection, and then sought refuge in Cairo to avoid prosecution by the tribunal.    Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who was later to become the first President of the All Palestine Government, was a principle in developing anti-Jewish activities in the Middle East (until about 1959).
> The true nature and character of the Arab Palestinians, especially key members of the All Palestine Government, became clear in the latter part of 1938 and into 1939.  By the 1941 meeting with Hitler, the reputation of the Arab Palestinian had been firmly established by this early Enemy Officer of the Ottoman Empire, Islamic Resistance leader and ally of the Palestinian Black Hand, cohort and Islamic Face for the Nazi Party in Eastern Europe, and the primary leader of the All Palestine Government .
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The RESTRICTIONS were invalid...​
What restriction?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> fanger, et al,
> 
> Yes, I believe our friend "Phoenall" is seemingly correct.
> 
> First --- the 1939 White Paper was not accepted by the League of Nations (LoN) "Permanent Mandates Commission (PMC) at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939.  The commission reported that: the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”  The RESTRICTIONS were invalid --- and outside the intentions of the LoN and the PMC.
> 
> Whereas by the aforementioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations; Preamble Para 7, Mandate for Palestine.​
> The interpretation to which you suggest has placed restrictions and limitations on immigration --- was never approved or explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations.  What implementation that was carried out --- was done so without authority.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Aliyah Bet*_ (Hebrew: 'עלייה ב‎, "Aliyah 'B'" – bet being the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet) was the code name given to illegal immigration by Jews to the British Mandate for Palestine in violation of British White Paper of 1939 restrictions, in the years 1934-1948.
> Aliyah Bet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the Jews were invited so they cant be illegalkm immigrants
> 
> Secondly a white paper has no legal standing and can not be entered into law
> 
> Thirdly you are a complete and utter ignorant troll that will be banned from this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The 1939 White Papers, while written and approved by the Mandatory, --- was not approved or adopted by PMC of the LoN.  There were several reasons for this:
> 
> 
> The immigration effort to facilitate the establishment of the Jewish National Home was not interpreted in 1939 to violate the customary laws pertaining to the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion. (Articles 2, 4, and 6)
> Contrary to popular belief, the 1915  British High Commissioner in Egypt _(Sir Henry McMahon)_, DID NOT offered the Arab Palestinians _(soon to be under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration)_ any independent Arab state; but rather offered Sherif Hussein of Mecca an independent Arab state (Trans-Jordan, Syria /Iraq) if the Hashemite Bedouins would help the British fight against the Ottoman Turks.
> The Nazification of Germany, beginning in 1933 was in full swing by 1939.  The European Leaders and Allied Powers were already aware open antisemitism became the order of the day, and on 9 November 1939 "_Kristallnacht" _was the effect of Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels persecution against the Jews.  This demonstrated just how correct the Principle Allied Powers had been in trying to establish a Jewish National Home to protect and preserve the Jewish culture.   During "_Kristallnacht"_, nearly 1,000 synagogues were set on fire.
> During World War II Hajj Amin al-Husseini _(a former WWI enemy officer in the Ottoman Army and Grand Mufti of Jerusalem)_ collaborated with both Italy and Germany by making propagandistic radio broadcasts and by helping the German's to recruit Bosnian Muslims for the Waffen-SS.  The Palestinian Grand Mufti of Jerusalem opposed the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish National Home, and favored the Axis Powers.   On the conclusion of WWII, Hajj Amin al-Husseini  came under French protection, and then sought refuge in Cairo to avoid prosecution by the tribunal.    Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who was later to become the first President of the All Palestine Government, was a principle in developing anti-Jewish activities in the Middle East (until about 1959).
> The true nature and character of the Arab Palestinians, especially key members of the All Palestine Government, became clear in the latter part of 1938 and into 1939.  By the 1941 meeting with Hitler, the reputation of the Arab Palestinian had been firmly established by this early Enemy Officer of the Ottoman Empire, Islamic Resistance leader and ally of the Palestinian Black Hand, cohort and Islamic Face for the Nazi Party in Eastern Europe, and the primary leader of the All Palestine Government .
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The immigration effort to facilitate the establishment of the Jewish National Home was not interpreted, bla, bla, bla.​
Where did you get this crap. Got a link?


----------



## RoccoR

theliq,  P F Tinmore, et al,

In 1939, there was no UN, there was no Security Council.

_*BTW:  I will be happy to provide the links once again.*_



theliq said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> fanger, et al,
> 
> Yes, I believe our friend "Phoenall" is seemingly correct.
> 
> First --- the 1939 White Paper was not accepted by the League of Nations (LoN) "Permanent Mandates Commission (PMC) at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939.  The commission reported that: the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”  The RESTRICTIONS were invalid --- and outside the intentions of the LoN and the PMC.
> 
> Whereas by the aforementioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations; Preamble Para 7, Mandate for Palestine.​
> The interpretation to which you suggest has placed restrictions and limitations on immigration --- was never approved or explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations.  What implementation that was carried out --- was done so without authority.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Aliyah Bet*_ (Hebrew: 'עלייה ב‎, "Aliyah 'B'" – bet being the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet) was the code name given to illegal immigration by Jews to the British Mandate for Palestine in violation of British White Paper of 1939 restrictions, in the years 1934-1948.
> Aliyah Bet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the Jews were invited so they cant be illegalkm immigrants
> 
> Secondly a white paper has no legal standing and can not be entered into law
> 
> Thirdly you are a complete and utter ignorant troll that will be banned from this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The 1939 White Papers, while written and approved by the Mandatory, --- was not approved or adopted by PMC of the LoN.  There were several reasons for this:
> 
> 
> The immigration effort to facilitate the establishment of the Jewish National Home was not interpreted in 1939 to violate the customary laws pertaining to the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion. (Articles 2, 4, and 6)
> Contrary to popular belief, the 1915  British High Commissioner in Egypt _(Sir Henry McMahon)_, DID NOT offered the Arab Palestinians _(soon to be under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration)_ any independent Arab state; but rather offered Sherif Hussein of Mecca an independent Arab state (Trans-Jordan, Syria /Iraq) if the Hashemite Bedouins would help the British fight against the Ottoman Turks.
> The Nazification of Germany, beginning in 1933 was in full swing by 1939.  The European Leaders and Allied Powers were already aware open antisemitism became the order of the day, and on 9 November 1939 "_Kristallnacht" _was the effect of Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels persecution against the Jews.  This demonstrated just how correct the Principle Allied Powers had been in trying to establish a Jewish National Home to protect and preserve the Jewish culture.   During "_Kristallnacht"_, nearly 1,000 synagogues were set on fire.
> During World War II Hajj Amin al-Husseini _(a former WWI enemy officer in the Ottoman Army and Grand Mufti of Jerusalem)_ collaborated with both Italy and Germany by making propagandistic radio broadcasts and by helping the German's to recruit Bosnian Muslims for the Waffen-SS.  The Palestinian Grand Mufti of Jerusalem opposed the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish National Home, and favored the Axis Powers.   On the conclusion of WWII, Hajj Amin al-Husseini  came under French protection, and then sought refuge in Cairo to avoid prosecution by the tribunal.    Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who was later to become the first President of the All Palestine Government, was a principle in developing anti-Jewish activities in the Middle East (until about 1959).
> The true nature and character of the Arab Palestinians, especially key members of the All Palestine Government, became clear in the latter part of 1938 and into 1939.  By the 1941 meeting with Hitler, the reputation of the Arab Palestinian had been firmly established by this early Enemy Officer of the Ottoman Empire, Islamic Resistance leader and ally of the Palestinian Black Hand, cohort and Islamic Face for the Nazi Party in Eastern Europe, and the primary leader of the All Palestine Government .
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing Ratified by the UN Security Council ....Nothing in Law.......makes your post irrelevant
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

I think your timeline is off.  The UN did not come into existence until 1945.  So the claim about the UNSC and law just is not applicable; since we are talking 1939.  For the most part, most Immigration occurred prior to the Charter coming into force on 24 October 1945; but is even set back farther in time since there was a UK imposed moratorium on large scale immigration during the pre-War years. 

*NOTE:*  In the Post-War London Conference in September 1946, the Arab Delegation propose a one-state solution (AKA: unitary solution) that included:
(a) Palestine would be a unitary State with a permanent Arab majority, and would attain its independence as such after a short period of transition (two or three years) under British Mandate.
(b) Within this unitary State, Jews who had acquired Palestinian citizenship (for which the qualification would be ten years’ residence in the country) would have full civil rights, equally with all other citizens of Palestine.

It was universally understood in that time frame, this would seriously jeopardize the entire concept of a Jewish National Home; including the safety, preservation and protection of the Jewish culture.  A direct failing of the Allied Powers that contributed to the success of the trapped Jewish population in Europe --- directly related to the Arab alliance with the German Regime.​
The UK (1940-1946), as the Mandatory, afraid of an Arab backlash in the Middle East _(that would threaten UK nation interests)_, closed immigration into Palestine during the remainder of WWII and for a short time thereafter.  The UK was instrumental in stranding hundreds of thousands of Jews in Europe, allowing the Germany Regime to continue the Final Solution.   In the first Post-War year (mid 1945-1946), the UK (as the Mandatory) continued to make the Jewish survivors suffer further by denying sanctuary in Palestine in order to curry favor with Arabs that might turn insurgents, having favored the Axis Powers during the War; like the Grand Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husseini.   In mid-1946, the US urged the UK to reduce the number of of displaced persons in European Refugee Camps by allowing approximately a hundred-thousand immigrants into the territory to which the Mandate applied.

A White Paper is not law. It is a snapshot in time on the perspective held by a body.  In this case, the *1939 White Paper* "*was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate (A/AC.14/8  2 October 1947)*."

It is important to note that several documents made it absolutely clear, to include the one recently cited hear *[SUPPLEMENT No. 11 UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PALESTINE REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY VOLUME 1 (A/364 3 September 1947)]*

89. The White Paper of 1939 was considered at length during the thirty-sixth session of the Permanent Mandates Commission in June 1939. The substance of its findings, as reported to the Council of the League were:

_(a)_ "That the policy set out . . . *was not in accordance with the interpretation which*, in agreement with the mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate";

_(b)_ That, regarding the possibility of a new interpretation of the Mandate, with which the White Paper would not be at variance, four members "did not feel able to state that the policy of the White Paper was in conformity with the mandate . . .", while the other three members of the Commission considered that "existing circumstances would justify the policy of the White Paper, provided that the Council did not oppose it,"​

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> fanger, et al,
> 
> Yes, I believe our friend "Phoenall" is seemingly correct.
> 
> First --- the 1939 White Paper was not accepted by the League of Nations (LoN) "Permanent Mandates Commission (PMC) at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939.  The commission reported that: the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”  The RESTRICTIONS were invalid --- and outside the intentions of the LoN and the PMC.
> 
> Whereas by the aforementioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations; Preamble Para 7, Mandate for Palestine.​
> The interpretation to which you suggest has placed restrictions and limitations on immigration --- was never approved or explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations.  What implementation that was carried out --- was done so without authority.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Aliyah Bet*_ (Hebrew: 'עלייה ב‎, "Aliyah 'B'" – bet being the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet) was the code name given to illegal immigration by Jews to the British Mandate for Palestine in violation of British White Paper of 1939 restrictions, in the years 1934-1948.
> Aliyah Bet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the Jews were invited so they cant be illegalkm immigrants
> 
> Secondly a white paper has no legal standing and can not be entered into law
> 
> Thirdly you are a complete and utter ignorant troll that will be banned from this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The 1939 White Papers, while written and approved by the Mandatory, --- was not approved or adopted by PMC of the LoN.  There were several reasons for this:
> 
> 
> The immigration effort to facilitate the establishment of the Jewish National Home was not interpreted in 1939 to violate the customary laws pertaining to the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion. (Articles 2, 4, and 6)
> Contrary to popular belief, the 1915  British High Commissioner in Egypt _(Sir Henry McMahon)_, DID NOT offered the Arab Palestinians _(soon to be under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration)_ any independent Arab state; but rather offered Sherif Hussein of Mecca an independent Arab state (Trans-Jordan, Syria /Iraq) if the Hashemite Bedouins would help the British fight against the Ottoman Turks.
> The Nazification of Germany, beginning in 1933 was in full swing by 1939.  The European Leaders and Allied Powers were already aware open antisemitism became the order of the day, and on 9 November 1939 "_Kristallnacht" _was the effect of Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels persecution against the Jews.  This demonstrated just how correct the Principle Allied Powers had been in trying to establish a Jewish National Home to protect and preserve the Jewish culture.   During "_Kristallnacht"_, nearly 1,000 synagogues were set on fire.
> During World War II Hajj Amin al-Husseini _(a former WWI enemy officer in the Ottoman Army and Grand Mufti of Jerusalem)_ collaborated with both Italy and Germany by making propagandistic radio broadcasts and by helping the German's to recruit Bosnian Muslims for the Waffen-SS.  The Palestinian Grand Mufti of Jerusalem opposed the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish National Home, and favored the Axis Powers.   On the conclusion of WWII, Hajj Amin al-Husseini  came under French protection, and then sought refuge in Cairo to avoid prosecution by the tribunal.    Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who was later to become the first President of the All Palestine Government, was a principle in developing anti-Jewish activities in the Middle East (until about 1959).
> The true nature and character of the Arab Palestinians, especially key members of the All Palestine Government, became clear in the latter part of 1938 and into 1939.  By the 1941 meeting with Hitler, the reputation of the Arab Palestinian had been firmly established by this early Enemy Officer of the Ottoman Empire, Islamic Resistance leader and ally of the Palestinian Black Hand, cohort and Islamic Face for the Nazi Party in Eastern Europe, and the primary leader of the All Palestine Government .
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The bottom line, Rocco, is that the Mandate was to assist Palestine to independence and "there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation."

BTW, the Jewish Agency was an adviser to the mandate and served at its pleasure subject always to the control of the Administration. It had no legitimate function after the termination of the Mandate.


----------



## Friends

The Palestinians are squatters. They blew in with the desert sands when the Jews were expelled after the Bar Kokhba revolt of 132 - 136. They should have been thrown back into the desert after Israel's glorious victory in the Six Day's War of 1967. 

The Palestinians have no history, no achievements, and they merit no future.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> theliq,  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> In 1939, there was no UN, there was no Security Council.
> 
> _*BTW:  I will be happy to provide the links once again.*_
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> fanger, et al,
> 
> Yes, I believe our friend "Phoenall" is seemingly correct.
> 
> First --- the 1939 White Paper was not accepted by the League of Nations (LoN) "Permanent Mandates Commission (PMC) at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939.  The commission reported that: the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”  The RESTRICTIONS were invalid --- and outside the intentions of the LoN and the PMC.
> 
> Whereas by the aforementioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations; Preamble Para 7, Mandate for Palestine.​
> The interpretation to which you suggest has placed restrictions and limitations on immigration --- was never approved or explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations.  What implementation that was carried out --- was done so without authority.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Aliyah Bet*_ (Hebrew: 'עלייה ב‎, "Aliyah 'B'" – bet being the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet) was the code name given to illegal immigration by Jews to the British Mandate for Palestine in violation of British White Paper of 1939 restrictions, in the years 1934-1948.
> Aliyah Bet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the Jews were invited so they cant be illegalkm immigrants
> 
> Secondly a white paper has no legal standing and can not be entered into law
> 
> Thirdly you are a complete and utter ignorant troll that will be banned from this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The 1939 White Papers, while written and approved by the Mandatory, --- was not approved or adopted by PMC of the LoN.  There were several reasons for this:
> 
> 
> The immigration effort to facilitate the establishment of the Jewish National Home was not interpreted in 1939 to violate the customary laws pertaining to the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion. (Articles 2, 4, and 6)
> Contrary to popular belief, the 1915  British High Commissioner in Egypt _(Sir Henry McMahon)_, DID NOT offered the Arab Palestinians _(soon to be under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration)_ any independent Arab state; but rather offered Sherif Hussein of Mecca an independent Arab state (Trans-Jordan, Syria /Iraq) if the Hashemite Bedouins would help the British fight against the Ottoman Turks.
> The Nazification of Germany, beginning in 1933 was in full swing by 1939.  The European Leaders and Allied Powers were already aware open antisemitism became the order of the day, and on 9 November 1939 "_Kristallnacht" _was the effect of Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels persecution against the Jews.  This demonstrated just how correct the Principle Allied Powers had been in trying to establish a Jewish National Home to protect and preserve the Jewish culture.   During "_Kristallnacht"_, nearly 1,000 synagogues were set on fire.
> During World War II Hajj Amin al-Husseini _(a former WWI enemy officer in the Ottoman Army and Grand Mufti of Jerusalem)_ collaborated with both Italy and Germany by making propagandistic radio broadcasts and by helping the German's to recruit Bosnian Muslims for the Waffen-SS.  The Palestinian Grand Mufti of Jerusalem opposed the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish National Home, and favored the Axis Powers.   On the conclusion of WWII, Hajj Amin al-Husseini  came under French protection, and then sought refuge in Cairo to avoid prosecution by the tribunal.    Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who was later to become the first President of the All Palestine Government, was a principle in developing anti-Jewish activities in the Middle East (until about 1959).
> The true nature and character of the Arab Palestinians, especially key members of the All Palestine Government, became clear in the latter part of 1938 and into 1939.  By the 1941 meeting with Hitler, the reputation of the Arab Palestinian had been firmly established by this early Enemy Officer of the Ottoman Empire, Islamic Resistance leader and ally of the Palestinian Black Hand, cohort and Islamic Face for the Nazi Party in Eastern Europe, and the primary leader of the All Palestine Government .
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing Ratified by the UN Security Council ....Nothing in Law.......makes your post irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I think your timeline is off.  The UN did not come into existence until 1945.  So the claim about the UNSC and law just is not applicable; since we are talking 1939.  For the most part, most Immigration occurred prior to the Charter coming into force on 24 October 1945; but is even set back farther in time since there was a UK imposed moratorium on large scale immigration during the pre-War years.
> 
> *NOTE:*  In the Post-War London Conference in September 1946, the Arab Delegation propose a one-state solution (AKA: unitary solution) that included:
> (a) Palestine would be a unitary State with a permanent Arab majority, and would attain its independence as such after a short period of transition (two or three years) under British Mandate.
> (b) Within this unitary State, Jews who had acquired Palestinian citizenship (for which the qualification would be ten years’ residence in the country) would have full civil rights, equally with all other citizens of Palestine.
> 
> It was universally understood in that time frame, this would seriously jeopardize the entire concept of a Jewish National Home; including the safety, preservation and protection of the Jewish culture.  A direct failing of the Allied Powers that contributed to the success of the trapped Jewish population in Europe --- directly related to the Arab alliance with the German Regime.​
> The UK (1940-1946), as the Mandatory, afraid of an Arab backlash in the Middle East _(that would threaten UK nation interests)_, closed immigration into Palestine during the remainder of WWII and for a short time thereafter.  The UK was instrumental in stranding hundreds of thousands of Jews in Europe, allowing the Germany Regime to continue the Final Solution.   In the first Post-War year (mid 1945-1946), the UK (as the Mandatory) continued to make the Jewish survivors suffer further by denying sanctuary in Palestine in order to curry favor with Arabs that might turn insurgents, having favored the Axis Powers during the War; like the Grand Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husseini.   In mid-1946, the US urged the UK to reduce the number of of displaced persons in European Refugee Camps by allowing approximately a hundred-thousand immigrants into the territory to which the Mandate applied.
> 
> A White Paper is not law. It is a snapshot in time on the perspective held by a body.  In this case, the *1939 White Paper* "*was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate (A/AC.14/8  2 October 1947)*."
> 
> It is important to note that several documents made it absolutely clear, to include the one recently cited hear *[SUPPLEMENT No. 11 UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PALESTINE REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY VOLUME 1 (A/364 3 September 1947)]*
> 
> 89. The White Paper of 1939 was considered at length during the thirty-sixth session of the Permanent Mandates Commission in June 1939. The substance of its findings, as reported to the Council of the League were:
> 
> _(a)_ "That the policy set out . . . *was not in accordance with the interpretation which*, in agreement with the mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate";
> 
> _(b)_ That, regarding the possibility of a new interpretation of the Mandate, with which the White Paper would not be at variance, four members "did not feel able to state that the policy of the White Paper was in conformity with the mandate . . .", while the other three members of the Commission considered that "existing circumstances would justify the policy of the White Paper, provided that the Council did not oppose it,"​
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

...continued to make the Jewish survivors suffer further by denying sanctuary in Palestine...​
Why should the Palestinians take it up the ass for what was happening in Europe?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Wrong.  The document called the  "Mandate for Palestine" is an official commission to perform. It is a legal instrument.



P F Tinmore said:


> The bottom line, Rocco, is that the Mandate was to assist Palestine to independence and "there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation."


*(COMMENT)*

It draws a very distinct difference between the issue of "Jewish National Home" --- and --- "civil and religious rights" (alla 1922) of existing non-Jewish communities.  It should be interesting to note that the Mandate for Palestine, as the principle legal directive for that formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, --- _within such boundaries as may be fixed the Allied Powers, ---_ does not use the word "independence" even once in the entire 28 Articles Mandate and the Preamble; let alone stipulate that it requires the Mandatory to "assist Palestine to independence."

The intent of Article 22 of the Covenant, is to render administrative advice and assistance to "certain communities" (NOTE:  not all communities --- nor is it singling out the existing non-Jewish communities) to the extent and until such time as --- they are able to stand alone.  It is clear that Trans-Jordan, a portion of the territory to which the Mandate is applied, was provisionally recognized in the Mandate as a 

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



P F Tinmore said:


> BTW, the Jewish Agency was an adviser to the mandate and served at its pleasure subject always to the control of the Administration. It had no legitimate function after the termination of the Mandate.


*(COMMENT)*

You, of all people, do not have the right to determine the scope and nature of the mission, function and duties of the Jewish Agency.   The Jewish Agency, as a "public body" _(an organization whose work is part of the process of government, but is not a government agency)_ is beyond the reach of the Arab Palestinian in either criticism or critique.  The Administration of Palestine by the Mandatory had within its authority the ability to contract with the Article 4 Jewish Agency arrangements to construct or operate, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country.  On termination of the Mandate, pursuant to Part I -- Section B Steps Preparatory to Independence --- Paragraph 4, General Assembly Resolution 181(II),  ---  the UN Palestine Commission shall

4. The Commission, after consultation with the democratic parties and other public organizations of The Arab and Jewish States, shall select *and establish in each State as rapidly as possible a Provisional Council of Government*. The activities of both the Arab and Jewish Provisional Councils of Government shall be carried out under the general direction of the Commission.​
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be *recognised as a public body* for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country.  (Article 4 - Mandate for Palestine) ​

While it is true that the Jewish Agency would no longer have a responsibility to the Mandatory once the Mandate terminated, it is the case that the scope and nature of the mission, function and duties of the Jewish Agency would be an assumed responsibility of the Provisional Government of the State of Israel.  It is the for the Israeli Government to determine the future of the agency; not an external influences associated with the Hostile Arab Palestinians and Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, which are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> fanger, et al,
> 
> Yes, I believe our friend "Phoenall" is seemingly correct.
> 
> First --- the 1939 White Paper was not accepted by the League of Nations (LoN) "Permanent Mandates Commission (PMC) at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939.  The commission reported that: the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”  The RESTRICTIONS were invalid --- and outside the intentions of the LoN and the PMC.
> 
> Whereas by the aforementioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations; Preamble Para 7, Mandate for Palestine.​
> The interpretation to which you suggest has placed restrictions and limitations on immigration --- was never approved or explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations.  What implementation that was carried out --- was done so without authority.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Aliyah Bet*_ (Hebrew: 'עלייה ב‎, "Aliyah 'B'" – bet being the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet) was the code name given to illegal immigration by Jews to the British Mandate for Palestine in violation of British White Paper of 1939 restrictions, in the years 1934-1948.
> Aliyah Bet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the Jews were invited so they cant be illegalkm immigrants
> 
> Secondly a white paper has no legal standing and can not be entered into law
> 
> Thirdly you are a complete and utter ignorant troll that will be banned from this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The 1939 White Papers, while written and approved by the Mandatory, --- was not approved or adopted by PMC of the LoN.  There were several reasons for this:
> 
> 
> The immigration effort to facilitate the establishment of the Jewish National Home was not interpreted in 1939 to violate the customary laws pertaining to the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion. (Articles 2, 4, and 6)
> Contrary to popular belief, the 1915  British High Commissioner in Egypt _(Sir Henry McMahon)_, DID NOT offered the Arab Palestinians _(soon to be under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration)_ any independent Arab state; but rather offered Sherif Hussein of Mecca an independent Arab state (Trans-Jordan, Syria /Iraq) if the Hashemite Bedouins would help the British fight against the Ottoman Turks.
> The Nazification of Germany, beginning in 1933 was in full swing by 1939.  The European Leaders and Allied Powers were already aware open antisemitism became the order of the day, and on 9 November 1939 "_Kristallnacht" _was the effect of Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels persecution against the Jews.  This demonstrated just how correct the Principle Allied Powers had been in trying to establish a Jewish National Home to protect and preserve the Jewish culture.   During "_Kristallnacht"_, nearly 1,000 synagogues were set on fire.
> During World War II Hajj Amin al-Husseini _(a former WWI enemy officer in the Ottoman Army and Grand Mufti of Jerusalem)_ collaborated with both Italy and Germany by making propagandistic radio broadcasts and by helping the German's to recruit Bosnian Muslims for the Waffen-SS.  The Palestinian Grand Mufti of Jerusalem opposed the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish National Home, and favored the Axis Powers.   On the conclusion of WWII, Hajj Amin al-Husseini  came under French protection, and then sought refuge in Cairo to avoid prosecution by the tribunal.    Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who was later to become the first President of the All Palestine Government, was a principle in developing anti-Jewish activities in the Middle East (until about 1959).
> The true nature and character of the Arab Palestinians, especially key members of the All Palestine Government, became clear in the latter part of 1938 and into 1939.  By the 1941 meeting with Hitler, the reputation of the Arab Palestinian had been firmly established by this early Enemy Officer of the Ottoman Empire, Islamic Resistance leader and ally of the Palestinian Black Hand, cohort and Islamic Face for the Nazi Party in Eastern Europe, and the primary leader of the All Palestine Government .
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bottom line, Rocco, is that the Mandate was to assist Palestine to independence and "there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation."
> 
> BTW, the Jewish Agency was an adviser to the mandate and served at its pleasure subject always to the control of the Administration. It had no legitimate function after the termination of the Mandate.
Click to expand...


"It had no legitimate function after the termination of the Mandate"

Link ?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> fanger, et al,
> 
> Yes, I believe our friend "Phoenall" is seemingly correct.
> 
> First --- the 1939 White Paper was not accepted by the League of Nations (LoN) "Permanent Mandates Commission (PMC) at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939.  The commission reported that: the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”  The RESTRICTIONS were invalid --- and outside the intentions of the LoN and the PMC.
> 
> Whereas by the aforementioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations; Preamble Para 7, Mandate for Palestine.​
> The interpretation to which you suggest has placed restrictions and limitations on immigration --- was never approved or explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations.  What implementation that was carried out --- was done so without authority.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Aliyah Bet*_ (Hebrew: 'עלייה ב‎, "Aliyah 'B'" – bet being the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet) was the code name given to illegal immigration by Jews to the British Mandate for Palestine in violation of British White Paper of 1939 restrictions, in the years 1934-1948.
> Aliyah Bet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the Jews were invited so they cant be illegalkm immigrants
> 
> Secondly a white paper has no legal standing and can not be entered into law
> 
> Thirdly you are a complete and utter ignorant troll that will be banned from this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The 1939 White Papers, while written and approved by the Mandatory, --- was not approved or adopted by PMC of the LoN.  There were several reasons for this:
> 
> 
> The immigration effort to facilitate the establishment of the Jewish National Home was not interpreted in 1939 to violate the customary laws pertaining to the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion. (Articles 2, 4, and 6)
> Contrary to popular belief, the 1915  British High Commissioner in Egypt _(Sir Henry McMahon)_, DID NOT offered the Arab Palestinians _(soon to be under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration)_ any independent Arab state; but rather offered Sherif Hussein of Mecca an independent Arab state (Trans-Jordan, Syria /Iraq) if the Hashemite Bedouins would help the British fight against the Ottoman Turks.
> The Nazification of Germany, beginning in 1933 was in full swing by 1939.  The European Leaders and Allied Powers were already aware open antisemitism became the order of the day, and on 9 November 1939 "_Kristallnacht" _was the effect of Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels persecution against the Jews.  This demonstrated just how correct the Principle Allied Powers had been in trying to establish a Jewish National Home to protect and preserve the Jewish culture.   During "_Kristallnacht"_, nearly 1,000 synagogues were set on fire.
> During World War II Hajj Amin al-Husseini _(a former WWI enemy officer in the Ottoman Army and Grand Mufti of Jerusalem)_ collaborated with both Italy and Germany by making propagandistic radio broadcasts and by helping the German's to recruit Bosnian Muslims for the Waffen-SS.  The Palestinian Grand Mufti of Jerusalem opposed the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish National Home, and favored the Axis Powers.   On the conclusion of WWII, Hajj Amin al-Husseini  came under French protection, and then sought refuge in Cairo to avoid prosecution by the tribunal.    Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who was later to become the first President of the All Palestine Government, was a principle in developing anti-Jewish activities in the Middle East (until about 1959).
> The true nature and character of the Arab Palestinians, especially key members of the All Palestine Government, became clear in the latter part of 1938 and into 1939.  By the 1941 meeting with Hitler, the reputation of the Arab Palestinian had been firmly established by this early Enemy Officer of the Ottoman Empire, Islamic Resistance leader and ally of the Palestinian Black Hand, cohort and Islamic Face for the Nazi Party in Eastern Europe, and the primary leader of the All Palestine Government .
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bottom line, Rocco, is that the Mandate was to assist Palestine to independence and "there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation."
> 
> BTW, the Jewish Agency was an adviser to the mandate and served at its pleasure subject always to the control of the Administration. It had no legitimate function after the termination of the Mandate.
Click to expand...


"The bottom line, Rocco, is that the Mandate was to assist Palestine to independence"

Which the Palestinians rejected on several occasions. Not to mention they could have declared independence before Israel did, but they didn't have their shit together like the Jews did. Too bad.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Wrong.  The document called the  "Mandate for Palestine" is an official commission to perform. It is a legal instrument.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line, Rocco, is that the Mandate was to assist Palestine to independence and "there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation."
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It draws a very distinct difference between the issue of "Jewish National Home" --- and --- "civil and religious rights" (alla 1922) of existing non-Jewish communities.  It should be interesting to note that the Mandate for Palestine, as the principle legal directive for that formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, --- _within such boundaries as may be fixed the Allied Powers, ---_ does not use the word "independence" even once in the entire 28 Articles Mandate and the Preamble; let alone stipulate that it requires the Mandatory to "assist Palestine to independence."
> 
> The intent of Article 22 of the Covenant, is to render administrative advice and assistance to "certain communities" (NOTE:  not all communities --- nor is it singling out the existing non-Jewish communities) to the extent and until such time as --- they are able to stand alone.  It is clear that Trans-Jordan, a portion of the territory to which the Mandate is applied, was provisionally recognized in the Mandate as a
> 
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, the Jewish Agency was an adviser to the mandate and served at its pleasure subject always to the control of the Administration. It had no legitimate function after the termination of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You, of all people, do not have the right to determine the scope and nature of the mission, function and duties of the Jewish Agency.   The Jewish Agency, as a "public body" _(an organization whose work is part of the process of government, but is not a government agency)_ is beyond the reach of the Arab Palestinian in either criticism or critique.  The Administration of Palestine by the Mandatory had within its authority the ability to contract with the Article 4 Jewish Agency arrangements to construct or operate, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country.  On termination of the Mandate, pursuant to Part I -- Section B Steps Preparatory to Independence --- Paragraph 4, General Assembly Resolution 181(II),  ---  the UN Palestine Commission shall
> 
> 4. The Commission, after consultation with the democratic parties and other public organizations of The Arab and Jewish States, shall select *and establish in each State as rapidly as possible a Provisional Council of Government*. The activities of both the Arab and Jewish Provisional Councils of Government shall be carried out under the general direction of the Commission.​
> An appropriate Jewish agency shall be *recognised as a public body* for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country.  (Article 4 - Mandate for Palestine) ​
> 
> While it is true that the Jewish Agency would no longer have a responsibility to the Mandatory once the Mandate terminated, it is the case that the scope and nature of the mission, function and duties of the Jewish Agency would be an assumed responsibility of the Provisional Government of the State of Israel.  It is the for the Israeli Government to determine the future of the agency; not an external influences associated with the Hostile Arab Palestinians and Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, which are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Wrong. The document called the "Mandate for Palestine" is an official commission to perform. It is a legal instrument.​
Not wrong. The Mandate flopped so Britain kicked the can down the road to the UN.

*"We have tried for years to solve the problem of Palestine. Having failed so far,* we now bring it to the United Nations, in the hope that it can succeed where we have not. If the United Nations can find a just solution which will be* accepted by both parties,* it could hardly be expected that we should not welcome such a solution. All we say—and I made this reservation the other day—is that we should not have the sole responsibility for enforcing a solution which is not* accepted by both parties* and which we cannot reconcile with our conscience."11/

Of course Britain could not solve the problem. *Britain was the problem.*

The UN had two proposals:
1) The termination of the Mandate over Palestine and the declaration of its independence.
2) The partition of Palestine.

One would conform to international law, the LoN Covenant, and the rights of the people.

Two had no legal basis and partition was suggested 10 years earlier and was rejected.

Hmmm, what to do - what to do???


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> fanger, et al,
> 
> Yes, I believe our friend "Phoenall" is seemingly correct.
> 
> First --- the 1939 White Paper was not accepted by the League of Nations (LoN) "Permanent Mandates Commission (PMC) at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939.  The commission reported that: the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”  The RESTRICTIONS were invalid --- and outside the intentions of the LoN and the PMC.
> 
> Whereas by the aforementioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations; Preamble Para 7, Mandate for Palestine.​
> The interpretation to which you suggest has placed restrictions and limitations on immigration --- was never approved or explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations.  What implementation that was carried out --- was done so without authority.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Aliyah Bet*_ (Hebrew: 'עלייה ב‎, "Aliyah 'B'" – bet being the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet) was the code name given to illegal immigration by Jews to the British Mandate for Palestine in violation of British White Paper of 1939 restrictions, in the years 1934-1948.
> Aliyah Bet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the Jews were invited so they cant be illegalkm immigrants
> 
> Secondly a white paper has no legal standing and can not be entered into law
> 
> Thirdly you are a complete and utter ignorant troll that will be banned from this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The 1939 White Papers, while written and approved by the Mandatory, --- was not approved or adopted by PMC of the LoN.  There were several reasons for this:
> 
> 
> The immigration effort to facilitate the establishment of the Jewish National Home was not interpreted in 1939 to violate the customary laws pertaining to the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion. (Articles 2, 4, and 6)
> Contrary to popular belief, the 1915  British High Commissioner in Egypt _(Sir Henry McMahon)_, DID NOT offered the Arab Palestinians _(soon to be under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration)_ any independent Arab state; but rather offered Sherif Hussein of Mecca an independent Arab state (Trans-Jordan, Syria /Iraq) if the Hashemite Bedouins would help the British fight against the Ottoman Turks.
> The Nazification of Germany, beginning in 1933 was in full swing by 1939.  The European Leaders and Allied Powers were already aware open antisemitism became the order of the day, and on 9 November 1939 "_Kristallnacht" _was the effect of Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels persecution against the Jews.  This demonstrated just how correct the Principle Allied Powers had been in trying to establish a Jewish National Home to protect and preserve the Jewish culture.   During "_Kristallnacht"_, nearly 1,000 synagogues were set on fire.
> During World War II Hajj Amin al-Husseini _(a former WWI enemy officer in the Ottoman Army and Grand Mufti of Jerusalem)_ collaborated with both Italy and Germany by making propagandistic radio broadcasts and by helping the German's to recruit Bosnian Muslims for the Waffen-SS.  The Palestinian Grand Mufti of Jerusalem opposed the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish National Home, and favored the Axis Powers.   On the conclusion of WWII, Hajj Amin al-Husseini  came under French protection, and then sought refuge in Cairo to avoid prosecution by the tribunal.    Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who was later to become the first President of the All Palestine Government, was a principle in developing anti-Jewish activities in the Middle East (until about 1959).
> The true nature and character of the Arab Palestinians, especially key members of the All Palestine Government, became clear in the latter part of 1938 and into 1939.  By the 1941 meeting with Hitler, the reputation of the Arab Palestinian had been firmly established by this early Enemy Officer of the Ottoman Empire, Islamic Resistance leader and ally of the Palestinian Black Hand, cohort and Islamic Face for the Nazi Party in Eastern Europe, and the primary leader of the All Palestine Government .
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bottom line, Rocco, is that the Mandate was to assist Palestine to independence and "there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation."
> 
> BTW, the Jewish Agency was an adviser to the mandate and served at its pleasure subject always to the control of the Administration. It had no legitimate function after the termination of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "It had no legitimate function after the termination of the Mandate"
> 
> Link ?
Click to expand...

An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of *advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine* - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 12 August 1922 ​
When the Administration folds it is out of a job.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I think you are sadly mistaken.  You have to read the complete thought!!!



P F Tinmore said:


> [
> An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of *advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine* - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 12 August 1922 ​
> When the Administration folds it is out of a job.


*(COMMENT)*

You be correct to say that, when the Government Administration of Palestine _(in this case the Mandatory)_ terminates its affiliation and relinquishes control to the successor government _(in this case the Israeli Government that declared Independence)_ then the Article 4 authority becomes the authority of the new Independent Government _(that being Israel)_.  Then the *"public body" *known as the Jewish Agency comes under the authority and responsibility of the new government.  Just because the old government terminates, does not mean that the function of government stops.  The bills must be paid, the electric must be generated, the post office must still deliver, the water must still pump and flow, and emergency services must still operate _(as examples)_.  With "rare exceptions," all the arrangements to construct or operate, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country that the Mandatory leveraged through the Jewish Agency _(to include some immigration arrangements)_ must continue seamlessly through the transition.  Again, while the Jewish Agency no longer reported to the Mandatory after the termination, does not mean that the successor government _(the Independent State of Israel)_ did not have the need to continue providing services to the citizenry.   "The Jewish Agency continues to be the Jewish world’s first responder, prepared to address emergencies in Israel, and to rescue Jews from countries where they are at risk."

For the life of me, I cannot quite figure-out where you get these odd notions about the Jewish Agency; or its transition from Mandate management to Israeli management.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Aliyah Bet*_ (Hebrew: 'עלייה ב‎, "Aliyah 'B'" – bet being the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet) was the code name given to illegal immigration by Jews to the British Mandate for Palestine in violation of British White Paper of 1939 restrictions, in the years 1934-1948.
> Aliyah Bet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the Jews were invited so they cant be illegalkm immigrants
> 
> Secondly a white paper has no legal standing and can not be entered into law
> 
> Thirdly you are a complete and utter ignorant troll that will be banned from this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you are now banning posters that present the facts.  I didn't know you had such power over USMB.
Click to expand...






Now were did I say I was banning anyone for presenting the facts, I said the TROLL would be banned by the mods for trolling. You could be next so be careful about your racist lies


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Aliyah Bet*_ (Hebrew: 'עלייה ב‎, "Aliyah 'B'" – bet being the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet) was the code name given to illegal immigration by Jews to the British Mandate for Palestine in violation of British White Paper of 1939 restrictions, in the years 1934-1948.
> Aliyah Bet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the Jews were invited so they cant be illegalkm immigrants
> 
> Secondly a white paper has no legal standing and can not be entered into law
> 
> Thirdly you are a complete and utter ignorant troll that will be banned from this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you are now banning posters that present the facts.  I didn't know you had such power over USMB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is a fact.  When stolen Palestinian land doesn't have title deed, it is not protected from Israeli settlement expansion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 90% of the the land was stolen from the Christians and Muslims of Palestine by the European invaders.  Israeli deeds are like monopoly money.
Click to expand...





More RACIST LIES as the land deeds have nothing to do with Israel. They come from the Ottomans who sold the land to the Jews, not stolen as the arab muslims do. The Christians were of such small numbers that they did not matter, which is why the arab muslims are ethnically cleansing them from Palestine. The Palestinian deeds churned out in their millions are like monopoly money and not worth anything, Arafat conned his own people selling them those worthless pieces of paper.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> As long as they are Ottoman or British Mandatory titles I am fine with it.






 And not Arafat fakes that he flooded the refugee camps with.  I wonder where the arab muslims will go when the land titles are subjected to scrutiny, will you take them in ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the Jews were invited so they cant be illegalkm immigrants
> 
> Secondly a white paper has no legal standing and can not be entered into law
> 
> Thirdly you are a complete and utter ignorant troll that will be banned from this board.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you are now banning posters that present the facts.  I didn't know you had such power over USMB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is a fact.  When stolen Palestinian land doesn't have title deed, it is not protected from Israeli settlement expansion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 90% of the the land was stolen from the Christians and Muslims of Palestine by the European invaders.  Israeli deeds are like monopoly money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mae ou
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the Jews were invited so they cant be illegalkm immigrants
> 
> Secondly a white paper has no legal standing and can not be entered into law
> 
> Thirdly you are a complete and utter ignorant troll that will be banned from this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you are now banning posters that present the facts.  I didn't know you had such power over USMB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is a fact.  When stolen Palestinian land doesn't have title deed, it is not protected from Israeli settlement expansion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 90% of the the land was stolen from the Christians and Muslims of Palestine by the European invaders.  Israeli deeds are like monopoly money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about this for a just solution?  All Israeli's & all Palestiniaans without titles or deeds to the land they live on must leave.  Fair enough?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cool, 93% of Israel is leased. The Israelis don't own anything.
Click to expand...





 Leased from the Israeli government so the people are still living on land with a title deed. The arab muslims never bothered to put this in place because they have not taken the last step, so goodbye all the arab muslims without valid land registry titles


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> fanger, et al,
> 
> Yes, I believe our friend "Phoenall" is seemingly correct.
> 
> First --- the 1939 White Paper was not accepted by the League of Nations (LoN) "Permanent Mandates Commission (PMC) at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939.  The commission reported that: the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”  The RESTRICTIONS were invalid --- and outside the intentions of the LoN and the PMC.
> 
> Whereas by the aforementioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations; Preamble Para 7, Mandate for Palestine.​
> The interpretation to which you suggest has placed restrictions and limitations on immigration --- was never approved or explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations.  What implementation that was carried out --- was done so without authority.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Aliyah Bet*_ (Hebrew: 'עלייה ב‎, "Aliyah 'B'" – bet being the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet) was the code name given to illegal immigration by Jews to the British Mandate for Palestine in violation of British White Paper of 1939 restrictions, in the years 1934-1948.
> Aliyah Bet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the Jews were invited so they cant be illegalkm immigrants
> 
> Secondly a white paper has no legal standing and can not be entered into law
> 
> Thirdly you are a complete and utter ignorant troll that will be banned from this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The 1939 White Papers, while written and approved by the Mandatory, --- was not approved or adopted by PMC of the LoN.  There were several reasons for this:
> 
> 
> The immigration effort to facilitate the establishment of the Jewish National Home was not interpreted in 1939 to violate the customary laws pertaining to the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion. (Articles 2, 4, and 6)
> Contrary to popular belief, the 1915  British High Commissioner in Egypt _(Sir Henry McMahon)_, DID NOT offered the Arab Palestinians _(soon to be under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration)_ any independent Arab state; but rather offered Sherif Hussein of Mecca an independent Arab state (Trans-Jordan, Syria /Iraq) if the Hashemite Bedouins would help the British fight against the Ottoman Turks.
> The Nazification of Germany, beginning in 1933 was in full swing by 1939.  The European Leaders and Allied Powers were already aware open antisemitism became the order of the day, and on 9 November 1939 "_Kristallnacht" _was the effect of Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels persecution against the Jews.  This demonstrated just how correct the Principle Allied Powers had been in trying to establish a Jewish National Home to protect and preserve the Jewish culture.   During "_Kristallnacht"_, nearly 1,000 synagogues were set on fire.
> During World War II Hajj Amin al-Husseini _(a former WWI enemy officer in the Ottoman Army and Grand Mufti of Jerusalem)_ collaborated with both Italy and Germany by making propagandistic radio broadcasts and by helping the German's to recruit Bosnian Muslims for the Waffen-SS.  The Palestinian Grand Mufti of Jerusalem opposed the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish National Home, and favored the Axis Powers.   On the conclusion of WWII, Hajj Amin al-Husseini  came under French protection, and then sought refuge in Cairo to avoid prosecution by the tribunal.    Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who was later to become the first President of the All Palestine Government, was a principle in developing anti-Jewish activities in the Middle East (until about 1959).
> The true nature and character of the Arab Palestinians, especially key members of the All Palestine Government, became clear in the latter part of 1938 and into 1939.  By the 1941 meeting with Hitler, the reputation of the Arab Palestinian had been firmly established by this early Enemy Officer of the Ottoman Empire, Islamic Resistance leader and ally of the Palestinian Black Hand, cohort and Islamic Face for the Nazi Party in Eastern Europe, and the primary leader of the All Palestine Government .
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing Ratified by the UN Security Council ....Nothing in Law.......makes your post irrelevant
Click to expand...





 You saying so does not make it true, Roccor producing a link to the UNSC ratification of Israel's acceptance proving conclusively that you are a bald faced LIAR and a bad loser


----------



## MJB12741

Friends said:


> The Palestinians are squatters. They blew in with the desert sands when the Jews were expelled after the Bar Kokhba revolt of 132 - 136. They should have been thrown back into the desert after Israel's glorious victory in the Six Day's War of 1967.
> 
> The Palestinians have no history, no achievements, and they merit no future.



How many more generations will Israel allow this Palestinian squatting to continue?  The Zionists need to change their failed agenda with the Palestinians & start treating them with the surrounding Arab country love, justice & respect the Palestinians are so well accustomed to.  And so well deserve.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> fanger, et al,
> 
> Yes, I believe our friend "Phoenall" is seemingly correct.
> 
> First --- the 1939 White Paper was not accepted by the League of Nations (LoN) "Permanent Mandates Commission (PMC) at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939.  The commission reported that: the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”  The RESTRICTIONS were invalid --- and outside the intentions of the LoN and the PMC.
> 
> Whereas by the aforementioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations; Preamble Para 7, Mandate for Palestine.​
> The interpretation to which you suggest has placed restrictions and limitations on immigration --- was never approved or explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations.  What implementation that was carried out --- was done so without authority.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Aliyah Bet*_ (Hebrew: 'עלייה ב‎, "Aliyah 'B'" – bet being the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet) was the code name given to illegal immigration by Jews to the British Mandate for Palestine in violation of British White Paper of 1939 restrictions, in the years 1934-1948.
> Aliyah Bet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the Jews were invited so they cant be illegalkm immigrants
> 
> Secondly a white paper has no legal standing and can not be entered into law
> 
> Thirdly you are a complete and utter ignorant troll that will be banned from this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The 1939 White Papers, while written and approved by the Mandatory, --- was not approved or adopted by PMC of the LoN.  There were several reasons for this:
> 
> 
> The immigration effort to facilitate the establishment of the Jewish National Home was not interpreted in 1939 to violate the customary laws pertaining to the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion. (Articles 2, 4, and 6)
> Contrary to popular belief, the 1915  British High Commissioner in Egypt _(Sir Henry McMahon)_, DID NOT offered the Arab Palestinians _(soon to be under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration)_ any independent Arab state; but rather offered Sherif Hussein of Mecca an independent Arab state (Trans-Jordan, Syria /Iraq) if the Hashemite Bedouins would help the British fight against the Ottoman Turks.
> The Nazification of Germany, beginning in 1933 was in full swing by 1939.  The European Leaders and Allied Powers were already aware open antisemitism became the order of the day, and on 9 November 1939 "_Kristallnacht" _was the effect of Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels persecution against the Jews.  This demonstrated just how correct the Principle Allied Powers had been in trying to establish a Jewish National Home to protect and preserve the Jewish culture.   During "_Kristallnacht"_, nearly 1,000 synagogues were set on fire.
> During World War II Hajj Amin al-Husseini _(a former WWI enemy officer in the Ottoman Army and Grand Mufti of Jerusalem)_ collaborated with both Italy and Germany by making propagandistic radio broadcasts and by helping the German's to recruit Bosnian Muslims for the Waffen-SS.  The Palestinian Grand Mufti of Jerusalem opposed the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish National Home, and favored the Axis Powers.   On the conclusion of WWII, Hajj Amin al-Husseini  came under French protection, and then sought refuge in Cairo to avoid prosecution by the tribunal.    Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who was later to become the first President of the All Palestine Government, was a principle in developing anti-Jewish activities in the Middle East (until about 1959).
> The true nature and character of the Arab Palestinians, especially key members of the All Palestine Government, became clear in the latter part of 1938 and into 1939.  By the 1941 meeting with Hitler, the reputation of the Arab Palestinian had been firmly established by this early Enemy Officer of the Ottoman Empire, Islamic Resistance leader and ally of the Palestinian Black Hand, cohort and Islamic Face for the Nazi Party in Eastern Europe, and the primary leader of the All Palestine Government .
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bottom line, Rocco, is that the Mandate was to assist Palestine to independence and "there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation."
> 
> BTW, the Jewish Agency was an adviser to the mandate and served at its pleasure subject always to the control of the Administration. It had no legitimate function after the termination of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "It had no legitimate function after the termination of the Mandate"
> 
> Link ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of *advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine* - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 12 August 1922 ​
> When the Administration folds it is out of a job.
Click to expand...






 When did it fold, as the Mandate for Palestine is still extant until the rest of Palestine is claimed land.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> fanger, et al,
> 
> Yes, I believe our friend "Phoenall" is seemingly correct.
> 
> First --- the 1939 White Paper was not accepted by the League of Nations (LoN) "Permanent Mandates Commission (PMC) at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939.  The commission reported that: the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”  The RESTRICTIONS were invalid --- and outside the intentions of the LoN and the PMC.
> 
> Whereas by the aforementioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations; Preamble Para 7, Mandate for Palestine.​
> The interpretation to which you suggest has placed restrictions and limitations on immigration --- was never approved or explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations.  What implementation that was carried out --- was done so without authority.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Aliyah Bet*_ (Hebrew: 'עלייה ב‎, "Aliyah 'B'" – bet being the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet) was the code name given to illegal immigration by Jews to the British Mandate for Palestine in violation of British White Paper of 1939 restrictions, in the years 1934-1948.
> Aliyah Bet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the Jews were invited so they cant be illegalkm immigrants
> 
> Secondly a white paper has no legal standing and can not be entered into law
> 
> Thirdly you are a complete and utter ignorant troll that will be banned from this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The 1939 White Papers, while written and approved by the Mandatory, --- was not approved or adopted by PMC of the LoN.  There were several reasons for this:
> 
> 
> The immigration effort to facilitate the establishment of the Jewish National Home was not interpreted in 1939 to violate the customary laws pertaining to the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion. (Articles 2, 4, and 6)
> Contrary to popular belief, the 1915  British High Commissioner in Egypt _(Sir Henry McMahon)_, DID NOT offered the Arab Palestinians _(soon to be under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration)_ any independent Arab state; but rather offered Sherif Hussein of Mecca an independent Arab state (Trans-Jordan, Syria /Iraq) if the Hashemite Bedouins would help the British fight against the Ottoman Turks.
> The Nazification of Germany, beginning in 1933 was in full swing by 1939.  The European Leaders and Allied Powers were already aware open antisemitism became the order of the day, and on 9 November 1939 "_Kristallnacht" _was the effect of Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels persecution against the Jews.  This demonstrated just how correct the Principle Allied Powers had been in trying to establish a Jewish National Home to protect and preserve the Jewish culture.   During "_Kristallnacht"_, nearly 1,000 synagogues were set on fire.
> During World War II Hajj Amin al-Husseini _(a former WWI enemy officer in the Ottoman Army and Grand Mufti of Jerusalem)_ collaborated with both Italy and Germany by making propagandistic radio broadcasts and by helping the German's to recruit Bosnian Muslims for the Waffen-SS.  The Palestinian Grand Mufti of Jerusalem opposed the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish National Home, and favored the Axis Powers.   On the conclusion of WWII, Hajj Amin al-Husseini  came under French protection, and then sought refuge in Cairo to avoid prosecution by the tribunal.    Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who was later to become the first President of the All Palestine Government, was a principle in developing anti-Jewish activities in the Middle East (until about 1959).
> The true nature and character of the Arab Palestinians, especially key members of the All Palestine Government, became clear in the latter part of 1938 and into 1939.  By the 1941 meeting with Hitler, the reputation of the Arab Palestinian had been firmly established by this early Enemy Officer of the Ottoman Empire, Islamic Resistance leader and ally of the Palestinian Black Hand, cohort and Islamic Face for the Nazi Party in Eastern Europe, and the primary leader of the All Palestine Government .
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The RESTRICTIONS were invalid...​
> What restriction?
Click to expand...





 The restrictions placed on Jewish immigration, which means that the halting of Jewish immigration was a breach of INTERNATIONAL LAW. I wonder if the UN will apologise to the Jewish people and hand the whole of Palestine to the Jews, less the belligerents and terrorists. They an always join IS and be killed.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> fanger, et al,
> 
> Yes, I believe our friend "Phoenall" is seemingly correct.
> 
> First --- the 1939 White Paper was not accepted by the League of Nations (LoN) "Permanent Mandates Commission (PMC) at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939.  The commission reported that: the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”  The RESTRICTIONS were invalid --- and outside the intentions of the LoN and the PMC.
> 
> Whereas by the aforementioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations; Preamble Para 7, Mandate for Palestine.​
> The interpretation to which you suggest has placed restrictions and limitations on immigration --- was never approved or explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations.  What implementation that was carried out --- was done so without authority.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Aliyah Bet*_ (Hebrew: 'עלייה ב‎, "Aliyah 'B'" – bet being the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet) was the code name given to illegal immigration by Jews to the British Mandate for Palestine in violation of British White Paper of 1939 restrictions, in the years 1934-1948.
> Aliyah Bet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the Jews were invited so they cant be illegalkm immigrants
> 
> Secondly a white paper has no legal standing and can not be entered into law
> 
> Thirdly you are a complete and utter ignorant troll that will be banned from this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The 1939 White Papers, while written and approved by the Mandatory, --- was not approved or adopted by PMC of the LoN.  There were several reasons for this:
> 
> 
> The immigration effort to facilitate the establishment of the Jewish National Home was not interpreted in 1939 to violate the customary laws pertaining to the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion. (Articles 2, 4, and 6)
> Contrary to popular belief, the 1915  British High Commissioner in Egypt _(Sir Henry McMahon)_, DID NOT offered the Arab Palestinians _(soon to be under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration)_ any independent Arab state; but rather offered Sherif Hussein of Mecca an independent Arab state (Trans-Jordan, Syria /Iraq) if the Hashemite Bedouins would help the British fight against the Ottoman Turks.
> The Nazification of Germany, beginning in 1933 was in full swing by 1939.  The European Leaders and Allied Powers were already aware open antisemitism became the order of the day, and on 9 November 1939 "_Kristallnacht" _was the effect of Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels persecution against the Jews.  This demonstrated just how correct the Principle Allied Powers had been in trying to establish a Jewish National Home to protect and preserve the Jewish culture.   During "_Kristallnacht"_, nearly 1,000 synagogues were set on fire.
> During World War II Hajj Amin al-Husseini _(a former WWI enemy officer in the Ottoman Army and Grand Mufti of Jerusalem)_ collaborated with both Italy and Germany by making propagandistic radio broadcasts and by helping the German's to recruit Bosnian Muslims for the Waffen-SS.  The Palestinian Grand Mufti of Jerusalem opposed the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish National Home, and favored the Axis Powers.   On the conclusion of WWII, Hajj Amin al-Husseini  came under French protection, and then sought refuge in Cairo to avoid prosecution by the tribunal.    Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who was later to become the first President of the All Palestine Government, was a principle in developing anti-Jewish activities in the Middle East (until about 1959).
> The true nature and character of the Arab Palestinians, especially key members of the All Palestine Government, became clear in the latter part of 1938 and into 1939.  By the 1941 meeting with Hitler, the reputation of the Arab Palestinian had been firmly established by this early Enemy Officer of the Ottoman Empire, Islamic Resistance leader and ally of the Palestinian Black Hand, cohort and Islamic Face for the Nazi Party in Eastern Europe, and the primary leader of the All Palestine Government .
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The immigration effort to facilitate the establishment of the Jewish National Home was not interpreted, bla, bla, bla.​
> Where did you get this crap. Got a link?
Click to expand...






 Mandate for Palestine of course, surely you have saved at least one of them ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I think you are sadly mistaken.  You have to read the complete thought!!!
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of *advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine* - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 12 August 1922 ​
> When the Administration folds it is out of a job.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You be correct to say that, when the Government Administration of Palestine _(in this case the Mandatory)_ terminates its affiliation and relinquishes control to the successor government _(in this case the Israeli Government that declared Independence)_ then the Article 4 authority becomes the authority of the new Independent Government _(that being Israel)_.  Then the *"public body" *known as the Jewish Agency comes under the authority and responsibility of the new government.  Just because the old government terminates, does not mean that the function of government stops.  The bills must be paid, the electric must be generated, the post office must still deliver, the water must still pump and flow, and emergency services must still operate _(as examples)_.  With "rare exceptions," all the arrangements to construct or operate, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country that the Mandatory leveraged through the Jewish Agency _(to include some immigration arrangements)_ must continue seamlessly through the transition.  Again, while the Jewish Agency no longer reported to the Mandatory after the termination, does not mean that the successor government _(the Independent State of Israel)_ did not have the need to continue providing services to the citizenry.   "The Jewish Agency continues to be the Jewish world’s first responder, prepared to address emergencies in Israel, and to rescue Jews from countries where they are at risk."
> 
> For the life of me, I cannot quite figure-out where you get these odd notions about the Jewish Agency; or its transition from Mandate management to Israeli management.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

You be correct to say that, when the Government Administration of Palestine _(in this case the Mandatory)_ terminates its affiliation and relinquishes control to the successor government _(in this case the Israeli Government that declared Independence)_​

I thought you said that Britain relinquished control to the UNPC. If I remember correctly you documented that move.


----------



## MJB12741

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you are now banning posters that present the facts.  I didn't know you had such power over USMB.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a fact.  When stolen Palestinian land doesn't have title deed, it is not protected from Israeli settlement expansion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 90% of the the land was stolen from the Christians and Muslims of Palestine by the European invaders.  Israeli deeds are like monopoly money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mae ou
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you are now banning posters that present the facts.  I didn't know you had such power over USMB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is a fact.  When stolen Palestinian land doesn't have title deed, it is not protected from Israeli settlement expansion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 90% of the the land was stolen from the Christians and Muslims of Palestine by the European invaders.  Israeli deeds are like monopoly money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about this for a just solution?  All Israeli's & all Palestiniaans without titles or deeds to the land they live on must leave.  Fair enough?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cool, 93% of Israel is leased. The Israelis don't own anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leased from the Israeli government so the people are still living on land with a title deed. The arab muslims never bothered to put this in place because they have not taken the last step, so goodbye all the arab muslims without valid land registry titles
Click to expand...


Where do the Pali supporters come up with this "Israel is stealing 'Palestinian' land"?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> fanger, et al,
> 
> Yes, I believe our friend "Phoenall" is seemingly correct.
> 
> First --- the 1939 White Paper was not accepted by the League of Nations (LoN) "Permanent Mandates Commission (PMC) at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939.  The commission reported that: the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”  The RESTRICTIONS were invalid --- and outside the intentions of the LoN and the PMC.
> 
> Whereas by the aforementioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations; Preamble Para 7, Mandate for Palestine.​
> The interpretation to which you suggest has placed restrictions and limitations on immigration --- was never approved or explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations.  What implementation that was carried out --- was done so without authority.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Aliyah Bet*_ (Hebrew: 'עלייה ב‎, "Aliyah 'B'" – bet being the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet) was the code name given to illegal immigration by Jews to the British Mandate for Palestine in violation of British White Paper of 1939 restrictions, in the years 1934-1948.
> Aliyah Bet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the Jews were invited so they cant be illegalkm immigrants
> 
> Secondly a white paper has no legal standing and can not be entered into law
> 
> Thirdly you are a complete and utter ignorant troll that will be banned from this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The 1939 White Papers, while written and approved by the Mandatory, --- was not approved or adopted by PMC of the LoN.  There were several reasons for this:
> 
> 
> The immigration effort to facilitate the establishment of the Jewish National Home was not interpreted in 1939 to violate the customary laws pertaining to the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion. (Articles 2, 4, and 6)
> Contrary to popular belief, the 1915  British High Commissioner in Egypt _(Sir Henry McMahon)_, DID NOT offered the Arab Palestinians _(soon to be under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration)_ any independent Arab state; but rather offered Sherif Hussein of Mecca an independent Arab state (Trans-Jordan, Syria /Iraq) if the Hashemite Bedouins would help the British fight against the Ottoman Turks.
> The Nazification of Germany, beginning in 1933 was in full swing by 1939.  The European Leaders and Allied Powers were already aware open antisemitism became the order of the day, and on 9 November 1939 "_Kristallnacht" _was the effect of Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels persecution against the Jews.  This demonstrated just how correct the Principle Allied Powers had been in trying to establish a Jewish National Home to protect and preserve the Jewish culture.   During "_Kristallnacht"_, nearly 1,000 synagogues were set on fire.
> During World War II Hajj Amin al-Husseini _(a former WWI enemy officer in the Ottoman Army and Grand Mufti of Jerusalem)_ collaborated with both Italy and Germany by making propagandistic radio broadcasts and by helping the German's to recruit Bosnian Muslims for the Waffen-SS.  The Palestinian Grand Mufti of Jerusalem opposed the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish National Home, and favored the Axis Powers.   On the conclusion of WWII, Hajj Amin al-Husseini  came under French protection, and then sought refuge in Cairo to avoid prosecution by the tribunal.    Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who was later to become the first President of the All Palestine Government, was a principle in developing anti-Jewish activities in the Middle East (until about 1959).
> The true nature and character of the Arab Palestinians, especially key members of the All Palestine Government, became clear in the latter part of 1938 and into 1939.  By the 1941 meeting with Hitler, the reputation of the Arab Palestinian had been firmly established by this early Enemy Officer of the Ottoman Empire, Islamic Resistance leader and ally of the Palestinian Black Hand, cohort and Islamic Face for the Nazi Party in Eastern Europe, and the primary leader of the All Palestine Government .
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bottom line, Rocco, is that the Mandate was to assist Palestine to independence and "there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation."
> 
> BTW, the Jewish Agency was an adviser to the mandate and served at its pleasure subject always to the control of the Administration. It had no legitimate function after the termination of the Mandate.
Click to expand...






 Which the mandate did by splitting the land destined for the Jewish national home and giving 78% to the arab muslim Saudi prince. The arab muslims were supposed to also take the charity handed out to relocate and get of Jewish land. That was the assistance given to the arab muslims and the Jews in 1923, the arab muslims wanted it all and went to war against the Jews to take it. They lost then and they are still losing now.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you are now banning posters that present the facts.  I didn't know you had such power over USMB.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a fact.  When stolen Palestinian land doesn't have title deed, it is not protected from Israeli settlement expansion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 90% of the the land was stolen from the Christians and Muslims of Palestine by the European invaders.  Israeli deeds are like monopoly money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mae ou
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you are now banning posters that present the facts.  I didn't know you had such power over USMB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is a fact.  When stolen Palestinian land doesn't have title deed, it is not protected from Israeli settlement expansion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 90% of the the land was stolen from the Christians and Muslims of Palestine by the European invaders.  Israeli deeds are like monopoly money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about this for a just solution?  All Israeli's & all Palestiniaans without titles or deeds to the land they live on must leave.  Fair enough?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cool, 93% of Israel is leased. The Israelis don't own anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leased from the Israeli government so the people are still living on land with a title deed. The arab muslims never bothered to put this in place because they have not taken the last step, so goodbye all the arab muslims without valid land registry titles
Click to expand...

Not that ownership of a piece of land is even relevant.

Somebody who rents an apartment in NYC has the same rights to country as someone who owns a farm in Kansas. Even homeless people have the right to nationality and citizenship.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq,  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> In 1939, there was no UN, there was no Security Council.
> 
> _*BTW:  I will be happy to provide the links once again.*_
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> fanger, et al,
> 
> Yes, I believe our friend "Phoenall" is seemingly correct.
> 
> First --- the 1939 White Paper was not accepted by the League of Nations (LoN) "Permanent Mandates Commission (PMC) at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939.  The commission reported that: the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”  The RESTRICTIONS were invalid --- and outside the intentions of the LoN and the PMC.
> 
> Whereas by the aforementioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations; Preamble Para 7, Mandate for Palestine.​
> The interpretation to which you suggest has placed restrictions and limitations on immigration --- was never approved or explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations.  What implementation that was carried out --- was done so without authority.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Aliyah Bet*_ (Hebrew: 'עלייה ב‎, "Aliyah 'B'" – bet being the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet) was the code name given to illegal immigration by Jews to the British Mandate for Palestine in violation of British White Paper of 1939 restrictions, in the years 1934-1948.
> Aliyah Bet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the Jews were invited so they cant be illegalkm immigrants
> 
> Secondly a white paper has no legal standing and can not be entered into law
> 
> Thirdly you are a complete and utter ignorant troll that will be banned from this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The 1939 White Papers, while written and approved by the Mandatory, --- was not approved or adopted by PMC of the LoN.  There were several reasons for this:
> 
> 
> The immigration effort to facilitate the establishment of the Jewish National Home was not interpreted in 1939 to violate the customary laws pertaining to the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion. (Articles 2, 4, and 6)
> Contrary to popular belief, the 1915  British High Commissioner in Egypt _(Sir Henry McMahon)_, DID NOT offered the Arab Palestinians _(soon to be under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration)_ any independent Arab state; but rather offered Sherif Hussein of Mecca an independent Arab state (Trans-Jordan, Syria /Iraq) if the Hashemite Bedouins would help the British fight against the Ottoman Turks.
> The Nazification of Germany, beginning in 1933 was in full swing by 1939.  The European Leaders and Allied Powers were already aware open antisemitism became the order of the day, and on 9 November 1939 "_Kristallnacht" _was the effect of Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels persecution against the Jews.  This demonstrated just how correct the Principle Allied Powers had been in trying to establish a Jewish National Home to protect and preserve the Jewish culture.   During "_Kristallnacht"_, nearly 1,000 synagogues were set on fire.
> During World War II Hajj Amin al-Husseini _(a former WWI enemy officer in the Ottoman Army and Grand Mufti of Jerusalem)_ collaborated with both Italy and Germany by making propagandistic radio broadcasts and by helping the German's to recruit Bosnian Muslims for the Waffen-SS.  The Palestinian Grand Mufti of Jerusalem opposed the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish National Home, and favored the Axis Powers.   On the conclusion of WWII, Hajj Amin al-Husseini  came under French protection, and then sought refuge in Cairo to avoid prosecution by the tribunal.    Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who was later to become the first President of the All Palestine Government, was a principle in developing anti-Jewish activities in the Middle East (until about 1959).
> The true nature and character of the Arab Palestinians, especially key members of the All Palestine Government, became clear in the latter part of 1938 and into 1939.  By the 1941 meeting with Hitler, the reputation of the Arab Palestinian had been firmly established by this early Enemy Officer of the Ottoman Empire, Islamic Resistance leader and ally of the Palestinian Black Hand, cohort and Islamic Face for the Nazi Party in Eastern Europe, and the primary leader of the All Palestine Government .
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing Ratified by the UN Security Council ....Nothing in Law.......makes your post irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I think your timeline is off.  The UN did not come into existence until 1945.  So the claim about the UNSC and law just is not applicable; since we are talking 1939.  For the most part, most Immigration occurred prior to the Charter coming into force on 24 October 1945; but is even set back farther in time since there was a UK imposed moratorium on large scale immigration during the pre-War years.
> 
> *NOTE:*  In the Post-War London Conference in September 1946, the Arab Delegation propose a one-state solution (AKA: unitary solution) that included:
> (a) Palestine would be a unitary State with a permanent Arab majority, and would attain its independence as such after a short period of transition (two or three years) under British Mandate.
> (b) Within this unitary State, Jews who had acquired Palestinian citizenship (for which the qualification would be ten years’ residence in the country) would have full civil rights, equally with all other citizens of Palestine.
> 
> It was universally understood in that time frame, this would seriously jeopardize the entire concept of a Jewish National Home; including the safety, preservation and protection of the Jewish culture.  A direct failing of the Allied Powers that contributed to the success of the trapped Jewish population in Europe --- directly related to the Arab alliance with the German Regime.​
> The UK (1940-1946), as the Mandatory, afraid of an Arab backlash in the Middle East _(that would threaten UK nation interests)_, closed immigration into Palestine during the remainder of WWII and for a short time thereafter.  The UK was instrumental in stranding hundreds of thousands of Jews in Europe, allowing the Germany Regime to continue the Final Solution.   In the first Post-War year (mid 1945-1946), the UK (as the Mandatory) continued to make the Jewish survivors suffer further by denying sanctuary in Palestine in order to curry favor with Arabs that might turn insurgents, having favored the Axis Powers during the War; like the Grand Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husseini.   In mid-1946, the US urged the UK to reduce the number of of displaced persons in European Refugee Camps by allowing approximately a hundred-thousand immigrants into the territory to which the Mandate applied.
> 
> A White Paper is not law. It is a snapshot in time on the perspective held by a body.  In this case, the *1939 White Paper* "*was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate (A/AC.14/8  2 October 1947)*."
> 
> It is important to note that several documents made it absolutely clear, to include the one recently cited hear *[SUPPLEMENT No. 11 UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PALESTINE REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY VOLUME 1 (A/364 3 September 1947)]*
> 
> 89. The White Paper of 1939 was considered at length during the thirty-sixth session of the Permanent Mandates Commission in June 1939. The substance of its findings, as reported to the Council of the League were:
> 
> _(a)_ "That the policy set out . . . *was not in accordance with the interpretation which*, in agreement with the mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate";
> 
> _(b)_ That, regarding the possibility of a new interpretation of the Mandate, with which the White Paper would not be at variance, four members "did not feel able to state that the policy of the White Paper was in conformity with the mandate . . .", while the other three members of the Commission considered that "existing circumstances would justify the policy of the White Paper, provided that the Council did not oppose it,"​
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...continued to make the Jewish survivors suffer further by denying sanctuary in Palestine...​
> Why should the Palestinians take it up the ass for what was happening in Europe?
Click to expand...





 Because they were the ones that forced the British to impose the illegal restrictions on Jewish migration. It was in Palestine were the Jews were forced into death camps, not Europe so it was the Palestinian arab muslims that were to blame for tens of thousands of Jews deaths when they forced the British into closing the doors.  So why shouldn't they take it up the ass for all those deaths that they caused.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Wrong.  The document called the  "Mandate for Palestine" is an official commission to perform. It is a legal instrument.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line, Rocco, is that the Mandate was to assist Palestine to independence and "there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation."
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It draws a very distinct difference between the issue of "Jewish National Home" --- and --- "civil and religious rights" (alla 1922) of existing non-Jewish communities.  It should be interesting to note that the Mandate for Palestine, as the principle legal directive for that formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, --- _within such boundaries as may be fixed the Allied Powers, ---_ does not use the word "independence" even once in the entire 28 Articles Mandate and the Preamble; let alone stipulate that it requires the Mandatory to "assist Palestine to independence."
> 
> The intent of Article 22 of the Covenant, is to render administrative advice and assistance to "certain communities" (NOTE:  not all communities --- nor is it singling out the existing non-Jewish communities) to the extent and until such time as --- they are able to stand alone.  It is clear that Trans-Jordan, a portion of the territory to which the Mandate is applied, was provisionally recognized in the Mandate as a
> 
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, the Jewish Agency was an adviser to the mandate and served at its pleasure subject always to the control of the Administration. It had no legitimate function after the termination of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You, of all people, do not have the right to determine the scope and nature of the mission, function and duties of the Jewish Agency.   The Jewish Agency, as a "public body" _(an organization whose work is part of the process of government, but is not a government agency)_ is beyond the reach of the Arab Palestinian in either criticism or critique.  The Administration of Palestine by the Mandatory had within its authority the ability to contract with the Article 4 Jewish Agency arrangements to construct or operate, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country.  On termination of the Mandate, pursuant to Part I -- Section B Steps Preparatory to Independence --- Paragraph 4, General Assembly Resolution 181(II),  ---  the UN Palestine Commission shall
> 
> 4. The Commission, after consultation with the democratic parties and other public organizations of The Arab and Jewish States, shall select *and establish in each State as rapidly as possible a Provisional Council of Government*. The activities of both the Arab and Jewish Provisional Councils of Government shall be carried out under the general direction of the Commission.​
> An appropriate Jewish agency shall be *recognised as a public body* for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country.  (Article 4 - Mandate for Palestine) ​
> 
> While it is true that the Jewish Agency would no longer have a responsibility to the Mandatory once the Mandate terminated, it is the case that the scope and nature of the mission, function and duties of the Jewish Agency would be an assumed responsibility of the Provisional Government of the State of Israel.  It is the for the Israeli Government to determine the future of the agency; not an external influences associated with the Hostile Arab Palestinians and Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, which are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. The document called the "Mandate for Palestine" is an official commission to perform. It is a legal instrument.​
> Not wrong. The Mandate flopped so Britain kicked the can down the road to the UN.
> 
> *"We have tried for years to solve the problem of Palestine. Having failed so far,* we now bring it to the United Nations, in the hope that it can succeed where we have not. If the United Nations can find a just solution which will be* accepted by both parties,* it could hardly be expected that we should not welcome such a solution. All we say—and I made this reservation the other day—is that we should not have the sole responsibility for enforcing a solution which is not* accepted by both parties* and which we cannot reconcile with our conscience."11/
> 
> Of course Britain could not solve the problem. *Britain was the problem.*
> 
> The UN had two proposals:
> 1) The termination of the Mandate over Palestine and the declaration of its independence.
> 2) The partition of Palestine.
> 
> One would conform to international law, the LoN Covenant, and the rights of the people.
> 
> Two had no legal basis and partition was suggested 10 years earlier and was rejected.
> 
> Hmmm, what to do - what to do???
Click to expand...




 And again you mix up the two mandates and get it all wrong. It was the British mandate that flopped not the Mandate for Palestine. The British could not afford the mandate anymore so gave it up, and the arab muslims tried to take charge of the situation through the UN.
 The UN had no choices at all as they could not alter International law that gave the 22% of Palestine to the Jews as their National home. They were now custodians of the Mandate for Palestine and were also the mandatory power in charge. If they scrapped the Mandate for Palestine they would be in breach of International law and their own charter, while at the same time handing control over to the Jews. The partition was illegal under International law and should not have even been entertained, so in reality we only have one solution.

 IMPOSE THE ORIGINAL PLAN AND KICK THE ARAB MUSLIMS OUT OF GAZA AND THE WEST BANK. IMPOSE MARTIAL LAW AND SEND A MULTONATIONAL TASK FORCE TO THE AREA TO COMBAT ANY INSERECTION AND/OR VIOLENCE. IF NEED BE START EXECUTING BELLIGERENTS AS SOON AS THEY ARE CAUGHT AND PROCESSED.

 Clear enough for you as that is what the arab muslims and their enablers have lined up for the Jews.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I think you are sadly mistaken.  You have to read the complete thought!!!
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of *advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine* - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 12 August 1922 ​
> When the Administration folds it is out of a job.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You be correct to say that, when the Government Administration of Palestine _(in this case the Mandatory)_ terminates its affiliation and relinquishes control to the successor government _(in this case the Israeli Government that declared Independence)_ then the Article 4 authority becomes the authority of the new Independent Government _(that being Israel)_.  Then the *"public body" *known as the Jewish Agency comes under the authority and responsibility of the new government.  Just because the old government terminates, does not mean that the function of government stops.  The bills must be paid, the electric must be generated, the post office must still deliver, the water must still pump and flow, and emergency services must still operate _(as examples)_.  With "rare exceptions," all the arrangements to construct or operate, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country that the Mandatory leveraged through the Jewish Agency _(to include some immigration arrangements)_ must continue seamlessly through the transition.  Again, while the Jewish Agency no longer reported to the Mandatory after the termination, does not mean that the successor government _(the Independent State of Israel)_ did not have the need to continue providing services to the citizenry.   "The Jewish Agency continues to be the Jewish world’s first responder, prepared to address emergencies in Israel, and to rescue Jews from countries where they are at risk."
> 
> For the life of me, I cannot quite figure-out where you get these odd notions about the Jewish Agency; or its transition from Mandate management to Israeli management.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You be correct to say that, when the Government Administration of Palestine _(in this case the Mandatory)_ terminates its affiliation and relinquishes control to the successor government _(in this case the Israeli Government that declared Independence)_​
> 
> I thought you said that Britain relinquished control to the UNPC. If I remember correctly you documented that move.
Click to expand...





 Two separate mandates remember, and the LoN Mandate for Palestine passed into UN hands in 1945.  The British Mandate passed into UNPC hands in 1948. So in May 1948 the British mandate passed into UNPC hands to take charge of the remaining land not claimed by Israel


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a fact.  When stolen Palestinian land doesn't have title deed, it is not protected from Israeli settlement expansion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 90% of the the land was stolen from the Christians and Muslims of Palestine by the European invaders.  Israeli deeds are like monopoly money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mae ou
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a fact.  When stolen Palestinian land doesn't have title deed, it is not protected from Israeli settlement expansion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 90% of the the land was stolen from the Christians and Muslims of Palestine by the European invaders.  Israeli deeds are like monopoly money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about this for a just solution?  All Israeli's & all Palestiniaans without titles or deeds to the land they live on must leave.  Fair enough?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cool, 93% of Israel is leased. The Israelis don't own anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leased from the Israeli government so the people are still living on land with a title deed. The arab muslims never bothered to put this in place because they have not taken the last step, so goodbye all the arab muslims without valid land registry titles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not that ownership of a piece of land is even relevant.
> 
> Somebody who rents an apartment in NYC has the same rights to country as someone who owns a farm in Kansas. Even homeless people have the right to nationality and citizenship.
Click to expand...





 But they don't have the rights to my land or country do they, and that is what you don't or cant understand. The arab muslims migrated illegally to Palestine to steal land after the Jews had made it productive, a very common tactic of the arab muslims. Without the certificate of citizenship the people are illegal immigrants, and they need to have the land title so they can pay their taxes and other dues. The later is where the arab muslims fail as they don't want to pay taxes or be liable for conscription.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Pay attention; this is not dumbed down.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I think you are sadly mistaken.  You have to read the complete thought!!!
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of *advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine* - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 12 August 1922 ​
> When the Administration folds it is out of a job.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You be correct to say that, when the Government Administration of Palestine _(in this case the Mandatory)_ terminates its affiliation and relinquishes control to the successor government _(in this case the Israeli Government that declared Independence)_ then the Article 4 authority becomes the authority of the new Independent Government _(that being Israel)_.  Then the *"public body" *known as the Jewish Agency comes under the authority and responsibility of the new government.  Just because the old government terminates, does not mean that the function of government stops.  The bills must be paid, the electric must be generated, the post office must still deliver, the water must still pump and flow, and emergency services must still operate _(as examples)_.  With "rare exceptions," all the arrangements to construct or operate, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country that the Mandatory leveraged through the Jewish Agency _(to include some immigration arrangements)_ must continue seamlessly through the transition.  Again, while the Jewish Agency no longer reported to the Mandatory after the termination, does not mean that the successor government _(the Independent State of Israel)_ did not have the need to continue providing services to the citizenry.   "The Jewish Agency continues to be the Jewish world’s first responder, prepared to address emergencies in Israel, and to rescue Jews from countries where they are at risk."
> 
> For the life of me, I cannot quite figure-out where you get these odd notions about the Jewish Agency; or its transition from Mandate management to Israeli management.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You be correct to say that, when the Government Administration of Palestine _(in this case the Mandatory)_ terminates its affiliation and relinquishes control to the successor government _(in this case the Israeli Government that declared Independence)_​
> 
> I thought you said that Britain relinquished control to the UNPC. If I remember correctly you documented that move.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

At midnight, on 14/15 May 1948, the British terminated their responsibilities to the Mandate.  At the time, the successor government to the Mandate of Palestine became the UNPC.  However, moments after the Mandate terminated, the Provisional Government for the State of Israel declared Independence.  The UNPC was the successor government to the territory formerly under the Mandate, less the Jordan and less the territory allocated to the Jewish State.  "Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein _(First Special Report to the Security Council: The Problem of Security in Palestine)_.

Yes, the successor government was the UNPC, but not the successor to Jordan or the newly formed state of Israel.  According to the "Declarative Theory of Statehood," _(a legal and philosophical concept used by the ICJ)_ the existence of a state does not depend upon recognition by other states _(ie the Arab States or the Palestinians)_.

I tend to think that in the future, and maybe even if the ICC comes to evaluate the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, that neither the constitutive, nor the declarative theory of statehood will be found acceptable; and that new criteria will have to be developed to determine where self-determination and occupation/extended effective control becomes de facto sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

Phoenall,  P F Tinmore,  et al,

OK, again, don't drag in immigration issues, or the issue of civil land ownership on a private basis.  Neither if these had a direct impact on the matter of sovereignty; also some people believe that they are matter of important consideration when discussing the status of the modified (by war and conquest) Jewish State and Arab State.  In fact, there is a question as to whether the issues of "illegal immigration" and "citizenship" have a critical bearing on the right of self-determination and the competing concepts of "statehood."



Phoenall said:


> But they don't have the rights to my land or country do they, and that is what you don't or cant understand. The arab muslims migrated illegally to Palestine to steal land after the Jews had made it productive, a very common tactic of the arab muslims. Without the certificate of citizenship the people are illegal immigrants, and they need to have the land title so they can pay their taxes and other dues. The later is where the arab muslims fail as they don't want to pay taxes or be liable for conscription.



*(REFERENCE)*

Declaratory And Constitutive Theories Of State Recognition In International Law
Judicial Reasoning and the Doctrine of Precedent in State Recognition
*(PREFACE)
*
Palestinian Statehood under International Law​An Analysis and Discussion by John M. B. Balouziyeh, Esq.
*
(COMMENT)*

Rather than rewrite the "Balouziyeh" Analysis, I should just let you read it for yourself.  As the the author points out, "The recognition of statehood is a rather complex area of international law subject to competing tests and theories."  And "Balouziyeh" was speaking directly to the question:  The question of Palestine, as a State, and the two theories that provide guidance as to the legal recognition of an entity’s sovereignty in the international community: 

(i) the declarative theory; and 
(ii) the constitutive theory.​
This is going to become a mess.  There are going to be very touchy and risky soul searching exercises over this issue.  And, because of the various terrorist organizations connected to the question, there are going to be some tricky risk assessments on what can be said in the open, and what is better left unsaid.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 90% of the the land was stolen from the Christians and Muslims of Palestine by the European invaders.  Israeli deeds are like monopoly money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mae ou
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 90% of the the land was stolen from the Christians and Muslims of Palestine by the European invaders.  Israeli deeds are like monopoly money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about this for a just solution?  All Israeli's & all Palestiniaans without titles or deeds to the land they live on must leave.  Fair enough?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cool, 93% of Israel is leased. The Israelis don't own anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leased from the Israeli government so the people are still living on land with a title deed. The arab muslims never bothered to put this in place because they have not taken the last step, so goodbye all the arab muslims without valid land registry titles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not that ownership of a piece of land is even relevant.
> 
> Somebody who rents an apartment in NYC has the same rights to country as someone who owns a farm in Kansas. Even homeless people have the right to nationality and citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But they don't have the rights to my land or country do they, and that is what you don't or cant understand. The arab muslims migrated illegally to Palestine to steal land after the Jews had made it productive, a very common tactic of the arab muslims. Without the certificate of citizenship the people are illegal immigrants, and they need to have the land title so they can pay their taxes and other dues. The later is where the arab muslims fail as they don't want to pay taxes or be liable for conscription.
Click to expand...


The only migration to Palestine from 1920 to 1946 of any consequence was European immigration, legal and illegal.  As confirmed in the UN's A/364 Report which was in prepared as part of the partition plan:

Quit lying Phoney.

"14. It will have been noticed that not only has there been a remarkably rapid increase in the total population of Palestine but also the proportion of Jews in the total has greatly increased, from 12.91 -per cent in 1922 to 32.96 per cent in 1946. Conversely, of course, the Arab proportion has fallen since 1922. The Moslem proportion of the population (almost entirely Arab) has fallen from about 75 per cent of the total to 60 per cent, and the Christian proportion (very largely Arab) from 11 per cent to 8 per cent. Thus, at the present time about one-third of the total settled population is Jewish.

(b)IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE

15. These changes in the population have been brought about by two forces: natural increase and immigration. *The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. From 1920 to 1946, the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year. *The flow has not been regular, however, being fairly high in 1924 to 1926, falling in the next few years (there was a net emigration in 1927) and rising to even higher levels between 1933 and 1936 as a result of the Nazi persecution in Europe. Between the census year of 1931 and the year 1936, the proportion of Jews to the total population rose from 18 per cent to nearly 30 per cent.

16. *The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths. *Indeed, the natural rate of increase of Moslem Arabs in Palestine is the highest in recorded statistics,1 a phenomenon explained by very high fertility rates coupled with a marked decline in death rates as a result of improved conditions of life and public health, The natural rate of increase of Jews is also relatively high, but is conditioned by a favorable age distribution of the population due to the high rate of immigration.

A 364 of 3 September 1947


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mae ou
> How about this for a just solution?  All Israeli's & all Palestiniaans without titles or deeds to the land they live on must leave.  Fair enough?
> 
> 
> 
> Cool, 93% of Israel is leased. The Israelis don't own anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leased from the Israeli government so the people are still living on land with a title deed. The arab muslims never bothered to put this in place because they have not taken the last step, so goodbye all the arab muslims without valid land registry titles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not that ownership of a piece of land is even relevant.
> 
> Somebody who rents an apartment in NYC has the same rights to country as someone who owns a farm in Kansas. Even homeless people have the right to nationality and citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But they don't have the rights to my land or country do they, and that is what you don't or cant understand. The arab muslims migrated illegally to Palestine to steal land after the Jews had made it productive, a very common tactic of the arab muslims. Without the certificate of citizenship the people are illegal immigrants, and they need to have the land title so they can pay their taxes and other dues. The later is where the arab muslims fail as they don't want to pay taxes or be liable for conscription.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only migration to Palestine from 1920 to 1946 of any consequence was European immigration, legal and illegal.  As confirmed in the UN's A/364 Report which was in prepared as part of the partition plan:
> 
> Quit lying Phoney.
> 
> "14. It will have been noticed that not only has there been a remarkably rapid increase in the total population of Palestine but also the proportion of Jews in the total has greatly increased, from 12.91 -per cent in 1922 to 32.96 per cent in 1946. Conversely, of course, the Arab proportion has fallen since 1922. The Moslem proportion of the population (almost entirely Arab) has fallen from about 75 per cent of the total to 60 per cent, and the Christian proportion (very largely Arab) from 11 per cent to 8 per cent. Thus, at the present time about one-third of the total settled population is Jewish.
> 
> (b)IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE
> 
> 15. These changes in the population have been brought about by two forces: natural increase and immigration. *The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. From 1920 to 1946, the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year. *The flow has not been regular, however, being fairly high in 1924 to 1926, falling in the next few years (there was a net emigration in 1927) and rising to even higher levels between 1933 and 1936 as a result of the Nazi persecution in Europe. Between the census year of 1931 and the year 1936, the proportion of Jews to the total population rose from 18 per cent to nearly 30 per cent.
> 
> 16. *The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths. *Indeed, the natural rate of increase of Moslem Arabs in Palestine is the highest in recorded statistics,1 a phenomenon explained by very high fertility rates coupled with a marked decline in death rates as a result of improved conditions of life and public health, The natural rate of increase of Jews is also relatively high, but is conditioned by a favorable age distribution of the population due to the high rate of immigration.
> 
> A 364 of 3 September 1947
Click to expand...


Just because there are no statistics on Arab migration to mandatory Palestine, it doesn't mean it didn't happen.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> fanger, et al,
> 
> Yes, I believe our friend "Phoenall" is seemingly correct.
> 
> First --- the 1939 White Paper was not accepted by the League of Nations (LoN) "Permanent Mandates Commission (PMC) at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939.  The commission reported that: the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”  The RESTRICTIONS were invalid --- and outside the intentions of the LoN and the PMC.
> 
> Whereas by the aforementioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations; Preamble Para 7, Mandate for Palestine.​
> The interpretation to which you suggest has placed restrictions and limitations on immigration --- was never approved or explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations.  What implementation that was carried out --- was done so without authority.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Aliyah Bet*_ (Hebrew: 'עלייה ב‎, "Aliyah 'B'" – bet being the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet) was the code name given to illegal immigration by Jews to the British Mandate for Palestine in violation of British White Paper of 1939 restrictions, in the years 1934-1948.
> Aliyah Bet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the Jews were invited so they cant be illegalkm immigrants
> 
> Secondly a white paper has no legal standing and can not be entered into law
> 
> Thirdly you are a complete and utter ignorant troll that will be banned from this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The 1939 White Papers, while written and approved by the Mandatory, --- was not approved or adopted by PMC of the LoN.  There were several reasons for this:
> 
> 
> The immigration effort to facilitate the establishment of the Jewish National Home was not interpreted in 1939 to violate the customary laws pertaining to the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion. (Articles 2, 4, and 6)
> Contrary to popular belief, the 1915  British High Commissioner in Egypt _(Sir Henry McMahon)_, DID NOT offered the Arab Palestinians _(soon to be under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration)_ any independent Arab state; but rather offered Sherif Hussein of Mecca an independent Arab state (Trans-Jordan, Syria /Iraq) if the Hashemite Bedouins would help the British fight against the Ottoman Turks.
> The Nazification of Germany, beginning in 1933 was in full swing by 1939.  The European Leaders and Allied Powers were already aware open antisemitism became the order of the day, and on 9 November 1939 "_Kristallnacht" _was the effect of Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels persecution against the Jews.  This demonstrated just how correct the Principle Allied Powers had been in trying to establish a Jewish National Home to protect and preserve the Jewish culture.   During "_Kristallnacht"_, nearly 1,000 synagogues were set on fire.
> During World War II Hajj Amin al-Husseini _(a former WWI enemy officer in the Ottoman Army and Grand Mufti of Jerusalem)_ collaborated with both Italy and Germany by making propagandistic radio broadcasts and by helping the German's to recruit Bosnian Muslims for the Waffen-SS.  The Palestinian Grand Mufti of Jerusalem opposed the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish National Home, and favored the Axis Powers.   On the conclusion of WWII, Hajj Amin al-Husseini  came under French protection, and then sought refuge in Cairo to avoid prosecution by the tribunal.    Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who was later to become the first President of the All Palestine Government, was a principle in developing anti-Jewish activities in the Middle East (until about 1959).
> The true nature and character of the Arab Palestinians, especially key members of the All Palestine Government, became clear in the latter part of 1938 and into 1939.  By the 1941 meeting with Hitler, the reputation of the Arab Palestinian had been firmly established by this early Enemy Officer of the Ottoman Empire, Islamic Resistance leader and ally of the Palestinian Black Hand, cohort and Islamic Face for the Nazi Party in Eastern Europe, and the primary leader of the All Palestine Government .
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bottom line, Rocco, is that the Mandate was to assist Palestine to independence and "there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation."
> 
> BTW, the Jewish Agency was an adviser to the mandate and served at its pleasure subject always to the control of the Administration. It had no legitimate function after the termination of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "It had no legitimate function after the termination of the Mandate"
> 
> Link ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of *advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine* - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 12 August 1922 ​
> When the Administration folds it is out of a job.
Click to expand...


It doesn't say SOLE purpose and nowhere in your link does it say it had no legitimate function after the termination of the Mandate.


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cool, 93% of Israel is leased. The Israelis don't own anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leased from the Israeli government so the people are still living on land with a title deed. The arab muslims never bothered to put this in place because they have not taken the last step, so goodbye all the arab muslims without valid land registry titles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not that ownership of a piece of land is even relevant.
> 
> Somebody who rents an apartment in NYC has the same rights to country as someone who owns a farm in Kansas. Even homeless people have the right to nationality and citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But they don't have the rights to my land or country do they, and that is what you don't or cant understand. The arab muslims migrated illegally to Palestine to steal land after the Jews had made it productive, a very common tactic of the arab muslims. Without the certificate of citizenship the people are illegal immigrants, and they need to have the land title so they can pay their taxes and other dues. The later is where the arab muslims fail as they don't want to pay taxes or be liable for conscription.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only migration to Palestine from 1920 to 1946 of any consequence was European immigration, legal and illegal.  As confirmed in the UN's A/364 Report which was in prepared as part of the partition plan:
> 
> Quit lying Phoney.
> 
> "14. It will have been noticed that not only has there been a remarkably rapid increase in the total population of Palestine but also the proportion of Jews in the total has greatly increased, from 12.91 -per cent in 1922 to 32.96 per cent in 1946. Conversely, of course, the Arab proportion has fallen since 1922. The Moslem proportion of the population (almost entirely Arab) has fallen from about 75 per cent of the total to 60 per cent, and the Christian proportion (very largely Arab) from 11 per cent to 8 per cent. Thus, at the present time about one-third of the total settled population is Jewish.
> 
> (b)IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE
> 
> 15. These changes in the population have been brought about by two forces: natural increase and immigration. *The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. From 1920 to 1946, the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year. *The flow has not been regular, however, being fairly high in 1924 to 1926, falling in the next few years (there was a net emigration in 1927) and rising to even higher levels between 1933 and 1936 as a result of the Nazi persecution in Europe. Between the census year of 1931 and the year 1936, the proportion of Jews to the total population rose from 18 per cent to nearly 30 per cent.
> 
> 16. *The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths. *Indeed, the natural rate of increase of Moslem Arabs in Palestine is the highest in recorded statistics,1 a phenomenon explained by very high fertility rates coupled with a marked decline in death rates as a result of improved conditions of life and public health, The natural rate of increase of Jews is also relatively high, but is conditioned by a favorable age distribution of the population due to the high rate of immigration.
> 
> A 364 of 3 September 1947
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because there are no statistics on Arab migration to mandatory Palestine, it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Click to expand...


Of course there are statistics on Arab immigration to mandatory Palestine that is how the report was able to determine that "T*he Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths." *

What part of that statement do you not understand?


*
*


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leased from the Israeli government so the people are still living on land with a title deed. The arab muslims never bothered to put this in place because they have not taken the last step, so goodbye all the arab muslims without valid land registry titles
> 
> 
> 
> Not that ownership of a piece of land is even relevant.
> 
> Somebody who rents an apartment in NYC has the same rights to country as someone who owns a farm in Kansas. Even homeless people have the right to nationality and citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But they don't have the rights to my land or country do they, and that is what you don't or cant understand. The arab muslims migrated illegally to Palestine to steal land after the Jews had made it productive, a very common tactic of the arab muslims. Without the certificate of citizenship the people are illegal immigrants, and they need to have the land title so they can pay their taxes and other dues. The later is where the arab muslims fail as they don't want to pay taxes or be liable for conscription.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only migration to Palestine from 1920 to 1946 of any consequence was European immigration, legal and illegal.  As confirmed in the UN's A/364 Report which was in prepared as part of the partition plan:
> 
> Quit lying Phoney.
> 
> "14. It will have been noticed that not only has there been a remarkably rapid increase in the total population of Palestine but also the proportion of Jews in the total has greatly increased, from 12.91 -per cent in 1922 to 32.96 per cent in 1946. Conversely, of course, the Arab proportion has fallen since 1922. The Moslem proportion of the population (almost entirely Arab) has fallen from about 75 per cent of the total to 60 per cent, and the Christian proportion (very largely Arab) from 11 per cent to 8 per cent. Thus, at the present time about one-third of the total settled population is Jewish.
> 
> (b)IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE
> 
> 15. These changes in the population have been brought about by two forces: natural increase and immigration. *The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. From 1920 to 1946, the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year. *The flow has not been regular, however, being fairly high in 1924 to 1926, falling in the next few years (there was a net emigration in 1927) and rising to even higher levels between 1933 and 1936 as a result of the Nazi persecution in Europe. Between the census year of 1931 and the year 1936, the proportion of Jews to the total population rose from 18 per cent to nearly 30 per cent.
> 
> 16. *The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths. *Indeed, the natural rate of increase of Moslem Arabs in Palestine is the highest in recorded statistics,1 a phenomenon explained by very high fertility rates coupled with a marked decline in death rates as a result of improved conditions of life and public health, The natural rate of increase of Jews is also relatively high, but is conditioned by a favorable age distribution of the population due to the high rate of immigration.
> 
> A 364 of 3 September 1947
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because there are no statistics on Arab migration to mandatory Palestine, it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there are statistics on Arab immigration to mandatory Palestine that is how the report was able to determine that "T*he Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths." *
> 
> What part of that statement do you not understand?
Click to expand...


Where are the stats provided by the same people who made that comment ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Phoenall,  P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK, again, don't drag in immigration issues, or the issue of civil land ownership on a private basis.  Neither if these had a direct impact on the matter of sovereignty; also some people believe that they are matter of important consideration when discussing the status of the modified (by war and conquest) Jewish State and Arab State.  In fact, there is a question as to whether the issues of "illegal immigration" and "citizenship" have a critical bearing on the right of self-determination and the competing concepts of "statehood."
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they don't have the rights to my land or country do they, and that is what you don't or cant understand. The arab muslims migrated illegally to Palestine to steal land after the Jews had made it productive, a very common tactic of the arab muslims. Without the certificate of citizenship the people are illegal immigrants, and they need to have the land title so they can pay their taxes and other dues. The later is where the arab muslims fail as they don't want to pay taxes or be liable for conscription.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> Declaratory And Constitutive Theories Of State Recognition In International Law
> Judicial Reasoning and the Doctrine of Precedent in State Recognition
> *(PREFACE)
> *
> Palestinian Statehood under International Law​An Analysis and Discussion by John M. B. Balouziyeh, Esq.
> *
> (COMMENT)*
> 
> Rather than rewrite the "Balouziyeh" Analysis, I should just let you read it for yourself.  As the the author points out, "The recognition of statehood is a rather complex area of international law subject to competing tests and theories."  And "Balouziyeh" was speaking directly to the question:  The question of Palestine, as a State, and the two theories that provide guidance as to the legal recognition of an entity’s sovereignty in the international community:
> 
> (i) the declarative theory; and
> (ii) the constitutive theory.​
> This is going to become a mess.  There are going to be very touchy and risky soul searching exercises over this issue.  And, because of the various terrorist organizations connected to the question, there are going to be some tricky risk assessments on what can be said in the open, and what is better left unsaid.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Your link: Palestinian Statehood under International Law
is a critique of Palestinian statehood in reference to the 2012 UN resolution. This is considerably after the fact in reference to my post.

It would be hard to argue that Israel does not have a government or a population. However, its territory has been in dispute since the country declared its existence in 1948.

If all that mattered were the Montevideo criteria, any warlord or group that could assemble enough force could carve out a new State simply by controlling a territory and nothing else.

What Makes a State The New International Law

Palestine’s territory is subject to much dispute, with some proponents of a Palestinian state arguing that Palestine encompasses the territory of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and other advocates arguing that Palestine encompasses all of modern day Israel, which they contend is not a legitimate State. The question of a “defined territory” is thus subject to much dispute.

Palestinian Statehood under International Law​


----------



## montelatici

Here you are on page 185.  You see the facts are on my side Mr. Propaganda.




 

A Survey of Palestine Volume 1 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> Here you are on page 185.  You see the facts are on my side Mr. Propaganda.
> 
> View attachment 40980
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Volume 1 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner



If facts are on your side, then why do you always lie and post so much propaganda on a daily basis. You have been here less time than most Palestinian pro facts are on your side, then why do you always lie and post so much propaganda on a daily basis. You have been here less time than most Palestinian propagandists yet you have establishes yourself as one of the buggest propsganda spewers here..you are number two after Tinmore


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you are on page 185.  You see the facts are on my side Mr. Propaganda.
> 
> View attachment 40980
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Volume 1 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If facts are on your side, then why do you always lie and post so much propaganda on a daily basis. You have been here less time than most Palestinian pro facts are on your side, then why do you always lie and post so much propaganda on a daily basis. You have been here less time than most Palestinian propagandists yet you have establishes yourself as one of the buggest propsganda spewers here..you are number two after Tinmore
Click to expand...


The problem is that you believe that posting fact that contradicts Zionist/Israeli lies is propaganda.  Posting fact is not propaganda, can't you quite grasp that fact?


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> Phoenall,  P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK, again, don't drag in immigration issues, or the issue of civil land ownership on a private basis.  Neither if these had a direct impact on the matter of sovereignty; also some people believe that they are matter of important consideration when discussing the status of the modified (by war and conquest) Jewish State and Arab State.  In fact, there is a question as to whether the issues of "illegal immigration" and "citizenship" have a critical bearing on the right of self-determination and the competing concepts of "statehood."
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they don't have the rights to my land or country do they, and that is what you don't or cant understand. The arab muslims migrated illegally to Palestine to steal land after the Jews had made it productive, a very common tactic of the arab muslims. Without the certificate of citizenship the people are illegal immigrants, and they need to have the land title so they can pay their taxes and other dues. The later is where the arab muslims fail as they don't want to pay taxes or be liable for conscription.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> Declaratory And Constitutive Theories Of State Recognition In International Law
> Judicial Reasoning and the Doctrine of Precedent in State Recognition
> *(PREFACE)
> *
> Palestinian Statehood under International Law​An Analysis and Discussion by John M. B. Balouziyeh, Esq.
> *
> (COMMENT)*
> 
> Rather than rewrite the "Balouziyeh" Analysis, I should just let you read it for yourself.  As the the author points out, "The recognition of statehood is a rather complex area of international law subject to competing tests and theories."  And "Balouziyeh" was speaking directly to the question:  The question of Palestine, as a State, and the two theories that provide guidance as to the legal recognition of an entity’s sovereignty in the international community:
> 
> (i) the declarative theory; and
> (ii) the constitutive theory.​
> This is going to become a mess.  There are going to be very touchy and risky soul searching exercises over this issue.  And, because of the various terrorist organizations connected to the question, there are going to be some tricky risk assessments on what can be said in the open, and what is better left unsaid.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


You are correct in differentiating sovereignty from private land ownership, but one of the many  Zionist myths that many of the Israel firsters ascribe to is that the European Jews purchased the land in Palestine which became Israel.  This is untrue.

As far as immigration/migration, this is another Zionist myth that these same posters believe which claims that the Christians and Muslims migrated to Palestine.  This is also patently untrue, as the record shows the European Jews made up the vast majority of the migrants to Palestine, about 95%.

And, what cannot be denied is that Israel was a latter day European colonial project, regardless of the purported legality of the project.  So, in simple terms, Europeans went to the Middle East to evict the local population to create their own colony and subsequently declare itself a state at the expense of the local, indigenous people.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you are on page 185.  You see the facts are on my side Mr. Propaganda.
> 
> View attachment 40980
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Volume 1 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If facts are on your side, then why do you always lie and post so much propaganda on a daily basis. You have been here less time than most Palestinian pro facts are on your side, then why do you always lie and post so much propaganda on a daily basis. You have been here less time than most Palestinian propagandists yet you have establishes yourself as one of the buggest propsganda spewers here..you are number two after Tinmore
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is that you believe that posting fact that contradicts Zionist/Israeli lies is propaganda.  Posting fact is not propaganda, can't you quite grasp that fact?
Click to expand...


All someone has to do is read your posts to see that your biggest enemy is the truth. I never said that your stats about Arab immigration were false BTW.

But you think that because you post a few documents here and there, that you only post facts. Of course, that is not true. It doesn't take a genius to see that you mainly post Palestinian propaganda and lies, and that you allergic to the truth. Now THOSE are facts, whether you try to deny it or not. 

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to change your propaganda ways, and stop with your compulsive lying.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall,  P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK, again, don't drag in immigration issues, or the issue of civil land ownership on a private basis.  Neither if these had a direct impact on the matter of sovereignty; also some people believe that they are matter of important consideration when discussing the status of the modified (by war and conquest) Jewish State and Arab State.  In fact, there is a question as to whether the issues of "illegal immigration" and "citizenship" have a critical bearing on the right of self-determination and the competing concepts of "statehood."
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they don't have the rights to my land or country do they, and that is what you don't or cant understand. The arab muslims migrated illegally to Palestine to steal land after the Jews had made it productive, a very common tactic of the arab muslims. Without the certificate of citizenship the people are illegal immigrants, and they need to have the land title so they can pay their taxes and other dues. The later is where the arab muslims fail as they don't want to pay taxes or be liable for conscription.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> Declaratory And Constitutive Theories Of State Recognition In International Law
> Judicial Reasoning and the Doctrine of Precedent in State Recognition
> *(PREFACE)
> *
> Palestinian Statehood under International Law​An Analysis and Discussion by John M. B. Balouziyeh, Esq.
> *
> (COMMENT)*
> 
> Rather than rewrite the "Balouziyeh" Analysis, I should just let you read it for yourself.  As the the author points out, "The recognition of statehood is a rather complex area of international law subject to competing tests and theories."  And "Balouziyeh" was speaking directly to the question:  The question of Palestine, as a State, and the two theories that provide guidance as to the legal recognition of an entity’s sovereignty in the international community:
> 
> (i) the declarative theory; and
> (ii) the constitutive theory.​
> This is going to become a mess.  There are going to be very touchy and risky soul searching exercises over this issue.  And, because of the various terrorist organizations connected to the question, there are going to be some tricky risk assessments on what can be said in the open, and what is better left unsaid.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct in differentiating sovereignty from private land ownership, but one of the many  Zionist myths that many of the Israel firsters ascribe to is that the European Jews purchased the land in Palestine which became Israel.  This is untrue.
> 
> As far as immigration/migration, this is another Zionist myth that these same posters believe which claims that the Christians and Muslims migrated to Palestine.  This is also patently untrue, as the record shows the European Jews made up the vast majority of the migrants to Palestine, about 95%.
> 
> *And, what cannot be denied is that Israel was a latter day European colonial project, regardless of the purported legality of the project.  So, in simple terms, Europeans went to the Middle East to evict the local population to create their own colony and subsequently declare itself a state at the expense of the local, indigenous people*.
Click to expand...


You're just too funny Monti   
You accuse others of posting myths, and then you come up with the bold, which is the biggest myth of all .

Once again, you prove to us that you are the KING OF PROPAGANDA !


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you are on page 185.  You see the facts are on my side Mr. Propaganda.
> 
> View attachment 40980
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Volume 1 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If facts are on your side, then why do you always lie and post so much propaganda on a daily basis. You have been here less time than most Palestinian pro facts are on your side, then why do you always lie and post so much propaganda on a daily basis. You have been here less time than most Palestinian propagandists yet you have establishes yourself as one of the buggest propsganda spewers here..you are number two after Tinmore
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is that you believe that posting fact that contradicts Zionist/Israeli lies is propaganda.  Posting fact is not propaganda, can't you quite grasp that fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All someone has to do is read your posts to see that your biggest enemy is the truth. I never said that your stats about Arab immigration were false BTW.
> 
> But you think that because you post a few documents here and there, that you only post facts. Of course, that is not true. It doesn't take a genius to see that you mainly post Palestinian propaganda and lies, and that you allergic to the truth. Now THOSE are facts, whether you try to deny it or not.
> 
> If you want to be taken seriously, you need to change your propaganda ways, and stop with your compulsive lying.
Click to expand...


No, the facts are what they are.  LoN, Mandatory and UN resolutions and reports are facts, not lies.  It is not propaganda, which is what you peddle.  It is you who compulsively propagate lies.  I only post fact.  Just making false claims does not make what you post true.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you are on page 185.  You see the facts are on my side Mr. Propaganda.
> 
> View attachment 40980
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Volume 1 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If facts are on your side, then why do you always lie and post so much propaganda on a daily basis. You have been here less time than most Palestinian pro facts are on your side, then why do you always lie and post so much propaganda on a daily basis. You have been here less time than most Palestinian propagandists yet you have establishes yourself as one of the buggest propsganda spewers here..you are number two after Tinmore
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is that you believe that posting fact that contradicts Zionist/Israeli lies is propaganda.  Posting fact is not propaganda, can't you quite grasp that fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All someone has to do is read your posts to see that your biggest enemy is the truth. I never said that your stats about Arab immigration were false BTW.
> 
> But you think that because you post a few documents here and there, that you only post facts. Of course, that is not true. It doesn't take a genius to see that you mainly post Palestinian propaganda and lies, and that you allergic to the truth. Now THOSE are facts, whether you try to deny it or not.
> 
> If you want to be taken seriously, you need to change your propaganda ways, and stop with your compulsive lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the facts are what they are.  LoN, Mandatory and UN resolutions and reports are facts, not lies.  It is not propaganda, which is what you peddle.  It is you who compulsively propagate lies.  I only post fact.  Just making false claims does not make what you post true.
Click to expand...


I didn't say the documents you posted are lies. You must have reading comprehension problems.

I don't care if you keep denying that you are a liar and propagandist because it will not change the truth that you are. BIG time !


----------



## toastman

BTW, people like you who keep running around claiming "I post facts all the time, I post facts !!!" , are actually the same people who lie all the time. Sorry Monti, but posting the occasional fact doesn't take away from your compulsive lying and immense propaganda.


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> BTW, people like you who keep running around claiming "I post facts all the time, I post facts !!!" , are actually the same people who lie all the time. Sorry Monti, but posting the occasional fact doesn't take away from your compulsive lying and immense propaganda.



I only provide the facts from source documents.  I never lie, I just post what the source documents state.  I don't post fact occasionally, I post fact all the time.  You can make all the false claims you want.  Facts are not propaganda, your propagation of Zionist lies is propaganda.  I really don't know why I even argue with you.  You just can't accept the facts.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, people like you who keep running around claiming "I post facts all the time, I post facts !!!" , are actually the same people who lie all the time. Sorry Monti, but posting the occasional fact doesn't take away from your compulsive lying and immense propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I only provide the facts from source documents.  I never lie, I just post what the source documents state.  I don't post fact occasionally, I post fact all the time.  You can make all the false claims you want.  Facts are not propaganda, your propagation of Zionist lies is propaganda.  I really don't know why I even argue with you.  You just can't accept the facts.
Click to expand...


Funny how you say you only post facts, when I have refuted soooo many of your bullshit lies. Every week I refute your posts and you cannot handle that.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mae ou
> How about this for a just solution?  All Israeli's & all Palestiniaans without titles or deeds to the land they live on must leave.  Fair enough?
> 
> 
> 
> Cool, 93% of Israel is leased. The Israelis don't own anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leased from the Israeli government so the people are still living on land with a title deed. The arab muslims never bothered to put this in place because they have not taken the last step, so goodbye all the arab muslims without valid land registry titles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not that ownership of a piece of land is even relevant.
> 
> Somebody who rents an apartment in NYC has the same rights to country as someone who owns a farm in Kansas. Even homeless people have the right to nationality and citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But they don't have the rights to my land or country do they, and that is what you don't or cant understand. The arab muslims migrated illegally to Palestine to steal land after the Jews had made it productive, a very common tactic of the arab muslims. Without the certificate of citizenship the people are illegal immigrants, and they need to have the land title so they can pay their taxes and other dues. The later is where the arab muslims fail as they don't want to pay taxes or be liable for conscription.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only migration to Palestine from 1920 to 1946 of any consequence was European immigration, legal and illegal.  As confirmed in the UN's A/364 Report which was in prepared as part of the partition plan:
> 
> Quit lying Phoney.
> 
> "14. It will have been noticed that not only has there been a remarkably rapid increase in the total population of Palestine but also the proportion of Jews in the total has greatly increased, from 12.91 -per cent in 1922 to 32.96 per cent in 1946. Conversely, of course, the Arab proportion has fallen since 1922. The Moslem proportion of the population (almost entirely Arab) has fallen from about 75 per cent of the total to 60 per cent, and the Christian proportion (very largely Arab) from 11 per cent to 8 per cent. Thus, at the present time about one-third of the total settled population is Jewish.
> 
> (b)IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE
> 
> 15. These changes in the population have been brought about by two forces: natural increase and immigration. *The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. From 1920 to 1946, the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year. *The flow has not been regular, however, being fairly high in 1924 to 1926, falling in the next few years (there was a net emigration in 1927) and rising to even higher levels between 1933 and 1936 as a result of the Nazi persecution in Europe. Between the census year of 1931 and the year 1936, the proportion of Jews to the total population rose from 18 per cent to nearly 30 per cent.
> 
> 16. *The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths. *Indeed, the natural rate of increase of Moslem Arabs in Palestine is the highest in recorded statistics,1 a phenomenon explained by very high fertility rates coupled with a marked decline in death rates as a result of improved conditions of life and public health, The natural rate of increase of Jews is also relatively high, but is conditioned by a favorable age distribution of the population due to the high rate of immigration.
> 
> A 364 of 3 September 1947
Click to expand...





 After seeing the white paper destroyed by the LoN you still run with the Jews being illegal immigrants. Not one Jews migrated to Palestine illegally while the Mandate was in force, but as your links show the arab muslims made up the vast majority of illegal immigrants.    Why do you post RACIST LIES fred, is it because you are one of the fascists that supports the final solution.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leased from the Israeli government so the people are still living on land with a title deed. The arab muslims never bothered to put this in place because they have not taken the last step, so goodbye all the arab muslims without valid land registry titles
> 
> 
> 
> Not that ownership of a piece of land is even relevant.
> 
> Somebody who rents an apartment in NYC has the same rights to country as someone who owns a farm in Kansas. Even homeless people have the right to nationality and citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But they don't have the rights to my land or country do they, and that is what you don't or cant understand. The arab muslims migrated illegally to Palestine to steal land after the Jews had made it productive, a very common tactic of the arab muslims. Without the certificate of citizenship the people are illegal immigrants, and they need to have the land title so they can pay their taxes and other dues. The later is where the arab muslims fail as they don't want to pay taxes or be liable for conscription.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only migration to Palestine from 1920 to 1946 of any consequence was European immigration, legal and illegal.  As confirmed in the UN's A/364 Report which was in prepared as part of the partition plan:
> 
> Quit lying Phoney.
> 
> "14. It will have been noticed that not only has there been a remarkably rapid increase in the total population of Palestine but also the proportion of Jews in the total has greatly increased, from 12.91 -per cent in 1922 to 32.96 per cent in 1946. Conversely, of course, the Arab proportion has fallen since 1922. The Moslem proportion of the population (almost entirely Arab) has fallen from about 75 per cent of the total to 60 per cent, and the Christian proportion (very largely Arab) from 11 per cent to 8 per cent. Thus, at the present time about one-third of the total settled population is Jewish.
> 
> (b)IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE
> 
> 15. These changes in the population have been brought about by two forces: natural increase and immigration. *The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. From 1920 to 1946, the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year. *The flow has not been regular, however, being fairly high in 1924 to 1926, falling in the next few years (there was a net emigration in 1927) and rising to even higher levels between 1933 and 1936 as a result of the Nazi persecution in Europe. Between the census year of 1931 and the year 1936, the proportion of Jews to the total population rose from 18 per cent to nearly 30 per cent.
> 
> 16. *The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths. *Indeed, the natural rate of increase of Moslem Arabs in Palestine is the highest in recorded statistics,1 a phenomenon explained by very high fertility rates coupled with a marked decline in death rates as a result of improved conditions of life and public health, The natural rate of increase of Jews is also relatively high, but is conditioned by a favorable age distribution of the population due to the high rate of immigration.
> 
> A 364 of 3 September 1947
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because there are no statistics on Arab migration to mandatory Palestine, it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there are statistics on Arab immigration to mandatory Palestine that is how the report was able to determine that "T*he Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths." *
> 
> What part of that statement do you not understand?
Click to expand...






 But it does not actually say that does it, in reality it says APPARENTLY because the author was an anti semitic Jew hater in the pay of the islamonazi's. It is a complete impossibility for a 3rd world nation to produce that many live births with their scant medical knowledge. We cant even achieve that today in the west, and we have state of the art medical practises. The demographics you so love shows that the arab muslims must have migrated in from Syria, Jordan and Egypt. Then the UN reports state that out of 1500 illegal immigrants over 1000 were arab muslims. You saw this in black and white and have never been able to refute it, so you just deny its existence because it destroys your RACIST LIES


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall,  P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK, again, don't drag in immigration issues, or the issue of civil land ownership on a private basis.  Neither if these had a direct impact on the matter of sovereignty; also some people believe that they are matter of important consideration when discussing the status of the modified (by war and conquest) Jewish State and Arab State.  In fact, there is a question as to whether the issues of "illegal immigration" and "citizenship" have a critical bearing on the right of self-determination and the competing concepts of "statehood."
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they don't have the rights to my land or country do they, and that is what you don't or cant understand. The arab muslims migrated illegally to Palestine to steal land after the Jews had made it productive, a very common tactic of the arab muslims. Without the certificate of citizenship the people are illegal immigrants, and they need to have the land title so they can pay their taxes and other dues. The later is where the arab muslims fail as they don't want to pay taxes or be liable for conscription.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> Declaratory And Constitutive Theories Of State Recognition In International Law
> Judicial Reasoning and the Doctrine of Precedent in State Recognition
> *(PREFACE)
> *
> Palestinian Statehood under International Law​An Analysis and Discussion by John M. B. Balouziyeh, Esq.
> *
> (COMMENT)*
> 
> Rather than rewrite the "Balouziyeh" Analysis, I should just let you read it for yourself.  As the the author points out, "The recognition of statehood is a rather complex area of international law subject to competing tests and theories."  And "Balouziyeh" was speaking directly to the question:  The question of Palestine, as a State, and the two theories that provide guidance as to the legal recognition of an entity’s sovereignty in the international community:
> 
> (i) the declarative theory; and
> (ii) the constitutive theory.​
> This is going to become a mess.  There are going to be very touchy and risky soul searching exercises over this issue.  And, because of the various terrorist organizations connected to the question, there are going to be some tricky risk assessments on what can be said in the open, and what is better left unsaid.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your link: Palestinian Statehood under International Law
> is a critique of Palestinian statehood in reference to the 2012 UN resolution. This is considerably after the fact in reference to my post.
> 
> It would be hard to argue that Israel does not have a government or a population. However, its territory has been in dispute since the country declared its existence in 1948.
> 
> If all that mattered were the Montevideo criteria, any warlord or group that could assemble enough force could carve out a new State simply by controlling a territory and nothing else.
> 
> What Makes a State The New International Law
> 
> Palestine’s territory is subject to much dispute, with some proponents of a Palestinian state arguing that Palestine encompasses the territory of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and other advocates arguing that Palestine encompasses all of modern day Israel, which they contend is not a legitimate State. The question of a “defined territory” is thus subject to much dispute.
> 
> Palestinian Statehood under International Law​
Click to expand...





 So when did Palestine take control of the land it has yet to claim as a nation. Why is it refusing to take the next step in free determination after 27 years. What is holding the Palestinians back from taking those steps they promised to take last year and talk peace and mutual borders with all of their neighbours.

 No one is stopping them from exercising these rights under international law but themselves


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Here you are on page 185.  You see the facts are on my side Mr. Propaganda.
> 
> View attachment 40980
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Volume 1 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner







 How many more times are you going to link to this fiction that bears no resemblance to reality.   But even this shows arab muslim ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION to Palestine albeit in lesser figures that the real numbers.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you are on page 185.  You see the facts are on my side Mr. Propaganda.
> 
> View attachment 40980
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Volume 1 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If facts are on your side, then why do you always lie and post so much propaganda on a daily basis. You have been here less time than most Palestinian pro facts are on your side, then why do you always lie and post so much propaganda on a daily basis. You have been here less time than most Palestinian propagandists yet you have establishes yourself as one of the buggest propsganda spewers here..you are number two after Tinmore
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is that you believe that posting fact that contradicts Zionist/Israeli lies is propaganda.  Posting fact is not propaganda, can't you quite grasp that fact?
Click to expand...




 They are only facts because they support your islamonazi POV. When the same reports are used to show you are wrong you claim they are Zionist propaganda. So the above link must be Zionist propaganda


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, people like you who keep running around claiming "I post facts all the time, I post facts !!!" , are actually the same people who lie all the time. Sorry Monti, but posting the occasional fact doesn't take away from your compulsive lying and immense propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I only provide the facts from source documents.  I never lie, I just post what the source documents state.  I don't post fact occasionally, I post fact all the time.  You can make all the false claims you want.  Facts are not propaganda, your propagation of Zionist lies is propaganda.  I really don't know why I even argue with you.  You just can't accept the facts.
Click to expand...





 You LIE constantly and you know it. You only post those facts that support your islamofascist POV and ignore the rest that destroys your "facts".    It is you that refuses to accept the facts and keeps going back to made up propaganda and fiction to support your POV


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall,  P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK, again, don't drag in immigration issues, or the issue of civil land ownership on a private basis.  Neither if these had a direct impact on the matter of sovereignty; also some people believe that they are matter of important consideration when discussing the status of the modified (by war and conquest) Jewish State and Arab State.  In fact, there is a question as to whether the issues of "illegal immigration" and "citizenship" have a critical bearing on the right of self-determination and the competing concepts of "statehood."
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they don't have the rights to my land or country do they, and that is what you don't or cant understand. The arab muslims migrated illegally to Palestine to steal land after the Jews had made it productive, a very common tactic of the arab muslims. Without the certificate of citizenship the people are illegal immigrants, and they need to have the land title so they can pay their taxes and other dues. The later is where the arab muslims fail as they don't want to pay taxes or be liable for conscription.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> Declaratory And Constitutive Theories Of State Recognition In International Law
> Judicial Reasoning and the Doctrine of Precedent in State Recognition
> *(PREFACE)
> *
> Palestinian Statehood under International Law​An Analysis and Discussion by John M. B. Balouziyeh, Esq.
> *
> (COMMENT)*
> 
> Rather than rewrite the "Balouziyeh" Analysis, I should just let you read it for yourself.  As the the author points out, "The recognition of statehood is a rather complex area of international law subject to competing tests and theories."  And "Balouziyeh" was speaking directly to the question:  The question of Palestine, as a State, and the two theories that provide guidance as to the legal recognition of an entity’s sovereignty in the international community:
> 
> (i) the declarative theory; and
> (ii) the constitutive theory.​
> This is going to become a mess.  There are going to be very touchy and risky soul searching exercises over this issue.  And, because of the various terrorist organizations connected to the question, there are going to be some tricky risk assessments on what can be said in the open, and what is better left unsaid.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct in differentiating sovereignty from private land ownership, but one of the many  Zionist myths that many of the Israel firsters ascribe to is that the European Jews purchased the land in Palestine which became Israel.  This is untrue.
> 
> As far as immigration/migration, this is another Zionist myth that these same posters believe which claims that the Christians and Muslims migrated to Palestine.  This is also patently untrue, as the record shows the European Jews made up the vast majority of the migrants to Palestine, about 95%.
> 
> And, what cannot be denied is that Israel was a latter day European colonial project, regardless of the purported legality of the project.  So, in simple terms, Europeans went to the Middle East to evict the local population to create their own colony and subsequently declare itself a state at the expense of the local, indigenous people.
Click to expand...






 WHY DO YOU LIE SO MUCH

 Time to show your lies and get you to answer for them

 When did anyone make the claim that European Jews bought the land that became Israel, that is an islamonazi LIE. They had no need to buy any land as in 1923 the LoN granted them full ownership of the remaining 22% of Palestine

When did any one claim that the Christians migrated to Palestine, this is another islamonazi LIE as the Christians had existed since 70 C.E. in Palestine. The arab muslims are the illegal immigrants as they were not invited to migrate yet as your own links show made up 60% of the total illegal migration figures according to the British mandate.

When have you proven that the granting of 22% of Palestine was an European colonial project, when all the evidence points to there being an arab muslim colonial project. Here we have LIE 3 as the Jews came from all over the world to settle in their National Home and invited the indigenous muslims and Christians to stay and live in peace as full citizens. It was always the intentions of the arab muslims to create their own colony while destroying Israel and wiping out the Jews.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you are on page 185.  You see the facts are on my side Mr. Propaganda.
> 
> View attachment 40980
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Volume 1 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If facts are on your side, then why do you always lie and post so much propaganda on a daily basis. You have been here less time than most Palestinian pro facts are on your side, then why do you always lie and post so much propaganda on a daily basis. You have been here less time than most Palestinian propagandists yet you have establishes yourself as one of the buggest propsganda spewers here..you are number two after Tinmore
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is that you believe that posting fact that contradicts Zionist/Israeli lies is propaganda.  Posting fact is not propaganda, can't you quite grasp that fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All someone has to do is read your posts to see that your biggest enemy is the truth. I never said that your stats about Arab immigration were false BTW.
> 
> But you think that because you post a few documents here and there, that you only post facts. Of course, that is not true. It doesn't take a genius to see that you mainly post Palestinian propaganda and lies, and that you allergic to the truth. Now THOSE are facts, whether you try to deny it or not.
> 
> If you want to be taken seriously, you need to change your propaganda ways, and stop with your compulsive lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the facts are what they are.  LoN, Mandatory and UN resolutions and reports are facts, not lies.  It is not propaganda, which is what you peddle.  It is you who compulsively propagate lies.  I only post fact.  Just making false claims does not make what you post true.
Click to expand...





 Reports can be lies to hide the reality as many fraudulent people can tell you. And as many victims of such lies will testify.

 What you post is partial evidence that only supports your POV, often starting in the middle of a sentence because the start alters the whole context. As in the Covenant of the LoN that says   "Some people are ready for independence" which you alter to " people are ready for independence "


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall,  P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK, again, don't drag in immigration issues, or the issue of civil land ownership on a private basis.  Neither if these had a direct impact on the matter of sovereignty; also some people believe that they are matter of important consideration when discussing the status of the modified (by war and conquest) Jewish State and Arab State.  In fact, there is a question as to whether the issues of "illegal immigration" and "citizenship" have a critical bearing on the right of self-determination and the competing concepts of "statehood."
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they don't have the rights to my land or country do they, and that is what you don't or cant understand. The arab muslims migrated illegally to Palestine to steal land after the Jews had made it productive, a very common tactic of the arab muslims. Without the certificate of citizenship the people are illegal immigrants, and they need to have the land title so they can pay their taxes and other dues. The later is where the arab muslims fail as they don't want to pay taxes or be liable for conscription.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> Declaratory And Constitutive Theories Of State Recognition In International Law
> Judicial Reasoning and the Doctrine of Precedent in State Recognition
> *(PREFACE)
> *
> Palestinian Statehood under International Law​An Analysis and Discussion by John M. B. Balouziyeh, Esq.
> *
> (COMMENT)*
> 
> Rather than rewrite the "Balouziyeh" Analysis, I should just let you read it for yourself.  As the the author points out, "The recognition of statehood is a rather complex area of international law subject to competing tests and theories."  And "Balouziyeh" was speaking directly to the question:  The question of Palestine, as a State, and the two theories that provide guidance as to the legal recognition of an entity’s sovereignty in the international community:
> 
> (i) the declarative theory; and
> (ii) the constitutive theory.​
> This is going to become a mess.  There are going to be very touchy and risky soul searching exercises over this issue.  And, because of the various terrorist organizations connected to the question, there are going to be some tricky risk assessments on what can be said in the open, and what is better left unsaid.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your link: Palestinian Statehood under International Law
> is a critique of Palestinian statehood in reference to the 2012 UN resolution. This is considerably after the fact in reference to my post.
> 
> It would be hard to argue that Israel does not have a government or a population. However, its territory has been in dispute since the country declared its existence in 1948.
> 
> If all that mattered were the Montevideo criteria, any warlord or group that could assemble enough force could carve out a new State simply by controlling a territory and nothing else.
> 
> What Makes a State The New International Law
> 
> Palestine’s territory is subject to much dispute, with some proponents of a Palestinian state arguing that Palestine encompasses the territory of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and other advocates arguing that Palestine encompasses all of modern day Israel, which they contend is not a legitimate State. The question of a “defined territory” is thus subject to much dispute.
> 
> Palestinian Statehood under International Law​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when did Palestine take control of the land it has yet to claim as a nation. Why is it refusing to take the next step in free determination after 27 years. What is holding the Palestinians back from taking those steps they promised to take last year and talk peace and mutual borders with all of their neighbours.
> 
> No one is stopping them from exercising these rights under international law but themselves
Click to expand...

Palestine has mutual and undisputed borders with all of its neighbors.

What is there to negotiate?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall,  P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK, again, don't drag in immigration issues, or the issue of civil land ownership on a private basis.  Neither if these had a direct impact on the matter of sovereignty; also some people believe that they are matter of important consideration when discussing the status of the modified (by war and conquest) Jewish State and Arab State.  In fact, there is a question as to whether the issues of "illegal immigration" and "citizenship" have a critical bearing on the right of self-determination and the competing concepts of "statehood."
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they don't have the rights to my land or country do they, and that is what you don't or cant understand. The arab muslims migrated illegally to Palestine to steal land after the Jews had made it productive, a very common tactic of the arab muslims. Without the certificate of citizenship the people are illegal immigrants, and they need to have the land title so they can pay their taxes and other dues. The later is where the arab muslims fail as they don't want to pay taxes or be liable for conscription.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> Declaratory And Constitutive Theories Of State Recognition In International Law
> Judicial Reasoning and the Doctrine of Precedent in State Recognition
> *(PREFACE)
> *
> Palestinian Statehood under International Law​An Analysis and Discussion by John M. B. Balouziyeh, Esq.
> *
> (COMMENT)*
> 
> Rather than rewrite the "Balouziyeh" Analysis, I should just let you read it for yourself.  As the the author points out, "The recognition of statehood is a rather complex area of international law subject to competing tests and theories."  And "Balouziyeh" was speaking directly to the question:  The question of Palestine, as a State, and the two theories that provide guidance as to the legal recognition of an entity’s sovereignty in the international community:
> 
> (i) the declarative theory; and
> (ii) the constitutive theory.​
> This is going to become a mess.  There are going to be very touchy and risky soul searching exercises over this issue.  And, because of the various terrorist organizations connected to the question, there are going to be some tricky risk assessments on what can be said in the open, and what is better left unsaid.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your link: Palestinian Statehood under International Law
> is a critique of Palestinian statehood in reference to the 2012 UN resolution. This is considerably after the fact in reference to my post.
> 
> It would be hard to argue that Israel does not have a government or a population. However, its territory has been in dispute since the country declared its existence in 1948.
> 
> If all that mattered were the Montevideo criteria, any warlord or group that could assemble enough force could carve out a new State simply by controlling a territory and nothing else.
> 
> What Makes a State The New International Law
> 
> Palestine’s territory is subject to much dispute, with some proponents of a Palestinian state arguing that Palestine encompasses the territory of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and other advocates arguing that Palestine encompasses all of modern day Israel, which they contend is not a legitimate State. The question of a “defined territory” is thus subject to much dispute.
> 
> Palestinian Statehood under International Law​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when did Palestine take control of the land it has yet to claim as a nation. Why is it refusing to take the next step in free determination after 27 years. What is holding the Palestinians back from taking those steps they promised to take last year and talk peace and mutual borders with all of their neighbours.
> 
> No one is stopping them from exercising these rights under international law but themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine has mutual and undisputed borders with all of its neighbors.
> 
> What is there to negotiate?
Click to expand...


Show me a map of Palestine that clearly identifies all her internationally recognized boundaries. Not a map that says partition plan.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, people like you who keep running around claiming "I post facts all the time, I post facts !!!" , are actually the same people who lie all the time. Sorry Monti, but posting the occasional fact doesn't take away from your compulsive lying and immense propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I only provide the facts from source documents.  I never lie, I just post what the source documents state.  I don't post fact occasionally, I post fact all the time.  You can make all the false claims you want.  Facts are not propaganda, your propagation of Zionist lies is propaganda.  I really don't know why I even argue with you.  You just can't accept the facts.
Click to expand...


LMAO!  Them poppies must be good this year, eh Monte?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall,  P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK, again, don't drag in immigration issues, or the issue of civil land ownership on a private basis.  Neither if these had a direct impact on the matter of sovereignty; also some people believe that they are matter of important consideration when discussing the status of the modified (by war and conquest) Jewish State and Arab State.  In fact, there is a question as to whether the issues of "illegal immigration" and "citizenship" have a critical bearing on the right of self-determination and the competing concepts of "statehood."
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they don't have the rights to my land or country do they, and that is what you don't or cant understand. The arab muslims migrated illegally to Palestine to steal land after the Jews had made it productive, a very common tactic of the arab muslims. Without the certificate of citizenship the people are illegal immigrants, and they need to have the land title so they can pay their taxes and other dues. The later is where the arab muslims fail as they don't want to pay taxes or be liable for conscription.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> Declaratory And Constitutive Theories Of State Recognition In International Law
> Judicial Reasoning and the Doctrine of Precedent in State Recognition
> *(PREFACE)
> *
> Palestinian Statehood under International Law​An Analysis and Discussion by John M. B. Balouziyeh, Esq.
> *
> (COMMENT)*
> 
> Rather than rewrite the "Balouziyeh" Analysis, I should just let you read it for yourself.  As the the author points out, "The recognition of statehood is a rather complex area of international law subject to competing tests and theories."  And "Balouziyeh" was speaking directly to the question:  The question of Palestine, as a State, and the two theories that provide guidance as to the legal recognition of an entity’s sovereignty in the international community:
> 
> (i) the declarative theory; and
> (ii) the constitutive theory.​
> This is going to become a mess.  There are going to be very touchy and risky soul searching exercises over this issue.  And, because of the various terrorist organizations connected to the question, there are going to be some tricky risk assessments on what can be said in the open, and what is better left unsaid.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your link: Palestinian Statehood under International Law
> is a critique of Palestinian statehood in reference to the 2012 UN resolution. This is considerably after the fact in reference to my post.
> 
> It would be hard to argue that Israel does not have a government or a population. However, its territory has been in dispute since the country declared its existence in 1948.
> 
> If all that mattered were the Montevideo criteria, any warlord or group that could assemble enough force could carve out a new State simply by controlling a territory and nothing else.
> 
> What Makes a State The New International Law
> 
> Palestine’s territory is subject to much dispute, with some proponents of a Palestinian state arguing that Palestine encompasses the territory of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and other advocates arguing that Palestine encompasses all of modern day Israel, which they contend is not a legitimate State. The question of a “defined territory” is thus subject to much dispute.
> 
> Palestinian Statehood under International Law​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when did Palestine take control of the land it has yet to claim as a nation. Why is it refusing to take the next step in free determination after 27 years. What is holding the Palestinians back from taking those steps they promised to take last year and talk peace and mutual borders with all of their neighbours.
> 
> No one is stopping them from exercising these rights under international law but themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine has mutual and undisputed borders with all of its neighbors.
> 
> What is there to negotiate?
Click to expand...






When did they make these mutual borders with Egypt, Jordan and Israel then.  How about a link to each of the treaties signed by the Palestinian leadership to prove this ?

 Don't try and palm off the proposed boundaries of the Mandate of Palestine as the borders of the nation of Palestine either


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall,  P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK, again, don't drag in immigration issues, or the issue of civil land ownership on a private basis.  Neither if these had a direct impact on the matter of sovereignty; also some people believe that they are matter of important consideration when discussing the status of the modified (by war and conquest) Jewish State and Arab State.  In fact, there is a question as to whether the issues of "illegal immigration" and "citizenship" have a critical bearing on the right of self-determination and the competing concepts of "statehood."
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they don't have the rights to my land or country do they, and that is what you don't or cant understand. The arab muslims migrated illegally to Palestine to steal land after the Jews had made it productive, a very common tactic of the arab muslims. Without the certificate of citizenship the people are illegal immigrants, and they need to have the land title so they can pay their taxes and other dues. The later is where the arab muslims fail as they don't want to pay taxes or be liable for conscription.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> Declaratory And Constitutive Theories Of State Recognition In International Law
> Judicial Reasoning and the Doctrine of Precedent in State Recognition
> *(PREFACE)
> *
> Palestinian Statehood under International Law​An Analysis and Discussion by John M. B. Balouziyeh, Esq.
> *
> (COMMENT)*
> 
> Rather than rewrite the "Balouziyeh" Analysis, I should just let you read it for yourself.  As the the author points out, "The recognition of statehood is a rather complex area of international law subject to competing tests and theories."  And "Balouziyeh" was speaking directly to the question:  The question of Palestine, as a State, and the two theories that provide guidance as to the legal recognition of an entity’s sovereignty in the international community:
> 
> (i) the declarative theory; and
> (ii) the constitutive theory.​
> This is going to become a mess.  There are going to be very touchy and risky soul searching exercises over this issue.  And, because of the various terrorist organizations connected to the question, there are going to be some tricky risk assessments on what can be said in the open, and what is better left unsaid.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your link: Palestinian Statehood under International Law
> is a critique of Palestinian statehood in reference to the 2012 UN resolution. This is considerably after the fact in reference to my post.
> 
> It would be hard to argue that Israel does not have a government or a population. However, its territory has been in dispute since the country declared its existence in 1948.
> 
> If all that mattered were the Montevideo criteria, any warlord or group that could assemble enough force could carve out a new State simply by controlling a territory and nothing else.
> 
> What Makes a State The New International Law
> 
> Palestine’s territory is subject to much dispute, with some proponents of a Palestinian state arguing that Palestine encompasses the territory of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and other advocates arguing that Palestine encompasses all of modern day Israel, which they contend is not a legitimate State. The question of a “defined territory” is thus subject to much dispute.
> 
> Palestinian Statehood under International Law​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when did Palestine take control of the land it has yet to claim as a nation. Why is it refusing to take the next step in free determination after 27 years. What is holding the Palestinians back from taking those steps they promised to take last year and talk peace and mutual borders with all of their neighbours.
> 
> No one is stopping them from exercising these rights under international law but themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine has mutual and undisputed borders with all of its neighbors.
> 
> What is there to negotiate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me a map of Palestine that clearly identifies all her internationally recognized boundaries. Not a map that says partition plan.
Click to expand...


----------



## toastman

LOL That's what I thought, nothing as usual. Just lies. 

Palestine does not have internationally recognized borders. If they did, you would not have trouble posting a map that clearly identifies them like I have with Israel. 
Fail.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall,  P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK, again, don't drag in immigration issues, or the issue of civil land ownership on a private basis.  Neither if these had a direct impact on the matter of sovereignty; also some people believe that they are matter of important consideration when discussing the status of the modified (by war and conquest) Jewish State and Arab State.  In fact, there is a question as to whether the issues of "illegal immigration" and "citizenship" have a critical bearing on the right of self-determination and the competing concepts of "statehood."
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> Declaratory And Constitutive Theories Of State Recognition In International Law
> Judicial Reasoning and the Doctrine of Precedent in State Recognition
> *(PREFACE)
> *
> Palestinian Statehood under International Law​An Analysis and Discussion by John M. B. Balouziyeh, Esq.
> *
> (COMMENT)*
> 
> Rather than rewrite the "Balouziyeh" Analysis, I should just let you read it for yourself.  As the the author points out, "The recognition of statehood is a rather complex area of international law subject to competing tests and theories."  And "Balouziyeh" was speaking directly to the question:  The question of Palestine, as a State, and the two theories that provide guidance as to the legal recognition of an entity’s sovereignty in the international community:
> 
> (i) the declarative theory; and
> (ii) the constitutive theory.​
> This is going to become a mess.  There are going to be very touchy and risky soul searching exercises over this issue.  And, because of the various terrorist organizations connected to the question, there are going to be some tricky risk assessments on what can be said in the open, and what is better left unsaid.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Your link: Palestinian Statehood under International Law
> is a critique of Palestinian statehood in reference to the 2012 UN resolution. This is considerably after the fact in reference to my post.
> 
> It would be hard to argue that Israel does not have a government or a population. However, its territory has been in dispute since the country declared its existence in 1948.
> 
> If all that mattered were the Montevideo criteria, any warlord or group that could assemble enough force could carve out a new State simply by controlling a territory and nothing else.
> 
> What Makes a State The New International Law
> 
> Palestine’s territory is subject to much dispute, with some proponents of a Palestinian state arguing that Palestine encompasses the territory of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and other advocates arguing that Palestine encompasses all of modern day Israel, which they contend is not a legitimate State. The question of a “defined territory” is thus subject to much dispute.
> 
> Palestinian Statehood under International Law​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when did Palestine take control of the land it has yet to claim as a nation. Why is it refusing to take the next step in free determination after 27 years. What is holding the Palestinians back from taking those steps they promised to take last year and talk peace and mutual borders with all of their neighbours.
> 
> No one is stopping them from exercising these rights under international law but themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine has mutual and undisputed borders with all of its neighbors.
> 
> What is there to negotiate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me a map of Palestine that clearly identifies all her internationally recognized boundaries. Not a map that says partition plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...





 So what exactly does this prove as it has no legend to say what it shows.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Claire Hajaj*


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your link: Palestinian Statehood under International Law
> is a critique of Palestinian statehood in reference to the 2012 UN resolution. This is considerably after the fact in reference to my post.
> 
> It would be hard to argue that Israel does not have a government or a population. However, its territory has been in dispute since the country declared its existence in 1948.
> 
> If all that mattered were the Montevideo criteria, any warlord or group that could assemble enough force could carve out a new State simply by controlling a territory and nothing else.
> 
> What Makes a State The New International Law
> 
> Palestine’s territory is subject to much dispute, with some proponents of a Palestinian state arguing that Palestine encompasses the territory of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and other advocates arguing that Palestine encompasses all of modern day Israel, which they contend is not a legitimate State. The question of a “defined territory” is thus subject to much dispute.
> 
> Palestinian Statehood under International Law​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when did Palestine take control of the land it has yet to claim as a nation. Why is it refusing to take the next step in free determination after 27 years. What is holding the Palestinians back from taking those steps they promised to take last year and talk peace and mutual borders with all of their neighbours.
> 
> No one is stopping them from exercising these rights under international law but themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine has mutual and undisputed borders with all of its neighbors.
> 
> What is there to negotiate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me a map of Palestine that clearly identifies all her internationally recognized boundaries. Not a map that says partition plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what exactly does this prove as it has no legend to say what it shows.
Click to expand...

Oh jeese, why do you want to embarrass yourself? Obviously the dotted lines are the international borders.

*Article V*

1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.

The Avalon Project Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement March 23 1949​
You can look in the other armistice agreements and see the same thing.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when did Palestine take control of the land it has yet to claim as a nation. Why is it refusing to take the next step in free determination after 27 years. What is holding the Palestinians back from taking those steps they promised to take last year and talk peace and mutual borders with all of their neighbours.
> 
> No one is stopping them from exercising these rights under international law but themselves
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine has mutual and undisputed borders with all of its neighbors.
> 
> What is there to negotiate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me a map of Palestine that clearly identifies all her internationally recognized boundaries. Not a map that says partition plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what exactly does this prove as it has no legend to say what it shows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh jeese, why do you want to embarrass yourself? Obviously the dotted lines are the international borders.
> 
> *Article V*
> 
> 1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.
> 
> The Avalon Project Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement March 23 1949​
> You can look in the other armistice agreements and see the same thing.
Click to expand...


First off, there is no border between 'Palestine' and Lebanon.

Second, you are the one embarrassing yourself, as you have provided nothing but an Arabic version of Palestine before Israel. Nowhere on the Map does it say or show anything about borders..

Try again.


----------



## toastman

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your link: Palestinian Statehood under International Law
> is a critique of Palestinian statehood in reference to the 2012 UN resolution. This is considerably after the fact in reference to my post.
> 
> It would be hard to argue that Israel does not have a government or a population. However, its territory has been in dispute since the country declared its existence in 1948.
> 
> If all that mattered were the Montevideo criteria, any warlord or group that could assemble enough force could carve out a new State simply by controlling a territory and nothing else.
> 
> What Makes a State The New International Law
> 
> Palestine’s territory is subject to much dispute, with some proponents of a Palestinian state arguing that Palestine encompasses the territory of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and other advocates arguing that Palestine encompasses all of modern day Israel, which they contend is not a legitimate State. The question of a “defined territory” is thus subject to much dispute.
> 
> Palestinian Statehood under International Law​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when did Palestine take control of the land it has yet to claim as a nation. Why is it refusing to take the next step in free determination after 27 years. What is holding the Palestinians back from taking those steps they promised to take last year and talk peace and mutual borders with all of their neighbours.
> 
> No one is stopping them from exercising these rights under international law but themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine has mutual and undisputed borders with all of its neighbors.
> 
> What is there to negotiate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me a map of Palestine that clearly identifies all her internationally recognized boundaries. Not a map that says partition plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what exactly does this prove as it has no legend to say what it shows.
Click to expand...


It proves that Tinmore cannot handle the truth that 'Palestine' does not have internationally recognized boundaries.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when did Palestine take control of the land it has yet to claim as a nation. Why is it refusing to take the next step in free determination after 27 years. What is holding the Palestinians back from taking those steps they promised to take last year and talk peace and mutual borders with all of their neighbours.
> 
> No one is stopping them from exercising these rights under international law but themselves
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine has mutual and undisputed borders with all of its neighbors.
> 
> What is there to negotiate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me a map of Palestine that clearly identifies all her internationally recognized boundaries. Not a map that says partition plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what exactly does this prove as it has no legend to say what it shows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh jeese, why do you want to embarrass yourself? Obviously the dotted lines are the international borders.
> 
> *Article V*
> 
> 1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.
> 
> The Avalon Project Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement March 23 1949​
> You can look in the other armistice agreements and see the same thing.
Click to expand...





 Firstly it is not obvious as there are no words to say these are the International borders of the non existent nation of Palestine. No legend means it does not tell you anything at all

If you look at the armistice agreements you will see that they very clear state that these are not to be seen as international borders.


 So once again you let yourself be shown as a complete idiot as usual.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine has mutual and undisputed borders with all of its neighbors.
> 
> What is there to negotiate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a map of Palestine that clearly identifies all her internationally recognized boundaries. Not a map that says partition plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what exactly does this prove as it has no legend to say what it shows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh jeese, why do you want to embarrass yourself? Obviously the dotted lines are the international borders.
> 
> *Article V*
> 
> 1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.
> 
> The Avalon Project Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement March 23 1949​
> You can look in the other armistice agreements and see the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly it is not obvious as there are no words to say these are the International borders of the non existent nation of Palestine. No legend means it does not tell you anything at all
> 
> If you look at the armistice agreements you will see that they very clear state that these are not to be seen as international borders.
> 
> 
> So once again you let yourself be shown as a complete idiot as usual.
Click to expand...

That is correct. The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders.

The armistice lines were to follow, not erase or replace, the existing international borders.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a map of Palestine that clearly identifies all her internationally recognized boundaries. Not a map that says partition plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what exactly does this prove as it has no legend to say what it shows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh jeese, why do you want to embarrass yourself? Obviously the dotted lines are the international borders.
> 
> *Article V*
> 
> 1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.
> 
> The Avalon Project Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement March 23 1949​
> You can look in the other armistice agreements and see the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly it is not obvious as there are no words to say these are the International borders of the non existent nation of Palestine. No legend means it does not tell you anything at all
> 
> If you look at the armistice agreements you will see that they very clear state that these are not to be seen as international borders.
> 
> 
> So once again you let yourself be shown as a complete idiot as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is correct. The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders.
> 
> The armistice lines were to follow, not erase or replace, the existing international borders.
Click to expand...





 So why did you claim that they were the international borders of Palestine.

 Still waiting for the map of palestines international borders, that is the nation of Palestine and not the Mandate of Palestine.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what exactly does this prove as it has no legend to say what it shows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh jeese, why do you want to embarrass yourself? Obviously the dotted lines are the international borders.
> 
> *Article V*
> 
> 1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.
> 
> The Avalon Project Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement March 23 1949​
> You can look in the other armistice agreements and see the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly it is not obvious as there are no words to say these are the International borders of the non existent nation of Palestine. No legend means it does not tell you anything at all
> 
> If you look at the armistice agreements you will see that they very clear state that these are not to be seen as international borders.
> 
> 
> So once again you let yourself be shown as a complete idiot as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is correct. The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders.
> 
> The armistice lines were to follow, not erase or replace, the existing international borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why did you claim that they were the international borders of Palestine.
> 
> Still waiting for the map of palestines international borders, that is the nation of Palestine and not the Mandate of Palestine.
Click to expand...

So why did you claim that they were the international borders of Palestine.​
I didn't.


----------



## toastman

So once again, Tinmore has failed to provide proof of the alleged internationally accepted boundaries of 'Palestine'


----------



## RoccoR

toastman, Phoenall, et al,

This is back to the disputes on "border issue" and the arguments on the scope and nature of "recognition."  There are people like "P F Tinmore" who desperately attempt to hold onto the notion that:

the territory to which the former Mandate of Palestine applied _(less that territory recognized by the HM the King of England as sovereign unto the Emir of Trans-Jordan)_ was under _(some heretofore unknown)_ Arab Sovereignty;
the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, and surrendered to the Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
the territory Short-Titled and named "Palestine" by the Allied Powers was somehow granted sovereignty to an unknown Arab Leader:
and govern by an unknown Arab body,
which exercised some unknown Arab law, 
over a people granted citizenship and a nationality by the law of the Allied Powers.

*(COMMENT)*

This loose knit Arab entity, making such claims _(the nature of which they themselves argue over)_, --- attempts to establish the veracity of the claim through the use of the evolving laws and treaties, ethical concepts, and philosophical principles, --- which were all written by --- and established relevant to --- these very disputes and issues by the Allied Powers _(not the undefined Arab Leadership which is attempting to establish claim over the territory in question)_. 

In 1918 and 1919, there was but one recognized Arab Leader extending Arab authority over the area designated Palestine by the Allied Powers _(when the Ottoman Empire surrendered their remaining garrisons outside Anatolia)_, as representing the Arab interests.  And leader, HRH the Emir FAISAL, representing and acting on behalf of the Sharif of Mecca and Arab Kingdom of Hejaz, was the only Arab Leaders in alliance with the British Forces.  This was even before the League of Nations wrote its Covenant.

It should be noted that the Sharifian Army of the Hejaz were the Arab Allies in the Middle East against the Forces of the Ottoman Empire; NOT Arab Palestinians.  And it was HRH Emir Faisal _(son to King __Hussein bin Ali__ of the Hejaz and Sharif of Mecca)_ that negotiated with Chaim Azriel Weizmann _(Principle Representative for the Zionists)_ matters pertaining to their national aspirations in the region.  The first agreement pledged by Emir Faisal and Representative Weizmann (and the first pledge to be broken) was:

"The Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in their respective territories. (*ARTICEL 1*)"​
While the Allied Force were obligated to Emir Faisal (and King Hussein bin Ali) for their contribution to the war effort, King Hussein bin Ali was the head of the Hashemite Family of the Bedouins from the central Arab Arabian Peninsula _(all together different from the collaborating Arab of Palestine)_.  While King Hussein bin Ali was the Sharif of Mecca and Medina (the most holy cities in Islam), the Hajj Mohammed Effendi Amin al-Husseini, was a Palestinian Arab nationalist and Muslim leader in Mandatory Palestine and served in the Ottoman army in WWI _(as did many Arab Palestinians - opposing forces of the Allied Powers)_; accepting a commission in the Ottoman Army as an officer (Combat Arms) and was assigned to the 47th Arty Brigade.  After the transition of the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration (EOTA) terminated operations in Palestine and passed its authority to the Civil Administration for the Mandate, all Forces of the Ottoman Empire had been repatriated.  In return to civilian life --- Hajj Mohammed al-Husseini became an anti-Mandate Political Activist and Islamic Leader, eventually becoming the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.  In addition to the Grand Mufti having a direct hand in the encouragement of the riots in 1929, the Grand Mufti also provided direct cover for Izz ad-Din al-Qassam by approving his appointment as an Imam to a Haifa Mosque and provided material and financial assistance so that al-Qassam could better conduct his clandestine activities as the leader of the Palestinian Black Hand against Jewish activities. 

[*NOTE into the FUTURE:*  During WWII (1941) Grand Mufti Hajj Mohammed Effendi Amin al-Husseini with Adolf Hitler and Ribbentrop _(Foreign Minister of Germany)_, the Grand Mufti expressed Arab allegiance with Germany against their common enemy the English, the Communists and _(of course)_ the Jewish.  The Grand Mufti had also encouraged young Muslims to take-up arms against the Allied Powers in WWII as he had done in WWI.]​
The Arab Leadership that had cooperated and not betrayed the Allied causes in the Middle East, were the Arab Leaders which realized the promise of Independence.  The was no general promise made to the Arabs either by treaty of covenant.  It was "certain communities" and "provisional recognition;" not a specific obligation or promise to Arabs that opposed the Allied Forces (either in WWI, the Mandate Period, or WWII).  Few nations in the world reward Arab Nations that raised arms against them.

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]


----------



## MJB12741

RoccoR said:


> toastman, Phoenall, et al,
> 
> This is back to the disputes on "border issue" and the arguments on the scope and nature of "recognition."  There are people like "P F Tinmore" who desperately attempt to hold onto the notion that:
> 
> the territory to which the former Mandate of Palestine applied _(less that territory recognized by the HM the King of England as sovereign unto the Emir of Trans-Jordan)_ was under _(some heretofore unknown)_ Arab Sovereignty;
> the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, and surrendered to the Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
> the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
> the territory Short-Titled and named "Palestine" by the Allied Powers was somehow granted sovereignty to an unknown Arab Leader:
> and govern by an unknown Arab body,
> which exercised some unknown Arab law,
> over a people granted citizenship and a nationality by the law of the Allied Powers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine has mutual and undisputed borders with all of its neighbors.
> What is there to negotiate?
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a map of Palestine that clearly identifies all her internationally recognized boundaries. Not a map that says partition plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> QUOTE]
> So what exactly does this prove as it has no legend to say what it shows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It proves that Tinmore cannot handle the truth that 'Palestine' does not have internationally recognized boundaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 
> 
> This loose knit Arab entity, making such claims _(the nature of which they themselves argue over)_, --- attempts to establish the veracity of the claim through the use of the evolving laws and treaties, ethical concepts, and philosophical principles, --- which were all written by --- and established relevant to --- these very disputes and issues by the Allied Powers _(not the undefined Arab Leadership which is attempting to establish claim over the territory in question)_.
> 
> In 1918 and 1919, there was but one recognized Arab Leader extending Arab authority over the area designated Palestine by the Allied Powers _(when the Ottoman Empire surrendered their remaining garrisons outside Anatolia)_, as representing the Arab interests.  And leader, HRH the Emir FAISAL, representing and acting on behalf of the Sharif of Mecca and Arab Kingdom of Hejaz, was the only Arab Leaders in alliance with the British Forces.  This was even before the League of Nations wrote its Covenant.
> 
> It should be noted that the Sharifian Army of the Hejaz were the Arab Allies in the Middle East against the Forces of the Ottoman Empire; NOT Arab Palestinians.  And it was HRH Emir Faisal _(son to King __Hussein bin Ali__ of the Hejaz and Sharif of Mecca)_ that negotiated with Chaim Azriel Weizmann _(Principle Representative for the Zionists)_ matters pertaining to their national aspirations in the region.  The first agreement pledged by Emir Faisal and Representative Weizmann (and the first pledge to be broken) was:
> 
> "The Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in their respective territories. (*ARTICEL 1*)"​
> While the Allied Force were obligated to Emir Faisal (and King Hussein bin Ali) for their contribution to the war effort, King Hussein bin Ali was the head of the Hashemite Family of the Bedouins from the central Arab Arabian Peninsula _(all together different from the collaborating Arab of Palestine)_.  While King Hussein bin Ali was the Sharif of Mecca and Medina (the most holy cities in Islam), the Hajj Mohammed Effendi Amin al-Husseini, was a Palestinian Arab nationalist and Muslim leader in Mandatory Palestine and served in the Ottoman army in WWI _(as did many Arab Palestinians - opposing forces of the Allied Powers)_; accepting a commission in the Ottoman Army as an officer (Combat Arms) and was assigned to the 47th Arty Brigade.  After the transition of the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration (EOTA) terminated operations in Palestine and passed its authority to the Civil Administration for the Mandate, all Forces of the Ottoman Empire had been repatriated.  In return to civilian life --- Hajj Mohammed al-Husseini became an anti-Mandate Political Activist and Islamic Leader, eventually becoming the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.  In addition to the Grand Mufti having a direct hand in the encouragement of the riots in 1929, the Grand Mufti also provided direct cover for Izz ad-Din al-Qassam by approving his appointment as an Imam to a Haifa Mosque and provided material and financial assistance so that al-Qassam could better conduct his clandestine activities as the leader of the Palestinian Black Hand against Jewish activities.
> 
> [*NOTE into the FUTURE:*  During WWII (1941) Grand Mufti Hajj Mohammed Effendi Amin al-Husseini with Adolf Hitler and Ribbentrop _(Foreign Minister of Germany)_, the Grand Mufti expressed Arab allegiance with Germany against their common enemy the English, the Communists and _(of course)_ the Jewish.  The Grand Mufti had also encouraged young Muslims to take-up arms against the Allied Powers in WWII as he had done in WWI.]​
> The Arab Leadership that had cooperated and not betrayed the Allied causes in the Middle East, were the Arab Leaders which realized the promise of Independence.  The was no general promise made to the Arabs either by treaty of covenant.  It was "certain communities" and "provisional recognition;" not a specific obligation or promise to Arabs that opposed the Allied Forces (either in WWI, the Mandate Period, or WWII).  Few nations in the world reward Arab Nations that raised arms against them.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> toastman, Phoenall, et al,
> 
> This is back to the disputes on "border issue" and the arguments on the scope and nature of "recognition."  There are people like "P F Tinmore" who desperately attempt to hold onto the notion that:
> 
> the territory to which the former Mandate of Palestine applied _(less that territory recognized by the HM the King of England as sovereign unto the Emir of Trans-Jordan)_ was under _(some heretofore unknown)_ Arab Sovereignty;
> the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, and surrendered to the Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
> the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
> the territory Short-Titled and named "Palestine" by the Allied Powers was somehow granted sovereignty to an unknown Arab Leader:
> and govern by an unknown Arab body,
> which exercised some unknown Arab law,
> over a people granted citizenship and a nationality by the law of the Allied Powers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine has mutual and undisputed borders with all of its neighbors.
> What is there to negotiate?
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a map of Palestine that clearly identifies all her internationally recognized boundaries. Not a map that says partition plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> QUOTE]
> So what exactly does this prove as it has no legend to say what it shows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It proves that Tinmore cannot handle the truth that 'Palestine' does not have internationally recognized boundaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This loose knit Arab entity, making such claims _(the nature of which they themselves argue over)_, --- attempts to establish the veracity of the claim through the use of the evolving laws and treaties, ethical concepts, and philosophical principles, --- which were all written by --- and established relevant to --- these very disputes and issues by the Allied Powers _(not the undefined Arab Leadership which is attempting to establish claim over the territory in question)_.
> 
> In 1918 and 1919, there was but one recognized Arab Leader extending Arab authority over the area designated Palestine by the Allied Powers _(when the Ottoman Empire surrendered their remaining garrisons outside Anatolia)_, as representing the Arab interests.  And leader, HRH the Emir FAISAL, representing and acting on behalf of the Sharif of Mecca and Arab Kingdom of Hejaz, was the only Arab Leaders in alliance with the British Forces.  This was even before the League of Nations wrote its Covenant.
> 
> It should be noted that the Sharifian Army of the Hejaz were the Arab Allies in the Middle East against the Forces of the Ottoman Empire; NOT Arab Palestinians.  And it was HRH Emir Faisal _(son to King __Hussein bin Ali__ of the Hejaz and Sharif of Mecca)_ that negotiated with Chaim Azriel Weizmann _(Principle Representative for the Zionists)_ matters pertaining to their national aspirations in the region.  The first agreement pledged by Emir Faisal and Representative Weizmann (and the first pledge to be broken) was:
> 
> "The Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in their respective territories. (*ARTICEL 1*)"​
> While the Allied Force were obligated to Emir Faisal (and King Hussein bin Ali) for their contribution to the war effort, King Hussein bin Ali was the head of the Hashemite Family of the Bedouins from the central Arab Arabian Peninsula _(all together different from the collaborating Arab of Palestine)_.  While King Hussein bin Ali was the Sharif of Mecca and Medina (the most holy cities in Islam), the Hajj Mohammed Effendi Amin al-Husseini, was a Palestinian Arab nationalist and Muslim leader in Mandatory Palestine and served in the Ottoman army in WWI _(as did many Arab Palestinians - opposing forces of the Allied Powers)_; accepting a commission in the Ottoman Army as an officer (Combat Arms) and was assigned to the 47th Arty Brigade.  After the transition of the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration (EOTA) terminated operations in Palestine and passed its authority to the Civil Administration for the Mandate, all Forces of the Ottoman Empire had been repatriated.  In return to civilian life --- Hajj Mohammed al-Husseini became an anti-Mandate Political Activist and Islamic Leader, eventually becoming the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.  In addition to the Grand Mufti having a direct hand in the encouragement of the riots in 1929, the Grand Mufti also provided direct cover for Izz ad-Din al-Qassam by approving his appointment as an Imam to a Haifa Mosque and provided material and financial assistance so that al-Qassam could better conduct his clandestine activities as the leader of the Palestinian Black Hand against Jewish activities.
> 
> [*NOTE into the FUTURE:*  During WWII (1941) Grand Mufti Hajj Mohammed Effendi Amin al-Husseini with Adolf Hitler and Ribbentrop _(Foreign Minister of Germany)_, the Grand Mufti expressed Arab allegiance with Germany against their common enemy the English, the Communists and _(of course)_ the Jewish.  The Grand Mufti had also encouraged young Muslims to take-up arms against the Allied Powers in WWII as he had done in WWI.]​
> The Arab Leadership that had cooperated and not betrayed the Allied causes in the Middle East, were the Arab Leaders which realized the promise of Independence.  The was no general promise made to the Arabs either by treaty of covenant.  It was "certain communities" and "provisional recognition;" not a specific obligation or promise to Arabs that opposed the Allied Forces (either in WWI, the Mandate Period, or WWII).  Few nations in the world reward Arab Nations that raised arms against them.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 
All true what you say.  Bottom line is as an internatioanlly recognized country ISRAEL IS.  And PALESTINE IS NOT.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This is a child-like answer to an incredibly complex issue.



P F Tinmore said:


> That is correct. The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders.
> 
> The armistice lines were to follow, not erase or replace, the existing international borders.


*(COMMENT)*

Armistice Lines are in the family of "demarcation lines."

Our friend "P F Tinmore" is correct in that by stipulation in these particular Agreements _(the 1949 Armistice Agreements between Israel and neighboring states of Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria) _were NOT permanent border arrangements but were intended to serve only as interim agreements until replaced by permanent peace treaties.  There have been two treaties signed since the Armistice Arrangements were put in place.  The one between Israel and Egypt (1979)_(See Article II pertaining to the permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel)_ and the one between Israel and Jordan (1995)_(See Article 3 pertaining to the international boundary between Israel and Jordan)_.  The original four Armistice Agreements were protected by the Tripartite Declaration of 1950 between the United States, Britain and France.

*NOTE:*  There is an argument to be made that the internationally recognized border between Egypt and Israel is not totally resolved based on the insert phrase that "without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip."  This is a small sector of the border in the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty.   However, the PLO (the sole representative if the Palestinian People) had not established independence (PLO DoI 1988).  Thus the meaning or impact is unclear.  

*NOTE:*  The border between Israel and Jordan _(except for Jordan's border with the post-1967 West Bank)_ was similarly affected by the insertion of the phrase "without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967."   However, the PLO had declared independence and there was an acknowledgement in 1988 by the UN that "_Affirms _the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967."
Then there is the introduction of the Oslo Accords: 

Oslo I:  Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (1993) Recognition of each other's existence. 
Israel agreed to recognize Palestinian autonomy in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. 
Palestinians agreed to renounce the use of terrorism.


Oslo II:  Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip  (1995) divided into three areas: 
Area "A" --- one under exclusive Palestinian control; 
Area "B" --- one where Palestinians had civilian control and Israelis controlled security; 
Area "C" --- one area that would be controlled exclusively by Israel.

The importance of this, RELATIVE TO THE QUESTION of borders and recognition is that Israel and the PLO/State of Palestine agreed to recognize one and the other.  This goes back to the importance of understanding Post #828 and the difference between the "declarative view" and the "constitutive view."  It also helps explain the difference between those Palestinians that understand the PLO-NAD Position on borders --- and those that only pursue the Jihadis and Fedayeen view.

Remember, under international law, it does not require the Palestinians to recognize the borders of Israel, nor does it require the recognition of any of the adjancent Arab Nations.  All the is required is that Israel be able to defend the borders it claims --- the difference between "declarative" _(Palestinian talk)_ and "constitutive" _(Israeli ability)_.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is a child-like answer to an incredibly complex issue.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct. The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders.
> 
> The armistice lines were to follow, not erase or replace, the existing international borders.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Armistice Lines are in the family of "demarcation lines."
> 
> Our friend "P F Tinmore" is correct in that by stipulation in these particular Agreements _(the 1949 Armistice Agreements between Israel and neighboring states of Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria) _were NOT permanent border arrangements but were intended to serve only as interim agreements until replaced by permanent peace treaties.  There have been two treaties signed since the Armistice Arrangements were put in place.  The one between Israel and Egypt (1979)_(See Article II pertaining to the permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel)_ and the one between Israel and Jordan (1995)_(See Article 3 pertaining to the international boundary between Israel and Jordan)_.  The original four Armistice Agreements were protected by the Tripartite Declaration of 1950 between the United States, Britain and France.
> 
> *NOTE:*  There is an argument to be made that the internationally recognized border between Egypt and Israel is not totally resolved based on the insert phrase that "without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip."  This is a small sector of the border in the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty.   However, the PLO (the sole representative if the Palestinian People) had not established independence (PLO DoI 1988).  Thus the meaning or impact is unclear.
> 
> *NOTE:*  The border between Israel and Jordan _(except for Jordan's border with the post-1967 West Bank)_ was similarly affected by the insertion of the phrase "without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967."   However, the PLO had declared independence and there was an acknowledgement in 1988 by the UN that "_Affirms _the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967."
> Then there is the introduction of the Oslo Accords:
> 
> Oslo I:  Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (1993) Recognition of each other's existence.
> Israel agreed to recognize Palestinian autonomy in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
> Palestinians agreed to renounce the use of terrorism.
> 
> 
> Oslo II:  Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip  (1995) divided into three areas:
> Area "A" --- one under exclusive Palestinian control;
> Area "B" --- one where Palestinians had civilian control and Israelis controlled security;
> Area "C" --- one area that would be controlled exclusively by Israel.
> 
> The importance of this, RELATIVE TO THE QUESTION of borders and recognition is that Israel and the PLO/State of Palestine agreed to recognize one and the other.  This goes back to the importance of understanding Post #828 and the difference between the "declarative view" and the "constitutive view."  It also helps explain the difference between those Palestinians that understand the PLO-NAD Position on borders --- and those that only pursue the Jihadis and Fedayeen view.
> 
> Remember, under international law, it does not require the Palestinians to recognize the borders of Israel, nor does it require the recognition of any of the adjancent Arab Nations.  All the is required is that Israel be able to defend the borders it claims --- the difference between "declarative" _(Palestinian talk)_ and "constitutive" _(Israeli ability)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Rocco, does the State of Palestine have internationally recognized borders? Yes, or No ??


----------



## RoccoR

toastman,  et al,

*Yes!!!*  It can be viewed from several different perspectives.



toastman said:


> Rocco, does the State of Palestine have internationally recognized borders? Yes, or No ??



*(ANSWER Perspective Relevant)*

UN Recognition:
A/RES/43/177  _Affirms _the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;

Israel-PLO Recognition:
Exchange of Letters between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat

Published PLO Negotiation Affairs Bureau
*2. Key Facts*

The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.
v/r
R


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> toastman, Phoenall, et al,
> 
> This is back to the disputes on "border issue" and the arguments on the scope and nature of "recognition."  There are people like "P F Tinmore" who desperately attempt to hold onto the notion that:
> 
> the territory to which the former Mandate of Palestine applied _(less that territory recognized by the HM the King of England as sovereign unto the Emir of Trans-Jordan)_ was under _(some heretofore unknown)_ Arab Sovereignty;
> the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, and surrendered to the Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
> the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
> the territory Short-Titled and named "Palestine" by the Allied Powers was somehow granted sovereignty to an unknown Arab Leader:
> and govern by an unknown Arab body,
> which exercised some unknown Arab law,
> over a people granted citizenship and a nationality by the law of the Allied Powers.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This loose knit Arab entity, making such claims _(the nature of which they themselves argue over)_, --- attempts to establish the veracity of the claim through the use of the evolving laws and treaties, ethical concepts, and philosophical principles, --- which were all written by --- and established relevant to --- these very disputes and issues by the Allied Powers _(not the undefined Arab Leadership which is attempting to establish claim over the territory in question)_.
> 
> In 1918 and 1919, there was but one recognized Arab Leader extending Arab authority over the area designated Palestine by the Allied Powers _(when the Ottoman Empire surrendered their remaining garrisons outside Anatolia)_, as representing the Arab interests.  And leader, HRH the Emir FAISAL, representing and acting on behalf of the Sharif of Mecca and Arab Kingdom of Hejaz, was the only Arab Leaders in alliance with the British Forces.  This was even before the League of Nations wrote its Covenant.
> 
> It should be noted that the Sharifian Army of the Hejaz were the Arab Allies in the Middle East against the Forces of the Ottoman Empire; NOT Arab Palestinians.  And it was HRH Emir Faisal _(son to King __Hussein bin Ali__ of the Hejaz and Sharif of Mecca)_ that negotiated with Chaim Azriel Weizmann _(Principle Representative for the Zionists)_ matters pertaining to their national aspirations in the region.  The first agreement pledged by Emir Faisal and Representative Weizmann (and the first pledge to be broken) was:
> 
> "The Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in their respective territories. (*ARTICEL 1*)"​
> While the Allied Force were obligated to Emir Faisal (and King Hussein bin Ali) for their contribution to the war effort, King Hussein bin Ali was the head of the Hashemite Family of the Bedouins from the central Arab Arabian Peninsula _(all together different from the collaborating Arab of Palestine)_.  While King Hussein bin Ali was the Sharif of Mecca and Medina (the most holy cities in Islam), the Hajj Mohammed Effendi Amin al-Husseini, was a Palestinian Arab nationalist and Muslim leader in Mandatory Palestine and served in the Ottoman army in WWI _(as did many Arab Palestinians - opposing forces of the Allied Powers)_; accepting a commission in the Ottoman Army as an officer (Combat Arms) and was assigned to the 47th Arty Brigade.  After the transition of the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration (EOTA) terminated operations in Palestine and passed its authority to the Civil Administration for the Mandate, all Forces of the Ottoman Empire had been repatriated.  In return to civilian life --- Hajj Mohammed al-Husseini became an anti-Mandate Political Activist and Islamic Leader, eventually becoming the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.  In addition to the Grand Mufti having a direct hand in the encouragement of the riots in 1929, the Grand Mufti also provided direct cover for Izz ad-Din al-Qassam by approving his appointment as an Imam to a Haifa Mosque and provided material and financial assistance so that al-Qassam could better conduct his clandestine activities as the leader of the Palestinian Black Hand against Jewish activities.
> 
> [*NOTE into the FUTURE:*  During WWII (1941) Grand Mufti Hajj Mohammed Effendi Amin al-Husseini with Adolf Hitler and Ribbentrop _(Foreign Minister of Germany)_, the Grand Mufti expressed Arab allegiance with Germany against their common enemy the English, the Communists and _(of course)_ the Jewish.  The Grand Mufti had also encouraged young Muslims to take-up arms against the Allied Powers in WWII as he had done in WWI.]​
> The Arab Leadership that had cooperated and not betrayed the Allied causes in the Middle East, were the Arab Leaders which realized the promise of Independence.  The was no general promise made to the Arabs either by treaty of covenant.  It was "certain communities" and "provisional recognition;" not a specific obligation or promise to Arabs that opposed the Allied Forces (either in WWI, the Mandate Period, or WWII).  Few nations in the world reward Arab Nations that raised arms against them.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R


[/QUOTE]

Rocco et al.

In all cases, whether "certain communities"  of the former "Turkish Empire" that received "provisional recognition" or not, the Covenant of the League of Nations issued Mandates to further the development of the inhabitants.  To wit:

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

The Mandates did not give the Mandatories the right to displace the inhabitants in order to establish a colony for Europeans.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> toastman, Phoenall, et al,
> 
> This is back to the disputes on "border issue" and the arguments on the scope and nature of "recognition."  There are people like "P F Tinmore" who desperately attempt to hold onto the notion that:
> 
> the territory to which the former Mandate of Palestine applied _(less that territory recognized by the HM the King of England as sovereign unto the Emir of Trans-Jordan)_ was under _(some heretofore unknown)_ Arab Sovereignty;
> the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, and surrendered to the Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
> the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
> the territory Short-Titled and named "Palestine" by the Allied Powers was somehow granted sovereignty to an unknown Arab Leader:
> and govern by an unknown Arab body,
> which exercised some unknown Arab law,
> over a people granted citizenship and a nationality by the law of the Allied Powers.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This loose knit Arab entity, making such claims _(the nature of which they themselves argue over)_, --- attempts to establish the veracity of the claim through the use of the evolving laws and treaties, ethical concepts, and philosophical principles, --- which were all written by --- and established relevant to --- these very disputes and issues by the Allied Powers _(not the undefined Arab Leadership which is attempting to establish claim over the territory in question)_.
> 
> In 1918 and 1919, there was but one recognized Arab Leader extending Arab authority over the area designated Palestine by the Allied Powers _(when the Ottoman Empire surrendered their remaining garrisons outside Anatolia)_, as representing the Arab interests.  And leader, HRH the Emir FAISAL, representing and acting on behalf of the Sharif of Mecca and Arab Kingdom of Hejaz, was the only Arab Leaders in alliance with the British Forces.  This was even before the League of Nations wrote its Covenant.
> 
> It should be noted that the Sharifian Army of the Hejaz were the Arab Allies in the Middle East against the Forces of the Ottoman Empire; NOT Arab Palestinians.  And it was HRH Emir Faisal _(son to King __Hussein bin Ali__ of the Hejaz and Sharif of Mecca)_ that negotiated with Chaim Azriel Weizmann _(Principle Representative for the Zionists)_ matters pertaining to their national aspirations in the region.  The first agreement pledged by Emir Faisal and Representative Weizmann (and the first pledge to be broken) was:
> 
> "The Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in their respective territories. (*ARTICEL 1*)"​
> While the Allied Force were obligated to Emir Faisal (and King Hussein bin Ali) for their contribution to the war effort, King Hussein bin Ali was the head of the Hashemite Family of the Bedouins from the central Arab Arabian Peninsula _(all together different from the collaborating Arab of Palestine)_.  While King Hussein bin Ali was the Sharif of Mecca and Medina (the most holy cities in Islam), the Hajj Mohammed Effendi Amin al-Husseini, was a Palestinian Arab nationalist and Muslim leader in Mandatory Palestine and served in the Ottoman army in WWI _(as did many Arab Palestinians - opposing forces of the Allied Powers)_; accepting a commission in the Ottoman Army as an officer (Combat Arms) and was assigned to the 47th Arty Brigade.  After the transition of the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration (EOTA) terminated operations in Palestine and passed its authority to the Civil Administration for the Mandate, all Forces of the Ottoman Empire had been repatriated.  In return to civilian life --- Hajj Mohammed al-Husseini became an anti-Mandate Political Activist and Islamic Leader, eventually becoming the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.  In addition to the Grand Mufti having a direct hand in the encouragement of the riots in 1929, the Grand Mufti also provided direct cover for Izz ad-Din al-Qassam by approving his appointment as an Imam to a Haifa Mosque and provided material and financial assistance so that al-Qassam could better conduct his clandestine activities as the leader of the Palestinian Black Hand against Jewish activities.
> 
> [*NOTE into the FUTURE:*  During WWII (1941) Grand Mufti Hajj Mohammed Effendi Amin al-Husseini with Adolf Hitler and Ribbentrop _(Foreign Minister of Germany)_, the Grand Mufti expressed Arab allegiance with Germany against their common enemy the English, the Communists and _(of course)_ the Jewish.  The Grand Mufti had also encouraged young Muslims to take-up arms against the Allied Powers in WWII as he had done in WWI.]​
> The Arab Leadership that had cooperated and not betrayed the Allied causes in the Middle East, were the Arab Leaders which realized the promise of Independence.  The was no general promise made to the Arabs either by treaty of covenant.  It was "certain communities" and "provisional recognition;" not a specific obligation or promise to Arabs that opposed the Allied Forces (either in WWI, the Mandate Period, or WWII).  Few nations in the world reward Arab Nations that raised arms against them.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Rocco et al.

In all cases, whether "certain communities"  of the former "Turkish Empire" that received "provisional recognition" or not, the Covenant of the League of Nations issued Mandates to further the development of the inhabitants.  To wit:

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

The Mandates did not give the Mandatories the right to displace the inhabitants in order to establish a colony for Europeans.[/QUOTE]

Israel is a sovereign state , not a colony.


----------



## toastman

RoccoR said:


> toastman,  et al,
> 
> *Yes!!!*  It can be viewed from several different perspectives.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, does the State of Palestine have internationally recognized borders? Yes, or No ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(ANSWER Perspective Relevant)*
> 
> UN Recognition:
> A/RES/43/177  _Affirms _the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;
> 
> Israel-PLO Recognition:
> Exchange of Letters between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat
> 
> Published PLO Negotiation Affairs Bureau
> *2. Key Facts*
> 
> The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
> A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
> The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.
> v/r
> R
Click to expand...


Let me rephrase the question: Does Palestine have internationally recognized boundaries with anyone besides Israel ?


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

Yes, you are are somewhat correct.



montelatici said:


> The Mandates did not give the Mandatories the right to displace the inhabitants in order to establish a colony for Europeans.


*(COMMENT)*

QUESTIONS:
Did the Mandate for Palestine actually prohibit the displacement of inhabitants?
Did the influence of the Mandate end just because the Mandatory terminated its association and responsibilities?
When did the Mandate for Palestine end its authority?
Is the Mandate still a legacy authority under Article 80 of the UN Charter?


What actually prohibits the Jewish People from immigrating anywhere in the territory formerly under the Mandate, less Article 25 Territory (Jordan)?



toastman said:


> Israel is a sovereign state , not a colony.


*(COMMENT)*

The Mandate (1922) is a subordinate directive to the Covenant (1919); directing that Mandatory to take any action which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.  However, the Covenant has no prohibition on the "displacement or relocation of the inhabitants."  And the Covenant does not define the "civil and religious rights" held common in 1919.

The Covenant (Article 23) directs that "just treatment" of the native inhabitants of territories under Member control; in accordance with the provisions of "international conventions" existing or hereafter to be agreed upon.   

I am wondering if you can tell me what the 1919 interpretation of "civil and religious" rights were. 

You say, that "The Mandates did not give the Mandatories the right to displace the inhabitants in order to establish a colony for Europeans."  The argument is that two prong:

First Prong:  that Customary Law in the 18th 19th and early 20th Century did not (including the Covenant and Mandates):
prohibit colonizations.
prohibit an established sovereignty from making internal population realignments.
prohibit an established sovereignty from making internal land reforms.

Second Prong:
The Articles of the Mandate, include the requirement of establishing a Jewish national home.
Until the establishment of the Mandate, Palestine’s boundaries had not been defined as a distinct political unit.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

toastman,  et al,

'This is the difficult question.



toastman said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> toastman,  et al,
> 
> *Yes!!!*  It can be viewed from several different perspectives.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, does the State of Palestine have internationally recognized borders? Yes, or No ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(ANSWER Perspective Relevant)*
> 
> UN Recognition:
> A/RES/43/177  _Affirms _the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;
> 
> Israel-PLO Recognition:
> Exchange of Letters between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat
> 
> Published PLO Negotiation Affairs Bureau
> *2. Key Facts*
> 
> The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
> A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
> The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.
> v/r
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me rephrase the question: Does Palestine have internationally recognized boundaries with anyone besides Israel ?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Under the general recognition, the 1988 State of Palestine has borders with Egypt and Jordan.  
The Allenby Bridge is the only crossing point for Palestinians traveling through the West Bank to Jordan.
The Rafah border crossing, between southern Gaza Strip and Egypt. 

v/r
R


----------



## toastman

RoccoR said:


> toastman,  et al,
> 
> 'This is the difficult question.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> toastman,  et al,
> 
> *Yes!!!*  It can be viewed from several different perspectives.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, does the State of Palestine have internationally recognized borders? Yes, or No ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(ANSWER Perspective Relevant)*
> 
> UN Recognition:
> A/RES/43/177  _Affirms _the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;
> 
> Israel-PLO Recognition:
> Exchange of Letters between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat
> 
> Published PLO Negotiation Affairs Bureau
> *2. Key Facts*
> 
> The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
> A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
> The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.
> v/r
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me rephrase the question: Does Palestine have internationally recognized boundaries with anyone besides Israel ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Under the general recognition, the 1988 State of Palestine has borders with Egypt and Jordan.
> The Allenby Bridge is the only crossing point for Palestinians traveling through the West Bank to Jordan.
> The Rafah border crossing, between southern Gaza Strip and Egypt.
> 
> v/r
> R
Click to expand...

I'm familiar with those borders, but I don't think they are internationally recognized boundaries


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> toastman, Phoenall, et al,
> 
> This is back to the disputes on "border issue" and the arguments on the scope and nature of "recognition."  There are people like "P F Tinmore" who desperately attempt to hold onto the notion that:
> 
> the territory to which the former Mandate of Palestine applied _(less that territory recognized by the HM the King of England as sovereign unto the Emir of Trans-Jordan)_ was under _(some heretofore unknown)_ Arab Sovereignty;
> the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, and surrendered to the Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
> the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
> the territory Short-Titled and named "Palestine" by the Allied Powers was somehow granted sovereignty to an unknown Arab Leader:
> and govern by an unknown Arab body,
> which exercised some unknown Arab law,
> over a people granted citizenship and a nationality by the law of the Allied Powers.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R


Who are you trying to fool. I never said any of that.

I don't see any border disputes. I see a lot of say so and lies.

With regard to the northern border of Palestine, Britain and France (the occupying powers at the time, and later the mandatory powers over Syria and Lebanon respectively) signed an agreement which settled key aspects relating to the Palestinian-Syrian-Lebanese border (Paris, 23 December 1920).20 The British High Commissioner of Palestine and the French High Commissioner of Syria and Lebanon reached, at Jerusalem on 16 December 1923, a complementary agreement on border issues.21 On 2 February 1926, the agreement was replaced by the _Bon Voisinage Agreement to Regulate Certain Administrative Matters in Connection with the Frontier between Palestine and Syria [including Lebanon]_.22

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
What was the status of these borders in* 1949?* (After the Mandate left Palestine.)

2. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the* armed forces* of the respective Parties shall not move.

1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the *international boundary* between the *Lebanon and Palestine.*

Where the existing truce lines run along the *international boundary between Syria and Palestine,* the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary line

The Avalon Project Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement March 23 1949
The Avalon Project Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement July 20 1949​
Note that the armistice lines did not divide Israel from the other countries. They were merely lines that the armed forces could not cross. They did not define territory. The international boundaries defined territories.

The southwestern border of Palestine with Egypt dates back to the late 19th century. Originally, this border was drawn up on a _de facto_ basis, as the Ottoman Empire recognized Egypt’s autonomy.27 Formally, however, two border agreements between the Ottoman Empire and Egypt were reached in 1906. The first came in the form of an _Exchange of Notes between Britain [which was controlling Egypt since 1882] and Turkey relative to the Maintenance of the Status Quo in the Sinai Peninsula,_ signed in Constantinople on 14 May.28 The second and more detailed border agreement, was the _Agreement between Egypt and Turkey for the fixing of an Administrative Line between the Vilayet [province] of Hejaz and the Governorate [district] of Jerusalem and the Sinai Peninsula_, signed in Rafah, on 1 October.29 The separation of Egypt from Turkey (Palestine, in this instance), as of 5 November 1914, was ultimately recognized by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
What was the status of this border in *1949?* (After the Mandate left Palestine.)

1. The principle that no military or political advantage should be gained under the truce ordered by the Security Council is recognized.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...

2. The area thus demilitarized shall be as follows: From a point on the *Egypt-Palestine frontier* five (5) kilometres north-west of the intersection of the Rafah-El Auja road and the frontier (MR 08750468), south-east to Khashm El Mamdud (MR 09650414), thence south-east to Hill 405 (MR 10780285), thence south-west to a point on the *Egypt-Palestine frontier* five (5) kilometres southeast of the intersection of the old railway tracks and the frontier (MR 09950145), thence returning north-west along the *Egypt-Palestine frontier* to the point of origin.

4. The road Taba-Qouseima-Auja shall not be employed by any military forces whatsoever for the purpose of *entering Palestine.*

The Avalon Project Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement February 24 1949​
Note that the Palestine side of the Egypt-Palestine frontier was still called Palestine in 1949.

The eastern border of Palestine with Trans-Jordan was of particular significance.8 The Palestine Mandate originally incorporated the territory of Trans-Jordan within the scope of ‘Palestine.’ Article 25 of the Mandate accorded Britain the power, “with consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as… may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions.” Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed a resolution by which it approved a proposal submitted by Britain to exclude Trans-Jordan from the scope of Palestine’s territory.9 Ultimately, the border between Palestine and Trans-Jordan was fixed as suggested by Britain.10

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
Due to the occupation of the West Bank and other previously arranged demilitarized zones, the armistice line did not follow the border between Jordan and Palestine. However there was an interesting statement.

(d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the * southernmost tip of Palestine, *the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by existing military positions...

The Avalon Project Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement April 3 1949​
The southernmost tip of Palestine was still called Palestine in 1949.

This confirms the creation of Palestine's international borders and that they remained unchanged in 1949. This is the start point of any discussions on land and borders not some political say so decades in the future..


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what exactly does this prove as it has no legend to say what it shows.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh jeese, why do you want to embarrass yourself? Obviously the dotted lines are the international borders.
> 
> *Article V*
> 
> 1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.
> 
> The Avalon Project Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement March 23 1949​
> You can look in the other armistice agreements and see the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly it is not obvious as there are no words to say these are the International borders of the non existent nation of Palestine. No legend means it does not tell you anything at all
> 
> If you look at the armistice agreements you will see that they very clear state that these are not to be seen as international borders.
> 
> 
> So once again you let yourself be shown as a complete idiot as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is correct. The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders.
> 
> The armistice lines were to follow, not erase or replace, the existing international borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why did you claim that they were the international borders of Palestine.
> 
> Still waiting for the map of palestines international borders, that is the nation of Palestine and not the Mandate of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why did you claim that they were the international borders of Palestine.​
> I didn't.
Click to expand...





 Your very own words



Oh jeese, why do you want to embarrass yourself? Obviously the dotted lines are the international borders.

*Article V*
1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.

The Avalon Project Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement March 23 1949

You can look in the other armistice agreements and see the same thing.


Why LIE when the evidemce is just a few posts back.


----------



## Phoenall

RoccoR said:


> toastman,  et al,
> 
> *Yes!!!*  It can be viewed from several different perspectives.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, does the State of Palestine have internationally recognized borders? Yes, or No ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(ANSWER Perspective Relevant)*
> 
> UN Recognition:
> A/RES/43/177  _Affirms _the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;
> 
> Israel-PLO Recognition:
> Exchange of Letters between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat
> 
> Published PLO Negotiation Affairs Bureau
> *2. Key Facts*
> 
> The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
> A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
> The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.
> v/r
> R
Click to expand...





 When did these 1967 borders get negotiated and agreed by all parties ?

 I say Palestine has no borders until it meets with the requirements of 242 and agrees with Israel, Egypt and Jordan these borders


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> toastman, Phoenall, et al,
> 
> This is back to the disputes on "border issue" and the arguments on the scope and nature of "recognition."  There are people like "P F Tinmore" who desperately attempt to hold onto the notion that:
> 
> the territory to which the former Mandate of Palestine applied _(less that territory recognized by the HM the King of England as sovereign unto the Emir of Trans-Jordan)_ was under _(some heretofore unknown)_ Arab Sovereignty;
> the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, and surrendered to the Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
> the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
> the territory Short-Titled and named "Palestine" by the Allied Powers was somehow granted sovereignty to an unknown Arab Leader:
> and govern by an unknown Arab body,
> which exercised some unknown Arab law,
> over a people granted citizenship and a nationality by the law of the Allied Powers.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This loose knit Arab entity, making such claims _(the nature of which they themselves argue over)_, --- attempts to establish the veracity of the claim through the use of the evolving laws and treaties, ethical concepts, and philosophical principles, --- which were all written by --- and established relevant to --- these very disputes and issues by the Allied Powers _(not the undefined Arab Leadership which is attempting to establish claim over the territory in question)_.
> 
> In 1918 and 1919, there was but one recognized Arab Leader extending Arab authority over the area designated Palestine by the Allied Powers _(when the Ottoman Empire surrendered their remaining garrisons outside Anatolia)_, as representing the Arab interests.  And leader, HRH the Emir FAISAL, representing and acting on behalf of the Sharif of Mecca and Arab Kingdom of Hejaz, was the only Arab Leaders in alliance with the British Forces.  This was even before the League of Nations wrote its Covenant.
> 
> It should be noted that the Sharifian Army of the Hejaz were the Arab Allies in the Middle East against the Forces of the Ottoman Empire; NOT Arab Palestinians.  And it was HRH Emir Faisal _(son to King __Hussein bin Ali__ of the Hejaz and Sharif of Mecca)_ that negotiated with Chaim Azriel Weizmann _(Principle Representative for the Zionists)_ matters pertaining to their national aspirations in the region.  The first agreement pledged by Emir Faisal and Representative Weizmann (and the first pledge to be broken) was:
> 
> "The Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in their respective territories. (*ARTICEL 1*)"​
> While the Allied Force were obligated to Emir Faisal (and King Hussein bin Ali) for their contribution to the war effort, King Hussein bin Ali was the head of the Hashemite Family of the Bedouins from the central Arab Arabian Peninsula _(all together different from the collaborating Arab of Palestine)_.  While King Hussein bin Ali was the Sharif of Mecca and Medina (the most holy cities in Islam), the Hajj Mohammed Effendi Amin al-Husseini, was a Palestinian Arab nationalist and Muslim leader in Mandatory Palestine and served in the Ottoman army in WWI _(as did many Arab Palestinians - opposing forces of the Allied Powers)_; accepting a commission in the Ottoman Army as an officer (Combat Arms) and was assigned to the 47th Arty Brigade.  After the transition of the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration (EOTA) terminated operations in Palestine and passed its authority to the Civil Administration for the Mandate, all Forces of the Ottoman Empire had been repatriated.  In return to civilian life --- Hajj Mohammed al-Husseini became an anti-Mandate Political Activist and Islamic Leader, eventually becoming the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.  In addition to the Grand Mufti having a direct hand in the encouragement of the riots in 1929, the Grand Mufti also provided direct cover for Izz ad-Din al-Qassam by approving his appointment as an Imam to a Haifa Mosque and provided material and financial assistance so that al-Qassam could better conduct his clandestine activities as the leader of the Palestinian Black Hand against Jewish activities.
> 
> [*NOTE into the FUTURE:*  During WWII (1941) Grand Mufti Hajj Mohammed Effendi Amin al-Husseini with Adolf Hitler and Ribbentrop _(Foreign Minister of Germany)_, the Grand Mufti expressed Arab allegiance with Germany against their common enemy the English, the Communists and _(of course)_ the Jewish.  The Grand Mufti had also encouraged young Muslims to take-up arms against the Allied Powers in WWII as he had done in WWI.]​
> The Arab Leadership that had cooperated and not betrayed the Allied causes in the Middle East, were the Arab Leaders which realized the promise of Independence.  The was no general promise made to the Arabs either by treaty of covenant.  It was "certain communities" and "provisional recognition;" not a specific obligation or promise to Arabs that opposed the Allied Forces (either in WWI, the Mandate Period, or WWII).  Few nations in the world reward Arab Nations that raised arms against them.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Rocco et al.

In all cases, whether "certain communities"  of the former "Turkish Empire" that received "provisional recognition" or not, the Covenant of the League of Nations issued Mandates to further the development of the inhabitants.  To wit:

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

The Mandates did not give the Mandatories the right to displace the inhabitants in order to establish a colony for Europeans.[/QUOTE]





 All done with the first partitioning of Palestine into Arab Palestine and Jewish Palestine. This placed the arab muslims under the control of the Hashemite prince for their well being and development. The Mandates did give the mandated powers the right to relocate inhabitants to any part of the mandate they wished.
 AND STOP YOUR RACIST LIES AS THERE WAS NO EUROPEAN COLONY


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> toastman, Phoenall, et al,
> 
> This is back to the disputes on "border issue" and the arguments on the scope and nature of "recognition."  There are people like "P F Tinmore" who desperately attempt to hold onto the notion that:
> 
> the territory to which the former Mandate of Palestine applied _(less that territory recognized by the HM the King of England as sovereign unto the Emir of Trans-Jordan)_ was under _(some heretofore unknown)_ Arab Sovereignty;
> the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, and surrendered to the Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
> the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
> the territory Short-Titled and named "Palestine" by the Allied Powers was somehow granted sovereignty to an unknown Arab Leader:
> and govern by an unknown Arab body,
> which exercised some unknown Arab law,
> over a people granted citizenship and a nationality by the law of the Allied Powers.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you trying to fool. I never said any of that.
> 
> I don't see any border disputes. I see a lot of say so and lies.
> 
> With regard to the northern border of Palestine, Britain and France (the occupying powers at the time, and later the mandatory powers over Syria and Lebanon respectively) signed an agreement which settled key aspects relating to the Palestinian-Syrian-Lebanese border (Paris, 23 December 1920).20 The British High Commissioner of Palestine and the French High Commissioner of Syria and Lebanon reached, at Jerusalem on 16 December 1923, a complementary agreement on border issues.21 On 2 February 1926, the agreement was replaced by the _Bon Voisinage Agreement to Regulate Certain Administrative Matters in Connection with the Frontier between Palestine and Syria [including Lebanon]_.22
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
> What was the status of these borders in* 1949?* (After the Mandate left Palestine.)
> 
> 2. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the* armed forces* of the respective Parties shall not move.
> 
> 1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the *international boundary* between the *Lebanon and Palestine.*
> 
> Where the existing truce lines run along the *international boundary between Syria and Palestine,* the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary line
> 
> The Avalon Project Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement March 23 1949
> The Avalon Project Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement July 20 1949​
> Note that the armistice lines did not divide Israel from the other countries. They were merely lines that the armed forces could not cross. They did not define territory. The international boundaries defined territories.
> 
> The southwestern border of Palestine with Egypt dates back to the late 19th century. Originally, this border was drawn up on a _de facto_ basis, as the Ottoman Empire recognized Egypt’s autonomy.27 Formally, however, two border agreements between the Ottoman Empire and Egypt were reached in 1906. The first came in the form of an _Exchange of Notes between Britain [which was controlling Egypt since 1882] and Turkey relative to the Maintenance of the Status Quo in the Sinai Peninsula,_ signed in Constantinople on 14 May.28 The second and more detailed border agreement, was the _Agreement between Egypt and Turkey for the fixing of an Administrative Line between the Vilayet [province] of Hejaz and the Governorate [district] of Jerusalem and the Sinai Peninsula_, signed in Rafah, on 1 October.29 The separation of Egypt from Turkey (Palestine, in this instance), as of 5 November 1914, was ultimately recognized by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
> What was the status of this border in *1949?* (After the Mandate left Palestine.)
> 
> 1. The principle that no military or political advantage should be gained under the truce ordered by the Security Council is recognized.
> 
> 2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...
> 
> 2. The area thus demilitarized shall be as follows: From a point on the *Egypt-Palestine frontier* five (5) kilometres north-west of the intersection of the Rafah-El Auja road and the frontier (MR 08750468), south-east to Khashm El Mamdud (MR 09650414), thence south-east to Hill 405 (MR 10780285), thence south-west to a point on the *Egypt-Palestine frontier* five (5) kilometres southeast of the intersection of the old railway tracks and the frontier (MR 09950145), thence returning north-west along the *Egypt-Palestine frontier* to the point of origin.
> 
> 4. The road Taba-Qouseima-Auja shall not be employed by any military forces whatsoever for the purpose of *entering Palestine.*
> 
> The Avalon Project Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement February 24 1949​
> Note that the Palestine side of the Egypt-Palestine frontier was still called Palestine in 1949.
> 
> The eastern border of Palestine with Trans-Jordan was of particular significance.8 The Palestine Mandate originally incorporated the territory of Trans-Jordan within the scope of ‘Palestine.’ Article 25 of the Mandate accorded Britain the power, “with consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as… may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions.” Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed a resolution by which it approved a proposal submitted by Britain to exclude Trans-Jordan from the scope of Palestine’s territory.9 Ultimately, the border between Palestine and Trans-Jordan was fixed as suggested by Britain.10
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
> Due to the occupation of the West Bank and other previously arranged demilitarized zones, the armistice line did not follow the border between Jordan and Palestine. However there was an interesting statement.
> 
> (d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the * southernmost tip of Palestine, *the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by existing military positions...
> 
> The Avalon Project Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement April 3 1949​
> The southernmost tip of Palestine was still called Palestine in 1949.
> 
> This confirms the creation of Palestine's international borders and that they remained unchanged in 1949. This is the start point of any discussions on land and borders not some political say so decades in the future..
Click to expand...






 Once again you confuse Mandate of Palestine borders with the borders of the non existent nation of Palestine. Those same borders were the proposed borders of the Jewish National Home and entered into International law as such. This answers many of your questions including what are the borders of Israel under International law, what treaty set them up and what land does Israel have.

Try reading the notes attached to all the links you produce and see where you are getting things wrong.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> toastman, Phoenall, et al,
> 
> This is back to the disputes on "border issue" and the arguments on the scope and nature of "recognition."  There are people like "P F Tinmore" who desperately attempt to hold onto the notion that:
> 
> the territory to which the former Mandate of Palestine applied _(less that territory recognized by the HM the King of England as sovereign unto the Emir of Trans-Jordan)_ was under _(some heretofore unknown)_ Arab Sovereignty;
> the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, and surrendered to the Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
> the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
> the territory Short-Titled and named "Palestine" by the Allied Powers was somehow granted sovereignty to an unknown Arab Leader:
> and govern by an unknown Arab body,
> which exercised some unknown Arab law,
> over a people granted citizenship and a nationality by the law of the Allied Powers.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you trying to fool. I never said any of that.
> 
> I don't see any border disputes. I see a lot of say so and lies.
> 
> With regard to the northern border of Palestine, Britain and France (the occupying powers at the time, and later the mandatory powers over Syria and Lebanon respectively) signed an agreement which settled key aspects relating to the Palestinian-Syrian-Lebanese border (Paris, 23 December 1920).20 The British High Commissioner of Palestine and the French High Commissioner of Syria and Lebanon reached, at Jerusalem on 16 December 1923, a complementary agreement on border issues.21 On 2 February 1926, the agreement was replaced by the _Bon Voisinage Agreement to Regulate Certain Administrative Matters in Connection with the Frontier between Palestine and Syria [including Lebanon]_.22
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
> What was the status of these borders in* 1949?* (After the Mandate left Palestine.)
> 
> 2. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the* armed forces* of the respective Parties shall not move.
> 
> 1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the *international boundary* between the *Lebanon and Palestine.*
> 
> Where the existing truce lines run along the *international boundary between Syria and Palestine,* the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary line
> 
> The Avalon Project Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement March 23 1949
> The Avalon Project Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement July 20 1949​
> Note that the armistice lines did not divide Israel from the other countries. They were merely lines that the armed forces could not cross. They did not define territory. The international boundaries defined territories.
> 
> The southwestern border of Palestine with Egypt dates back to the late 19th century. Originally, this border was drawn up on a _de facto_ basis, as the Ottoman Empire recognized Egypt’s autonomy.27 Formally, however, two border agreements between the Ottoman Empire and Egypt were reached in 1906. The first came in the form of an _Exchange of Notes between Britain [which was controlling Egypt since 1882] and Turkey relative to the Maintenance of the Status Quo in the Sinai Peninsula,_ signed in Constantinople on 14 May.28 The second and more detailed border agreement, was the _Agreement between Egypt and Turkey for the fixing of an Administrative Line between the Vilayet [province] of Hejaz and the Governorate [district] of Jerusalem and the Sinai Peninsula_, signed in Rafah, on 1 October.29 The separation of Egypt from Turkey (Palestine, in this instance), as of 5 November 1914, was ultimately recognized by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
> What was the status of this border in *1949?* (After the Mandate left Palestine.)
> 
> 1. The principle that no military or political advantage should be gained under the truce ordered by the Security Council is recognized.
> 
> 2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...
> 
> 2. The area thus demilitarized shall be as follows: From a point on the *Egypt-Palestine frontier* five (5) kilometres north-west of the intersection of the Rafah-El Auja road and the frontier (MR 08750468), south-east to Khashm El Mamdud (MR 09650414), thence south-east to Hill 405 (MR 10780285), thence south-west to a point on the *Egypt-Palestine frontier* five (5) kilometres southeast of the intersection of the old railway tracks and the frontier (MR 09950145), thence returning north-west along the *Egypt-Palestine frontier* to the point of origin.
> 
> 4. The road Taba-Qouseima-Auja shall not be employed by any military forces whatsoever for the purpose of *entering Palestine.*
> 
> The Avalon Project Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement February 24 1949​
> Note that the Palestine side of the Egypt-Palestine frontier was still called Palestine in 1949.
> 
> The eastern border of Palestine with Trans-Jordan was of particular significance.8 The Palestine Mandate originally incorporated the territory of Trans-Jordan within the scope of ‘Palestine.’ Article 25 of the Mandate accorded Britain the power, “with consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as… may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions.” Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed a resolution by which it approved a proposal submitted by Britain to exclude Trans-Jordan from the scope of Palestine’s territory.9 Ultimately, the border between Palestine and Trans-Jordan was fixed as suggested by Britain.10
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
> Due to the occupation of the West Bank and other previously arranged demilitarized zones, the armistice line did not follow the border between Jordan and Palestine. However there was an interesting statement.
> 
> (d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the * southernmost tip of Palestine, *the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by existing military positions...
> 
> The Avalon Project Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement April 3 1949​
> The southernmost tip of Palestine was still called Palestine in 1949.
> 
> This confirms the creation of Palestine's international borders and that they remained unchanged in 1949. This is the start point of any discussions on land and borders not some political say so decades in the future..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you confuse Mandate of Palestine borders with the borders of the non existent nation of Palestine. Those same borders were the proposed borders of the Jewish National Home and entered into International law as such. This answers many of your questions including what are the borders of Israel under International law, what treaty set them up and what land does Israel have.
> 
> Try reading the notes attached to all the links you produce and see where you are getting things wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm not going down a rabbit hole looking for something that isn't there. If you can't tell me what I am looking for I won't be able to find it.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> toastman, Phoenall, et al,
> 
> This is back to the disputes on "border issue" and the arguments on the scope and nature of "recognition."  There are people like "P F Tinmore" who desperately attempt to hold onto the notion that:
> 
> the territory to which the former Mandate of Palestine applied _(less that territory recognized by the HM the King of England as sovereign unto the Emir of Trans-Jordan)_ was under _(some heretofore unknown)_ Arab Sovereignty;
> the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, and surrendered to the Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
> the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
> the territory Short-Titled and named "Palestine" by the Allied Powers was somehow granted sovereignty to an unknown Arab Leader:
> and govern by an unknown Arab body,
> which exercised some unknown Arab law,
> over a people granted citizenship and a nationality by the law of the Allied Powers.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you trying to fool. I never said any of that.
> 
> I don't see any border disputes. I see a lot of say so and lies.
> 
> With regard to the northern border of Palestine, Britain and France (the occupying powers at the time, and later the mandatory powers over Syria and Lebanon respectively) signed an agreement which settled key aspects relating to the Palestinian-Syrian-Lebanese border (Paris, 23 December 1920).20 The British High Commissioner of Palestine and the French High Commissioner of Syria and Lebanon reached, at Jerusalem on 16 December 1923, a complementary agreement on border issues.21 On 2 February 1926, the agreement was replaced by the _Bon Voisinage Agreement to Regulate Certain Administrative Matters in Connection with the Frontier between Palestine and Syria [including Lebanon]_.22
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
> What was the status of these borders in* 1949?* (After the Mandate left Palestine.)
> 
> 2. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the* armed forces* of the respective Parties shall not move.
> 
> 1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the *international boundary* between the *Lebanon and Palestine.*
> 
> Where the existing truce lines run along the *international boundary between Syria and Palestine,* the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary line
> 
> The Avalon Project Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement March 23 1949
> The Avalon Project Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement July 20 1949​
> Note that the armistice lines did not divide Israel from the other countries. They were merely lines that the armed forces could not cross. They did not define territory. The international boundaries defined territories.
> 
> The southwestern border of Palestine with Egypt dates back to the late 19th century. Originally, this border was drawn up on a _de facto_ basis, as the Ottoman Empire recognized Egypt’s autonomy.27 Formally, however, two border agreements between the Ottoman Empire and Egypt were reached in 1906. The first came in the form of an _Exchange of Notes between Britain [which was controlling Egypt since 1882] and Turkey relative to the Maintenance of the Status Quo in the Sinai Peninsula,_ signed in Constantinople on 14 May.28 The second and more detailed border agreement, was the _Agreement between Egypt and Turkey for the fixing of an Administrative Line between the Vilayet [province] of Hejaz and the Governorate [district] of Jerusalem and the Sinai Peninsula_, signed in Rafah, on 1 October.29 The separation of Egypt from Turkey (Palestine, in this instance), as of 5 November 1914, was ultimately recognized by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
> What was the status of this border in *1949?* (After the Mandate left Palestine.)
> 
> 1. The principle that no military or political advantage should be gained under the truce ordered by the Security Council is recognized.
> 
> 2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...
> 
> 2. The area thus demilitarized shall be as follows: From a point on the *Egypt-Palestine frontier* five (5) kilometres north-west of the intersection of the Rafah-El Auja road and the frontier (MR 08750468), south-east to Khashm El Mamdud (MR 09650414), thence south-east to Hill 405 (MR 10780285), thence south-west to a point on the *Egypt-Palestine frontier* five (5) kilometres southeast of the intersection of the old railway tracks and the frontier (MR 09950145), thence returning north-west along the *Egypt-Palestine frontier* to the point of origin.
> 
> 4. The road Taba-Qouseima-Auja shall not be employed by any military forces whatsoever for the purpose of *entering Palestine.*
> 
> The Avalon Project Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement February 24 1949​
> Note that the Palestine side of the Egypt-Palestine frontier was still called Palestine in 1949.
> 
> The eastern border of Palestine with Trans-Jordan was of particular significance.8 The Palestine Mandate originally incorporated the territory of Trans-Jordan within the scope of ‘Palestine.’ Article 25 of the Mandate accorded Britain the power, “with consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as… may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions.” Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed a resolution by which it approved a proposal submitted by Britain to exclude Trans-Jordan from the scope of Palestine’s territory.9 Ultimately, the border between Palestine and Trans-Jordan was fixed as suggested by Britain.10
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
> Due to the occupation of the West Bank and other previously arranged demilitarized zones, the armistice line did not follow the border between Jordan and Palestine. However there was an interesting statement.
> 
> (d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the * southernmost tip of Palestine, *the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by existing military positions...
> 
> The Avalon Project Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement April 3 1949​
> The southernmost tip of Palestine was still called Palestine in 1949.
> 
> This confirms the creation of Palestine's international borders and that they remained unchanged in 1949. This is the start point of any discussions on land and borders not some political say so decades in the future..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you confuse Mandate of Palestine borders with the borders of the non existent nation of Palestine. Those same borders were the proposed borders of the Jewish National Home and entered into International law as such. This answers many of your questions including what are the borders of Israel under International law, what treaty set them up and what land does Israel have.
> 
> Try reading the notes attached to all the links you produce and see where you are getting things wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not going down a rabbit hole looking for something that isn't there. If you can't tell me what I am looking for I won't be able to find it.
Click to expand...





 I have told you where to look and still you refuse to do it. Like all the times you ask for the same links to be posted. As I said you confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the British Mandate. The LoN clearly stated that the borders were those of the Mandate for Palestine, not the nation of Palestine. To make things easier for everyone the Mandate for Palestine was abbreviated to Palestine without conferring statehood to the Mandate for Palestine. Those self same borders exist today and are now the International borders of Egypt/ Israel and Jordan/ Israel and the armistice lines between Syria/Israel and Lebanon/Israel. There are no international borders of the nation of Palestine until they fulfil the terms of the UN charter they signed last year.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> toastman, Phoenall, et al,
> 
> This is back to the disputes on "border issue" and the arguments on the scope and nature of "recognition."  There are people like "P F Tinmore" who desperately attempt to hold onto the notion that:
> 
> the territory to which the former Mandate of Palestine applied _(less that territory recognized by the HM the King of England as sovereign unto the Emir of Trans-Jordan)_ was under _(some heretofore unknown)_ Arab Sovereignty;
> the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, and surrendered to the Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
> the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
> the territory Short-Titled and named "Palestine" by the Allied Powers was somehow granted sovereignty to an unknown Arab Leader:
> and govern by an unknown Arab body,
> which exercised some unknown Arab law,
> over a people granted citizenship and a nationality by the law of the Allied Powers.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you trying to fool. I never said any of that.
> 
> I don't see any border disputes. I see a lot of say so and lies.
> 
> With regard to the northern border of Palestine, Britain and France (the occupying powers at the time, and later the mandatory powers over Syria and Lebanon respectively) signed an agreement which settled key aspects relating to the Palestinian-Syrian-Lebanese border (Paris, 23 December 1920).20 The British High Commissioner of Palestine and the French High Commissioner of Syria and Lebanon reached, at Jerusalem on 16 December 1923, a complementary agreement on border issues.21 On 2 February 1926, the agreement was replaced by the _Bon Voisinage Agreement to Regulate Certain Administrative Matters in Connection with the Frontier between Palestine and Syria [including Lebanon]_.22
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
> What was the status of these borders in* 1949?* (After the Mandate left Palestine.)
> 
> 2. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the* armed forces* of the respective Parties shall not move.
> 
> 1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the *international boundary* between the *Lebanon and Palestine.*
> 
> Where the existing truce lines run along the *international boundary between Syria and Palestine,* the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary line
> 
> The Avalon Project Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement March 23 1949
> The Avalon Project Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement July 20 1949​
> Note that the armistice lines did not divide Israel from the other countries. They were merely lines that the armed forces could not cross. They did not define territory. The international boundaries defined territories.
> 
> The southwestern border of Palestine with Egypt dates back to the late 19th century. Originally, this border was drawn up on a _de facto_ basis, as the Ottoman Empire recognized Egypt’s autonomy.27 Formally, however, two border agreements between the Ottoman Empire and Egypt were reached in 1906. The first came in the form of an _Exchange of Notes between Britain [which was controlling Egypt since 1882] and Turkey relative to the Maintenance of the Status Quo in the Sinai Peninsula,_ signed in Constantinople on 14 May.28 The second and more detailed border agreement, was the _Agreement between Egypt and Turkey for the fixing of an Administrative Line between the Vilayet [province] of Hejaz and the Governorate [district] of Jerusalem and the Sinai Peninsula_, signed in Rafah, on 1 October.29 The separation of Egypt from Turkey (Palestine, in this instance), as of 5 November 1914, was ultimately recognized by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
> What was the status of this border in *1949?* (After the Mandate left Palestine.)
> 
> 1. The principle that no military or political advantage should be gained under the truce ordered by the Security Council is recognized.
> 
> 2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...
> 
> 2. The area thus demilitarized shall be as follows: From a point on the *Egypt-Palestine frontier* five (5) kilometres north-west of the intersection of the Rafah-El Auja road and the frontier (MR 08750468), south-east to Khashm El Mamdud (MR 09650414), thence south-east to Hill 405 (MR 10780285), thence south-west to a point on the *Egypt-Palestine frontier* five (5) kilometres southeast of the intersection of the old railway tracks and the frontier (MR 09950145), thence returning north-west along the *Egypt-Palestine frontier* to the point of origin.
> 
> 4. The road Taba-Qouseima-Auja shall not be employed by any military forces whatsoever for the purpose of *entering Palestine.*
> 
> The Avalon Project Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement February 24 1949​
> Note that the Palestine side of the Egypt-Palestine frontier was still called Palestine in 1949.
> 
> The eastern border of Palestine with Trans-Jordan was of particular significance.8 The Palestine Mandate originally incorporated the territory of Trans-Jordan within the scope of ‘Palestine.’ Article 25 of the Mandate accorded Britain the power, “with consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as… may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions.” Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed a resolution by which it approved a proposal submitted by Britain to exclude Trans-Jordan from the scope of Palestine’s territory.9 Ultimately, the border between Palestine and Trans-Jordan was fixed as suggested by Britain.10
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
> Due to the occupation of the West Bank and other previously arranged demilitarized zones, the armistice line did not follow the border between Jordan and Palestine. However there was an interesting statement.
> 
> (d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the * southernmost tip of Palestine, *the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by existing military positions...
> 
> The Avalon Project Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement April 3 1949​
> The southernmost tip of Palestine was still called Palestine in 1949.
> 
> This confirms the creation of Palestine's international borders and that they remained unchanged in 1949. This is the start point of any discussions on land and borders not some political say so decades in the future..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you confuse Mandate of Palestine borders with the borders of the non existent nation of Palestine. Those same borders were the proposed borders of the Jewish National Home and entered into International law as such. This answers many of your questions including what are the borders of Israel under International law, what treaty set them up and what land does Israel have.
> 
> Try reading the notes attached to all the links you produce and see where you are getting things wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not going down a rabbit hole looking for something that isn't there. If you can't tell me what I am looking for I won't be able to find it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have told you where to look and still you refuse to do it. Like all the times you ask for the same links to be posted. As I said you confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the British Mandate. The LoN clearly stated that the borders were those of the Mandate for Palestine, not the nation of Palestine. To make things easier for everyone the Mandate for Palestine was abbreviated to Palestine without conferring statehood to the Mandate for Palestine. Those self same borders exist today and are now the International borders of Egypt/ Israel and Jordan/ Israel and the armistice lines between Syria/Israel and Lebanon/Israel. There are no international borders of the nation of Palestine until they fulfil the terms of the UN charter they signed last year.
Click to expand...

Which Mandate owned the land?

Link?


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> toastman, Phoenall, et al,
> 
> This is back to the disputes on "border issue" and the arguments on the scope and nature of "recognition."  There are people like "P F Tinmore" who desperately attempt to hold onto the notion that:
> 
> the territory to which the former Mandate of Palestine applied _(less that territory recognized by the HM the King of England as sovereign unto the Emir of Trans-Jordan)_ was under _(some heretofore unknown)_ Arab Sovereignty;
> the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, and surrendered to the Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
> the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
> the territory Short-Titled and named "Palestine" by the Allied Powers was somehow granted sovereignty to an unknown Arab Leader:
> and govern by an unknown Arab body,
> which exercised some unknown Arab law,
> over a people granted citizenship and a nationality by the law of the Allied Powers.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you trying to fool. I never said any of that.
> 
> I don't see any border disputes. I see a lot of say so and lies.
> 
> With regard to the northern border of Palestine, Britain and France (the occupying powers at the time, and later the mandatory powers over Syria and Lebanon respectively) signed an agreement which settled key aspects relating to the Palestinian-Syrian-Lebanese border (Paris, 23 December 1920).20 The British High Commissioner of Palestine and the French High Commissioner of Syria and Lebanon reached, at Jerusalem on 16 December 1923, a complementary agreement on border issues.21 On 2 February 1926, the agreement was replaced by the _Bon Voisinage Agreement to Regulate Certain Administrative Matters in Connection with the Frontier between Palestine and Syria [including Lebanon]_.22
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
> What was the status of these borders in* 1949?* (After the Mandate left Palestine.)
> 
> 2. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the* armed forces* of the respective Parties shall not move.
> 
> 1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the *international boundary* between the *Lebanon and Palestine.*
> 
> Where the existing truce lines run along the *international boundary between Syria and Palestine,* the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary line
> 
> The Avalon Project Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement March 23 1949
> The Avalon Project Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement July 20 1949​
> Note that the armistice lines did not divide Israel from the other countries. They were merely lines that the armed forces could not cross. They did not define territory. The international boundaries defined territories.
> 
> The southwestern border of Palestine with Egypt dates back to the late 19th century. Originally, this border was drawn up on a _de facto_ basis, as the Ottoman Empire recognized Egypt’s autonomy.27 Formally, however, two border agreements between the Ottoman Empire and Egypt were reached in 1906. The first came in the form of an _Exchange of Notes between Britain [which was controlling Egypt since 1882] and Turkey relative to the Maintenance of the Status Quo in the Sinai Peninsula,_ signed in Constantinople on 14 May.28 The second and more detailed border agreement, was the _Agreement between Egypt and Turkey for the fixing of an Administrative Line between the Vilayet [province] of Hejaz and the Governorate [district] of Jerusalem and the Sinai Peninsula_, signed in Rafah, on 1 October.29 The separation of Egypt from Turkey (Palestine, in this instance), as of 5 November 1914, was ultimately recognized by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
> What was the status of this border in *1949?* (After the Mandate left Palestine.)
> 
> 1. The principle that no military or political advantage should be gained under the truce ordered by the Security Council is recognized.
> 
> 2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...
> 
> 2. The area thus demilitarized shall be as follows: From a point on the *Egypt-Palestine frontier* five (5) kilometres north-west of the intersection of the Rafah-El Auja road and the frontier (MR 08750468), south-east to Khashm El Mamdud (MR 09650414), thence south-east to Hill 405 (MR 10780285), thence south-west to a point on the *Egypt-Palestine frontier* five (5) kilometres southeast of the intersection of the old railway tracks and the frontier (MR 09950145), thence returning north-west along the *Egypt-Palestine frontier* to the point of origin.
> 
> 4. The road Taba-Qouseima-Auja shall not be employed by any military forces whatsoever for the purpose of *entering Palestine.*
> 
> The Avalon Project Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement February 24 1949​
> Note that the Palestine side of the Egypt-Palestine frontier was still called Palestine in 1949.
> 
> The eastern border of Palestine with Trans-Jordan was of particular significance.8 The Palestine Mandate originally incorporated the territory of Trans-Jordan within the scope of ‘Palestine.’ Article 25 of the Mandate accorded Britain the power, “with consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as… may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions.” Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed a resolution by which it approved a proposal submitted by Britain to exclude Trans-Jordan from the scope of Palestine’s territory.9 Ultimately, the border between Palestine and Trans-Jordan was fixed as suggested by Britain.10
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
> Due to the occupation of the West Bank and other previously arranged demilitarized zones, the armistice line did not follow the border between Jordan and Palestine. However there was an interesting statement.
> 
> (d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the * southernmost tip of Palestine, *the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by existing military positions...
> 
> The Avalon Project Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement April 3 1949​
> The southernmost tip of Palestine was still called Palestine in 1949.
> 
> This confirms the creation of Palestine's international borders and that they remained unchanged in 1949. This is the start point of any discussions on land and borders not some political say so decades in the future..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you confuse Mandate of Palestine borders with the borders of the non existent nation of Palestine. Those same borders were the proposed borders of the Jewish National Home and entered into International law as such. This answers many of your questions including what are the borders of Israel under International law, what treaty set them up and what land does Israel have.
> 
> Try reading the notes attached to all the links you produce and see where you are getting things wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not going down a rabbit hole looking for something that isn't there. If you can't tell me what I am looking for I won't be able to find it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have told you where to look and still you refuse to do it. Like all the times you ask for the same links to be posted. As I said you confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the British Mandate. The LoN clearly stated that the borders were those of the Mandate for Palestine, not the nation of Palestine. To make things easier for everyone the Mandate for Palestine was abbreviated to Palestine without conferring statehood to the Mandate for Palestine. Those self same borders exist today and are now the International borders of Egypt/ Israel and Jordan/ Israel and the armistice lines between Syria/Israel and Lebanon/Israel. There are no international borders of the nation of Palestine until they fulfil the terms of the UN charter they signed last year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which Mandate owned the land?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...




P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> toastman, Phoenall, et al,
> 
> This is back to the disputes on "border issue" and the arguments on the scope and nature of "recognition."  There are people like "P F Tinmore" who desperately attempt to hold onto the notion that:
> 
> the territory to which the former Mandate of Palestine applied _(less that territory recognized by the HM the King of England as sovereign unto the Emir of Trans-Jordan)_ was under _(some heretofore unknown)_ Arab Sovereignty;
> the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, and surrendered to the Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
> the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
> the territory Short-Titled and named "Palestine" by the Allied Powers was somehow granted sovereignty to an unknown Arab Leader:
> and govern by an unknown Arab body,
> which exercised some unknown Arab law,
> over a people granted citizenship and a nationality by the law of the Allied Powers.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you trying to fool. I never said any of that.
> 
> I don't see any border disputes. I see a lot of say so and lies.
> 
> With regard to the northern border of Palestine, Britain and France (the occupying powers at the time, and later the mandatory powers over Syria and Lebanon respectively) signed an agreement which settled key aspects relating to the Palestinian-Syrian-Lebanese border (Paris, 23 December 1920).20 The British High Commissioner of Palestine and the French High Commissioner of Syria and Lebanon reached, at Jerusalem on 16 December 1923, a complementary agreement on border issues.21 On 2 February 1926, the agreement was replaced by the _Bon Voisinage Agreement to Regulate Certain Administrative Matters in Connection with the Frontier between Palestine and Syria [including Lebanon]_.22
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
> What was the status of these borders in* 1949?* (After the Mandate left Palestine.)
> 
> 2. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the* armed forces* of the respective Parties shall not move.
> 
> 1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the *international boundary* between the *Lebanon and Palestine.*
> 
> Where the existing truce lines run along the *international boundary between Syria and Palestine,* the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary line
> 
> The Avalon Project Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement March 23 1949
> The Avalon Project Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement July 20 1949​
> Note that the armistice lines did not divide Israel from the other countries. They were merely lines that the armed forces could not cross. They did not define territory. The international boundaries defined territories.
> 
> The southwestern border of Palestine with Egypt dates back to the late 19th century. Originally, this border was drawn up on a _de facto_ basis, as the Ottoman Empire recognized Egypt’s autonomy.27 Formally, however, two border agreements between the Ottoman Empire and Egypt were reached in 1906. The first came in the form of an _Exchange of Notes between Britain [which was controlling Egypt since 1882] and Turkey relative to the Maintenance of the Status Quo in the Sinai Peninsula,_ signed in Constantinople on 14 May.28 The second and more detailed border agreement, was the _Agreement between Egypt and Turkey for the fixing of an Administrative Line between the Vilayet [province] of Hejaz and the Governorate [district] of Jerusalem and the Sinai Peninsula_, signed in Rafah, on 1 October.29 The separation of Egypt from Turkey (Palestine, in this instance), as of 5 November 1914, was ultimately recognized by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
> What was the status of this border in *1949?* (After the Mandate left Palestine.)
> 
> 1. The principle that no military or political advantage should be gained under the truce ordered by the Security Council is recognized.
> 
> 2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...
> 
> 2. The area thus demilitarized shall be as follows: From a point on the *Egypt-Palestine frontier* five (5) kilometres north-west of the intersection of the Rafah-El Auja road and the frontier (MR 08750468), south-east to Khashm El Mamdud (MR 09650414), thence south-east to Hill 405 (MR 10780285), thence south-west to a point on the *Egypt-Palestine frontier* five (5) kilometres southeast of the intersection of the old railway tracks and the frontier (MR 09950145), thence returning north-west along the *Egypt-Palestine frontier* to the point of origin.
> 
> 4. The road Taba-Qouseima-Auja shall not be employed by any military forces whatsoever for the purpose of *entering Palestine.*
> 
> The Avalon Project Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement February 24 1949​
> Note that the Palestine side of the Egypt-Palestine frontier was still called Palestine in 1949.
> 
> The eastern border of Palestine with Trans-Jordan was of particular significance.8 The Palestine Mandate originally incorporated the territory of Trans-Jordan within the scope of ‘Palestine.’ Article 25 of the Mandate accorded Britain the power, “with consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as… may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions.” Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed a resolution by which it approved a proposal submitted by Britain to exclude Trans-Jordan from the scope of Palestine’s territory.9 Ultimately, the border between Palestine and Trans-Jordan was fixed as suggested by Britain.10
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
> Due to the occupation of the West Bank and other previously arranged demilitarized zones, the armistice line did not follow the border between Jordan and Palestine. However there was an interesting statement.
> 
> (d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the * southernmost tip of Palestine, *the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by existing military positions...
> 
> The Avalon Project Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement April 3 1949​
> The southernmost tip of Palestine was still called Palestine in 1949.
> 
> This confirms the creation of Palestine's international borders and that they remained unchanged in 1949. This is the start point of any discussions on land and borders not some political say so decades in the future..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you confuse Mandate of Palestine borders with the borders of the non existent nation of Palestine. Those same borders were the proposed borders of the Jewish National Home and entered into International law as such. This answers many of your questions including what are the borders of Israel under International law, what treaty set them up and what land does Israel have.
> 
> Try reading the notes attached to all the links you produce and see where you are getting things wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not going down a rabbit hole looking for something that isn't there. If you can't tell me what I am looking for I won't be able to find it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have told you where to look and still you refuse to do it. Like all the times you ask for the same links to be posted. As I said you confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the British Mandate. The LoN clearly stated that the borders were those of the Mandate for Palestine, not the nation of Palestine. To make things easier for everyone the Mandate for Palestine was abbreviated to Palestine without conferring statehood to the Mandate for Palestine. Those self same borders exist today and are now the International borders of Egypt/ Israel and Jordan/ Israel and the armistice lines between Syria/Israel and Lebanon/Israel. There are no international borders of the nation of Palestine until they fulfil the terms of the UN charter they signed last year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which Mandate owned the land?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


No titles.  No deeds.  Get off of Israel's land.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

It does not change the fact that Palestine, in 1949, was a term that was still being politically used by the Arabs, and attempting to assign some quality of a state or political subdivision; which it did not have.



P F Tinmore said:


> This confirms the creation of Palestine's international borders and that they remained unchanged in 1949. This is the start point of any discussions on land and borders not some political say so decades in the future..


*(MINOR CORRECTIONs)*
-*---------------------------------------------------------- FIRST -----------------------------------------------------------*​You noted several times --- using this phrase:  "(After the Mandate left Palestine.)"   

The "Mandate," a legal instrument of the League of Nations (LoN) --- never went anywhere; it did not leave.  The UK, in coordination with the LoN, departed the territory and terminated its role as the Mandatory.  The Mandate for Palestine is still valid under: 
*Article 80 The UN Charter*

Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.
Paragraph 1 of this Article shall not be interpreted as giving grounds for delay or postponement of the negotiation and conclusion of agreements for placing mandated and other territories under the trusteeship system as provided for in Article 77.
You have used this same argument in you previous thrusts --- Post #582.
*----------------------------------------------------------- SECOND -----------------------------------------------------------*​The ‘_Centre de Recherche Français à Jérusalem_’ (CRFJ), is not an official source or a basis for an official interpretation.  The work itself is reputable and worthy, but still an opinion; from Dr. Mutaz M. Qafisheh, Dean, College of Law at Hebron University, oPt.  I have read many of his works.  This work, which our friend "P F Tinmore" often cites from is a very scholarly effect.  But let's be clear, Dr Qafisheh wrote this work for his own kind (fellow students of law) and is Arab Palestinian; framing his argument like any baraster, in a way that best projects his particular point of view.  But, --- Dr Qafisheh makes clear --- right in the beginning (Para 2 - *Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel*) ---

Under the Turkish rule, according to the Ottoman Nationality Law of 19 January 1869, Palestine’s inhabitants were Ottoman citizens. At that time, legally speaking, there was nothing called Palestine, Palestinian nationality, or Palestinians, neither was there anything called Israel, Israeli nationality, or Israelis.​
*(COMMENT)*

Having given recognition to the Author and the Source, I must point out that the entire piece is political in nature and written to pacify the pro-Palestinian clients that support the Jihadist and Fedayeen view that "Palestine" --- the word, the location and the people of --- simply by using the word --- gives some credence that their is such a thing.  As if using the word ghost or vampire makes the thing real.  And it does not take long at all for Dr Qafisheh's little thesis to go astray.

Upon its detachment from the Ottomans, the territory of Palestine became distinct from its neighboring countries. In fact, this separation began between Palestine and the newly created Arab ‘states’: Trans-Jordan (as it was called), Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon.  Soon thereafter, Palestine’s frontiers acquired permanent recognition through bilateral agreements with its neighbors. Following the international legal framework that had been established by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne ending the Ottoman nominal/official sovereignty over the Arab Middle East, each of the four countries instituted a separate nationality for its population through domestic legislation. Nationalities in these countries have since then become well established.​
First:  "Palestine became distinct from its neighboring countries."
Very misleading!  
Correction:  Palestine, *as a Mandate*, became distinct from its neighboring *Mandates territories*.

Second:  "In fact, this separation began between Palestine and the newly created Arab ‘states’: Trans-Jordan (as it was called), Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon."
Very misleading!
Correction:  In fact, this separation began between British *Mandate for* Palestine (which included Trans-Jordan) and the newly created *French Mandates:  Syria, and Lebanon*.  *Britain seized control of Egypt politically in 1882, gradually eroding Egyptian allegiance from the Ottoman Empire until 1914 when Britain seized total control. Partially independent from the UK in 1922, and total independence in June 1953.*

Third:  "Soon thereafter, Palestine’s frontiers acquired permanent recognition through bilateral agreements with its neighbors."
Again --- Very Misleading!
Correction:  *The Territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied acquired demarcation through the Sykes-Picot Treaty and several other negotiated efforts between the Mandatory Powers.*
The difference here is that the "Government of Palestine" was the Administration established by the Mandatory Power.  Regionally, there were only two, the French and the British.

Fourth:  "Following the international legal framework that had been established by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne ending the Ottoman nominal/official sovereignty over the Arab Middle East, each of the four countries instituted a separate nationality for its population through domestic legislation."
This is entirely Wrong!!!
---
Correction:  "First, the Ottoman Empire and its control over the region ended in 1918 at the signing of the Armistice of Mudros."  
NOTE:  Palestine: Information with Provenance (PIWP database) *Event #1831* Armistice of Mudros -- Ottoman unconditional surrender 
*Armistice of Mudros,* (Oct. 30, 1918), pact signed at the port of Mudros, on the Aegean island of Lemnos, between the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain (representing the Allied powers) marking the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I (1914–18).
Under the terms of the armistice, the Ottomans surrendered their remaining garrisons of Hejaz, Yemen, Syria, Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica; the Allies were to occupy the Straits of the Dardanelles and the Bosporus, Batum (now in southwest Georgia), and the Taurus tunnel system; and the Allies won the right to occupy “in case of disorder” the six Armenian provinces in Anatolia and to seize “any strategic points” in case of a threat to Allied security. The Ottoman army was demobilized, and Turkish ports, railways, and other strategic points were made available for use by the Allies.
---
Correction:  "Following the international legal framework that had been established by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne ending the Ottoman nominal/official sovereignty over the Arab Middle East, each of the four countries instituted a separate nationality for its population through domestic legislation. Nationalities in these countries have since then become well established."
This is entirely Wrong!!!
The each of the four countries (Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan) were individual Mandates. 

Lebanon became independent in 1943. 
Syria became independent in 1946.
Palestine was divided:
Jordan (1946)
Israel (1948)
Palestine (1988)

Relative to the Middle East conflict and the disputes between the Israelis and the Arab Palestinians, this particular source need much work in order to be of any use to the layman.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Invalid question.



P F Tinmore said:


> Which Mandate owned the land?
> 
> Link?


*(COMMENT)*

Mandates are a set of instructions and legal instruments.

Land ownership has nothing to do with the issues; sovereignty, borders, governance.  Land ownership is a real-estate issue (civil law).

The questions are:

Who did the Ottoman Empire surrender to?
When did Turkey renounces formally all rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction of any kind over Moslems who are subject to the sovereignty or protectorate of any other State?
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> toastman, Phoenall, et al,
> 
> This is back to the disputes on "border issue" and the arguments on the scope and nature of "recognition."  There are people like "P F Tinmore" who desperately attempt to hold onto the notion that:
> 
> the territory to which the former Mandate of Palestine applied _(less that territory recognized by the HM the King of England as sovereign unto the Emir of Trans-Jordan)_ was under _(some heretofore unknown)_ Arab Sovereignty;
> the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, and surrendered to the Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
> the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
> the territory Short-Titled and named "Palestine" by the Allied Powers was somehow granted sovereignty to an unknown Arab Leader:
> and govern by an unknown Arab body,
> which exercised some unknown Arab law,
> over a people granted citizenship and a nationality by the law of the Allied Powers.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you trying to fool. I never said any of that.
> 
> I don't see any border disputes. I see a lot of say so and lies.
> 
> With regard to the northern border of Palestine, Britain and France (the occupying powers at the time, and later the mandatory powers over Syria and Lebanon respectively) signed an agreement which settled key aspects relating to the Palestinian-Syrian-Lebanese border (Paris, 23 December 1920).20 The British High Commissioner of Palestine and the French High Commissioner of Syria and Lebanon reached, at Jerusalem on 16 December 1923, a complementary agreement on border issues.21 On 2 February 1926, the agreement was replaced by the _Bon Voisinage Agreement to Regulate Certain Administrative Matters in Connection with the Frontier between Palestine and Syria [including Lebanon]_.22
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
> What was the status of these borders in* 1949?* (After the Mandate left Palestine.)
> 
> 2. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the* armed forces* of the respective Parties shall not move.
> 
> 1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the *international boundary* between the *Lebanon and Palestine.*
> 
> Where the existing truce lines run along the *international boundary between Syria and Palestine,* the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary line
> 
> The Avalon Project Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement March 23 1949
> The Avalon Project Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement July 20 1949​
> Note that the armistice lines did not divide Israel from the other countries. They were merely lines that the armed forces could not cross. They did not define territory. The international boundaries defined territories.
> 
> The southwestern border of Palestine with Egypt dates back to the late 19th century. Originally, this border was drawn up on a _de facto_ basis, as the Ottoman Empire recognized Egypt’s autonomy.27 Formally, however, two border agreements between the Ottoman Empire and Egypt were reached in 1906. The first came in the form of an _Exchange of Notes between Britain [which was controlling Egypt since 1882] and Turkey relative to the Maintenance of the Status Quo in the Sinai Peninsula,_ signed in Constantinople on 14 May.28 The second and more detailed border agreement, was the _Agreement between Egypt and Turkey for the fixing of an Administrative Line between the Vilayet [province] of Hejaz and the Governorate [district] of Jerusalem and the Sinai Peninsula_, signed in Rafah, on 1 October.29 The separation of Egypt from Turkey (Palestine, in this instance), as of 5 November 1914, was ultimately recognized by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
> What was the status of this border in *1949?* (After the Mandate left Palestine.)
> 
> 1. The principle that no military or political advantage should be gained under the truce ordered by the Security Council is recognized.
> 
> 2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...
> 
> 2. The area thus demilitarized shall be as follows: From a point on the *Egypt-Palestine frontier* five (5) kilometres north-west of the intersection of the Rafah-El Auja road and the frontier (MR 08750468), south-east to Khashm El Mamdud (MR 09650414), thence south-east to Hill 405 (MR 10780285), thence south-west to a point on the *Egypt-Palestine frontier* five (5) kilometres southeast of the intersection of the old railway tracks and the frontier (MR 09950145), thence returning north-west along the *Egypt-Palestine frontier* to the point of origin.
> 
> 4. The road Taba-Qouseima-Auja shall not be employed by any military forces whatsoever for the purpose of *entering Palestine.*
> 
> The Avalon Project Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement February 24 1949​
> Note that the Palestine side of the Egypt-Palestine frontier was still called Palestine in 1949.
> 
> The eastern border of Palestine with Trans-Jordan was of particular significance.8 The Palestine Mandate originally incorporated the territory of Trans-Jordan within the scope of ‘Palestine.’ Article 25 of the Mandate accorded Britain the power, “with consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as… may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions.” Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed a resolution by which it approved a proposal submitted by Britain to exclude Trans-Jordan from the scope of Palestine’s territory.9 Ultimately, the border between Palestine and Trans-Jordan was fixed as suggested by Britain.10
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
> Due to the occupation of the West Bank and other previously arranged demilitarized zones, the armistice line did not follow the border between Jordan and Palestine. However there was an interesting statement.
> 
> (d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the * southernmost tip of Palestine, *the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by existing military positions...
> 
> The Avalon Project Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement April 3 1949​
> The southernmost tip of Palestine was still called Palestine in 1949.
> 
> This confirms the creation of Palestine's international borders and that they remained unchanged in 1949. This is the start point of any discussions on land and borders not some political say so decades in the future..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you confuse Mandate of Palestine borders with the borders of the non existent nation of Palestine. Those same borders were the proposed borders of the Jewish National Home and entered into International law as such. This answers many of your questions including what are the borders of Israel under International law, what treaty set them up and what land does Israel have.
> 
> Try reading the notes attached to all the links you produce and see where you are getting things wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not going down a rabbit hole looking for something that isn't there. If you can't tell me what I am looking for I won't be able to find it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have told you where to look and still you refuse to do it. Like all the times you ask for the same links to be posted. As I said you confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the British Mandate. The LoN clearly stated that the borders were those of the Mandate for Palestine, not the nation of Palestine. To make things easier for everyone the Mandate for Palestine was abbreviated to Palestine without conferring statehood to the Mandate for Palestine. Those self same borders exist today and are now the International borders of Egypt/ Israel and Jordan/ Israel and the armistice lines between Syria/Israel and Lebanon/Israel. There are no international borders of the nation of Palestine until they fulfil the terms of the UN charter they signed last year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which Mandate owned the land?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...






 League of Nations owned the land and they administered it under the various Mandates. Don't you read the replies you are given to the same questions asked daily. The arab muslims owned nothing until it was granted to them under the Mandate for that area, and there were 3 Mandatory powers in play after WW1   Britain, France and Russia.

 Nice duck away from the facts that the Palestinians are refusing to fulfil their obligations of peace talks and negotiations on mutual borders. Time the UN gave them a time limit to meet their promises or face the ICC/ICJ for their judgement.


----------



## Hossfly

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you trying to fool. I never said any of that.
> 
> I don't see any border disputes. I see a lot of say so and lies.
> 
> With regard to the northern border of Palestine, Britain and France (the occupying powers at the time, and later the mandatory powers over Syria and Lebanon respectively) signed an agreement which settled key aspects relating to the Palestinian-Syrian-Lebanese border (Paris, 23 December 1920).20 The British High Commissioner of Palestine and the French High Commissioner of Syria and Lebanon reached, at Jerusalem on 16 December 1923, a complementary agreement on border issues.21 On 2 February 1926, the agreement was replaced by the _Bon Voisinage Agreement to Regulate Certain Administrative Matters in Connection with the Frontier between Palestine and Syria [including Lebanon]_.22
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
> What was the status of these borders in* 1949?* (After the Mandate left Palestine.)
> 
> 2. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the* armed forces* of the respective Parties shall not move.
> 
> 1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the *international boundary* between the *Lebanon and Palestine.*
> 
> Where the existing truce lines run along the *international boundary between Syria and Palestine,* the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary line
> 
> The Avalon Project Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement March 23 1949
> The Avalon Project Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement July 20 1949​
> Note that the armistice lines did not divide Israel from the other countries. They were merely lines that the armed forces could not cross. They did not define territory. The international boundaries defined territories.
> 
> The southwestern border of Palestine with Egypt dates back to the late 19th century. Originally, this border was drawn up on a _de facto_ basis, as the Ottoman Empire recognized Egypt’s autonomy.27 Formally, however, two border agreements between the Ottoman Empire and Egypt were reached in 1906. The first came in the form of an _Exchange of Notes between Britain [which was controlling Egypt since 1882] and Turkey relative to the Maintenance of the Status Quo in the Sinai Peninsula,_ signed in Constantinople on 14 May.28 The second and more detailed border agreement, was the _Agreement between Egypt and Turkey for the fixing of an Administrative Line between the Vilayet [province] of Hejaz and the Governorate [district] of Jerusalem and the Sinai Peninsula_, signed in Rafah, on 1 October.29 The separation of Egypt from Turkey (Palestine, in this instance), as of 5 November 1914, was ultimately recognized by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
> What was the status of this border in *1949?* (After the Mandate left Palestine.)
> 
> 1. The principle that no military or political advantage should be gained under the truce ordered by the Security Council is recognized.
> 
> 2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...
> 
> 2. The area thus demilitarized shall be as follows: From a point on the *Egypt-Palestine frontier* five (5) kilometres north-west of the intersection of the Rafah-El Auja road and the frontier (MR 08750468), south-east to Khashm El Mamdud (MR 09650414), thence south-east to Hill 405 (MR 10780285), thence south-west to a point on the *Egypt-Palestine frontier* five (5) kilometres southeast of the intersection of the old railway tracks and the frontier (MR 09950145), thence returning north-west along the *Egypt-Palestine frontier* to the point of origin.
> 
> 4. The road Taba-Qouseima-Auja shall not be employed by any military forces whatsoever for the purpose of *entering Palestine.*
> 
> The Avalon Project Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement February 24 1949​
> Note that the Palestine side of the Egypt-Palestine frontier was still called Palestine in 1949.
> 
> The eastern border of Palestine with Trans-Jordan was of particular significance.8 The Palestine Mandate originally incorporated the territory of Trans-Jordan within the scope of ‘Palestine.’ Article 25 of the Mandate accorded Britain the power, “with consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as… may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions.” Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed a resolution by which it approved a proposal submitted by Britain to exclude Trans-Jordan from the scope of Palestine’s territory.9 Ultimately, the border between Palestine and Trans-Jordan was fixed as suggested by Britain.10
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
> Due to the occupation of the West Bank and other previously arranged demilitarized zones, the armistice line did not follow the border between Jordan and Palestine. However there was an interesting statement.
> 
> (d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the * southernmost tip of Palestine, *the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by existing military positions...
> 
> The Avalon Project Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement April 3 1949​
> The southernmost tip of Palestine was still called Palestine in 1949.
> 
> This confirms the creation of Palestine's international borders and that they remained unchanged in 1949. This is the start point of any discussions on land and borders not some political say so decades in the future..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you confuse Mandate of Palestine borders with the borders of the non existent nation of Palestine. Those same borders were the proposed borders of the Jewish National Home and entered into International law as such. This answers many of your questions including what are the borders of Israel under International law, what treaty set them up and what land does Israel have.
> 
> Try reading the notes attached to all the links you produce and see where you are getting things wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not going down a rabbit hole looking for something that isn't there. If you can't tell me what I am looking for I won't be able to find it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have told you where to look and still you refuse to do it. Like all the times you ask for the same links to be posted. As I said you confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the British Mandate. The LoN clearly stated that the borders were those of the Mandate for Palestine, not the nation of Palestine. To make things easier for everyone the Mandate for Palestine was abbreviated to Palestine without conferring statehood to the Mandate for Palestine. Those self same borders exist today and are now the International borders of Egypt/ Israel and Jordan/ Israel and the armistice lines between Syria/Israel and Lebanon/Israel. There are no international borders of the nation of Palestine until they fulfil the terms of the UN charter they signed last year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which Mandate owned the land?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> League of Nations owned the land and they administered it under the various Mandates. Don't you read the replies you are given to the same questions asked daily. The arab muslims owned nothing until it was granted to them under the Mandate for that area, and there were 3 Mandatory powers in play after WW1   Britain, France and Russia.
> 
> Nice duck away from the facts that the Palestinians are refusing to fulfil their obligations of peace talks and negotiations on mutual borders. Time the UN gave them a time limit to meet their promises or face the ICC/ICJ for their judgement.
Click to expand...

Tinmore's reasoning seems to be if you don't acknowledge a fact, then you're reasoning still holds sway.


----------



## MJB12741

Hossfly said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you confuse Mandate of Palestine borders with the borders of the non existent nation of Palestine. Those same borders were the proposed borders of the Jewish National Home and entered into International law as such. This answers many of your questions including what are the borders of Israel under International law, what treaty set them up and what land does Israel have.
> 
> Try reading the notes attached to all the links you produce and see where you are getting things wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going down a rabbit hole looking for something that isn't there. If you can't tell me what I am looking for I won't be able to find it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have told you where to look and still you refuse to do it. Like all the times you ask for the same links to be posted. As I said you confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the British Mandate. The LoN clearly stated that the borders were those of the Mandate for Palestine, not the nation of Palestine. To make things easier for everyone the Mandate for Palestine was abbreviated to Palestine without conferring statehood to the Mandate for Palestine. Those self same borders exist today and are now the International borders of Egypt/ Israel and Jordan/ Israel and the armistice lines between Syria/Israel and Lebanon/Israel. There are no international borders of the nation of Palestine until they fulfil the terms of the UN charter they signed last year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which Mandate owned the land?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> League of Nations owned the land and they administered it under the various Mandates. Don't you read the replies you are given to the same questions asked daily. The arab muslims owned nothing until it was granted to them under the Mandate for that area, and there were 3 Mandatory powers in play after WW1   Britain, France and Russia.
> 
> Nice duck away from the facts that the Palestinians are refusing to fulfil their obligations of peace talks and negotiations on mutual borders. Time the UN gave them a time limit to meet their promises or face the ICC/ICJ for their judgement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tinmore's reasoning seems to be if you don't acknowledge a fact, then you're reasoning still holds sway.
Click to expand...


No question that RoccoR in particular addresses all of Tinmore's comments with documented facts & still Tinmore insists he's right.  It's called Palestinian mentality.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Invalid question.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which Mandate owned the land?
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Mandates are a set of instructions and legal instruments.
> 
> Land ownership has nothing to do with the issues; sovereignty, borders, governance.  Land ownership is a real-estate issue (civil law).
> 
> The questions are:
> 
> Who did the Ottoman Empire surrender to?
> When did Turkey renounces formally all rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction of any kind over Moslems who are subject to the sovereignty or protectorate of any other State?
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Invalid question.​
I knew that. I was just jerking his chain for making an invalid post. And his response is out in La La Land.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Invalid question.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which Mandate owned the land?
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Mandates are a set of instructions and legal instruments.
> 
> Land ownership has nothing to do with the issues; sovereignty, borders, governance.  Land ownership is a real-estate issue (civil law).
> 
> The questions are:
> 
> Who did the Ottoman Empire surrender to?
> When did Turkey renounces formally all rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction of any kind over Moslems who are subject to the sovereignty or protectorate of any other State?
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Land ownership has nothing to do with the issues; sovereignty, borders, governance. Land ownership is a real-estate issue (civil law).​
I think you are trying to confuse people with that real-estate thing.

It has been said a gazillion times that Palestine had no land or borders.

"The LoN clearly stated that the borders were those of the Mandate for Palestine, not the nation of Palestine. ~ Phoenall​
Doesn't a border denote the "ownership" of land? Mandates are trustees and trustees do not own the assets in their trust.

*ARTICLE 1*

The state as a person of international law *should possess* the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; *b ) a defined territory;* c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.  The Avalon Project Convention on Rights and Duties of States inter-American December 26 1933​
Does possess mean something different from owned? Isn't defined territory a piece of land with a border around it?

And there is much confusion about acquiring land. It is said that Israel need not acquire land to declare statehood.

_Emphasizing​_the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war... S RES 242 1967 of 22 November 1967​
Acquiring territory is a valid concept. If a state should have a defined territory then it had to have been acquired somehow.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> It does not change the fact that Palestine, in 1949, was a term that was still being politically used by the Arabs, and attempting to assign some quality of a state or political subdivision; which it did not have.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> This confirms the creation of Palestine's international borders and that they remained unchanged in 1949. This is the start point of any discussions on land and borders not some political say so decades in the future..
> 
> 
> 
> *(MINOR CORRECTIONs)*
> -*---------------------------------------------------------- FIRST -----------------------------------------------------------*​You noted several times --- using this phrase:  "(After the Mandate left Palestine.)"
> 
> The "Mandate," a legal instrument of the League of Nations (LoN) --- never went anywhere; it did not leave.  The UK, in coordination with the LoN, departed the territory and terminated its role as the Mandatory.  The Mandate for Palestine is still valid under:
> *Article 80 The UN Charter*
> 
> Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.
> Paragraph 1 of this Article shall not be interpreted as giving grounds for delay or postponement of the negotiation and conclusion of agreements for placing mandated and other territories under the trusteeship system as provided for in Article 77.
> You have used this same argument in you previous thrusts --- Post #582.
> *----------------------------------------------------------- SECOND -----------------------------------------------------------*​The ‘_Centre de Recherche Français à Jérusalem_’ (CRFJ), is not an official source or a basis for an official interpretation.  The work itself is reputable and worthy, but still an opinion; from Dr. Mutaz M. Qafisheh, Dean, College of Law at Hebron University, oPt.  I have read many of his works.  This work, which our friend "P F Tinmore" often cites from is a very scholarly effect.  But let's be clear, Dr Qafisheh wrote this work for his own kind (fellow students of law) and is Arab Palestinian; framing his argument like any baraster, in a way that best projects his particular point of view.  But, --- Dr Qafisheh makes clear --- right in the beginning (Para 2 - *Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel*) ---
> 
> Under the Turkish rule, according to the Ottoman Nationality Law of 19 January 1869, Palestine’s inhabitants were Ottoman citizens. At that time, legally speaking, there was nothing called Palestine, Palestinian nationality, or Palestinians, neither was there anything called Israel, Israeli nationality, or Israelis.​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Having given recognition to the Author and the Source, I must point out that the entire piece is political in nature and written to pacify the pro-Palestinian clients that support the Jihadist and Fedayeen view that "Palestine" --- the word, the location and the people of --- simply by using the word --- gives some credence that their is such a thing.  As if using the word ghost or vampire makes the thing real.  And it does not take long at all for Dr Qafisheh's little thesis to go astray.
> 
> Upon its detachment from the Ottomans, the territory of Palestine became distinct from its neighboring countries. In fact, this separation began between Palestine and the newly created Arab ‘states’: Trans-Jordan (as it was called), Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon.  Soon thereafter, Palestine’s frontiers acquired permanent recognition through bilateral agreements with its neighbors. Following the international legal framework that had been established by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne ending the Ottoman nominal/official sovereignty over the Arab Middle East, each of the four countries instituted a separate nationality for its population through domestic legislation. Nationalities in these countries have since then become well established.​
> First:  "Palestine became distinct from its neighboring countries."
> Very misleading!
> Correction:  Palestine, *as a Mandate*, became distinct from its neighboring *Mandates territories*.
> 
> Second:  "In fact, this separation began between Palestine and the newly created Arab ‘states’: Trans-Jordan (as it was called), Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon."
> Very misleading!
> Correction:  In fact, this separation began between British *Mandate for* Palestine (which included Trans-Jordan) and the newly created *French Mandates:  Syria, and Lebanon*.  *Britain seized control of Egypt politically in 1882, gradually eroding Egyptian allegiance from the Ottoman Empire until 1914 when Britain seized total control. Partially independent from the UK in 1922, and total independence in June 1953.*
> 
> Third:  "Soon thereafter, Palestine’s frontiers acquired permanent recognition through bilateral agreements with its neighbors."
> Again --- Very Misleading!
> Correction:  *The Territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied acquired demarcation through the Sykes-Picot Treaty and several other negotiated efforts between the Mandatory Powers.*
> The difference here is that the "Government of Palestine" was the Administration established by the Mandatory Power.  Regionally, there were only two, the French and the British.
> 
> Fourth:  "Following the international legal framework that had been established by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne ending the Ottoman nominal/official sovereignty over the Arab Middle East, each of the four countries instituted a separate nationality for its population through domestic legislation."
> This is entirely Wrong!!!
> ---
> Correction:  "First, the Ottoman Empire and its control over the region ended in 1918 at the signing of the Armistice of Mudros."
> NOTE:  Palestine: Information with Provenance (PIWP database) *Event #1831* Armistice of Mudros -- Ottoman unconditional surrender
> *Armistice of Mudros,* (Oct. 30, 1918), pact signed at the port of Mudros, on the Aegean island of Lemnos, between the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain (representing the Allied powers) marking the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I (1914–18).
> Under the terms of the armistice, the Ottomans surrendered their remaining garrisons of Hejaz, Yemen, Syria, Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica; the Allies were to occupy the Straits of the Dardanelles and the Bosporus, Batum (now in southwest Georgia), and the Taurus tunnel system; and the Allies won the right to occupy “in case of disorder” the six Armenian provinces in Anatolia and to seize “any strategic points” in case of a threat to Allied security. The Ottoman army was demobilized, and Turkish ports, railways, and other strategic points were made available for use by the Allies.
> ---
> Correction:  "Following the international legal framework that had been established by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne ending the Ottoman nominal/official sovereignty over the Arab Middle East, each of the four countries instituted a separate nationality for its population through domestic legislation. Nationalities in these countries have since then become well established."
> This is entirely Wrong!!!
> The each of the four countries (Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan) were individual Mandates.
> 
> Lebanon became independent in 1943.
> Syria became independent in 1946.
> Palestine was divided:
> Jordan (1946)
> Israel (1948)
> Palestine (1988)
> 
> Relative to the Middle East conflict and the disputes between the Israelis and the Arab Palestinians, this particular source need much work in order to be of any use to the layman.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

When, exactly, did Palestine become a trusteeship of the UN?

On March 18, the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine reported that it had been unable to arrange a truce and recommended a temporary trusteeship for Palestine in order to restore peace.

The following day, United States Ambassador to the United Nations Warren Austin announced that the United States believes that the partition of Palestine was no longer a viable option. On March 20, United States Secretary of State George Marshall confirmed the United States' view that the proposal for a temporary United Nations trusteeship for Palestine is the only idea presently being considered that will allow the United Nations to address the difficult situation in Palestine.

The trusteeship proposal was supported by Loy W. Henderson, head of the Near Eastern Affairs Bureau, who opposed US support for partition because he believed it would hurt US interests in Arab countries. The proposal was drafted by Clark Clifford, White House Counsel and Max Lowenstein.

"The United States has proposed to the Security Council a temporary United Nations trusteeship for Palestine to provide a government to keep the peace. Such trusteeship was proposed only after we had exhausted every effort to find a way to carry out partition by peaceful means. Trusteeship is not proposed as a substitute for the partition plan but as an effort to fill the vacuum soon to be created by the termination of the mandate on May 15. The trusteeship does not prejudice the character of the final political settlement. It would establish the conditions of order which are essential to a peaceful solution."

American trusteeship proposal for Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​
It looks like another proposal that didn't happen.


----------



## montelatici

Rocco et al.

Neither the Class A (of which Palestine was one) nor the Class B Mandates involved cessation of territory or transfer of sovereignty to the Mandatories.  The Mandatories were to exercise an international function of administration on behalf of the League of Nations, with the object of promoting the well-being and development of the inhabitants.

Sovereignty accrued to the inhabitants, albeit administered by the Mandatory.  

This was confirmed by the International Court of Justice when South Africa attempted to claim sovereignty and ownership of the territory of South West Africa.

"The terms of this Mandate, as well as the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant and the principles embodied therein, *show that the creation of this new international institution [the Mandate] did not involve any cession of territory or transfer of sovereignty* to the Union of South Africa. The Union Government was to exercise an international function of administration on behalf of the League, with the object of promoting the well-being and development of the inhabitants".


http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/10/1891.pdf


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

Let's see if I can pick these off --- one at a time.



P F Tinmore said:


> Land ownership has nothing to do with the issues; sovereignty, borders, governance. Land ownership is a real-estate issue (civil law).​
> I think you are trying to confuse people with that real-estate thing.


*(COMMENT)*

No, I don't think so.  Land ownership is not a criteria in either the Declarative Theory of Sovereignty or the Constitutive Theory of Soveriegnty.  Neither requires "ownership" as a means of establishing "territorial domain."



P F Tinmore said:


> It has been said a gazillion times that Palestine had no land or borders.
> 
> "The LoN clearly stated that the borders were those of the Mandate for Palestine, not the nation of Palestine. ~ Phoenall​
> Doesn't a border denote the "ownership" of land? Mandates are trustees and trustees do not own the assets in their trust.


*(COMMENT)*

National borders DO NOT denote ownership.  National borders denote the terminator of sovereignty, from one dominion to another. 



P F Tinmore said:


> *ARTICLE 1*
> 
> The state as a person of international law *should possess* the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; *b ) a defined territory;* c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.  The Avalon Project Convention on Rights and Duties of States inter-American December 26 1933​
> Does possess mean something different from owned? Isn't defined territory a piece of land with a border around it?


*(COMMENT)

First:*
Posses DOES MEAN something different from ownership.  You can possess a "rental car" and yet not own the car.  You may lease property yet not own the property.  You may by under mandate to maintain a given entity, yet not own the entity.  Yes, possession and ownership are two different things.

Second:
The idea of a defined territory - is unambiguous.  It is an area of land under the jurisdiction of a ruler or state.



P F Tinmore said:


> And there is much confusion about acquiring land. It is said that Israel need not acquire land to declare statehood.
> 
> _Emphasizing_
> the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war... S RES 242 1967 of 22 November 1967​
> Acquiring territory is a valid concept. If a state should have a defined territory then it had to have been acquired somehow.


*(COMMENT)*

In the case of S/RES/242, the emphasis of the Resolution is not specifically directed at a nation:

Was the Clause meant to be directed at Israel?
Was the Clause meant to be directed at Jordan?
Was the Clause meant to be directed at Palestinians?
This resolution at first sounds very dramatic, yet in reality is very ambiguous.  The "inadmissibility" clause is one of those issues.  It does not mention that Jordan had taken the West Bank by force.  So, by reading the Resolution, you do not know if the prohibition warning was directed at Jordan or Israel.

There are several other issues being ambiguous.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

I don't believe I mentioned cessation of territory.



montelatici said:


> Rocco et al.
> 
> Neither the Class A (of which Palestine was one) nor the Class B Mandates involved cessation of territory or transfer of sovereignty to the Mandatories.  The Mandatories were to exercise an international function of administration on behalf of the League of Nations, with the object of promoting the well-being and development of the inhabitants.
> 
> Sovereignty accrued to the inhabitants, albeit administered by the Mandatory.
> 
> This was confirmed by the International Court of Justice when South Africa attempted to claim sovereignty and ownership of the territory of South West Africa.
> 
> "The terms of this Mandate, as well as the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant and the principles embodied therein, *show that the creation of this new international institution [the Mandate] did not involve any cession of territory or transfer of sovereignty* to the Union of South Africa. The Union Government was to exercise an international function of administration on behalf of the League, with the object of promoting the well-being and development of the inhabitants".
> 
> 
> http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/10/1891.pdf


*(COMMENT)*

To some degree, I agree with you here.  

What are you specifically challenging?

v/r
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well in some regards you are correct.



P F Tinmore said:


> When, exactly, did Palestine become a trusteeship of the UN?


*(COMMENT)*

Both the UNPC and the UNSCOP noticed that the Arabs had been attempting to subvert the entire plan for Independence.

*Article 77*​

The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements: 
* a. territories now held under mandate;*
   b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
   c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.
It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the trusteeship system and upon what terms.

There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States.  One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.  However, the initiation of WAR on the part of the Arab nations prevented the action.  Theoretically, the trusteeship could have taken hold anytime after the UN Charter can into force under Article 77(1a).  But as the Successor Government reported:

"C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are* defying the resolution *of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."​
While these Hostile Arabs were very successful in preventing a trusteeship of the allotted territory for the proposed Arab State _(which in some ways worked against the Arab),_ and the armed seizure of the West Bank and Gaza Strip --- they were unsuccessful in preventing the Independence of the proposed Jewish State.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Let's see if I can pick these off --- one at a time.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Land ownership has nothing to do with the issues; sovereignty, borders, governance. Land ownership is a real-estate issue (civil law).​
> I think you are trying to confuse people with that real-estate thing.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> No, I don't think so.  Land ownership is not a criteria in either the Declarative Theory of Sovereignty or the Constitutive Theory of Soveriegnty.  Neither requires "ownership" as a means of establishing "territorial domain."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has been said a gazillion times that Palestine had no land or borders.
> 
> "The LoN clearly stated that the borders were those of the Mandate for Palestine, not the nation of Palestine. ~ Phoenall​
> Doesn't a border denote the "ownership" of land? Mandates are trustees and trustees do not own the assets in their trust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> National borders DO NOT denote ownership.  National borders denote the terminator of sovereignty, from one dominion to another.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 1*
> 
> The state as a person of international law *should possess* the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; *b ) a defined territory;* c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.  The Avalon Project Convention on Rights and Duties of States inter-American December 26 1933​
> Does possess mean something different from owned? Isn't defined territory a piece of land with a border around it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)
> 
> First:*
> Posses DOES MEAN something different from ownership.  You can possess a "rental car" and yet not own the car.  You may lease property yet not own the property.  You may by under mandate to maintain a given entity, yet not own the entity.  Yes, possession and ownership are two different things.
> 
> Second:
> The idea of a defined territory - is unambiguous.  It is an area of land under the jurisdiction of a ruler or state.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is much confusion about acquiring land. It is said that Israel need not acquire land to declare statehood.
> 
> _Emphasizing_
> the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war... S RES 242 1967 of 22 November 1967​
> Acquiring territory is a valid concept. If a state should have a defined territory then it had to have been acquired somehow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In the case of S/RES/242, the emphasis of the Resolution is not specifically directed at a nation:
> 
> Was the Clause meant to be directed at Israel?
> Was the Clause meant to be directed at Jordan?
> Was the Clause meant to be directed at Palestinians?
> This resolution at first sounds very dramatic, yet in reality is very ambiguous.  The "inadmissibility" clause is one of those issues.  It does not mention that Jordan had taken the West Bank by force.  So, by reading the Resolution, you do not know if the prohibition warning was directed at Jordan or Israel.
> 
> There are several other issues being ambiguous.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Posses DOES MEAN something different from ownership. You can possess a "rental car" and yet not own the car.​
You may have a point but how many countries are on rented land? I think your analogy falls short of reality.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well in some regards you are correct.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> When, exactly, did Palestine become a trusteeship of the UN?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Both the UNPC and the UNSCOP noticed that the Arabs had been attempting to subvert the entire plan for Independence.
> 
> *Article 77*​
> 
> The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:
> * a. territories now held under mandate;*
> b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
> c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.
> It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the trusteeship system and upon what terms.
> 
> There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States.  One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.  However, the initiation of WAR on the part of the Arab nations prevented the action.  Theoretically, the trusteeship could have taken hold anytime after the UN Charter can into force under Article 77(1a).  But as the Successor Government reported:
> 
> "C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are* defying the resolution *of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."​
> While these Hostile Arabs were very successful in preventing a trusteeship of the allotted territory for the proposed Arab State _(which in some ways worked against the Arab),_ and the armed seizure of the West Bank and Gaza Strip --- they were unsuccessful in preventing the Independence of the proposed Jewish State.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.​
What do you mean "remainder of the territory?" The proposal was in March of 1948.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> I don't believe I mentioned cessation of territory.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco et al.
> 
> Neither the Class A (of which Palestine was one) nor the Class B Mandates involved cessation of territory or transfer of sovereignty to the Mandatories.  The Mandatories were to exercise an international function of administration on behalf of the League of Nations, with the object of promoting the well-being and development of the inhabitants.
> 
> Sovereignty accrued to the inhabitants, albeit administered by the Mandatory.
> 
> This was confirmed by the International Court of Justice when South Africa attempted to claim sovereignty and ownership of the territory of South West Africa.
> 
> "The terms of this Mandate, as well as the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant and the principles embodied therein, *show that the creation of this new international institution [the Mandate] did not involve any cession of territory or transfer of sovereignty* to the Union of South Africa. The Union Government was to exercise an international function of administration on behalf of the League, with the object of promoting the well-being and development of the inhabitants".
> 
> 
> http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/10/1891.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> To some degree, I agree with you here.
> 
> What are you specifically challenging?
> 
> v/r
> R
Click to expand...

This appears to be a key point.

Sovereignty accrued to the inhabitants, albeit administered by the Mandatory.​
That is the way I always understood it. UN resolutions confirm the Palestinian's right to sovereignty in Palestine.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,

In this case Your interpretation falls short.



P F Tinmore said:


> The state as a person of international law *should possess* the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; *b ) a defined territory;* c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.  The Avalon Project Convention on Rights and Duties of States inter-American December 26 1933​
> 
> Posses DOES MEAN something different from ownership. You can possess a "rental car" and yet not own the car.​
> You may have a point but how many countries are on rented land? I think your analogy falls short of reality.


*(COMMENT)*

"Should possess" (ambiguous all by itself) is pointing to a "qualification."

The "qualification" is a "defined territory."

You hold or possess a qualification, and not a plot of land.

Sovereign powers own very little of the land.  Usually land is owned privately.  Land does not have to be owned by the US Government in order for it to be US Sovereign Territory.  My house and land is owned by me and not the US Government.  But it is still sovereign US territory.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> I don't believe I mentioned cessation of territory.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco et al.
> 
> Neither the Class A (of which Palestine was one) nor the Class B Mandates involved cessation of territory or transfer of sovereignty to the Mandatories.  The Mandatories were to exercise an international function of administration on behalf of the League of Nations, with the object of promoting the well-being and development of the inhabitants.
> 
> Sovereignty accrued to the inhabitants, albeit administered by the Mandatory.
> 
> This was confirmed by the International Court of Justice when South Africa attempted to claim sovereignty and ownership of the territory of South West Africa.
> 
> "The terms of this Mandate, as well as the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant and the principles embodied therein, *show that the creation of this new international institution [the Mandate] did not involve any cession of territory or transfer of sovereignty* to the Union of South Africa. The Union Government was to exercise an international function of administration on behalf of the League, with the object of promoting the well-being and development of the inhabitants".
> 
> 
> http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/10/1891.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> To some degree, I agree with you here.
> 
> What are you specifically challenging?
> 
> v/r
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This appears to be a key point.
> 
> Sovereignty accrued to the inhabitants, albeit administered by the Mandatory.​
> That is the way I always understood it. UN resolutions confirm the Palestinian's right to sovereignty in Palestine.
Click to expand...


Rightm and Palestine is the West Bank and Gaza.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

The "right to sovereignty" is a very nebulas concept.



P F Tinmore said:


> This appears to be a key point.
> 
> Sovereignty accrued to the inhabitants, albeit administered by the Mandatory.​
> That is the way I always understood it. UN resolutions confirm the Palestinian's right to sovereignty in Palestine.


*(COMMENT)*

The "right to sovereignty" is "Recognizing that the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any State should be
respected in the holding of elections."  It is a set of principles that span a number of concepts.

Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.

When a Resolution says it _Reaffirming_ its resolution 58/292 of 6 May 2004, affirming, inter alia, that the status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, remains one of military occupation and that, in accordance with international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over their territory, IT WAS SPECIFIC:  "Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem"

It did not say it had the right to sovereignty over all the territory formerly under the Mandate, not did it say the Palestinians had the right to all of Jerusalem.  It is specific and needs to be specific because the Hostile Arab Palestinians are claiming a sovereign right to Palestine as they define it:  "Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You are fouling up the timeline.  International politics does not happen instantly.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well in some regards you are correct.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> When, exactly, did Palestine become a trusteeship of the UN?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Both the UNPC and the UNSCOP noticed that the Arabs had been attempting to subvert the entire plan for Independence.
> 
> *Article 77*​
> 
> The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:
> * a. territories now held under mandate;*
> b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
> c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.
> It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the trusteeship system and upon what terms.
> 
> There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States.  One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.  However, the initiation of WAR on the part of the Arab nations prevented the action.  Theoretically, the trusteeship could have taken hold anytime after the UN Charter can into force under Article 77(1a).  But as the Successor Government reported:
> 
> "C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are* defying the resolution *of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."​
> While these Hostile Arabs were very successful in preventing a trusteeship of the allotted territory for the proposed Arab State _(which in some ways worked against the Arab),_ and the armed seizure of the West Bank and Gaza Strip --- they were unsuccessful in preventing the Independence of the proposed Jewish State.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.​
> What do you mean "remainder of the territory?" The proposal was in March of 1948.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

In March 1948, the Jewish Agency was already deeply involved with the task being performed --- consistent with the Step Preparatory to Independence.  In the international arena, the recommendations and proposals are made every day.  It doesn't mean they have a impact or a result.

In May 1948, The Provisional Government declared Independence.  Since that time, the Hostile Arab Palestinians and other externally interfering Arab bodies, have tried to supplant that exercise of the "right of Self-determination."

Many HoAPs have whined consistently that they had a right to sovereignty as well.  The fact is, they chose not to exercise it --- rejecting the UN options.  That does not mean that the HoAP has the right to prevent Israel from its "right of self-determination."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MJB12741

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You are fouling up the timeline.  International politics does not happen instantly.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well in some regards you are correct.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> When, exactly, did Palestine become a trusteeship of the UN?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Both the UNPC and the UNSCOP noticed that the Arabs had been attempting to subvert the entire plan for Independence.
> 
> *Article 77*​
> 
> The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:
> * a. territories now held under mandate;*
> b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
> c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.
> It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the trusteeship system and upon what terms.
> 
> There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States.  One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.  However, the initiation of WAR on the part of the Arab nations prevented the action.  Theoretically, the trusteeship could have taken hold anytime after the UN Charter can into force under Article 77(1a).  But as the Successor Government reported:
> 
> "C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are* defying the resolution *of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."​
> While these Hostile Arabs were very successful in preventing a trusteeship of the allotted territory for the proposed Arab State _(which in some ways worked against the Arab),_ and the armed seizure of the West Bank and Gaza Strip --- they were unsuccessful in preventing the Independence of the proposed Jewish State.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.​
> What do you mean "remainder of the territory?" The proposal was in March of 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In March 1948, the Jewish Agency was already deeply involved with the task being performed --- consistent with the Step Preparatory to Independence.  In the international arena, the recommendations and proposals are made every day.  It doesn't mean they have a impact or a result.
> 
> In May 1948, The Provisional Government declared Independence.  Since that time, the Hostile Arab Palestinians and other externally interfering Arab bodies, have tried to supplant that exercise of the "right of Self-determination."
> 
> Many HoAPs have whined consistently that they had a right to sovereignty as well.  The fact is, they chose not to exercise it --- rejecting the UN options.  That does not mean that the HoAP has the right to prevent Israel from its "right of self-determination."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Just imagine what would happen to the Palestinians if Israel ever granted that to the Palis without Israel to provide for them any longer?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You are fouling up the timeline.  International politics does not happen instantly.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well in some regards you are correct.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> When, exactly, did Palestine become a trusteeship of the UN?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Both the UNPC and the UNSCOP noticed that the Arabs had been attempting to subvert the entire plan for Independence.
> 
> *Article 77*​
> 
> The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:
> * a. territories now held under mandate;*
> b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
> c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.
> It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the trusteeship system and upon what terms.
> 
> There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States.  One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.  However, the initiation of WAR on the part of the Arab nations prevented the action.  Theoretically, the trusteeship could have taken hold anytime after the UN Charter can into force under Article 77(1a).  But as the Successor Government reported:
> 
> "C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are* defying the resolution *of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."​
> While these Hostile Arabs were very successful in preventing a trusteeship of the allotted territory for the proposed Arab State _(which in some ways worked against the Arab),_ and the armed seizure of the West Bank and Gaza Strip --- they were unsuccessful in preventing the Independence of the proposed Jewish State.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.​
> What do you mean "remainder of the territory?" The proposal was in March of 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In March 1948, the Jewish Agency was already deeply involved with the task being performed --- consistent with the Step Preparatory to Independence.  In the international arena, the recommendations and proposals are made every day.  It doesn't mean they have a impact or a result.
> 
> In May 1948, The Provisional Government declared Independence.  Since that time, the Hostile Arab Palestinians and other externally interfering Arab bodies, have tried to supplant that exercise of the "right of Self-determination."
> 
> Many HoAPs have whined consistently that they had a right to sovereignty as well.  The fact is, they chose not to exercise it --- rejecting the UN options.  That does not mean that the HoAP has the right to prevent Israel from its "right of self-determination."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

In March 1948, the Jewish Agency was already deeply involved with the task being performed --- consistent with the Step Preparatory to Independence. In the international arena, the recommendations and proposals are made every day. It doesn't mean they have a impact or a result.​
Do you mean like building up a military to attack Palestinian civilians and drive them out of their homeland?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> The "right to sovereignty" is a very nebulas concept.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> This appears to be a key point.
> 
> Sovereignty accrued to the inhabitants, albeit administered by the Mandatory.​
> That is the way I always understood it. UN resolutions confirm the Palestinian's right to sovereignty in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "right to sovereignty" is "Recognizing that the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any State should be
> respected in the holding of elections."  It is a set of principles that span a number of concepts.
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.
> 
> When a Resolution says it _Reaffirming_ its resolution 58/292 of 6 May 2004, affirming, inter alia, that the status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, remains one of military occupation and that, in accordance with international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over their territory, IT WAS SPECIFIC:  "Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem"
> 
> It did not say it had the right to sovereignty over all the territory formerly under the Mandate, not did it say the Palestinians had the right to all of Jerusalem.  It is specific and needs to be specific because the Hostile Arab Palestinians are claiming a sovereign right to Palestine as they define it:  "Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.​
Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You are fouling up the timeline.  International politics does not happen instantly.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well in some regards you are correct.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> When, exactly, did Palestine become a trusteeship of the UN?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Both the UNPC and the UNSCOP noticed that the Arabs had been attempting to subvert the entire plan for Independence.
> 
> *Article 77*​
> 
> The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:
> * a. territories now held under mandate;*
> b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
> c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.
> It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the trusteeship system and upon what terms.
> 
> There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States.  One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.  However, the initiation of WAR on the part of the Arab nations prevented the action.  Theoretically, the trusteeship could have taken hold anytime after the UN Charter can into force under Article 77(1a).  But as the Successor Government reported:
> 
> "C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are* defying the resolution *of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."​
> While these Hostile Arabs were very successful in preventing a trusteeship of the allotted territory for the proposed Arab State _(which in some ways worked against the Arab),_ and the armed seizure of the West Bank and Gaza Strip --- they were unsuccessful in preventing the Independence of the proposed Jewish State.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.​
> What do you mean "remainder of the territory?" The proposal was in March of 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In March 1948, the Jewish Agency was already deeply involved with the task being performed --- consistent with the Step Preparatory to Independence.  In the international arena, the recommendations and proposals are made every day.  It doesn't mean they have a impact or a result.
> 
> In May 1948, The Provisional Government declared Independence.  Since that time, the Hostile Arab Palestinians and other externally interfering Arab bodies, have tried to supplant that exercise of the "right of Self-determination."
> 
> Many HoAPs have whined consistently that they had a right to sovereignty as well.  The fact is, they chose not to exercise it --- rejecting the UN options.  That does not mean that the HoAP has the right to prevent Israel from its "right of self-determination."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In March 1948, the Jewish Agency was already deeply involved with the task being performed --- consistent with the Step Preparatory to Independence. In the international arena, the recommendations and proposals are made every day. It doesn't mean they have a impact or a result.​
> Do you mean like building up a military to attack Palestinian civilians and drive them out of their homeland?
Click to expand...


The ones building up a military attack were the Arabs. Like when they attacked in 1947. Also when 5 Arab armies and Palestinian militas attacked Israel from all sides in 1948.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> The "right to sovereignty" is a very nebulas concept.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> This appears to be a key point.
> 
> Sovereignty accrued to the inhabitants, albeit administered by the Mandatory.​
> That is the way I always understood it. UN resolutions confirm the Palestinian's right to sovereignty in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "right to sovereignty" is "Recognizing that the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any State should be
> respected in the holding of elections."  It is a set of principles that span a number of concepts.
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.
> 
> When a Resolution says it _Reaffirming_ its resolution 58/292 of 6 May 2004, affirming, inter alia, that the status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, remains one of military occupation and that, in accordance with international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over their territory, IT WAS SPECIFIC:  "Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem"
> 
> It did not say it had the right to sovereignty over all the territory formerly under the Mandate, not did it say the Palestinians had the right to all of Jerusalem.  It is specific and needs to be specific because the Hostile Arab Palestinians are claiming a sovereign right to Palestine as they define it:  "Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.​
> Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?
Click to expand...


The Jews were not colonizers
They did not have superior rights


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Invalid question.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which Mandate owned the land?
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Mandates are a set of instructions and legal instruments.
> 
> Land ownership has nothing to do with the issues; sovereignty, borders, governance.  Land ownership is a real-estate issue (civil law).
> 
> The questions are:
> 
> Who did the Ottoman Empire surrender to?
> When did Turkey renounces formally all rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction of any kind over Moslems who are subject to the sovereignty or protectorate of any other State?
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Land ownership has nothing to do with the issues; sovereignty, borders, governance. Land ownership is a real-estate issue (civil law).​
> I think you are trying to confuse people with that real-estate thing.
> 
> It has been said a gazillion times that Palestine had no land or borders.
> 
> "The LoN clearly stated that the borders were those of the Mandate for Palestine, not the nation of Palestine. ~ Phoenall​
> Doesn't a border denote the "ownership" of land? Mandates are trustees and trustees do not own the assets in their trust.
> 
> *ARTICLE 1*
> 
> The state as a person of international law *should possess* the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; *b ) a defined territory;* c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.  The Avalon Project Convention on Rights and Duties of States inter-American December 26 1933​
> Does possess mean something different from owned? Isn't defined territory a piece of land with a border around it?
> 
> And there is much confusion about acquiring land. It is said that Israel need not acquire land to declare statehood.
> 
> _Emphasizing_
> the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war... S RES 242 1967 of 22 November 1967​
> Acquiring territory is a valid concept. If a state should have a defined territory then it had to have been acquired somehow.
Click to expand...






 Here we go again    The lands legal sovereign owners were the LoN who put in place the Mandates to administer the lands for them. The Mandates were separated by borders clearly defined so that French and British mandatories knew what the limits of their areas were.

 Using a 1933 American report is not valid for a 1923 non American land mass. Yes possess does mean different to owned as a thief can possess your car but they can never own it, it is still your car. Does America define its states and have sovereign power over them, or does California define itself and have sovereign power over the land.

Israel acquired land under International law in 1923 when the LoN stated that the remaining 22% of Palestine was for the National Home of the Jews. So seeing as it already had land held in trust for them they have no need to acquire more land outside of the borders delineated by the LoN in 1923


Maybe you should be telling the ummah that as they acquired territory by war, namely gaza and the west bank. Then later they took Lebanon, Kosovo, Darfur, Ethiopia, Philippines, Somalia, Biafra and a whole host of other lands not Islamic. But that rule did not become enforceable until  22 November 1967


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> It does not change the fact that Palestine, in 1949, was a term that was still being politically used by the Arabs, and attempting to assign some quality of a state or political subdivision; which it did not have.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> This confirms the creation of Palestine's international borders and that they remained unchanged in 1949. This is the start point of any discussions on land and borders not some political say so decades in the future..
> 
> 
> 
> *(MINOR CORRECTIONs)*
> -*---------------------------------------------------------- FIRST -----------------------------------------------------------*​You noted several times --- using this phrase:  "(After the Mandate left Palestine.)"
> 
> The "Mandate," a legal instrument of the League of Nations (LoN) --- never went anywhere; it did not leave.  The UK, in coordination with the LoN, departed the territory and terminated its role as the Mandatory.  The Mandate for Palestine is still valid under:
> *Article 80 The UN Charter*
> 
> Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.
> Paragraph 1 of this Article shall not be interpreted as giving grounds for delay or postponement of the negotiation and conclusion of agreements for placing mandated and other territories under the trusteeship system as provided for in Article 77.
> You have used this same argument in you previous thrusts --- Post #582.
> *----------------------------------------------------------- SECOND -----------------------------------------------------------*​The ‘_Centre de Recherche Français à Jérusalem_’ (CRFJ), is not an official source or a basis for an official interpretation.  The work itself is reputable and worthy, but still an opinion; from Dr. Mutaz M. Qafisheh, Dean, College of Law at Hebron University, oPt.  I have read many of his works.  This work, which our friend "P F Tinmore" often cites from is a very scholarly effect.  But let's be clear, Dr Qafisheh wrote this work for his own kind (fellow students of law) and is Arab Palestinian; framing his argument like any baraster, in a way that best projects his particular point of view.  But, --- Dr Qafisheh makes clear --- right in the beginning (Para 2 - *Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel*) ---
> 
> Under the Turkish rule, according to the Ottoman Nationality Law of 19 January 1869, Palestine’s inhabitants were Ottoman citizens. At that time, legally speaking, there was nothing called Palestine, Palestinian nationality, or Palestinians, neither was there anything called Israel, Israeli nationality, or Israelis.​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Having given recognition to the Author and the Source, I must point out that the entire piece is political in nature and written to pacify the pro-Palestinian clients that support the Jihadist and Fedayeen view that "Palestine" --- the word, the location and the people of --- simply by using the word --- gives some credence that their is such a thing.  As if using the word ghost or vampire makes the thing real.  And it does not take long at all for Dr Qafisheh's little thesis to go astray.
> 
> Upon its detachment from the Ottomans, the territory of Palestine became distinct from its neighboring countries. In fact, this separation began between Palestine and the newly created Arab ‘states’: Trans-Jordan (as it was called), Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon.  Soon thereafter, Palestine’s frontiers acquired permanent recognition through bilateral agreements with its neighbors. Following the international legal framework that had been established by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne ending the Ottoman nominal/official sovereignty over the Arab Middle East, each of the four countries instituted a separate nationality for its population through domestic legislation. Nationalities in these countries have since then become well established.​
> First:  "Palestine became distinct from its neighboring countries."
> Very misleading!
> Correction:  Palestine, *as a Mandate*, became distinct from its neighboring *Mandates territories*.
> 
> Second:  "In fact, this separation began between Palestine and the newly created Arab ‘states’: Trans-Jordan (as it was called), Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon."
> Very misleading!
> Correction:  In fact, this separation began between British *Mandate for* Palestine (which included Trans-Jordan) and the newly created *French Mandates:  Syria, and Lebanon*.  *Britain seized control of Egypt politically in 1882, gradually eroding Egyptian allegiance from the Ottoman Empire until 1914 when Britain seized total control. Partially independent from the UK in 1922, and total independence in June 1953.*
> 
> Third:  "Soon thereafter, Palestine’s frontiers acquired permanent recognition through bilateral agreements with its neighbors."
> Again --- Very Misleading!
> Correction:  *The Territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied acquired demarcation through the Sykes-Picot Treaty and several other negotiated efforts between the Mandatory Powers.*
> The difference here is that the "Government of Palestine" was the Administration established by the Mandatory Power.  Regionally, there were only two, the French and the British.
> 
> Fourth:  "Following the international legal framework that had been established by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne ending the Ottoman nominal/official sovereignty over the Arab Middle East, each of the four countries instituted a separate nationality for its population through domestic legislation."
> This is entirely Wrong!!!
> ---
> Correction:  "First, the Ottoman Empire and its control over the region ended in 1918 at the signing of the Armistice of Mudros."
> NOTE:  Palestine: Information with Provenance (PIWP database) *Event #1831* Armistice of Mudros -- Ottoman unconditional surrender
> *Armistice of Mudros,* (Oct. 30, 1918), pact signed at the port of Mudros, on the Aegean island of Lemnos, between the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain (representing the Allied powers) marking the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I (1914–18).
> Under the terms of the armistice, the Ottomans surrendered their remaining garrisons of Hejaz, Yemen, Syria, Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica; the Allies were to occupy the Straits of the Dardanelles and the Bosporus, Batum (now in southwest Georgia), and the Taurus tunnel system; and the Allies won the right to occupy “in case of disorder” the six Armenian provinces in Anatolia and to seize “any strategic points” in case of a threat to Allied security. The Ottoman army was demobilized, and Turkish ports, railways, and other strategic points were made available for use by the Allies.
> ---
> Correction:  "Following the international legal framework that had been established by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne ending the Ottoman nominal/official sovereignty over the Arab Middle East, each of the four countries instituted a separate nationality for its population through domestic legislation. Nationalities in these countries have since then become well established."
> This is entirely Wrong!!!
> The each of the four countries (Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan) were individual Mandates.
> 
> Lebanon became independent in 1943.
> Syria became independent in 1946.
> Palestine was divided:
> Jordan (1946)
> Israel (1948)
> Palestine (1988)
> 
> Relative to the Middle East conflict and the disputes between the Israelis and the Arab Palestinians, this particular source need much work in order to be of any use to the layman.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When, exactly, did Palestine become a trusteeship of the UN?
> 
> On March 18, the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine reported that it had been unable to arrange a truce and recommended a temporary trusteeship for Palestine in order to restore peace.
> 
> The following day, United States Ambassador to the United Nations Warren Austin announced that the United States believes that the partition of Palestine was no longer a viable option. On March 20, United States Secretary of State George Marshall confirmed the United States' view that the proposal for a temporary United Nations trusteeship for Palestine is the only idea presently being considered that will allow the United Nations to address the difficult situation in Palestine.
> 
> The trusteeship proposal was supported by Loy W. Henderson, head of the Near Eastern Affairs Bureau, who opposed US support for partition because he believed it would hurt US interests in Arab countries. The proposal was drafted by Clark Clifford, White House Counsel and Max Lowenstein.
> 
> "The United States has proposed to the Security Council a temporary United Nations trusteeship for Palestine to provide a government to keep the peace. Such trusteeship was proposed only after we had exhausted every effort to find a way to carry out partition by peaceful means. Trusteeship is not proposed as a substitute for the partition plan but as an effort to fill the vacuum soon to be created by the termination of the mandate on May 15. The trusteeship does not prejudice the character of the final political settlement. It would establish the conditions of order which are essential to a peaceful solution."
> 
> American trusteeship proposal for Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​
> It looks like another proposal that didn't happen.
Click to expand...




montelatici said:


> Rocco et al.
> 
> Neither the Class A (of which Palestine was one) nor the Class B Mandates involved cessation of territory or transfer of sovereignty to the Mandatories.  The Mandatories were to exercise an international function of administration on behalf of the League of Nations, with the object of promoting the well-being and development of the inhabitants.
> 
> Sovereignty accrued to the inhabitants, albeit administered by the Mandatory.
> 
> This was confirmed by the International Court of Justice when South Africa attempted to claim sovereignty and ownership of the territory of South West Africa.
> 
> "The terms of this Mandate, as well as the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant and the principles embodied therein, *show that the creation of this new international institution [the Mandate] did not involve any cession of territory or transfer of sovereignty* to the Union of South Africa. The Union Government was to exercise an international function of administration on behalf of the League, with the object of promoting the well-being and development of the inhabitants".
> 
> 
> http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/10/1891.pdf







 What the     !!!!!!     since when has South Africa been in Palestine.    Stop going of topic and spamming the board if you don't want to be reported.


 NOW KEEP ON TOPIC OR ELSE


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Let's see if I can pick these off --- one at a time.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Land ownership has nothing to do with the issues; sovereignty, borders, governance. Land ownership is a real-estate issue (civil law).​
> I think you are trying to confuse people with that real-estate thing.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> No, I don't think so.  Land ownership is not a criteria in either the Declarative Theory of Sovereignty or the Constitutive Theory of Soveriegnty.  Neither requires "ownership" as a means of establishing "territorial domain."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has been said a gazillion times that Palestine had no land or borders.
> 
> "The LoN clearly stated that the borders were those of the Mandate for Palestine, not the nation of Palestine. ~ Phoenall​
> Doesn't a border denote the "ownership" of land? Mandates are trustees and trustees do not own the assets in their trust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> National borders DO NOT denote ownership.  National borders denote the terminator of sovereignty, from one dominion to another.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 1*
> 
> The state as a person of international law *should possess* the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; *b ) a defined territory;* c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.  The Avalon Project Convention on Rights and Duties of States inter-American December 26 1933​
> Does possess mean something different from owned? Isn't defined territory a piece of land with a border around it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)
> 
> First:*
> Posses DOES MEAN something different from ownership.  You can possess a "rental car" and yet not own the car.  You may lease property yet not own the property.  You may by under mandate to maintain a given entity, yet not own the entity.  Yes, possession and ownership are two different things.
> 
> Second:
> The idea of a defined territory - is unambiguous.  It is an area of land under the jurisdiction of a ruler or state.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is much confusion about acquiring land. It is said that Israel need not acquire land to declare statehood.
> 
> _Emphasizing_
> the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war... S RES 242 1967 of 22 November 1967​
> Acquiring territory is a valid concept. If a state should have a defined territory then it had to have been acquired somehow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In the case of S/RES/242, the emphasis of the Resolution is not specifically directed at a nation:
> 
> Was the Clause meant to be directed at Israel?
> Was the Clause meant to be directed at Jordan?
> Was the Clause meant to be directed at Palestinians?
> This resolution at first sounds very dramatic, yet in reality is very ambiguous.  The "inadmissibility" clause is one of those issues.  It does not mention that Jordan had taken the West Bank by force.  So, by reading the Resolution, you do not know if the prohibition warning was directed at Jordan or Israel.
> 
> There are several other issues being ambiguous.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posses DOES MEAN something different from ownership. You can possess a "rental car" and yet not own the car.​
> You may have a point but how many countries are on rented land? I think your analogy falls short of reality.
Click to expand...





 Then how about a squatter can posses your home but can never own it. This is possession of land and property that you do not have a valid legal claim to. That is what is happening in Mandated Palestine.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well in some regards you are correct.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> When, exactly, did Palestine become a trusteeship of the UN?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Both the UNPC and the UNSCOP noticed that the Arabs had been attempting to subvert the entire plan for Independence.
> 
> *Article 77*​
> 
> The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:
> * a. territories now held under mandate;*
> b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
> c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.
> It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the trusteeship system and upon what terms.
> 
> There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States.  One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.  However, the initiation of WAR on the part of the Arab nations prevented the action.  Theoretically, the trusteeship could have taken hold anytime after the UN Charter can into force under Article 77(1a).  But as the Successor Government reported:
> 
> "C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are* defying the resolution *of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."​
> While these Hostile Arabs were very successful in preventing a trusteeship of the allotted territory for the proposed Arab State _(which in some ways worked against the Arab),_ and the armed seizure of the West Bank and Gaza Strip --- they were unsuccessful in preventing the Independence of the proposed Jewish State.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.​
> What do you mean "remainder of the territory?" The proposal was in March of 1948.
Click to expand...





The Partition had been finalised in 1947 and the arab muslims had been threatening to invade and wipe out the Jews before they could set up their National Home. The arab muslims believed that it was a mutual agreement that was needed for 181 to be finalised, and were very annoyed when they realised it was an either/or open ended solution. They lost on every front because they were too arrogant and pig headed to accept the only chance they had of a nation of their own. The remainder of the territory was that not claimed by the arab muslim Palestinians in may 1948 under the terms of 181. This led to Israel being able to claim parts of this land because it was unclaimed.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> I don't believe I mentioned cessation of territory.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco et al.
> 
> Neither the Class A (of which Palestine was one) nor the Class B Mandates involved cessation of territory or transfer of sovereignty to the Mandatories.  The Mandatories were to exercise an international function of administration on behalf of the League of Nations, with the object of promoting the well-being and development of the inhabitants.
> 
> Sovereignty accrued to the inhabitants, albeit administered by the Mandatory.
> 
> This was confirmed by the International Court of Justice when South Africa attempted to claim sovereignty and ownership of the territory of South West Africa.
> 
> "The terms of this Mandate, as well as the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant and the principles embodied therein, *show that the creation of this new international institution [the Mandate] did not involve any cession of territory or transfer of sovereignty* to the Union of South Africa. The Union Government was to exercise an international function of administration on behalf of the League, with the object of promoting the well-being and development of the inhabitants".
> 
> 
> http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/10/1891.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> To some degree, I agree with you here.
> 
> What are you specifically challenging?
> 
> v/r
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This appears to be a key point.
> 
> Sovereignty accrued to the inhabitants, albeit administered by the Mandatory.​
> That is the way I always understood it. UN resolutions confirm the Palestinian's right to sovereignty in Palestine.
Click to expand...





 Which they have, yet refuse to act on it and take that last step of free determination. This would mean having to agree peace terms and negotiate mutual borders, while losing the support of UNWRA and many nations charitable contributions. That is the stumbling block at the moment the loss of revenue to pay the terrorists wages and pensions.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You are fouling up the timeline.  International politics does not happen instantly.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well in some regards you are correct.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> When, exactly, did Palestine become a trusteeship of the UN?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Both the UNPC and the UNSCOP noticed that the Arabs had been attempting to subvert the entire plan for Independence.
> 
> *Article 77*​
> 
> The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:
> * a. territories now held under mandate;*
> b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
> c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.
> It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the trusteeship system and upon what terms.
> 
> There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States.  One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.  However, the initiation of WAR on the part of the Arab nations prevented the action.  Theoretically, the trusteeship could have taken hold anytime after the UN Charter can into force under Article 77(1a).  But as the Successor Government reported:
> 
> "C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are* defying the resolution *of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."​
> While these Hostile Arabs were very successful in preventing a trusteeship of the allotted territory for the proposed Arab State _(which in some ways worked against the Arab),_ and the armed seizure of the West Bank and Gaza Strip --- they were unsuccessful in preventing the Independence of the proposed Jewish State.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.​
> What do you mean "remainder of the territory?" The proposal was in March of 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In March 1948, the Jewish Agency was already deeply involved with the task being performed --- consistent with the Step Preparatory to Independence.  In the international arena, the recommendations and proposals are made every day.  It doesn't mean they have a impact or a result.
> 
> In May 1948, The Provisional Government declared Independence.  Since that time, the Hostile Arab Palestinians and other externally interfering Arab bodies, have tried to supplant that exercise of the "right of Self-determination."
> 
> Many HoAPs have whined consistently that they had a right to sovereignty as well.  The fact is, they chose not to exercise it --- rejecting the UN options.  That does not mean that the HoAP has the right to prevent Israel from its "right of self-determination."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In March 1948, the Jewish Agency was already deeply involved with the task being performed --- consistent with the Step Preparatory to Independence. In the international arena, the recommendations and proposals are made every day. It doesn't mean they have a impact or a result.​
> Do you mean like building up a military to attack Palestinian civilians and drive them out of their homeland?
Click to expand...




 What homeland was that then, remembering that in 1923 the LoN granted 22% of Palestine to the Jews as their homeland. The "Palestinians" had been granted the other 78% as their homeland, and there where clauses that allowed the Mandatory to forcibly relocate the arab muslims to trans Jordan


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> The "right to sovereignty" is a very nebulas concept.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> This appears to be a key point.
> 
> Sovereignty accrued to the inhabitants, albeit administered by the Mandatory.​
> That is the way I always understood it. UN resolutions confirm the Palestinian's right to sovereignty in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "right to sovereignty" is "Recognizing that the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any State should be
> respected in the holding of elections."  It is a set of principles that span a number of concepts.
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.
> 
> When a Resolution says it _Reaffirming_ its resolution 58/292 of 6 May 2004, affirming, inter alia, that the status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, remains one of military occupation and that, in accordance with international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over their territory, IT WAS SPECIFIC:  "Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem"
> 
> It did not say it had the right to sovereignty over all the territory formerly under the Mandate, not did it say the Palestinians had the right to all of Jerusalem.  It is specific and needs to be specific because the Hostile Arab Palestinians are claiming a sovereign right to Palestine as they define it:  "Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.​
> Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?
Click to expand...





 When they hold sovereignty to the land via International law.  The legal sovereign owners had the legal right to dispose of the land as they saw fit, and the indigenous peoples had no say in the matter. In this case the majority of the "native population" were recent illegal immigrants, so had no rights


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well in some regards you are correct.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> When, exactly, did Palestine become a trusteeship of the UN?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Both the UNPC and the UNSCOP noticed that the Arabs had been attempting to subvert the entire plan for Independence.
> 
> *Article 77*​
> 
> The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:
> * a. territories now held under mandate;*
> b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
> c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.
> It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the trusteeship system and upon what terms.
> 
> There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States.  One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.  However, the initiation of WAR on the part of the Arab nations prevented the action.  Theoretically, the trusteeship could have taken hold anytime after the UN Charter can into force under Article 77(1a).  But as the Successor Government reported:
> 
> "C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are* defying the resolution *of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."​
> While these Hostile Arabs were very successful in preventing a trusteeship of the allotted territory for the proposed Arab State _(which in some ways worked against the Arab),_ and the armed seizure of the West Bank and Gaza Strip --- they were unsuccessful in preventing the Independence of the proposed Jewish State.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.​
> What do you mean "remainder of the territory?" The proposal was in March of 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Partition had been finalised in 1947 and the arab muslims had been threatening to invade and wipe out the Jews before they could set up their National Home. The arab muslims believed that it was a mutual agreement that was needed for 181 to be finalised, and were very annoyed when they realised it was an either/or open ended solution. They lost on every front because they were too arrogant and pig headed to accept the only chance they had of a nation of their own. The remainder of the territory was that not claimed by the arab muslim Palestinians in may 1948 under the terms of 181. This led to Israel being able to claim parts of this land because it was unclaimed.
Click to expand...

You left out an important point.

What did they propose to partition?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> The "right to sovereignty" is a very nebulas concept.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> This appears to be a key point.
> 
> Sovereignty accrued to the inhabitants, albeit administered by the Mandatory.​
> That is the way I always understood it. UN resolutions confirm the Palestinian's right to sovereignty in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "right to sovereignty" is "Recognizing that the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any State should be
> respected in the holding of elections."  It is a set of principles that span a number of concepts.
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.
> 
> When a Resolution says it _Reaffirming_ its resolution 58/292 of 6 May 2004, affirming, inter alia, that the status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, remains one of military occupation and that, in accordance with international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over their territory, IT WAS SPECIFIC:  "Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem"
> 
> It did not say it had the right to sovereignty over all the territory formerly under the Mandate, not did it say the Palestinians had the right to all of Jerusalem.  It is specific and needs to be specific because the Hostile Arab Palestinians are claiming a sovereign right to Palestine as they define it:  "Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.​
> Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When they hold sovereignty to the land via International law.  The legal sovereign owners had the legal right to dispose of the land as they saw fit, and the indigenous peoples had no say in the matter. In this case the majority of the "native population" were recent illegal immigrants, so had no rights
Click to expand...

You keep saying that like it is true.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well in some regards you are correct.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> When, exactly, did Palestine become a trusteeship of the UN?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Both the UNPC and the UNSCOP noticed that the Arabs had been attempting to subvert the entire plan for Independence.
> 
> *Article 77*​
> 
> The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:
> * a. territories now held under mandate;*
> b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
> c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.
> It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the trusteeship system and upon what terms.
> 
> There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States.  One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.  However, the initiation of WAR on the part of the Arab nations prevented the action.  Theoretically, the trusteeship could have taken hold anytime after the UN Charter can into force under Article 77(1a).  But as the Successor Government reported:
> 
> "C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are* defying the resolution *of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."​
> While these Hostile Arabs were very successful in preventing a trusteeship of the allotted territory for the proposed Arab State _(which in some ways worked against the Arab),_ and the armed seizure of the West Bank and Gaza Strip --- they were unsuccessful in preventing the Independence of the proposed Jewish State.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.​
> What do you mean "remainder of the territory?" The proposal was in March of 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Partition had been finalised in 1947 and the arab muslims had been threatening to invade and wipe out the Jews before they could set up their National Home. The arab muslims believed that it was a mutual agreement that was needed for 181 to be finalised, and were very annoyed when they realised it was an either/or open ended solution. They lost on every front because they were too arrogant and pig headed to accept the only chance they had of a nation of their own. The remainder of the territory was that not claimed by the arab muslim Palestinians in may 1948 under the terms of 181. This led to Israel being able to claim parts of this land because it was unclaimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You left out an important point.
> 
> What did they propose to partition?
Click to expand...





 The mandate for Palestine of course, which was the land granted for the Jews national home in 1923


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> The "right to sovereignty" is a very nebulas concept.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> This appears to be a key point.
> 
> Sovereignty accrued to the inhabitants, albeit administered by the Mandatory.​
> That is the way I always understood it. UN resolutions confirm the Palestinian's right to sovereignty in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "right to sovereignty" is "Recognizing that the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any State should be
> respected in the holding of elections."  It is a set of principles that span a number of concepts.
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.
> 
> When a Resolution says it _Reaffirming_ its resolution 58/292 of 6 May 2004, affirming, inter alia, that the status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, remains one of military occupation and that, in accordance with international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over their territory, IT WAS SPECIFIC:  "Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem"
> 
> It did not say it had the right to sovereignty over all the territory formerly under the Mandate, not did it say the Palestinians had the right to all of Jerusalem.  It is specific and needs to be specific because the Hostile Arab Palestinians are claiming a sovereign right to Palestine as they define it:  "Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.​
> Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When they hold sovereignty to the land via International law.  The legal sovereign owners had the legal right to dispose of the land as they saw fit, and the indigenous peoples had no say in the matter. In this case the majority of the "native population" were recent illegal immigrants, so had no rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep saying that like it is true.
Click to expand...





 Can you produce a link from 1923 that says it isn't ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well in some regards you are correct.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> When, exactly, did Palestine become a trusteeship of the UN?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Both the UNPC and the UNSCOP noticed that the Arabs had been attempting to subvert the entire plan for Independence.
> 
> *Article 77*​
> 
> The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:
> * a. territories now held under mandate;*
> b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
> c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.
> It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the trusteeship system and upon what terms.
> 
> There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States.  One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.  However, the initiation of WAR on the part of the Arab nations prevented the action.  Theoretically, the trusteeship could have taken hold anytime after the UN Charter can into force under Article 77(1a).  But as the Successor Government reported:
> 
> "C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are* defying the resolution *of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."​
> While these Hostile Arabs were very successful in preventing a trusteeship of the allotted territory for the proposed Arab State _(which in some ways worked against the Arab),_ and the armed seizure of the West Bank and Gaza Strip --- they were unsuccessful in preventing the Independence of the proposed Jewish State.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.​
> What do you mean "remainder of the territory?" The proposal was in March of 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Partition had been finalised in 1947 and the arab muslims had been threatening to invade and wipe out the Jews before they could set up their National Home. The arab muslims believed that it was a mutual agreement that was needed for 181 to be finalised, and were very annoyed when they realised it was an either/or open ended solution. They lost on every front because they were too arrogant and pig headed to accept the only chance they had of a nation of their own. The remainder of the territory was that not claimed by the arab muslim Palestinians in may 1948 under the terms of 181. This led to Israel being able to claim parts of this land because it was unclaimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You left out an important point.
> 
> What did they propose to partition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate for Palestine of course, which was the land granted for the Jews national home in 1923
Click to expand...




Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well in some regards you are correct.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> When, exactly, did Palestine become a trusteeship of the UN?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Both the UNPC and the UNSCOP noticed that the Arabs had been attempting to subvert the entire plan for Independence.
> 
> *Article 77*​
> 
> The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:
> * a. territories now held under mandate;*
> b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
> c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.
> It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the trusteeship system and upon what terms.
> 
> There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States.  One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.  However, the initiation of WAR on the part of the Arab nations prevented the action.  Theoretically, the trusteeship could have taken hold anytime after the UN Charter can into force under Article 77(1a).  But as the Successor Government reported:
> 
> "C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are* defying the resolution *of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."​
> While these Hostile Arabs were very successful in preventing a trusteeship of the allotted territory for the proposed Arab State _(which in some ways worked against the Arab),_ and the armed seizure of the West Bank and Gaza Strip --- they were unsuccessful in preventing the Independence of the proposed Jewish State.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.​
> What do you mean "remainder of the territory?" The proposal was in March of 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Partition had been finalised in 1947 and the arab muslims had been threatening to invade and wipe out the Jews before they could set up their National Home. The arab muslims believed that it was a mutual agreement that was needed for 181 to be finalised, and were very annoyed when they realised it was an either/or open ended solution. They lost on every front because they were too arrogant and pig headed to accept the only chance they had of a nation of their own. The remainder of the territory was that not claimed by the arab muslim Palestinians in may 1948 under the terms of 181. This led to Israel being able to claim parts of this land because it was unclaimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You left out an important point.
> 
> What did they propose to partition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate for Palestine of course, which was the land granted for the Jews national home in 1923
Click to expand...

Why did the Jews accept a part of Palestine in 1947 when they received the whole pie 25 years earlier?

You don't make any sense.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> The "right to sovereignty" is a very nebulas concept.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> This appears to be a key point.
> 
> Sovereignty accrued to the inhabitants, albeit administered by the Mandatory.​
> That is the way I always understood it. UN resolutions confirm the Palestinian's right to sovereignty in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "right to sovereignty" is "Recognizing that the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any State should be
> respected in the holding of elections."  It is a set of principles that span a number of concepts.
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.
> 
> When a Resolution says it _Reaffirming_ its resolution 58/292 of 6 May 2004, affirming, inter alia, that the status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, remains one of military occupation and that, in accordance with international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over their territory, IT WAS SPECIFIC:  "Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem"
> 
> It did not say it had the right to sovereignty over all the territory formerly under the Mandate, not did it say the Palestinians had the right to all of Jerusalem.  It is specific and needs to be specific because the Hostile Arab Palestinians are claiming a sovereign right to Palestine as they define it:  "Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.​
> Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When they hold sovereignty to the land via International law.  The legal sovereign owners had the legal right to dispose of the land as they saw fit, and the indigenous peoples had no say in the matter. In this case the majority of the "native population" were recent illegal immigrants, so had no rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep saying that like it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you produce a link from 1923 that says it isn't ?
Click to expand...

_Indignant​_at the continued violations of the human rights of the peoples still under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, the continuation of the illegal occupation of Namibia and South Africa's attempts to dismember its territory, the perpetuation of the racist minority régimes in Zimbabwe and South Africa and* the denial to the Palestinian people of their inalienable national rights,*

1. _Calls upon_ all States to implement fully and faithfully the resolutions of the United Nations regarding the exercise of the right to self-determination by peoples under colonial and alien domination;

2. _Reaffirms_ the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;

*3. Reaffirms* the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the * Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;*

A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​
Can you post a UN resolution, or anything else, that says the same thing about Israel?


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> The "right to sovereignty" is a very nebulas concept.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> This appears to be a key point.
> 
> Sovereignty accrued to the inhabitants, albeit administered by the Mandatory.​
> That is the way I always understood it. UN resolutions confirm the Palestinian's right to sovereignty in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "right to sovereignty" is "Recognizing that the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any State should be
> respected in the holding of elections."  It is a set of principles that span a number of concepts.
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.
> 
> When a Resolution says it _Reaffirming_ its resolution 58/292 of 6 May 2004, affirming, inter alia, that the status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, remains one of military occupation and that, in accordance with international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over their territory, IT WAS SPECIFIC:  "Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem"
> 
> It did not say it had the right to sovereignty over all the territory formerly under the Mandate, not did it say the Palestinians had the right to all of Jerusalem.  It is specific and needs to be specific because the Hostile Arab Palestinians are claiming a sovereign right to Palestine as they define it:  "Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.​
> Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?
Click to expand...


OUTSTANDING QUESTION!  Let us not forget that the indigenous Palestinian people of the land WERE JEWS.

Israel Palestine Who s Indigenous by Ryan Bellerose Israellycool


----------



## MJB12741

While we discuss the land issue, let us not forget the indigenous, or native Palestinians of the land, WERE JEWS.

Israel Palestine Who s Indigenous by Ryan Bellerose Israellycool


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> The "right to sovereignty" is a very nebulas concept.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> This appears to be a key point.
> 
> Sovereignty accrued to the inhabitants, albeit administered by the Mandatory.​
> That is the way I always understood it. UN resolutions confirm the Palestinian's right to sovereignty in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "right to sovereignty" is "Recognizing that the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any State should be
> respected in the holding of elections."  It is a set of principles that span a number of concepts.
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.
> 
> When a Resolution says it _Reaffirming_ its resolution 58/292 of 6 May 2004, affirming, inter alia, that the status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, remains one of military occupation and that, in accordance with international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over their territory, IT WAS SPECIFIC:  "Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem"
> 
> It did not say it had the right to sovereignty over all the territory formerly under the Mandate, not did it say the Palestinians had the right to all of Jerusalem.  It is specific and needs to be specific because the Hostile Arab Palestinians are claiming a sovereign right to Palestine as they define it:  "Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.​
> Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OUTSTANDING QUESTION!  Let us not forget that the indigenous Palestinian people of the land WERE JEWS.
> 
> Israel Palestine Who s Indigenous by Ryan Bellerose Israellycool
Click to expand...

I post a UN document and you post an Israeli propaganda site.

Good show.


----------



## fanger

"If conquerors can become indigenous, then the white Europeans who came to my indigenous lands in North America could now claim to be indigenous"
Is he claiming your not a real American?


----------



## High_Gravity

The Jews.


----------



## Phoenall

fanger said:


> "If conquerors can become indigenous, then the white Europeans who came to my indigenous lands in North America could now claim to be indigenous"
> Is he claiming your not a real American?






 Who were named as Palestinians by the Romans in the first century, then had the name taken up by arab muslims to use as a profanity. Much the same as you now use the term zionist


----------



## TheOldSchool

Whoever the indigenous people were, I'm sure they'd be thrilled at the ensuing 3,000 years of violence and hatred a few peace loving religions have maintained there.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well in some regards you are correct.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Both the UNPC and the UNSCOP noticed that the Arabs had been attempting to subvert the entire plan for Independence.
> 
> *Article 77*​
> 
> The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:
> * a. territories now held under mandate;*
> b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
> c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.
> It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the trusteeship system and upon what terms.
> 
> There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States.  One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.  However, the initiation of WAR on the part of the Arab nations prevented the action.  Theoretically, the trusteeship could have taken hold anytime after the UN Charter can into force under Article 77(1a).  But as the Successor Government reported:
> 
> "C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are* defying the resolution *of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."​
> While these Hostile Arabs were very successful in preventing a trusteeship of the allotted territory for the proposed Arab State _(which in some ways worked against the Arab),_ and the armed seizure of the West Bank and Gaza Strip --- they were unsuccessful in preventing the Independence of the proposed Jewish State.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.​
> What do you mean "remainder of the territory?" The proposal was in March of 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Partition had been finalised in 1947 and the arab muslims had been threatening to invade and wipe out the Jews before they could set up their National Home. The arab muslims believed that it was a mutual agreement that was needed for 181 to be finalised, and were very annoyed when they realised it was an either/or open ended solution. They lost on every front because they were too arrogant and pig headed to accept the only chance they had of a nation of their own. The remainder of the territory was that not claimed by the arab muslim Palestinians in may 1948 under the terms of 181. This led to Israel being able to claim parts of this land because it was unclaimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You left out an important point.
> 
> What did they propose to partition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate for Palestine of course, which was the land granted for the Jews national home in 1923
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well in some regards you are correct.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Both the UNPC and the UNSCOP noticed that the Arabs had been attempting to subvert the entire plan for Independence.
> 
> *Article 77*​
> 
> The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:
> * a. territories now held under mandate;*
> b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
> c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.
> It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the trusteeship system and upon what terms.
> 
> There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States.  One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.  However, the initiation of WAR on the part of the Arab nations prevented the action.  Theoretically, the trusteeship could have taken hold anytime after the UN Charter can into force under Article 77(1a).  But as the Successor Government reported:
> 
> "C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are* defying the resolution *of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."​
> While these Hostile Arabs were very successful in preventing a trusteeship of the allotted territory for the proposed Arab State _(which in some ways worked against the Arab),_ and the armed seizure of the West Bank and Gaza Strip --- they were unsuccessful in preventing the Independence of the proposed Jewish State.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.​
> What do you mean "remainder of the territory?" The proposal was in March of 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Partition had been finalised in 1947 and the arab muslims had been threatening to invade and wipe out the Jews before they could set up their National Home. The arab muslims believed that it was a mutual agreement that was needed for 181 to be finalised, and were very annoyed when they realised it was an either/or open ended solution. They lost on every front because they were too arrogant and pig headed to accept the only chance they had of a nation of their own. The remainder of the territory was that not claimed by the arab muslim Palestinians in may 1948 under the terms of 181. This led to Israel being able to claim parts of this land because it was unclaimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You left out an important point.
> 
> What did they propose to partition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate for Palestine of course, which was the land granted for the Jews national home in 1923
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why did the Jews accept a part of Palestine in 1947 when they received the whole pie 25 years earlier?
> 
> You don't make any sense.
Click to expand...




 To keep the peace and to show they were not as the arab muslims were branding them. If the Jews had lost in 1949 then the whole of Palestine would now be a bloodbath.

 Stop thinking like an arrogant greedy muslim and start thinkling like a human being.


----------



## Roudy

Back in the early 1900's an Arab Muslim would be insulted if you called him a Palestinian because it meant JEW.

Palestinians are an invented people circa 1960's.  It was their terrorist leader Arafat who Hijacked the name for political purposes 

True story.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> The "right to sovereignty" is a very nebulas concept.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "right to sovereignty" is "Recognizing that the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any State should be
> respected in the holding of elections."  It is a set of principles that span a number of concepts.
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.
> 
> When a Resolution says it _Reaffirming_ its resolution 58/292 of 6 May 2004, affirming, inter alia, that the status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, remains one of military occupation and that, in accordance with international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over their territory, IT WAS SPECIFIC:  "Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem"
> 
> It did not say it had the right to sovereignty over all the territory formerly under the Mandate, not did it say the Palestinians had the right to all of Jerusalem.  It is specific and needs to be specific because the Hostile Arab Palestinians are claiming a sovereign right to Palestine as they define it:  "Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.​
> Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When they hold sovereignty to the land via International law.  The legal sovereign owners had the legal right to dispose of the land as they saw fit, and the indigenous peoples had no say in the matter. In this case the majority of the "native population" were recent illegal immigrants, so had no rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep saying that like it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you produce a link from 1923 that says it isn't ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Indignant_
> at the continued violations of the human rights of the peoples still under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, the continuation of the illegal occupation of Namibia and South Africa's attempts to dismember its territory, the perpetuation of the racist minority régimes in Zimbabwe and South Africa and* the denial to the Palestinian people of their inalienable national rights,*
> 
> 1. _Calls upon_ all States to implement fully and faithfully the resolutions of the United Nations regarding the exercise of the right to self-determination by peoples under colonial and alien domination;
> 
> 2. _Reaffirms_ the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;
> 
> *3. Reaffirms* the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the * Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;*
> 
> A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​
> Can you post a UN resolution, or anything else, that says the same thing about Israel?
Click to expand...





 A mere 55 years ahead of the date provided making it invalid as you cant use 1978 recommendations retrospectively for something from 1923.

 But you do realise that the "Palestinian people" also includes the Jews who had their inalienable national rights denied by the arab muslims.


 Now try and keep up and post a link from 1923 not half a century after this date.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is an evolutionary process.  The UN Charter first addressed this in 1945, but with a limited in scope and restrictions.  

"The decolonization efforts of the United Nations derive from the UN Charter's principle of “equal rights and self-determination of peoples” as well as from three specific chapters in the Charter devoted to the interests of dependent peoples:"

Chapter XI: Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories
Chapter XII: International Trusteeship System
Chapter XIII: The Trusteeship Council
The question _(Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?)_ is being approached from the wrong angle.

The question should be an examination as to whether or not being a "native population" infers any special rights over an immigrant population?  And if so, when do the Human Rights of an Immigrant Population reach the equality to the "native population?"

Remember that the Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 (III) _(International Bill of Human Rights__) _ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in December 1948, did not address self-determination as a universal right beyond the open agenda _("Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.")_.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?
Click to expand...

*(REFERENCE GROUPS)*

Decolonization and Self-Determination

*Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples*
*Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960*​
*General Assembly Resolution Defining the Three Options for Self-determination*
General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV)

*Universal Realization of the Right of Peoples to Self-determination*
General Assembly Resolution 49/148  23 December 1994​
*General Assembly Resolution establishing the Special Committee on Decolonization*
General Assembly Resolution 1654 (XVI)​
Rights of Indigenous Peoples

*United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples*
General Assembly Resolution 61/295 13 September 2007 

*United Nations Resolution on Rights of Indigenous Peoples*
General Assembly Resolution 66/142  19 December 2011​
*(COMMENT)*

Under the general understanding of Self-Determination, whether it is be considered in terms of Indigenous People _(or as you say: "native inhabitance")_, or migrants/immigrants, the rights are exactly the same; with one interpretative difference found in Articles 3 and 31 of A/RES/61/295 - Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:

"Indigenous peoples have a right of internal self-determination. By virtue of that right, they may negotiate their political status within the framework of the existing nation-state and are free to pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right of internal self-determination, have the internal right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their local affairs, including determination of membership, culture, language, religion, education, information, media, health, housing, employment, social welfare, maintenance of community safety, family relations, economic activities, lands and resources management, environment and entry by non-members, as well as ways and means for financing these autonomous functions."​
The ambiguity here is found in the question:  When does a migrant/immigrant hold the same rights as the indigenous people.  And that is a matter of local legislation.  Comparatively, that usually happens when an immigrant is naturalized as a citizen.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.​
> Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When they hold sovereignty to the land via International law.  The legal sovereign owners had the legal right to dispose of the land as they saw fit, and the indigenous peoples had no say in the matter. In this case the majority of the "native population" were recent illegal immigrants, so had no rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep saying that like it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you produce a link from 1923 that says it isn't ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Indignant_
> at the continued violations of the human rights of the peoples still under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, the continuation of the illegal occupation of Namibia and South Africa's attempts to dismember its territory, the perpetuation of the racist minority régimes in Zimbabwe and South Africa and* the denial to the Palestinian people of their inalienable national rights,*
> 
> 1. _Calls upon_ all States to implement fully and faithfully the resolutions of the United Nations regarding the exercise of the right to self-determination by peoples under colonial and alien domination;
> 
> 2. _Reaffirms_ the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;
> 
> *3. Reaffirms* the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the * Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;*
> 
> A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​
> Can you post a UN resolution, or anything else, that says the same thing about Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A mere 55 years ahead of the date provided making it invalid as you cant use 1978 recommendations retrospectively for something from 1923.
> 
> But you do realise that the "Palestinian people" also includes the Jews who had their inalienable national rights denied by the arab muslims.
> 
> 
> Now try and keep up and post a link from 1923 not half a century after this date.
Click to expand...

Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

Churchill White Paper 1922 Jewish Virtual Library


----------



## fanger

So, should we believe Roudy's opinion or wikipedia?

The *Palestinians* (Arabic: الفلسطينيون‎, _al-Filasṭīniyyūn_, Hebrew: פָלַסְטִינִים), also referred to as the *Palestinian people* (Arabic: الشعب الفلسطيني‎, _ash-sha‘b al-Filasṭīnī_), are the modern descendants of the peoples who have lived in Palestine over the centuries, and who today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab due to Arabization of the region.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] Despite various wars and exoduses (such as that in 1948), roughly one half of the world's Palestinian population continues to reside in historic Palestine, the area encompassing the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Israel.[25] In this combined area, as of 2004, Palestinians constituted 49% of all inhabitants,[26]encompassing the entire population of the Gaza Strip (1.6 million), the majority of the population of the West Bank (approximately 2.3 million versus close to 500,000 JewishIsraeli citizens which includes about 200,000 in East Jerusalem), and 16.5% of the population of Israel proper as Arab citizens of Israel.[27] Many are Palestinian refugees orinternally displaced Palestinians, including more than a million in the Gaza Strip,[28] three-quarters of a million in the West Bank,[29] and about a quarter of a million in Israel proper. Of the Palestinian population who live abroad, known as the Palestinian diaspora, more than half are stateless lacking citizenship in any country.[30] 3.24 million of the diaspora population live in neighboring Jordan[31] where they make up approximately half the population, 1.5 million live between Syria and Lebanon, a quarter of a million in Saudi Arabia, with Chile's half a million representing the largest concentration outside the Arab world.

A genetic study has suggested that a majority of the Muslims of Palestine, inclusive of Arab citizens of Israel, could be descendants of Christians, Jews and other earlier inhabitants of the southern Levant whose core may reach back to prehistoric times. A study of high-resolution haplotypes demonstrated that a substantial portion of Y chromosomes of Israeli Jews (70%) and of Palestinian Muslim Arabs (82%) belonged to the same chromosome pool.
Palestinians - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Roudy

Or maybe we can believe what the Arabs themselves said.

"There is no such country as Palestine. 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented. There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria. 'Palestine' is alien to us. It is the Zionists who introduced it".
- Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, Syrian Arab leader to British Peel Commission, 1937 -

"There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not".
- Professor Philip Hitti, Arab historian, 1946 -

"It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but Southern Syria".
- Representant of Saudi Arabia at the United Nations, 1956 -

Concerning the Holy Land, the chairman of the Syrian Delegation at the Paris Peace Conference in February 1919 stated:
"The only Arab domination since the Conquest in 635 c.e. hardly lasted, as such, 22 years".


There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity... yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel".

- Zuhair Muhsin, military commander of the PLO and member of the PLO Executive Council -


"You do not represent Palestine as much as we do. Never forget this one point: There is no such thing as a Palestinian people, there is no Palestinian entity, there is only Syria. You are an integral part of the Syrian people, Palestine is an integral part of Syria. Therefore it is we, the Syrian authorities, who are the true representatives of the Palestinian people".

- Syrian dictator Hafez Assad to the PLO leader Yassir Arafat -


“Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?”
“We did not particularly mind Jordanian rule. The teaching of the destruction of Israel was a definite part of the curriculum, but we considered ourselves Jordanian until the Jews returned to Jerusalem. Then all of the sudden we were Palestinians - they removed the star from the Jordanian flag and all at once we had a Palestinian flag”.
“When I finally realized the lies and myths I was taught, it is my duty as a righteous person to speak out”.
-Former PLO terrorist


----------



## Roudy

“Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?”
“We did not particularly mind Jordanian rule. The teaching of the destruction of Israel was a definite part of the curriculum, but we considered ourselves Jordanian until the Jews returned to Jerusalem. Then all of the sudden we were Palestinians - they removed the star from the Jordanian flag and all at once we had a Palestinian flag”.
“When I finally realized the lies and myths I was taught, it is my duty as a righteous person to speak out”.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

Remembering that we're are still speaking of a time prior to 1949; and there is a big question gone unanswered.



P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> When they hold sovereignty to the land via International law.  The legal sovereign owners had the legal right to dispose of the land as they saw fit, and the indigenous peoples had no say in the matter. In this case the majority of the "native population" were recent illegal immigrants, so had no rights
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that like it is true.
Click to expand...

*(QUESTION)*

Where/when does it say that the _(former WWI and WWII enemy population of) _Arab Palestinian _(indigenous, native, or citizen)_ has any sovereign control over the remaining territory in 1947 - to which the Mandate applied? To my knowledge, there is absolutely no legal documentation, from 1919 _(the time under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration)_ to 1948 _(the time when the Mandatory terminated its obligations and the successor was selected)_, wherein the League of Nations, the Allied Powers, the Mandatory, or any other legal body, rendered autonomy, self-governance, or any measure of sovereignty to the Arab Palestinian _(former WWI and WWII enemy population) _citizenry?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Remembering that we're are still speaking of a time prior to 1949; and there is a big question gone unanswered.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> When they hold sovereignty to the land via International law.  The legal sovereign owners had the legal right to dispose of the land as they saw fit, and the indigenous peoples had no say in the matter. In this case the majority of the "native population" were recent illegal immigrants, so had no rights
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that like it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> Where/when does it say that the _(former WWI and WWII enemy population of) _Arab Palestinian _(indigenous, native, or citizen)_ has any sovereign control over the remaining territory in 1947 - to which the Mandate applied? To my knowledge, there is absolutely no legal documentation, from 1919 _(the time under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration)_ to 1948 _(the time when the Mandatory terminated its obligations and the successor was selected)_, wherein the League of Nations, the Allied Powers, the Mandatory, or any other legal body, rendered autonomy, self-governance, or any measure of sovereignty to the Arab Palestinian _(former WWI and WWII enemy population) _citizenry?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

to 1948 _(the time when the Mandatory terminated its obligations and the successor was selected)_,​
What successor was selected and who selected it?


----------



## Roudy

Or maybe the Hamas minister himself can tell us:


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> This is an evolutionary process.  The UN Charter first addressed this in 1945, but with a limited in scope and restrictions.
> 
> "The decolonization efforts of the United Nations derive from the UN Charter's principle of “equal rights and self-determination of peoples” as well as from three specific chapters in the Charter devoted to the interests of dependent peoples:"
> 
> Chapter XI: Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories
> Chapter XII: International Trusteeship System
> Chapter XIII: The Trusteeship Council
> The question _(Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?)_ is being approached from the wrong angle.
> 
> The question should be an examination as to whether or not being a "native population" infers any special rights over an immigrant population?  And if so, when do the Human Rights of an Immigrant Population reach the equality to the "native population?"
> 
> Remember that the Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 (III) _(International Bill of Human Rights__) _ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in December 1948, did not address self-determination as a universal right beyond the open agenda _("Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.")_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(REFERENCE GROUPS)*
> 
> Decolonization and Self-Determination
> 
> *Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples*
> *Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960*​
> *General Assembly Resolution Defining the Three Options for Self-determination*
> General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV)
> 
> *Universal Realization of the Right of Peoples to Self-determination*
> General Assembly Resolution 49/148  23 December 1994​*General Assembly Resolution establishing the Special Committee on Decolonization*
> General Assembly Resolution 1654 (XVI)​Rights of Indigenous Peoples
> 
> *United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples*
> General Assembly Resolution 61/295 13 September 2007
> 
> *United Nations Resolution on Rights of Indigenous Peoples*
> General Assembly Resolution 66/142  19 December 2011​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Under the general understanding of Self-Determination, whether it is be considered in terms of Indigenous People _(or as you say: "native inhabitance")_, or migrants/immigrants, the rights are exactly the same; with one interpretative difference found in Articles 3 and 31 of A/RES/61/295 - Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:
> 
> "Indigenous peoples have a right of internal self-determination. By virtue of that right, they may negotiate their political status within the framework of the existing nation-state and are free to pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right of internal self-determination, have the internal right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their local affairs, including determination of membership, culture, language, religion, education, information, media, health, housing, employment, social welfare, maintenance of community safety, family relations, economic activities, lands and resources management, environment and entry by non-members, as well as ways and means for financing these autonomous functions."​
> The ambiguity here is found in the question:  When does a migrant/immigrant hold the same rights as the indigenous people.  And that is a matter of local legislation.  Comparatively, that usually happens when an immigrant is naturalized as a citizen.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Thanks for all the links that support my position.


----------



## fanger

The points I raised had a link, yours, none other than one to the zionist memri tv

*Middle East Media Research Institute* (MEMRI) is a Israeli propaganda organization that selectively translates materials from the Arab/Muslim/Iranian press purportedly demonstrating hostility against Israel/Jews. According to the MEMRI web site: "MEMRI emphasizes the continuing relevance of Zionism to the Jewish people and to the state of Israel."

According to its website, founded in February 1998 by former/current Israeli intelligence officers
Middle East Media Research Institute - SourceWatch


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> When they hold sovereignty to the land via International law.  The legal sovereign owners had the legal right to dispose of the land as they saw fit, and the indigenous peoples had no say in the matter. In this case the majority of the "native population" were recent illegal immigrants, so had no rights
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that like it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you produce a link from 1923 that says it isn't ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Indignant_
> at the continued violations of the human rights of the peoples still under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, the continuation of the illegal occupation of Namibia and South Africa's attempts to dismember its territory, the perpetuation of the racist minority régimes in Zimbabwe and South Africa and* the denial to the Palestinian people of their inalienable national rights,*
> 
> 1. _Calls upon_ all States to implement fully and faithfully the resolutions of the United Nations regarding the exercise of the right to self-determination by peoples under colonial and alien domination;
> 
> 2. _Reaffirms_ the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;
> 
> *3. Reaffirms* the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the * Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;*
> 
> A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​
> Can you post a UN resolution, or anything else, that says the same thing about Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A mere 55 years ahead of the date provided making it invalid as you cant use 1978 recommendations retrospectively for something from 1923.
> 
> But you do realise that the "Palestinian people" also includes the Jews who had their inalienable national rights denied by the arab muslims.
> 
> 
> Now try and keep up and post a link from 1923 not half a century after this date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."
> 
> Churchill White Paper 1922 Jewish Virtual Library
Click to expand...






 All dealt with by partitioning Palestine into arab and Jewish sectors. This meant that 78% became arab Palestine and 22% became Jewish Palestine. And did you read your own cut and paste that clearly states


In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September 1921, a resolution was passed *expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect*, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."



 But as you have been shown a white paper has no legal standing and it was confined to the archives as just another failed first day motion.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Remembering that we're are still speaking of a time prior to 1949; and there is a big question gone unanswered.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> When they hold sovereignty to the land via International law.  The legal sovereign owners had the legal right to dispose of the land as they saw fit, and the indigenous peoples had no say in the matter. In this case the majority of the "native population" were recent illegal immigrants, so had no rights
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that like it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> Where/when does it say that the _(former WWI and WWII enemy population of) _Arab Palestinian _(indigenous, native, or citizen)_ has any sovereign control over the remaining territory in 1947 - to which the Mandate applied? To my knowledge, there is absolutely no legal documentation, from 1919 _(the time under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration)_ to 1948 _(the time when the Mandatory terminated its obligations and the successor was selected)_, wherein the League of Nations, the Allied Powers, the Mandatory, or any other legal body, rendered autonomy, self-governance, or any measure of sovereignty to the Arab Palestinian _(former WWI and WWII enemy population) _citizenry?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> to 1948 _(the time when the Mandatory terminated its obligations and the successor was selected)_,​
> What successor was selected and who selected it?
Click to expand...





 The UNPC and the UN respectively, as the UN absorbed the LoN and took on the role of enforcing the Mandate for Palestine.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> This is an evolutionary process.  The UN Charter first addressed this in 1945, but with a limited in scope and restrictions.
> 
> "The decolonization efforts of the United Nations derive from the UN Charter's principle of “equal rights and self-determination of peoples” as well as from three specific chapters in the Charter devoted to the interests of dependent peoples:"
> 
> Chapter XI: Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories
> Chapter XII: International Trusteeship System
> Chapter XIII: The Trusteeship Council
> The question _(Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?)_ is being approached from the wrong angle.
> 
> The question should be an examination as to whether or not being a "native population" infers any special rights over an immigrant population?  And if so, when do the Human Rights of an Immigrant Population reach the equality to the "native population?"
> 
> Remember that the Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 (III) _(International Bill of Human Rights__) _ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in December 1948, did not address self-determination as a universal right beyond the open agenda _("Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.")_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(REFERENCE GROUPS)*
> 
> Decolonization and Self-Determination
> 
> *Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples*
> *Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960*​
> *General Assembly Resolution Defining the Three Options for Self-determination*
> General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV)
> 
> *Universal Realization of the Right of Peoples to Self-determination*
> General Assembly Resolution 49/148  23 December 1994​*General Assembly Resolution establishing the Special Committee on Decolonization*
> General Assembly Resolution 1654 (XVI)​Rights of Indigenous Peoples
> 
> *United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples*
> General Assembly Resolution 61/295 13 September 2007
> 
> *United Nations Resolution on Rights of Indigenous Peoples*
> General Assembly Resolution 66/142  19 December 2011​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Under the general understanding of Self-Determination, whether it is be considered in terms of Indigenous People _(or as you say: "native inhabitance")_, or migrants/immigrants, the rights are exactly the same; with one interpretative difference found in Articles 3 and 31 of A/RES/61/295 - Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:
> 
> "Indigenous peoples have a right of internal self-determination. By virtue of that right, they may negotiate their political status within the framework of the existing nation-state and are free to pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right of internal self-determination, have the internal right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their local affairs, including determination of membership, culture, language, religion, education, information, media, health, housing, employment, social welfare, maintenance of community safety, family relations, economic activities, lands and resources management, environment and entry by non-members, as well as ways and means for financing these autonomous functions."​
> The ambiguity here is found in the question:  When does a migrant/immigrant hold the same rights as the indigenous people.  And that is a matter of local legislation.  Comparatively, that usually happens when an immigrant is naturalized as a citizen.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for all the links that support my position.
Click to expand...




 So when does a recent migrant with full citizenship become a 2nd or 3rd class citizen and lose their human, civil and religious rights ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Remembering that we're are still speaking of a time prior to 1949; and there is a big question gone unanswered.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> When they hold sovereignty to the land via International law.  The legal sovereign owners had the legal right to dispose of the land as they saw fit, and the indigenous peoples had no say in the matter. In this case the majority of the "native population" were recent illegal immigrants, so had no rights
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that like it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> Where/when does it say that the _(former WWI and WWII enemy population of) _Arab Palestinian _(indigenous, native, or citizen)_ has any sovereign control over the remaining territory in 1947 - to which the Mandate applied? To my knowledge, there is absolutely no legal documentation, from 1919 _(the time under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration)_ to 1948 _(the time when the Mandatory terminated its obligations and the successor was selected)_, wherein the League of Nations, the Allied Powers, the Mandatory, or any other legal body, rendered autonomy, self-governance, or any measure of sovereignty to the Arab Palestinian _(former WWI and WWII enemy population) _citizenry?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> to 1948 _(the time when the Mandatory terminated its obligations and the successor was selected)_,​
> What successor was selected and who selected it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UNPC and the UN respectively, as the UN absorbed the LoN and took on the role of enforcing the Mandate for Palestine.
Click to expand...

What was the UNPC Charter?


----------



## Phoenall

fanger said:


> So, should we believe Roudy's opinion or wikipedia?
> 
> The *Palestinians* (Arabic: الفلسطينيون‎, _al-Filasṭīniyyūn_, Hebrew: פָלַסְטִינִים), also referred to as the *Palestinian people* (Arabic: الشعب الفلسطيني‎, _ash-sha‘b al-Filasṭīnī_), are the modern descendants of the peoples who have lived in Palestine over the centuries, and who today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab due to Arabization of the region.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] Despite various wars and exoduses (such as that in 1948), roughly one half of the world's Palestinian population continues to reside in historic Palestine, the area encompassing the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Israel.[25] In this combined area, as of 2004, Palestinians constituted 49% of all inhabitants,[26]encompassing the entire population of the Gaza Strip (1.6 million), the majority of the population of the West Bank (approximately 2.3 million versus close to 500,000 JewishIsraeli citizens which includes about 200,000 in East Jerusalem), and 16.5% of the population of Israel proper as Arab citizens of Israel.[27] Many are Palestinian refugees orinternally displaced Palestinians, including more than a million in the Gaza Strip,[28] three-quarters of a million in the West Bank,[29] and about a quarter of a million in Israel proper. Of the Palestinian population who live abroad, known as the Palestinian diaspora, more than half are stateless lacking citizenship in any country.[30] 3.24 million of the diaspora population live in neighboring Jordan[31] where they make up approximately half the population, 1.5 million live between Syria and Lebanon, a quarter of a million in Saudi Arabia, with Chile's half a million representing the largest concentration outside the Arab world.
> 
> A genetic study has suggested that a majority of the Muslims of Palestine, inclusive of Arab citizens of Israel, could be descendants of Christians, Jews and other earlier inhabitants of the southern Levant whose core may reach back to prehistoric times. A study of high-resolution haplotypes demonstrated that a substantial portion of Y chromosomes of Israeli Jews (70%) and of Palestinian Muslim Arabs (82%) belonged to the same chromosome pool.
> Palestinians - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia








 Ok if you believe fairy stories, but the evidence shows that the majority of "Palestinians" are recent illegal immigrants.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> This is an evolutionary process.  The UN Charter first addressed this in 1945, but with a limited in scope and restrictions.
> 
> "The decolonization efforts of the United Nations derive from the UN Charter's principle of “equal rights and self-determination of peoples” as well as from three specific chapters in the Charter devoted to the interests of dependent peoples:"
> 
> Chapter XI: Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories
> Chapter XII: International Trusteeship System
> Chapter XIII: The Trusteeship Council
> The question _(Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?)_ is being approached from the wrong angle.
> 
> The question should be an examination as to whether or not being a "native population" infers any special rights over an immigrant population?  And if so, when do the Human Rights of an Immigrant Population reach the equality to the "native population?"
> 
> Remember that the Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 (III) _(International Bill of Human Rights__) _ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in December 1948, did not address self-determination as a universal right beyond the open agenda _("Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.")_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(REFERENCE GROUPS)*
> 
> Decolonization and Self-Determination
> 
> *Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples*
> *Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960*​
> *General Assembly Resolution Defining the Three Options for Self-determination*
> General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV)
> 
> *Universal Realization of the Right of Peoples to Self-determination*
> General Assembly Resolution 49/148  23 December 1994​*General Assembly Resolution establishing the Special Committee on Decolonization*
> General Assembly Resolution 1654 (XVI)​Rights of Indigenous Peoples
> 
> *United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples*
> General Assembly Resolution 61/295 13 September 2007
> 
> *United Nations Resolution on Rights of Indigenous Peoples*
> General Assembly Resolution 66/142  19 December 2011​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Under the general understanding of Self-Determination, whether it is be considered in terms of Indigenous People _(or as you say: "native inhabitance")_, or migrants/immigrants, the rights are exactly the same; with one interpretative difference found in Articles 3 and 31 of A/RES/61/295 - Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:
> 
> "Indigenous peoples have a right of internal self-determination. By virtue of that right, they may negotiate their political status within the framework of the existing nation-state and are free to pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right of internal self-determination, have the internal right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their local affairs, including determination of membership, culture, language, religion, education, information, media, health, housing, employment, social welfare, maintenance of community safety, family relations, economic activities, lands and resources management, environment and entry by non-members, as well as ways and means for financing these autonomous functions."​
> The ambiguity here is found in the question:  When does a migrant/immigrant hold the same rights as the indigenous people.  And that is a matter of local legislation.  Comparatively, that usually happens when an immigrant is naturalized as a citizen.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for all the links that support my position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when does a recent migrant with full citizenship become a 2nd or 3rd class citizen and lose their human, civil and religious rights ?
Click to expand...

I don't know. I have never posted such a proposition.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH WOW!!!

The General Assembly established and selected the successor.  The General Assembly stipulated that:  "The administration of Palestine shall, as the Mandatory Power withdraws its armed forces, be progressively turned over to the Commission."



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> to 1948 _(the time when the Mandatory terminated its obligations and the successor was selected)_,
> 
> 
> 
> What successor was selected and who selected it?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

In 1947, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 181 (II) --- Future of Palestine.  At its hundred and twenty-eighth plenary meeting on 29 November 1947 the General Assembly, in accordance with the terms of the above resolution [181 A], elected the following members of the United Nations Commission on Palestine: 

Bolivia, 
Czechoslovakia, 
Denmark, 
Panama and 
Philippines.


			
				The A/RES/181(II) said:
			
		

> B. STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE​1. A Commission shall be set up consisting of one representative of each of five Member States. The Members represented on the Commission shall be elected by the General Assembly on as broad a basis, geographically and otherwise, as possible.
> 
> 2. The administration of Palestine shall, as the mandatory Power withdraws its armed forces, be progressively turned over to the Commission; which shall act in conformity with the recommendations of the General Assembly, under the guidance of the Security Council. The mandatory Power shall to the fullest possible extent co-ordinate its plans for withdrawal with the plans of the Commission to take over and administer areas which have been evacuated.
> 
> In the discharge of this administrative responsibility the Commission shall have authority to issue necessary regulations and take other measures as required.
> 
> The mandatory Power shall not take any action to prevent, obstruct or delay the implementation by the Commission of the measures recommended by the General Assembly.



The Mandatory, in conjunction and collaboration with the UN General Assembly, made a international public announcement via the UN Press and Publications Bureau --- UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT --- PAL/138 27 February 1948, which in part stated as follows:



			
				 UK Memo PAL/138 said:
			
		

> The Government of the United Kingdom, in a memorandum on the "Legal Meaning of the Termination of the Mandate", has advised the United Nations Palestine Commission that so fas the Mandatory Power is concerned the United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine after 15 May 1948.
> 
> The memorandum, transmitted to the Commission by the British Delegation to the United Nations, sets forth the position of the Mandatory Power with respect to the question of the successor government in Palestine after the termination of the British mandate. Pertinent excerpts from the memorandum are as follows:
> 
> 
> "Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.
> 
> "After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.
> 
> "Where the sovereignty of Palestine lies at the present time is a disputed and perhaps academic legal question about which writers have expressed a number of different conclusions. Where the sovereignty of Palestine will lie after the 15th May, 1948, is perhaps also a question on which different views will be held, but so far as His Majesty's Government are aware, it is a question which it is unnecessary to answer in connection with any practical issues."After the 15th May, 1948, the United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine. It does not seem very material whether it is considered to be the de facto or the de jure Government. In any case, its title to be the Government of Palestine will rest on the resolution of the General Assembly.
> 
> 
> "His Majesty's Government will recognize the United Nations Commission as the authority with which to make an agreement regarding the transfer of the assets of the Government of Palestine."






Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

The principle responsibilities of the UNPC were spelled-out in A/RES/181(II) Part I.



P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UNPC and the UN respectively, as the UN absorbed the LoN and took on the role of enforcing the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> What was the UNPC Charter?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Due to the outbreak of hostilities and acts of aggression on the part of the surrounding Arab Powers attempting to defy the General Assembly, the UNPC Adjourns sine die (PAL/169) --- and --- was replaced by the United Nations Mediator in Palestine.

"The General Assembly,

"Having adopted a resolution providing for the appointment of a United Nations Mediator in Palestine, which relieves the United Nations Palestine Commission from the further exercise of its responsibilities,

"Resolves to express its full appreciation for the work performed by the Palestine Commission in pursuance of its mandate from the General Assembly."​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## fanger

I believe wikipedia unless you can prove otherwise, Go on then, post your evidence with a non partisan link


----------



## Roudy

fanger said:


> The points I raised had a link, yours, none other than one to the zionist memri tv
> 
> *Middle East Media Research Institute* (MEMRI) is a Israeli propaganda organization that selectively translates materials from the Arab/Muslim/Iranian press purportedly demonstrating hostility against Israel/Jews. According to the MEMRI web site: "MEMRI emphasizes the continuing relevance of Zionism to the Jewish people and to the state of Israel."
> 
> According to its website, founded in February 1998 by former/current Israeli intelligence officers
> Middle East Media Research Institute - SourceWatch


Memri wasn't the source of the links, dumbass. 

Memri simply records what you savages say and plays it back.  There is nothing to dispute.


----------



## Roudy

fanger said:


> I believe wikipedia unless you can prove otherwise, Go on then, post your evidence with a non partisan link



Heh heh heh. I'll believe what the UN said about it:


A 364 of 3 September 1947


163. *The Arabs of Palestine *consider themselves as having a "natural" right to that country, although* they have not been in possession of it as a sovereign nation.*


166. The desire of the Arab people of Palestine to safeguard their national existence is a very natural desire. However, *Palestinian nationalism, as distinct from Arab nationalism, is itself a relatively new phenomenon, which appeared only after the division of the "Arab rectangle" by the settlement of the First World War.*


----------



## fanger

The American Indians were not in possession of their land as a sovereign nation either


----------



## Roudy

fanger said:


> The American Indians were not in possession of their land as a sovereign nation either



So are you suggesting that Arab savages give back all the lands they invaded?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Remembering that we're are still speaking of a time prior to 1949; and there is a big question gone unanswered.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> When they hold sovereignty to the land via International law.  The legal sovereign owners had the legal right to dispose of the land as they saw fit, and the indigenous peoples had no say in the matter. In this case the majority of the "native population" were recent illegal immigrants, so had no rights
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that like it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> Where/when does it say that the _(former WWI and WWII enemy population of) _Arab Palestinian _(indigenous, native, or citizen)_ has any sovereign control over the remaining territory in 1947 - to which the Mandate applied? To my knowledge, there is absolutely no legal documentation, from 1919 _(the time under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration)_ to 1948 _(the time when the Mandatory terminated its obligations and the successor was selected)_, wherein the League of Nations, the Allied Powers, the Mandatory, or any other legal body, rendered autonomy, self-governance, or any measure of sovereignty to the Arab Palestinian _(former WWI and WWII enemy population) _citizenry?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> to 1948 _(the time when the Mandatory terminated its obligations and the successor was selected)_,​
> What successor was selected and who selected it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UNPC and the UN respectively, as the UN absorbed the LoN and took on the role of enforcing the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What was the UNPC Charter?
Click to expand...





http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/bysubjectandentity?OpenPage&Start=4.7.15&Count=30&Expand=4.7.16


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> This is an evolutionary process.  The UN Charter first addressed this in 1945, but with a limited in scope and restrictions.
> 
> "The decolonization efforts of the United Nations derive from the UN Charter's principle of “equal rights and self-determination of peoples” as well as from three specific chapters in the Charter devoted to the interests of dependent peoples:"
> 
> Chapter XI: Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories
> Chapter XII: International Trusteeship System
> Chapter XIII: The Trusteeship Council
> The question _(Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?)_ is being approached from the wrong angle.
> 
> The question should be an examination as to whether or not being a "native population" infers any special rights over an immigrant population?  And if so, when do the Human Rights of an Immigrant Population reach the equality to the "native population?"
> 
> Remember that the Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 (III) _(International Bill of Human Rights__) _ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in December 1948, did not address self-determination as a universal right beyond the open agenda _("Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.")_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(REFERENCE GROUPS)*
> 
> Decolonization and Self-Determination
> 
> *Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples*
> *Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960*​
> *General Assembly Resolution Defining the Three Options for Self-determination*
> General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV)
> 
> *Universal Realization of the Right of Peoples to Self-determination*
> General Assembly Resolution 49/148  23 December 1994​*General Assembly Resolution establishing the Special Committee on Decolonization*
> General Assembly Resolution 1654 (XVI)​Rights of Indigenous Peoples
> 
> *United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples*
> General Assembly Resolution 61/295 13 September 2007
> 
> *United Nations Resolution on Rights of Indigenous Peoples*
> General Assembly Resolution 66/142  19 December 2011​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Under the general understanding of Self-Determination, whether it is be considered in terms of Indigenous People _(or as you say: "native inhabitance")_, or migrants/immigrants, the rights are exactly the same; with one interpretative difference found in Articles 3 and 31 of A/RES/61/295 - Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:
> 
> "Indigenous peoples have a right of internal self-determination. By virtue of that right, they may negotiate their political status within the framework of the existing nation-state and are free to pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right of internal self-determination, have the internal right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their local affairs, including determination of membership, culture, language, religion, education, information, media, health, housing, employment, social welfare, maintenance of community safety, family relations, economic activities, lands and resources management, environment and entry by non-members, as well as ways and means for financing these autonomous functions."​
> The ambiguity here is found in the question:  When does a migrant/immigrant hold the same rights as the indigenous people.  And that is a matter of local legislation.  Comparatively, that usually happens when an immigrant is naturalized as a citizen.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for all the links that support my position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when does a recent migrant with full citizenship become a 2nd or 3rd class citizen and lose their human, civil and religious rights ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know. I have never posted such a proposition.
Click to expand...





 But you have when you stated that recent migrants with full citizenship get more rights than the indigenous. It was shown they didn't under international laws of the time, so the opposite must therefor be true ?


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> The "right to sovereignty" is a very nebulas concept.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> This appears to be a key point.
> 
> Sovereignty accrued to the inhabitants, albeit administered by the Mandatory.​
> That is the way I always understood it. UN resolutions confirm the Palestinian's right to sovereignty in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "right to sovereignty" is "Recognizing that the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any State should be
> respected in the holding of elections."  It is a set of principles that span a number of concepts.
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.
> 
> When a Resolution says it _Reaffirming_ its resolution 58/292 of 6 May 2004, affirming, inter alia, that the status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, remains one of military occupation and that, in accordance with international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over their territory, IT WAS SPECIFIC:  "Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem"
> 
> It did not say it had the right to sovereignty over all the territory formerly under the Mandate, not did it say the Palestinians had the right to all of Jerusalem.  It is specific and needs to be specific because the Hostile Arab Palestinians are claiming a sovereign right to Palestine as they define it:  "Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.​
> Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OUTSTANDING QUESTION!  Let us not forget that the indigenous Palestinian people of the land WERE JEWS.
> 
> Israel Palestine Who s Indigenous by Ryan Bellerose Israellycool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I post a UN document and you post an Israeli propaganda site.
> 
> Good show.
Click to expand...


Aha!  So let us get this straight.  Are you saying the indigenous Palestinians of the land were not Jews but Muslims?


----------



## MJB12741

Roudy said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The American Indians were not in possession of their land as a sovereign nation either
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are you suggesting that Arab savages give back all the lands they invaded?
Click to expand...


It is true that all Muslim lands are stolen lands conquered by force from the native populations.  Yes indeed, now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> The "right to sovereignty" is a very nebulas concept.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> This appears to be a key point.
> 
> Sovereignty accrued to the inhabitants, albeit administered by the Mandatory.​
> That is the way I always understood it. UN resolutions confirm the Palestinian's right to sovereignty in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "right to sovereignty" is "Recognizing that the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any State should be
> respected in the holding of elections."  It is a set of principles that span a number of concepts.
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.
> 
> When a Resolution says it _Reaffirming_ its resolution 58/292 of 6 May 2004, affirming, inter alia, that the status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, remains one of military occupation and that, in accordance with international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over their territory, IT WAS SPECIFIC:  "Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem"
> 
> It did not say it had the right to sovereignty over all the territory formerly under the Mandate, not did it say the Palestinians had the right to all of Jerusalem.  It is specific and needs to be specific because the Hostile Arab Palestinians are claiming a sovereign right to Palestine as they define it:  "Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.​
> Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OUTSTANDING QUESTION!  Let us not forget that the indigenous Palestinian people of the land WERE JEWS.
> 
> Israel Palestine Who s Indigenous by Ryan Bellerose Israellycool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I post a UN document and you post an Israeli propaganda site.
> 
> Good show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aha!  So let us get this straight.  Are you saying the indigenous Palestinians of the land were not Jews but Muslims?
Click to expand...

I never said that.

You are so confused.


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Iraqi delegate, Mr. Jalami, summarized this position as follows:"I believe the world today is suffering from a lack of regard for certain fundamental principles of international relations and human life. We either lack these principles, or, if we do not lack them, we disregard them, or we are inconsistent in their application. This is the essence of the trouble with the world today.

The question of Palestine, for which a committee is being proposed, is no exception to this state of affairs. It is only a question resulting from a disregard of certain fundamental principles of human life; namely, the principle of self-determination, the principle of the right to live peacefully in one's own home, and the principle of self government in a democratic way.

I submit that if these principles were to be recommended by the Assembly the issue would be settled. If the consideration of these principles were put forward, there would be no problem in Palestine. The problem of Palestine consists merely in a disregard of the fundamental principles of the Covenant of the League of Nations, a disregard of the very principles for which the mandate was made; it is the imposition of the will of one people over another without their consent. The Balfour Declaration violated these fundamental principles.

It sold one peoples' land to another without their consent, without their knowledge. That is why we in Iraq believe that the question is very simple. […] I am afraid that if this problem is not solved in the spirit of the United Nations it will create a world problem."

International Law

The intelligent were shoved aside and the stupid got their way.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> The "right to sovereignty" is a very nebulas concept.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> This appears to be a key point.
> 
> Sovereignty accrued to the inhabitants, albeit administered by the Mandatory.​
> That is the way I always understood it. UN resolutions confirm the Palestinian's right to sovereignty in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "right to sovereignty" is "Recognizing that the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any State should be
> respected in the holding of elections."  It is a set of principles that span a number of concepts.
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.
> 
> When a Resolution says it _Reaffirming_ its resolution 58/292 of 6 May 2004, affirming, inter alia, that the status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, remains one of military occupation and that, in accordance with international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over their territory, IT WAS SPECIFIC:  "Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem"
> 
> It did not say it had the right to sovereignty over all the territory formerly under the Mandate, not did it say the Palestinians had the right to all of Jerusalem.  It is specific and needs to be specific because the Hostile Arab Palestinians are claiming a sovereign right to Palestine as they define it:  "Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.​
> Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OUTSTANDING QUESTION!  Let us not forget that the indigenous Palestinian people of the land WERE JEWS.
> 
> Israel Palestine Who s Indigenous by Ryan Bellerose Israellycool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I post a UN document and you post an Israeli propaganda site.
> 
> Good show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aha!  So let us get this straight.  Are you saying the indigenous Palestinians of the land were not Jews but Muslims?
Click to expand...


The indigenous people of Palestine are the people that inhabited the area called Palestine prior to partition.  The religion they may have converted to has no bearing on the matter. The indigenous people were certainly not European colonists of whatever religion.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> The "right to sovereignty" is a very nebulas concept.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "right to sovereignty" is "Recognizing that the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any State should be
> respected in the holding of elections."  It is a set of principles that span a number of concepts.
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.
> 
> When a Resolution says it _Reaffirming_ its resolution 58/292 of 6 May 2004, affirming, inter alia, that the status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, remains one of military occupation and that, in accordance with international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over their territory, IT WAS SPECIFIC:  "Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem"
> 
> It did not say it had the right to sovereignty over all the territory formerly under the Mandate, not did it say the Palestinians had the right to all of Jerusalem.  It is specific and needs to be specific because the Hostile Arab Palestinians are claiming a sovereign right to Palestine as they define it:  "Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.​
> Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OUTSTANDING QUESTION!  Let us not forget that the indigenous Palestinian people of the land WERE JEWS.
> 
> Israel Palestine Who s Indigenous by Ryan Bellerose Israellycool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I post a UN document and you post an Israeli propaganda site.
> 
> Good show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aha!  So let us get this straight.  Are you saying the indigenous Palestinians of the land were not Jews but Muslims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said that.
> 
> You are so confused.
Click to expand...


Well then do you agree the indigenous Palestinians were Jews?  Make up your mind.  Were the indigenous or native Palestinians of the land Jews or Muslims?


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, should we believe Roudy's opinion or wikipedia?
> 
> The *Palestinians* (Arabic: الفلسطينيون‎, _al-Filasṭīniyyūn_, Hebrew: פָלַסְטִינִים), also referred to as the *Palestinian people* (Arabic: الشعب الفلسطيني‎, _ash-sha‘b al-Filasṭīnī_), are the modern descendants of the peoples who have lived in Palestine over the centuries, and who today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab due to Arabization of the region.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] Despite various wars and exoduses (such as that in 1948), roughly one half of the world's Palestinian population continues to reside in historic Palestine, the area encompassing the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Israel.[25] In this combined area, as of 2004, Palestinians constituted 49% of all inhabitants,[26]encompassing the entire population of the Gaza Strip (1.6 million), the majority of the population of the West Bank (approximately 2.3 million versus close to 500,000 JewishIsraeli citizens which includes about 200,000 in East Jerusalem), and 16.5% of the population of Israel proper as Arab citizens of Israel.[27] Many are Palestinian refugees orinternally displaced Palestinians, including more than a million in the Gaza Strip,[28] three-quarters of a million in the West Bank,[29] and about a quarter of a million in Israel proper. Of the Palestinian population who live abroad, known as the Palestinian diaspora, more than half are stateless lacking citizenship in any country.[30] 3.24 million of the diaspora population live in neighboring Jordan[31] where they make up approximately half the population, 1.5 million live between Syria and Lebanon, a quarter of a million in Saudi Arabia, with Chile's half a million representing the largest concentration outside the Arab world.
> 
> A genetic study has suggested that a majority of the Muslims of Palestine, inclusive of Arab citizens of Israel, could be descendants of Christians, Jews and other earlier inhabitants of the southern Levant whose core may reach back to prehistoric times. A study of high-resolution haplotypes demonstrated that a substantial portion of Y chromosomes of Israeli Jews (70%) and of Palestinian Muslim Arabs (82%) belonged to the same chromosome pool.
> Palestinians - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok if you believe fairy stories, but the evidence shows that the majority of "Palestinians" are recent illegal immigrants.
Click to expand...


Evidence shows quite the opposite. The only illegal immigrants are the European Jews.


----------



## montelatici

The indigenous people, before most of them were evicted by the Europeans were the people living in Palestine. They, the people of Palestine, practiced a variety of religion through the millennia,   Religions may change, but the people are the same people for the most part.  The first religion practiced in the area for which there is archeological evidence  was a multi-theistic religion as practiced by the Canaanites.  Also before the arrival of Judaism, the Philistines practiced a Minoan religion as they came from Crete, but adopted the Canaanite religion.

However, regardless of religion, the people are more or less the same people that have always lived in the area. Samaritans, for example practiced a religion similar to Judaism, but like those of the Jewish religion underwent mass conversion to Christianity, as when the Romans (the Eastern Romans/Byzantines) became Christians, they became less tolerant.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.​
> Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OUTSTANDING QUESTION!  Let us not forget that the indigenous Palestinian people of the land WERE JEWS.
> 
> Israel Palestine Who s Indigenous by Ryan Bellerose Israellycool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I post a UN document and you post an Israeli propaganda site.
> 
> Good show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aha!  So let us get this straight.  Are you saying the indigenous Palestinians of the land were not Jews but Muslims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said that.
> 
> You are so confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then do you agree the indigenous Palestinians were Jews?  Make up your mind.  Were the indigenous or native Palestinians of the land Jews or Muslims?
Click to expand...

They were Muslims, Christians, Jews, and others.

Are you trying to create a point here?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Roudy

YOUR version of evidence of course. 

Let's not forget,  you're the same Jew hater who claims that there were hardly any Jews in Israel for the last 2000 years.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


>



From your video: "Israelites were Jewish"


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your video: "Israelites were Jewish"
Click to expand...

Rick Steves is a travel writer not a theologian.


----------



## Roudy

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your video: "Israelites were Jewish"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rick Steves is a travel writer not a theologian.
Click to expand...

Tinmore now disputes the producer of the clip he provides.  Ya gotta love these morons.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your video: "Israelites were Jewish"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rick Steves is a travel writer not a theologian.
Click to expand...


I posted that because I remember a few weeks back you asked "Where does it say that Israelites are Jewish"

Just sayin


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your video: "Israelites were Jewish"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rick Steves is a travel writer not a theologian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted that because I remember a few weeks back you asked "Where does it say that Israelites are Jewish"
> 
> Just sayin
Click to expand...

So, where does it say that in the Bible?

Didn't you duck that question?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> The Iraqi delegate, Mr. Jalami, summarized this position as follows:"I believe the world today is suffering from a lack of regard for certain fundamental principles of international relations and human life. We either lack these principles, or, if we do not lack them, we disregard them, or we are inconsistent in their application. This is the essence of the trouble with the world today.
> 
> The question of Palestine, for which a committee is being proposed, is no exception to this state of affairs. It is only a question resulting from a disregard of certain fundamental principles of human life; namely, the principle of self-determination, the principle of the right to live peacefully in one's own home, and the principle of self government in a democratic way.
> 
> I submit that if these principles were to be recommended by the Assembly the issue would be settled. If the consideration of these principles were put forward, there would be no problem in Palestine. The problem of Palestine consists merely in a disregard of the fundamental principles of the Covenant of the League of Nations, a disregard of the very principles for which the mandate was made; it is the imposition of the will of one people over another without their consent. The Balfour Declaration violated these fundamental principles.
> 
> It sold one peoples' land to another without their consent, without their knowledge. That is why we in Iraq believe that the question is very simple. […] I am afraid that if this problem is not solved in the spirit of the United Nations it will create a world problem."
> 
> International Law
> 
> The intelligent were shoved aside and the stupid got their way.






 No the idiotic and greedy were shoved aside by INTERNATIONAL LAW of 1923 that granted the 22% of Palestine to the Jews as their National home. The other 78% was granted to the arab muslims for their National home under the rule of a Saudi minor prince. The pali supporters forget about the original partition of Palestine that gave the vast majority of the land to the arab muslims and in the process fulfilled the terms of the LoN covenant and the Mandate.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> The "right to sovereignty" is a very nebulas concept.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "right to sovereignty" is "Recognizing that the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any State should be
> respected in the holding of elections."  It is a set of principles that span a number of concepts.
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.
> 
> When a Resolution says it _Reaffirming_ its resolution 58/292 of 6 May 2004, affirming, inter alia, that the status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, remains one of military occupation and that, in accordance with international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over their territory, IT WAS SPECIFIC:  "Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem"
> 
> It did not say it had the right to sovereignty over all the territory formerly under the Mandate, not did it say the Palestinians had the right to all of Jerusalem.  It is specific and needs to be specific because the Hostile Arab Palestinians are claiming a sovereign right to Palestine as they define it:  "Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has this set of rights, yet this rights do not overtake or supplant Israeli rights.​
> Where do colonizers get superior rights over the native population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OUTSTANDING QUESTION!  Let us not forget that the indigenous Palestinian people of the land WERE JEWS.
> 
> Israel Palestine Who s Indigenous by Ryan Bellerose Israellycool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I post a UN document and you post an Israeli propaganda site.
> 
> Good show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aha!  So let us get this straight.  Are you saying the indigenous Palestinians of the land were not Jews but Muslims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indigenous people of Palestine are the people that inhabited the area called Palestine prior to partition.  The religion they may have converted to has no bearing on the matter. The indigenous people were certainly not European colonists of whatever religion.
Click to expand...





 Which partition as there have been 2 during the term of the Mandate. The first was when Palestine was partitioned into arab Palestine and Jewish Palestine. The indigenous arabs received 78% of the land leaving the Jews who were full citizens and not European colonists the remaining 22%.

 WHY DO YOU CONSTANTLY POST RACIST LIES ABOUT THE JEWS, YOU KNOW THE MAJORITY AME FROM THE SURROUNDING ISLAMONAZI NATIONS AND NOT FROM EUROPE


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your video: "Israelites were Jewish"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rick Steves is a travel writer not a theologian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted that because I remember a few weeks back you asked "Where does it say that Israelites are Jewish"
> 
> Just sayin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, where does it say that in the Bible?
> 
> Didn't you duck that question?
Click to expand...




Which Bible ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, should we believe Roudy's opinion or wikipedia?
> 
> The *Palestinians* (Arabic: الفلسطينيون‎, _al-Filasṭīniyyūn_, Hebrew: פָלַסְטִינִים), also referred to as the *Palestinian people* (Arabic: الشعب الفلسطيني‎, _ash-sha‘b al-Filasṭīnī_), are the modern descendants of the peoples who have lived in Palestine over the centuries, and who today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab due to Arabization of the region.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] Despite various wars and exoduses (such as that in 1948), roughly one half of the world's Palestinian population continues to reside in historic Palestine, the area encompassing the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Israel.[25] In this combined area, as of 2004, Palestinians constituted 49% of all inhabitants,[26]encompassing the entire population of the Gaza Strip (1.6 million), the majority of the population of the West Bank (approximately 2.3 million versus close to 500,000 JewishIsraeli citizens which includes about 200,000 in East Jerusalem), and 16.5% of the population of Israel proper as Arab citizens of Israel.[27] Many are Palestinian refugees orinternally displaced Palestinians, including more than a million in the Gaza Strip,[28] three-quarters of a million in the West Bank,[29] and about a quarter of a million in Israel proper. Of the Palestinian population who live abroad, known as the Palestinian diaspora, more than half are stateless lacking citizenship in any country.[30] 3.24 million of the diaspora population live in neighboring Jordan[31] where they make up approximately half the population, 1.5 million live between Syria and Lebanon, a quarter of a million in Saudi Arabia, with Chile's half a million representing the largest concentration outside the Arab world.
> 
> A genetic study has suggested that a majority of the Muslims of Palestine, inclusive of Arab citizens of Israel, could be descendants of Christians, Jews and other earlier inhabitants of the southern Levant whose core may reach back to prehistoric times. A study of high-resolution haplotypes demonstrated that a substantial portion of Y chromosomes of Israeli Jews (70%) and of Palestinian Muslim Arabs (82%) belonged to the same chromosome pool.
> Palestinians - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok if you believe fairy stories, but the evidence shows that the majority of "Palestinians" are recent illegal immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence shows quite the opposite. The only illegal immigrants are the European Jews.
Click to expand...






 Your own link stated that out of 1,500 illegal immigrants over 1,000 were arab muslims. This is a UN report that you relied on heavily to put across your POV, right up until this was posted from further in the report. But one of Churchill's speeches in the House stated that the arab muslims were migrating illegally into Palestine while British officials were being paid to alter official documents to hide this.  The link to this has been given many times and so if you want to see it yourself look in the archives, or read Hansard from that era.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> The indigenous people, before most of them were evicted by the Europeans were the people living in Palestine. They, the people of Palestine, practiced a variety of religion through the millennia,   Religions may change, but the people are the same people for the most part.  The first religion practiced in the area for which there is archeological evidence  was a multi-theistic religion as practiced by the Canaanites.  Also before the arrival of Judaism, the Philistines practiced a Minoan religion as they came from Crete, but adopted the Canaanite religion.
> 
> However, regardless of religion, the people are more or less the same people that have always lived in the area. Samaritans, for example practiced a religion similar to Judaism, but like those of the Jewish religion underwent mass conversion to Christianity, as when the Romans (the Eastern Romans/Byzantines) became Christians, they became less tolerant.







 Lifted word for word from a Wikipedia entry by a Palestinian propagandist.    Thought you could get away with it didn't you fred


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OUTSTANDING QUESTION!  Let us not forget that the indigenous Palestinian people of the land WERE JEWS.
> 
> Israel Palestine Who s Indigenous by Ryan Bellerose Israellycool
> 
> 
> 
> I post a UN document and you post an Israeli propaganda site.
> 
> Good show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aha!  So let us get this straight.  Are you saying the indigenous Palestinians of the land were not Jews but Muslims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said that.
> 
> You are so confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then do you agree the indigenous Palestinians were Jews?  Make up your mind.  Were the indigenous or native Palestinians of the land Jews or Muslims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were Muslims, Christians, Jews, and others.
> 
> Are you trying to create a point here?
Click to expand...





 From 70 C.E right up until 1960 which people were known as Palestinians and which people would get angry and violent when you called them Palestinians ?


----------



## theliq

montelatici said:


> And, the piece is written like the Latin Kingdom never ruled Palestine. What a bunch of ignorant propagandists.


and cnuts monte and cnuts


----------



## theliq

Daniyel said:


> Don't be mistaken its known to all, some just deliberately deny it because they fear the truth, can't admit they were wrong or just a racists trying to justify their primitive emotional perspectives.
> Palestinians are just Arabs, particularly hostile and stupid.


But a Semitic People.....like some Jews......


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OUTSTANDING QUESTION!  Let us not forget that the indigenous Palestinian people of the land WERE JEWS.
> 
> Israel Palestine Who s Indigenous by Ryan Bellerose Israellycool
> 
> 
> 
> I post a UN document and you post an Israeli propaganda site.
> 
> Good show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aha!  So let us get this straight.  Are you saying the indigenous Palestinians of the land were not Jews but Muslims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said that.
> 
> You are so confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then do you agree the indigenous Palestinians were Jews?  Make up your mind.  Were the indigenous or native Palestinians of the land Jews or Muslims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were Muslims, Christians, Jews, and others.
> 
> Are you trying to create a point here?
Click to expand...


Fact:  There were no Muslims at all until the 7th centurty AD.  Based on what you say there were no people at all in the land until that time.  Or is it actually possible you just can't accept the fact that Jews were among the native Palestinians long before the Muslim Palestinians stole the land?


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, the piece is written like the Latin Kingdom never ruled Palestine. What a bunch of ignorant propagandists.
> 
> 
> 
> and cnuts monte and cnuts
Click to expand...




They didn't they only


----------



## Daniyel

theliq said:


> Daniyel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be mistaken its known to all, some just deliberately deny it because they fear the truth, can't admit they were wrong or just a racists trying to justify their primitive emotional perspectives.
> Palestinians are just Arabs, particularly hostile and stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> But a Semitic People.....like some Jews......
Click to expand...

Semitic is a very general term of ethnicity, its like saying American, I'd give you an example, I Assume you are familiar with the term 'Racism' - and you know very well that 'Racism' is not only about 'Race' as been in the past but also for other sort of ethnic groups such as religion, language, nationality, region. the term is not accurate. you may also noticed that I tried to refrain using it.


----------



## Roudy

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your video: "Israelites were Jewish"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rick Steves is a travel writer not a theologian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted that because I remember a few weeks back you asked "Where does it say that Israelites are Jewish"
> 
> Just sayin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, where does it say that in the Bible?
> 
> Didn't you duck that question?
Click to expand...


"Jew" is an English word you ignorant MORON. 

The term *Jew* passed into the English language from the Greek _Ioudaios_ and Latin _Iudaeus_, from which the Old French_giu_was derived after dropping the letter "d", and later after a variety of forms found in early English (from about the year 1000) such as: Iudea, Gyu, Giu, Iuu, Iuw, Iew developed into the English word “Jew.” *It thus ultimately originates in the Biblical Hebrew word Yehudi meaning "from the Tribe of Judah", "from the Kingdom of Judah", or "Jew".

The Jewish ethnonym in Hebrew is יהודים Yehudim (plural of יהודי Yehudi) which is the origin of the English word Jew. The Hebrew name is derived from the region name Judah (Yehudah יהודה).

Originally the name referred to the territory allotted to the tribe descended from Judahthe fourth son of the patriarch Jacob (Numbers). According to the Hebrew Bible Judah was one of the twelve sons of Jacob and one of the Twelve tribes of Israel (Genesis). Genesis 29:35 [1] relates that Judah's mother — the matriarch Leah — named him Yehudah (i.e. "Judah") because she wanted to "praise God" for giving birth to so many sons: "She said, 'This time let me praise (odeh אודה) God (יהוה),' and named the child Judah (Yehudah יהודה)", thus combining "praise" and "God" into one new name. In Hebrew, the name "Judah" (י ה ו [ד] ה) contains the four letters of the Tetragrammaton — the special, holy, and ineffable name of the Jewish God. The very holiness of the name of Judah attests to its importance as an alternate name for "Israelites" that it ultimately replaces.

*


----------



## Roudy

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I post a UN document and you post an Israeli propaganda site.
> 
> Good show.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aha!  So let us get this straight.  Are you saying the indigenous Palestinians of the land were not Jews but Muslims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said that.
> 
> You are so confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then do you agree the indigenous Palestinians were Jews?  Make up your mind.  Were the indigenous or native Palestinians of the land Jews or Muslims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were Muslims, Christians, Jews, and others.
> 
> Are you trying to create a point here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact:  There were no Muslims at all until the 7th centurty AD.  Based on what you say there were no people at all in the land until that time.  Or is it actually possible you just can't accept the fact that Jews were among the native Palestinians long before the Muslim Palestinians stole the land?
Click to expand...


Muslims were very good at invading, raping, looting, and shoving their barbaric religion down people's throats at the point of the sword. 

In fact, they're still doing it.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who are the Palestinians?

*Dr. Ghada Karmi*

**


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Dr. Ghada Karmi*
> 
> **






No legal right of return, it is just Palestinian propaganda.  It is up to each individual nation to decide if they will put it in place.  As for the video need go no further than the still used to know it is just a pack of Palestinian lies and propaganda.


 The first of the series of pictures shows the land granted to the Jews for their National home that became INTERNATIONAL LAW.


----------



## MJB12741

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Dr. Ghada Karmi*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No legal right of return, it is just Palestinian propaganda.  It is up to each individual nation to decide if they will put it in place.  As for the video need go no further than the still used to know it is just a pack of Palestinian lies and propaganda.
> 
> 
> The first of the series of pictures shows the land granted to the Jews for their National home that became INTERNATIONAL LAW.
Click to expand...


Why is it that every single surrounding Arab country refuses to grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands?  Is it actually possible they are grateful to have dumped them on Israel to deal with?


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Dr. Ghada Karmi*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No legal right of return, it is just Palestinian propaganda.  It is up to each individual nation to decide if they will put it in place.  As for the video need go no further than the still used to know it is just a pack of Palestinian lies and propaganda.
> 
> 
> The first of the series of pictures shows the land granted to the Jews for their National home that became INTERNATIONAL LAW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that every single surrounding Arab country refuses to grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands?  Is it actually possible they are grateful to have dumped them on Israel to deal with?
Click to expand...


Want peace?  Those Zionists in Israel must start treating the Palestinians like their own Arab brothers in surrounding Arab countries do.  No more of Israel's damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions to provoke the Palestinians into hatred of Israel.


----------



## MJB12741

Interesting & informative article for those who seek the truth with an unbiased open mind.

For the love of Israel Fred Maroun The Blogs The Times of Israel


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Dr. Ghada Karmi*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No legal right of return, it is just Palestinian propaganda.  It is up to each individual nation to decide if they will put it in place.  As for the video need go no further than the still used to know it is just a pack of Palestinian lies and propaganda.
> 
> 
> The first of the series of pictures shows the land granted to the Jews for their National home that became INTERNATIONAL LAW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that every single surrounding Arab country refuses to grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands?  Is it actually possible they are grateful to have dumped them on Israel to deal with?
Click to expand...


Because Palestinians come from Palestine, not surrounding countries.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Dr. Ghada Karmi*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No legal right of return, it is just Palestinian propaganda.  It is up to each individual nation to decide if they will put it in place.  As for the video need go no further than the still used to know it is just a pack of Palestinian lies and propaganda.
> 
> 
> The first of the series of pictures shows the land granted to the Jews for their National home that became INTERNATIONAL LAW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that every single surrounding Arab country refuses to grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands?  Is it actually possible they are grateful to have dumped them on Israel to deal with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Want peace?  Those Zionists in Israel must start treating the Palestinians like their own Arab brothers in surrounding Arab countries do.  No more of Israel's damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions to provoke the Palestinians into hatred of Israel.
Click to expand...


The Zionists need to go back to where they came from.  Europe.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Dr. Ghada Karmi*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No legal right of return, it is just Palestinian propaganda.  It is up to each individual nation to decide if they will put it in place.  As for the video need go no further than the still used to know it is just a pack of Palestinian lies and propaganda.
> 
> 
> The first of the series of pictures shows the land granted to the Jews for their National home that became INTERNATIONAL LAW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that every single surrounding Arab country refuses to grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands?  Is it actually possible they are grateful to have dumped them on Israel to deal with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Palestinians come from Palestine, not surrounding countries.
Click to expand...



The Jews were native Palestinians.  Not Muslims.  Time for them to go back to their native homelands.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Dr. Ghada Karmi*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No legal right of return, it is just Palestinian propaganda.  It is up to each individual nation to decide if they will put it in place.  As for the video need go no further than the still used to know it is just a pack of Palestinian lies and propaganda.
> 
> 
> The first of the series of pictures shows the land granted to the Jews for their National home that became INTERNATIONAL LAW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that every single surrounding Arab country refuses to grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands?  Is it actually possible they are grateful to have dumped them on Israel to deal with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Palestinians come from Palestine, not surrounding countries.
Click to expand...






 So none of the arab muslims are really Palestinians then as they came from the surrounding countries, even their own leaders admit this.    Don't forget in 1967 they went from being Jordanians to Palestinians overnight, and in 1948 they could not claim refugee status because they had less than 24 months residency.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Dr. Ghada Karmi*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No legal right of return, it is just Palestinian propaganda.  It is up to each individual nation to decide if they will put it in place.  As for the video need go no further than the still used to know it is just a pack of Palestinian lies and propaganda.
> 
> 
> The first of the series of pictures shows the land granted to the Jews for their National home that became INTERNATIONAL LAW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that every single surrounding Arab country refuses to grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands?  Is it actually possible they are grateful to have dumped them on Israel to deal with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Want peace?  Those Zionists in Israel must start treating the Palestinians like their own Arab brothers in surrounding Arab countries do.  No more of Israel's damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions to provoke the Palestinians into hatred of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Zionists need to go back to where they came from.  Europe.
Click to expand...






 Most Zionists don't come from Europe, why do you constantly show your stupidity by posting absolute garbage.


----------



## MJB12741

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Dr. Ghada Karmi*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No legal right of return, it is just Palestinian propaganda.  It is up to each individual nation to decide if they will put it in place.  As for the video need go no further than the still used to know it is just a pack of Palestinian lies and propaganda.
> 
> 
> The first of the series of pictures shows the land granted to the Jews for their National home that became INTERNATIONAL LAW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that every single surrounding Arab country refuses to grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands?  Is it actually possible they are grateful to have dumped them on Israel to deal with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Palestinians come from Palestine, not surrounding countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No deeds, no titles to the land the Muslim Palestinians stole.  Send the squatters back to their native homelands. LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!
> 
> 
> 
> So none of the arab muslims are really Palestinians then as they came from the surrounding countries, even their own leaders admit this.    Don't forget in 1967 they went from being Jordanians to Palestinians overnight, and in 1948 they could not claim refugee status because they had less than 24 months residency.
Click to expand...


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Dr. Ghada Karmi*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No legal right of return, it is just Palestinian propaganda.  It is up to each individual nation to decide if they will put it in place.  As for the video need go no further than the still used to know it is just a pack of Palestinian lies and propaganda.
> 
> 
> The first of the series of pictures shows the land granted to the Jews for their National home that became INTERNATIONAL LAW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that every single surrounding Arab country refuses to grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands?  Is it actually possible they are grateful to have dumped them on Israel to deal with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Palestinians come from Palestine, not surrounding countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews were native Palestinians.  Not Muslims.  Time for them to go back to their native homelands.
Click to expand...


No, the Jews came from Europe and went to Palestine, that is just a recorded fact.  The Palestinians are the indigenous people of Palestine, whatever religion they may have adopted.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Dr. Ghada Karmi*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No legal right of return, it is just Palestinian propaganda.  It is up to each individual nation to decide if they will put it in place.  As for the video need go no further than the still used to know it is just a pack of Palestinian lies and propaganda.
> 
> 
> The first of the series of pictures shows the land granted to the Jews for their National home that became INTERNATIONAL LAW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that every single surrounding Arab country refuses to grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands?  Is it actually possible they are grateful to have dumped them on Israel to deal with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Palestinians come from Palestine, not surrounding countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews were native Palestinians.  Not Muslims.  Time for them to go back to their native homelands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the Jews came from Europe and went to Palestine, that is just a recorded fact.  The Palestinians are the indigenous people of Palestine, whatever religion they may have adopted.
Click to expand...






 Look at your own links again fred and see that the majority of immigrant Jews came from nations in the M.E and Horn of Africa.
 Yes the Palestinians are the indigenous people of Palestine and they happen to be the Jews. The arab muslims had Palestine for less than 30 years before they were kicked out in 1099.  These are recorded facts that you claim are Zionist hasbara propaganda because you cant refute them


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Dr. Ghada Karmi*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No legal right of return, it is just Palestinian propaganda.  It is up to each individual nation to decide if they will put it in place.  As for the video need go no further than the still used to know it is just a pack of Palestinian lies and propaganda.
> 
> 
> The first of the series of pictures shows the land granted to the Jews for their National home that became INTERNATIONAL LAW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that every single surrounding Arab country refuses to grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands?  Is it actually possible they are grateful to have dumped them on Israel to deal with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Palestinians come from Palestine, not surrounding countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews were native Palestinians.  Not Muslims.  Time for them to go back to their native homelands.
Click to expand...


No, the Jews were living in Europe and went to Palestine.  The Palestinians, of whatever religion, are from Palestine.  Muslims and Christians are not a race or ethnicity.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No legal right of return, it is just Palestinian propaganda.  It is up to each individual nation to decide if they will put it in place.  As for the video need go no further than the still used to know it is just a pack of Palestinian lies and propaganda.
> 
> 
> The first of the series of pictures shows the land granted to the Jews for their National home that became INTERNATIONAL LAW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that every single surrounding Arab country refuses to grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands?  Is it actually possible they are grateful to have dumped them on Israel to deal with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Palestinians come from Palestine, not surrounding countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews were native Palestinians.  Not Muslims.  Time for them to go back to their native homelands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the Jews came from Europe and went to Palestine, that is just a recorded fact.  The Palestinians are the indigenous people of Palestine, whatever religion they may have adopted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at your own links again fred and see that the majority of immigrant Jews came from nations in the M.E and Horn of Africa.
> Yes the Palestinians are the indigenous people of Palestine and they happen to be the Jews. The arab muslims had Palestine for less than 30 years before they were kicked out in 1099.  These are recorded facts that you claim are Zionist hasbara propaganda because you cant refute them
Click to expand...


The people of Palestine, Christians and Muslims are the same people that have always lived in Palestine.  Prior to converting to Islam they were all Christian, by law.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Dr. Ghada Karmi*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No legal right of return, it is just Palestinian propaganda.  It is up to each individual nation to decide if they will put it in place.  As for the video need go no further than the still used to know it is just a pack of Palestinian lies and propaganda.
> 
> 
> The first of the series of pictures shows the land granted to the Jews for their National home that became INTERNATIONAL LAW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that every single surrounding Arab country refuses to grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands?  Is it actually possible they are grateful to have dumped them on Israel to deal with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Want peace?  Those Zionists in Israel must start treating the Palestinians like their own Arab brothers in surrounding Arab countries do.  No more of Israel's damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions to provoke the Palestinians into hatred of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Zionists need to go back to where they came from.  Europe.
Click to expand...

SO people who are born in Israel , should go to Europe. Ya, that makes sense


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Dr. Ghada Karmi*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No legal right of return, it is just Palestinian propaganda.  It is up to each individual nation to decide if they will put it in place.  As for the video need go no further than the still used to know it is just a pack of Palestinian lies and propaganda.
> 
> 
> The first of the series of pictures shows the land granted to the Jews for their National home that became INTERNATIONAL LAW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that every single surrounding Arab country refuses to grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands?  Is it actually possible they are grateful to have dumped them on Israel to deal with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Want peace?  Those Zionists in Israel must start treating the Palestinians like their own Arab brothers in surrounding Arab countries do.  No more of Israel's damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions to provoke the Palestinians into hatred of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Zionists need to go back to where they came from.  Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SO people who are born in Israel , should go to Europe. Ya, that makes sense
Click to expand...


Makes as much sense as the European Jews evicting the Christians and Muslims who were born in Palestine to set up their own state.


----------



## toastman

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Dr. Ghada Karmi*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No legal right of return, it is just Palestinian propaganda.  It is up to each individual nation to decide if they will put it in place.  As for the video need go no further than the still used to know it is just a pack of Palestinian lies and propaganda.
> 
> 
> The first of the series of pictures shows the land granted to the Jews for their National home that became INTERNATIONAL LAW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that every single surrounding Arab country refuses to grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands?  Is it actually possible they are grateful to have dumped them on Israel to deal with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Want peace?  Those Zionists in Israel must start treating the Palestinians like their own Arab brothers in surrounding Arab countries do.  No more of Israel's damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions to provoke the Palestinians into hatred of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Zionists need to go back to where they came from.  Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Zionists don't come from Europe, why do you constantly show your stupidity by posting absolute garbage.
Click to expand...




montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No legal right of return, it is just Palestinian propaganda.  It is up to each individual nation to decide if they will put it in place.  As for the video need go no further than the still used to know it is just a pack of Palestinian lies and propaganda.
> 
> 
> The first of the series of pictures shows the land granted to the Jews for their National home that became INTERNATIONAL LAW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that every single surrounding Arab country refuses to grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands?  Is it actually possible they are grateful to have dumped them on Israel to deal with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Want peace?  Those Zionists in Israel must start treating the Palestinians like their own Arab brothers in surrounding Arab countries do.  No more of Israel's damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions to provoke the Palestinians into hatred of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Zionists need to go back to where they came from.  Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SO people who are born in Israel , should go to Europe. Ya, that makes sense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Makes as much sense as the European Jews evicting the Christians and Muslims who were born in Palestine to set up their own state.
Click to expand...


Nice deflection


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No legal right of return, it is just Palestinian propaganda.  It is up to each individual nation to decide if they will put it in place.  As for the video need go no further than the still used to know it is just a pack of Palestinian lies and propaganda.
> 
> 
> The first of the series of pictures shows the land granted to the Jews for their National home that became INTERNATIONAL LAW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that every single surrounding Arab country refuses to grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands?  Is it actually possible they are grateful to have dumped them on Israel to deal with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Want peace?  Those Zionists in Israel must start treating the Palestinians like their own Arab brothers in surrounding Arab countries do.  No more of Israel's damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions to provoke the Palestinians into hatred of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Zionists need to go back to where they came from.  Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Zionists don't come from Europe, why do you constantly show your stupidity by posting absolute garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that every single surrounding Arab country refuses to grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands?  Is it actually possible they are grateful to have dumped them on Israel to deal with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Want peace?  Those Zionists in Israel must start treating the Palestinians like their own Arab brothers in surrounding Arab countries do.  No more of Israel's damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions to provoke the Palestinians into hatred of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Zionists need to go back to where they came from.  Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SO people who are born in Israel , should go to Europe. Ya, that makes sense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Makes as much sense as the European Jews evicting the Christians and Muslims who were born in Palestine to set up their own state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice deflection
Click to expand...


Just a fact.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that every single surrounding Arab country refuses to grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands?  Is it actually possible they are grateful to have dumped them on Israel to deal with?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want peace?  Those Zionists in Israel must start treating the Palestinians like their own Arab brothers in surrounding Arab countries do.  No more of Israel's damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions to provoke the Palestinians into hatred of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Zionists need to go back to where they came from.  Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Zionists don't come from Europe, why do you constantly show your stupidity by posting absolute garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Want peace?  Those Zionists in Israel must start treating the Palestinians like their own Arab brothers in surrounding Arab countries do.  No more of Israel's damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions to provoke the Palestinians into hatred of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Zionists need to go back to where they came from.  Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SO people who are born in Israel , should go to Europe. Ya, that makes sense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Makes as much sense as the European Jews evicting the Christians and Muslims who were born in Palestine to set up their own state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice deflection
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just a fact.
Click to expand...


That's what happens when 5 Arab states and Palestinian militias try to expel the Jews from their newly found state.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Dr. Ghada Karmi*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No legal right of return, it is just Palestinian propaganda.  It is up to each individual nation to decide if they will put it in place.  As for the video need go no further than the still used to know it is just a pack of Palestinian lies and propaganda.
> 
> 
> The first of the series of pictures shows the land granted to the Jews for their National home that became INTERNATIONAL LAW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that every single surrounding Arab country refuses to grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands?  Is it actually possible they are grateful to have dumped them on Israel to deal with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Palestinians come from Palestine, not surrounding countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews were native Palestinians.  Not Muslims.  Time for them to go back to their native homelands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the Jews were living in Europe and went to Palestine.  The Palestinians, of whatever religion, are from Palestine.  Muslims and Christians are not a race or ethnicity.
Click to expand...






How many more times are you going to spout this crap, the majority of the Jews that migrated to Palestine/Israel were from surrounding nations with less than 30% coming from Europe. Your fellow countrymen/religion made sure of that didn't they when the assisted in the mass  murder of 6 million. My Christian relatives fought against your less than Christian relatives in Europe because of their Jew Hatred and mass murders, and beat the crap out of them


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that every single surrounding Arab country refuses to grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands?  Is it actually possible they are grateful to have dumped them on Israel to deal with?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because Palestinians come from Palestine, not surrounding countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews were native Palestinians.  Not Muslims.  Time for them to go back to their native homelands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the Jews came from Europe and went to Palestine, that is just a recorded fact.  The Palestinians are the indigenous people of Palestine, whatever religion they may have adopted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at your own links again fred and see that the majority of immigrant Jews came from nations in the M.E and Horn of Africa.
> Yes the Palestinians are the indigenous people of Palestine and they happen to be the Jews. The arab muslims had Palestine for less than 30 years before they were kicked out in 1099.  These are recorded facts that you claim are Zionist hasbara propaganda because you cant refute them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people of Palestine, Christians and Muslims are the same people that have always lived in Palestine.  Prior to converting to Islam they were all Christian, by law.
Click to expand...






 CRAP  they where anything the wanted to be, mostly pagans and Jews. The Jews never left Palestine they just went underground and faked conversion. The arab muslims turned up, told lies, killed thousands and then where chased out never to return. There were very few indigenous arab muslim Palestinians as all the records show, the majority of the inhabitants where Jews who lived in the towns and cities


----------



## Phoenall

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because Palestinians come from Palestine, not surrounding countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews were native Palestinians.  Not Muslims.  Time for them to go back to their native homelands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the Jews came from Europe and went to Palestine, that is just a recorded fact.  The Palestinians are the indigenous people of Palestine, whatever religion they may have adopted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at your own links again fred and see that the majority of immigrant Jews came from nations in the M.E and Horn of Africa.
> Yes the Palestinians are the indigenous people of Palestine and they happen to be the Jews. The arab muslims had Palestine for less than 30 years before they were kicked out in 1099.  These are recorded facts that you claim are Zionist hasbara propaganda because you cant refute them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people of Palestine, Christians and Muslims are the same people that have always lived in Palestine.  Prior to converting to Islam they were all Christian, by law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CRAP  they where anything the wanted to be, mostly pagans and Jews. The Jews never left Palestine they just went underground and faked conversion. The arab muslims turned up, told lies, killed thousands and then where chased out never to return. There were very few indigenous arab muslim Palestinians as all the records show, the majority of the inhabitants where Jews who lived in the towns and cities
Click to expand...


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that every single surrounding Arab country refuses to grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands?  Is it actually possible they are grateful to have dumped them on Israel to deal with?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because Palestinians come from Palestine, not surrounding countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews were native Palestinians.  Not Muslims.  Time for them to go back to their native homelands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the Jews came from Europe and went to Palestine, that is just a recorded fact.  The Palestinians are the indigenous people of Palestine, whatever religion they may have adopted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at your own links again fred and see that the majority of immigrant Jews came from nations in the M.E and Horn of Africa.
> Yes the Palestinians are the indigenous people of Palestine and they happen to be the Jews. The arab muslims had Palestine for less than 30 years before they were kicked out in 1099.  These are recorded facts that you claim are Zionist hasbara propaganda because you cant refute them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people of Palestine, Christians and Muslims are the same people that have always lived in Palestine.  Prior to converting to Islam they were all Christian, by law.
Click to expand...






 They must be very very old then, or Palestine is very very young.   Even your own report shows that 60% of all illegal immigrants to Palestine during the British mandate were arab muslims from Syria, Egypt and Saudi


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No legal right of return, it is just Palestinian propaganda.  It is up to each individual nation to decide if they will put it in place.  As for the video need go no further than the still used to know it is just a pack of Palestinian lies and propaganda.
> 
> 
> The first of the series of pictures shows the land granted to the Jews for their National home that became INTERNATIONAL LAW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that every single surrounding Arab country refuses to grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands?  Is it actually possible they are grateful to have dumped them on Israel to deal with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Want peace?  Those Zionists in Israel must start treating the Palestinians like their own Arab brothers in surrounding Arab countries do.  No more of Israel's damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions to provoke the Palestinians into hatred of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Zionists need to go back to where they came from.  Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SO people who are born in Israel , should go to Europe. Ya, that makes sense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Makes as much sense as the European Jews evicting the Christians and Muslims who were born in Palestine to set up their own state.
Click to expand...






  BUT THE EUROPEAN JEWS DID NOT EVICT CHRISTIANS did they. It was the arab muslims who have been caught doing that.  And the same arab muslims have been trying to evict Jews from Palestine since 635C.E.    NOW THAT IS A FACT AND IT IS WRITTEN IN THE ISLAMIC HOLY BOOKS FOR ALL TO SEE


----------



## Mindful

The Pope calls Abbas "Angel of Peace".


----------



## MJB12741

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> *Dr. Ghada Karmi*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No legal right of return, it is just Palestinian propaganda.  It is up to each individual nation to decide if they will put it in place.  As for the video need go no further than the still used to know it is just a pack of Palestinian lies and propaganda.
> 
> 
> The first of the series of pictures shows the land granted to the Jews for their National home that became INTERNATIONAL LAW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that every single surrounding Arab country refuses to grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands?  Is it actually possible they are grateful to have dumped them on Israel to deal with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Want peace?  Those Zionists in Israel must start treating the Palestinians like their own Arab brothers in surrounding Arab countries do.  No more of Israel's damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions to provoke the Palestinians into hatred of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Zionists need to go back to where they came from.  Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SO people who are born in Israel , should go to Europe. Ya, that makes sense
Click to expand...


Don't mind Monte.  We keep him here for laughs.


----------



## MJB12741

WHO ARE THE PALESTINIANS?

http://pamelageller.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/munich_display_image.jpg


----------



## Phoenall

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that every single surrounding Arab country refuses to grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their native homelands?  Is it actually possible they are grateful to have dumped them on Israel to deal with?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want peace?  Those Zionists in Israel must start treating the Palestinians like their own Arab brothers in surrounding Arab countries do.  No more of Israel's damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions to provoke the Palestinians into hatred of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Zionists need to go back to where they came from.  Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SO people who are born in Israel , should go to Europe. Ya, that makes sense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Makes as much sense as the European Jews evicting the Christians and Muslims who were born in Palestine to set up their own state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BUT THE EUROPEAN JEWS DID NOT EVICT CHRISTIANS did they. It was the arab muslims who have been caught doing that.  And the same arab muslims have been trying to evict Jews from Palestine since 635C.E.    NOW THAT IS A FACT AND IT IS WRITTEN IN THE ISLAMIC HOLY BOOKS FOR ALL TO SEE
Click to expand...


----------



## MJB12741

The Palestinian persecutions of Christian Arabs in the holy land is hard to give.  But then we must accept the fact that Palestinians are Palestinians.

Palestinian Treatment of Christian Arabs


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> The Palestinian persecutions of Christian Arabs in the holy land is hard to give.  But then we must accept the fact that Palestinians are Palestinians.
> 
> Palestinian Treatment of Christian Arabs





MJB12741 said:


> The Palestinian persecutions of Christian Arabs in the holy land is hard to give.  But then we must accept the fact that Palestinians are Palestinians.
> 
> Palestinian Treatment of Christian Arabs





MJB12741 said:


> The Palestinian persecutions of Christian Arabs in the holy land is hard to give.  But then we must accept the fact that Palestinians are Palestinians.
> 
> Palestinian Treatment of Christian Arabs


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> The Palestinian persecutions of Christian Arabs in the holy land is hard to give.  But then we must accept the fact that Palestinians are Palestinians.
> 
> Palestinian Treatment of Christian Arabs



By the way posting something from Lewis Loflin's right-wing crazy blog does not prove anything.  But you do provide laughs.


----------



## montelatici

docmauser1 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniyel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be mistaken its known to all, some just deliberately deny it because they fear the truth, can't admit they were wrong or just a racists trying to justify their primitive emotional perspectives. Palestinians are just Arabs, particularly hostile and stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> It's always interesting when someone calls other people stupid  - in a comment littered with language errors. Yes, Palestinians are Arabs. So what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, how's that an insurance from being _hostile and stupid_?
Click to expand...


These are also Palestinians, now saints of the Roman Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination with more than a billion adherents.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniyel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be mistaken its known to all, some just deliberately deny it because they fear the truth, can't admit they were wrong or just a racists trying to justify their primitive emotional perspectives. Palestinians are just Arabs, particularly hostile and stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> It's always interesting when someone calls other people stupid  - in a comment littered with language errors. Yes, Palestinians are Arabs. So what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, how's that an insurance from being _hostile and stupid_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These are also Palestinians, now saints of the Roman Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination with more than a billion adherents.
Click to expand...


Hey great.  Send the Palestinians to Rome.


----------



## montelatici

No, send the Jews back to Europe.


----------



## montelatici

Roman Catholics are slowly coming around, with the Pope in the lead, Israel is going to have a very powerful enemy.  Roman Catholicism is the largest religious denomination in the U.S.  A sleeping tiger, if AIPAC attacks the Pope, AIPAC is going down.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Roman Catholics are slowly coming around, with the Pope in the lead, Israel is going to have a very powerful enemy.  Roman Catholicism is the largest religious denomination in the U.S.  A sleeping tiger, if AIPAC attacks the Pope, AIPAC is going down.



Eh Monte, the Vatican isn't exactly a role model for peace, love, tolerance & justice.  Hard for other faiths to compete with a history of Crusades, Inquisitions, guilotine beheadings, burning people alive at the stake & child molestation by priests, cardinals & archbishops.  So much to be proud of eh Monte?


----------



## aris2chat

During the mandate, if jews came they bought land, so how did they evict the locals?  When the mandate ended local arab left at arab insistence, not because they were forced to leave.  Israel asked them to stay.  Some areas that engaged or added attacks on Jewish communities might have been evicted, but it was a marginal amount.  Reports on both sides, some false or exaggerated, scared local arabs into leave, they were not forced.
Israel had reunification plans for many of those who left at they were minimally utilized, 'palestinians' were waiting for Israel to be obliterated, they did not want to return while Israel still exited.
Where was this massive 'force' that 'evicted' the local arab to leave?  Palestinians left because they wanted to or did not want to remain in a land under Israel.  They made the choice.  In a few pockets there might have been a clearing out of terrorist but those who lived there could have gone to the next village rather than leave to some tent camp in another country.
As in all countries, utilities, security and infrastructure, land can be requisitioned by the state because of it's location.k  Often, but not always, the owners of the land are offered a price or alternate land.
When land is sold, those who work the land or were renting have to move.  It is the same way when a building goes condo.  When taxes on land are not paid, the state take the land as penalty.  Land not registered can be claimed or sold by another person and any squatters must leave.
These happen everywhere.
Think of the refugees from syria or other places.  They are leaving out of fear, not because someone pointed gun to their head and forced them to leave.  They leave because there are no longer opportunities fr them to make a living.  They leave so their children can go to school.  Mostly they leave because they are uncertain or do not like those who are taking control of the area.  They think there is something better for them elsewhere.  This involves choices on the part of the person/family leaving.
Arab forces made wild promises to the local arab of the riches they would get when the jews were  all dead.  Israel proved to be the stronger force even thought highly outnumbered.
Where was all this 'force' the Israelis used to get the locals to leave?  Israel was attacked on all sides, it did not start a war.  Even before the end of the mandate, jews were being attacked and massacred.  
So where is all those 'Israel/jews forced all the palestinians to leave' proof?  They left for their own reasons or the land they were living on was not theirs and sold to jews.
This catastrophe was not of Israel's making.  The refugee problem was of arab making.  Israel was attacked and fought for their own defense.  If the local arabs did not want to stay, Israel was not in a situation to force them to stay, especially when many were hostile to the jews.
We have all seen area where a group, be they black, asian or what ever, move into an area.  They buy stores and do business with those who are like them.  Some is language, some religion, but mostly because they feel more comfortable with those more like themselves.  Sometimes property values go up and sometimes down.  There are areas in large cities like NY and LA that english is almost non-existent.  Signs are all in another language and 'american' food and stores can not be found.  You feel like it is not even part of the US.  It happens lot of places.  People who lived there before no long feel comfortable staying or they get such a good price for their land it does not make sense for them to stay.  It does not mean people are being forced out.
The palestinian Nakba is not a catastrophe perpetrated by Israel.  It happened because of the arabs.


----------



## P F Tinmore

aris2chat said:


> During the mandate, if jews came they bought land, so how did they evict the locals?  When the mandate ended local arab left at arab insistence, not because they were forced to leave.  Israel asked them to stay.  Some areas that engaged or added attacks on Jewish communities might have been evicted, but it was a marginal amount.  Reports on both sides, some false or exaggerated, scared local arabs into leave, they were not forced.
> Israel had reunification plans for many of those who left at they were minimally utilized, 'palestinians' were waiting for Israel to be obliterated, they did not want to return while Israel still exited.
> Where was this massive 'force' that 'evicted' the local arab to leave?  Palestinians left because they wanted to or did not want to remain in a land under Israel.  They made the choice.  In a few pockets there might have been a clearing out of terrorist but those who lived there could have gone to the next village rather than leave to some tent camp in another country.
> As in all countries, utilities, security and infrastructure, land can be requisitioned by the state because of it's location.k  Often, but not always, the owners of the land are offered a price or alternate land.
> When land is sold, those who work the land or were renting have to move.  It is the same way when a building goes condo.  When taxes on land are not paid, the state take the land as penalty.  Land not registered can be claimed or sold by another person and any squatters must leave.
> These happen everywhere.
> Think of the refugees from syria or other places.  They are leaving out of fear, not because someone pointed gun to their head and forced them to leave.  They leave because there are no longer opportunities fr them to make a living.  They leave so their children can go to school.  Mostly they leave because they are uncertain or do not like those who are taking control of the area.  They think there is something better for them elsewhere.  This involves choices on the part of the person/family leaving.
> Arab forces made wild promises to the local arab of the riches they would get when the jews were  all dead.  Israel proved to be the stronger force even thought highly outnumbered.
> Where was all this 'force' the Israelis used to get the locals to leave?  Israel was attacked on all sides, it did not start a war.  Even before the end of the mandate, jews were being attacked and massacred.
> So where is all those 'Israel/jews forced all the palestinians to leave' proof?  They left for their own reasons or the land they were living on was not theirs and sold to jews.
> This catastrophe was not of Israel's making.  The refugee problem was of arab making.  Israel was attacked and fought for their own defense.  If the local arabs did not want to stay, Israel was not in a situation to force them to stay, especially when many were hostile to the jews.
> We have all seen area where a group, be they black, asian or what ever, move into an area.  They buy stores and do business with those who are like them.  Some is language, some religion, but mostly because they feel more comfortable with those more like themselves.  Sometimes property values go up and sometimes down.  There are areas in large cities like NY and LA that english is almost non-existent.  Signs are all in another language and 'american' food and stores can not be found.  You feel like it is not even part of the US.  It happens lot of places.  People who lived there before no long feel comfortable staying or they get such a good price for their land it does not make sense for them to stay.  It does not mean people are being forced out.
> The palestinian Nakba is not a catastrophe perpetrated by Israel.  It happened because of the arabs.


Unfortunately there are people stupid enough to believe that load of crap.


----------



## member

MJB12741 said:


> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine



*"who"* ?  people who evolved into 

 voting for terrorists as their government !

you can't negotiate peace with terrorists.











looks like this is another all nighter-thread.............






​


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniyel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be mistaken its known to all, some just deliberately deny it because they fear the truth, can't admit they were wrong or just a racists trying to justify their primitive emotional perspectives. Palestinians are just Arabs, particularly hostile and stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> It's always interesting when someone calls other people stupid  - in a comment littered with language errors. Yes, Palestinians are Arabs. So what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, how's that an insurance from being _hostile and stupid_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These are also Palestinians, now saints of the Roman Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination with more than a billion adherents.
Click to expand...






 And also the one with the most black marks against it, form incest to mass murder. So really nothing to boast about with its chequered history of the Borgias, the Mafia and the Nazi's


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> No, send the Jews back to Europe.






 But they did not come from Europe according to your book you keep posting did they................Why don't you post it again so we can all laugh at your idiocy again


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Roman Catholics are slowly coming around, with the Pope in the lead, Israel is going to have a very powerful enemy.  Roman Catholicism is the largest religious denomination in the U.S.  A sleeping tiger, if AIPAC attacks the Pope, AIPAC is going down.






The Jews have always had the Catholics as their enemies because they did not want two peoples worshipping the same God and could not alter the Torah to meet with their POV.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> During the mandate, if jews came they bought land, so how did they evict the locals?  When the mandate ended local arab left at arab insistence, not because they were forced to leave.  Israel asked them to stay.  Some areas that engaged or added attacks on Jewish communities might have been evicted, but it was a marginal amount.  Reports on both sides, some false or exaggerated, scared local arabs into leave, they were not forced.
> Israel had reunification plans for many of those who left at they were minimally utilized, 'palestinians' were waiting for Israel to be obliterated, they did not want to return while Israel still exited.
> Where was this massive 'force' that 'evicted' the local arab to leave?  Palestinians left because they wanted to or did not want to remain in a land under Israel.  They made the choice.  In a few pockets there might have been a clearing out of terrorist but those who lived there could have gone to the next village rather than leave to some tent camp in another country.
> As in all countries, utilities, security and infrastructure, land can be requisitioned by the state because of it's location.k  Often, but not always, the owners of the land are offered a price or alternate land.
> When land is sold, those who work the land or were renting have to move.  It is the same way when a building goes condo.  When taxes on land are not paid, the state take the land as penalty.  Land not registered can be claimed or sold by another person and any squatters must leave.
> These happen everywhere.
> Think of the refugees from syria or other places.  They are leaving out of fear, not because someone pointed gun to their head and forced them to leave.  They leave because there are no longer opportunities fr them to make a living.  They leave so their children can go to school.  Mostly they leave because they are uncertain or do not like those who are taking control of the area.  They think there is something better for them elsewhere.  This involves choices on the part of the person/family leaving.
> Arab forces made wild promises to the local arab of the riches they would get when the jews were  all dead.  Israel proved to be the stronger force even thought highly outnumbered.
> Where was all this 'force' the Israelis used to get the locals to leave?  Israel was attacked on all sides, it did not start a war.  Even before the end of the mandate, jews were being attacked and massacred.
> So where is all those 'Israel/jews forced all the palestinians to leave' proof?  They left for their own reasons or the land they were living on was not theirs and sold to jews.
> This catastrophe was not of Israel's making.  The refugee problem was of arab making.  Israel was attacked and fought for their own defense.  If the local arabs did not want to stay, Israel was not in a situation to force them to stay, especially when many were hostile to the jews.
> We have all seen area where a group, be they black, asian or what ever, move into an area.  They buy stores and do business with those who are like them.  Some is language, some religion, but mostly because they feel more comfortable with those more like themselves.  Sometimes property values go up and sometimes down.  There are areas in large cities like NY and LA that english is almost non-existent.  Signs are all in another language and 'american' food and stores can not be found.  You feel like it is not even part of the US.  It happens lot of places.  People who lived there before no long feel comfortable staying or they get such a good price for their land it does not make sense for them to stay.  It does not mean people are being forced out.
> The palestinian Nakba is not a catastrophe perpetrated by Israel.  It happened because of the arabs.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately there are people stupid enough to believe that load of crap.
Click to expand...






 And even more stupid people who believe that it did not happen that way.


----------



## Mindful

*Palestinian nuns gain sainthood*

Two 19th-century nuns on Sunday become the first Palestinians to gain sainthood during an open-air mass celebrated by Pope Francis in St Peter’s Square attended by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

The pontiff urges the faithful to follow the “luminous example” of the two 19th-century sisters and two others, from France and Italy, who are canonized along with them on a sunny spring morning.

Marie Alphonsine Ghattas was born in 1843 in Jerusalem during its rule by the Ottoman Empire, and died there during the British mandate period in 1927.




19th century Catholic nuns Miriam Bawardy (L) and Marie Alphonsine Ghattas (R) are to be canonized by Pope Francis May 17, 2015. (Screen capture: Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem)

She was beatified — the final step before canonization — in 2009.

Mariam Bawardy was born in Galilee, now in northern Israel, in 1846. She became a nun in France and died in Bethlehem in 1878 and was beatified by pope John Paul II in 1983.

Around 2,000 pilgrims from the Palestinian territories, Israel and Jordan, some waving Palestinian flags, attend the mass as well as Abbas, who had a private audience with the pope on Saturday.

— _AFP_

Times of Israel.


----------



## MJB12741

member said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the truth be known to all.
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"who"* ?  people who evolved into
> 
> voting for terrorists as their government !
> 
> you can't negotiate peace with terrorists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> looks like this is another all nighter-thread.............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
Click to expand...

How does anyone or any nation even begin to negotiate peace with a people who prefer death over life?


----------



## Phoenall

Art__Allm said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Around 2,000 pilgrims from the Palestinian territories, Israel and Jordan, some waving Palestinian flags, attend the mass as well as Abbas, who had a private audience with the pope on Saturday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can the so-called "Evangelical Christians" support the Anti-Christian Zionists in their fight against Palestinians, be these Palestinians Christians or Muslims?
Click to expand...





 You forget that not all Zionists are Jews and not all muslims are arabs. I am a Christian who follows the Zionist teachings of Jesus.


----------



## cereal_killer

*Closed...... Please continue the conversation here >>>>>*

Who Are The Palestinians Part 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------

